The Dark Ranger: Does it have enough material to become a class?

[Piamonte]

But Hunters use other mage spells as well ...

Paladin/Cleric has a separate class in fantasy all the time, but some of these ideas could easily be baked into a single spec. The whole attitude of Paladin and Warrior are drastically different, as are Paladin and Priest...

Dark Ranger - uses some magic, some ranged, wears mail/leather..

Hunters in their current form aren't all the same anyway. MM don't use pets anymore as far as I know. Survival uses magic and traps etc... Dark Ranger could easily replace one of those specs and not a lot would really change.

I'm not against Dark Rangers, I just don't think a full spec could come out of it without stealing from other classes, or just straight up copying Sylvanas.

- - - Updated - - -



Did Meta exists pre-Legion? Yes. Did it get taken from another class so as not to compete with DHs? Okay then.

I dont get your logic but whatever...

[Teriz]

Everything?

Not exactly sure what you're trying to ask here. Are we assuming a new Bow-using Supernatural/Magic class is automatically gonna be the same as a Hunter who uses pets and doesn't use any magic that happens to have Black Arrow? I mean at that point we cycle back to the Paladin being a Warrior with Holy themes. Seems they carved a pretty good niche, despite there being a Priest that immediately doubles up on Holy abilities.

Well I don't see how else you can do. Shooting arrows doesn't appear to mesh well with spellcasting, so it seems that what you would have is merely a Hunter shooting shadowy arrows.

Also Hunters have a lot of magical arrow abilities, so even that isn't all that unique.

- - - Updated - - -

Silence, lifesteal, raise undead, mind control, banshee abilities, etc they have enough to make it happen and they always can come up with new things, we dont really know how the design of a class works after all or what they can or cant do.

That sounds like a Death Knight honestly.

For years?? It was added in legion and from what I understand it was removed.

Yeah, but Black Arrow was in the Hunter class since Cataclysm.

[Triceron]

Paladin/Cleric has a separate class in fantasy all the time, but some of these ideas could easily be baked into a single spec. The whole attitude of Paladin and Warrior are drastically different, as are Paladin and Priest...

Sure, but if you take that into account then an argument can be made about Rangers and Hunters. This distinction existed since WC3.

Dark Ranger - uses some magic, some ranged, wears mail/leather..

Hunters in their current form aren't all the same anyway. MM don't use pets anymore as far as I know. Survival uses magic and traps etc... Dark Ranger could easily replace one of those specs and not a lot would really change.

How much magic does the Survival spec use really? And what Mage spells are you referring to? I'm not too deeply versed in Hunter abilities, but as far as I've seen they use enchanted arrows and traps more than cast any actual spells.

I'm not against Dark Rangers, I just don't think a full spec could come out of it without stealing from other classes, or just straight up copying Sylvanas.

I get your point, though I don't fully share the sentiment. I guess it's more difficult to understand your position when I don't know what you consider a good class idea, or a good class that has been added to the game. Consider that every class we have right now has 'stole' something from some other class, or 'straight up copied' an NPC at one level or another. To me, it's all relative, so it's a matter of understanding where you're drawing your lines specifically.

Druids should be all about nature, but now they have Moon Sun and Stars added to their themes. Moon and Stars was exclusive to Priestess of the Moon, which were very different from Druids. Is that stealing? Is it copying? Is it okay because Priestess of the Moon is not a class? But Night Elf Priest was a class and they had Starshards taken away as a racial, so does that count? For me it doesn't really matter, because I just see classes as containers for gameplay now more than containers of unique themes. With Monks using Shamanistic Spirit magic in lore, and Tauren Paladins/Priests deriving their Sun magic from the Druids, my threshold for 'bullshit lore changes' is pretty high. Of course I'd rather Blizzard not have resorted to those lore explanations, but I think we're long beyond redemption for classes having unique, exclusive themes.

[Piamonte]

Well I don't see how else you can do. Shooting arrows doesn't appear to mesh well with spellcasting, so it seems that what you would have is merely a Hunter shooting shadowy arrows.

Also Hunters have a lot of magical arrow abilities, so even that isn't all that unique.

- - - Updated - - -



That sounds like a Death Knight honestly.



Yeah, but Black Arrow was in the Hunter class since Cataclysm.

In a ranged class, that alone makes it different, also the banshee abilities based on fear, debuff and buffs or that weird thing silvanas did in the Bfa cinematic.

