Possible solution for Demon Hunter lovers.

[Jtree]

IDENTITY....the fact the DH has the same lore, look, theme, concepts as the Warlock. That's why it can never be brought in.

Okay, point of order: how can you say DHs share a look, when they don't have proper gear because they are not yet their own class?

Class looks in WoW are defined by their Tier sets. Warlocks dress like demons and abberations, paladins have their plate kilts, DKs are adorned with skulls. We have no idea right now what the DH look would be, but you can be sure that, if implemented, no one would ever confuse raiding warlocks and DHs, based on simple visual inspection.

[Deleted]

Gear does not even represent classes really, how many paladins sets you would recognize as "paladin set"? or how many rogue sets you would recognize as "rogue"?

[Jtree]

Gear does not even represent classes really, how many paladins sets you would recognize as "paladin set"? or how many rogue sets you would recognize as "rogue"?

In WoW? Everyone knows this is a paladin.

[Deleted]

In WoW? Everyone knows this is a paladin.

Yeah but thats about it.

90% of all gear sets are completely interchangeable between classes.

[Jtree]

Yeah but thats about it.

90% of all gear sets are completely interchangeable between classes.

If gear is all interchangeable, what is a class "look" then? What are the visual identifiers that warlocks and DHs share? I know you are for DHs, Cle, I'd like to hear what the opponents have to say about it.

[Deleted]

Class "look" is in abilities and general gameplay.

[Thimagryn]

well i am extremely disappointed in thimagryn now. well i am officially done with this.
i will always believe that demon hunter will be its own class no matter what and no matter how hard people try to bastardize it.

On the contrary, I still believe the Demon Hunter as a completely viable class.

The point is that we are arguing two different class concepts with different people. When faced with people who are not wiling to accept a different definition, there really is no point in trying to convince those who are not willing to listen.

So it comes to a simple conclusion, discuss based on their definition. A Demon Hunter class, based on all Demon Hunter examples in Warcraft, will not be made into a class. It's a fair assertion considering the Illidari represent a good chunk of that particular identity. I personally see a 'Dark Herald' Demon Hunter down the line, but I've iterated this through 45+ pages now to make that point. There's really nothing left to say or prove on this matter, anyone who cares to know already knows, and anyone who cares to stick with what they know would not be convinced otherwise anyways.

I'm not interested in telling people that that God exists, or that Evolution is the answer. The end goal was never the point in discussion; the point, for me, was learning the reasons behind those beliefs. I think I got my answers.

[Deleted]

On the contrary, I still believe the Demon Hunter as a completely viable class.

The point is that we are arguing two different class concepts with different people. When faced with people who are not wiling to accept a different definition, there really is no point in trying to convince those who are not willing to listen.

So it comes to a simple conclusion, discuss based on their definition. A Demon Hunter class, as exemplified by all Demon Hunter examples in Warcraft, will not be made into a class. I personally see a 'Dark Herald' Demon Hunter down the line, but I've iterated this through 45+ pages now to make that point. There's really nothing left to say or prove on this matter, anyone who cares to know already knows, and anyone who cares to stick with what they know would not be convinced otherwise anyways.

Even existing demon hunter examples can be basis for creating entirely new class and even those demon hunters are not warlocks and they do not use the same "design".

If it were obvious that current pool of demon hunters is not possible class base, I would instantly recognize that. But I managed to create entire fanfiction class above based on what we know of all demon hunters, which is nothing like warlock.

"Anti-demon hunters" did not even have that extremely vague "design space" argument before one blizzard dev tweeted that ambiguous question.

[Thimagryn]

Even existing demon hunter examples can be basis for creating entirely new class and even those demon hunters are not warlocks and they do not use the same "design".

If it were obvious that current pool of demon hunters is not possible class base, I would instantly recognize that. But I managed to create entire fanfiction class above based on what we know of all demon hunters, which is nothing like warlock.

"Anti-demon hunters" did not even have that extremely vague "design space" argument before one blizzard dev tweeted that ambiguous question.

