Will the next class be the last class in WoW?

[Deleted]

http://ptr.wowhead.com/spell=108503

Whole class using demonic abilities is not same as few abilities.

[Teriz]

Whole class using demonic abilities is not same as few abilities.

All of the Warlock's abilities are demonic abilities. Warlocks (like Demon Hunters) derive their powers from demons.

This is reinforced by the fact that Warlocks and Demon Hunters share abilities (Immolation, Metamorphosis, Shadowfury, Banish, Curse of Elements, etc.).

[Thimagryn]

Right. And the Demon Hunter, as a WoW class, may derive their powers from a different source of demons than that of Warlocks.

Warlocks are only now being explained as mimicing Illidan's methods, as evidenced by the Green Fire quests. This means that actual Demon Hunter methods devised by Illidan are still a mystery. This is evidenced even further by Telarius Voidstrider and the "Writings of the Dark Herald".

Keep in mind, there is no gameplay difference between a Mage casting Fireballs and a Shaman casting Flame Shocks. From a gameplay perspective, they are both using fire magic. They can both summon elementals, use fire and frost magic, and buff players with a speed boost. Their separate identity comes from LORE. This is why it is important to make distinctions between Warlocks and Demon Hunters, because even if they share similar use of spells and abilities, their methods are yet unexplained and undefined.

[Monsterbaby]

I would like to see a proper support class

Who can be a hybrid in both PVP and PVE!

It would be awesome, seeing a support class, as a "rogue-healer". A class that build ups combo points, by attacking a target, but uses the 5 combo points on healing abilities.

The support class should also give beneficial buffs, which can be used on others; Such as Ironbark and Innervate. The damage shouldn't of course be through the roof - neither should the healing. But it would be cool if there finally would be a support class that could offer a variation in gameplay, by using melee attacks and finish it off with heals.

I could imagine heals designed such as a "rip" ability for ferals, but instead of dealing damage - the target it is applied on, will do Aoe healing to nearby raid members.

It is a shame all classes are now either One thing or the other. You can no longer rely on your own heals as a druid anymore, and healers are pretty much useless as killing anything.

As druids used to be support in vanilla, it is probably too long time ago to change. Therefore I'd like Blizzard to support a new support class. That can do anything and everything, but is average in everything.

[Teriz]

Right. And the Demon Hunter, as a WoW class, may derive their powers from a different source of demons than that of Warlocks.

They could, but that would still causes a thematic conflict with the Warlock class. Demons are demons are demons.

In the same vein, Mages and Shamans tapped into the same source of 'magic' until the differences were explained in lore. We now know the differences between Shamanism and Conjuration. Warlocks are only now being explained as mimicing Illidan's methods, as evidenced by the Green Fire quests. This means that actual Demon Hunter methods devised by Illidan are still a mystery. This is evidenced even further by Telarius Voidstrider and the "Writings of the Dark Herald".

Sounds like the perfect reason to give Warlocks a DH spec, and not give DHs an entire class. If Warlocks can mimic Illidan's most powerful ability, it indicates that what Illidan was doing was mere child's play compared to what a Warlock can accomplish.

Keep in mind, there is no gameplay difference between a Mage casting Fireballs and a Shaman casting Flame Shocks. From a gameplay perspective, they are both using fire magic.

I would say that one having a cast time, and the other being instant cast DoT and sharing a CD with two other shock abilities is a pretty big gameplay difference.

They can both summon elementals, use fire and frost magic, and buff players with a speed boost. Their separate identity comes from LORE. This is why it is important to make distinctions between Warlocks and Demon Hunters, because even if they share similar use of spells and abilities, their methods are yet unexplained and undefined.

No one is saying you can't carve a unique DH playstyle if you work at it. Heck, you can carve out two distinct Mage classes using Blood Mages and Arch Mages if you have enough imagination.

We're saying that Blizzard has worked since vanilla WoW to dismantle the DH concept as a possible candidate for class inclusion. The game in its current state has no design room for a DH class, and Blizzard is actively working to take MORE DH concepts and add them to the Warlock class. For example, in WoD there's a talent that will allow Demonology Warlocks to extend Metamorphosis, making it an even larger portion of their DPS.

[Thimagryn]

They could, but that would still causes a thematic conflict with the Warlock class. Demons are demons are demons.

Demon Hunters primarily based on 'Augmentation' would easily rectify that. The use of Fel energy is not the same as Demons, yet would explain how a Demon Hunter is able to take on a Demon Form without directly consorting with the creatures. Thematically, it is Augmentation.