But as I said, thats not the problem, the problem is to come up with a second spec and that is a faction specific class.

The Black Arrow was part of the dark Ranger unit toolkit in warcraft 3..

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I dont get your logic but whatever...

I don't really care about WC3, thats not a good basis for anything. It was a good game, but its not a good basis for classes/specs/ etc.

Meta existed in the game before DHs were added, so yes, it was stolen. And I expect similar to happen to make room for Dark Ranger, or Necromancer etc...

Mainly because Blizzard wants their new hero class as a good selling point, so the old classes be damned, they will take spells and abilities to make their new hero class seem better.

[Maljinwo]

Heroes of the Storm is probably the best example of what the class could be. Sylvanas uses stuns and mind control, she throws enchanted knives, uses copious amounts of banshee spirit magic, and of course the possession/mind control.

In Warcraft 3, all Dark Rangers had Mind Control and those same named characters appear in WoW. While they might not have that ability directly in WoW, it can all be assumed, just like how we adapt all Paladin abilities to any Paladin character despite whether or not we see them actually use those abilities. We never see Tirion use Avengers Shield, for example, but we can imagine him having full capability of doing it.

Sylvanas' banshee abilities are mostly unique to her.
Npc abilities can be different from playable classes

Just as Vol'jin turning people into Invisible Wyverns and using monk techniques wouldn't be a playable Shadow Hunter skills.


But hey, that's my opinion.

[Piamonte]

I don't really care about WC3, thats not a good basis for anything. It was a good game, but its not a good basis for classes/specs/ etc.

Meta existed in the game before DHs were added, so yes, it was stolen. And I expect similar to happen to make room for Dark Ranger, or Necromancer etc...

Mainly because Blizzard wants their new hero class as a good selling point, so the old classes be damned, they will take spells and abilities to make their new hero class seem better.

Warcraft 3 is literally the basis of the whole game, lol

Sorry you makes no sense whatsoever, so i wont mind answering you again.

[Triceron]

Well I don't see how else you can do. Shooting arrows doesn't appear to mesh well with spellcasting, so it seems that what you would have is merely a Hunter shooting shadowy arrows.

Also Hunters have a lot of magical arrow abilities, so even that isn't all that unique.

Yeah but they are limited by having only physical feats. I mean what are we discussing here, theme or mechanics? Because it seems you're using one to argue the other.

If we're arguing theme, then Hunters are thematically Phys-only DPS, even if they have 'magical abilities'. Those are little more than enchantments. They use Magic as much as they use Technology, and it's not like it's an affront against a Tech-using Gun/Bow user class, right?

Mechanically, what needs to be different? You auto attack and press buttons to cast spells. That's the entire basis of WoW's gameplay.

- - - Updated - - -

Sylvanas' banshee abilities are mostly unique to her.
Npc abilities can be different from playable classes

Just like having Horns and Wings were unique to Illidan, right?

This is WoW class design we're talking about, where Metamorphosis was given to Warlocks and Druids were given Starfall. It's pretty obvious they're just taking whatever cool spells there are and applying it to classes where they see fit, regardless of where these abilities actually come from. Druids in WC3 had nothing to do with the Moon or Stars, yet it's become one of the core features of the WOW Druid. Same with Totems for Shamans, which were a Troll cultural feature that had nothing to do with the Shamans, Spirit Walkers or Farseers.

If Blizzard doesn't hold class abilities and features exclusive to Heroes, I see no reason why any of us should either.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Sure, but if you take that into account then an argument can be made about Rangers and Hunters. This distinction existed since WC3.



How much magic does the Survival spec use really? And what Mage spells are you referring to? I'm not too deeply versed in Hunter abilities, but as far as I've seen they use enchanted arrows and traps more than cast any actual spells.



I get your point, though I don't fully share the sentiment. I guess it's more difficult to understand your position when I don't know what you consider a good class idea, or a good class that has been added to the game. Consider that every class we have right now has 'stole' something from some other class, or 'straight up copied' an NPC at one level or another. To me, it's all relative, so it's a matter of understanding where you're drawing your lines specifically.