There is no space if you take the Illidari as an example of Demon Hunters. The Illidari are in all rights, Warlocks. They side with Demons, they summon demons, they sacrifice demons. Keep in mind, the people you are debating who will not accept a difference in types/factions of Demon Hunters. No matter how much you put forth your own views of a non-corrupted Demon Hunter, it will be ignored; so the question really comes down to what are you trying to prove if you have to convert someone who isn't willing to change their thought process. Since I already have my answers on figuring out why people are against having a Demon Hunter class (because they are being associated with Illidari), I'm content with letting them think that way. I don't disagree with the logic behind their stance, I simply don't believe the stance myself.

[Deleted]

There is no space if you take the Illidari as an example of Demon Hunters. The Illidari are in all rights, Warlocks. They side with Demons, they summon demons, they sacrifice demons. Keep in mind, the people you are debating who will not accept a difference in types/factions of Demon Hunters. No matter how much you put forth your own views of a non-corrupted Demon Hunter, it will be ignored; so the question really comes down to what are you trying to prove if you have to convert someone who isn't willing to change their thought process. Since I already have my answers on figuring out why people are against having a Demon Hunter class (because they are being associated with Illidari), I'm content with letting them think that way. I don't disagree with the logic behind their stance, I simply don't believe the stance myself.

I understand how they might seem very similar when reduced in bare minimum, but same thing can be said about paladins and priests. Also warlocks and demon hunters have co-existed since WC3, blizzard thinks they are different so I have no reason to think about anything else.

The way I see this, is that the whole "demon theme" is comparable to "Light".

Certainly, if wow had class from my DH concept , it would perfectly work as individual class and overlaps no more than paladins with priests.

[Thimagryn]

I understand how they might seem very similar when reduced in bare minimum, but same thing can be said about paladins and priests.

The way I see this, is that the whole "demon theme" is comparable to "Light".

Of course. But you will never convince them. They've already made up their minds that Demon Hunters and Warlocks are the same.

Just the same, you go to any one who believes in a particular faith and try to tell them their 'God' doesn't exist, they're not going to be converted on the spot just because of what you think. This is sadly the kind of debate we're having, it's a conflict of beliefs and nothing more.

It's indicative when you consider there are people who believe Rexxar is a Hunter, Sylvanas is a Hunter etc. Despite the flawed logic, it's still a belief that is likely not to change for those who do not accept Lore as the definitive.

[Deleted]

Yeah but for some reason you also just said that illidari are warlocks.

[Thimagryn]

Yeah but for some reason you also just said that illidari are warlocks.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Illidari

The Illidari is Illidan's faction, composed mainly of demons. The base definition of a Warlock class is someone who consorts with demons. So technically, anyone in that faction is going to be 'similar to Warlocks' just for being in that faction. That's what I'm getting at.

If you're trying to make a case that Demon Hunters and Warlocks are different, you have to realize you're no longer debating 'Demon Hunters' as you know it, you're debating 'All of the Illidari and whatever they represent' as per the views of those who think DH are too similar to Locks. It's impossible to make any headway when you understand they will never accept your definition of 'Demon Hunter'.

[Deleted]

I dont care about factions, I just look at "demon hunter" of any iteration and their abilities and what is the general feel, and I cant help but think that they are not warlocks, and blizzard thinks likewise because they have co-existed since wc3 and have continued their separate lifes in WoW.

Also the most annoying part of this debate is that opposers have extremely selective argumentation and everything they say can be converted into pro-demon hunter argument, mainly the fact that they are 100% ignoring that same "theme" can be basis for entirely different classes like paladins and priests. Also Demon hunter class certainly needs further iteration like Monk and Deathknight.

[Teriz]

I dont care about factions, I just look at "demon hunter" of any iteration and their abilities and what is the general feel, and I cant help but think that they are not warlocks, and blizzard thinks likewise because they have co-existed since wc3 and have continued their separate lifes in WoW.

Also the most annoying part of this debate is that opposers have extremely selective argumentation and everything they say can be converted into pro-demon hunter argument, mainly the fact that they are 100% ignoring that same "theme" can be basis for entirely different classes like paladins and priests. Also Demon hunter class certainly needs further iteration like Monk and Deathknight.

Yeah, Priests and Paladins don't share the same theme.

The Demon Hunter concept has received further iteration via the Warlock class.

The Illidari are the most prominent Demon Hunters in WoW lore. That is why we base what we know about DHs on them, and their WC3 lore.

[Thimagryn]

I dont care about factions, I just look at "demon hunter" of any iteration and their abilities and what is the general feel, and I cant help but think that they are not warlocks, and blizzard thinks likewise because they have co-existed since wc3 and have continued their separate lifes in WoW.

