Would you wanna play a class almost exactly like the hunter, without the pet?

[danko215]

I have a "right" to play however I want. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I can't use it. I've played WoW (with short breaks here and there) since classic release in November 2004 and my first class and first 60 was a hunter. I remember all of that, and the removal of all of it was a good thing - none of it was difficult, it was a chore. This "ranger" way of thinking is in pretty much every sword/magic/etc. fantasy game that has ever existed. And I'd be willing to bet a solid majority of them run solo, with no companion.

Nobody would be "forcing" you to play a spec without a pet, either, if such a spec existed.

Can't have your cake and eat pretty much. Yes, you can play however you want, but you can't have it both ways. No pet and the skills a pet brings is not, and should not be an option. All of that old stuff wasn't meant to be difficult, it was meant to get you in touch with the pet part of your class. The way blizzard intended. And it sounds like you just want to play the same ranger class that is always in every game. Surprise! Blizzard didn't go that route so as not to be the same boring class type. Go play those other "ranger" games if that's what you want. Roll another class that doesn't focus on the pet like the hunter has since vanilla.

[Zarosia]

I wouldn't want them to make a "petless spec" for hunter as there's never the guarantee that the spec would be viable for the content, but if they where to make a Ranger/Dark ranger class i would re-roll so fast its untrue.

[Spiralphoenix]

Can't have your cake and eat pretty much. Yes, you can play however you want, but you can't have it both ways. No pet and the skills a pet brings is not, and should not be an option. All of that old stuff wasn't meant to be difficult, it was meant to get you in touch with the pet part of your class. The way blizzard intended. And it sounds like you just want to play the same ranger class that is always in every game. Surprise! Blizzard didn't go that route so as not to be the same boring class type. Go play those other "ranger" games if that's what you want. Roll another class that doesn't focus on the pet like the hunter has since vanilla.

Apparently they didn't like what they "intended", hence why it was removed. If pets weren't consistently bug-ridden throughout the entirety of the game, I'd have no problem with them. But I'm fairly convinced that they will always have issues and it would be nice to have a competitive option that doesn't have those issues.

I don't understand why you're so up in arms about this, ONE spec with the option of going pet-less. It could even be a "fourth" spec, now that druids have essentially broken that barrier. It's not giving you less options, it's giving you MORE. If anything the current 3 specs need more separating them than they currently have. Nothing wrong with a Marksman being more focused on his ranged weapon, accuracy, etc., than bossing a pet around.

Fact is I can have it any way Blizzard sees fit for me to have it. I'd like a pet-less option, and as you can see from several others in this thread I am not alone. If they decide to add it, it will be added. We're free to make suggestions in the hope that they do. Nothing is set in stone, and despite what you think they "intend", you really have no idea what goes on internally there, and neither do I.

[danko215]

If you think im up in arms about it, it's because there are several other classes that already offer what you want. Range with no pet. Why change a class to be more like other classes, ergo the warlock posts at the beginning? This poll somehow favors the petless hunter, when blizzard has actually been adding more pets to other classes like the mage, shaman or DK.
Micromanaging the pet now can be done by a 3 year old, so that is in no way a valid argument. Pet bugs? Yes they exist still, but have come a long way. It's really only in the last 2 expansions that Blizzard has really overhauled pets. Vanilla through BC, there was very little change. IMHO, people want this for the wrong reasons, and those that don't for the right reasons. There's no sound argument to having a petless hunter.
Reread the actual poll question. If your answer is yes, roll another class. It would be "almost exactly like the hunter, without the pet".

[Deleted]

I love my pets! We have been a family for many years now and I am not going to abandon them!

[Essenji]

Oh god yes. That's why I'm thinking of switching mains when MoP hits. BM relies too heavily on the pet. It keeps bugging out on every single thing, whether that thing being that it's out of range of things or that it simply cannot path to certain things. It bugs up in the air and is generally annoying.
Why can't they just make that pet a cosmetic thing?

[Deleted]

I do love my pets at times although the AI though can suck, they can be killed to easily which can really gimp BM.

Kill command can be very temperamental on boss fights and in pvp considering its a main nuke there's no reason it should be.

I am not a massive fan of all the specs relying quite heavily on the pet or pets to do the dps. Having a spec with no pet without the dps/utility loss would be great.