Druids should be all about nature, but now they have Moon Sun and Stars added to their themes. Moon and Stars was exclusive to Priestess of the Moon, which were very different from Druids. Is that stealing? Is it copying? Is it okay because Priestess of the Moon is not a class? But Night Elf Priest was a class and they had Starshards taken away as a racial, so does that count? For me it doesn't really matter, because I just see classes as containers for gameplay now more than containers of unique themes. With Monks using Shamanistic Spirit magic in lore, and Tauren Paladins/Priests deriving their Sun magic from the Druids, my threshold for 'bullshit lore changes' is pretty high. Of course I'd rather Blizzard not have resorted to those lore explanations, but I think we're long beyond redemption for classes having unique, exclusive themes.

Again, I don't care about WC3, its not a good basis for this. Dark Ranger started because Sylvanas, which would be a Hunter, was killed and raised as a Banshee...

A good class? Monks are a good example imo .. I don't think they stole anything really, and you couldn't add them easily into an existing class. Tinker would work too. But Necromancer is just a Warlock/Death Knight, and Dark Ranger is just a Hunter that uses magic. I think it would be a cool spec, but I haven't see any great ideas here for which 2/3 specs the class would have. Something based on bows/guns? We have that. Something that does magic/ranged? We have that.

To your question. Priestess if the moon isn't a class, nor do I think it would work as a full fledged class... traditionally Druids would care about nature as well as the moon. Lore wise, they would share that with a Priestess of the Moon .. but the Moon isn't special just to that Priestess person, that seems like something special to Night Elves culturally... Tyrande is more a Hunter that uses more magic than she does physical arrows imo ...

I think whether its already in the game is a good distinction, you know? Why should Warlocks lose something cool in favor of Demon Hunters? With precedence in mind, Blizzard likely doesn't want much overlap and thus would end up gutting other classes for these new ones.

I also don't agree with some of their changes that you pointed out, I don't think Tauren Paladin should exist, faction balance be damned. Its a huge stretch. I have honestly never read anything saying Monks overlap with Shaman, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Warcraft 3 is literally the basis of the whole game, lol

Sorry you makes no sense whatsoever, so i wont mind answering you again.

We are playing World of Warcraft, not Warcraft 3. If you want to go that far, then why not just say the real basis of the game is Warhammer or something. Where did WC3 come from? WC2. Where did that come from? WC1. Where did that come from?

That just isn't a good argument.

[Khaza-R]

No, but Blizzard has literally built multiple classes out of nothing.

Dark Ranger (while my least favorite option) is entirely plausible

[Kithelle]

My favorite idea I've seen to implement them is to re-flavor the Subtlety Rogue spec around them. That way you'd have another spec using ranged weapons, with shadow/necromantic abilities, leather armor, and stealth. I really can't see them as their own class, personally, and don't really think we need another "edgy" hero class either.

I've been saying something along these lines but every time I did people are telling me that Dark Ranger can and should be its own class.

[Polybius]

Realistically no. It only has enough for one spec, and Dark Ranger alone can be a spec or playstyle for a class.

[Kithelle]

Silence, lifesteal, raise undead, mind control, banshee abilities, etc they have enough to make it happen and they always can come up with new things, we dont really know how the design of a class works after all or what they can or cant do.

The problem doesnt lie with that, it lies with the problem of what would be the second spec and that is a horde only class.

- - - Updated - - -



For years?? It was added in legion and from what I understand it was removed.

Black Arrow has been around for years, it was part of Survival, then removed, then added to Marksman, and then removed again.

[raz98]

Hmm, personally, I’d make it a “class skin” of the Hunter.

ditto. Better suited as a class skin.
Same with Necromancer for Warlock.
Not that Im really in the Tinker crowd, but so far they're the only class idea that stands apart from everything else, and actually has an identity that isnt "-Blank- but darker"

[Swnem]

I don't think there is enough there for a full class, no.

At best it would work as a hunter spec. But besides shooting black arrows with some undeath abilities, what else have they got? You can't even make 2 specs out of that, much less 3.

[Piamonte]

I don't think there is enough there for a full class, no.

At best it would work as a hunter spec. But besides shooting black arrows with some undeath abilities, what else have they got? You can't even make 2 specs out of that, much less 3.

Two specs are totally possible

[Teriz]

Hmmm, this thread certainly explains why Tinker dominates the class polls.

[Mehrunes]

Given how a requirement for a new Class in the current times is making it available for both factions and Dark Rangers don't have material warranting their addition to the Alliance (nor should they ever have such material), no.

