Could Dark Ranger be the next WoW class?

[Trollokdamus]

Conversely, a Dark Ranger is literally just a Survival hunter without a pet, and with a little more shadow damage.

A Demon Hunter is literally just an Enhancement shaman/Death Knight without totems/runes, and with a little more fel damage.
A Destruction warlock is literally just a Fire mage with a pet, and with a little more shadow damage.
A Feral druid is literally just a Rogue with a cat form, and with a little more bleed damage.
Etc.

Dark Rangers are inherently tied to the Forsaken. It's like asking to be a Human Grom Hellscream.

BE paladins are Blood Knights. Tauren paladins are Sunwalkers. The same way troll Dark Rangers may be Shadow Hunters, NE Dark Rangers Elune worshippers and so on.

[Wildberry]

A Demon Hunter is literally just an Enhancement shaman/Death Knight without totems/runes, and with a little more fel damage.
A Destruction warlock is literally just a Fire mage with a pet, and with a little more shadow damage.
A Feral druid is literally just a Rogue with a cat form, and with a little more bleed damage.
Etc.

Nice try, but there's an inherent thematic difference in all of those examples. Don't be purposefully stupid to try and forward some ridiculous narrative.

BE paladins are Blood Knights. Tauren paladins are Sunwalkers. The same way troll Dark Rangers may be Shadow Hunters, NE Dark Rangers Elune worshippers and so on.

Blood Knights still fall under "Paladin," Shadow Hunters are no where close to Dark Rangers.

[Deleted]

imho:
1. next class should be mail armor class
- 3 plates
- 2 mails <-
- 3 leathers
- 3 clothes
2. class role? pure dps (1 melee and 2 ranged) or hybrid (1 tank, 1 healer, 1 dps) for role balance
- 5 tanks
- 5 heals
- 7 melee <-
- 6 ranged <-
3. only hunters can use bows, guns, xbows? why not another class can use it
4. many ppl want demon hunter? (me2), so my idea is that dark ranger should be spec for demon hunter alongside with Warden. DH - melee, DR - ranged, Warden - spell ranged mail wearing, dual wielding 1h swords / bows/ guns/ xbows/ 1hxbows or pistols (new weapons).
5. Lore/ race? Illidan is comming back with Maiev, both could teach DH/ Warden stuff with little touch of DR stuff from whatever Blizz will imagine. Best suited races for DH - horde: orc, belf, ud. Ally: Human, dwarf, nelf, worgen draenei (?)
6. DR is too similiar to common hunter? and Dk is not another arms warrior/ret pala? If u mean it will looks like hunter - sure, but abilities should be waaaay diffrent - life draining/magic infused shots, charms, curses, (mix skills from another classes).

Dark ranger alone would be hard to make class, i think it has more chances in spec on existing/future class.

[l33t]

I seriously hope no. We really really really really don't need any more classes. Or races. We need 4th spec, though.

[Selah]

No, Dark Ranger has no place in WoW in a class. Honestly all Blizz would need to do is give a minor glyph to hunters that just changes abilities to be a shadow damage version of current abilities and give the hunters a spider pet.

[Lillyth]

No, Dark Ranger has no place in WoW in a class. Honestly all Blizz would need to do is give a minor glyph to hunters that just changes abilities to be a shadow damage version of current abilities and give the hunters a spider pet.

I do not think you know how dark rangers work x_x

[Selah]

I do not think you know how dark rangers work x_x

Please enlighten me. Last I checked they used ranged weapons, shadow damage based abilities, and may or may not have a pet depending on what school of thought you subscribe to.

[Deleted]

What you basicly want is to play a skinny pale red-eyed undead elf, like the images shown across this thread.

May I remind you however, even if they introduce a ‘Dark Ranger’ class, that you still won’t be able to play Sylvanas 2.0?

Forsaken will still be the undead human models. Bloodelves will still be the alive bloodelf models. All other races would still have their original models.

”But DKs have glowing blue eyes and different skin colors, too!”

They got these from the Lich King, broke free from his grasp and can now fight for their original faction.

Dark Rangers got their appearance because they are banshees who regained their former physical bodies. The problem: banshees are loyal to the banshee queen. IF they possess other races (and thus giving them the look) they would still be loyal to Sylvanas. Other Horde races wouldn’t tolerate, allies wouldn’t trust.

