If Blizzards wants to develop the DH as a standalone class, it can do so regardless of whatever lore or gameplay links exists. Just as it did with Paladins.Gameplay is inspired by lore. If it weren't, then we'd see the paladin as a subclass for both priests and warriors.
The difference lies in your absolute rejection of the entire premise. Blizzard is free to develop DHs as a standalone class. That goes without saying. But it doesn't have to do that. It can, should it choose to do so, develops DHs as a sub spec of another class.It was justification for the difference in paladins and priests. Why doesn't it work for demon hunters and warlocks, who are much more different than paladins and priests?
For all the arguments put forward against this being a Warlock, I'm pointing out that none of them are valid.
Should Blizzard choose to do so, the presumption put forward that DHs have their own ethics, their own code, their own history, rituals, lore and whatever else...all this is meaningless. There isn't that much lore around for the class. The RPG is non-canon. And even were it not, there is still nothing that would prevent the DH class being represented in game via a Warlock Sub spec.
Your arguments about motivations are meaningless. Your arguments about history and rituals are meaningless. Anything and everything of that sort can be attached to the spec while still leaving the gameplay as that of a Warlock. Or another history, other lore can be provided. Or they could be seen as a separate branch of Demon Hunters...a branch of Warlocks who were inspired by Illidan and combined their two classes. Or it may just be the case that while rituals et all differ, the two disciplines actually are very similar.
Your non-gameplay arguments are meaningless because non-gameplay lore, history, traditions can always be provided.
What we have is a class that overlaps VERY strongly with warlocks from a gameplay point of view. Not perfectly....but still very strongly.
Your belief as to all this is based on a very limited data set, much of which has been deemed non-canon. That YOU think this is the case does not make it so. Even were you correct, you are providing a non-gameplay based motivation that isn't relevant to game or class design except as potential back story.Eeeeexcept that the reasons why demon hunters do what they do is quite well known and warlocks have time and time again been portrayed as something quite opposite of demon hunters.
So no, hardly meaningless. Your denial of such is, however.
Again, your personal belief regarding this is no guarantee Blizzard will make this canon or part of DH lore.As well there's information on their ritualistic self-blinding and replacing their ruined eyes with magical ones and their purpose. Plus, we do know how a warlock is trained. They DON'T blind themselves nor do they make a pact. Warlocks
Its a common player held belief that actually has little to do with gameplayYou can make all the arguments you want, deny all the lore you want, but here's the skinny: It is common knowledge that demon hunters get their power through a dark pact and imbue themselves with fel magic to better hunt demons.
And yet is an aspect totally divorced from class design. If it weren't, Blood Knights wouldn't be Paladins.It is a morally questionable but ultimately selfless thing to do. It is also common knowledge that warlocks become warlocks because of a desire for greater power, an inherently selfish thing to do, and turn to fel magics to sate that lust.
Both control and manipulate demons and demonic energies. They are linked.By saying that one can be a subclass of another you are inherently saying that they are linked. Because classes are made with lore in mind and lore as a basis, you are suggesting that two classes with completely opposite motivations be made roughly one and the same.
And since when has motivation of a PC avatar ever been a basis for class design in WoW?
This isn't a question of whether Demon Hunters and Warlocks go to the same club after work. This is a gameplay and game design decision and nothing more. Blizzard COULD develop a standalone class. It doesn't have to. The only question that would need to be answered is whether a Warlock or Rogue could be granted enough design leeway to realise a Demon Hunter in gameplay.
For Rogues...the answer is no. They aren't going to get Metamorphosis.
For Warlocks...the answer is yes. Add dual wield, evasion and perhaps a strike or two and you are set.
The actual lore, whether these would be true Demon Hunters or mere copies or whatever would come later.
Talen, your argument is the one that is meaningless. You have no ground to stand on.