We're saying that Blizzard has worked since vanilla WoW to dismantle the DH concept as a possible candidate for class inclusion. The game in its current state has no design room for a DH class, and Blizzard is actively working to take MORE DH concepts and add them to the Warlock class. For example, in WoD there's a talent that will allow Demonology Warlocks to extend Metamorphosis, making it an even larger portion of their DPS.

Right, and that DH concept you refer to is 4 abilities from Warcraft 3, nothing more. Where have we seen Warlocks as Agile Fighters able to Dual Wield? Where have we seen Warlocks augmenting their weapons with Demonic power? Where have we seen Warlocks walking the path of the Dark Herald?

If Warlocks are already Demon Hunters because they have Metamorphosis, then why are Demon Hunters brought up in 'New Class' topics? It's obvious that people still see the distinction between the two, and identify the Demon Hunter as a separate entity.

[Teriz]

Demon Hunters primarily based on 'Augmentation' would easily rectify that. The use of Fel energy is not the same as Demons, yet would explain how a Demon Hunter is able to take on a Demon Form without directly consorting with the creatures. Thematically, it is Augmentation.

Fel energy is connected to demonic magic, and is utilized by Warlocks.

Fel Energy: The ultimate manifestation of the demonic arcane on Azeroth is fel (aka fel energy or fel magic). This energy, which most commonly manifests itself as ghastly, green-yellow flame, is arcane magic at its most corrupt, for it employs the blood of demons. Spells with the fel discriptor are very difficult to resist. Casting a fel spell is described by many spellcasters as a euphoric experience. If arcane magic is an addiction, fel magic is the embodiment of the drug in its purest form.

Warlocks:
Having an innate association with demonology, warlocks have adopted a connection to the darkest fel energies. Through their understandings of demonology they are able to dominate certain agents of the Burning Legion, such as imps, voidwalkers, succubi, felhounds, and felguards, and through their enslave demon ability, doomguards, infernals, and gan'arg demons as well.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Fel

Basing a Demon Hunter on "augmentation" is silly. Shaman augment themselves with elemental power. Warlocks augment themselves with demonic AND Fel energy. The overlap between DHs and Warlocks isn't going anywhere.

Right, and that DH concept you refer to is 4 abilities from Warcraft 3, nothing more. Where have we seen Warlocks as Agile Fighters able to Dual Wield? Where have we seen Warlocks augmenting their weapons with Demonic power? Where have we seen Warlocks walking the path of the Dark Herald?

Those WC3 abilities are important because every new WoW class has had all of its WC3 abilities available to them. Existing WoW classes have shown that those WC3 abilities form the basis of their respective classes and their themes. A class concept that has its abilities handed out to other classes indicates that this hero concept was never meant to be a stand alone class, but as a part of another class. This pattern exists throughout ALL of the WoW classes.

Why should the Demon Hunter be any different than the Shadow Hunter, the Blademaster, the Beast Master, the Mountain King, or the Warden? Those concepts have as much chance of making it into the game as stand alone classes as the DH does. And that chance is pretty close to zero.

If Warlocks are already Demon Hunters because they have Metamorphosis, then why are Demon Hunters brought up in 'New Class' topics? It's obvious that people still see the distinction between the two, and identify the Demon Hunter as a separate entity.

Because people like the Demon Hunter, but don't understand class balance. Its the same group of people who believe that a Battle Mage is a perfectly viable class concept, despite its overlap with the Mage, and Blizzard's stated belief that classes shouldn't share names with each other.

[Marek]

I think that Blizz will end up giving the entire class/specialization structure a very thorough review for 7.0 and will end up doing significant work to help improve the homogenization that has occurred.

Demon Hunter will eventually be introduced as a Melee based specialization of Warlock.

- Marek

[Thimagryn]

Those WC3 abilities are important because every new WoW class has had all of its WC3 abilities available to them. Existing WoW classes have shown that those WC3 abilities form the basis of their respective classes and their themes. A class concept that has its abilities handed out to other classes indicates that this hero concept was never meant to be a stand alone class, but as a part of another class. This pattern exists throughout ALL of the WoW classes.

Yet only a few pages ago, you said the Rogue was based on the Rogue NPC from Warcraft 3. As soon as you bring in random Creeps into the equation, the possibilities for any new class open up to all potential Creeps. It's completely contradictory to your argument that all classes derive from Hero abilities. Rogues and Priests break from this pattern.