And you're telling it to people who don't care what you think, that's the problem. It's literally like talking to brick walls. You'll never convince them they're not warlocks because they already believe they're the same thing. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, it's simply a matter that what you believe will never change what they believe Demon Hunters are. They won't listen.

[Talen]

Actually, gameplay is superior to lore always.

As far as the game goes. But...we aren't talking about the actual game. We're talking about adding a class, and giving it the theme, concepts, look and story of a Demon Hunter. We're talking about naming the resource the uses Fel Power" instead of "Steam". Of calling a CD Metamorphosis instead of Overboost.

The gameplay is important...but in this case, we're talking about the class identity that goes with it. You can attach the gameplay to any class; it's plug and play that way. And because of that, as far as the actual class itself is concerned, gameplay is of next to no concern, Indeed, the only reason Meta itself is important is because of the look, the lore, the flavor that it gives the DH class.

Okay, point of order: how can you say DHs share a look, when they don't have proper gear because they are not yet their own class?

Because we see DHs, both in game and out and have done ever since WC3 we can compare them. We have quite a few DH NPCs. We have quite a few pieces of art. We have toys in game that turn players into Demon Hunters.

On the contrary, I still believe the Demon Hunter as a completely viable class.

And you'd be wrong.

The point is that we are arguing two different class concepts with different people. When faced with people who are not wiling to accept a different definition, there really is no point in trying to convince those who are not willing to listen.

There is no different definition. You are arguing that some demon hunters aren't demon hunters. That they aren't demon hunters because they are bad. And, by that reasoning, that good warlocks aren't warlocks because they aren't power mad. That members of the Crusade aren't paladins. And so on.

So it comes to a simple conclusion, discuss based on their definition. A Demon Hunter class, based on all Demon Hunter examples in Warcraft, will not be made into a class. It's a fair assertion considering the Illidari represent a good chunk of that particular identity.

Trouble for your pov is that the Illidari are Demon Hunters. They were trained by Night Elf Masters, went through the traditional training and rituals, followed the same path as any other DH, and did so for the same reasons as other DHs such as Loramus...to protect their people.

Same training, same motivations, same rituals, same everything. They aren't corrupted, they aren't evil. They are, in fact, selfless. They are Demon Hunters. Trained as Demon Hunters by Demon Hunters, in the traditional Demon Hunter manner, working alongside Demons who have been freed from the Fel taint and the Legion.

But they are "bad" NPCs so - for you - they don't count. They work with Demons. So they don't count. We see NElf DHs also work with Demons. But they don't count either. The only DHs who do count are those who meet your own personal criteria.

But even then, even were we to accept that pov, that the Illidari and others don't count, we can still look at your group of DHs - Altruis and Feronas - compare their (and the web page and the other canon info we have) lore, theme, concepts, etc with Warlocks and they'd still be one and the same. There'd still be that very large degree of overlap.

The base concept of both would still be "power through dark powers" for both.
The spec themes of both would still be Demons.
The lore of both would still encompass Sargeras, the BL, Demons.

And so on.

All of which brings us to the real problem.

Blizzard isn't going to use a class slot on a class whose theme and concept already exists in game.
Blizzard isn't going to add a class whose addition can only hurt other classes - even if you think "they'll get over it".
Blizzard isn't going to add a class whose design carries so much baggage and expectation that the deisgners don't have a free hand in its creation.

EJL

[Thimagryn]

And you'd be wrong.

There is no different definition. You are arguing that some demon hunters aren't demon hunters. That they aren't demon hunters because they are bad. And, by that reasoning, that good warlocks aren't warlocks because they aren't power mad. That members of the Crusade aren't paladins. And so on.

I am arguing there is a difference between the Illidari and the Night Elf Demon Hunters of Warcraft 3. Just as there is a difference between Druids of the Flame, and the Druids of Warcraft 3. Do you understand this parallel in thought?

When we are talking about classes, the Druids that we play are representative of Warcraft 3. They are not representative of Druids of the Flame. Do you agree?

If you believe it all to be the same and that it all represents the same class, then you are submitting to the idea that Playable Druids should have the ability to use Fire magic because Druids of the Flame exist.

