Arcane Mage Rework in BfA

[The Archmage]

Who cares that it doesn't top meters? It's mechanically identical in how it deals damage. The main argument against AE was that it didn't fit the class fantasy of a ranged caster, that's what I was trying to counter.

Again, if you cannot see why comparing a healer to a dps is fundamentally wrong when talking about mechanics and spec specifics, i cannot really help you understand why being forced into melee range as a ranged dps is an entire different thing then having a nova spell that deals only damage on a healer.

You have to consider that all other examples are situational and nonmandatory, while AE is the only option an entire dps spec has to execute its intended AoE rotation.

And again, if you cannot see why forcing a class that represents the archetypal wizard type character (staff, robe, pointy hat, generally old and phisically weak) to fight next to his ironclad, massive and phisically trained brutes or his nimble, extremely agile and again combat trained partners goes against pretty much all logic, it's pointless to discuss it further.

In some lore combat mages do exists, but nowhere in the Arcane school of magic of WoW it is stated that they are prone to self suicide (like you suggested at some point) nor risk takers, nor combat trained, nothing. Actually, Arcane is the fundamental school of magic, and all other schools are actually stemming from Arcane. So, if anything, Arcane is even more archetypal, favouring intellect and reasoning above all else (mastery is called Savant, not Magical Warrior).

I thought the main argument against AE was, that having to stand in melee as a ranged pulls ranged mechanics into melee and kills people, which doesn't really apply to healers as they usually just don't do aoe damage on dangerous fights anyway.

I quoted both class fantasy and mechanical arguments, and both are perfectly valid.

[Deleted]

Let me put it like this: The only healers in the game that get mechanical benefits for their role by being in melee are holy paladin and mistweaver monk. Both of these are flagged as melee for that reason. Since Arcane isn't, they really shouldn't be limited to melee range in any generic situation.

[Deleted]

I for one am pleased with the plans. I am intrigued at the changes to arcane missles and the talents to further empower it. Rule of threes for example and the evocation talent witht temporal flux. I agree that explosion needs a change (Not getting rid of). For example turn it into a living bomb situation. Mark a target and they explode but with no delay. That way we can stay at range. Also have Rune of Power follow us or have it changed or removed for that matter, It is a pain on Eonar heroic and mythic for example.

[Deleted]

Making Rune of power follow you would make it just a generic dps increase. That doesn't seem like a good change at all, just skill IF when the fight doesn't suit RoP.

[Coconut]

I thought the main argument against AE was, that having to stand in melee as a ranged pulls ranged mechanics into melee and kills people, which doesn't really apply to healers as they usually just don't do aoe damage on dangerous fights anyway.

That is the only somewhat valid argument, but it has several things going against it:

1. It is situational. Not every fight has this issue (or has it but players must stay close anyway for other mechanics).
2. You can easily go around it with a talent, no need to reinvent the whole spec.
3. The range of AE, even without the artifact trait (which, really, can carry over into BFA as the default range), is greater than the regular range of melee attacks: 12yds or 17yds vs the 5yds melee range and 8yds melee AoEs, so you're not really "on top of the melees". There is enough room to avoid being hit by the mobs or dropping stuff on your raid mates (plus that you can position yourself opposite them or laterally). This is an exaggerated issue to begin with.

Again, if you cannot see why comparing a healer to a dps is fundamentally wrong when talking about mechanics and spec specifics, i cannot really help you understand why being forced into melee range as a ranged dps is an entire different thing then having a nova spell that deals only damage on a healer.

I can't attest to it personally, but I heard Holy Nova was pretty OP in WoD CMs. Still, you are switching from the class fantasy of a ranged caster to the mechanics of the ranged DPS role (see above for that) just so you can pretend your point isn't incredibly weak.

I already said I fully support a talent that would give you the option to AoE from afar if the situation demands it, or simply if you prefer to play that way. I respect your opinion, I simply don't feel it's objective enough to let it trample over my own preferences. Can't we just have a dialogue, be honest with our arguments and remain open to compromise? Is pretending you are right all that's important here? Because I can let you pretend and, as always when a debate doesn't want to end, allow readers to decide for themselves who makes more sense.

And again, if you cannot see why forcing a class that represents the archetypal wizard type character (staff, robe, pointy hat, generally old and phisically weak) to fight next to his ironclad, massive and phisically trained brutes or his nimble, extremely agile and again combat trained partners goes against pretty much all logic, it's pointless to discuss it further.

In some lore combat mages do exists, but nowhere in the Arcane school of magic of WoW it is stated that they are prone to self suicide (like you suggested at some point) nor risk takers, nor combat trained, nothing. Actually, Arcane is the fundamental school of magic, and all other schools are actually stemming from Arcane. So, if anything, Arcane is even more archetypal, favouring intellect and reasoning above all else (mastery is called Savant, not Magical Warrior).