Lore and story and theme are ultimately the foundations of every bit of gameplay in a game. These things come first and foremost when discussing creating a class. You don't make a gameplay design and then tailor the lore to it, that's stupid. No, you have a lore concept that you tailor the class design to. To even start on making a class you have to think: "what should this class be called? Demon hunter? Okay, now I've got to get some abilities for this guy." and at that point you've made a lore concept. You've given it a name and you've already got a theme started. Nobody in their right mind would begin a class by making a bunch of abilities with raw numbers, THEN give those abilities a common theme, THEN give the class a name, THEN paint it's backstory. That's the opposite of what you would want to do, especially in this situation. We already have a name and a theme and it IS different from a warlock, significantly enough to say "no, they can't be the same class."
Having the demon hunter be a spec under the warlock class is a terrible idea because both classes have been shown quite often that while they use the same branch of magic they use it differently and for different purposes, they're thematically different, and they have a significantly different culture and general feel.
Saying "Well if we just give warlocks DW they can be demon hunters" is quite frankly stupid. Warlocks are a ranged caster. To make them melee would make them no longer warlocks. If one had a spec of death knight that was a ranged caster, it wouldn't be a death knight. It would be a necromancer. A priest who wears plate armor and wields a melee weapon is no longer a priest. It is a paladin. We already see that even just changing that little bit of a class can make it into an entirely new one.
It's also thematically different from the warlock, something that is far more important when discussing class design. You can make a metamorphasis that works with the demon hunter without combining the class with warlocks, which would be a far worse idea.
And the motivations of a class have always been the basis for class design. Those motivations are part of the class' theme and feel and are important. This is, again, why there's a difference between priests and paladins despite their significant links... because they are themeatically different.
Last edited by The Madgod; 2013-05-09 at 02:18 AM.
Specs can reflect a practitioners style or focus. But they can also reflect very different philosophies. A Blood Knight is not a Paladin even though, gameplay wise, they are identical. A shadow priest and a holy priest have vastly different philosophies and practises. The barbarian berserker is not the same as a soldier even though both share the warrior class.
Lorewise, we also have different styles. A BattleMage is still seen by many as a Mage even though his style incorporates melee combat and he trains for that.
Whether you think and guess and presuppose that DHs aren't Warlocks is irrelevant, even were Blizzard to go that route. Individual philosophy, group history, lore and so on...all of this will be irrelevant because warlock or standalone, it can be added later.
It also doesn't matter.Of course it can, but ultimately the underlying note of a warlock is a thirst for greater power and a background in more mundane magics.
Lore and story is ultimately the foundation of every bit of gameplay in a game. Lore comes first and foremost when discussing creating a class. You don't make a gameplay design and then tailor the lore to it, that's stupid. No, you have a lore concept that you tailor the class design to. To even start on making a class you have to think: "what should this class be called? Demon hunter? Okay, now I've got to get some abilities for this guy." and at that point you've made a lore concept. You've given it a name and you've already got a theme started. Nobody in their right mind would begin a class by making a bunch of abilities with raw numbers, THEN give those abilities a common theme, THEN give the class a name, THEN paint it's backstory. That's the opposite of what you would want to do, especially in this situation. We already have a name and a theme and it IS different from a warlock, significantly enough to say "no, they can't be the same class."
How can I clarify this......
YOU are making the case for why a DH can't be a Warlock based solely upon your belief on how Blizzard will develop its back story. You cannot say there are no Warlock links because the back story behind the class has not been developed. You cannot say there is no Warlock training available somewhere to turn Warlocks into Demon Hunters because the back story has not been developed. You cannot say Demon Hunters are typically motivated by altruism because the back story has not been developed. You cannot speak of rituals or practises or history or lore or traditions because it has not been developed.
All this lore you are trying to tie into the Demon Hunter class is irrelevant, meaningless....because it does not exist. You are trying to show there is no connection between Demon Hunters and Warlocks using arguments that are irrelevant because DH lore does not exist beyond a few snippets here and there.
And even if Blizzard did say what you say is correct...it is still meaningless because as far as the decision on how to implement the DH class is concerned, the back story, lore, traditions, motivations and everything else you mention is irrelevant. Because that decision will be based only on how to put the class in game. Blizzard have tied opposing philosophies together before. They have ignored lore and motivation before. They have ignored class history before.
So I fail to see any reason why - assuming you are correct - why they would matter now.
