How would you like to see Demon Hunters Implemented?

[Deleted]

Demon hunters in wow have following abilities which are not shared with warlocks:

Curse of flames
Mana burn
Evasion
Debilitating strike
Spell breaker
Banish (warlocks has only banish demon)

[Thimagryn]

He is demon/nelf hybrid, which itself is not demon. Demons are corrupted races which no longer are actual races they were before. For an example, Eredar are no longer Draenei, they are Man'ari, succubi are Sayaad etc

Taken from the Warcraft Enclycopledia, an official source that is no longer online on their website

http://wowpedia.org/The_Warcraft_Enc...idan_Stormrage

This article is a copy of "The Warcraft Encyclopedia," an official article by Blizzard Entertainment.

Illidan the Demon

As is the case with certain demons, Illidan does not consider himself a servant of the Burning Legion. Indeed, Illidan has alternately been the Legion's ally and its enemy at various points in the past. A rarity among demons, he has retained vast tracts of his original personality despite his demonic transformation. As a demon, he is fundamentally evil and often cruel, but he has thus far been able to preserve a few tattered remnants of nobility. Their inevitable conflict with his ambition and his hunger for power makes him a dangerously unpredictable adversary.
Because Illidan's case is unique, there is no point in speculating upon how long his divergence from standard demonic behavior will last.

He may not be under the control of the legion, but he is very much considered a Demon.

[Talen]

There is and always will be given that they are willing to make compromises towards fitting in a class that otherwise overlaps with any existing class. There were many fears and complaints of the Monk when it was initially released as being a Rogue overlap. There's no denying that it was simply going to be 'another leather class' with dual wield and fancier moves AND a tank and healing spec to make Rogues even more irrelevant than they currently are. None of it really turned out true.

Except the design overlap with Warlock extends far beyond mere gameplay.

As you say...players were concerned over the gameplay. That's the LEAST important aspect of the design space as far as class identity is concerned. And players still threw up concerns about it.

We don't know what Demon Hunters look like, so we're sort of in the same boat as those who thought Monks and Rogues would be too similar.

We knew nothing about how Monks would act or interact or play or look. That isn't true for Demon Hunters. We know their looks. We know their style. We know their concepts. And so on.

The DH design space, unlike the Monks at the time, actually exists and is in use. DH have been developed because of their actions and stories and use in game. And as a result, the design space has been developed. And it overlaps the Warlcosk to a very great degree in every aspect from concept to theme to lore to gameplay. Of these, gameplay is the easiest to change but the least important for identity.

There is no getting around this overlap. Trying to deny it exists simply because the DH isn't a player class doesn't make it so. The DH has lore, it has a concept, it has a look. We've seen what the class can do and we've seen a bit of its history and society. And so on. All of this contributes to the class design space. And its already filled.

It's a whole bunch of misinterpretation because we can't objectively look at the WoW DH class and make a side-by-side comparison. What are we doing instead? Something really dumb like discuss how a Warcraft 3 Hero is too similar to Warlocks. It should be obvious that any fully formed WoW Class is not going to be the same as a Hero with 4 abilities.

You need to read the rest of these threads since the argument isn't just about the WC3 DH and 4 abilities. Its about the DH and how it is shown in WC3, and canon lore, and WoW, and TBC and Cata and HotS and so on. Every bit of canon information, all of which contributes to its design space and all of which overlaps with Warlocks or other classes.

What if we changed Demonology back to being a pet-heavy spec, and free the actual Metamorphosis spell up for a Demon Hunter class/spec?

Not going to happen. Its a Warlock spell now. The only way DHs will get is if they are a Warlock sub spec. Warlocks are going to lose NOTHING to bring in a DH class. If they have it...they keep it and DHs go without.

And there's then problem. You have a class that already has its identity largely defined in game. The designer would not have much freedom to develop it as a class in its own right; in their words, it comes with too much baggage. That design also overlaps heavily with existing classes. Adding such a class into the game as a standalone separate class means that a: a class slot is being used to represent a class whose concept is already being used denying the opportunity to bring in a class with a totally new theme and concept and b: its presence can only harm those classes; we see such harm in action here, in this discussion with the talk about Meta and who should get it and why and how so think about how the discussion are going to be when we are talking about other abilities that intrude upon the rogue or warlock themes.

EJL

[Teriz]

Neither do the Demon Hunter NPCs having anything to do with a Playable class. Why do you insist there is overlap when a Demon Hunter Player Class currently has ZERO abilities?

See Warlocks and Rogues.

[Deleted]

See Warlocks and Rogues.

Demon hunters in wow have following abilities which are not shared with warlocks:

Curse of flames
Mana burn
Evasion
Debilitating strike
Spell breaker
Banish (warlocks has only banish demon)

[Thimagryn]

See Warlocks and Rogues.

That would be like suggesting me to look for Paladin spells in the Warrior and Priests ability list. Neither of them are Paladins. Warlocks and Rogues certainly are not Demon Hunter WoW Player Classes, as it does not yet exist.