Here is perhaps THE archetypal wizard.* Can you visualize now how it makes sense for the mage or his weapon to be the actual source of energy? Many spells, including arcane missiles and arcane barrage, follow a projectile path coming from the caster, but Arcane mages more than anyone else act as conduits. It makes sense that the energy would be coming from them (as opposed to a Shaman asking the elements to create an earthquake nearby or a Warlock calling down a rain of fire).

The alternative would be using an orb/beam, but that would be too similar to every other class using a frontal cone type of attack, including Frost. And there's a reason orbs are on longer cooldowns... it would be visually ridiculous if the mage would just throw orbs forward every GCD as part of their rotation.

I don't know if you realize this, but what you want is basically a form of class homogenization. "This class falls into the ranged category so it should be ranged in all circumstances". That's awful! The diversity offered by the Arcane play style, the fact that your single target and AoE are fundamentally different - one is heavy on hard casting and static, the other is based on instant casts and requires you to be mobile - is a good thing. It shakes thing up. If they were similar, you would feel like you do the same thing all the time, and it would be a darn shame.

Ultimately, you just have to realize that the way you see the class, which is your main drive to want AE changed, is fundamentally subjective. And there's no denying that, because I'm a long time main Arcane player too, and my class fantasy is very different. Please don't try to act like you speak for everyone.

*Bonus: Here's the very offensive Holy Nova from the Burning Crusade trailer too: https://youtu.be/Lp5XsILypYQ?t=131

[The Archmage]

snip

As predicted, you cited as archetypal a wizard that is anything but. He lives inside a world where magic is extremely limited, to the point of being almost non existent. Therefore, he is forced into fighting his way through his enemies exactly like a fighter would do... with the exception that he is way stronger than any warrior he could encounter in his path, being the closest thing to a demigod that there is in that lore.

If magic could do 1/10 of the things it can do in WoW, it would be really hard to justify him even touching a sword, let alone wield it against an opponent and, as a result, require him to be in range of his enemy's weapons without any protection from any armor nor training.

That said, i'll conclude this by saying that i am normally very open to debate with anyone, as long as there is room for it. In this case, it appears to me you are more prone into inventing reasons as to why it makes sense for Arcane mages to be closer to his enemies than all other casters, the latest one being

Many spells, including arcane missiles and arcane barrage, follow a projectile path coming from the caster, but Arcane mages more than anyone else act as conduits. It makes sense that the energy would be coming from them (as opposed to a Shaman asking the elements to create an earthquake nearby or a Warlock calling down a rain of fire).

which is good and all, except it is not supported by lore whatsoever. So, if anything, it's your vision that goes against canon, to justify a gameplay that you find easier and handier.

Here's some reference on canon: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Arcane

What is valid for Arcane is valid for literally every other form of magic in the lore, since everything is Arcane. You can see why it makes little sense for you to continue to enforce your argument that "it's ok for Fire mages and Frost mages to stay away, while Arcane mages should channel upclose".

You already agreed on the validity of mechanical issues, despite still trying to find reasons to undermine them, which (again, to me at least) only shows proof of your skewed vision of the game, since the harder the content, the larger said issues become. And it is always relevant, sometimes so much that it hinders survivability and therefore the spec's very efficiency when compared to the others the class has available.

[Coconut]

snip

You are the one trying to argue a spell which has been part of the core kit of the spec since beta should be removed because it "doesn't fit the class fantasy", so don't tell me I'm the one twisting things. I'm not allowed to see arcane mages in a way that is consistent with how they were always depicted in game now?

From your own link (not that gamepedia is a supreme authority in lore, many of its embellishments come from interviews, books, twitter replies and other sources of dubious canonical value):

Mages of the arcane are diviners of secrets, balancing the ebb and flow of incredible mystic energies. Unparalleled skill is required to manipulate the volatile forces of the universe. These practitioners push their magical knowledge to its very limits—often to the brink of their own exhaustion, and at great risk to the world around them. Those who master this craft are capable of releasing a barrage of unrelenting power upon their enemies, drawing upon replenishing energies to maintain their assault for as long as the battle demands. Mages are often aged from the stress of the magical energies they wield, causing their hair to prematurely turn gray.

There is certainly a contradiction in the way arcane magic is presented, on one hand it is "cold and intellectual", it "represents order", and on the other it is "extremely volatile", "if mana were water, arcane would be steam pressure"... but that is on Blizzard, not on me. Combat rotation and spell aesthetics certainly seem to go with the volatile part.