You are talking feel for a class not in this game yet. You are talking about differing purposes as if this has had any impact in the past - it hasn't. You are talking culture about a class whose history and lore hasn't been published. You are talking about differences in usage and purpose as if that mattered, as if it were important. Existing class design should be enough to show none of this matters because existing class design shows that Blizzard does put classes and specs with different, even opposing histories, lores, tradition, beliefs under one class. Blizzard will consider such factors only if it chooses to do so.Having the demon hunter be a spec under the warlock class is a terrible idea because both classes have been shown quite often that while they use the same branch of magic they use it differently and for different purposes, they're thematically different, and they have a significantly different culture and general feel.
I'm going to advise you to check up on the various Demon Hunters already in game and see if you can check out their current ability lists. Shared abilities go a little way beyond just Meta and Immo.The demon hunter class's only real overlap with the warlock is the metamorphasis ability and its immolation aura spell. That's not "very strongly".
Only if you define the theme exceedingly narrowly. And somehow forget Warlock tanking from the past. And the melee components of old Meta.It's also significantly thematically different from the warlock.
Your personal belief is backed by 'canon' lore Blizzard disowned ages ago. How much Blizzard will bring back should DHs ever be implemented is unknown.My personal belief is backed by canon Blizzard lore. Your denial of what it is means little.
Gameplay before lore. Never the other way about.Gameplay doesn't mean shit when discussing whether a class should be merged with another class. Theme and backstory do.
Other than lore - which is the basis of your main objection? None of consequence. A suitable moves and ability list can always be provided, even leaving aside the fact Warlocks already have many of the moves Demon Hunters use. As I said...give a Warlock dual wield, evasion and a small number of normal form combat attacks and you have a demon hunter.The difference is that demon hunters have more differences from warlocks than blood knights have with paladins.
The game disagrees with you. Not only do we know Demon Hunters can control demons, but Warlocks can kill demons as well.Demon hunters don't control and manipulate demons. They kill demons. Their only "link" is that they wield fel magic.
No one knows what a Demon Hunters feels like.And then, as I've said, the warlock wouldn't feel like a warlock anymore. It'd feel like a demon hunter. That's not good class design.
Here's the ultimate point, okay? If you want make a warlock spec feel like a demon hunter, like a true demon hunter, then you're doing class design wrong. A warlock spec should ALWAYS be about being a warlock. Demon hunters, by their very nature of being called something different, are different from warlocks. They're not just warlocks in kilts with warglaives, they're something different, just as paladins are different from priests. They don't belong under their umbrella.
Last edited by The Madgod; 2013-05-09 at 04:29 AM.
The case you are making is the same one I could make for having Death Knight be a Mage spec. If you break it down to the core, Death Knights of Warcraft 2 were Horde equivalent of mages. They use swords, and simply specialize in death magic, and if Blizzard says yes then it can happen. It would be as 'weird' as when they proposed Death Knights would use Rune magic or Monks being able to heal through melee attacks; a feature that people will simply accept and get used to.
Just because they can is not precedent that they should. We know that Death Knights, as they have been portrayed in the lore, are not Mages. They aren't even Paladins, which some derived from in Warcraft 3. Death Knights are Death Knights because there is ample reasoning and justification for them to become their own class.
If Blizzard decided to give Mages a Tanking spec, it would not be out of the realm of possibility. They could reform certain spells to become more survival based, like make Frost Armor provide 33% damage reduction, and Frost Nova weakens enemy attack damage. They could make them specialize in using swords and having an increased parry chance. I would be fine if they came up with a radical idea such as this.
Now imagine if they called this tanking spec "Death Knight". They make up new lore about this "Death Knight" spec to fit in with the Mage's backstory. They could even make special gear so you can look like the Arthas archetype. Even if everything works out in lore and mechanics, the core identity of this is still going to be a 'Mage Specialization', which is not what a Death Knight should be. I would not be arguing against Mages being unable to Tank, I would be against them calling this tanking spec 'Death Knight' because there is pre-established lore explaining what a Death Knight is. If you are fine this type of concept, given there is enough lore and mechanics to support the idea, then we have differing opinions.
Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-05-09 at 05:50 AM.
How? Since the game alreadfy ahs classeswjhich prove you wrong.
