If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[TheRevenantHero]

Raising a random undead beast on attack is not the same thing as raising a humanoid undead skeleton from the humanoid mob that you just killed.


We don't know why it was removed, so stop pretending like you do.


Except, as pointed out almost an infinite number of times to you by almost everone in this entire planet, the dark ranger ability would not work 1:1 as the old hunter ability.


No. No, it would not. That's like saing the WC3 Paladin's resurrection ability would instead work on beasts only if translated to WoW.


So we should remove "banish", "paralysis", "cyclone", "hex", and all the other CC abilities, because they're just the mage's "polymorph" that work on more mobs than polymorph.


It's not a hunter.

Raising the dead =/= calling a beast.

It's not a hunter.

It cannot "tame".


And describing a death knight pre-WotLK would be exactly that: describing an "evil" paladin. Without even having to mention their lore and the expansion reveal trailer that ACTUALLY describe them as "evil paladins".


That was exactly what you were arguing. You equated the Subtlety rogue to the dark ranger because it can throw shurikens. Not to mention that just going by shurikens alone your DPS would be competing with the healers'.


Except the rogue is not a ranged class. And "using stealth" is not exclusive to the rogue class.


Of course it does. Just give them the ability, and done. After all, if dark arrow, an ability that has never fit with the hunter's theme and concept, "fits" in your opinion, then a mech surely would fit, as well.

- - - Updated - - -


Don't be a Teriz and start coping his "specific in-game WoW abilities that we can see in WoWHead to check its properties" nonsense. They possess access to necromancy, as they are able to raise the skeletons of the foes they kill. They are also versed in mind manipulation. Read their WoWPedia entry and you'll see it.

So basically you have absolutely no evidence that dark rangers are anything more than undead quel'dorei hunters. Because they absolutely do NOT raise skeletons in WoW nor do they possess mind control. Maybe follow your own comments. You have said since claw packs don't exist in WoW, that means they were dropped. Which means since dark rangers in WoW don't raise skeletons or possess mind control, those abilities were ALSO dropped.

[Teriz]

Raising a random undead beast on attack is not the same thing as raising a humanoid undead skeleton from the humanoid mob that you just killed.

It's actually better, since you're not relying on actually killing a target with Black Arrow to gain the minion.

We don't know why it was removed, so stop pretending like you do.

That was the purpose behind speccing into Black Arrow in Legion. Blizzard gave MM the ability to have a pet again in BFA and Black Arrow got removed. Coincidence?

Except, as pointed out almost an infinite number of times to you by almost everone in this entire planet, the dark ranger ability would not work 1:1 as the old hunter ability.

I would just like to point out that the WC3 version of Black Arrow is a rather bad ability for WoW. There's a high chance that you kill your target and you spawn your minion, and you no longer have anything to attack, or you're fighting a boss that doesn't die when BA is procced, thus making the ability ultimately pointless. It worked fine in the RTS because there was ample opportunity to kill weak units and spawn the minion. Unfortunately in a MMO, such an ability would be extremely lackluster. Again, the Hunter talent in Legion is a far better version more fitting for WoW.

No. No, it would not. That's like saing the WC3 Paladin's resurrection ability would instead work on beasts only if translated to WoW.

Okay, then please explain the difference between a Hunter taming a beast and a Dark Ranger charming a beast.

So we should remove "banish", "paralysis", "cyclone", "hex", and all the other CC abilities, because they're just the mage's "polymorph" that work on more mobs than polymorph.

CC is an issue of balance. Charm is merely a flavor ability that serves no real purpose unless you're trying to make the DR a pet class. If you're trying to make it a pet class, then that is yet another similarity to the Hunter class.

Of course it does. Just give them the ability, and done. After all, if dark arrow, an ability that has never fit with the hunter's theme and concept, "fits" in your opinion, then a mech surely would fit, as well.

That is a rather bizarre comparison to make, since the Hunter class actually had Black Arrow for multiple expansions. Further, the Hunter class has always had a angle where they utilize arrows or shots imbued with magical properties. Currently the Hunter class has arrows that utilize Arcane, Frost, and Nature magic. In the past they have also utilized fire and shadow arrows/shots. Why would arrows/shots utilizing shadow magic suddenly be out of bounds?

Archers and Rangers who use bows, arrows, muskets, and traps suddenly getting the ability to fight in mech suits makes zero sense on every level.

[Ielenia]

It's actually better, since you're not relying on actually killing a target with Black Arrow to gain the minion.

That's a red herring. It doesn't matter which one is better or worse. We're talking about different abilities, not which one is better.

That was the purpose behind speccing into Black Arrow in Legion. Blizzard gave MM the ability to have a pet again in BFA and Black Arrow got removed. Coincidence?

It could be. Unless you have Blizzard's statement, that's all we got so far: it could be a coincidence.

I would just like to point out that the WC3 version of Black Arrow is a rather bad ability for WoW. There's a high chance that you kill your target and you spawn your minion, and you no longer have anything to attack, or you're fighting a boss that doesn't die when BA is procced, thus making the ability ultimately pointless. It worked fine in the RTS because there was ample opportunity to kill weak units and spawn the minion. Unfortunately in a MMO, such an ability would be extremely lackluster. Again, the Hunter talent in Legion is a far better version more fitting for WoW.

Not really. First, bosses often have adds. And mob groups in dungeons usually have more than one mob in them. And even if they do, the minion doen't immediately despawn out of combat, so you can use it to fight the next pack. Also, that's not all the ability does: it also deals extra damage. What you're saying here is that "Victory Rush" is an ability that doesn't work in WoW for the exact same reasons you just described.

Okay, then please explain the difference between a Hunter taming a beast and a Dark Ranger charming a beast.

They wouldn't charm a beast. The dark rangers are not about beast pets.

CC is an issue of balance. Charm is merely a flavor ability that serves no real purpose

It's not a flavor ability. It could be translated as a CC for WoW, or cause the target to temporarily attack their friends, without making them a pet.

That is a rather bizarre comparison to make, since the Hunter class actually had Black Arrow for multiple expansions.

And they never had Black Arrow before getting it for the first time.

Further, the Hunter class has always had a angle where they utilize arrows or shots imbued with magical properties.

And techie gadgets like bombs and traps.

- - - Updated - - -

So basically you have absolutely no evidence that dark rangers are anything more than undead quel'dorei hunters.

I have literally pointed you toward the concept's WoWpedia page where it shows the difference. The fact you're repeating that only shows you didn't bother to read. Also, food for thought: death knights were nothing more than human paladins turned evil before Wrath.

Because they absolutely do NOT raise skeletons in WoW nor do they possess mind control.

You're wrong: Black Arrow used by many dark rangers: "Curses an enemy, inflicting periodic Shadow damage over 8 sec. If the target dies while afflicted by Black Arrow, a Skeleton will be summoned from the target's corpse."

You have said since claw packs don't exist in WoW, that means they were dropped.

It's not the same thing, though. The only mention of claw packs come from a game that is almost two decades old. There is not a single mention of claw packs in canon lore, nowadays. Whereas the dark ranger's current lore describe them as manipulative and masters of "sowing dissent", which can imply a degree of mind manipulation.

