demon hunter is too similar to warlocks and could just be a 4th spec melee spec inste

[Alexanderjac]

ad of a new class because some people were saying it could be a new class and i disagree with that

[Traveler Voltin]

Are you trying to start a flame war?

[Therougetitan]

No demon hunter class or fourth spec for warlocks

[mvaliz]

How can you compare the two when one class doesn't currently exist in World of Warcraft yet?

Everything at this point is theorycrafted. But, IMO, if there was such a demonhunter - they'd probably use ranged or melee weapons and NOT use a pet (they're a demon HUNTER... not a Demon USER [ie. warlock)). Not to mention they'd figure out a tanking/healing spec for them JUST for gameplay balance purposes. Those three things separate them from warlocks by miles.

[Thimagryn]

Your opinion is highly valued, bro.

[Talen]

How can you compare the two when one class doesn't currently exist in World of Warcraft yet?

They both exist and are represented in game. One simply isn't playable. OTOH, we've interacted with DHs, quested with them, and they have a degree of lore and presence within the game.

Everything at this point is theorycrafted.

No....not everything is theory crafted. We've been given lore in the games, books, comics. We have canonical write ups on the Web. We can see DHs in the game and what they do and how they are shown. Blizzard has, on occasion, mentioned them in their talks or discussions or twitter feeds. They've arguably gotten more development than some existing classes.

But, IMO, if there was such a demonhunter - they'd probably use ranged or melee weapons and NOT use a pet (they're a demon HUNTER... not a Demon USER [ie. warlock)). Not to mention they'd figure out a tanking/healing spec for them JUST for gameplay balance purposes. Those three things separate them from warlocks by miles.

Warlocks can act without demons and DHs have worked with and used Demons.
Warlocks can use melee weapons even though their current specs aren't focussed on their use. Further, if a precedent was needed, Grand Warlock Nethekurse exists, as does the fact Meta has...at times...been a melee form.
Warlocks have an in game history associated with tanking. Its not focussed to the point of being worthy of a spec and it waxes and wanes according to the XPac but it is an activity Warlocks have been engaged in and even associated with to a degree.

So far, the biggest differentiator between the two as far as gameplay goes is that Warlocks don't have a dual wield skill.

The Warlock has been given the DHs moves and abilities. Its been given its looks. It covers pretty much the same design themes and concepts. The DH class concept, such as it is, has been ripped up and used to bolster the Warlock class.

If we take a Warlock, give him the dual wield skill and a spec to make him a viable meleer....we have a Demon Hunter.

A standalone class isn't going to happen. An advanced or hybrid class system....maybe. 4th specs? If 4th specs are added, the Demon Hunter would be an obvious choice for Warlocks, building on the existing design and opening up a melee based cloth tank. It'd also open up the Warlock role for both Draenei and NElfs and we know Blizzard is looking into opening up more class race combos.

EJL

[Bubblebeard]

Oh look it's a search function ... Well wadda ya know this thread already exists a million times.
You can think all you want in the end there is only one decisionmaker namely (drumroll) Blizzard. And for some reason, unless you are in a decision making position at Blizzard, your opinion is not realy relevant.

[shoc]

Demon Hunter should never happen as a class. It is the furthest thing from a generic RPG archetype, it doesn't fit the pattern of Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Monk, etc. They also wouldn't have a unique skill set because of the fact that most of their abilities are covered by Warlocks and Rogues.

Not to mention, they would be a Leather wearing melee class, and Monks killed any possible chance of Demon Hunters ever getting a spot in the WoW class roster.

The only two other remotely reasonable new classes are the Bard and the Tinker. Bard being a Cloth wearing music themed ranged DPS/Healer, and Tinker being a Mail wearing engineering based DPS/Tank.

[DeadmanWalking]

OP has no clue what class design involves. To make a class you put in key abilities and then to make a spec you have to take what the class has and then add in a few abilities to differenciate the gameplay from ranged to melee to tank to healer. Warlock doesn't have the base to be a melee class since all of its spells are ranged resource providers or expenders.

I'd lay out examples but it would be too deep of a conversation for this thread. Someone's panties got in a twist because a lot of people want demon hunters and they are terrified it will actually happen instead of what they actually want.

- - - Updated - - -

Demon Hunter should never happen as a class. It is the furthest thing from a generic RPG archetype, it doesn't fit the pattern of Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Monk, etc. They also wouldn't have a unique skill set because of the fact that most of their abilities are covered by Warlocks and Rogues.

Not to mention, they would be a Leather wearing melee class, and Monks killed any possible chance of Demon Hunters ever getting a spot in the WoW class roster.

The only two other remotely reasonable new classes are the Bard and the Tinker. Bard being a Cloth wearing music themed ranged DPS/Healer, and Tinker being a Mail wearing engineering based DPS/Tank.

