They should let MM hunters 'sacrifice' their pets.

[eschatological]

The thing I get hung up on is where this insistence on "hunters have pets because hunters are in love with teh animals, duh" idea arose. Is it literally a WoW trope? Because I grew up in the sticks, and I know hunters, and no hunter I know uses an animal to fight with him. Maybe, maybe they take a dog to fetch birds they shot, but that's it - there's no "me and my pet vs. the prey" theme. In fact, the whole idea of being a hunter of animals is antithetical to having loyal animal companions.

Rangers are more likely to have pets, and that's been seen before in various lores, but even then, that's not automatic. Aragon and Legolas are both ranger-like characters (the former of the concealment/tracking/ambush type, the latter of the "in tune with nature" type), and neither have pets, nor have most of the characters that followed them in those broad categories. The theme is generally more that they're in touch with nature, but in a way where they use it to hunt their prey, to conceal and ambush, to kill. The whole "one with nature" to the point of having a symbiotic relationship with a pet sounds more like a druid thing to me, tbh.

The beast master is where the whole idea of hunter-killers using pets makes sense, but again, that doesn't strike a "one with nature" tone, but strikes the tone of Houndsmaster Loskey or whatever his name is in SM - his pets are really nothing more than very dangerous weapons he uses to help him in his goals. A tool, if you will. If you ever read the Dark Tower series by Stephen King, Roland's hawk David strikes this tone with precision. To me, the beast master is more warlock-y in his regard for his pet than even a ranger might be - he respects its power, but expects it to do his bidding and take the body blows if necessary.

That's my take on it, at least, growing up in a rural-ish area where we got a day off from school every year for the first day of deer hunting season.

[Nemasisx]

For all the smartasses, lets assume he didnt ment sacrifice, but " The hunter happily fuses with his own pet making him a happy kitty-man with some of the kitty abillities and some extra fundly fun dps increase!" (if you fuses with bats and spiders you get to be a super hero!)

[Fedexkilla]

Wow 5 pages and not a solid non-belligerent response that didnt involve roll a lock or other nonsense.

So since a few of you are uninformed lets break it down, hunters should have had a petless spec in the form of MM awhile ago, Marksman are about their personal skills and their ability to utilize weapons with deadly efficiency, a RANGER is an individual deeply committed and personally bonded with nature and the preservation of such. It's not unreasonable nor is it a copy of Warlocks in this respect, however you're dealing with a community with strong preconceived notions on how things should be and a gross lack of ability to accept ideas, so....yeah.

[Effinhunter]

Wow 5 pages and not a solid non-belligerent response that didnt involve roll a lock or other nonsense.

So since a few of you are uninformed lets break it down, hunters should have had a petless spec in the form of MM awhile ago, Marksman are about their personal skills and their ability to utilize weapons with deadly efficiency, a RANGER is an individual deeply committed and personally bonded with nature and the preservation of such. It's not unreasonable nor is it a copy of Warlocks in this respect, however you're dealing with a community with strong preconceived notions on how things should be and a gross lack of ability to accept ideas, so....yeah.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post21139919

There have been several other people who have posted non-belligerent responses in the past five pages.

I'm not a stickler for lore, but the hunter concept in WoW was a direct descendant of the Ranger type in Warcraft. If you look at Sylvanas Windrunner, she had abilities like Trueshot Aura that we directly use. She did not use a pet. There is plenty of wiggle room here for Blizzard to implement a specialization of the hunter class (Marksman is a good candidate) that allows the hunter to take on aspects of pets that are in their stable. If anything, keeping the pet out of harm's way (out of combat) and using their knowledge makes perfectly good sense for a class that is supposedly in touch with nature and their pets.

[clevin]

It's a dumb idea... why on earth would you not want a pet that does good damage and gives a buff depending on what you pick? There's no logical reasoning for it... In pvp you can have a spider that can snare people... in PvE you can use a tiger for a raid buff. Not using a pet is flat out... noobish. I understanding your thought pattern, but from a veteran standpoint and someone who knows the game very well... that's a bad idea. Hunters wouldn't be nearly as good without pets.

