Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Ielenia]

Well, here's the answer to your question:

https://i.imgur.com/Wjl68EO.jpg

Why haven't Dark Rangers been added yet? Because a supermajority of players do not want them to be.

End of discussion.

How is 64% "supermajority"? What even is a "supermajority"?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

For christ sake, drop the bow argument.
I'll give you an example:

Master of Anatomy

you have to be aware that you are proving your self wrong.

Hawk doesn’t Increase crit it increases attack power, it doesn’t make you more likely to hit a vital spot on an enemy it makes you hit harder no matter where the shot lands.

You're talking about races.
We're talking about a class. Which, you failed to provide an example.

so just to be clear, sticking to your standards touch of the grave (a race ability) proves that the dark rangers (“class”) have life drain even though touch of the grave isn’t a thing actual undead have in the lore.

But wisp Loa ect (race ability’s) do not prove DK’ (class) have connections to nature even though they are actual things the races do in the lore.

[Triceron]

You could say that about any potential class.
That's easy to say in hidsight, now that you have that class playable. But, we know that's not how Blizzard operates.

You mean despite the fact that they added customizations like Verdant Spheres to Mages and Warlocks through glyphs and Artifact weapons? I mean, didn't you argue that Fel'melorn were a direct connection between Blood Mages and Fire Mages? If this is how you interpreted it, then this is exactly how Blizzard operates when dealing with class customizations. The only difference is these are still borrowed power mechanics, rather than permanent Class customizations as I think they should be.

I would be absolutely fine with permanent Blood Mage customizations for Mages and Warlocks, given that Blizzard actually goes out of their way to define it properly and not just as a 'Borrowed power' or merely a cosmetic Glyph with no other Blood Mage connection or representation. Gameplay is honestly quite secondary to the formal lore and visual representations. I mean, what new gameplay does a Blood Mage really need when a Fire Mage or Destro Lock already cover the majority of the potential fire-centric gameplay? Throw in a new "Gravity Lapse' visual for Banish or Polymorph and I'd probably be just as happy.

Like every new class addition. You can't say that before their addition. So, why are apying that to any potential ones? Did you know how a Dragonsworn like class, like the Evoker, would be introduced and join the factions? You didn't. You speculated at best.

If you're asking whether a new Player Class would join the factions? Well, every player class joins the factions, so that's kind of a no-brainer. Yes, a new Player Class that formally joins the Factions to become playable would be an automatic assumption. As for the how, that never really matters, since I would have speculated an infinite amount of ways they could do it, and for arguments sake you would have dismissed every one of them because 'it's speculation', which is exactly what happened in our past conversations.

Remember every time you said 'If everything is possible there's nothing to discuss'? That's pretty much where we're at. You don't want to speculate on things that you consider taboo, all the while you've been ignoring all the signs that pointed at a Dragon-based class actually becoming playable. This includes the very clear leaks that ended up being 100% true. I don't care if a leak is fake or true, I take the information as face value and consider the potential and possibilities. Even with fake leaks like Microclasses, there is enough plausibility in the concept that makes it a credible possibility. And discussion helped open up the pros and cons to having any 1-spec class. It helps inform the likelyhood of the concept itself in future discussions. Even though I like the concept, I personally think now that Microclasses would not work since I, through many discussions here, have come to believe all classes are intended to be designed with at least one DPS spec option in order to be viably picked/played. I think the concept of a 1-spec Tank or Healer would be neat, but very unlikely.

Like any Death Knight and Demon Hunter before their addition. I don't get it. You did not judge the possibility of Death Knights and Demon Hunters based on some shitty NPCs who used 2-3 Warrior and Warlock abilities, so why do you apply the same standard for other classes?

This can only really be considered for Demon Hunter discussion, considering Death Knight is arguably what set the precedent for what we could use to narrow down future concepts.

For Demon Hunters, we had information that was on a scope much greater than merely remaining as Warlock or Rogue options. That single piece of information was the return of the Burning Legion. We KNEW that a Demon-themed threat and an eventual conflict against Sargeras was being planned, and directly foreshadowed. This increased the chance of an actual playable Demon Hunter significantly, especially when also considering that the Demon Hunter concept remained INCREDIBLY popular in any and all class polls. There was clearly a story hook that was completely open to explore a new class that people wanted to play as.

Now let's go back to end of BFA, when Dark Rangers and Necromancers DEFINITELY had a high running as potential new classes, and I *DID* judge them both as being highly likely as playable new classes over anything else, before Shadowlands was announced. We knew of Sylvanas' storyline continuing to be relevant, we knew that the Shadowlands was definitely a place we would be exploring in the near future, and we have the Dark Ranger or Necromancer fully explorable as a new class option.