P.S. I find it amusing that you would go as far as denying that Gandalf is a wizard because it doesn't suit your argument. Your own requirements were "staff, robe, pointy hat, generally old and physically weak" (btw, my mage isn't old, doesn't wear a pointy hat, and apart from game mechanics doesn't look particularly weak; he does wear a robe and staff, though).

[The Archmage]

You are the one trying to argue a spell which has been part of the core kit of the spec since beta should be removed because it "doesn't fit the class fantasy", so don't tell me I'm the one twisting things. I'm not allowed to see arcane mages in a way that is consistent with how they were always depicted in game now?

You are allowed to see them as they are in game, but not to justify their being that way with lore excuses. That is exactly my point: the way they are depicted in game makes little sense from a lore standpoint. Actually, i stand corrected. They are perfectly fine except when it comes to AoE. That is why i am suggesting there would be hunderds of other solutions that would be more fitting for a wizard/ranged spellcaster on an important and core matter such as his main AoE ability, regardless of effectiveness. And with the added bonus that the spec would finally get rid of all the problems associated with his melee reliance.

P.S. I find it amusing that you would go as far as denying that Gandalf is a wizard because it doesn't suit your argument. Your own requirements were "staff, robe, pointy hat, generally old and physically weak" (btw, my mage isn't old, doesn't wear a pointy hat, and apart from game mechanics doesn't look particularly weak; he does wear a robe and staff, though).

I never said that Gandalf is not a Wizard. I said it fails to represent the archetypal wizard, and it does so big time, since it literally is the only big name that relies on factors normally not associated with wizardry: immortality, physical prowess well above average and certainly beyond the age that he shows. If you add that magic in the fantasy world of LoTR is certainly not capable of performing anything even remotely close to WoW, it becomes clear as to why he is depicted the fierce fighter that he is, despite the appearance of a canonic wizard, and that the little magic he uses consists of simple explosions or bursts of energy, invisibility or other menial effects.

Merlin, Morgana and general (again) archetypal magic users are certainly not depicted while bashing a sword in your face: they are historians, advisors and intellectuals that develop a power that goes way beyond that of a sword through constant study, bookish discoveries and ancient knowledge.

And WoW follows that archetype heavily: i don't recall Medivh, Kael'thas, Khadgar, Jaina or any other spellcasters for that matter ever even considering about wielding a sword against an opponent.

Therefore, i end up being the one amused by you using the only possibile choice that suited your argument (although only apparently, see above) and try to sell that as archetype in a whole ocean of others that suit mine.

[Coconut]

You are allowed to see them as they are in game, but not to justify their being that way with lore excuses.

Remember kids, lore only matters when you can use it to criticize another aspect of the game. In the rare cases where gameplay can actually be supported by lore, you're not allowed to bring it up. Use your own head canon instead, and demand changes from Blizzard to align with your own vision.... Damn, I thought this only happened in the Lore sub-forum in threads about Sylvanas.

And WoW follows that archetype heavily: i don't recall Medivh, Kael'thas, Khadgar, Jaina or any other spellcasters for that matter ever even considering about wielding a sword against an opponent.

Actually Kael'thas did wield a sword, that's where the Fire artifact came from... According to the quest chain, he even dueled Arthas with it.

But that's beside the point anyway. "Short range spell" doesn't mean the mage is fighting with a sword (nor is he quite in melee range, since there's a pretty big difference between 5 and 17, or even 12yds, like I pointed out before and you conveniently ignored), but merely that he has to get close in order to use that particular ability effectively, EXACTLY like the cones I mentioned the first time. Fire mages with the legendary and talent use Dragon's Breath rotationally for AoE, and Frost mages use Cone of Cold if there's a high enough number of targets, so technically they AoE from a close range too.

[Wardonis]

not to mention in that clip Gandalf is using a protective barrier and AE is in no way protective

[The Archmage]

But that's beside the point anyway. "Short range spell" doesn't mean the mage is fighting with a sword (nor is he quite in melee range, since there's a pretty big difference between 5 and 17, or even 12yds, like I pointed out before and you conveniently ignored), but merely that he has to get close in order to use that particular ability effectively, EXACTLY like the cones I mentioned the first time. Fire mages with the legendary and talent use Dragon's Breath rotationally for AoE, and Frost mages use Cone of Cold if there's a high enough number of targets, so technically they AoE from a close range too.

And again, if you cannot see why you keep giving exemples that actually contradict your argument, because:

- Cone of Cold is nowhere near used and Dragon's Breath is only used with the legendary head that, guess what, makes it so the cone is 40yds range
- Both spells have a completely different role than AE since they are not required to properly AoE and are both tied to a cooldown and to a CC effect, and not the main AoE ability/filler, therefore are not forcing their respective specs into standing where they are not supposed to

that's your problem, at this point.