The lore for Demon Hunters DOES NOT EXIST. Therefore you cannot know it. You literally cannot make comparison.Yeah, because I have the knowledge of the universe to know what a warlock is and how he conducts himself and what a demon hunter is and how he conducts himself. They're two separate styles of character.
[quote]It doesn't really matter whether one's in-game or not because Blizzard has already given a theme to it and that theme's how one can get a feel for how a class would generally perform and that general feel is what the more specific specs are derived from and built upon.[./quote]
Blizzards "theme" is a unit which manipulates demonic energies to empower their character.
One is melee , one is a caster. Anything else is lore and irrelevant.It doesn't matter because there's still a significant difference in theme, the true core of class development.
And no - you saying the lore is relevant and of utmost importance doesn't make it so.
Again - since the DH doesn't exist as a player class and has NO LORE - HOW DO YOU KNOW? You get a "vibe"? Really? In otherwords, the idea of a Warlock based Demon Hunter doesn't mesh with your own personal vision of how the class works or operates and you have nothing else to base your argument on.Not really, the warlock and the demon hunter have their own unique vibes to them.
The lore from the RPG is scrapped. That's 99% of the DH lore gone. The rest is a reference to rituals and the move list we have for existing demon hunters in game. A move list shared with Warlocks.Well, the bits from the RPG books, sure. The lore from Warcraft III? The lore from the number of quests in Vanilla onward that reference demon hunters? Even the couple of canon books? Not as much.
And we have a theme. Manipulates Demonic energies to empower the unit. Does so via Demons for Demonologist. Dots for Aff. Fire for Destro. And melee for DH. Did you want to narrow it down some more?Not for class creation. It's impossible to build a good class without first making a theme to serve as a skeleton.
Really? Cause I kinda miss taking my Warlock into melee and tanking with him while my pet did the damage. And surely the aim would be to make the SPEC feel unique? otherwise why have specs at all? So if a DH spec feel liek a DH spec and a Demo spec feels like a Demo spec...whats the issue?And as I said, give a Warlock dual wield, evasion and a small number of normal form combat attacks and you won't have a warlock anymore, and if a warlock spec doesn't feel like a warlock, then you've designed that spec wrong.
Well...thats the point. THERE IS NO LORE. Or precious little. All there is is you seeing how NPC versions work. And your own extrapolation as to how that comes to be.Anyone who's payed attention to a demon hunter's lore knows what a demon hunter feels like, or how they should feel like.
So...right now, you have a vibe, a feeling, and some tidbits of lore and a move list from NPCs. And from this you appear to have constructed a personal vision of how the class should operate and therefore anythign else is simply wrong.
And if we contruct a meleeing Warlock and call it a Demon Hunter?Here's the ultimate point, okay? If you want make a warlock spec feel like a demon hunter, like a true demon hunter, then you're doing class design wrong. A warlock spec should ALWAYS be about being a warlock.
As it is your core point is...you have a vibe that tells you Demon Hunters are somehow different from Warlocks. They share an extensive move list, they both control demons, they both manipulate demonic energies, they both have a history of meleeing/tanking...but because the DH Dual wields, they are so different they cannot possibly be modelled under the one class.
There is ample reason for Night Elves to have Demon Hunters and not have Warlocks. Demon Hunters are renegade individuals acting on their own accord. Night Elves and Draenei could be acceptable Demon Hunters, since they are both races with a history with fighting demons. Personally, I would exclude Gnomes and Goblins from being Demon Hunters for the sake of sensibility. Tauren and Pandaren would also be exempt, due to cultural factors in lore. The dynamics between a Warlock and Demon Hunter could create a much more interesting parallel as separate classes than as a specialization.
Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-05-09 at 07:32 AM.
They're two separate classes.
Again your denial means little, I'm the one in the right here and my "opinions" are in fact fairly common knowledge.
You made a point about how lore can be changed to suit this. Why is it that gameplay can't?
Hell them sharing a similar move list means little in saying that they should be under warlocks. Of course demon hunters in game share that move list, it's like how paladins and priests have some pretty identical healing spells.