[TheRevenantHero]

That's a red herring. It doesn't matter which one is better or worse. We're talking about different abilities, not which one is better.


It could be. Unless you have Blizzard's statement, that's all we got so far: it could be a coincidence.


Not really. First, bosses often have adds. And mob groups in dungeons usually have more than one mob in them. And even if they do, the minion doen't immediately despawn out of combat, so you can use it to fight the next pack. Also, that's not all the ability does: it also deals extra damage. What you're saying here is that "Victory Rush" is an ability that doesn't work in WoW for the exact same reasons you just described.


They wouldn't charm a beast. The dark rangers are not about beast pets.


It's not a flavor ability. It could be translated as a CC for WoW, or cause the target to temporarily attack their friends, without making them a pet.


And they never had Black Arrow before getting it for the first time.


And techie gadgets like bombs and traps.

- - - Updated - - -


I have literally pointed you toward the concept's WoWpedia page where it shows the difference. The fact you're repeating that only shows you didn't bother to read. Also, food for thought: death knights were nothing more than human paladins turned evil before Wrath.


You're wrong: Black Arrow used by many dark rangers: "Curses an enemy, inflicting periodic Shadow damage over 8 sec. If the target dies while afflicted by Black Arrow, a Skeleton will be summoned from the target's corpse."


It's not the same thing, though. The only mention of claw packs come from a game that is almost two decades old. There is not a single mention of claw packs in canon lore, nowadays. Whereas the dark ranger's current lore describe them as manipulative and masters of "sowing dissent", which can imply a degree of mind manipulation.

All right well I was wrong about Black Arrow. I didn't know it had that additional effect.

And being manipulative and master of sowing dissent isn't implying mind control AT ALL. Are you going to say that people IRL who are manipulative actually have mind control?

And I did read the dark ranger WoWpedia article. They are former quel'dorei rangers. And guess what? Ranger is just a title for hunters in quel'dorei society

[Triceron]

Hunters also received an equivalent of Searing Arrow (Exotic munitions and Arcane Shot), and they had the PotM’s owl ability (Sentinel). The only ability from the PotM they never got was Starfall.

Btw, PotM is in a similar position as Dark Rangers in terms of class viability.

Class viability is not my concern.

I'm debunking the idea that having their abilities equates to absorbing their Class concept.

Hunters are no more a Priestess of a Moon for having their abilities than Druids are considered Priestess of the Moon for having Starfall and other Elune-themed abilities.

The Priestess of the Moon remains its own Class concept that is not playable.

Lots of people have lumped Void Elves in as a potential Dark Ranger race.

Yes

Again, you’re not naming any specific abilities that mark this difference.

Because abilities aren't what differentiates one Class concept from another.

Multiple concepts can use the same ability at any given time. That's why Warlocks and Demon Hunters could both use Metamorphosis. In the lore, Warlocks still have that capability, even if the ability has been removed. The lore of Green Fire quest hasn't been changed or removed, and it still explains that certain Warlock NPCs are able to use the Demon Form even if our player classes can not.

You're conflating a class concept, which is lore, with game mechanics. Game mechanics don't define a class because abilities are added, changed and removed all the time. Was a Warlock considered a Death Knight or Necromancer because it once had many Necromantic abilities? No. It was never a Necromancer, it was never a Death Knight. Those particular Class concepts are not absorbed into the Warlock just because they had Death Coil, Life Drain, Haunt and Siphon Life.

But the very name of this concept is Dark Hunter, since Ranger is merely another word for Hunter. In fact, the Hunter class is considered a Ranger class.

You know better than this, c'mon. Who you foolin here?

Except the didn’t add Tinker gameplay to engineering. They did however bring Dark Ranger gameplay to the Hunter class multiple times in the history of WoW, and it never fundamentally changed the nature of the Hunter class.

They expanded Hunter gameplay with a singular Dark Ranger ability.

And Engineering does have a Tinker ability within it - Engineering Upgrade. It's translated into all the little gadgets and doohickeys you can add to your boots, belt, gloves and cape. It grants you the use of explosives and powerful artillery trinkets. It allows you to create gear that grants powerful unique passive abilities and high stats. The equivalent in WC3 was a passive that boosts your movespeed, which is what Rocketboots allows you to do. No other profession in the game has anything similar. The entire Engineering profession is the equivalent of Tinker's Engineering Upgrade.

Why would class abilities belong in a profession which is not designed to house such abilities, and has never housed such abilities?

Has it ever made any difference to Blizzard? Alchemist was a Class but it was translated completely into a Profession in WoW. The whole concept of brewing and transmuting is all in this profession, and this is where those concepts get translated into WoW. What other class uses Alchemy themes that are as comparable to this Profession? None.

Why is it strange? The WC3 DK hero had rune and necromancer concepts seeded in it from the beginning. Obviously when it was expanded into a class it made sense to bring those concepts into the fold.

Why is it strange for Dark Ranger to do the same? It's obvious that if it were to be expanded, it would also bring in relative concepts into the fold too. Valla from HOTS is a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, but has very similar abilities and themes that would fit a Dark Ranger. (Dark) Wardens also share the concept of using dark shadow magic, manipulating opponents and the whole concept of Vengeance, which plays into the whole Banshee theme that Sylvanas is known for. The concept of the Dark Ranger is a shadowy ranged assassin who manipulates their opponents.

And like you said, there's all the Void magic they could potentially use since many people consider Void Elf a potential race. This potentially brings in Alleria and all the concepts which she represents too.

The thing is that there was no Monk class in WoW so the Monk class had plenty of design space to fill.

There's no Dark Ranger class either.

The arguments you're using is no different than you trying to imply that Monks are just a type of Shaman. And you do this by equating what they do and what their core concepts are, and bridging all their similarities. When any differences are pointed out, you simply generalize the new theme as being one or two abilities that can be added to the core class.

Shamans fight in melee, use spiritual elemental magic, and heal with water. Monks fight in melee, use spiritual elemental magic, and heal with water. The only real difference is the use of Martial Arts. A bad faith argument would imply that you could just add a couple Martial Arts abilities to a Shaman and it would absorb all of the Monk's themes. It's nonetheless true that Blizzard could do this, but again, it's an argument done in bad faith because we're not actually addressing the Monk or Brewmaster as a class, we're generalizing it down to basic concepts which can be trivialized into one-or-two abilities and treating it as though the greater concept is not worth exploring.

When you say there is no fundamental class archetype that the Dark Ranger belongs to, you're using a bad faith argument. Demon Hunters do not have a fundamental class archetype they belong to either; their whole concept exists *between* the space that Monks, Rogues and Warlocks already occupied. You have made that argument yourself, that the game has no room for a Demon Hunter. Blizzard isn't operating on those rules; class archetypes can exist as niches that overlap with other existing classes. We have a playable Demon Hunter class that has no clear archetype that isn't already being shared with other classes.

I mean, honestly speaking, no one really buys your bullshit any more. The argument you're using is absolutely done in bad faith. Would you even dare making a '5 reasons why Dark Ranger won't be playable' thread to prove your points?