Yet Blizzard did not make them into new classes. And not only did they not make new classes, they made a clear statement about how 'no class jumped out at them like Demon Hunters did for Legion', and how they are informed by the 'story and setting' for new classes. This new information changes what I perceive as the likelyhood and consideration of Necromancers and Dark Rangers as new classes. If Blizzard wanted either of them to be playable, they could have easily written them into the story and setting of Shadowlands. Instead, they deliberately chose not to explore them as a new class, and that ultimately puts them back on the shelf for an undisclosed amount of time.

Yet on top of that, after the Shadowlands announcements and the statements of no new playable class, they ended up concluding BFA by having the Dark Ranger NPCs neatly resolved and back under Calia. This, on top of what they said about Story and Setting, informs us that Blizzard has little left open for their story to be explored as a new Player Class, rather they are merely returning NPCs taking a metaphorical 'backseat' in the story. If they are ever to be regarded as a potential new class in the future, then we need new information that puts them back into the running. And so far, everything points at them potentially being a customization option more than a new class. Even more recently on Twitter, Danuser made a quip about 'Duck Rangers' not being playable. It may be something, it may be nothing at all, but I think it's interesting that there's been so much emphasis on them lately being regarded as customizations, and how the devs didn't make any comment on them being their own class, they simply pushed forward with a direct comparison to 8.1 customization options.

So there's no way to simply regard all classes as being potentially viable because future speculation is open to any and all possibilities. We aren't living in a bubble where all classes are equally viable, like as if we were discussing new classes back before Wrath of the Lich King was announced. We are living in a time when we know what Blizzard intends to pick for new classes, how they're designing them moving forward, and what we could reasonably expect to see beyond that. We can make closer predictions because we have the information available to us to help narrow the possibilities.


As for our specific arguments about Dark Ranger, I've not actually said Dark Ranger would not be its own class. I've been arguing against your specific concepts of a Dark Ranger class needing to have Banshee abilities or needing to be regarded with a Dual Wield Dagger spec. I've clearly said that a Dark Ranger does not need to be represented by these attributes, because Blizzard has already defined Dark Rangers that clearly do not have any of those themes or abilities, like Nathanos literally being regarded as a Dark Ranger and the only thing he has in common with them is red eyes and a bow. This is not a dismissal of the Dark Ranger as a new class. This is me disputing your particular argument that a Dark Ranger need to be represented with Banshee abilities and Dual wielding Daggers.

You're confusing my dispute over your arguments as a dispute over the whole class, and that's simply not the case. This is merely your own confusion of what I'm actually arguing against.

Are you trolling me right now?
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations
No class does the things Sylvanas and Tyrande do.

You put forth your unpopular opinion in a thread. What about it?

This thread's topic isn't all about your opinions, is it? If we have disagreeing opinions here, then that's what it is. It's not trolling if we're discussing Dark Rangers in general, of which not everyone will agree that they deserve their own class. Look around here, there are plenty of people expressing opinions that Dark Ranger could be Rogue 4th specs or revamped Survival spec etc. I may not agree with those opinions, but I consider them expressions of opinion nonetheless, and I don't regard them any greater or less than for what they are. Different opinions. There is no one singular 'popular opinion' that Dark Rangers deserve their own class. It's absolutely very mixed here.

Then, you don't know much about their lore. Because Hunters do not use the dark magic Sylvanas uses. They might retain the agility and marksmanship of the Hunter. But, the magic is completly new.

Then the magic is not native to them either, and we're talking about even less reason for there to be an individual "Dark Ranger class that uses Sylvanas' magic' since there is zero precedence in lore for the creation of such a new group.

Like let me ask you - How would you write the story to implement Dark Rangers that use Sylvanas' brand of Dark Magic in the future? In your own mind, how do they come about gaining these abilities? Because to me, it doesn't make any sense with the lore we have right now implying that Sylvanas has lost all methods of creating or training new Dark Rangers her specific powers, and the current Dark Rangers we know of do not use Sylvanas' dark magic either. No Dark Ranger other than Sylvanas has been shown with any Banshee powers, and the Legendary Weapons imply that her Banshee powers can literally be imbued into weapons that any other class can reasonably use and represent a Dark Ranger style of play.

I said "unless they are a different race". In that case, Allied races. Do you think we'd get San'layn and Darkfallen separately? Because then, there's absolutely no reason to tie them together as one in the Sylvanas book.

No, I do not. I think that if they provide Darkfallen, they could easily have it exclusive to the Dark Rangers we have like Velonara, while excluding San'layn completely as being regarded as a different 'faction' of Darkfallen that remains non-playable. Just like the fact we have playable Night Elve Druids doesn't mean this includes the Druids of the Flame and Druid of the Fang that remain separate organizations.

Not a representation of the class, but a gameplay option.
Tauren can be Engineers. Doesn't mean they're tech-oriented.

What is the difference?

