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

[cocomen2]

After this duel, all sylvi fan-boys want Dark Ranger to be a thing.)

[Triceron]

Without their class hero (Sylvanas) the chance the Dark Ranger becomes playable is close to 0.

So unless they pull off some Sylvanas redemption storyline (and for the sake of good storytelling, I'd rather not see that), you may aswell throw that class concept out of the window.

Death Knights defected from Arthas. Dark Rangers could effectively do the same.

[Alanar]

Just FYI, I didn't start the Tinker discussion in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -



Is there another class that can utilize the Titan technology theme?

Is that something new around that I missed and we somehow need? Titan technology theme ?
I just said that it is your opinion, I don't think we need a Titan technology theme per see, we have a few races around who have some history with that and that's cool.
The next wow class in the future imo doesn't need the steampunk vibe in wow, as I would call it.

[MatthiasVonTzeskagrad]

I think they are a must at this point.
They have:
-Being another range class/specs after years of melees.
-Being mail class, thus giving hunters and shamans new friends.
-Being rangers, they would finally add another class that wield range weapons, limiting to bows and crossbows could be an option.
-Dark Wardens would open up the gate to tank spec. AND to glaives, making it no longer a dh exclusive.
-They've been building nelf dark rangers and male dark rangers, so it does no longer constitute a faction/gender issue.
-War campaign showcase them still remaining loyal to Sylvanas, so they are a clear similar to both dks and dhs.
-Their only disadvantage is being once more an elf class, and another hero class in a row, but I really think we have a solid track here.

[Alanar]

After this duel, all sylvi fan-boys want Dark Ranger to be a thing.)

If we get lots of black smoke and a vanish WITH smoke and to make it even cooler, a purple fireball when it hits it will create a large smoke bomb that spreads around the target for 40 yards.

also flying smoke form.

[Triceron]

Is that something new around that I missed and we somehow need? Titan technology theme ?
I just said that it is your opinion, I don't think we need a Titan technology theme per see, we have a few races around who have some history with that and that's cool.
The next wow class in the future imo doesn't need the steampunk vibe in wow, as I would call it.

He's trying his hardest to make Tinkers somewhat relevant against fighting Old Gods, whereas regular Gnomes and Goblin tech has no connection to the ongoing expansion themes that the other classes have enjoyed in the past. Titan tech is one of the only things he's got, so he's grasping that straw hard like his life depended on it.

[Alanar]

He's trying his hardest to make Tinkers somewhat relevant against fighting Old Gods, whereas regular Gnomes and Goblin tech has no connection to the ongoing expansion themes that the other classes have enjoyed in the past. Titan tech is one of the only things he's got, so he's grasping that straw hard like his life depended on it.

Btw wasn't it explained in Mechagon that the king tries to reverse the curse of flesh by going back making himself a robot? so they are not quite there yet? I mean he just wears a robot mask, but hes still a gnome right?
I guess we still have the Valarjar who are actual titan creations and Odin probably know a couple of Titan technology theme tricks, so I guess could fill that theme in helping us against the old gods. I don't think robot gnomes would fit that bill imo.

[DotEleven]

Well you're ignoring the fact that Dark Rangers are literally nothing like we already have either.

Like I said many times, how do you address the fact that every Dark Ranger is an undead being as a spec for a Hunter class? How do you address every Hunter Race being able to become Dark Rangers so suddenly? Dark Ranger isn't something you simply train in, it's something you become. That is why I bring up the Demon Hunter, it's not something any other class simply 'specializes' in.

You are treating Dark Ranger as a Hunter who uses Necromancy, when a Dark Ranger is consistently shown as a unique title that isn't just some catch-all term for 'Forsaken Hunters'. Consider that Nathanos is even training new Rangers, but they are not Dark Rangers, they are 'Forsaken Rangers' and those guys use axes and crossbows. Even he does not train Dark Rangers.



Dark Rangers are undead Rangers who are motivated by vengeance, dominance and death. They're not in it to protect the wilds or tame beasts or have a connection to nature. That is a deep contrast to what you're presenting.

Yes they are. They are literally rangers. They are rangers that use an undeath theme. A ranger performs the same function and niche as a hunter. You are literally ignoring this because you like Dark Rangers for some reason.

You think that just because they're undead they suddenly perform completely differently.

[F Rm]

With Hunters/Dark Rangers you literally have

"Ranger who performs these tactics with a connection to the wild"

and

"Ranger who performs the SAME TACTICS with a connection to undeath" and you're telling me they're completely different.