[Teriz]

That's a red herring. It doesn't matter which one is better or worse. We're talking about different abilities, not which one is better.

Well it does matter since it explains why Hunters would get the better version of the ability.

Not really. First, bosses often have adds. And mob groups in dungeons usually have more than one mob in them. And even if they do, the minion doen't immediately despawn out of combat, so you can use it to fight the next pack. Also, that's not all the ability does: it also deals extra damage. What you're saying here is that "Victory Rush" is an ability that doesn't work in WoW for the exact same reasons you just described.

Well it doesn't quite work like victory rush. Victory Rush activates when you kill an enemy period. It doesn't matter what ability you use to kill, it always triggers. Further, Victory Rush is mainly used to heal during a fight. If you have no more enemies to fight, then you don't really need the heal from VR.

On the other hand, if you're attacking a target and you used Black Arrow to bring the target down to 1% health and you kill them with a shadow tick instead, you're not getting the minion.

They wouldn't charm a beast. The dark rangers are not about beast pets.

The original charm ability had no restrictions on what family of mobs it could charm. So again, what's the difference between Taming a Beast and Charming a Beast?

It's not a flavor ability. It could be translated as a CC for WoW, or cause the target to temporarily attack their friends, without making them a pet.

We're going on what the ability is, not what it could be translated to be. If you're now saying it could be something else entirely, well that's a different discussion.

And they never had Black Arrow before getting it for the first time.

Which is irrelevant. They had Black Arrow from WotLK to Legion, which is a 4 expansions and almost a decade. Saying that Black Arrow doesn't fit the Hunter theme is kind of strange to say when the class had that ability for such a long stretch of WoW history.

And techie gadgets like bombs and traps.

It's a single bomb which is largely based on primitive fire-based explosives. I would also hesitate to call that and magical traps "techie".

- - - Updated - - -

Class viability is not my concern.

I'm debunking the idea that having their abilities equates to absorbing their Class concept.

Hunters are no more a Priestess of a Moon for having their abilities than Druids are considered Priestess of the Moon for having Starfall and other Elune-themed abilities.

The Priestess of the Moon remains its own Class concept that is not playable.

And the point is that PotM won't be playable due to it being dissected by multiple classes. Dark Rangers are in a similar situation.

Because abilities aren't what differentiates one Class concept from another.

Multiple concepts can use the same ability at any given time. That's why Warlocks and Demon Hunters could both use Metamorphosis.

Yet Warlocks and Demon Hunters couldn't both have Metamorphosis at the same time. Why? Because abilities like Metamorphosis define a class concept. Thus when I ask what abilities define the Dark Ranger class and you're unable to answer that question, that simply shows how weak the Dark Ranger class concept is.

You're conflating a class concept, which is lore, with game mechanics. Game mechanics don't define a class because abilities are added, changed and removed all the time. Was a Warlock considered a Death Knight or Necromancer because it once had many Necromantic abilities? No. It was never a Necromancer, it was never a Death Knight. Those particular Class concepts are not absorbed into the Warlock just because they had Death Coil, Life Drain, Haunt and Siphon Life.

Except the Warlock concept always had life and soul-controlling abilities. So no, I wouldn't consider Death Coil, Life Drain, or Haunt to be anything but Warlock abilities.

You know better than this, c'mon. Who you foolin here?

Survival
An adaptive ranger who favors using explosives, animal venom, and coordinated attacks with their bonded beast.

They expanded Hunter gameplay with a singular Dark Ranger ability.

But they didn't fundamentally change it.

And Engineering does have a Tinker ability within it - Engineering Upgrade. It's translated into all the little gadgets and doohickeys you can add to your boots, belt, gloves and cape. It grants you the use of explosives and powerful artillery trinkets. It allows you to create gear that grants powerful unique passive abilities and high stats. The equivalent in WC3 was a passive that boosts your movespeed, which is what Rocketboots allows you to do. No other profession in the game has anything similar. The entire Engineering profession is the equivalent of Tinker's Engineering Upgrade.

Please provide a link to the ability called Engineering Upgrade in WoW that does all that you're describing above.

Has it ever made any difference to Blizzard? Alchemist was a Class but it was translated completely into a Profession in WoW. The whole concept of brewing and transmuting is all in this profession, and this is where those concepts get translated into WoW. What other class uses Alchemy themes that are as comparable to this Profession? None.

Yeah this is false. The WoW professions come from the WC3 item system and shops, not the hero units. None of the Alchemist's hero abilities were ever translated into WoW.

Why is it strange for Dark Ranger to do the same? It's obvious that if it were to be expanded, it would also bring in relative concepts into the fold too. Valla from HOTS is a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, but has very similar abilities and themes that would fit a Dark Ranger.

That would be too close to what we see in Hunters and Rogues.

(Dark) Wardens also share the concept of using dark shadow magic, manipulating opponents and the whole concept of Vengeance, which plays into the whole Banshee theme that Sylvanas is known for. The concept of the Dark Ranger is a shadowy ranged assassin who manipulates their opponents.

Again, far too close to the existing Rogue class. Also Demon Hunters eat up some of that design space as well.

And like you said, there's all the Void magic they could potentially use since many people consider Void Elf a potential race. This potentially brings in Alleria and all the concepts which she represents too.

Alleria's concepts are largely tied into the Void Elf race itself. You can simply roll a Void Elf Hunter and get pretty much exactly what you'd get from a spec based on Alleria.

The arguments you're using is no different than you trying to imply that Monks are just a type of Shaman. And you do this by equating what they do and what their core concepts are, and bridging all their similarities. When any differences are pointed out, you simply generalize the new theme as being one or two abilities that can be added to the core class.

Shamans fight in melee, use spiritual elemental magic, and heal with water. Monks fight in melee, use spiritual elemental magic, and heal with water. The only real difference is the use of Martial Arts. A bad faith argument would imply that you could just add a couple Martial Arts abilities to a Shaman and it would absorb all of the Monk's themes. It's nonetheless true that Blizzard could do this, but again, it's an argument done in bad faith because we're not actually addressing the Monk or Brewmaster as a class, we're generalizing it down to basic concepts which can be trivialized into one-or-two abilities and treating it as though the greater concept is not worth exploring.

This is a false equivalence. Monks are a pretty standard RPG archetype, while Shaman are the pretty standard Nature-based primitive magic user. The two really have nothing in common beyond a slight overlap in the use of naturalistic magic. Even there, you're comparing the mist and chi based magic of the Pandarens and the four primal elements.

When you say there is no fundamental class archetype that the Dark Ranger belongs to, you're using a bad faith argument. Demon Hunters do not have a fundamental class archetype they belong to either; their whole concept exists *between* the space that Monks, Rogues and Warlocks already occupied. Yet here we are with a Demon Hunter class in the game.

I actually agree with that, but Demon Hunters had Metamorphosis, which was a highly unique ability that you could define a class around, and was spreadable to characters beyond Illidan. A character that fights demons and can become a demon themselves is a rather cool and interesting dynamic. Them being blind with unique weapons gave them an interesting and striking edge that could justify their existence.