Think clearly about what you're saying. A Tauren that has mastered Engineering and capable of building mechs and advanced weaponry, is not Tech Oriented? They absolutely would be, because that's what you have chosen that Tauren to be. And the fact that you can achieve that level of technological prowess shows that Tauren are capable of being Tech savvy, and are not as primitive as everyone is lead to believe.

The modern concept of a Tauren is a much more broad version than the one originally defined by Warcraft 3. In Warcraft 3, you would have never seen Tauren wearing plate armor, whereas in BFA you have Tauren wearing full plate. Again, this is all a matter of perception.



- - - Updated - - -

When you mention "blood mage archetype" you are. That is most likely what most people would think when you specifically use the term "blood mage archetype".

No, not most people. Just you.

I said Blood Mage, not Blood Magic.

Even look in WoWpedia. Type in Blood Mage, see what results show up. Nothing that refers to a 'Blood Magic' user. And even in the Blood Magic section of WoWpedia, it specifically says Despite their name, blood elven blood mages are not actually users of blood magic, as they use the fire and heat of what some fear to be demonic magic.

The Demon Hunter was never a necessity for the game either, but it is heavily based on Illidan.
People are sitting here arguing that if classes can take most, if not all, of its inspiration from one character, then why can't they do so with Tyrande if they can with Illidan? This isn't speculation but the desires of one part of the fanbase.

I agree with the sentiment, but I also will say WoW circa 2022 is very different from WoW circa 2015 (pre DH announcement), when I would say we were under the assumption that WoW still had a lot more room for many new classes, compared to today when we can clearly see it's taking longer and longer for us to get a new class, and even then they are making them with only 2 specs at a time.

The desire of the fanbase can still be satisfied in ways other than new classes. Imagine Night Elf Hunters having access to a Hero Talent Tree that gives you access to talents like Sentinel Shot, Starfall, Light of Elune and Shadowstalk and allows you to have a permanent Spirit Owl pet option. That would be more than enough to represent a Priestess of the Moon without requiring a full new class.

[Kiria]

Why are these even wanted so badly? yall hate Sylvanas but beg for her clone as a playable class?

I've never hated her, she's still one of my favourite characters in the game.

[Ghanir]

No, not most people. Just you. I said Blood Mage, not Blood Magic.

Even look in WoWpedia. Type in Blood Mage, see what results show up. Nothing that refers to a 'Blood Magic' user. And even in the Blood Magic section of WoWpedia, it specifically says Despite their name, blood elven blood mages are not actually users of blood magic, as they use the fire and heat of what some fear to be demonic magic..

Type in Blood Mage WoW on google and you'll get both Blood Mage (the elves) and Blood Magic as the top result, and plenty of people play other things than just WoW and will associate "blood mage" with "mages utilizing blood magic" so to say that only I would draw this conclusion is absurd.
But like I said previously it's all a misunderstanding between a blood mage and a blood mage.

[Triceron]

Type in Blood Mage WoW on google and you'll get both Blood Mage (the elves) and Blood Magic as the top result, and plenty of people play other things than just WoW and will associate "blood mage" with "mages utilizing blood magic" so to say that only I would draw this conclusion is absurd.
But like I said previously it's all a misunderstanding between a blood mage and a blood mage.

Because you're the only one who even picked this out of context and talked about it.

No one here is googling Blood Mages and talking them broadly. I was specifically talking to someone about the Blood Mage as a customization for Fire Mage/Destro Lock and how Blizzard gave them Verdant Spheres. That should have been more than enough to clue in the context of what type of Blood Mage I was talking about, and not some random Google search.

I don't see anyone else talking to me about Blood Magic users needing class representation.

[Ghanir]

Because you're the only one who even picked this out of context and talked about it.

I don't see anyone else doing so.

Do you think that every living human with a touch of interest in fantasy traverse these forums, and this thread specifically? And would also take their time to comment?

I'm sorry if this misunderstanding, which I stated in my previous response, has rubbed you the wrong way. My original point was merely to state the possibility of making something playable, with the utilization of blood magic, that is ranged. Aka a blood mage.

[Triceron]

Do you think that every living human with a touch of interest in fantasy traverse these forums, and this thread specifically? And would also take their time to comment?

No, I do not. I do not assume that people are so confused that they think they need to comment on something they don't think is worth making note of.

I'm sorry if this misunderstanding, which I stated in my previous response, has rubbed you the wrong way. My original point was merely to state the possibility of making something playable with the utilization of blood magic.

Fair enough. No hard feelings either way, I just wanted to emphasize that I wasn't talking about Blood Magic users. I would even go as far as saying I think this is Blizzard's problem for making the Blood Mage name so confusing, when it really doesn't have anything to do with Blood Magic at all too.

- - - Updated - - -

We both know that only so many ppl read these forums, esp. specific sub-sections, and smaller yet the portion that take their time to comment. Just because I was the one to comment on it doesn't mean I am the sole person in the entire world that would make such a mistake, or even only among those that read this thread. I was merely the one to comment on it first. There could very well have been others that think, or thought, the same but realized the same mistake after following our conversation.

I have already stated that it was a misinterpretation of a specific line you said, but you seem to feel the need to "point and laugh" at what I did as if it's a great offense even after I apologize. You realize how you come off as?

I updated my response, and I admit fault in the original response which I felt was more of a reaction than what I should have intended. I admit I had not read your second paragraph until after I had made that reply. So my apologies.

[username993720]

you have to be aware that you are proving your self wrong.

Hawk doesn’t Increase crit it increases attack power, it doesn’t make you more likely to hit a vital spot on an enemy it makes you hit harder no matter where the shot lands.

Works on the same principal. You're less likely to miss.

so just to be clear, sticking to your standards touch of the grave (a race ability) proves that the dark rangers (“class”) have life drain even though touch of the grave isn’t a thing actual undead have in the lore.

But wisp Loa ect (race ability’s) do not prove DK’ (class) have connections to nature even though they are actual things the races do in the lore.

It's an example for all Undead beings, not just Forsaken, which the Dark Rangers are.
They don't use Touch of the Grave, but have their own life drain ability.
The Mind Control aspect is a Dark Ranger aspect, for example, which comes from their magic.

You mean despite the fact that they added customizations like Verdant Spheres to Mages and Warlocks through glyphs and Artifact weapons? I mean, didn't you argue that Fel'melorn were a direct connection between Blood Mages and Fire Mages? If this is how you interpreted it, then this is exactly how Blizzard operates when dealing with class customizations. The only difference is these are still borrowed power mechanics, rather than permanent Class customizations as I think they should be.

I would be absolutely fine with permanent Blood Mage customizations for Mages and Warlocks, given that Blizzard actually goes out of their way to define it properly and not just as a 'Borrowed power' or merely a cosmetic Glyph with no other Blood Mage connection or representation. Gameplay is honestly quite secondary to the formal lore and visual representations. I mean, what new gameplay does a Blood Mage really need when a Fire Mage or Destro Lock already cover the majority of the potential fire-centric gameplay? Throw in a new "Gravity Lapse' visual for Banish or Polymorph and I'd probably be just as happy.

Blood Mages were part of the Blood elven racials, with Mana Tap being tought by Kael'thas himself to Rommath and then to us. Blood elven Fire Mages are supposed to be Blood Mages.
Can you say the same for Dark Rangers? Are there any racials associated with the class? Any Hunter spec that covers its magic?

If you're asking whether a new Player Class would join the factions? Well, every player class joins the factions, so that's kind of a no-brainer. Yes, a new Player Class that formally joins the Factions to become playable would be an automatic assumption. As for the how, that never really matters, since I would have speculated an infinite amount of ways they could do it, and for arguments sake you would have dismissed every one of them because 'it's speculation', which is exactly what happened in our past conversations.

Remember every time you said 'If everything is possible there's nothing to discuss'? That's pretty much where we're at. You don't want to speculate on things that you consider taboo, all the while you've been ignoring all the signs that pointed at a Dragon-based class actually becoming playable. This includes the very clear leaks that ended up being 100% true. I don't care if a leak is fake or true, I take the information as face value and consider the potential and possibilities. Even with fake leaks like Microclasses, there is enough plausibility in the concept that makes it a credible possibility. And discussion helped open up the pros and cons to having any 1-spec class. It helps inform the likelyhood of the concept itself in future discussions. Even though I like the concept, I personally think now that Microclasses would not work since I, through many discussions here, have come to believe all classes are intended to be designed with at least one DPS spec option in order to be viably picked/played. I think the concept of a 1-spec Tank or Healer would be neat, but very unlikely.

You presume to know how Dark Rangers will be added, yet knew nothing about Dracthyr origins and the Evoker class. So, why do you act like you know everything in advance?

This can only really be considered for Demon Hunter discussion, considering Death Knight is arguably what set the precedent for what we could use to narrow down future concepts.

For Demon Hunters, we had information that was on a scope much greater than merely remaining as Warlock or Rogue options. That single piece of information was the return of the Burning Legion. We KNEW that a Demon-themed threat and an eventual conflict against Sargeras was being planned, and directly foreshadowed. This increased the chance of an actual playable Demon Hunter significantly, especially when also considering that the Demon Hunter concept remained INCREDIBLY popular in any and all class polls. There was clearly a story hook that was completely open to explore a new class that people wanted to play as.

Now let's go back to end of BFA, when Dark Rangers and Necromancers DEFINITELY had a high running as potential new classes, and I *DID* judge them both as being highly likely as playable new classes over anything else, before Shadowlands was announced. We knew of Sylvanas' storyline continuing to be relevant, we knew that the Shadowlands was definitely a place we would be exploring in the near future, and we have the Dark Ranger or Necromancer fully explorable as a new class option.