Their use of ranged weapons, aren't entirely different no.
But their view on magic and their very foundations are entirely different.

Also, don't forget the Undead part.

You simply cannot have a Dark Ranger without the undeath. Technically, you can, but you also have to remember that part of what makes the Dark Ranger fantasy...come to life...is the fact that dead rangers have to be resurrected followed by abandoning their past teachings. They have to twist everything they were before, in order to become something new.

This literally means that they have to forsake the very essence that made them Hunters.

Forget the archery part. Literally anyone can learn to shoot with a bow. Tracking? Trapping? Same thing.

The very thing that defines the Hunter class in WoW, is their affinity for the nature and the wild. Even MM hunters.

Compare that to a Dark Ranger. They can reanimate a slain beast and you could call that a pet. But they don't care for it. If it dies, they will just reanimate another one.


Here you have Hunters:

Hunters know the uncharted places of the world. Gifted with a deep empathy for all life, they have an uncanny knack for befriending wild animals and taming them as pets
Most hunters seek to aid the balance of nature along with their druidic allies.


And here, a description of the actual magical influence that the Hunter class has:

hunters call upon the spirits of the land, wind, and fire to aid them in their hunts and tasks. Their spells focus on the elements and the land.


Here, we have Dark Rangers:

Nearly all dark rangers are undead high elves found only among the Forsaken. No other faction has the elves' history coupled with the personal knowledge of shadows to learn the arts of a dark ranger.

Dark rangers are similar to their high elven cousins, but focus on shadowcraft more than nature.

Their spells work with manipulating the essences of life and death, as well as various horrible curses and mind-enslaving abilities.

An elven ranger who dies and returns as a Forsaken undergoes a great shock. She can no longer cast elven ranger spells, and loses her woodland stride ability.

An elven ranger seeking to convert to a dark ranger must, of course, have died, returned as a Forsaken, and seek to learn the arts of the shadow rather than the wild. This ordeal is difficult, as the dark ranger must twist everything she was taught about nature to start learning her darker trade. Then comes the hard part. A dark ranger-to-be must undergo a lengthy trial, where she unlearns everything she was taught as an elf and learns the new arts of a Forsaken.


Now, like I've said before, we can overlook the actual race restrictions a bit as there have in recent times been some Night Elves as well that have been raised to become Dark Rangers.

And yes, Dark Rangers retain their skill with bows. Also their skill in tracking.

But contrary to your arguments, they do not retain any of their past abilities that they had when they were still alive.



You tell me. How would you possibly go ahead trying to merge the above?

I mean sure, technically, it can be done. But the real question is if it should be?
Would it actually make sense to merge these two direct opposites?

And on a more, practical note. Dark Rangers are spell casters(not in the sense of Mages or Warlocks sure), but they dabble well enough in magic to require a resource that they can tap into in order to conjure their magic.

That resource, is Mana.

[Triceron]

Yes they are. They are literally rangers. They are rangers that use an undeath theme. A ranger performs the same function and niche as a hunter. You are literally ignoring this because you like Dark Rangers for some reason.

No, I'm not ignoring what they can do. I'm pointing out that similarities are not what makes a Class, it's the differences that define them. I've pointed out similarities of Holy Paladin and Holy Priest, and all you could reply was that Holy Paladins also frontline. Well sure, but their primary role is healing in the backline, just like a Holy Priest. If you are a healer and you are in melee range, you are interfering with raid mechanics. They aren't meant to be played in the frontline, at all.

As for liking Dark Rangers... No, I don't have any particular fondness for the class. I simply think all class identities have equal opportunity to become playable classes, and that they should retain those unique identities. I don't think any class concept should be inserted as a 4th spec of any existing class, because specializations are simply specializations. I don't believe you can turn a Hunter into a Dark Ranger simply by choosing a spec, because there is a particular identity for Dark Rangers that can not be represented by the Hunter class.

You think that just because they're undead they suddenly perform completely differently.

Because we're literally shown this in Warcraft 3, where the class concept comes from.

WC3 Dark Ranger description: A cunning Hero, adept at manipulating opponents. Forcibly raised from the dead, the former Rangers of Quel'Thalas enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension


What in your opinion is a Dark Ranger? Simply a Hunter who uses Necromancy, right? So what is your opinion on this origin? What is your opinion on how WoW has shown us Dark Rangers all being forcibly raised into service of Sylvanas? Do you not care? Because I do care about lore and class identity. Of any and every class.