You're still using redundant logical fallacies. You can't provide evidence for what doesn't exist.

[Realsykes]

Matter of opinion. We can't say this is for certain. The Illidari Blood Elves follow Illidan, and from what we know, we destroyed them all during Black Temple raid and Illidan's fall.

As for the few Night Elf Demon Hunters who are scattered around the world, we have almost no background on them. We assume that they are the ones mentioned in Warcraft 3's manual, as a group of exiles who made pacts etc. The War of the Ancients novel explains Illidan's path, and tells a straight story from when he becomes a Demon Hunter, to the time of his imprisonment. There is no mention of any other Demon Hunters.

So are these other Demon Hunters following in Illidan's footsteps? We don't have that information. All we know is that their method of becoming a DH is through 'the Writings of the Dark Herald', hinted through quests in Kalimdor. We don't know their allegiance, their motivations or what kind of sacrificial rituals they go through. Illidan went through a unique process to gain his powers, gifted directly from Sargeras. We really don't know if all these other Night Elves went through that same pact, or if they used some other method.

Illidan went through wild changes during his life. His motivations were drastically changed after he consumed the Skull of Gul'dan, making himself more like a Demon than a mortal. He even sided with Kil'jaeden, which was something he wouldn't have done before. When you say 'strive to be like Illidan', I would assume you mean taking up the rituals to fight against the Legion, during the War of the Ancients; and not Illidan as he currently is as an actual Demon. I personally do not think all Demon Hunters want to turn themselves into Demons, as Illidan did.

Nope.

Quoted from the APG, "Later, a group of night elves, inspired by Illidan's example, made a pact to turn the Burning Legion's powers against it, fighting destruction with destruction. Obviously they could not gain their powers in the same way Illidan did, but they discovered other means. In the millennia since, other night elves, and a few creatures of other races, have made the same pact, binding demonic essence in their bodies and using it to destroy the Legion's minions.

[Teriz]

Demon hunters in wow have following abilities which are not shared with warlocks:

Curse of flames
Mana burn
Evasion
Debilitating strike
Spell breaker
Banish (warlocks has only banish demon)

Curse of Flames is a weaker version of Curse of Elements.
Mana Burn was removed from WoW, but Priests had it.
Evasion is a Rogue ability, but Warlocks have Fury Ward to compensate.
Warlocks have a weaker form of Banish, but they also get sleep.

So we're left with Debilitating Strike and Spell Breaker. I'm sure if we look long enough, we could find equivalents to those abilities in one of the melee classes.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be like suggesting me to look for Paladin spells in the Warrior and Priests ability list. Neither of them are Paladins. Warlocks and Rogues certainly are not Demon Hunter WoW Player Classes, as it does not yet exist.

You're still using redundant logical fallacies. You can't provide evidence for what doesn't exist.

Except we have DH abilities, DH armor, a DH glyph, and DH lore/themes in the Warlock class. We also have DH armor/Weapons, and DH abilities in the Rogue class.

We also have Blizzard back that up with tweets pretty much saying that the DH theme is spread out through multiple classes and they have no plans to implement it.

What more evidence do you need?

[Thimagryn]

Nope.

Quoted from the APG, "Later, a group of night elves, inspired by Illidan's example, made a pact to turn the Burning Legion's powers against it, fighting destruction with destruction. Obviously they could not gain their powers in the same way Illidan did, but they discovered other means. In the millennia since, other night elves, and a few creatures of other races, have made the same pact, binding demonic essence in their bodies and using it to destroy the Legion's minions.

RPG books are not canon. The RPG books are also very specific about how Spectral Sight was obtained, but it's all rendered unofficial when Metzen came out and said 'The RPG books are not official'.

[Deleted]

I'm sure if we look long enough, we could find equivalents to those abilities in one of the melee classes.

I am sure if we look long enough, we could find equivalents to all abilities of all classes.

[Thimagryn]

Except we have DH abilities, DH armor, a DH glyph, and DH lore/themes in the Warlock class. We also have DH armor/Weapons, and DH abilities in the Rogue class.

We have NPC abilities and Warlock spells. We have Rogue/Warrior Weapons and Rogue spells. None of this is specifically 'Demon Hunter' because the Demon Hunter Player Class isn't using any of these spells. You even recognize the difference between Baron Rivendare; a Death Knight NPC; and a Death Knight Player Class. Why do you then think a Demon Hunter NPC is 1:1 with a DH Player Class?

What more evidence do you need?

Any evidence. What you are providing is pure conjecture. You have no proof that a Demon Hunter player class would use any of the abilities or equipment you mentioned above, because it's simple fact that the class does not yet exist.

[Realsykes]

RPG books are not canon. The RPG books are also very specific about how Spectral Sight was obtained, but it's all rendered unofficial when Metzen came out and said 'The RPG books are not official'.

Oh please -.-

You can give that excuse up any point.

Do you know WHY they are considered non-canon, are do you just like throwing that excuse out there every time you don't like an answer?

It's because of the challenge ratings in the rpg books, not the lore. You're welcome.