Yet Blizzard did not make them into new classes. And not only did they not make new classes, they made a clear statement about how 'no class jumped out at them like Demon Hunters did for Legion', and how they are informed by the 'story and setting' for new classes. This new information changes what I perceive as the likelyhood and consideration of Necromancers and Dark Rangers as new classes. If Blizzard wanted either of them to be playable, they could have easily written them into the story and setting of Shadowlands. Instead, they deliberately chose not to explore them as a new class, and that ultimately puts them back on the shelf for an undisclosed amount of time.

Yet on top of that, after the Shadowlands announcements and the statements of no new playable class, they ended up concluding BFA by having the Dark Ranger NPCs neatly resolved and back under Calia. This, on top of what they said about Story and Setting, informs us that Blizzard has little left open for their story to be explored as a new Player Class, rather they are merely returning NPCs taking a metaphorical 'backseat' in the story. If they are ever to be regarded as a potential new class in the future, then we need new information that puts them back into the running. And so far, everything points at them potentially being a customization option more than a new class. Even more recently on Twitter, Danuser made a quip about 'Duck Rangers' not being playable. It may be something, it may be nothing at all, but I think it's interesting that there's been so much emphasis on them lately being regarded as customizations, and how the devs didn't make any comment on them being their own class, they simply pushed forward with a direct comparison to 8.1 customization options.

So there's no way to simply regard all classes as being potentially viable because future speculation is open to any and all possibilities. We aren't living in a bubble where all classes are equally viable, like as if we were discussing new classes back before Wrath of the Lich King was announced. We are living in a time when we know what Blizzard intends to pick for new classes, how they're designing them moving forward, and what we could reasonably expect to see beyond that. We can make closer predictions because we have the information available to us to help narrow the possibilities.


As for our specific arguments about Dark Ranger, I've not actually said Dark Ranger would not be its own class. I've been arguing against your specific concepts of a Dark Ranger class needing to have Banshee abilities or needing to be regarded with a Dual Wield Dagger spec. I've clearly said that a Dark Ranger does not need to be represented by these attributes, because Blizzard has already defined Dark Rangers that clearly do not have any of those themes or abilities, like Nathanos literally being regarded as a Dark Ranger and the only thing he has in common with them is red eyes and a bow. This is not a dismissal of the Dark Ranger as a new class. This is me disputing your particular argument that a Dark Ranger need to be represented with Banshee abilities and Dual wielding Daggers.

You're confusing my dispute over your arguments as a dispute over the whole class, and that's simply not the case. This is merely your own confusion of what I'm actually arguing against.

We're not talking about story right now.
We're talking about NPCs.
If you didn't criticize the possibility of Death Knights and Demon Hunters based on some random, outdated, low level, no-named NPCs, why are you doing it for the Dark Ranger?
You're simply being dishonest right now (and write way too much), using some biased standard for Dark Ranger when we know new classes aren't based on it. Like, could you deny that it is a notable character that appears every single time on the cover of a new expansion (with a known class)? WotlK, MoP, Legion? They won't put some shitty, minor NPC there, right? Not even in the cinematic trailer. So, why are you analyzing the possobility of such a character based on some useless NPCs? It is Sylvanas that is the foundation for playable Dark Rangers, not Dark Ranger bullshitara.

You put forth your unpopular opinion in a thread. What about it?

This thread's topic isn't all about your opinions, is it? If we have disagreeing opinions here, then that's what it is. It's not trolling if we're discussing Dark Rangers in general, of which not everyone will agree that they deserve their own class. Look around here, there are plenty of people expressing opinions that Dark Ranger could be Rogue 4th specs or revamped Survival spec etc. I may not agree with those opinions, but I consider them expressions of opinion nonetheless, and I don't regard them any greater or less than for what they are. Different opinions. There is no one singular 'popular opinion' that Dark Rangers deserve their own class. It's absolutely very mixed here.

It's not about anyone's opinion.
You literally said these are playable by Hunters, Paladins and Priests. Which, isn't true.
Can a Hunter do what Sylvanas does? Do any of them play like a Night Warrior? You surely know what you said was utter bullshit.

Then the magic is not native to them either, and we're talking about even less reason for there to be an individual "Dark Ranger class that uses Sylvanas' magic' since there is zero precedence in lore for the creation of such a new group.

Like let me ask you - How would you write the story to implement Dark Rangers that use Sylvanas' brand of Dark Magic in the future? In your own mind, how do they come about gaining these abilities? Because to me, it doesn't make any sense with the lore we have right now implying that Sylvanas has lost all methods of creating or training new Dark Rangers her specific powers, and the current Dark Rangers we know of do not use Sylvanas' dark magic either. No Dark Ranger other than Sylvanas has been shown with any Banshee powers, and the Legendary Weapons imply that her Banshee powers can literally be imbued into weapons that any other class can reasonably use and represent a Dark Ranger style of play.