[Spiralphoenix]

If you think im up in arms about it, it's because there are several other classes that already offer what you want. Range with no pet. Why change a class to be more like other classes, ergo the warlock posts at the beginning? This poll somehow favors the petless hunter, when blizzard has actually been adding more pets to other classes like the mage, shaman or DK.
Micromanaging the pet now can be done by a 3 year old, so that is in no way a valid argument. Pet bugs? Yes they exist still, but have come a long way. It's really only in the last 2 expansions that Blizzard has really overhauled pets. Vanilla through BC, there was very little change. IMHO, people want this for the wrong reasons, and those that don't for the right reasons. There's no sound argument to having a petless hunter.
Reread the actual poll question. If your answer is yes, roll another class. It would be "almost exactly like the hunter, without the pet".

I never said anything about micromanaging a pet. That is not difficult, and was never a part of my argument. If you're referring to where I said "bossing a pet around" I meant the focus of the spec being that the hunter is keeping all of his attention on marksmanship.

Sure, they've added pets to other classes. And guess what? They have a choice whether they want a pet. Ghouls are non-permanent unless you're unholy. Water elemental is frost-only. Warlocks can still sacrifice their demons. Feral spirits are still temporary, and still only for one spec.

No other class is even remotely close to a hunter sans pet, the only thing caster classes really share is that they attack from range. That's not "almost exactly like the hunter." Pretty pointless to say "people who want what I want, want it for the right reasons, and people who don't want what I want, want it for the wrong reasons." So basically, anyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. This is not a valid argument.

A single pet-free spec would offer what you want, 2 (potentially 3, although unlikely) pet specs, and would offer what I want, the option of a pet-less spec, while retaining the playstyle of an archer hunter. Yes, the poll does not reflect this option. But forums can be for discussion and expanding on ideas.

[PuppetShowJustice]

The pets are a huge factor in why I personally went with Hunter. If a similar class existed that didn't have the pet, there isn't a chance I'd play it.

[lockedout]

yes, would love something like grimore of sac that warlocs got, discard pet and do more dmg with shots <3

Makes no sense for a hunter to kill his pet. A warlock killing a demon he cares nothing about is fine.

[Lockrocker75]

I wish they would implement a Demon Hunter into WoW. Instead of having a pet constantly, the pets could just be CD's to use. The Demon Hunter I think could be a very doable class in WoW.

[Deleted]

well i dnt really like or dislike pets, adding an option too remove them for a dps boost that is equal/slightly inferior too your shots would be nice.
but if it happens or not wouldnt change my opion of the hunter class.

[danko215]

I never said anything about micromanaging a pet. That is not difficult, and was never a part of my argument. If you're referring to where I said "bossing a pet around" I meant the focus of the spec being that the hunter is keeping all of his attention on marksmanship.

Like the cooking infomercial: Set it and forget it!

Sure, they've added pets to other classes. And guess what? They have a choice whether they want a pet. Ghouls are non-permanent unless you're unholy. Water elemental is frost-only. Warlocks can still sacrifice their demons. Feral spirits are still temporary, and still only for one spec.

Exactly, all these other classes already offer an option for whats being asked. Why add yet another?

No other class is even remotely close to a hunter sans pet, the only thing caster classes really share is that they attack from range. That's not "almost exactly like the hunter." Pretty pointless to say "people who want what I want, want it for the right reasons, and people who don't want what I want, want it for the wrong reasons." So basically, anyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. This is not a valid argument.

Again, what's being requested is already available in some form with other classes. Refusing to use that option and instead decide its better to change another class is not wrong, it's just a weaker point being made. With the lore of the hunter, which i put a quote in my sig from the original WoW strat guide, having pets tied into all 3 specs is just part of being a hunter.

A single pet-free spec would offer what you want, 2 (potentially 3, although unlikely) pet specs, and would offer what I want, the option of a pet-less spec, while retaining the playstyle of an archer hunter. Yes, the poll does not reflect this option. But forums can be for discussion and expanding on ideas.

I'm all about discussing and expanding on reasonable ideas. This topic is not one of those i consider to be.

[Spiralphoenix]

Like the cooking infomercial: Set it and forget it!

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with anything, but if you're implying you think this is what I do with my pet, you are mistaken.

Exactly, all these other classes already offer an option for whats being asked. Why add yet another?

Incorrect. What is being asked, is to play a hunter without a pet. A warlock is not a hunter. A mage is not a hunter. You seem to think that these other classes offer what those of us in this thread who responded with "yes" want, and again, this is incorrect. If this was the case, such people would have already made the switch. They may already have. But yet they came here anyway to say, hey, I'd like to play a hunter without a pet.