Besides you can already RP as a Dark Ranger as there are plenty of skully bows, several hoods and dark mail themes available. 2 mins made these:

[Trollokdamus]

Nice try, but there's an inherent thematic difference in all of those examples. Don't be purposefully stupid to try and forward some ridiculous narrative.

I was just trying to say that your comparison of DR and Surv isn't really any better than the ones listed above. There's an inherent thematic difference between these two as well.

Blood Knights still fall under "Paladin," Shadow Hunters are no where close to Dark Rangers.

Well, what about Sunwalkers? They surely don't fall under "Paladin" at all. Sunwalker's theme and power source have nothing to do with the original paladins, yet here they are being paladins gameplay-wise. Same goes for Shadow Hunters and original Dark Rangers - both are using ranged weapons and shadow magic, yet the source of the latter is different. For DR it's necromancy while for SH it's Loa spirits.

[Kelathos]

Dark Ranger class would fit into my wish for a Lordaeron expansion.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt Blizzard weights these particulars as strongly as we (I) do.

[Tart]

Well there's that, and WoW opens up the possibility of a melee spec.

So then a Rogue?

[Wildberry]

I was just trying to say that your comparison of DR and Surv isn't really any better than the ones listed above. There's an inherent thematic difference between these two as well.

Not nearly as great as the examples you listed by a longshot, false equivalencies and exaggeration aren't good to base an argument on.

Well, what about Sunwalkers? They surely don't fall under "Paladin" at all. Sunwalker's theme and power source have nothing to do with the original paladins, yet here they are being paladins gameplay-wise. Same goes for Shadow Hunters and original Dark Rangers - both are using ranged weapons and shadow magic, yet the source of the latter is different. For DR it's necromancy while for SH it's Loa spirits.

Because Sunwalkers still do what a Paladin does; Shadow Hunters don't.

Shadow Hunters don't used "Ranged Weapons" like bows, crossbows and guns, they use glaives.
Their Shadow magic, is as you said, derived from the Loa; however, their "Shadow Magic" does something else entirely than Dark Rangers.

Most of the "Shadow Hunter" abilities have been rolled into Shamans, actually. So there's a rather big difference, which makes that a bad example.

[Wildberry]

then let's not ignore genocide, destruction of the environment, endorsement of weapons of mass destruction, indefinite detention of dissenters, etc. etc. etc. a.k.a. a dictator that led a regime bent on conquering the world, or burning it to ashes should that fail.

Yeah, I suppose starving to death in the desert, while remaining pacifistic is a much better idea.

Furthermore, nearly all races are guilty of attempted genocide. Many of destruction of the environment (In WCIII that was a Night Elven gripe with the humans).

In regards to "WMDs" I find it funny, it's okay for Sylvanas to use the plague, and it's okay for Vol'jin to continue manufacturing mana bombs, but it's not okay when a character you don't like does it.

Indefinite detention of dissenters is a reasonable action in times of total war or national strife. Furthermore, Lor'themar is just as bad, considering that, under him, dissenters in Silvermoon were mind controlled by magisters.

But hey, keep spewing empty rhetoric, and exaggerations to obscure the fact that Garrosh is not the only one who's done these things.

[Wildberry]

That's funny, I actually consider Garrosh to be one of the best written characters Blizzard has ever created and I'd consider him a favorite, doesn't change him being an ethno-centric bastard though.

Whether or not you think the character is well written has no bearing on whether you "like" or "dislike" that character, in the sense that I'm speaking about.

Regardless of your opinions of Garrosh, how is it okay for Sylvanas to use WMDs, and for Vol'jin (Who was supposedly angry at Garrosh for moral reasons) to continue manufacturing the very weapon he took issue with Garrosh using?

In regards to Garrosh's ethnocentrism, he has said, in both 5.1 and Warcrimes, that he would "stop at nothing to ensure a proud and glorious future for the Orcs, and any with the courage to stand with us."

However, instead of standing with the Orcs, the other leaders and people complained about having to finally pull their weight, (Previously, the other races were taking more than they put in, as noted in Heart of War.) tried to undermine Garrosh politically at every turn, made death threats, challenged his leadership, considered treason, committed treason, and held "Anti-Garrosh" meetings behind his back.