Once again, you use that redundant argument. When will you understand that it's not applicable?
Did you know Dracthyr would be the representatives of the Evoker class? Did you know Deathwing created them and imbued them with the Dragonflights' powers? You didn't. So, why do you keep using this flawed argument about existing NPCs and lore when you've been proven it is not a criterion for measure?

No, I do not. I think that if they provide Darkfallen, they could easily have it exclusive to the Dark Rangers we have like Velonara, while excluding San'layn completely as being regarded as a different 'faction' of Darkfallen that remains non-playable. Just like the fact we have playable Night Elve Druids doesn't mean this includes the Druids of the Flame and Druid of the Fang that remain separate organizations.

You completely disregard the fact that they just recently combined the two into one race. So, dividing them right away would be the logical option? You'd just be devaluing the book that they just released.

And, organizations aren't races. What you just claimed was ridiculous as hell. Variations of a class aren't variations of a race.

What is the difference?

Think clearly about what you're saying. A Tauren that has mastered Engineering and capable of building mechs and advanced weaponry, is not Tech Oriented? They absolutely would be, because that's what you have chosen that Tauren to be. And the fact that you can achieve that level of technological prowess shows that Tauren are capable of being Tech savvy, and are not as primitive as everyone is lead to believe.

The modern concept of a Tauren is a much more broad version than the one originally defined by Warcraft 3. In Warcraft 3, you would have never seen Tauren wearing plate armor, whereas in BFA you have Tauren wearing full plate. Again, this is all a matter of perception.

That's your own roleplay choice, not the Tauren as a whole. Learn the difference.

[Triceron]

Blood Mages were part of the Blood elven racials, with Mana Tap being tought by Kael'thas himself to Rommath and then to us. Blood elven Fire Mages are supposed to be Blood Mages.
Can you say the same for Dark Rangers? Are there any racials associated with the class? Any Hunter spec that covers its magic?

Hunters already have been show capable of using dark magic when they had Black Arrow, and continue to do so provided they have access to Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire.

On top of that, if Darkfallen become playable, you would see racials that help bridge the Dark Ranger concept even further.

You presume to know how Dark Rangers will be added, yet knew nothing about Dracthyr origins and the Evoker class. So, why do you act like you know everything in advance?

Except the Evoker is literally the Dragonsworn in concept and only differ in execution. It is a dragon themed class that has access to all 5 Dragonflight themes, which is what I had always referred to as Dragonsworn in concept. I speculated a Dragon themed class that had gameplay inspired by from the Dragon characters in Heroes of the Storm like Alexstrazsa and Chromie. This was all built on the precedence that Dragon Isles was coming up and we know there is a niche open for a Dragon themed class.

That you're hung up on dismissing the details is pointless, since I never said the Dragonsworn from the RPG books would be playable. At the time, everyone here collectively agreed upon the Dragonsworn name as a proxy since it was the closest name we had for any Dragon themed class. And as soon as the leaks came out about Evokers, I easily adopted the speculative name for the potential Dragon themed class, which it very well ended up being.

Again, there are major signs which you ignore, all while getting hung up on tiny details which don't matter.

We're not talking about story right now.
We're talking about NPCs.

I don't think the conversation can be picked apart like that. NPCs are bound to the story too.

Despite what you may think, all our player classes and races come from somewhere, and many times it is attached directly to NPC factions. Death Knights were Scourge NPCs, Demon Hunters were Illidari NPCs, and Dark Rangers ultimately will derive from Darkfallen NPCs.

Where else would our Dark Ranger class come from, and how would they be introduced to us as being based on Sylvanas powers? Do they suddenly come from the Maw after learning from Sylvanas? Are they the Loyalists who are still missing? What can you speculate from lore to explain how they would be presented? Because 'Blizzard can do anything' isn't going to cut it when I have literally been pointing at 9.2.5 and the Danuser interview (and latest tweets) as an indication of what Blizzard is actually already doing.

It's not about anyone's opinion.
You literally said these are playable by Hunters, Paladins and Priests. Which, isn't true.
Can a Hunter do what Sylvanas does? Do any of them play like a Night Warrior? You surely know what you said was utter bullshit.

All speculation is opinion.

I did not say they are already playable, I said the gameplay you are asking for already exists and Blizzard would have no incentive for doubling up on gameplay that already exists. This is why they didn't keep two versions of Metamorphosis for both Warlocks and DH. One had to go to make room for the other. You understand this, right?

We're long past the days where they would be okay doubling up on specs and having two Holy Specs that practically do the same thing, or having Druid shapeshifts be literal translations of Warrior or Rogue gameplay.