Trouble for your pov is that the Illidari are Demon Hunters. They were trained by Night Elf Masters, went through the traditional training and rituals, followed the same path as any other DH, and did so for the same reasons as other DHs such as Loramus...to protect their people.

I am not saying the Illidari Demon Hunters are not Demon Hunters. I am saying a playable class would not be based on them, just as the Druid class is not based on 'Druids of the Flame', who are in all context still Druids.

A large part of our debate is confused based on lack of definition. It's much easier to apply this to Paladins and Death Knights, since it is clear that a Paladin that is corrupted by the Scourge become Death Knights. When a Druid becomes corrupted by Ragnaros, they are are not given another name despite a complete change in motivation, creed and altogether class identity. So what I ask is- is it logical sense to incorporate the Druids of the Flame in the same spectrum of all Druids, and accept the use of Fire magic?

[Talen]

I understand how they might seem very similar when reduced in bare minimum, but same thing can be said about paladins and priests.

Simple repetition doe snot make this argument true.

The points of similarity? Both heal. Both share a belief and so use holy magic. Some priests became Paladins 30 years ago.

Everything else? Is different. In short, when you compare the design space of the Paladins and Priest, they are almost totally different.

The fact that you view this as "very similar" speaks volumes. It tells me, for example, that you don't really know anything at all about game design. It hints you don't even know or understand what a class design space actually or what it covers. It suggests that you haven't even read any of the articles or tweest Blizzard has made detailing its design processes and priorities

It suggests you just want to rubbish the concept of design space overlap and, like others, are simply shouting loudest about the near non-existent similarity between Paladins and Priests in the hope that players will draw the wrong conclusion about the very real, very large overlap between DHs and warlocks.

Unfortunately, the people you would need to convince are Blizzard. They are the ones who need to work around it.

Also warlocks and demon hunters have co-existed since WC3, blizzard thinks they are different so I have no reason to think about anything else.

Blizzards one of those who has pointed to the issue with the design space overlap. And there is no reason it shouldn't think so. It is, after all, the entity whose decided the design direction that has converged the classes and made it impossible for the DH to exist as a separate class.

I am arguing there is a difference between the Illidari and the Night Elf Demon Hunters of Warcraft 3. Just as there is a difference between Druids of the Flame, and the Druids of Warcraft 3. Do you understand this parallel in thought?

I understand it. But, at best, you are talking about the scale of difference that exists between specs. Not classes.


When we are talking about classes, the Druids that we play are representative of Warcraft 3. They are not representative of Druids of the Flame. Do you disagree?

I am not saying the Illidari Demon Hunters are not Demon Hunters. I am saying a playable class would not be based on them[

A playable class would be based on them just as much as they are based on the actual existing lore. That they are bad guys hasn't stopped Blizzard referencing bad guys for inspiration before. They are part and parcel of the class lore of the DH class. Elves who made a selfless pact with Demons to protect their people and fight the Legion.

They've been trained by DHs. They've gone through the rituals. They meet your "selfless" test. But you still don't count them

And yet, you've stated that if we go by the Illidari, a faction of Demon Hunters who meet all the criteria, then we essentially have Warlocks. Even were your objection to have any point, the fact that the Illidari can be represented as a Warlocks class just about guarantees Blizzard won't make any distinction if/when adding DHs. If Warlocks can be Illidari, then Warlocks can be DHs. There is no room left for a "pure" DH of the kind you envisage because Blizzard isn't going to duplicate a class like that. I could see them duplicating the Paladin to create racially locked Blood knight and Sunwalkers. I could see them adding a Glyph or other tool to change a Paladins school to arcane to bring in BattleMages or Sentinels.

But using a separate class slot simply to give the class a different name?

But all of this leads to the questions....what do you see as different for the Illidari that makes you see them as not a DH? Is it because they work with , consort with cleansed Demons? Something we've seen NElf DHs do. Is it because you think they are corrupted or selfish?

Or is it simply because they represent an extension to the DH lore and background that you don't want to see? That you want the NElf DHs and nothing else?

A large part of our debate is confused based on lack of definition. It's much easier to apply this to Paladins and Death Knights, since it is clear that a Paladin that is corrupted by the Scourge become Death Knights. When a Druid becomes corrupted by Ragnaros, they are are not given another name despite a complete change in motivation, creed and altogether class identity.