Why should the Demon Hunter be any different than the Shadow Hunter, the Blademaster, the Beast Master, the Mountain King, or the Warden? Those concepts have as much chance of making it into the game as stand alone classes as the DH does. And that chance is pretty close to zero.

Chance close to zero has absolutely no bearing or meaning considering WoW's contradictory sweeping changes. If you came to be before TBC and told me Paladins would be playable by the Horde, I would have said the chances are close to zero.

Because people like the Demon Hunter, but don't understand class balance. Its the same group of people who believe that a Battle Mage is a perfectly viable class concept, despite its overlap with the Mage, and Blizzard's stated belief that classes shouldn't share names with each other.

So lets ignore a large part of the fan base and make a decision to implement a highly unfamiliar class in hopes that they will be popular by osmosis. It didn't exactly work out that well for the Monk so far.

[Teriz]

Yet only a few pages ago, you said the Rogue was based on the Rogue NPC from Warcraft 3. As soon as you bring in random Creeps into the equation, the possibilities for any new class open up to all potential Creeps. It's completely contradictory to your argument that all classes derive from Hero abilities. Rogues and Priests break from this pattern.

It's not contradictory at all. Rogue is a common RPG class, so it didn't need to be derived from a WC3 hero unit. Blizzard wanted a thief class in the game, so it pulled elements from WC3 NPCs and a couple of heroes to create the Rogue class. Priests were also not based on a specific WC3 hero unit. Priests were based on the standard WC3 Priest unit in the human faction of the game.

Demon Hunters are not a common RPG class. Furthermore, it's based on a WC3 hero unit to begin with. So in order for it to follow the pattern that all WoW classes have, it needs all of its WC3 abilities intact. The fact that it doesn't have that, and Blizzard is doing exactly the same thing to DHs that they have done to other concepts (Blademaster, Wardens, Shadow Hunters, etc.) indicate that it is not a WC3 concept meant for class implementation.

Chance close to zero has absolutely no bearing or meaning considering WoW's contradictory sweeping changes. If you came to be before TBC and told me Paladins would be playable by the Horde, I would have said the chances are close to zero.

Blizzard giving both factions Shaman and Paladins was a forgone conclusion even in vanilla. It was painfully obvious that there was no way blizzard was going to keep Paladins and Shaman distinct if they kept them as faction specific. Also that limitation really made no sense in terms of gameplay. Yeah, it added flavor to the game, but it was obviously a bad design decision.

So lets ignore a large part of the fan base and make a decision to implement a highly unfamiliar class in hopes that they will be popular by osmosis. It didn't exactly work out that well for the Monk so far.

FYI, if I were in control, Demon Hunters would have been introduced in TBC. I think giving Warlocks the DH concept is sort of crappy in general. However, it's clearly what Blizzard wanted, and there's nothing we can do about it at this point. In order for DHs to come into game with all the flavor of the WC3 concept, blizzard would have to overhaul Demonology again, and undo almost a decade of class design. That isn't going to happen.

For whatever reason, they decided that Demon Hunters weren't fit to be a stand alone class. That's just how it is.

[Thimagryn]

Barbarians are a common RPG class distinct from Fighters, which the Warrior class represents. Warriors are strength-based Plate users, strong tough heroes like the Mountain King and Chieftain. What examples do we have from Warcraft 3 of Agility-based Melee heroes? Blademasters and Demon Hunters, which maintain identities beyond Warriors and Rogues.

[Teriz]

Barbarians are a common RPG class distinct from Fighters, which the Warrior class represents. Warriors are strength-based Plate users, strong tough heroes like the Mountain King and Chieftain. What examples do we have from Warcraft 3 of Agility-based Melee heroes? Blademasters and Demon Hunters, which maintain identities beyond Warriors and Rogues.

Fury is supposed to represent barbaric warriors. Protection represents knights. Arms represents weapon masters such as the Blade Master.

For Blizzard, the Demon Hunter was deemed to be a combination of Rogues and Warlocks. The swift dual-wielding aspect went to Rogues along with Evasion, and the demonic magic abilities went to Warlocks.

For Blademasters, Windwalking went to Rogues, Bladestorm went to Warriors, and Mirror Image went to Mages.

[Thimagryn]

Rouge, Monk, Feral druid.

Assassins, Martial Artists, Shapeshifters.

None of which are Barbarian-like, such as Blademasters and Demon Hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

For Blademasters, Windwalking went to Rogues, Bladestorm went to Warriors, and Mirror Image went to Mages.

