Specializations

[username993720]

Are you really going to use Teriz logic and imply Abilities defines a class?

All I want is a simple acknowledgement that you understand that Thrall has never been referred to a Farseer in the lore. Something which you refuse to acknowledge.


Feral Spirit, Chain Lightning and Earthquake are abilities that a regular Shaman class has access to, without the Shaman class being called a Farseer. Same as how a Druid class has Starfall, without being called a Priestess of the Moon. The same way a Rogue has Fan of Knives and Shadowstep without being called a Warden. The same way a Shaman had Serpent Ward and Hex and Healing Wave without being called a Shadow Hunter.

He was refered to as such, by Sen'jin. But, you rather deny official lore than acknowledge it.

Anyway, i don't think this conversation is going anywhere.

[Triceron]

He was refered to as such, by Sen'jin. But, you rather deny official lore than acknowledge it.

Anyway, i don't think this conversation is going anywhere.

I addressed it very clearly by saying you're twisting the context to fit a different meaning. I even used Broxigar calling Tyrande a Shaman as a direct example of this. You're taking the application of the term too literally, which is completely out of the context of how Sen'jin addresses Thrall.


Seer =\= Farseer. Seer in Warcraft 3 was a broad term for anyone who has visions of the future. I even linked you the wowpedia page that literally says 'Not to be confused with Farseer'. Who is denying facts here?

Just accept that fact and we can move on.


And the whole point here is that I am refuting the muddled synonyms that has plagued Warcraft characters through years of WoW class homogenization and bridging of concepts. Where we used to have a clear division between units like Spiritwalker and Shaman and Farseer, you would freely swap those terms haphazardly. I mean even in your own admission, Drek'thar was a skin for Rehgar, who wasn't a Farseer either, and did not have Feral Spirit, Chain Lightning or Earthquake. So if you think Thrall is a Farseer because he has those abilities, then why is Drek'thar not a skin for Thrall? Using your own bogus logic, I can counter argue that the Drek'thar skin for Reh'gar makes him the modern representative for Farseer Class gameplay. But as I said, I reject your use and application of these terms entirely, since I recognize that the Farseer Class concept does not formally exist in HOTS, and character skins are not relevant to the topic of what a Farseer concept actually is. We already know what it is because of Warcraft 3's concepts, and it is not just a collection of abilities, it is a wise Spellcaster archetype.

The point here is the Farseer concept of a wise old spiritual spellcaster doesn't formally exist in HOTS. You can argue that you think Thrall covers all of the Farseer theme because he has those abilities, but Thrall is not representing a frail spellcaster archetype. Thrall is a melee-centric bruiser hero. Same way we can see Arthas and the DK having necromancy and summons, but is not a Spellcaster archetype, like a Necromancer or Lich. We don't say we already have Necromancers and Liches because DKs happen to use Frost and Unholy. That kind of muddled logic is often used by Teriz.

They are closely related class concepts, but very different archetypes. A Farseer Hero from WC3 is very different from Thrall from HOTS. Drek'thar is not a true Farseer hero in HOTS, he is merely a Skin for Rehgar, a representation of Restoration Shaman with a unique Ghost Wolf Combat twist.

The lines between different Hero archetypes have become muddled by WoW class design, and that's the problem. We have seen in modern WoW how Malfurion uses a bear form now. This does not mean he is a Druid of the Claw. Nor is he a Keeper of the Grove. He is an Arch Druid. I don't take it lightly if we start calling him Druid of the Claw, Keeper of the Grove, since these are titles he has never formally adopted. We should address his character by his actual titles, not just by observation that he must be a Druid of the Claw because he has bear form or that he is a Keeper of the Grove because he has entangle, force of nature and tranquility.

And overall it's as stupid as trying to convince anyone that Tyrande is a Shaman because Broxigar said so. Even if Broxigar is an authority on Orcish culture and would know what a Shaman is when he sees one, it doesn't make him an authority on classifying Tyrande. Which is exactly the situation between Sen'jin and Thrall, who literally only interact for two missions before Sen'jin straight up dies.

[username993720]

I addressed it very clearly by saying you're twisting the context to fit a different meaning. I even used Broxigar calling Tyrande a Shaman as a direct example of this. You're taking the application of the term too literally, which is completely out of the context of how Sen'jin addresses Thrall.