That's what you're not getting. It's not about being in melee or about what branch of magic you use or even about sharing certain flavors of spells. It's about what that class does and how it performs. Warlocks are a caster class. They wear robes and shoot magic at things. For them to don melee weapons and fight at the front lines is very un-warlock. If a paladin donned caster robes and began to fight from afar, it wouldn't really be a paladin anymore. If a druid put on plate armor and tanked in its humanoid form, it wouldn't be a druid anymore. If a monk put on plate armor, they wouldn't be a monk. If a hunter went from being ranged "physical" damage to ranged "magical" damage, it wouldn't be a hunter.
Even with these gross oversimplifications of what these classes are about, changing that little bit makes them significantly different. What you're proposing a) would be a disservice to the demon hunter's history by forcing it to be a spec under the warlock and b) would be EXTREMELY hard work to make that spec feel like a warlock and not a demon hunter which would ruin the point of having that spec be about being a demon hunter in the first place.
By the very nature of its name, demon hunters are different from warlocks. There is no reason why one should be a part of the other.
yep I don't see what's the confusion here. Demon hunters are NOT warlocks Nor rogues. Just like we will never have a rogue warden spec, or a paladin spellbreaker spec or a mage battlemage or a hunter sea witch or a warrior bard or a shaman witch doctor or a monk dragonsworn or a mage necromancer or a priest runemaster.
One is a potato the other is a tomato. Blizzard will never make that mistake unless the game is already in the gutter
"There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."
Demon Hunters may not be related to rogues, but they could sure as hell be just a skin.
The CONCEPT of rogues is very similar to that of a Demon Hunter, they just have different methods.
Imagine if there was a Glyph that turned you into a Demon Hunter, nothing related to the current rogue.
You're just a Demon Hunter when you get the glyph. Just cosmetically, it makes sense.
Demon Hunters and Rogues are both Evasive, Mobile fighters. Leaving heavy armor behind for maneuverability.
Demon Hunters are known to channel Chaotic Energy into their weapons. Rogues enhance their weapons with poisons.
Dual wielding nature of rogues fit well for the Curved Glaives Demon Hunters use.
Burst and DPS cooldowns could just Metamorph you into a Demon, like a Satyr.
Stealth could Metamorph you into a Demon that can walk the void and uses it to stealth himself.
However, i don't think this will ever happen.
Demon Hunters are a great concept for a class on its own, and has to much depth on its own to just fit in a single spec.
Could potentially be an Evasive Tank like many requested from Rogues. The whole lore of Demon Hunters is great to do as a starting class.
Undergo a ritual to blind yourself to gain spectral sight. Kill your first demon, gain its power, grow in strenght and visually change more and more with Demonic energies.
Demon Hunters are shunned by society, but so are Warlocks and they're everywhere apparently, just because they use chaos to fight chaos.
There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want
Just as what happens with, for example , priests. Warriors. Paladins.
The assumption that DHs have no connection to Warlocks is unwarranted. They may have a link. They may not. There is no justification to state either outcome as a fact. DHs have no lore, no history, no traditions. Their connection, or lack thereof, to Warlocks is unknown.
You may believe the there is no connection....but you can offer no proof for your belief and you can't force Blizzard to follow it. Currently, there is nothing in lore that would prevent this link existing. Demon hunters, canonically, can cast Shadow bolt. Shadowfury. Immolation. Banish. Metamorphosis. And more. Recognise those spells? Demon Hunters, canonically, can control demons. What class has that ability?
Who is to say that a Demon Hunter is not simply a Warlock who chose to focus his warlock abilities on melee rather than casting?...just like a BattleMage and Mages. There is a huge overlap in the spell list and the abilities used by each. That wouldn't make a Demon Hunter have the same lore, the same traditions as a caster warlock...they'd be different, just as Shadow and Holy priests are different, just as Fury and Arms warriors are different.
Which doesn't alter the fact DHs have only a minute amount of actual canon lore.Ignorance is not a defense.
And yet accurate. The Warlock spec as is controls such energies to empower ranged and pet based combat. Why, especially given the Warlocks game history, can there not be a spec which also directs that energy into melee combat? Because it disagreed with your personal vision of the class? Because it's always been this way? Because you prefer an overly narrow generalisation that you can argue locks out DHs from the Warlock class?That's a gross generalization and you know it.