Dark Ranger is a title that has been retroactively applied to any Undead or Darkfallen Hunter with Red eyes and a Bow. And to be clear again, we have never seen them diminish other class concepts (like DK or DH) the same was as they have for Dark Ranger over the past couple expansions. Before Shadowlands and the Sylvanas novel, there was still ample room to explore a Dark Ranger standalone class. Now, there is a lot less room.

https://twitter.com/TheRedShirtGuy/s...05522914648067

MINOR SPOILERS FOR SYLVANAS: In WotLK "Darkfallen" was just an alternate name for the san'layn. The novel explains that Darkfallen are actually an entire "race" of undead. Sylvanas is a darkfallen. All dark rangers are darkfallen. All san'layn are darkfallen. That sounds like... a way to justify a playable (allied?) race if you ask me. - Redshirt Guy Twitter


If Dark Rangers end up becoming a form of customization or officially regarded as a Racial title for Darkfallen Hunters, then there is going to be less room to explore them as a brand new class. At no point am I saying Dark Ranger class is dead in the water, but I am definitely saying if we are to talk about them as a potential class, then we need something to actually talk about. And look around; right now there's no leak or even speculative theory on how they would be their own playable class. This leaves us nothing to really discuss other than baseless speculation of hoping Blizzard will make the impossible possible. Cuz we could literally be regarding a playable Jedi class in the same way, and dismissing any argument against them because 'you can't prove they won't be'.

Once again, you use that redundant argument. When will you understand that it's not applicable?
Did you know Dracthyr would be the representatives of the Evoker class? Did you know Deathwing created them and imbued them with the Dragonflights' powers? You didn't. So, why do you keep using this flawed argument about existing NPCs and lore when you've been proven it is not a criterion for measure?

If we had leaks of Dracthyr and Evokers, then I absolutely would consider them for speculation and possibility and discuss how they could plausibly work. And that's exactly what I did. And do you remember your own reaction? You dismissed them completely rather than open any possibility they could be true. These are discussions we never had because you chose not to have them, let me be very clear here. If you are criticizing that ai knew nothing of Evokers and Dracthyr, I will point you to the 10.0 megathread where the leaks for then originated, where I was actively discussing with other people about their plausibility and what 'Evoker' would have to do with Dragons and Dragonflight expansion. As I say, I deal with nee class discussion with whatever information we have for them.

So if Dark Rangers had any hint of becoming its own playable class, I would happily and openly discuss the merits of this happening. And what are the merits of them happening now? Not very likely, since it seems Blizzard wants to make them a customization option more than a new class. And I'm not saying this as a means to shut down the possibility of any Dark Ranger, I am literally pointing at what current info we have on Dark Rangers as a speculative argument for them being playable, with that literally being ZERO right now.

And I've been open to discuss Dark Rangers as a class, yet every time you've presented your concept, you've shown me ways that simply don't work at all. Your concept is nothing but a bunch of loose concepts that make no sense happening. Even your thread of all possible future classes is full of people arguing against your concepts. Hell, it didn't even age well considering you presented it right before Evokers were officially announced, rendering your speculative concepts completely irrelevant now. Try posting the same thing today and see how people react, you think people are still convinced Dark Ranger Class will be playable? The only ones who do will be the ones who are holding on to a belief that they want it to happen.

So yeah, not my fault you continue to live in a bubble. This is a discussion forum, not your personal blog. Learn to deal with opinions.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Works on the same principal. You're less likely to miss.

no it doesn’t work on the same principals hit/expertise crit and attack power are not interchangeable with all cover different things and the likelihood of a miss doesn’t matter to the power behind an arrow.

It's an example for all Undead beings, not just Forsaken, which the Dark Rangers are.
They don't use Touch of the Grave, but have their own life drain ability.
The Mind Control aspect is a Dark Ranger aspect, for example, which comes from their magic.

Your avoiding the question.

So again you think touch of the grave a racial exclusive to forsaken applies to now all undead including classes and is canon lore, but the varies other nature racial’s don’t apply to DK’s and isn’t lore?

There’s no possible way you can justify this stance without it being a double standard.

[username993720]

Hunters already have been show capable of using dark magic when they had Black Arrow, and continue to do so provided they have access to Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire.

On top of that, if Darkfallen become playable, you would see racials that help bridge the Dark Ranger concept even further.

1-2 spells do not constitute a spec. You can't say the Marksmanship spec represents the Dark Rangers' magic, only its archery.

As for a race, it is only complementary to a class. A race alone cannot stand in for an entire class. Meaning, Dracthyr alone do not substitute the Evoker.

Except the Evoker is literally the Dragonsworn in concept and only differ in execution. It is a dragon themed class that has access to all 5 Dragonflight themes, which is what I had always referred to as Dragonsworn in concept. I speculated a Dragon themed class that had gameplay inspired by from the Dragon characters in Heroes of the Storm like Alexstrazsa and Chromie. This was all built on the precedence that Dragon Isles was coming up and we know there is a niche open for a Dragon themed class.