If we're going to talk about a Hero class that came from Warcraft 3, then I think we should respect that origin and adhere to the identity that was presented there. That is why I bring up Demon Hunter and Paladin as an example; it's a clear example of a unique class that has thematic connections to existing classes. Even if you think Dark Rangers do exactly what Hunters already do, you are conveniently waiving the other themes that define who they are and why they have a specific title. Keep in mind that these aren't just 'Rangers' who use dark magic. They are titled Dark Ranger. This is like how Demon Hunter isn't just a Hunter who hunts demons, it's a title for a very specific type of character.

[DotEleven]

Their use of ranged weapons, aren't entirely different no.
But their view on magic and their very foundations are entirely different.

Also, don't forget the Undead part.

You simply cannot have a Dark Ranger without the undeath. Technically, you can, but you also have to remember that part of what makes the Dark Ranger fantasy...come to life...is the fact that dead rangers have to be resurrected followed by abandoning their past teachings. They have to twist everything they were before, in order to become something new.

This literally means that they have to forsake the very essence that made them Hunters.

Forget the archery part. Literally anyone can learn to shoot with a bow. Tracking? Trapping? Same thing.

The very thing that defines the Hunter class in WoW, is their affinity for the nature and the wild. Even MM hunters.

Compare that to a Dark Ranger. They can reanimate a slain beast and you could call that a pet. But they don't care for it. If it dies, they will just reanimate another one.


Here you have Hunters:

Hunters know the uncharted places of the world. Gifted with a deep empathy for all life, they have an uncanny knack for befriending wild animals and taming them as pets
Most hunters seek to aid the balance of nature along with their druidic allies.


And here, a description of the actual magical influence that the Hunter class has:

hunters call upon the spirits of the land, wind, and fire to aid them in their hunts and tasks. Their spells focus on the elements and the land.


Here, we have Dark Rangers:

Nearly all dark rangers are undead high elves found only among the Forsaken. No other faction has the elves' history coupled with the personal knowledge of shadows to learn the arts of a dark ranger.

Dark rangers are similar to their high elven cousins, but focus on shadowcraft more than nature.

Their spells work with manipulating the essences of life and death, as well as various horrible curses and mind-enslaving abilities.

An elven ranger who dies and returns as a Forsaken undergoes a great shock. She can no longer cast elven ranger spells, and loses her woodland stride ability.

An elven ranger seeking to convert to a dark ranger must, of course, have died, returned as a Forsaken, and seek to learn the arts of the shadow rather than the wild. This ordeal is difficult, as the dark ranger must twist everything she was taught about nature to start learning her darker trade. Then comes the hard part. A dark ranger-to-be must undergo a lengthy trial, where she unlearns everything she was taught as an elf and learns the new arts of a Forsaken.


Now, like I've said before, we can overlook the actual race restrictions a bit as there have in recent times been some Night Elves as well that have been raised to become Dark Rangers.

And yes, Dark Rangers retain their skill with bows. Also their skill in tracking.

But contrary to your arguments, they do not retain any of their past abilities that they had when they were still alive.



You tell me. How would you possibly go ahead trying to merge the above?

I mean sure, technically, it can be done. But the real question is if it should be?
Would it actually make sense to merge these two direct opposites?

And on a more, practical note. Dark Rangers are spell casters(not in the sense of Mages or Warlocks sure), but they dabble well enough in magic to require a resource that they can tap into in order to conjure their magic.

That resource, is Mana.

Do you know the basis of Dark Rangers? Like literally in their origin is "Sylvanas twisted her Ranger training" She's literally using everything she trained as a ranger with an undeath state instead of a connection to the wild.

BTW, we already have direct opposites merged in Priests.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm not ignoring what they can do. I'm pointing out that similarities are not what makes a Class, it's the differences that define them.

As for liking Dark Rangers... No, I don't have any particular fondness for the class. I simply think all class concepts have equal opportunity to become classes, and that they all have unique identities. I don't think any class concept should be inserted as a 4th spec of any existing class, because specializations are simply specializations. I don't believe you can turn a Hunter into a Dark Ranger simply by choosing a spec, because there is a particular identity for Dark Rangers that can not be represented by the Hunter class.



Because we're literally shown this in Warcraft 3, where the class concept comes from.

WC3 Dark Ranger description: A cunning Hero, adept at manipulating opponents. Forcibly raised from the dead, the former Rangers of Quel'Thalas enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension


What in your opinion is a Dark Ranger? Simply a Hunter who uses Necromancy, right? So what is your opinion on this origin? What is your opinion on how WoW has shown us Dark Rangers all being forcibly raised into service of Sylvanas? Do you not care? Because I do care about lore and class identity. Of any class.