Seer =\= Farseer. Seer in Warcraft 3 was a broad term for anyone who has visions of the future. I even linked you the wowpedia page that literally says 'Not to be confused with Farseer'. Who is denying facts here?

Just accept that fact and we can move on.

The word Seer in Sen'jin's dialogue takes you directly to the Far Seer page.
Listen, this is not like Broxigar and Tyrande. If Sen'jin was to encounter a Tinker and call it a Mage because he's never seen technology before, that would be acceptable. But, Sen'jin has seen Shamans before. It's not outlandish to him. He may have never seen an Orc, but the profession of shamanism and Far Seeing is common among Azeroth's tribal and primitive races. Sen'jin has nothing to be confused about. The Seer page you're talking is about the general profession of seeing into the future. It is linked to Tauren Priests as well. But, also to Far Seers. Both see into the future. The word far is just to denote its extention. It doesn't mean that the Far Seer worships An'she or that Tauren Seers use the elements. It means both are visionaries in a way.

[Nightshade711]

I’m terms of adding specs I think a Necrolyte (essentially necromancer) spec would’ve been cool for Warlocks as it’s pet spec & keep demo as it was pre-legion.

I think they could’ve cut Survival and merged it with Marksman & BM and just making BM the melee spec (like Rexxar)

Evokers also could’ve just been two specs imo with Dev being Blue/Black and Pres with Red/Green. Both specs could’ve used bronze magic for utility.

[Triceron]

The word Seer in Sen'jin's dialogue takes you directly to the Far Seer page.
Listen, this is not like Broxigar and Tyrande. If Sen'jin was to encounter a Tinker and call it a Mage because he's never seen technology before, that would be acceptable. But, Sen'jin has seen Shamans before. It's not outlandish to him. He may have never seen an Orc, but the profession of shamanism and Far Seeing is common among Azeroth's tribal and primitive races. Sen'jin has nothing to be confused about. The Seer page you're talking is about the general profession of seeing into the future. It is linked to Tauren Priests as well. But, also to Far Seers. Both see into the future. The word far is just to denote its extention. It doesn't mean that the Far Seer worships An'she or that Tauren Seers use the elements. It means both are visionaries in a way.

Any regular Shaman can also be a Seer. That is what you're failing to acknowledge. You don't need to be a Farseer specifically to be acknowledged as a Seer. You can be a regular Shaman, as Thrall was.

Seer has a broad application, which includes Priests and Shamans that are not in any way associated to the specific title of Farseer. This includes Thrall, who is a Shaman with powers of foresight, but not a Farseer in rank or title. You understand what I'm saying here?

[username993720]

Any regular Shaman can also be a Seer. That is what you're failing to acknowledge. You don't need to be a Farseer specifically to be acknowledged as a Seer. You can be a regular Shaman, as Thrall was.

Seer has a broad application, which includes Priests and Shamans that are not in any way associated to the specific title of Farseer. This includes Thrall, who is a Shaman with powers of foresight, but not a Farseer in rank or title. You understand what I'm saying here?

-_-

You just described a Far Seer.
Listen, this is going nowhere. Let's put this discussion to rest.

[Triceron]

-_-

You just described a Far Seer.
Listen, this is going nowhere. Let's put this discussion to rest.

No, I just described every Player Character Shaman. ALL player Shamans are capable of Farsight. Yet none of our player Shaman characters are ever called Farseers.

The problem with WoW is they gave the Shaman class a bunch of identity of other classes, same way Shaman have Hex and Chain Healing and Serpent Ward without ever being called a Shadow Hunter or adopting the identity. Players can not actually play as a Shadow Hunter. They can not play a Farseer or a Spirit Walker or any other shamanistic type of Hero. All you can play as is a Shaman, period. All of those titles could only be adapted through unofficial RP and Headcanon. That is why my system would actually address this issue by having multiple Shamanistic class archetypes be officially playable.

But considering you see no difference between Lich King and Death Knight, I guess I'm talking to a wall anyways.

[username993720]

No, I just described every Player Character Shaman. ALL player Shamans are capable of Farsight. Yet none of our player Shaman characters are ever called Farseers.

Farseer is a title rewarded to shaman for completing N Shaman [45] Allegiance of Flame. The title will show before the character's name, in the following format:

Farseer <name>

The problem with WoW is they gave the Shaman class a bunch of identity of other classes, same way Shaman have Hex and Chain Healing and Serpent Ward without ever being called a Shadow Hunter or adopting the identity. Players can not actually play as a Shadow Hunter. They can not play a Farseer or a Spirit Walker or any other shamanistic type of Hero. All you can play as is a Shaman, period. All of those titles could only be adapted through unofficial RP and Headcanon. That is why my system would actually address this issue by having multiple Shamanistic class archetypes be officially playable.

I disagree.
You can play as a Far Seer through the Enhancement talent tree and Spirit Walker through the Restoration tree. What you can't is a Shadow Hunter. No tree is dedicated to voodoo and Loa.

But considering you see no difference between Lich King and Death Knight, I guess I'm talking to a wall anyways.

He is a Death Knight. Just more powerful. Look at Arthas in HotS. Look at his raid abilities.

[Triceron]

He is a Death Knight. Just more powerful. Look at Arthas in HotS. Look at his raid abilities.

The point is it is a title of a specific character, and not all DKs are like Arthas, and are not Lich Kings themselves. You seem to not care about the difference nor do you respect the titles and their meanings. You think all DKs are just like the Lich King.

And that's the same problems that Blizzard applies with most classes taking up too much identity of other concepts and identities, like how some people would even go as far as arguing DKs are Liches or have argued that Warlocks were the same as Demon hunters because they had Metamorphosis. The line between classes is quite thin, and honestly defined by the whims of the designers and little else. There is no consistency to what identities would be bridged into existing classes.

I disagree.
You can play as a Far Seer through the Enhancement talent tree and Spirit Walker through the Restoration tree. What you can't is a Shadow Hunter. No tree is dedicated to voodoo and Loa.

But that is also part of the problem. If they can do this for Farseers, they can do this for Shadow Hunters, they can do this for Dark Rangers, they can do this for POTM. All of these could be added as titles for existing classes, then you don't get a new class for these Heros, period.

This has already happened with Dark Rangers. I don't see this as a good thing for the game, I don't think it's necessarily good for players either. All it helps is RP, which is sadly the only way to play as any class that isn't yet playable. And very frankly, if Blizzard goes the way of adding more titles and Hero Talents, classes like Shadow Hunter and POTM will just be extensions of Shamans and Druids or Priests. Same way Farseer has become an extension of Shaman.

Honestly, would you really want a Voodoo Spec for Shamans and call it a day? Do you think that would be better than a Shadow Hunter class for itself?

[username993720]

The point is it is a title of a specific character, and not all DKs are like Arthas, and are not Lich Kings themselves. You seem to not care about the difference nor do you respect the titles and their meanings. You think all DKs are just like the Lich King.

And that's the same problems that Blizzard applies with most classes taking up too much identity of other concepts and identities, like how some people would even go as far as arguing DKs are Liches or have argued that Warlocks were the same as Demon hunters because they had Metamorphosis. The line between classes is quite thin, and honestly defined by the whims of the designers and little else. There is no consistency to what identities would be bridged into existing classes.



But that is also part of the problem. If they can do this for Farseers, they can do this for Shadow Hunters, they can do this for Dark Rangers, they can do this for POTM. All of these could be added as titles for existing classes, then you don't get a new class for these Heros, period.

This has already happened with Dark Rangers. I don't see this as a good thing for the game, I don't think it's necessarily good for players either. All it helps is RP, which is sadly the only way to play as any class that isn't yet playable. And very frankly, if Blizzard goes the way of adding more titles and Hero Talents, classes like Shadow Hunter and POTM will just be extensions of Shamans and Druids or Priests. Same way Farseer has become an extension of Shaman.

Honestly, would you really want a Voodoo Spec for Shamans and call it a day? Do you think that would be better than a Shadow Hunter class for itself?

Let me ask you this:
What do you think Elemental, Enhancement and Restoration Shamans are?

[Triceron]

Let me ask you this:
What do you think Elemental, Enhancement and Restoration Shamans are?

In WoW, they cover anything and everything remotely related to Shamanism, except for anything that happens to already be its own class like a Monk or Priest or Warlock.

Farseers, Spiritwalkers, Shadow Hunters, Earthbinders, Dark Shaman, Waterspeakers, Primalists, Wildhammer Stormriders, Tide Sages etc.

WoW doesn't make any true distinction between any of them because WoW classes are built like D&D; purely around however people want to RP their character. It's why every class has so many abilities from other class concepts folded into themselves. It's part of why Blizzard is adding so many race options. The only class that seems free from this is the DH, since it is literally specifically a Demon Hunter and is not designed to be anything more than that.

Yet it's all muddled under a single class concept, because even if the Shaman bridges together Tide Sages and Wildhammer Dwarf Stormriders and Dark Iron Dark Shaman, they all end up with the exact same specs and gameplay, and it makes no sense for any Tide Sage to be using Lava lash or a Dark Iron Shaman using water heals or a Wildhammer Stormrider using Hex and Bloodlust.

That is the whole point of why I would prefer Hero identities remain separated. Stormriders and Tidesages could still be considered shamanistic characters, but their identity shouldn't be homogenized into being the same type of Shamans. Tide Sages and Stormriders are not a master of all 4 elements, and not a spiritual Seer. But in gameplay terms, they ARE masters of all elements, and spiritual seers, who call upon the wilds.

You could argue that Tide Sages should only be represented by Restoration spec because of water heals; but that doesn't account for the fact that they would still be using Earth Shields and have ghost wolf form and summon wolf spirits and use Bloodlust and cast Hex and plop down Totems derived from tribal culture, which they aren't really themed around.

That is why I am proposing my concept that would easily fix and address these issues, by allowing classes to house the specs that best fit them, and by allowing Class Talents to fill in the gaps with extra abilities and visuals.

A Tide Sage could easily be a mix of Restoration (Water heal), Frost, and Storm (Elemental spec, but without Fire and Earth). Tide Sages don't need to follow a mastery of all Elements, they don't need to have Bloodlust, they don't need to use Totems, they don't need to have Wolf spirits or Wolf form or Hex. Yet they can still be classified as being shamanistic, and still command the elements, and still hold their Kul Tiran heritage close to concept.

[username993720]

In WoW, they cover anything and everything remotely related to Shamanism, except for anything that happens to already be its own class like a Monk or Priest or Warlock.

Farseers, Spiritwalkers, Shadow Hunters, Earthbinders, Dark Shaman, Waterspeakers, Primalists, Wildhammer Stormriders, Tide Sages etc.

WoW doesn't make any true distinction between any of them because WoW classes are built like D&D; purely around however people want to RP their character. It's why every class has so many abilities from other class concepts folded into themselves. It's part of why Blizzard is adding so many race options. The only class that seems free from this is the DH, since it is literally specifically a Demon Hunter and is not designed to be anything more than that.

Yet it's all muddled under a single class concept, because even if the Shaman bridges together Tide Sages and Wildhammer Dwarf Stormriders and Dark Iron Dark Shaman, they all end up with the exact same specs and gameplay, and it makes no sense for any Tide Sage to be using Lava lash or a Dark Iron Shaman using water heals or a Wildhammer Stormrider using Hex and Bloodlust.

That is the whole point of why I would prefer Hero identities remain separated. Stormriders and Tidesages could still be considered shamanistic characters, but their identity shouldn't be homogenized into being the same type of Shamans. Tide Sages and Stormriders are not a master of all 4 elements, and not a spiritual Seer. But in gameplay terms, they ARE masters of all elements, and spiritual seers, who call upon the wilds.

You could argue that Tide Sages should only be represented by Restoration spec because of water heals; but that doesn't account for the fact that they would still be using Earth Shields and have ghost wolf form and summon wolf spirits and use Bloodlust and cast Hex and plop down Totems derived from tribal culture, which they aren't really themed around.

That is why I am proposing my concept that would easily fix and address these issues, by allowing classes to house the specs that best fit them, and by allowing Class Talents to fill in the gaps with extra abilities and visuals.

A Tide Sage could easily be a mix of Restoration (Water heal), Frost, and Storm (Elemental spec, but without Fire and Earth). Tide Sages don't need to follow a mastery of all Elements, they don't need to have Bloodlust, they don't need to use Totems, they don't need to have Wolf spirits or Wolf form or Hex. Yet they can still be classified as being shamanistic, and still command the elements, and still hold their Kul Tiran heritage close to concept.

You picked a problematic one, as it is also categorized as a Priest and a Mage.

[Triceron]

You picked a problematic one, as it is also categorized as a Priest and a Mage.

Shadow Hunter, POTM and Tidesage ALL are categorized under multiple existing classes. That is the point of using them as examples. Shadow Hunters are covered by Shamans and Hunters, to an extent even Rogues. POTM is covered by Hunter, Priest and Druid. There is no single class you could just add a Loa spec to since the themes are spread across multiple classes. There is also little room to add a new class for the very same reason; many of their spells and themes are already used by existing classes.

Which isn't a problem under my system.

What Class would you say represents Tidesage? Shaman, Priest AND Mage at the same time? That wouldn't make sense for any class identity, and we could even argue there is no single spec in the game that properly covers Tidesage's unique identity. Even specs that contain some abilities and themes would be themed very differently as I explained above with Shamans having totems and bloodlust and hex, or Mages making portals and conjuring food and teleporting, which aren't traits that fit a Tidesage identity.

That wouldn't be an issue with my system. Same with POTM, no more sharing of themes, they would be tailored to the class through picking the best fitting specs and filling gaps with class talents. A Tidesage could get full hydromancy by adapting spells from Elemental and Frost to be water based through Class Talents. A POTM could have archery be standard auto attack and be used as casting animations for various moon and light based spells.


You can't really play as a Tidesage at all, and only RP one unofficially using whatever closest existing specs. Which is exactly what I used to do with RPing a Witchdoctor through a Troll Shadow Priest with Alchemy back in Vanilla, when they still had Hex of Weakness and Shadowguard Priest Racials. The current system is unable to properly provide a true Voodoo spec if the identity is split between classes. Even Monk has some Witchdoctory themes since through Brews (Ale for Brewmaster, Tea for Mistweaver), and Witchdoctors are heavily themed around brewing concoctions.

And yes, we can wait for a standalone class,, but the fact so many spells already used by existing classes makes that difficult to transition to without gutting existing classes, which again is a product of poor forethought in design. How many times was the Warlock gutted to make room for new classes? It would be completely avoided if the class focused on summoning and dark magic, without stealing abilities from other Hero concepts like Lifedrain and Death Coil and Metamorphosis.

[username993720]

Shadow Hunter, POTM and Tidesage ALL are categorized under multiple existing classes. That is the point of using them as examples. Shadow Hunters are covered by Shamans and Hunters, to an extent even Rogues. POTM is covered by Hunter, Priest and Druid. There is no single class you could just add a Loa spec to since the themes are spread across multiple classes. There is also little room to add a new class for the very same reason; many of their spells and themes are already used by existing classes.

Pretty sure Shadow Hunters are just represented by Shaman right now. NPCs are just a weird pick.

Which isn't a problem under my system.

What Class would you say represents Tidesage? Shaman, Priest AND Mage at the same time? That wouldn't make sense for any class identity, and we could even argue there is no single spec in the game that properly covers Tidesage's unique identity. Even specs that contain some abilities and themes would be themed very differently as I explained above with Shamans having totems and bloodlust and hex, or Mages making portals and conjuring food and teleporting, which aren't traits that fit a Tidesage identity.

That wouldn't be an issue with my system. Same with POTM, no more sharing of themes, they would be tailored to the class through picking the best fitting specs and filling gaps with class talents. A Tidesage could get full hydromancy by adapting spells from Elemental and Frost to be water based through Class Talents. A POTM could have archery be standard auto attack and be used as casting animations for various moon and light based spells.


You can't really play as a Tidesage at all, and only RP one unofficially using whatever closest existing specs. Which is exactly what I used to do with RPing a Witchdoctor through a Troll Shadow Priest with Alchemy back in Vanilla, when they still had Hex of Weakness and Shadowguard Priest Racials. The current system is unable to properly provide a true Voodoo spec if the identity is split between classes. Even Monk has some Witchdoctory themes since through Brews (Ale for Brewmaster, Tea for Mistweaver), and Witchdoctors are heavily themed around brewing concoctions.

I would give Priest a Tidesage class skin. As it can fall into darkness (Void) it would be fitting to replace holy and shadow spells with water.

As for PotM, i don't know if the concept is relevant anymore since they've upgraded Tyrande into a Night Warrior. The healing might be. I don't know about archery.

And yes, we can wait for a standalone class,, but the fact so many spells already used by existing classes makes that difficult to transition to without gutting existing classes, which again is a product of poor forethought in design. How many times was the Warlock gutted to make room for new classes? It would be completely avoided if the class focused on summoning and dark magic, without stealing abilities from other Hero concepts like Lifedrain and Death Coil and Metamorphosis.

The Warlock didn't lose anything from its original concept.
Death Coil was replaced with Mortal Coil. Metamorphosis never really belonged there.