Dark Rangers really don't have that. The only thing interesting about the Dark Ranger is Sylvanas herself. This is demonstrated by how no one wants to play other Dark Rangers, they want to just play as Sylvanas. This was never the case with Demon Hunters. People wanted to play as a Demon Hunter period, not just become Illidan. They had no issue with being a DH like Varedis or Kayn, however, Dark Ranger proponents have no desire to be Dark Rangers like Nathanos or Clea.

[Ielenia]

Well it does matter since it explains why Hunters would get the better version of the ability.

No, it is completely irrelevant because we're not talking why one class has one ability while the other class has another. We're talking about the differences between their abilities.

Well it doesn't quite work like victory rush. Victory Rush activates when you kill an enemy period.

And Black Arrow's secondary ability would also activate when you kill an enemy. "Period". Black Arrow, however, has the advantage of also dealing extra damage, so it's not only useful when the mob dies.

It doesn't matter what ability you use to kill, it always triggers.

I'm not talking about the hunter's version. I'm talking about the dark ranger's ability.

Further, Victory Rush is mainly used to heal during a fight. If you have no more enemies to fight, then you don't really need the heal from VR.

And if you have no more enemies to fight, you don't really need the minion you get from killing a mob with Dark Arrow. See? Same thing.

On the other hand, if you're attacking a target and you used Black Arrow to bring the target down to 1% health and you kill them with a shadow tick instead, you're not getting the minion.

Except you are, since the requirement for raising an undead skeleton is that the mob dies while affected by Black Arrow, which is a damage-over-time debuff.

The original charm ability had no restrictions on what family of mobs it could charm. So again, what's the difference between Taming a Beast and Charming a Beast?

A dark ranger would not charm beasts. The concept is not about charming (or taming) beasts. And as for restriction, I'll remind you that the mage's polymorph spell did not have as many restrictions as our current spell: you could polymorph abominations, for one.

We're going on what the ability is, not what it could be translated to be. If you're now saying it could be something else entirely, well that's a different discussion.

I'm making it fall in line with the concept's description in WoWpedia.

Which is irrelevant. They had Black Arrow from WotLK to Legion, which is a 4 expansions and almost a decade. Saying that Black Arrow doesn't fit the Hunter theme is kind of strange to say when the class had that ability for such a long stretch of WoW history.

But they didn't have Black Arrow before then, and nothing in their concept or lore indicated that they should get an ability that raises undead. It's the exact same case as the tinker mech. So they could be given tinker armor, and keep it for a few expansions.

It's a single bomb which is largely based on primitive fire-based explosives. I would also hesitate to call that and magical traps "techie".

Who said they're magical traps?

- - - Updated - - -

And being manipulative and master of sowing dissent isn't implying mind control AT ALL. Are you going to say that people IRL who are manipulative actually have mind control?

Your first mistake was making a real life comparison. We have examples in the game of people using of mind manipulation magic. Anduin mind-controlling Sully to let him go back in Pandaria is the most recent example I can remember. Katrina Prestor, a.k.a. Onyxia, also used mind control on Bolvar Fordragon through the Drakefire Amulet.

And I did read the dark ranger WoWpedia article. They are former quel'dorei rangers. And guess what? Ranger is just a title for hunters in quel'dorei society

I'll repeat what I wrote in my last response to you:

Also, food for thought: death knights were nothing more than human paladins turned evil before Wrath.

So saying "dark rangers are just quel'dorei rangers" is a dead-on-the-waters argument.

[Triceron]

This is a false equivalence. Monks are a pretty standard RPG archetype, while Shaman are the pretty standard Nature-based primitive magic user. The two really have nothing in common beyond a slight overlap in the use of naturalistic magic. Even there, you're comparing the mist and chi based magic of the Pandarens and the four primal elements.

Yes, and a bad faith argument would imply that Monks are just a type of Shaman, and you would repeat that statement over and over as if it were the truth. There would be zero consideration that a Monk could ever be its own class, even if it had their own unique traits and aspects. A bad faith argument is based on false equivalencies, exactly the way you've conflated anything and everything related to Dark Rangers to the Hunter class (or even to the Priest) regardless of the overall Class Concept.

Sure, Monks are a standard RPG archetype. Shamans are not though. It doesn't take much to extend that bad faith argument to say Shamans are the Monk Archetype because they cover as a spiritual magic user, which no other class in the game is themed around. You could then use a false equivalency to equate depictions of Shamans fighting with fist weapons to hand-to-hand combat of Monks in RPG settings, or note that in D&D's Monk originated as a westernized Clerical Monk and only later adopted the Kung Fu aspects, and argue that the Shaman could do the same. It's all arguments done in bad faith, because we're purposely denying any possibility of a standalone Monk class by trivializing their entire position and role.

I actually agree with that, but Demon Hunters had Metamorphosis, which was a highly unique ability that you could define a class around, and was spreadable to characters beyond Illidan. Dark Rangers never had that.

Dark Rangers do have that.

You've simply been making bad faith arguments to imply that anything unique that they do have would be pawned off to existing classes. That's the whole crux of your argument.

You started off with a very sensible statement, saying that Sylvanas bringing in HotS abilities opens it up for the Tinker and Dragon Aspects concepts. This makes sense, since Sylvanas herself is a Dark Ranger, and now we're seeing her HotS Dark Ranger abilities make their way into the game as boss mechanics.

For whatever reason, you then decided to use bad faith arguments to turn it around and imply that all those abilities would be funneled straight into an existing class. You didn't regard any of the abilities as potential to form a new class around at all, even if all the potential is there. We have a case of *multiple* new abilities being added collectively. I mean, you don't even dare touch the more unique aspects of Sylvanas like her Banshee form, her use of Death Fog and all the Banshee-related abilities.

It's obvious that the whole Banshee aspect of Sylvanas is open to explore. It's prime to help theme a Dark Ranger class.

Yet the truth remains - Dark Ranger is the most direct competitor to the Tinker. It's the ideal Physical Ranged Class that would use Mail. It's arguably as popular as the Tinker concept itself, and has a far more recognizeable Lore hero that everyone knows and would want to play as, especially after seeing her boss encounter. I mean, it's obviously clear why you wouldn't want to touch on any of the Dark Ranger's merits the way you would for the Monk, because the Monk is already in the game and isn't a threat to your Tinker concept.

The arguments against Dark Ranger are in bad faith, because it's only used to deny potential possibilities based on the simple fact that it isn't actually playable yet.

We could argue that Illidan was the only Demon Hunter with wings, and discussing the merits of Double Jump or Wing Glide would be ridiculous for a Demon Hunter class. We could argue that no Demon Hunter NPC was ever shown with a Vengeance tanking form, or that Illidan himself has never been shown using Eyebeams. We could argue that anything unique that Illidan uses in Heroes of the Storm is due to him consuming the Skull of Gul'dan, which regular Demon Hunters would not have done. All of these arguments would be completely valid in the absence of a Demon Hunter class, and they would all be in bad faith since it is only being used to deny possibilities.

I can only imagine you resort to this type of argument because of how the majority of Tinker feedback you get is also treated in this trivializing manner. It only makes sense for you to do the same to concepts you don't agree with. But as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

[TheRevenantHero]

No, it is completely irrelevant because we're not talking why one class has one ability while the other class has another. We're talking about the differences between their abilities.