Yet we're still left with an identity that people are attached to that the Warrior, Rogue and Mage do not represent. The Demon Hunter shares this identity.

[Ginantonicus]

Assassins, Martial Artists, Shapeshifters.

None of which are Barbarian-like, such as Blademasters and Demon Hunters.

you asked for

What examples do we have from Warcraft 3 of Agility-based Melee heroes? Blademasters and Demon Hunters, which maintain identities beyond Warriors and Rogues

When you meant.

What examples do we have from Warcraft 3 of Agility-based Barbaric Melee heroes? Blademasters and Demon Hunters, which maintain identities beyond Warriors and Rogues

and i'd answer Warriors and Assassins.

You can make a question as specific as you like when you are looking for a particular answer.

Both warriors and Rouges are melee class that you could describe as barbarians. That makes 2 classes. Yet there are only 2 classes that have a "Holy Power" theme to them. There are 2 classes that have "Nature Magic" theme. 1 that uses martial arts. 1 that uses "Arcane magic. The list goes on.

[Thimagryn]

You still answered it wrong initially.

What Warcraft 3 Agi-based melee heroes are there? Rogues, Monks and Feral Druids do not exist as Agi-based Melee in War3. In fact, Monks were represented as STR-based heroes and Feral Druids took the form of bears, a tier 3 tanky unit.

Blademasters and Demon Hunters are not the same as Rogues, as Rogues only share the stealthy and evasive aspects of the two classes, taking up more traditional Thief archetype over a Fighter or Barbarian.

[Ginantonicus]

You still answered it wrong initially.

What Warcraft 3 Agi-based melee heroes are there? Rogues, Monks and Feral Druids do not exist as Agi-based Melee in War3. In fact, Monks were represented as STR-based heroes and Feral Druids took the form of bears, a tier 3 tanky unit.

Blademasters and Demon Hunters are not the same as Rogues, as Rogues only share the stealthy and evasive aspects of the two classes, taking up more traditional Thief archetype over a Fighter or Barbarian.

bar·bar·i·an (bär-bâr′ē-ən)
n.
1. A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization.
2. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
3. An insensitive, uncultured person; a boor. See Synonyms at boor.

I would describe a Rouge as a cruel, insensitive person.

I thought you were arguing to introduce Demon Hunters into Wow not WC3

[Thimagryn]

I thought you were arguing to introduce Demon Hunters into Wow not WC3

I'm not arguing to introduce any class into the game, I am showing that there is no evidence to claim the inability for Demon Hunters (or any class) to be in the game as a separate class or spec. The context of the conversation revolved around Teriz's system of using WC3 as a basis for all Class concepts.

[Jtree]

Unbelievable...

Jtree, Death Coil Warlock and Death Coil Death Knight was not the same ability or spell. It only had the same name. Did you even read my post? I said exactly that in the post you're quoting from.

Two instant cast shadow damage spells.

Warlocks' version used mana, had a CD, and had a secondary horror effect.

DK version used runic power, was resource limited, and had a secondary effect of healing friendly undead targets. (Minions, or the DK himself when he popped Lichbourne. That was a pretty tanking CD back in the day).

The two spells fired in a visually similar way, and might have even shared an icon back in Wrath, too, IIRC.


My point is, Blizzard is demonstrably okay with the same name (and visuals?) on functionally dissimilar spells. And, as I've pointed out before, Warlock Meta has gone through a significant mechanical redesign. Metamorphosis in WoW is not an exact and permanently defined thing, and thus it's reasonable to think that Blizzard could implement a DH version alongside warlocks that, which sharing a name and even visuals, is functionally very different.

That goes both ways. If you don't want to bound by the WC3 hero, then accept that Blizzard has redefined the DH class as the Demonology warlock spec in WoW. Either way, Blizzard views Illidan as simply a demon whose attributes are farm material for the Warlock class.

Or, you look to key DHs in game now for inspiration on how a class can be created. Chiefly, Illidan Stormrage and Leotheras the Blind. Plenty of abilities between them to start building a new class concept from.

Actually - I was on a CoD kick and didn't really log on for a couple of weeks. By the time I thought to check, the thread had moved off the front couple of pages.

Fair enough. I've spent the last few weeks on a "let's-work-13-hour-shifts" kick, so couldn't have responded then either. Thank the Light it's my day off today.