[Thimagryn]

Oh please -.-

You can give that excuse up any point.

Do you know WHY they are considered non-canon, are do you just like throwing that excuse out there every time you don't like an answer?

It's because of the challenge ratings in the rpg books, not the lore. You're welcome.

The RPG books aren't canon. It's why none of us on either side of the argument are sourcing them, and being careful to source official information. Even WoWiki and Wowpedia are not 100% credible sources. We are sourcing descriptions from Warcraft 3 and WoW, and official sources such as their Webpage, Official Guides or Novels.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/to...1372142?page=1

Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?
A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated

I can assure you, if the RPG books were canon, I would be sourcing them directly, as Spectral Sight and the Ritual Sacrifice of Demon Hunters clearly make them distinct from Warlocks. It would have also alleviated the conflict of what races could and could not be Demon Hunters, since APG states that all classes can be potential Demon Hunters. Sadly all this information is rendered non-canon.

[Teriz]

We have NPC abilities and Warlock spells. We have Rogue/Warrior Weapons and Rogue spells. None of this is specifically 'Demon Hunter' because the Demon Hunter Player Class isn't using any of these spells. You even recognize the difference between Baron Rivendare; a Death Knight NPC; and a Death Knight Player Class. Why do you then think a Demon Hunter NPC is 1:1 with a DH Player Class?

A Demon Hunter player class isn't using any of these spells because there isn't a DH player class. And there never will be a DH player class because almost every ability associated with it currently resides in other classes.

Any evidence. What you are providing is pure conjecture. You have no proof that a Demon Hunter player class would use any of the abilities or equipment you mentioned above, because it's simple fact that the class does not yet exist.

The class doesn't exist because for all intents and purposes its already in the game.

Really, this isn't that hard.

[Armourboy]

I put new class but honestly I think it would be a cool idea for a 4th Rogue spec one of these days( tanking), but not really worried about it.

[Realsykes]

The RPG books aren't canon. It's why none of us on either side of the argument are sourcing them, and being careful to source official information. Even WoWiki and Wowpedia are not 100% credible sources. We are sourcing descriptions from Warcraft 3 and WoW, and official sources such as their Webpage, Official Guides or Novels.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/to...1372142?page=1

So, what about the stuff that's in both the rpg books and the games, does that make them non-canon with in a canon?

Paradox.

Everyone who's ever had this discussion has full well known they just blanket statemented it as non canon for the sake of not having to go through every single little line and relay whether it's canon or not.

That argument is bad and doesn't prove anything. If it were a stupid third party fan fiction book made on some person's blog, I'd agree.

[Thimagryn]

So, what about the stuff that's in both the rpg books and the games, does that make them non-canon with in a canon?

Paradox.

Everyone who's ever had this discussion has full well known they just blanket statemented it as non canon for the sake of not having to go through every single little line and relay whether it's canon or not.

That argument is bad and doesn't prove anything. If it were a stupid third party fan fiction book made on some person's blog, I'd agree.

That's pretty much what the RPG books were. While there is a lot of overlap into WoW, there is a lot of information that is wildly off as well. Take all of the Pandaren information in the RPG books for example, they talk about Shadopan wariors, but they are not the same as the ones found in MoP. There are also talks of Geomancers and Pikemen, who don't appear anywhere in the games. There's even massive overlap with Dungeons and Dragons lore, like Goblins using Phlogiston as a main fuel source.

For all intents and purposes, the rpg books are deemed non-canon. Period.

No one is interested in debating fan fiction, so we try to keep references to RPG books minimal to none. Of course, it's not 100% avoidable since you'll have new people jumping into the middle of the conversation and bring up a quote from APG now and again, or making assumptions based on what they read on WoWWiki (Demon Hunters being any class) and believe it to be true because it's on the Wiki.

Just get it in your head before someone else has to tell you the same thing.

[Talen]

So, what about the stuff that's in both the rpg books and the games, does that make them non-canon with in a canon?

Paradox.

What's in the game is canon. Whats in the novels is canon. What is the comics is canon - in the case of Me'dan, unfortunately so.

What's in the RPG is not. It used to be.
It isn't now

Everyone who's ever had this discussion has full well known they just blanket statemented it as non canon for the sake of not having to go through every single little line and relay whether it's canon or not.

Yes. And also to keep the amount of material at a reasonable level. The RPG was always a bit quirky.

EJL

[Zenny]

So, what about the stuff that's in both the rpg books and the games, does that make them non-canon with in a canon?

Paradox.

Everyone who's ever had this discussion has full well known they just blanket statemented it as non canon for the sake of not having to go through every single little line and relay whether it's canon or not.

That argument is bad and doesn't prove anything. If it were a stupid third party fan fiction book made on some person's blog, I'd agree.

No, anything in the books and game would be canon, as it is in the game. Anything that is exclusive to the RPG books is non-canon as stated by Blizzard themselves. No paradox at all.

The RPG books have as much validity as a "stupid third party fan fiction book made on some person's blog".

[judgementofantonidas]

i would like to see them implemented............NOT.