And Black Arrow's secondary ability would also activate when you kill an enemy. "Period". Black Arrow, however, has the advantage of also dealing extra damage, so it's not only useful when the mob dies.


I'm not talking about the hunter's version. I'm talking about the dark ranger's ability.


And if you have no more enemies to fight, you don't really need the minion you get from killing a mob with Dark Arrow. See? Same thing.


Except you are, since the requirement for raising an undead skeleton is that the mob dies while affected by Black Arrow, which is a damage-over-time debuff.


A dark ranger would not charm beasts. The concept is not about charming (or taming) beasts. And as for restriction, I'll remind you that the mage's polymorph spell did not have as many restrictions as our current spell: you could polymorph abominations, for one.


I'm making it fall in line with the concept's description in WoWpedia.


But they didn't have Black Arrow before then, and nothing in their concept or lore indicated that they should get an ability that raises undead. It's the exact same case as the tinker mech. So they could be given tinker armor, and keep it for a few expansions.


Who said they're magical traps?

- - - Updated - - -


Your first mistake was making a real life comparison. We have examples in the game of people using of mind manipulation magic. Anduin mind-controlling Sully to let him go back in Pandaria is the most recent example I can remember. Katrina Prestor, a.k.a. Onyxia, also used mind control on Bolvar Fordragon through the Drakefire Amulet.


I'll repeat what I wrote in my last response to you:

So saying "dark rangers are just quel'dorei rangers" is a dead-on-the-waters argument.

Sure we do have examples of mind manipulation through magic and items. Dark rangers don't have those abilities though.

Also, no. Death knights, when they were introduced in WC3, were paladins that traveled to the source of the plague and ended up at the Icecrown Citadel. They were offered power by the Lich King and they accepted. They then had their souls bound to the Lich King's will. They were then also granted vampiric runeblades and became the Scourge's strongest generals.

So you're completely wrong about death knights being nothing but paladins before Wrath. Meanwhile, dark rangers literally are just undead quel'dorei rangers. And as I said, "ranger" is literally just another word for Hunter in elven society.

[Teriz]

No, it is completely irrelevant because we're not talking why one class has one ability while the other class has another. We're talking about the differences between their abilities.

Well it's also relevant because it explains why the WC3 version of Black Arrow wouldn't enter the class lineup.

And Black Arrow's secondary ability would also activate when you kill an enemy. "Period". Black Arrow, however, has the advantage of also dealing extra damage, so it's not only useful when the mob dies.

No, the WC3 version of Black Arrow requires you to kill the target with Black Arrow specifically. Victory Rush activates regardless of what you kill a target with.

I'm not talking about the hunter's version. I'm talking about the dark ranger's ability.

I wasn't talking about either. I was talking about the Warrior ability that you brought up.

And if you have no more enemies to fight, you don't really need the minion you get from killing a mob with Dark Arrow. See? Same thing.

Yeah, but the minion may accidentally trigger because you killed a mob with Black Arrow. Conversely, you may need the minion and it won't trigger because you accidentally killed the mob with a different ability.

Again, the ability is more trouble than its worth. Both Hunter variations are superior.

Except you are, since the requirement for raising an undead skeleton is that the mob dies while affected by Black Arrow, which is a damage-over-time debuff.

Except that isn't the WC3 version of Black Arrow.

I'm making it fall in line with the concept's description in WoWpedia.

According to Wowpedia, the Priest ability Mind Control is a Charm. That says a lot.

But they didn't have Black Arrow before then, and nothing in their concept or lore indicated that they should get an ability that raises undead. It's the exact same case as the tinker mech. So they could be given tinker armor, and keep it for a few expansions.

Again, in a class that can shoot fire, frost, nature, and arcane arrows, why is it out of line for them to shoot shadow arrows?

Who said they're magical traps?

Okay, I wouldn't consider traps in general to be "techie". Traps have existed for thousands of years.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and a bad faith argument would imply that Monks are just a type of Shaman, and you would repeat that statement over and over as if it were the truth. There would be zero consideration that a Monk could ever be its own class, even if it had their own unique traits and aspects. A bad faith argument is based on false equivalencies, exactly the way you've conflated anything and everything related to Dark Rangers to the Hunter class (or even to the Priest) regardless of the overall Class Concept.

This is false. Monks are fundamentally different than the Shaman class, and when you apply the Pandaren Brewmaster theme, they become even more distinct. Where is the clear distinction between the Hunter and the Dark Ranger?

Sure, Monks are a standard RPG archetype. Shamans are not though. It doesn't take much to extend that bad faith argument to say Shamans are the Monk Archetype because they cover as a spiritual magic user, which no other class in the game is themed around. You could then use a false equivalency to equate depictions of Shamans fighting with fist weapons to hand-to-hand combat of Monks in RPG settings, or note that in D&D's Monk originated as a westernized Clerical Monk and only later adopted the Kung Fu aspects, and argue that the Shaman could do the same. It's all arguments done in bad faith, because we're purposely denying any possibility of a standalone Monk class by trivializing their entire position and role.

Shaman fall under the Nature Magician archetype.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...aracterClasses

Dark Rangers do have that.

Okay, so what is it?

[Triceron]

Okay, so what is it?

From above:

"We have a case of *multiple* new abilities being added collectively. I mean, you don't even dare touch the more unique aspects of Sylvanas like her Banshee form, her use of Death Fog and all the Banshee-related abilities.

It's obvious that the whole Banshee aspect of Sylvanas is open to explore. It's prime to help theme a Dark Ranger class."


Everything Sylvanas has in WC3 and HOTS. The entire Banshee theme and connection to undeath magic, the shadowy assassin archetype, the use of mind manipulation, the themes of vengeance, torment and hatred. These are all themes that are disconnected from the Hunter, themes that make a Dark Ranger stand out and have people recognize Sylvanas as being more than merely a Hunter with some tricks.

The abilities can then be supported by anything Maiev and Valla have in HOTS, adapted to fit a Dark Ranger concept. Hungering Arrow, Vault, Spirit of Vengeance, Rain of Vengeance, Umbral Bind, Cruel Chain, Shadow Orb, Siphoning Arrow, Strafe. Plenty of abilities thematically applicable to Dark Rangers.

The core concept will always be based on playing as Sylvanas. That is the core fantasy, and not some arbitrary comparison to Void Elf Hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure we do have examples of mind manipulation through magic and items. Dark rangers don't have those abilities though.

Here's a thought experiment

If a Priest NPC is only ever shown to use Holy magic, we would simply consider them a Holy or Discipline specced Priest. If we only see Demon Hunters who use the winged Metamorphosis form and never use any other forms, we simply consider them to be a Havoc Demon Hunter. Yet overall, we know that Priests can use Shadow magic and Mind Control, and that it's just a spec. We know that Demon Hunters have access to multiple Demon forms, just that they are only limited to one at a time depending on their spec.

Think of how a Marksman Hunter does not have access to Pets. Does this mean a Hunter is unable to have Pets? No, it simply means they're using a Specialization which prevents them from using pets. So couldn't it be a possibility that the Dark Ranger NPCs are shown not using Mind control simply because they aren't specced into having Mind Control or Banshee-related abilities?