They are only 'the only reasonable class' because in your head Picard is saying, 'Make it so.'

[Pandragon]

just make demon form permanent for demo locks and make them melee. blizzard keeps talking about making the pure classes play differently for all 3 specs. aff is dots. destro is direct spells, and demo is a mixture of both with a pet. if demo was melee, then all 3 would be different.

honestly we are over do for a melee/tank cloth class, and a ranged dps int plate class(unholy dks should have been this as a herald to to the old gul'dan Dks).

[Talen]

OP has no clue what class design involves. To make a class you put in key abilities and then to make a spec you have to take what the class has and then add in a few abilities to differenciate the gameplay from ranged to melee to tank to healer. Warlock doesn't have the base to be a melee class since all of its spells are ranged resource providers or expenders.

I'd lay out examples but it would be too deep of a conversation for this thread. Someone's panties got in a twist because a lot of people want demon hunters and they are terrified it will actually happen instead of what they actually want.

We have a fair idea how Blizzard goes around designing classes and specs. Its given us enough discussions, talks, blogs, tweets, etc over the years that cover various of class design.

They take archetypes and concepts around which a class can be designed, to give it flavour and identity. The Combat Rogue is the Swashbuckler, the Fury Warrior is the Barbarian, the Paladin is Captain America, the Windwalker is the Wise Old Sage and so on. That's Blizzards starting point for specs and classes and they build moves and roles and abilities onto that concept, n line with its archetype and flavour.

The first step to adding and building up a Demon Hunter class would therefore be the same. Giving it a unique theme, archetype, flavour and identity.

And this is why the DH can't be a standalone class....there is no unique theme, archetype, concept, identity around which it can be built. Sure...Blizzard could go ahead anyway, but why should it? Adding it in unchanged simply dilutes those aspects shared by other classes,and makes THEM less unique. Adding it in with a changed identity simply give you a different class with a stolen name.

For the DH to be added, we need to take it as it currently exists and try to come up with a theme which would encompass that and still be unique.

Demons? Fighting fire with fire? Making a pact with darkness for power? Making a deal with the devil? Faust?

Those all describe the Demon Hunter. They also describe the Warlock. Even were you to find some other concept....that wouldn't remove the overlap that exists dues to these themes.

Would Blizzard change its design process? Alter its class design style? Make it so this overlap isn't important? Maybe...but why should it? Class identity is important to players as well and while one group might not mind the overlap, another would. The class doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Blizzard gains nothing by adding in DHs as a standalone class. Nor can it easily alter the existing depiction given the interactions and examples we've already had. Nor is it going to essentially duplicate another class....it can't add an infinite number of classes, there is a limit as there is an ongoing overhead and classes need to be distinct. At most, we can probably expect two more base classes. And that the Monk is the last certainly wouldn't be impossible.

As it is, when WoW players speak of DHs, they don't mean Buffy or Dante or Valla ....they mean Illidan.

Blizzard may offer DHs as some sort of advanced/hybrid class. They could offer it as a 4th spec. But they aren't going to change the entire basis of how they design classes in this game....the concept has far too much overlap with Warlocks in looks, abilities, themes, concepts to be a standalone class. Nor would Blizzard have torn the DH apart, giving existing classes...especially the Warlock...its abilities, it's looks if it had any intention (or even the possibility) of adding DHs as a standalone class.

As it is, assuming you are correct, the DH has one iconic move. One move strongly associated with the class. And Warlocks have it. Gameplay can be added to any class or spec. Specs can have different rotations and combat styles. They can have different flavours, different feels simply by giving each different moves, different resource mecvhanics, different CDs with different affects. What makes a class or spec are the archetypes, the tropes, the stereotypes, the concepts and themes associated with a class. Once you have those in place, it almost doesn't matter about the specific abilities.

EJL

[Dead_MAX]

Actually that sounds pretty good to me.

[fenixazul]

Ok, so , I assume that you are talking about the demon hunter from Warcraft 3.

The only similar things between WOW warlocks and WC3 Demon hunters are Metamorphosis and Immolation aura, which can only be used by the warlock in his demon form (exclusive for demonology)

Other than that...

[Talen]

Ok, so , I assume that you are talking about the demon hunter from Warcraft 3.

The only similar things between WOW warlocks and WC3 Demon hunters are Metamorphosis and Immolation aura, which can only be used by the warlock in his demon form (exclusive for demonology)

Other than that...

....they're just about identical in every way save Warlocks don't have dual wield. Canonically at least. Leaving aside the issue of specific abilities....at the spec level...if you can come up with a difference between the two worthy of a separate classes, you'd be the first.

And no...I'm talking about WoW DHs.

Most people usually try to push the idea Warlocks are bad and DHs are good or similar, as if we can't have good Warlocks or bad DHs. Others try to push RPG info little caring it isn't canon while others try to suggest Warlocks can't be melee...ignoring or discounting the canon that they can.