If that was the only issue with it, it could be worked around. Blizzrad has commented on the importance of iconic moves before and their desire to keep them iconic unless there is an impact on gameplay. That's why Metamorphosis is important. Its iconic to the warlock class and the needs of the existing class vastly outwiegh the needs of a proposed class.

If there is any conflict - the existing class wins. Simple.

That IS important. It would certainly take determined care and effort on Blizzard's part to make sure current WoW players aren't confused by two iterations on Meta. (Frankly, WC3 is irrelevant at this time.) The name and the image of a big, black and purple demon are certainly tied to the Demo tree now.

But, I'm always saying that a DH class ought to be rooted in Illidan and Leotheras of BC-era raids. Looking at their spell books on Wowhead, neither one of them have an ability called "Metamorphosis". Their fight encounters describe "Demon Phase" for those segments of the fights.

Does a DH class need a purple-demon spell called Metamorphosis to reflect those two, and the whole of DH history? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. A spell called "Demon Phase", "Transformation", or "Fel Empowerment", that makes the DH glow or fade or turn into a wholly different form of demon could be just as cool.

Style? The DH is an AGI based lightly armored dual wielding tank/meleer which makes use of magic. A description which also applies to the newly added Monk. can you see Blizzard adding the same type of class back to back? I don't....especially if the next class will be the last. Blizzard will likely want a class that can carve out its own identity.

I thought we needed a new ranged class before monks were announced. Melee piles can get messy. But while it does sound like a good idea to keep a general balance on the number of melee and ranged DPS specs, on a macro level things like balance and "fun" will probably have more to do with how well represented those two roles are.

That said, I'd still like to see the next class be ranged/heals. Demon Hunters can come after that.

Blizzard has discussed the issue of names and why bringing in a class such as "Arch Druid" or "Arch Mage" is a bad idea....primarily, it gives the impression that the class involved is "better" than the vanilla version. The same reasoning holds true for Shadow Hunter or Demon Hunter. The name almost invites comparisons with the vanilla Hunter.

Blizzards deemed this to be a bad thing.

Another instance where Blizz would have to take care to make things distinct. Demon Hunter and Hunter (or DH and DK abbreviations) could long be a source of miscommunication in game. Hell, I was in a PuG raid once where the raid leader blew up on me because he for some reason thought I was Frost Mage, not a Frost DK. Had already proved I was good enough to be there, he was a DK too and was mad to realize he had another competitor on his loot.

For the specific DH/Hunter comparison, I can't see it confusing even casual players who have been in the game for a while. Newcomers may have some confusion, but even the general descriptions on the character creation page will help to alleviate that.

A large number of the 90+ million who used to play WoW may sit up and take note if a DH class comes down the pipe.

The looks? The aspect which may players find cool or desireable about the Demon Hunter? That's largely been given to Warlocks already with the Betrayer armor and metamorphosis. Given how importanat looks are to the players of this game, the fact that Warlocks have that look is critically important. Do you honetsly think Blizzrad would be trading away iconic looks and abilities if it had any intention of ever adding DHs as a class?

Betrayer Regalia is a statless cosmetic set. It is literally a costume. If Blizzard ever goes back to putting recolored old tier sets in as dungeon drops (and I wish they would), they could make that an appropriate DH armor. In the mean time, the transmog set is rarely seen as is, and may be irrelevant two expansions from now. Besides, Warlocks have a history of dressing up like demons. Tier 6 is, IMO, far more awesome and iconic for locks than the transmog set, and is seen more often, too. Thus, we can say that set is just another demon costume in their closet.

On top of that, the Dreadnaught's Battlegear was a pretty gorgeous DK armor set. It's also Warrior Tier 3. (And worn by DK trash mobs in Naxx40, who used warlock spells, BTW). So Blizz does have a history of loaning out looks.

I won't bother quoting from other sources. I'll just point out Illidan...a Demon Hunter who got his powers when he made a pact with demons. He's the Demon Hunter Blizzard used to define the class lore in many ways.

IIRC, Illidan's powers were a "gift" from Sargeras for helping the Legion, even though Illidan was actually infiltrating it to subvert their invasion attempt. How all the rest of the DHs get their powers is not "officially" well explained, leaving a lot of room to develop the lore.

That isn't even remotely true. What they share is the same belief system which menas they have the same school of magic. And that is the strongets similarity you ro anyone else has been able to coem up with.

Think about it - you can't say they have the same look, theme, abilities, lore or history. They don't have the same heroes, class concept or roles. All you can do is say they share a school of magic.