Both classes control demons, both make use of Shadow based magic, both have a history of meleeing and both have strong thematic links with demons.
Yes. Like holy priests and shadow priests. No, that disproves your point. Like Arms and Fury Warriors. No...that does so as well.And your saying the lore isn't relevant doesn't make that so, especially when we can see that theme and background do in fact separate classes which are "mechanically" similar.
No...you probably mean Paladins and Holy priests. Which actually differ quite a lot gameplay wise. But, as stated above, there's nothing stopping Blizzard doing the same for DHs. Its your assertion that DHs can't be seen as an offshoot of the Warlock class that I am trying to understand as the main basis for this argument appears to be lore that is no longer relevant and the resulting conception as to the motivations and background of the class....which, given Blizzards treatment of Blood Knights and Sun walkers would also appear a poor argument.
RPG lore got thrown out some time ago.Because a) I played warcraft III, b) there's lore that talks about demon hunters and what they do and how they got their power. Both of these things tell me that they aren't a warlock.
Common knowledge that has no basis in actual canonical lore.iAgain your denial means little, I'm the one in the right here and my "opinions" are in fact fairly common knowledge.
Which is a neat trick given the class hasn't been developed yet.The theme and vibe of the demon hunter still lives on and it is still different from warlocks.
Gameplay before lore. In any contest between the two...lore loses.You made a point about how lore can be changed to suit this. Why is it that gameplay can't?
And it could be much broader than that narrow description.Once again, you've greatly simplified the demon hunter's theme. It's not just being melee with fel magic.
Only to the degree a berserker isn't a soldier but both are Warriors. Further apart? A possibility but not a certainty.Because a demon hunter isn't a warlock.
The lore we have is a move list from some NPCs , and a snippet referencing rituals and how DHs are shunned by NElfs. The move list shows exclusively warlock spells. Differences? DHs are primarily meleers and so have a different focus.That's not correct. There's plenty enough lore to show that there ARE differences.
You are reduced to a circular argument to make your case?Then it's not really a demon hunter and you've failed at basic class creation
Already done so in an earlier ppostYou're going to have to show me proof that demon hunters regularly control demons, for one thing.
So...just about every DH ability there is needs to be fixed?They don't really share an "extensive" move list... more like four to five abilities with roughly the same name, judging from six separate well-known demon hunters, which can easily be fixed.
As it is, you seem to miss the point. I am not arguing Blizzard could make a standalone class. I am simply arguing that they could create the DH as a Warlock off spec, do so easily and do so without breaking any canonical lore.
Feelings and vibes don't contradict that approach.
More accurate to clarify that that is your opinion. Warlock tanking, for example, isn't unknown in this game. And I ain't talking about the pet either. Nor does that opinion necessitate things staying the same. Blizzard can easily broaden your theme even if it was that narrow.Warlocks are a caster class. They wear robes and shoot magic at things. For them to don melee weapons and fight at the front lines is very un-warlock.
So...Blizzard are wrong to try and make each spec feel unique? Because really...this point is nonsensical. If Blizzard developed a DH spec, they'd make it feel like how they want a DH spec to feel.Even with these gross oversimplifications of what these classes are about, changing that little bit makes them significantly different. What you're proposing a) would be a disservice to the demon hunter's history by forcing it to be a spec under the warlock and b) would be EXTREMELY hard work to make that spec feel like a warlock and not a demon hunter which would ruin the point of having that spec be about being a demon hunter in the first place.
Talen, it's obvious you don't understand what we're saying. Just give it a rest, okay? Your argument is basically "Well they CAN do this."
Nobody's arguing against that point. However, what we are saying is that demon hunters aren't warlocks and that just because Blizzard could make the demon hunter a subspec of the warlock does not mean that it would be a good idea and it does not mean that they should. Your points on a similar combat structure are entirely irrelevant because we have priests and paladins being separate. They are two separate classes, two separate entities. There has never been any point in Warcraft or World of Warcraft where they were mentioned to be the same thing. That is the bottom line.
See you later.