Regardless, i am now forced to moderate myself, since i let this go way off topic. Therefore, BAD me, and let's move on with discussing BfA Arcane class changes and our hopes they will be good.

[Coconut]

not to mention in that clip Gandalf is using a protective barrier and AE is in no way protective

I don't know about that. It physically destroys part of that bridge when it moves.

And again, if you cannot see why you keep giving exemples that actually contradict your argument, because:

- Cone of Cold is nowhere near used and Dragon's Breath is only used with the legendary head that, guess what, makes it so the cone is 40yds range
- Both spells have a completely different role than AE since they are not required to properly AoE and are both tied to a cooldown and to a CC effect, and not the main AoE ability/filler

that's your problem, at this point.

Regardless, i am now forced to moderate myself, since i let this go way off topic. Therefore, BAD me, and let's move on with discussing BfA Arcane class changes and our hopes they will be good.

And I keep saying that not all casters must execute their AoE rotation from exactly the same distance. This short to medium range effect, while not entirely exclusive to arcane, is a nice little variation that adds to its class identity, whether you like that identity or not.

I am 100% confident that you are wrong about this and simply refuse to admit it, but at least you have a sense of humor, so it's not that bad. I agree with the last part, let's hope the class will look good in BFA. I'll root for some talents that would make you happy.

[Demeia]

One thing they could maybe do with Arcane Explosion is that you throw some ''Arcane Ball'' at the target location that then explodes for 1-3 times? It'll be like Arcane Explosion, just that you throw something that explodes instead?

I think they should just give this one to Arcane mages and make it the best AE in the game: it explodes on the mage and on a target. Double-bubble damage. Of course, that's easy for me to say--i'm not playing arcane and I wouldn't have to live with the fallout, namely that with that system Arcane would probably not be doing particularly strong single target. A nice alternative would be two versions of the explosion, one on the mage and one on the target, and allowing a conditional macro so you could slide between them.

[Talvindius]

If it exploded on impact like in D3 where they stole it from, that would actually be kind of cool. There'd be some strategy to the direction in which your throw it for maximum damage.

It's not stealing if you own the IP bruh.

THEY STOLE ALL THESE CHARACTERS FROM WARCRAFT, BLIZZARD SHOULD SUE!

[Nefarious Tea]

It's not stealing if you own the IP bruh.

THEY STOLE ALL THESE CHARACTERS FROM WARCRAFT, BLIZZARD SHOULD SUE!

Self-plagiarism is a thing. But I imagine someone who completely missed the reason for that comment would be lacking in regards to academics.

No, the reason I said that was because if they're going to take something cool from another Blizzard game - which I have zero problem with, by the by - I think they should take the full functionality. The Arcane Orb Mages have now is a watered-down version. My argument was that it should work the same in WoW as it does in D3.

[Thelxi]

I haven't been a fan of what Blizzard has been doing to arcane for the past 2 or so expansions. Maybe now they will get it right?

[Deleted]

They are making further interesting changes to Arcane, hope they'll focus more on old talents as well, but the yesterday's alphabuild already look like a fun improvement.
Where do you think about the future of this spec? Can it become the main mage in-game spec as it is pictured in the lore in BfA?

[The Archmage]

It's interesting, they are bringing back clearcasting as the spec's proc effect. I guess it will tracked by an in-game animation, and i wonder if we will be able to stack it like we can now with missiles procs.

For AoE, they correctly made it so the Clearcasting procs can be expended by Arcane Explosion, meaning we will cast some for free allowing us more sustain on our AoE burn.

They also baked in Temporal Flux, so we will have another 100 talent in its place.

Looking good so far.

[Difuid]

Well, to be honest, I find the wizard in D3 more enjoyable than the mage in WoW. You know where you have some freedom the create spell combos to debuff enemies and deal damage instead of playing whack-a-mole with procs.

Also Spells like Arcane Torrent or Disintegrate could be fun in WoW, IF you could move if even at a slower pace while channeling and the spells would follow your mouse/targeting reticle.

[Ryken]

Played around a bit on alpha, it feels weird but a bit different. 10 sec on AP feels too short, but being able to spam arcane missiles through it is fun. Not to mention we can start our cooldowns whenever without having to have charge stacks. Being able to cast AM whenever is fun, especially with slipstream, but boy does it eat through your mana (though arcane missiles procs clearcasting a lot due to cost). The mana cost on explosion makes me worried about our ability to AoE away, but its clear their intent for arcane is great single/aoe burst when you want it but not sustainable.

We really do feel like a burst spec, where if we push too hard (single or aoe), we're screwed on our sustained damage.