What in your opinion is a Dark Ranger? And what is your opinion is a hunter? Because everytime we go down this line you talk about a Dark Ranger purely for it's undeath magic completely ignoring it's literal hunter roots. That's not "opinion" that is literally their origin.

I mean, let's put it this way. You're saying if there was a Rogue. And this rogue decided instead of poisons, he'd use frost magic. That's a new class not a new spec.

[Aleksej89]

Does it have enough material RIGHT NOW? I dont think so.

But blizzard can always add and invent more material... either as a 4th hunter spec, or perhaps a 3rd spec of the necromancer.

Making a whole class around just Dark Rangers would be a bit thin imho...

Perhaps blizz will go the DnD route and consider "prestige classes" that are something you can choose into once your character is high enough level?..

[F Rm]

Do you know the basis of Dark Rangers? Like literally in their origin is "Sylvanas twisted her Ranger training" She's literally using everything she trained as a ranger with an undeath state instead of a connection to the wild.

No, she does not. Her use of a bow and her ability to track/trap. Sure.

But nothing else.


Also, I'm recanting something from the post above.

I don't actually agree that we can lift the race restrictions from Dark Rangers.

Why?

Because every single Dark Ranger ever "created" has been raised to serve the Forsaken(and Sylvanas).

The Alliance don't even have the means to reliably raise fallen warriors as Undead.
Calia Menethil excluded. Though, while she is now an undead. She was raised partially through a Naaru of the light.

Also, the Alliance have shown no signs of even remotely wanting to "reanimate" either fallen enemies or friends to once again serve within the faction. They detest such actions.

Which is how the Forsaken came to be in the first place...

[DotEleven]

No, she does not. Her use of a bow and her ability to track/trap. Sure.

But nothing else.


Also, I'm recanting something from the post above.

I don't actually agree that we can lift the race restrictions from Dark Rangers.

Why?

Because every single Dark Ranger ever "created" has been raised to serve the Forsaken(and Sylvanas).

The Alliance don't even have the means to reliably raise fallen warriors as Undead.
Calia Menethil excluded. Though, while she is now an undead. She was raised partially through a Naaru of the light.

Also, the Alliance have shown to signs of even remotely wanting to "reanimate" either fallen enemies or friends to once again serve within the faction.

Oh yeah, I know. That's why I think Dark Ranger can't even be implemented itself.

But if it WAS going to be implemented it would be as a hunter spec rather than a class due to them following the same niche and training.

[deviantcultist]

https://www.wowhead.com/news=295285....ilers#comments

Based on the loyalist ending, there is a possibility of Dark Ranger becoming Arthas DK 2.0.

Sylv claims she will raise everyone who dies in the N'Zoth war. From that alone she will have a Dark Ranger of EVERY race, just like DK.

[Triceron]

What in your opinion is a Dark Ranger? And what is your opinion is a hunter? Because everytime we go down this line you talk about a Dark Ranger purely for it's undeath magic completely ignoring it's literal hunter roots. That's not "opinion" that is literally their origin.

I mean, let's put it this way. You're saying if there was a Rogue. And this rogue decided instead of poisons, he'd use frost magic. That's a new class not a new spec.

Dark Ranger is A cunning Hero, adept at manipulating opponents. Forcibly raised from the dead, the former Rangers of Quel'Thalas enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension

Hunter is basically a ranged-weapon user that is adept at survival, has a connection to the wilds and is in tune with nature.

As for your Rogue example - It depends on their origin and lore. Where did they get this Frost magic? Do they have an origin story? Is there a character that embodies this identity? If we're just talking about Frost magic, then sure a Rogue can use Frost and I'd be okay with it. I would think it's kinda wierd, but I think Priests with Shadow is weird and I'm still okay with it. Being weird is not my point. Hunters having Black Arrow is A-OK in my book, because Hunters are resourceful and would use enchanted arrows with necromantic power. I'm not against Hunters using Necromancy or even specializing it. I'm against calling this a Dark Ranger, because this does not embody the Dark Ranger origin or identity.