We haven't considered the full possibilities of what a Dark Ranger actually represents. The reason why all the Dark Ranger NPCs aren't like Sylvanas could be a matter of them not specializing in that path, while Sylvanas is so powerful that she has all specs available to her, kind of like how Arthas masters using Unholy and Frost magic with no limits. We simply aren't aware of any Banshee-specced Dark Rangers the same way we were never aware of any Vengeance-specced Demon Hunters in the world. Those specs are still a part of the class, but because we haven't seen it we aren't aware that it is possible for them to use those powers and abilities.

The same can be applied to Monk class in the world. Every Monk we knew about in WC3 was a Brewmaster spec only. We were never aware of their ability to use Mistweaving to heal. It doesn't mean Brewmasters are unable to use this ability, but they are specced specifically to be Brewmasters and weren't openly using Mist-based abilities prior to Mists of Pandaria.

Think about the same way DK's have never been shown to use Frost magic prior to Wrath of the Lich King. Would you say Death Knights should never have the ability to use Frost Magic because none of the Death Knight NPCs ever used it? No. It just happens that all of the DK NPCs are probably Unholy or Blood specced instead, and simply weren't using Frost.

[TheRevenantHero]

From above:

"We have a case of *multiple* new abilities being added collectively. I mean, you don't even dare touch the more unique aspects of Sylvanas like her Banshee form, her use of Death Fog and all the Banshee-related abilities.

It's obvious that the whole Banshee aspect of Sylvanas is open to explore. It's prime to help theme a Dark Ranger class."


Everything Sylvanas has in WC3 and HOTS. The entire Banshee theme and connection to undeath magic, the shadowy assassin archetype, the use of mind manipulation, the themes of vengeance, torment and hatred. These are all themes that are disconnected from the Hunter, themes that make a Dark Ranger stand out and have people recognize Sylvanas as being more than merely a Hunter with some tricks.

The abilities can then be supported by anything Maiev and Valla have in HOTS, adapted to fit a Dark Ranger concept. Hungering Arrow, Vault, Spirit of Vengeance, Rain of Vengeance, Umbral Bind, Cruel Chain, Shadow Orb, Siphoning Arrow, Strafe. Plenty of abilities thematically applicable to Dark Rangers.

- - - Updated - - -



Here's a thought experiment

If a Priest NPC is only ever shown to use Holy magic, we would simply consider them a Holy or Discipline specced Priest. If we only see Demon Hunters who use the winged Metamorphosis form and never use any other forms, we simply consider them to be a Havoc Demon Hunter. Yet overall, we know that Priests can use Shadow magic and Mind Control, and that it's just a spec. We know that Demon Hunters have access to multiple Demon forms, just that they are only limited to one at a time depending on their spec.

Think of how a Marksman Hunter does not have access to Pets. Does this mean a Hunter is unable to have Pets? No, it simply means they're using a Specialization which prevents them from using pets. So couldn't it be a possibility that the Dark Ranger NPCs are shown not using Mind control simply because they aren't specced into having Mind Control or Banshee-related abilities?

We haven't considered the full possibilities of what a Dark Ranger actually represents. The reason why all the Dark Ranger NPCs aren't like Sylvanas could be a matter of them not specializing in that path, while Sylvanas is so powerful that she has all specs available to her, kind of like how Arthas masters using Unholy and Frost magic with no limits. We simply aren't aware of any Banshee-specced Dark Rangers the same way we were never aware of any Vengeance-specced Demon Hunters in the world. Those specs are still a part of the class, but because we haven't seen it we aren't aware that it is possible for them to use those powers and abilities.

The reason they're not like Sylvanas is because Sylvanas is a banshee/undead elf hybrid. Normal dark rangers are JUST undead quel'dorei. It's really that simple.

[Triceron]

The reason they're not like Sylvanas is because Sylvanas is a banshee/undead elf hybrid. Normal dark rangers are JUST undead quel'dorei. It's really that simple.

Then why do Dark Ranger NPCs in WoW have Wailing Arrow that emits Banshee Screams?

If the intent is to make them regular Hunters, why not just give them Hunter abilities? Shadowburn Shot isn't enough?


Also, how sure are you that none of them share Sylvanas' origin? We have *never* seen any Dark Ranger actually created other than Sylvanas. The only exception is Nathanos, who was already a Ranger and was granted the Dark Ranger title despite not being an Elf or a Banshee.

The Kaldorei that were made into Dark Rangers are still Dark Rangers
Why do you still say they are just quel'dorei when Delaryn Summermoon is a Kal'dorei Dark Ranger?

[TheRevenantHero]

Then why do Dark Ranger NPCs in WoW have Wailing Arrow that emits Banshee Screams?

If the intent is to make them regular Hunters, why not just give them Hunter abilities? Shadowburn Shot isn't enough?


Also, how sure are you that none of them share Sylvanas' origin? We have *never* seen any Dark Ranger actually created other than Sylvanas. The only exception is Nathanos, who was already a Ranger and was granted the Dark Ranger title despite not being an Elf or a Banshee.

The Kaldorei that were made into Dark Rangers are still Dark Rangers
Why do you still say they are just quel'dorei when Delaryn Summermoon is a Kal'dorei Dark Ranger?

You can try and justify the flavor text all you want, all you're doing is grasping at straws. Nathanos is called a dark ranger most likely because he was boning Sylvanas and because he was put in charge of training more dark rangers that were risen. Delaryn is likely called a dark ranger because she's an ELF and ranger is a title for elite elven hunters. That's it. It's literally JUST a title. Delaryn isn't the only Kaldorei to be considered a "ranger" but the term is much more commonly used by quel'dorei and sin'dorei.

[Triceron]

You can try and justify the flavor text all you want, all you're doing is grasping at straws. Nathanos is called a dark ranger most likely because he was boning Sylvanas and because he was put in charge of training more dark rangers that were risen. Delaryn is likely called a dark ranger because she's an ELF and ranger is a title for elite elven hunters. That's it. It's literally JUST a title. Delaryn isn't the only Kaldorei to be considered a "ranger" but the term is much more commonly used by quel'dorei and sin'dorei.

You're right.

It is a title being used in WoW right now.


Tinker? Just a name of Goblin and Gnome Engineers.

Blademaster? Just the name of certain types of Arms Warrior.

Shadow Hunter? Just the title of Troll Shamans.

Warden? Just the name of type of Night Elf Rogue.

Bard? Just a name for musician NPCs, and it isn't even a playable concept in the RTS games and doesn't formally exist as a class in WoW


Any potential class can be considered a title. Any unique concepts can simply be dismissed as not being relevant as a playable class. These are arguments in bad faith. I hope to make you realize that you are arguing in bad faith.

The only way any title becomes a Class is if Blizzard chooses to make it playable in WoW. That is the only difference between a Class and a Title. Brewmaster (Monk), Death Knight and Demon Hunter were all titles until Blizzard made them into playable Classes. Paladin, Shaman, Warrior, Hunter, Mage; these are just titles too. They are also Classes because Blizzard has made them all playable, otherwise they would remain as titles.