A priest who switches from Holy to Shadow or vice versa instantly converts to another faith and set of beliefs and motivations. A Shaman who switches from Enhancement to Elemental forgets how to Dual Wield. A Paladin who fights for the Crusade is seen as evil.

EJL

[Thimagryn]

I understand it. But, at best, you are talking about the scale of difference that exists between specs. Not classes.

We can not begin to discuss my views on this subject until you are willing to understand it. I take by your dismissal of my argument that you are not willing to cooperate with this train of thought.

What you say is true. Druids of the Flame are on the scale that they could be a new Spec, but all the same a Death Knight could be considered a new spec of the Paladin. Even in Warcraft 3, the original name of the Death Knight was the "Anti-Paladin", the only difference between these two parallels is in nomenclature.

It begs the question - What is the difference between a Spec and a Class? I don't mean by definition, but by example. Why are Paladins and Death Knights different classes, yet Shaman and Shadow Hunter are not, even though they are separated in lore and by example of Warcraft 3. Is Priestess of the Moon considered a Druid spec?

A playable class would be based on them just as much as they are based on the actual existing lore. That they are bad guys hasn't stopped Blizzard referencing bad guys for inspiration before. They are part and parcel of the class lore of the DH class. Elves who made a selfless pact with Demons to protect their people and fight the Legion.

They've been trained by DHs. They've gone through the rituals. They meet your "selfless" test. But you still don't count them

Where is the example of Selflessness? If anything, we are shown they are selfish. Even Leotheras' quotes embody this

Leotheras the Blind yells: Kill! KILL!
Leotheras the Blind yells: That's right! Yes!
Leotheras the Blind yells: Who's the master now?
Shadow of Leotheras yells: I have no equal.
Shadow of Leotheras yells: Perish, mortal.
Shadow of Leotheras yells: Yes, YES! Ahahah!

Where is the Selflessness again?

And yet, you've stated that if we go by the Illidari, a faction of Demon Hunters who meet all the criteria, then we essentially have Warlocks. Even were your objection to have any point, the fact that the Illidari can be represented as a Warlocks class just about guarantees Blizzard won't make any distinction if/when adding DHs. If Warlocks can be Illidari, then Warlocks can be DHs. There is no room left for a "pure" DH of the kind you envisage because Blizzard isn't going to duplicate a class like that. I could see them duplicating the Paladin to create racially locked Blood knight and Sunwalkers. I could see them adding a Glyph or other tool to change a Paladins school to arcane to bring in BattleMages or Sentinels.

I have never made the case that the Illidari should become Playable. That is the point.

I maintain a different vision of Demon Hunters, one that you will never understand because you are unwilling to listen.

But all of this leads to the questions....what do you see as different for the Illidari that makes you see them as not a DH? Is it because they work with , consort with cleansed Demons? Something we've seen NElf DHs do. Is it because you think they are corrupted or selfish?

The Illidari represent everything the Warlock class does, so it's obvious when you associate Demon Hunters to the Warlocks, there is clearly no room to co-exist, and it is clearly understandable that it could all be incorporated as a spec. They share the exact same ideals and themes and motivations. The difference comes in the fact that by associating the Illidari to the Demon Hunters as a whole, there is no room to grow the Demon Hunter into any other concept. You have already drowned out all other possibilities by adhering to the demonic theme. The inclusion of the Illidari as a core theme of Demon Hunter compounds any other possible identity.

As an exercise to my argument, would you accept Demon Hunters who do not use Demonic Magic?

A priest who switches from Holy to Shadow or vice versa instantly converts to another faith and set of beliefs and motivations. A Shaman who switches from Enhancement to Elemental forgets how to Dual Wield. A Paladin who fights for the Crusade is seen as evil.

No, they follow the same faith. A Seer does not change their faith suddenly to mind control a mob, or deal damage with the Shadow. By lore standards, they are still Sun-worshippers through and through. Your assertion that they change their faith is not reflected in the lore, but is explained by your own observation of game mechanics.

To be frank, the concept of escaping your faith temporarily contradicts the concept of having a faith in the first place. You can't just put your faith in the Holy Light on hold for a dungeon run.

From an official stance, there is simply no explanation for any change in their beliefs when they change their Specs. It is simply an unproven assumption that they are converting their faiths in the process of spec-switching.