Now if you say Rogue can just start using Moonglaives to have a Warden spec, then I would have to question that motive. Does the Rogue embody the Warden's values? I don't think so. Is the Warden aligned as a Rogue spec? Gameplay-wise, yes they do, because they do many of the same things; such as use knives, fight in stealth and have limited use of shadow magic. Maiev is even used as a Rogue hero in Hearthstone. But would it make sense as a 4th Rogue spec? I would argue no, because they have very different origins and values to the Rogue. They are not thief-like, they are not fortune seekers, they are not cold-blooded killers. They value vengeance and justice. I would argue that this identity separates itself enough from being a Rogue 4th spec, even if they are both Stealthy Shadowy fighters.

The Dark Ranger may have started as living rangers, but they all undergo an irreversible change that can't be portrayed by a Hunter Spec. Similarly, you can't just tack on Death Knight as any existing spec for a class, because part of their identity is being undead. What you need is a separate class that embodies what a Dark Ranger is. Again, I don't even think that a separate Ranger class could have a Dark Ranger spec. I think, based on Blizzard's own track record for new classes, that we would need an undead-based class to embody a Dark Ranger identity.

[DotEleven]

Dark Ranger is A cunning Hero, adept at manipulating opponents. Forcibly raised from the dead, the former Rangers of Quel'Thalas enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension

Hunter is basically a ranged-weapon user that is adept at survival, has a connection to the wilds and is in tune with nature.

As for your Rogue example - It depends on their origin and lore. Where did they get this Frost magic? Do they have an origin story? Is there a character that embodies this identity? If we're just talking about Frost magic, then sure a Rogue can use Frost and I'd be okay with it. I would think it's kinda wierd, but I think Priests with Shadow is weird and I'm still okay with it. Being weird is not my point.

Now if you say Rogue can just start using Moonglaives to have a Warden spec, then I would have to question that motive. Does the Rogue embody the Warden's values? I don't think so. Is the Warden aligned as a Rogue spec? Gameplay-wise, yes they do, because they do many of the same things; such as use knives, fight in stealth and have limited use of shadow magic. Maiev is even used as a Rogue hero in Hearthstone. But would it make sense as a 4th Rogue spec? I would argue no, because they have very different origins and values to the Rogue. They are not thief-like, they are not fortune seekers, they are not cold-blooded killers. They value vengeance and justice. I would argue that this identity separates itself enough from being a Rogue 4th spec, even if they are both Stealthy Shadowy fighters.

You're just completely nuts. You're literally going "hurr durr, the only similarity is the bow" ignoring the fact that the original Dark Ranger LITERALLY CREATED THE DARK RANGERS ACCORDING TO HER RANGER TRAINING.

I'm done, no use arguing with people being willingly ignorant.

[Triceron]

You're just completely nuts. You're literally going "hurr durr, the only similarity is the bow" ignoring the fact that the original Dark Ranger LITERALLY CREATED THE DARK RANGERS ACCORDING TO HER RANGER TRAINING.

What?

All Dark Rangers share Sylvanas' origin. They weren't simply trained into existence. They are all Forsaken. They all have a grudge to bear.

Training is not the only thing that creates Dark Rangers. Being undead is part of that identity. Being undead is irreversible and untrainable, it is a state of being. And as WC3 has shown, it is also more than simply being a ranger in life and being raised as a Forsaken.

Why are our Forsaken Hunters not considered to be Dark Rangers? Because there is a clear identity to that title, one beyond simply being a Hunter that is Undead or Hunter that uses Necromancy. The Dark Ranger title is very specific. It's not what you seem to think they are. And frankly, there is a lot more seemingly unexplained at play here, such as the information we got today about Sylvanas post-cinematic.

I'm all about adhering to class fantasy. If there is a way to marry the Dark Ranger concept to the Hunter class, I'm all for it. Making it a 4th Hunter spec alone simply doesn't do that, considering all Hunter races are living characters. I'd even advocate for a Dark Ranger class skin for Hunters that is exclusive to Forsaken, like in Taliesin's Class Skin video. That would be a lore-savvy way to approach the class concept.

[Ielenia]

Btw wasn't it explained in Mechagon that the king tries to reverse the curse of flesh by going back making himself a robot? so they are not quite there yet? I mean he just wears a robot mask, but hes still a gnome right?

I dunno. I mean, if you notice, King Mechagon has a huge cog spinning through his head. I'm sure there aren't much 'gnome' left in him, if at all, especially in the head area, for that to be possible.

[Lodravel]

Death Knights defected from Arthas. Dark Rangers could effectively do the same.

Given the acute lack of Dark Rangers in lore, there's nobody there to defect.
Arthas had a giant army, lots of DKs, too.
Sylvanas doesn't and now she doubly doesn't. Plus, the whole timing is off.