Ah, narrow-mindedness again. Are you really so closed off to other ways of thinking that you cannot see that there are hunter archetypes that don't involve pets (sniper, archer, etc)? People are proposing such a spec as one of three options that hunters could choose, that's all. Some people would prefer not to manage a pet but still like the idea of playing an archer-style class and right now that cannot do that. Add in that all three specs are close in flavor and I fail to see how providing some variety hurts people or makes them noobs. All this makes MM more distinct in design from SV and BM; if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to use it. Remember, it would be an OPTION. As for disadvantages...

PVE - In raids, if you raid 25s you have all buffs covered most likely so that's not an issue. The choice thus comes down to a "play what you like as long as it's viable" one. In 10s you might need to provide a pet buff, but hey, we have dual spec so you can do that if needed and if not you could play a petless MM.

PVP - Oh no, one of three specs that might be suboptimal for PVP! Um... again, we have dual spec. Play SV or BM in that case. Also, of course, MM could get tools that help in PVP - other ranged classes are perfectly viable in PVP and don't have pets (Mages say hi).

[PuppetShowJustice]

In 10s you might need to provide a pet buff, but hey, we have dual spec so you can do that if needed and if not you could play a petless MM.

Yeah, that's a great idea. So in my 10 man one of my 3 possible specs would be dead in the water because we lack +Attack Speed without my pet.

Blizzard will never make Marks a petless spec. It's telling that Warlocks have the capacity to forsake their pets as a talent choice rather than a spec choice. The option exists and I understand the philosophy behind why they have it there; but it's as optional as it possibly can be and it's also recently been a huge source of drama in the Warlock community because of Blizzard's attempt to balance pets versus no pets.

Our talent trees would need a complete overhaul to make a petless spec work. Intimidate is becoming a talent in 5.3 -- that can't work with No Pet Marks. Spirit Bond? That's out. Fervor? That would need to be changed. Blink Strikes? That can't be a talent. Lynx Rush? No bueno. Even Dire Beast would clash thematically with a purposefully petless Hunter even though it wouldn't be disrupted mechanically.

Sooo...2 out of 6 of the talent ranks came out of that unscathed? Our pets are way, way more deeply rooted in the features of our class than can be said for Warlocks. We'd have to overhaul damn near everything to appease a petless spec. It simply is not going to happen.

[clevin]

Yeah, that's a great idea. So in my 10 man one of my 3 possible specs would be dead in the water because we lack +Attack Speed without my pet.

Again, lack of imagination. First, a new MM could provide other benefits. Second, if you happen to have a 10 that doesn't have Bloodlust/Heroism/Time Warp do you refuse to move to BM and bring out your Corehound? It amazes me that people have dual spec and are so against actually using both specs.

Our talent trees would need a complete overhaul to make a petless spec work.

No shit. I mean, of COURSE this would be the case. They'd not do it unless they were thinking about a talent overhaul on the scal e of the warlock one, but both hunters and rogues kind of need this. I mean, consider the current specs. All 3 use pets. All 3 have signature shots, shots that deplete focus and shots that regen focus. The differences are minor.

Intimidate is becoming a talent in 5.3 -- that can't work with No Pet Marks. Spirit Bond? That's out. Fervor? That would need to be changed. Blink Strikes? That can't be a talent. Lynx Rush? No bueno. Even Dire Beast would clash thematically with a purposefully petless Hunter even though it wouldn't be disrupted mechanically.

Sooo...2 out of 6 of the talent ranks came out of that unscathed? Our pets are way, way more deeply rooted in the features of our class than can be said for Warlocks. We'd have to overhaul damn near everything to appease a petless spec. It simply is not going to happen./quote] REALLY? Because of these things, then it's impssobile for them to change things in 6.0? Er... that's silly. No one is suggesting this for 5.x - leave that strawman in the field.

I love that you say "It's not going to happen" because it would be a big deal. Look over the history of things that will "never happen" and look at how many of them are in the game today. Flying in the old world? 'never happen, too much work'... you can now. PVE >PVP realm xfers? "never happen" You can now.

Nothing you've brought up makes a petless MM impossible. They may well NOT do this, but redoing our talents to make the specs more distinct should be on the table for 6.0 and if they're doing that there's zero reason to exclude such a spec

[Effinhunter]

Yeah, that's a great idea. So in my 10 man one of my 3 possible specs would be dead in the water because we lack +Attack Speed without my pet.