The question isn't what moves or abilities the Warlock or DH has....it is what separates the DH class from the Warlock. What is it that makes a DH so different in theme or concept or archeype that one cannot model a DH using a Warlock.

The answer is simple.....nothing. The biggest difference is that DHs have the Dual Wield skill. You give a Warlock the Dual Wield skill and you have a class that has the same themes and concepts and archetypes as those embodied by the Demon Hunter. That a Demon Hunter tends to fight in melee doesn't change that.

But as I said, feel free to try and think up any meaningful difference...something actually incompatible between the two classes.

EJL

[Golden Yak]

Warlocks have probably adopted too many demon hunter-esque abilities at this point to make DHs a viable class, but I'd rather have them as a class than a 4th warlock spec - the demon hunter fighting style you see in WC3 and HotS is very different from a warlock's spell-based powers, and melee warlocks are too wild a departure from the theme of the class. Demon Hunters are closer to a melee-spell class like paladins.

[Traveler Voltin]

Do i need to get the demon hunter page?

[Wyrt]

I never really got the appeal of demon hunters or warlocks. I just pretend my warlock is a blood mage with her little phoenix and floaty ball things.

Though, I suppose if you wanted you could make every commonly requested class into a 4th spec.
Hunter-Tinker
Warlock-Demon hunter
Rogue-Dark Ranger
Death knight-Necromancer
Priest-Bard
Mage-Artificer
Warrior-Warden

There you go, I think that's all of them. Many new class!

[IIamaKing]

I never really got the appeal of demon hunters or warlocks. I just pretend my warlock is a blood mage with her little phoenix and floaty ball things.

Though, I suppose if you wanted you could make every commonly requested class into a 4th spec.
Hunter-Tinker
Warlock-Demon hunter
Rogue-Dark Ranger
Death knight-Necromancer
Priest-Bard
Mage-Artificer
Warrior-Warden

There you go, I think that's all of them. Many new class!

This would actually be a pretty neat idea.

[ro9ue]

Demon Hunter = 4th Rogue spec.
Dark Ranger = 5th Rogue spec.
Tinker = 6th Rogue spec.
Bard = 7th Rogue spec.

Fuck you other classes.

[Talen]

Warlocks have probably adopted too many demon hunter-esque abilities at this point to make DHs a viable class, but I'd rather have them as a class than a 4th warlock spec - the demon hunter fighting style you see in WC3 and HotS is very different from a warlock's spell-based powers, and melee warlocks are too wild a departure from the theme of the class. Demon Hunters are closer to a melee-spell class like paladins.

The combat style we see in WoW and WC3 is melee based combat backed up by spells.

In practise....this translates to auto attacking while spell casting. I'd expect a playable DH to be just a bit more complex....the point I'm trying to make is that a DH in melee range could be depicted as auto attacking while casting spells just as easily as he could be depicted as having a wild and fluid melee combat style. Look at Paladins and Shamans and DKs and so on for various methods via which spells and meleeing can be mixed.

We can presume nothing from the combat style in WC3 or WoW. Not only is it likely to change, but the combat style we see is autoattack while spell casting.

And while you might consider a melee Warlock too wild a departure from the theme of the class....there are two issues with this.

First...the presumption that favoured combat range actually is a part of the actual class theme as opposed to the spec based gameplay role of, in this cased, ranged spell DPS. Givee this is a class which several times in the past few years has been given a number of moves and abilities suited for a melee role, this seems unlikely.

Second, it ignores that melee Warlocks can exist and DO exist. They've meleed in the past, they've been given melee moves and abilities, tanking for your demon wasn't an unusual strategy either. The viability of such tactics has changed throughout the years....the existence of such tactics hasn't. Further, were more evidence needed, Grand Warlock Nethekurse is a Warlock who melees....to the point he has more melee capability than any DH outside Illidan. One can perhaps make the argument such a combat style is rare....not that it doesn't exist.

These points aren't new. And yes, one can make the argument that Blizzard COUILD make a DH class. And that it could design three specs for it. And that it is likely we'd get a better, more in depth look at DHs by adding them as a full class rather than a spec.

All of which is beside the point. The question is whether Blizzard WOULD do it. Whether they would add a class so similar in theme and concept to one which already exists. Whether they would tick off DH players by denying them Meta and Illidans look. Whether they would tick off Warlock players by having another class share their themes and design concepts. Whether they would use up a rare class slot and accept the continuing workload requirement to add a class that effectively already exists? Whether they would put themselves in the situation of having to split ideas for lore and abilities between two classes instead of one. Whether they would have torn the DH apart and given its moves, its abilities, its look to another class if they had ANY intention of ever adding it in

The answer is, they wouldn't.

EJL