[Triceron]

[QUOTE=Lemonpartyfan;51613873]Again, I don't care about WC3, its not a good basis for this. Dark Ranger started because Sylvanas, which would be a Hunter, was killed and raised as a Banshee...

A good class? Monks are a good example imo .. I don't think they stole anything really, and you couldn't add them easily into an existing class. Tinker would work too. But Necromancer is just a Warlock/Death Knight, and Dark Ranger is just a Hunter that uses magic. I think it would be a cool spec, but I haven't see any great ideas here for which 2/3 specs the class would have. Something based on bows/guns? We have that. Something that does magic/ranged? We have that.[quote]

I agree with the examples you bring up here. The Monk is certainly a good example of a class that has unique themes, and it certainly brought a lot of new to the table that was much needed.

However, if we look deeper into what it brought... There's only really enough material to fill out one or two specs. Mistweaving in its entirity is based on the elements, with a twist on a name to make it different from 'Water' healing. Aside from Martial Arts, what we have here is a Shaman who already uses Water magic to heal. So what are we looking at here, unique mechanics like Channel-based healing? Or a theme that hasn't been touched on like Mists? Or the blessings and boons of the August Celestials? These were all invented for a new class.

And my argument here is if they could do that for a Monk class and give it a healing spec that isn't just about Acupuncture and Herbal medicines, then I don't see there being any limit to what they can do for a Dark Ranger. People say there's only room for 2 specs and that's it - but what if they had a Healing spec themed on Life Drain and transferring life energies? Some 'Life Essence' based healing that only they have. I'm not saying they should or that it's in the cards for a Dark Ranger class, but honestly like the Monk, the Dark Ranger could inhabit a spec of a broader main spec just like Brewmaster doesn't dominate the Monk identity.

To your question. Priestess if the moon isn't a class, nor do I think it would work as a full fledged class... traditionally Druids would care about nature as well as the moon. Lore wise, they would share that with a Priestess of the Moon .. but the Moon isn't special just to that Priestess person, that seems like something special to Night Elves culturally... Tyrande is more a Hunter that uses more magic than she does physical arrows imo ...

I think that's more a perception issue, since we're so accustomed to what existing classes can do and willingly accept whatever they receive in the process. We then equate Heroes to those classes, even if they aren't part of them. Vol'jin is a 'Shaman', Greymane is a 'Warrior', Rexxar, Sylvanas and Tyrande are all 'Hunters'. There's a disconnect to how classes should actually be defined, and part of that is Blizzard having blurred the lines over the years by adding 'rule of cool' abilities to existing classes. It's to the point where anyone using a bow is considered a Hunter, and no one values a Priestess of the Moon, Dark Ranger, Sea Witch or Archer as distinguished archetypes from each other. They're just 'Hunters'.

I can't say that's wrong, but I do think it's creatively limiting, to say the least. It's not like we apply this to any 'Sword user' or 'Magic user', even though those same lines are blurred between all warriors and casters alike.

I also don't agree with some of their changes that you pointed out, I don't think Tauren Paladin should exist, faction balance be damned. Its a huge stretch. I have honestly never read anything saying Monks overlap with Shaman, though.

Equating to Shamans was something done since the class was announced. It's not a big thing now because we all know the class has its own mechanics. But the criticism for each new class is always compared to existing classes, despite what unique mechanics there are. This is the same here, and that's what I see.

If we can so easily overcome Monks being compared to Shamans or Demon Hunters to Rogues/Warlocks, I can see any given class being added given that they have unique stuff to bring with them.

I don't think Blizzard needed to take stuff away from Warlocks at all to make Demon Hunters or Death Knights fit in the game. I think it's sad that they did, because I think Warlocks could have simply been given different flavours or forms, and both styles could have fit in the game much like Feral and Rogues or Frost DK and Frost mages co-exist. I mean honestly, is Feral gameplay that different from Rogues? And it's persisted long enough to be its own spec separate from Guardian. Feral is almost 1:1 Rogue gameplay, and I've never considered that copied or stolen.

[threads]

dark ranger will be the next class.

sylvanas is the most popular character atm.
hunters are the most popular class and has 3 unique weapons that only they can use.
edgy sylvanas + hunter class will sell xpacs.

already setup in BFA with the nelf dark rangers. they could even go the lich king route and have any hunter race able to become an undead dark ranger.

you all act like they can't come up with more abilities based off a unit in wc3 which they did for every other class in the game. they made a whole monk class out of a panda brewmaster lmao.