It shouldn't be hard to see why his "ethnocentrism" is pretty justifiable.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to be bouncing back and forth between "He's a racist, so it's not okay," and "He does bad things."

Looking back over this discussion, it seems as you're trying to simultaneously say that Garrosh is worse because "he's racist," and when given reasons for his racism, you try and bring up his "bad deeds," when comparable bad deeds committed by other leaders are brought up, you go back to "he's a racist." Let's not talk in circles.

[Darththeo]

Not a class, but Forsaken Hunters should get Belf Models ... there, Dark Ranger.

[CaptainV]

Dark Ranger or Ranger is certainly "needed" since we NEED a competitor to compete for Hunter weapons, and another ranged class.

But I dont know if it will be the next class.

[Maxilian]

no. dark rangers are rangers who died and were raised as undead, currently only the forsaken have dark rangers as the elite guards/agents of Sylvanas.

a ranger would be a more likely candidate but even that theme is currently filled by marksman hunters.

I think Dark Rangers could be a good new talent option (give hunter 4 options like Druids) but Blizzard could make them a new class...

[Wyrt]

That would be the tinker, it would fit within in a new theme as well as be able to compete with hunters for weapons.

Yeah, they'd be a bit more distinct and it'd be a lot easier to explain why a bunch of races on both factions have them. Good number of races make their own stuff, and most the others use stuff from those other races. Only outliers might be tauren and night elf.

[Wildberry]

All of those are reasons why he makes for a great character, but using others action as an excuse doesn't make what he did okay or understandable by any means.

No, it doesn't; however, to say that Garrosh deserves to die because X, Y and Z, is not logically consistent when those actions have also been done by the very characters that will be taking Garrosh down.

I think something that people fail to realize is that geopolitics, fantasy or not, is not the realm for Captain America's moral compass.

mean right up until Siege I was calling bullshit because I still felt that he hadn't crossed that final line of loot pinata status to me. It was the vale, he made his decision and he deserved what happened after vale. He's a racist asshole who could care less about his allies much less his enemies and he deserved his fate

So you get mad about his (Justified) racism, but then you say that he hadn't crossed the line into "villain territory" until he blew up the vale.

There's one issue there, none of his racism occurred right when he blew up the vale. People can complain about the vale all they want, but there was nothing racist about that.

You're essentially saying: I didn't want Garrosh dead until X period in time. After that he deserved he's racist and deserves his fate.

Meanwhile, the "racism" happens prior to X.

For the record saying "They are no longer part of my Horde!" is not racist, especially when taking into consideration that, by that point, the Trolls were in open rebellion, Garrosh had knowledge that Lor'themar sat down with Varian, and the Tauren were assisting the Trolls in open rebellion.

And as a final note, him not caring about his allies isn't a big deal. He did care about them, he wanted their support. In Tides of War, Garrosh is convinced that Vol'jin and Baine will finally see the light after he starts making major progress in the war. Garrosh has also said (as of 5.1 and Warcrimes) that he "will stop at nothing to secure a proud and glorious future for the orcs and anyone with the courage to stand with us."

The only issue, is that his allies didn't stand with him. Essentially, you're giving these unsubstantiated opinions about "Garrosh is a mean old racist who didn't care about his allies" when, in reality, (and this is backed by in-game quotes, and novels) Garrosh quit caring about his allies because they stopped caring about the Horde, started trying to undermine his efforts constantly, committed treason, refused to acknowledge basic geopolitics and put petty quarrels above the wellbeing of their faction, etc.

After that point, him not caring about his allies is really the only logical position to take.

I don't see Sylvanas that way just because I think she still has redeeming qualities over all and find her story to be one of the most interesting in the game.

And what redeeming qualities are those? Whether or not you enjoy her story doesn't mean she isn't worse than Garrosh. I enjoy the Lich King's story, he's not a "better guy" than Garrosh.

Even with all of that though it does not negate in any way or excuse what Garrosh did.

All you've done, as stated previously, is give unsubstantiated opinions, while I've referenced novels and in-game dialogues. If X happens to person Y, and Z is the logical outcome, don't complain about person Y committing action Z.