Blizzard will never make Marks a petless spec. It's telling that Warlocks have the capacity to forsake their pets as a talent choice rather than a spec choice. The option exists and I understand the philosophy behind why they have it there; but it's as optional as it possibly can be and it's also recently been a huge source of drama in the Warlock community because of Blizzard's attempt to balance pets versus no pets.

Our talent trees would need a complete overhaul to make a petless spec work. Intimidate is becoming a talent in 5.3 -- that can't work with No Pet Marks. Spirit Bond? That's out. Fervor? That would need to be changed. Blink Strikes? That can't be a talent. Lynx Rush? No bueno. Even Dire Beast would clash thematically with a purposefully petless Hunter even though it wouldn't be disrupted mechanically.

Sooo...2 out of 6 of the talent ranks came out of that unscathed? Our pets are way, way more deeply rooted in the features of our class than can be said for Warlocks. We'd have to overhaul damn near everything to appease a petless spec. It simply is not going to happen.

Take a look at the Druid talent trees to see how Blizzard has typically resolved issues with tier talents applying to multiple radically different playstyles. If it can be done for druids, it can be done for a much simpler distinction between having a pet and not. For anyone unfamiliar with druid talents, many of them have specific resto, feral cat, and guardian druid effects that are completely orthogonal and yet still work.

[Tapzer]

Warlocks don't sacrifice pets, they sacrifice demons.

[PuppetShowJustice]

Apples to oranges. How many of the classes have changed conceptually since launch?

Seriously; log in and go to make a Hunter and read the little class info blurb about them. Literally 2 out of 4 of the sentences used to describe them mention their pets. And one of them is simply "The Hunter's primary stat is Agility".

This would be like clicking over to the Paladin tab and suggesting that their holy magic should be removed. It's that deeply engrained in the character concept.

[Kraenen]

Your pet is your companion, not your slave...

[Hurien]

I'm all for pets, I love them, but I think it's fair to give the people who don't like them the option to change it, and leave them behind or w/e. There are quite a few examples in other classes of this kind of choice, and, since there is no other class that could fit the role of Physical Ranged DPS (except rogues, but that would mean a pretty big redesign for them) I think hunters could fit this role nicely, and not sacrificing a spec or something like that.

Look at Dark Apotheosis. It's a glyph, only usable by Demonology Warlocks, that changes their gameplay completely. Heck, they can even tank. There could be a MM-only glyph, named Ranger's Solitude or something, that makes us do 15% more damage and that when we click it, it opens up the active pets menu. We choose the pet, and the buff it would cast is turned on along with the damage buff. Stampede turns into Possessed, making us churn some extra shots while active, and Master's Call turns Anxious Retreat. Three abilities to design and balance, and all hunters happy.

[Effinhunter]

Apples to oranges. How many of the classes have changed conceptually since launch?

Seriously; log in and go to make a Hunter and read the little class info blurb about them. Literally 2 out of 4 of the sentences used to describe them mention their pets. And one of them is simply "The Hunter's primary stat is Agility".

This would be like clicking over to the Paladin tab and suggesting that their holy magic should be removed. It's that deeply engrained in the character concept.

Um... paladins used to only have mana. This holy power business is new and not from Vanilla. In fact, it's from Cataclysm and fundamentally changed the class. Heck, WE used to have mana instead of focus.

And yeah, I have a paladin. And a druid. I mean, the changes to Balance druids were phenomenal and interesting with the switching between day and night phases. Warlocks... Shaman... I mean, shaman used to have shields and tank specs.

How many classes have conceptually changed since launch? Several. And removing a pet from the equation is hardly something game-changingly new for us. Do you remember how many times we had to dismiss our pets for certain bosses in Vanilla, BC, and Wrath because they were useless or even detrimental due to game mechanics? Heck, we're sort of back to square one on not using our pets to their full potential with Stampede problems on certain bosses (e.g. Lei Shen), which is a non-negligible dps loss when we're not allowed to use it because it slows down everyone else in the raid.

[Hurien]

I'm all for pets, I love them, but I think it's fair to give the people who don't like them the option to change it, and leave them behind or w/e. There are quite a few examples in other classes of this kind of choice, and, since there is no other class that could fit the role of Physical Ranged DPS (except rogues, but that would mean a pretty big redesign for them) I think hunters could fit this role nicely, and not sacrificing a spec or something like that.

