1. #1

    Rogues and Hunters

    I don't get the design of these two classes. It doesn't make much sense that Rogues (who are also assassins) are 100% melee and hunters (who are also beastmasters) are 100% ranged. I mean, on top of the thematic concerns, it's silly that only one class uses bows/guns and that that class can't use anything else. It's also silly that because of this dichotomy both classes have so little diversity within their talent trees that the trees might as well not exist. You aren't given many options to experiment with different play-styles when you get bored anyway. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if both classes were 'hybridized' between melee and range?

    Here's how it would work-

    Hunters would would be 40/60 melee/ranged at the baseline. They would be better at range, but very functional at melee and would use their melee abilities to supplement their ranged abilities (like back in Vanilla). Then, their three trees would highlight different components of their skill set:
    1. Marksmanship would de-emphasize both the pet and melee abilities and emphasize ranged abilities, making you a true sniper (80/20 ranged/melee).
    2. Beastmaster would emphasize pets and melee abilities (including pet support abilities while fighting same target, etc.), and de-emphasize range abilities, making you a unique pet-based melee class with supplemental ranged skills (60/40 melee/ranged)
    3. Survival would de-emphasize the pet and focus on synergy between melee and ranged attacks, making you a true hybrid skirmisher with emphasis on defense and utility (50/50 melee/ranged).

    Rogues would be a 60/40 melee/ranged at the baseline. They would primarily be melee, but would use ranged abilities frequently to supplement their melee skills. Their trees would highlight very different styles as they gained levels:
    1. Combat would de-emphasize both stealth and ranged abilities and be all about melee. This would turn you into a master duelist, using swords or axes to stand toe-to-toe with foes and dispatch them with speed and acrobatic maneuvers. You become an 80/20 melee/range class
    2. Subtlety would emphasize Stealth abilities primarily, which would benefit mostly rangked skills while emphasizing utility and defense. You become a 60/40 range/melee class
    2. Assassination would emphasize synergy between melee and range and provide benefits to both. This turns you into a perfect hybrid killer that is adept at dispatching foes silently at any distance. 50/50 melee/range

    I also think they should revert the change they made last exp and allow characters to use both melee and ranged weapons, or at the very least give a weapon swap interface to switch between two different weapons on the fly (similar to GW2).
    Last edited by einlanzer0; 2013-11-11 at 07:39 PM.

  2. #2
    The Patient Kuul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    299
    GC stated in blue post before Blizzcon that if Warlock was the one they worked most in MoP, rogues and hunters will get same kind of treatment next, not as big overhaul as locks did but still something to look up for.

  3. #3
    The Lightbringer Moon Blade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Behind her rifle, in that tree you just passed.
    Posts
    3,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuul View Post
    GC stated in blue post before Blizzcon that if Warlock was the one they worked most in MoP, rogues and hunters will get same kind of treatment next, not as big overhaul as locks did but still something to look up for.
    GC says a lot of things. Turns out to be mostly rubbish.

    It doesn't make much sense that Rogues (who are also assassins)
    Not every rogue is an assassin nor is every assassin a rogue. Rogues fill numerous roles, from street thug to elite combat soldier, spy, assassin, swashbuckler, etc. What they need to do is stop linking two of the three specs with one type of weapon to be viable and find ways to give some distinction between specs.

    Also hunters need no melee abilities at all. The dead zone was an idiotic concept, bringing it back would be pointless.
    If it's not an elf, leave it on the shelf.

  4. #4
    Giving these two classes even MORE buttons to push?

    You madman!
    Originally Posted by Ghostcrawler
    Q: But who are the forum QQers going to QQ at now?
    A: They'll find another name and still miss the point that Blizzard designs as a collective.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Blade View Post
    GC says a lot of things. Turns out to be mostly rubbish.

    Not every rogue is an assassin nor is every assassin a rogue. Rogues fill numerous roles, from street thug to elite combat soldier, spy, assassin, swashbuckler, etc. What they need to do is stop linking two of the three specs with one type of weapon to be viable and find ways to give some distinction between specs.

    Also hunters need no melee abilities at all. The dead zone was an idiotic concept, bringing it back would be pointless.
    I disagree. I'm not arguing to bring back a deadzone, and I think hunters not having melee weapons is an idiotic concept. Also, not all rogues are assassins, but assassins fit within the rogue concept better than any other class.

  6. #6
    I would love to see Ranger class as an alternative for hunters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •