Melee Hunter Spec

[rkma]

Why not have a melee talent tree for Hunters? I know that vanilla talents had bad melee abilities in them, but why didn't Blizzard later (in BC or WotLK) try to make survival a legitimate melee spec? It doesn't seem that radical of an idea, and would make the class more robust.

I anticipate some criticism of this idea, but they can probably be deflected by just pointing to other classes. If gear or abilities would be "too different" for a single class, then what do you say to Shaman or Druids? You may worry about losing the "iconic" hunter feel, but it's just one spec, and hardly re-defines the entire class.

I really feel like Blizzard can't even support three legitimate ranged dps specs. Survival sucked through most of BC (except for buffs) and when they buffed it for WotLK, they threw BM under the bus. They don't seem capable of providing three distinct and meaningful talent builds that are all ranged, so why not make one melee?

[Sylore]

Why not? Because hunters are ranged, do good damage as ranged, and if you think differently.... iunno, your just dumb I guess....

[Elzam]

Why not? Because hunters are ranged, do good damage as ranged, and if you think differently.... iunno, your just dumb I guess....

How does that make sense in any way? Blizzard has shown a pattern that shows that they are unable to offer three diverse ranged specs for hunters. Your reply does nothing but reinforce the idea that you just don't want anything to change and are just taking the standard argumentative internet response.

As someone who hasn't played a Hunter very much, I can tell you that honestly, it makes no visual difference. Hunter abilities already are rather drab visually. Beyond knowing that BM Hunters use exotic pets (even though everyone's just going to use a wolf anyways...), Hunter specs are absolutely boring. At least for a Mage people are able to switch to three specs, each of which does not visually play as the others.

From a game infrastructure idea, having one Hunter class be a melee class has good structure in support; daggers are a "dead" weapon in that they only have worth to a very, very minor number of specs, and a dagger/knife is an invaluable tool to any survivalist. Blizzard needs to do some work already in making sure that a Hunter is considered a "ranged physical" more than a caster in a raiding environment, and having at least one accessible melee Hunter spec would help bridge that gap for raid leaders as they would not consider Hunters fully in assembling a physical-damage group (situations like ICC10 come to mind where you may want a 3/3 Phys/Magic split).

[rkma]

Also

[yaij9841]

Also

which in 3 seconds he throws... thus proving hunters should get thrown weapons.

[ashunga]

Hunters are the only specialized physical range class in the game. Until blizz introduces another class that uses bows/guns, hunters will remain restricted to that particular playing style, or they would loose their specialized uniqueness as a class.

You might be able to argue that allowing them to have a spec Melee would make them unique, but in reality that type of versatility is too similar to shaman's and Druids. Also, hunters are already unique from any other class and that is what attracts players to play those roles. To give them the option to Melee, instead of furthering their specialty of being a physical range class, would just generalize the class.

[rkma]

Hunters are the only specialized physical range class in the game. Until blizz introduces another class that uses bows/guns, hunters will remain restricted to that particular playing style, or they would loose their specialized uniqueness as a class.

You might be able to argue that allowing them to have a spec Melee would make them unique, but in reality that type of versatility is too similar to shaman's and Druids. Also, hunters are already unique from any other class and that is what attracts players to play those roles. To give them the option to Melee, instead of furthering their specialty of being a physical range class, would just generalize the class.

These arguments don't seem very convincing to me. How would they lose their "specialized uniqueness"? Are classes with multiple play styles not unique or special?

I was attracted to the Shaman class because I liked the ghost wolf spell, and thought chain lightning was cool. But I'm very glad that I can still have a resto spec and use different abilities. There's no reason that a player who levels his character should be pigeon-holed just to satisfy some meaningless restriction.

I'm not suggesting anything radical or outrageous here; it's positively tame by the standards of other classes.

[yaij9841]

i guess the reason comes down to... what would melee hunters bring to the table? Why play a melee hunter as opposed to a DK or rogue (those prolly being closest to the idea of melee hunter i assume)?

imo, in my experience there are too many melee dps as is (thanks to the nature of rogues and DK). melee dps isn't unique....

melee dps swinging weapons is far from unique.

[bullseyed]

Unholy DKs are melee hunters with much better dps.

[DwarfDomination]

These arguments don't seem very convincing to me. How would they lose their "specialized uniqueness"? Are classes with multiple play styles not unique or special?

...Wha?? They are the only PHYSICAL ranged dps, add melee into the mix they are a rogue or a rogue with a two hander

[rkma]

...Wha?? They are the only PHYSICAL ranged dps, add melee into the mix they are a rogue or a rogue with a two hander

I could use this argument to criticize druids, paladins, or shamans. Hunters are also a pet class.

I doesn't take a real imagination to see how a hunter melee spec could be made unique, but with some actual imagination, there are many possibilities.

[Cayleypriest]

Well, if Hunters are going to not only have great, baseline ranged abilities that churn out the dps, but also be able to get into a melee battle without missing a beat in the DPS department, I think you'll see a lot of warriors and rogues in an uproar. If you're going to give Hunters a melee talent tree, then you're creating a class that can not only tear you apart from afar, but wreak havoc up close. They'd be way too strong having a viable melee talent tree, unless they lowered all ranged attack power by X%. That's my 2 cents, at least.

[rkma]

Well, if Hunters are going to not only have great, baseline ranged abilities that churn out the dps, but also be able to get into a melee battle without missing a beat in the DPS department, I think you'll see a lot of warriors and rogues in an uproar. If you're going to give Hunters a melee talent tree, then you're creating a class that can not only tear you apart from afar, but wreak havoc up close. They'd be way too strong having a viable melee talent tree, unless they lowered all ranged attack power by X%. That's my 2 cents, at least.

Yes, this is why enhancement shaman are unstoppable in arena.

;D

[Deleted]

Short awnser: No.

Long awnser: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Lets make ranged Rogues! (forgot if there is any typo :P)

[yaij9841]

I could use this argument to criticize druids, paladins, or shamans. Hunters are also a pet class.

I doesn't take a real imagination to see how a hunter melee spec could be made unique, but with some actual imagination, there are many possibilities.

do we need another melee pet class?

besides we all know how well pet specializing players do in raids.... there are taken for the buffs they bring mainly.

[ashunga]

How would they lose their "specialized uniqueness"? Are classes with multiple play styles not unique or special?

They loose their "specialized uniqueness" because your converting the class to playing styles that already exist. No other class has a playing style equivalent or drastically similar to a hunters. If you eliminate that characteristic to make it versatile, you will be eliminating a significant attraction that distinguishes hunters from other classes. They would be lumped in, with the majority of other hybrid class variations. I believe in my own opinion; Rogues are the only other class that is pretty consistent in specs/playing style that is comparable to a hunters, and even then, you can still understand the obvious distinguishable difference between the two.

I was attracted to the Shaman class because I liked the ghost wolf spell, and thought chain lightning was cool. But I'm very glad that I can still have a resto spec and use different abilities. There's no reason that a player who levels his character should be pigeon-holed just to satisfy some meaningless restriction.

Actually on the contrary, a player who levels his character should be pigeon-holed to satisfy the restrictions of the class because not only did he choose to role the class, but he also to choose to follow the rules of the dictator (blizz), by playing the game. A player is not ignorant to what spec/spells/equipment are available to him after level 10, thus their is nothing to complain about what is unfair. Unless, their is an absolute, drastic change (which case, converting a spec to an entirely new function would be viewed as unfair actually).

I'm not suggesting anything radical or outrageous here; it's positively tame by the standards of other classes.

As I said above, it would be radical actually. Radical doesn't necessarily mean bad, however some would consider it outrageous, because no other class has ever had its spec function, completely changed to something else. Also, because they have "never" been altered in function, it stands to reason why classes like druids/shamans/paladins have remained successful as versatile classes. Converting a shamans spec to a elemental spec to a tanking spec would upset those who enjoyed the ranged dps. The same can still be applied to none hybrid classes like rogues; if we converted Mutilate to tanking, a lot of people would miss the spec that specialized in daggers.

[fauxcorps]

OP: I see your point, but I'm conflicted.

Big picture, with respect to all classes, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bring hunters into the melee spectrum, partially because of a major lack of a niche for it, and partially because if you're going to use the it's-unfair-that-hunters-have-to-be-ranged then it's equally unfair that rogues are limited to melee specs that are, as you put it, "visually limited."

If you just look at the hunter class, though, I can see where you'd get bored. Point-shoot all the time. Most classes have major differences between specs (even rogues, with the albeit underpowered subtlety spec... SS ftw!). A diverse class is what makes a fun class.

Then again, I bet a lot of hunters know what they're signing up for when they roll their class, and are therefore satisfied with how things are now. It's a toss-up.

[rkma]

They loose their "specialized uniqueness" because your converting the class to playing styles that already exist. No other class has a playing style equivalent or drastically similar to a hunters. If you eliminate that characteristic to make it versatile, you will be eliminating a significant attraction that distinguishes hunters from other classes. They would be lumped in, with the majority of other hybrid class variations. I believe in my own opinion; Rogues are the only other class that is pretty consistent in specs/playing style that is comparable to a hunters, and even then, you can still understand the obvious distinguishable difference between the two.

Actually on the contrary, a player who levels his character should be pigeon-holed to satisfy the restrictions of the class because not only did he choose to role the class, but he also to choose to follow the rules of the dictator (blizz), by playing the game. A player is not ignorant to what spec/spells/equipment are available to him after level 10, thus their is nothing to complain about what is unfair. Unless, their is an absolute, drastic change (which case, converting a spec to an entirely new function would be viewed as unfair actually).


As I said above, it would be radical actually. Radical doesn't necessarily mean bad, however some would consider it outrageous, because no other class has ever had its spec function, completely changed to something else. Also, because they have "never" been altered in function, it stands to reason why classes like druids/shamans/paladins have remained successful as versatile classes. Converting a shamans spec to a elemental spec to a tanking spec would upset those who enjoyed the ranged dps. The same can still be applied to none hybrid classes like rogues; if we converted Mutilate to tanking, a lot of people would miss the spec that specialized in daggers.

I'm quoting this all as one block because I'm not going to respond to each point individually. But, I do want everyone to read this person's arguments.

These are the arguments opposing the idea.

8)

[yaij9841]

As I said above, it would be radical actually. Radical doesn't necessarily mean bad, however some would consider it outrageous, because no other class has ever had its spec function, completely changed to something else.

just pulled this snippet out because this has actually happened to a class.

paladins..... retribution. after 2.0 came out it became a dps tree that actually functioned. that is if you were horde. alliance it was better, but had serious issues.


edit: while not on topic, threads like this make me wish wow was a bit more like elder scrolls 3 or 4 when it came to classes.

[ashunga]

just pulled this snippet out because this has actually happened to a class.

paladins..... retribution. after 2.0 came out it became a dps tree that actually functioned. that is if you were horde. alliance it was better, but had serious issues.


edit: while not on topic, threads like this make me wish wow was a bit more like elder scrolls 3 or 4 when it came to classes.

Ummm I believe your incorrect with that statement or simply misinterpreted what i said. Ret was always the dps spec of paladins, whether it was good or not. It was always its intended function as a spec.