And that, for you, is "synergy".

Go the the Stormwind's Cathedral, Ironforge's Mystic Ward, or any Argent outpost in the Plague Lands or Northrend, and you'll see Paladins and Priests working and fighting along side each other. In fact, lore says the first paladins, the Knights of the Silver Hand, were born from training knights to wield the Holy Light, and priests to be martial combatants.

Perhaps the second most famous member of the Argent Crusade is the priestess Confessor Paletress, who preaches regular sermons and served as a boss in ToC 5. Likewise, another famous Priest/Paladin duo was Whitemane/Mograine in Scarlet Monastary.


Also, in game, the two classes have a pretty big overlap: Holy specs. They're both healers, filling the same raid role.

Now, the priest class is a bigger bucket, covering all the non-Light worshiping races. But that doesn't negate the connection paladins have to their priestly kin within their races/religions.

Please - we KNOW what a DH looks like. We've seen pictures of them. And Warlocks have that look. We know what abilities they have - by and large they use Warlock abilities and warlocks use theirs, with some unique to each other. We know what role they fill - tanking. That's what they do in all the games so far. Its also a role Warlocks are known for.

This is a matter of our differing opinions, but I do believe there is a lot that is still on the table. My Warlock doesn't look like this or this, has only a passing resemblance to this, and needs a costume to look like this, and she doesn't do anything like this or this.

And if a real class did come in, we can expect things like spells and armor sets to get much, much more unique. It's a little difficult to speculate right now if warlocks have any look akin to Tier 21 demon hunter sets.

But you overlook the central points. WHY should Blizzard bring it in when so much of what the class offers is already brought by Warlocks? What does it add? What part of its design space is uqniue to it?

The answer is - nothing. It offers nothing unique. Anything it can bring to the game already exists as part of an existing class. It brings in no lore warlocks cannot explore. It brings in no gameplay another class or spec cannot address. Its theme is already explored by Warlocks and its class concept can be summed up as "melee range warlock". Its abilities and spells have already been parcelled out and its iconic look belongs to a different class.

Did monks really add anything unique? They're just another fast attacking, energy using, leather wearing DPS, and we already had two of those. They bring unarmed combat and martial arts? Feral druids are already "unarmed" (as were all my toons who got the "Knuckle Sandwich" achievement), and warriors are the definitive expressions of European martial arts.

Yet, monks do add a new flavor to the game, and a fun variation on the melee play style.


Did death knights really need to come in to bring new lore? Paladins already had the Scourge-fighting storyline covered, with whole organizations and vanilla zones centered on that plot. The Argent Crusade invading Northrend could have been the sole driving storyline of Wrath. But in fact, the new class was added, and both were richly served in 1000+ quests in Wrath.

DHs had no place in Wrath, Cataclysm, MoP, or WoD. But in a potential Legion-centric expansions, there will be so many quests, and so much new lore, that such a class could be richly developed, and still have enough storytelling left over for warlocks and paladins and all other fighters or users of evil to get their share of the spotlight.



Ultimately, I argue for the DH, not because I desperately want it, but because I believe that in the big picture there is plenty of room for lots of new things to be added in WoW. I mean, the next expansions is rooted in the notion of an alternate timeline. Blizzard has been so creative over the last twenty years, and built such a broad and enduring franchise, that to try to definitively rule anything out is an exercise in foolishness.

Also, I argue because I kind of enjoy the mental exercise of linking disparate details into a more cohesive whole. I have to do some of that at work too. Someday I might even get good at effectively expressing it.


So as for me, I'll hold on to my optimism on the subject, and kindly ask that all the naysayers remember that they have no better grasp on what will be, so there's no purpose in trying to quash what could be.

[yogzula]

I would like to see hero classes instead. Six trees instead of 3 (where each tree can become a "hero" class and go off into 1 of 2 specializations).

But honestly i'd much rather see resources spent in a lot of other departments than adding more classes. Balance the current ones, then maybe we'll start to consider it,.

[Ginantonicus]

I'm not arguing to introduce any class into the game, I am showing that there is no evidence to claim the inability for Demon Hunters (or any class) to be in the game as a separate class or spec. The context of the conversation revolved around Teriz's system of using WC3 as a basis for all Class concepts.

But there is evidence it's just all circumstantial. Such as a pattern of behavior in dividing up DH abilities to other classes. Blizzard has also said that they are against a class called Demon Hunter because it implies that it is better than a regular hunter ( can't find where this is written though).