Arguing that any potential class should not be made because the name is just a title is an argument in bad faith. Everything is a title, and that is not a reason to dismiss any potential concept. Your argument implies that there is a difference between a Title and a Class, but at the same time a Class is only realized when Blizzard makes it playable. You're using circular logic that simply dismisses all potential classes from being considered.

It's a bad faith argument that is equivalent of saying 'This should not be a Class because Blizzard has not made it playable"


We know Dark Ranger is a potential Class because it was a Hero in Warcraft 3. If you aren't even willing to recognize this fact, then you're arguing in Bad faith with absolutely no intention of considering the Dark Ranger (or any Warcraft 3 concept) as a potential playable class by dismissing it it as merely being a title and nothing more.

[Teriz]

From above:

"We have a case of *multiple* new abilities being added collectively. I mean, you don't even dare touch the more unique aspects of Sylvanas like her Banshee form, her use of Death Fog and all the Banshee-related abilities.

It's obvious that the whole Banshee aspect of Sylvanas is open to explore. It's prime to help theme a Dark Ranger class."

The problem with the Banshee aspects of Sylvanas is the following;

1. She's the only Dark Ranger who has shown these abilities.
2. The Banshee abilities you mentioned would never be implemented into a class. Banshee Form for example gives you the ability to fly. How could that possibly work in a class context? Is it just going to be a travel form?

Everything Sylvanas has in WC3 and HOTS. The entire Banshee theme and connection to undeath magic, the shadowy assassin archetype, the use of mind manipulation, the themes of vengeance, torment and hatred. These are all themes that are disconnected from the Hunter, themes that make a Dark Ranger stand out and have people recognize Sylvanas as being more than merely a Hunter with some tricks.

They're disconnected from the Hunter because they went into the Priest class.

The abilities can then be supported by anything Maiev and Valla have in HOTS, adapted to fit a Dark Ranger concept. Hungering Arrow, Vault, Spirit of Vengeance, Rain of Vengeance, Umbral Bind, Cruel Chain, Shadow Orb, Siphoning Arrow, Strafe. Plenty of abilities thematically applicable to Dark Rangers.

Yeah, again, I'm simply not seeing how this is any different than an evil version of the Hunter class. What ability in this list would be totally out of place in the existing Hunter class?

[Triceron]

The problem with the Banshee aspects of Sylvanas is the following;

1. She's the only Dark Ranger who has shown these abilities.
2. The Banshee abilities you mentioned would never be implemented into a class. Banshee Form for example gives you the ability to fly. How could that possibly work in a class context? Is it just going to be a travel form?

Illidan already exemplified this.

Illidan flies, Demon Hunters double jump and glide. The themes and concepts don't have to be translated 1:1, and a Banshee form (if added) would not have to mirror Sylvanas completely.

It's even arguable whether those aspects are even necessary, when you consider that people wanted to play as Sylvanas well before she exhibited any flight in the cinematics. I would argue that her depiction in Heroes of the Storm is the standard we should stick to when it comes to limits of Banshee-influenced abilities. Themes of calling upon Banshee spirits, imbuing arrows with Banshee screams, cursing enemies and spilling out her torment on to others.

The actual act of transforming into a Banshee is not class defining for a Dark Ranger. Heroes of the Storm already conveys most of the archetype and shows how it's already thematically and mechanically different from Hunter gameplay.

They're disconnected from the Hunter because they went into the Priest class.

Which further shows that there *IS* a significant difference between Dark Rangers and Hunters. Hunters don't use any abilities that would thematically go to a Priest class.

Yeah, again, I'm simply not seeing how this is any different than an evil version of the Hunter class. What ability in this list would be totally out of place in the existing Hunter class?

You're still trying to argue in bad faith. I have no reason to believe you have any intention of being convinced by any answer given, only choosing to engage on more pointless debating that will circle back to 'Death Knights already use Necromancy' or 'Those abilities can be added to Hunters and Priests'.

C'mon, we both know you're not legitimately asking these questions to reach common ground. This isn't 2010. Who you foolin'?

[TheRevenantHero]

You're right.

It is a title being used in WoW right now.


Tinker? Just a name of Goblin and Gnome Engineers.

Blademaster? Just the name of certain types of Arms Warrior.

Shadow Hunter? Just the title of Troll Shamans.

Warden? Just the name of type of Night Elf Rogue.

Bard? Just a name for musician NPCs, and it isn't even a playable concept in the RTS games and doesn't formally exist as a class in WoW


Any potential class can be considered a title. Any unique concepts can simply be dismissed as not being relevant as a playable class. These are arguments in bad faith. I hope to make you realize that you are arguing in bad faith.

The only way any title becomes a Class is if Blizzard chooses to make it playable in WoW. That is the only difference between a Class and a Title. Brewmaster (Monk), Death Knight and Demon Hunter were all titles until Blizzard made them into playable Classes. Paladin, Shaman, Warrior, Hunter, Mage; these are just titles too. They are also Classes because Blizzard has made them all playable, otherwise they would remain as titles.

Arguing that any potential class should not be made because the name is just a title is an argument in bad faith. Everything is a title, and that is not a reason to dismiss any potential concept. Your argument implies that there is a difference between a Title and a Class, but at the same time a Class is only realized when Blizzard makes it playable. You're using circular logic that simply dismisses all potential classes from being considered.

It's a bad faith argument that is equivalent of saying 'This should not be a Class because Blizzard has not made it playable"


We know Dark Ranger is a potential Class because it was a Hero in Warcraft 3. If you aren't even willing to recognize this fact, then you're arguing in Bad faith with absolutely no intention of considering the Dark Ranger (or any Warcraft 3 concept) as a potential playable class by dismissing it it as merely being a title and nothing more.

I agree, tinker is just a title for engineer. I also agree with Blademaster. But your other examples? Yeah no.

Shadow Hunters are NOT shamans. they are specifically warriors that use voodoo. Sure they have a few spells similar to shaman but everything else, including their power source, is entirely unique. They also wield glaives, something shamans CAN'T do. Wardens also seem to be a hybrid of various things. they can Blink like mages, fan of knives like rogues, create a powerful combat avatar, and can even resurrect units. So they are a lot more unique than rogues. When it comes to bards? I personally don't think bards fit in an MMO atmosphere at all. Great for tabletop but really not great in MMOs.

I'm not arguing in bad faith. You're just utterly incapable of admitting you're wrong on the subject. I've pointed out numerous times why dark ranger simply wouldn't work as a class and you either disregard or use strawman arguments. There is absolutely nothing unique about dark ranger that would justify an entire class based around it. I can MAYBE see it as a hunter spec but even that's a bit of a stretch.

So before you accuse me of bad faith again, maybe look up what that means. Because I have absolutely no intention of compromising when it comes to dark ranger being a class. It's nothing but a title used for elven hunters. Absolutely nothing more than that.

[Triceron]

I agree, tinker is just a title for engineer. I also agree with Blademaster. But your other examples? Yeah no.

Shadow Hunters are NOT shamans. they are specifically warriors that use voodoo. Sure they have a few spells similar to shaman but everything else, including their power source, is entirely unique. They also wield glaives, something shamans CAN'T do. Wardens also seem to be a hybrid of various things. they can Blink like mages, fan of knives like rogues, create a powerful combat avatar, and can even resurrect units. So they are a lot more unique than rogues. When it comes to bards? I personally don't think bards fit in an MMO atmosphere at all. Great for tabletop but really not great in MMOs.

But if I said it is just a title for Troll Shamans, can you legitimately prove that it is not? That it is more than just a title?

You can not. In WoW, Shadow Hunter is treated as a title for Troll Shamans. That is how Blizzard treats any class concept.

You say Shamans can't use Glaives? Well isn't it just a matter of dismissing it just like you're dismissing Hunters not using Wailing Arrow? Again, I'm showing you how this is an argument of bad faith. If we generalize the concept of a Shadow Hunter down to merely a type of a Shaman, then we can imply that using Glaives is something Blizzard can just allow Shamans to do in the future. There is nothing unique to Shadow Hunters that Shaman could not do if we believe that it is merely a title.

Just like above, you agree that Blademaster is just a title for Arms Warrior right? So it's not a stretch for you to think that Warrior could just get Windwalk and Mirror Image. There is no difference to believing Shaman could just start using Throwing Glaives, since that is a weapon that no class is able to equip right now.

Wardens are honestly no different from Rogues mechanically. Blink is a more flexible version of Shadowstep, which Rogues already do. Creating shadow doubles is also something Subtlety Rogues can do (Secret Technique) and is very similar to the Avatar of Vengeance being a shadowy copy of the Warden. If someone were to argue that a Warden is just a title for Subtlety Rogue, then how can you prove it wrong? Just because they use a different weapon? Then a bad faith argument implies that Blizzard can just give Rogues that option in the future.

I'm not arguing in bad faith. You're just utterly incapable of admitting you're wrong on the subject. I've pointed out numerous times why dark ranger simply wouldn't work as a class and you either disregard or use strawman arguments. There is absolutely nothing unique about dark ranger that would justify an entire class based around it. I can MAYBE see it as a hunter spec but even that's a bit of a stretch.

If you read any of my responses to you, I've never even mentioned that Dark Ranger would be justified as an entire class. I never argued that Blizzard would consider it.

I've only argued against your points that dismiss the concept as being potentially viable, that you're denying them on the basis of technicalities like not exhibiting Banshee powers or only being regarded as a title in WoW. There is zero evidence that openly denies the possibility that Dark Rangers can use Banshee powers. That means the mere *possibility* is still open, and simply remains ambiguous. You can't claim that there it is canon if you're using lack of evidence as a fact.

So before you accuse me of bad faith again, maybe look up what that means. Because I have absolutely no intention of compromising when it comes to dark ranger being a class. It's nothing but a title used for elven hunters. Absolutely nothing more than that.

That's why it is in bad faith.

You've come to a thread that is specifically about new classes in the future with zero intention of discussing the potential of a new class. More specifically, in your attempts to dismiss the Dark Ranger, you used an argument that broadly dismisses any new class, regardless of whether or not you believe others to have potential.

There is no difference between your choice to regard Dark Rangers as merely a title and me using that same argument on Shadow Hunters as Shamans or Wardens as Rogues. There is no way you can actually explain a lore-driven reason why Shadow Hunter or Warden aren't also just titles. We have clear evidence of Dark Rangers using Wailing Arrow and Black Arrow being different from Hunters, and you completely dismiss it. It is no different than implying that Shadow Hunter is no different to a Troll Shaman who uses glaives. You would not be able to make a formal argument to differentiate it as being its own class and not simply a title.

I consider your argument in bad faith because you are selectively choosing what you personally consider a Title and what you consider a Class based on your own observation, and selectively dismissing certain unique traits that do not fit your views. There is no way you can actually prove that Shadow Hunter is not merely a title for Troll Shaman just because they are using a different weapon. If you imply that a title is just a title, then you're implying that Shadow Hunters are just a type of Shaman with no differences except for their weapon. It's an argument in bad faith, whether you intended it to be or not.

[TheRevenantHero]

But if I said it is just a title for Troll Shamans, can you legitimately prove that it is not? That it is more than just a title?

You can not. In WoW, Shadow Hunter is treated as a title for Troll Shamans. That is how Blizzard treats any class concept.

You say Shamans can't use Glaives? Well isn't it just a matter of dismissing it just like you're dismissing Hunters not using Wailing Arrow? Again, I'm showing you how this is an argument of bad faith. If we generalize the concept of a Shadow Hunter down to merely a type of a Shaman, then we can imply that using Glaives is something Blizzard can just allow Shamans to do in the future. There is nothing unique to Shadow Hunters that Shaman could not do if we believe that it is merely a title.

Just like above, you agree that Blademaster is just a title for Arms Warrior right? So it's not a stretch for you to think that Warrior could just get Windwalk and Mirror Image. There is no difference to believing Shaman could just start using Throwing Glaives, since that is a weapon that no class is able to equip right now.

Wardens are honestly no different from Rogues mechanically. Blink is a more flexible version of Shadowstep, which Rogues already do. Creating shadow doubles is also something Subtlety Rogues can do (Secret Technique) and is very similar to the Avatar of Vengeance being a shadowy copy of the Warden. If someone were to argue that a Warden is just a title for Subtlety Rogue, then how can you prove it wrong? Just because they use a different weapon? Then a bad faith argument implies that Blizzard can just give Rogues that option in the future.



If you read any of my responses to you, I've never even mentioned that Dark Ranger would be justified as an entire class. I never argued that Blizzard would consider it.

I've only argued against your points that dismiss the concept as being potentially viable, that you're denying them on the basis of technicalities like not exhibiting Banshee powers or only being regarded as a title in WoW. There is zero evidence that openly denies the possibility that Dark Rangers can use Banshee powers. That means the mere *possibility* is still open, and simply remains ambiguous. You can't claim that there it is canon if you're using lack of evidence as a fact.



That's why it is in bad faith.

You've come to a thread that is specifically about new classes in the future with zero intention of discussing the potential of a new class.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Shadow_hunter
Shadow hunters don't even use the elements. they use a combination of voodoo and shadow magic. So you're being 100% dishonest in saying they are just shamans because they absolutely are not. So your future comments about shadow hunters are completely invalid and dishonest.

Well if they can do those things, then Blademaster would be a hybrid of warrior and shaman then. Or, actually, they're just shamans. And shamans actually used to be capable of wielding two handed weapons.

When it comes to wardens, you are once again being dishonest. You are trying to say that their ability to wield glaives, summon copies of themselves, and even resurrect allies are all things rogues can do? Yeah no. This is another utterly invalid point. Also, I told you not to accuse me of a bad faith argument if you're not going to use the term properly. Which you have not done once again.

And I'm dismissing the idea because it simply won't happen and would never be a class. Dark rangers would not work as an entire class since they are simply undead elf hunters. Nothing more. I'm not posting in bad faith because this is a thread about potential classes. All I'm saying is that dark ranger simply doesn't make any god damned sense because they function pretty much exactly like hunters in every way. That's not bad faith.