Again, what's being requested is already available in some form with other classes. Refusing to use that option and instead decide its better to change another class is not wrong, it's just a weaker point being made. With the lore of the hunter, which i put a quote in my sig from the original WoW strat guide, having pets tied into all 3 specs is just part of being a hunter.

I don't dislike the pet so much that I'm willing to level all over again just to play a class without a pet. I am merely suggesting that I would prefer to play without one, as a hunter, and still remain balanced and competitive. Your lore also talks about powerful attacks in melee and range, something which is no longer the case (and more or less never was). Lore isn't set in stone, either.

I've made my point clear. I'd like to play a hunter without a pet, many other people as evidenced here would like to play a hunter without a pet. Consequently, many people don't care to have this option. I see a single pet-optional spec as a reasonable way to make both sides happy. You seem to think that this option would be an affront to all things hunter, yet you'd still be able to play your way and I'd be able to play my, preferred, way.

[tiporispit]

It seems rather un-hunter-like to murder your pet for a damage buff. Why not just roll a Warlock?

[Bathory]

Wouldn't that be a bard of sorts?


I would probably do it, I don't like the pet aspect of the huntards.

[Spiralphoenix]

It seems rather un-hunter-like to murder your pet for a damage buff. Why not just roll a Warlock?

Who said you were murdering your pet? Why does the pet "not being there" have to mean that you killed it? There's plenty of pets in your stable (presumably), are they all dead until you pull them out?

[soporjoe]

Danko, when I read this, "I'm all about discussing and expanding on reasonable ideas. This topic is not one of those i consider to be" I thought this, "I'm taking my ball home because none of you play the way I want you to play."

1. Unreasonable argument that would defintely get heated: Strip the hunter's pet completely
2. Debatable argument that could get heated: The ability to sacrifice a hunter's pet like a warlock
3. Reasonable argument featuring worthy debate: 1/3 of the hunter's specs are pet free (maybe 1/4?)

Number 3 really opens up some nice opportunities for some great conversations. If 1/3 what spec becomes pet free? (marksman like was mentioned earlier?) Or if it went 1/4 spec then everyone can walk away happy? What would be the ramifications of either? I mean, it seems to me anyways, something worth exploring. And if at the end, after the reasonable conversations were had, it doesn't seem viable then move on. Seems like a real interesting topic to me.

I played a hunter in vanilla and leveled him to 60. Then I went priest and never looked back soon after BC came out. Why I have an interest in this topic is that if the hunter actually had a petless spec I would be very intrigued in playing the hunter again.

[WarBringerPT]

Although my favourite spec is BM, I would like to have the option (not a spec, the option), to be petless for a dmg increase. There are certain fights that a pet just doesn't work (Pet despawning on sinestra, not being able to attack flying mobs like the double dragons in BOT, Goriona, pathing issues).
A pet nowadays is a dot. A dot with a texture, that has a SLOW travel time, that sometimes it won't even reach the target. Being on Hagara, on frost phase, the time a pet takes to go from one frost crystal to another....
Certain ppl choose to leave the pet 100% on a certain boss instead of attacking adds (like Yor'sahj, when a blob spawns). That almost reminds me of Curse of Doom that locks had, cast it and forget it till it ends.
About pets utilities, it would be the choice of the hunter, wether he wants the pet for his utility and his dmg, or dismiss it for a dmg buff.
IF Blizzard would give us some kind of ranged pet (wind serpent sending lightning bolts), almost like a imp, then I would have no problem in going BM at all times. Until then, going sv on failboat, cause pet can't reach drakes nor goriona (imps can); going sv on madness cause pet likes to hang out behind corruption, not being able to do KC or LR until i call him back and re-send him near the corruption, ou pet despawning when jumping platforms (or worse, NOT despawning and running SLOW AS HELL from one platform to another, taking ages to get near us).
If Blizz could solve the issue of pathing and do something that would enable our pets to attack ranged targets, I would stay BM and love my pet. Until then, all I see is a Nice model Dot that makes some noise, needs healing and has travel time, unlike other dots.

[Flaks]

I know a lot of hunters wouldn't like it but I think MM would be perfect as a non-pet spec. The spec is especially in need of an overhaul with MoP anyways. Sub and MM both got gutted with the 5.0.4 changes.