Look at Dark Apotheosis. It's a glyph, only usable by Demonology Warlocks, that changes their gameplay completely. Heck, they can even tank. There could be a MM-only glyph, named Ranger's Solitude or something, that makes us do 15% more damage and that when we click it, it opens up the active pets menu. We choose the pet, and the buff it would cast is turned on along with the damage buff. Stampede turns into Possessed, making us churn some extra shots while active, and Master's Call turns Anxious Retreat. Three abilities to design and balance, and all hunters happy.

The glyph could even be available to Survival also, by the way. A Beast Master w/o a pet would be too much of a stretch xD. But well, Survival or MM could be able to choose whether they like fighting alongside their pet or not.

[clevin]

Apples to oranges. How many of the classes have changed conceptually since launch?

Seriously; log in and go to make a Hunter and read the little class info blurb about them. Literally 2 out of 4 of the sentences used to describe them mention their pets. And one of them is simply "The Hunter's primary stat is Agility".

This would be like clicking over to the Paladin tab and suggesting that their holy magic should be removed. It's that deeply engrained in the character concept.

Your reply boils down to one thing that's never a good argument: "It can't happen because we've always done it the way we're doing it now."

Seriously, do you think that they would limit what they could do to a class because of the description on the website? That if they truly felt that a class could be improved but that the description on the site would need to change that they'd choose not to improve a class simply because the description would be out of date and need editing? Seriously??

[Harry Botter]

Yes, the guy you quoted is one of those immature children who enjoys things the way they are and thinks other people having the option to play differently is unthinkable, because god forbid people CHOOOOOOOOSE the way they play. Nope.

While I do like the idea. The only immature person I see is you for people either not liking it or not replying how you want them to. You need to chill out.

[SodiumChloride]

The thing I get hung up on is where this insistence on "hunters have pets because hunters are in love with teh animals, duh" idea arose. Is it literally a WoW trope? Because I grew up in the sticks, and I know hunters, and no hunter I know uses an animal to fight with him. Maybe, maybe they take a dog to fetch birds they shot, but that's it - there's no "me and my pet vs. the prey" theme. In fact, the whole idea of being a hunter of animals is antithetical to having loyal animal companions.

Rangers are more likely to have pets, and that's been seen before in various lores, but even then, that's not automatic. Aragon and Legolas are both ranger-like characters (the former of the concealment/tracking/ambush type, the latter of the "in tune with nature" type), and neither have pets, nor have most of the characters that followed them in those broad categories. The theme is generally more that they're in touch with nature, but in a way where they use it to hunt their prey, to conceal and ambush, to kill. The whole "one with nature" to the point of having a symbiotic relationship with a pet sounds more like a druid thing to me, tbh.

The beast master is where the whole idea of hunter-killers using pets makes sense, but again, that doesn't strike a "one with nature" tone, but strikes the tone of Houndsmaster Loskey or whatever his name is in SM - his pets are really nothing more than very dangerous weapons he uses to help him in his goals. A tool, if you will. If you ever read the Dark Tower series by Stephen King, Roland's hawk David strikes this tone with precision. To me, the beast master is more warlock-y in his regard for his pet than even a ranger might be - he respects its power, but expects it to do his bidding and take the body blows if necessary.

That's my take on it, at least, growing up in a rural-ish area where we got a day off from school every year for the first day of deer hunting season.

The warrior with a pet companion has been in fantasy lore for ages.

[Durandro]

I'm guessing a lot of people don't realise that if you removed the pet the Hunter would get benefits to counterbalance this, right?

Because that's the only way I can make sense of a lot of these posts.

A non-pet option for Hunters would be interesting. Either a spec or a talent choice. No pet means doing slightly more damage and gaining a buff aura to replace the pet.

And no, sacrifice in this case doesn't mean 'kill in a ritualistic manner'. It means 'not have'.

[Rukioish]

Just give us ranged pets.

[Deleted]

To use a stereotypical example, Legolas is clearly an archer and has no pet. .

Legolas has Gimly my good sir! how dare you forget his pet dwarf:P