That you're hung up on dismissing the details is pointless, since I never said the Dragonsworn from the RPG books would be playable. At the time, everyone here collectively agreed upon the Dragonsworn name as a proxy since it was the closest name we had for any Dragon themed class. And as soon as the leaks came out about Evokers, I easily adopted the speculative name for the potential Dragon themed class, which it very well ended up being.

Again, there are major signs which you ignore, all while getting hung up on tiny details which don't matter.

We're not talking about which class was speculated right. We're talking about how it will be added. And, you keep claiming that Dark Rangers have no way to be added, despite the fact that you couldn't predict the way Evokers and Dracthyr were.

I don't think the conversation can be picked apart like that. NPCs are bound to the story too.

Despite what you may think, all our player classes and races come from somewhere, and many times it is attached directly to NPC factions. Death Knights were Scourge NPCs, Demon Hunters were Illidari NPCs, and Dark Rangers ultimately will derive from Darkfallen NPCs.

Where else would our Dark Ranger class come from, and how would they be introduced to us as being based on Sylvanas powers? Do they suddenly come from the Maw after learning from Sylvanas? Are they the Loyalists who are still missing? What can you speculate from lore to explain how they would be presented? Because 'Blizzard can do anything' isn't going to cut it when I have literally been pointing at 9.2.5 and the Danuser interview (and latest tweets) as an indication of what Blizzard is actually already doing.

We literally go over the Dracthyr and Evoker original origins, yet you keep wondering what can they pull with Dark Rangers... unbelievable.
It was always the main character that bestowed new classes with powers. Whether is was the Lich King who granted us powers or Illidan who trained us, or even Deathwing who created the Dracthyr Evokers, you can't expect a no-named nobody to be the representative of the class other than Sylvanas, unless it gets special powers.

All speculation is opinion.

I did not say they are already playable, I said the gameplay you are asking for already exists and Blizzard would have no incentive for doubling up on gameplay that already exists. This is why they didn't keep two versions of Metamorphosis for both Warlocks and DH. One had to go to make room for the other. You understand this, right?

We're long past the days where they would be okay doubling up on specs and having two Holy Specs that practically do the same thing, or having Druid shapeshifts be literal translations of Warrior or Rogue gameplay.

You're saying the gameplay already exist, yet you can't replicate it in-game using existing classes. So, does it really exist?

Dark Ranger is a title that has been retroactively applied to any Undead or Darkfallen Hunter with Red eyes and a Bow. And to be clear again, we have never seen them diminish other class concepts (like DK or DH) the same was as they have for Dark Ranger over the past couple expansions. Before Shadowlands and the Sylvanas novel, there was still ample room to explore a Dark Ranger standalone class. Now, there is a lot less room.

https://twitter.com/TheRedShirtGuy/s...05522914648067

MINOR SPOILERS FOR SYLVANAS: In WotLK "Darkfallen" was just an alternate name for the san'layn. The novel explains that Darkfallen are actually an entire "race" of undead. Sylvanas is a darkfallen. All dark rangers are darkfallen. All san'layn are darkfallen. That sounds like... a way to justify a playable (allied?) race if you ask me. - Redshirt Guy Twitter


If Dark Rangers end up becoming a form of customization or officially regarded as a Racial title for Darkfallen Hunters, then there is going to be less room to explore them as a brand new class. At no point am I saying Dark Ranger class is dead in the water, but I am definitely saying if we are to talk about them as a potential class, then we need something to actually talk about. And look around; right now there's no leak or even speculative theory on how they would be their own playable class. This leaves us nothing to really discuss other than baseless speculation of hoping Blizzard will make the impossible possible. Cuz we could literally be regarding a playable Jedi class in the same way, and dismissing any argument against them because 'you can't prove they won't be'.

Did Forsaken replace Death Knights?
Did Night elves replace Demon Hunters?
Did Dracthyr come at the cost of Evoker?
Did the Monk substitute the Monk?
I don't think so.

If we had leaks of Dracthyr and Evokers, then I absolutely would consider them for speculation and possibility and discuss how they could plausibly work. And that's exactly what I did. And do you remember your own reaction? You dismissed them completely rather than open any possibility they could be true. These are discussions we never had because you chose not to have them, let me be very clear here. If you are criticizing that ai knew nothing of Evokers and Dracthyr, I will point you to the 10.0 megathread where the leaks for then originated, where I was actively discussing with other people about their plausibility and what 'Evoker' would have to do with Dragons and Dragonflight expansion. As I say, I deal with nee class discussion with whatever information we have for them.

Right before their addition? That's wisdom in hindsight. I would have expected you to predict years in advance, with everything they've got going on right now. If a class doesn't exist in your mind because it's not currently being hinted at, then you're blind to any future possibility.

So if Dark Rangers had any hint of becoming its own playable class, I would happily and openly discuss the merits of this happening. And what are the merits of them happening now? Not very likely, since it seems Blizzard wants to make them a customization option more than a new class. And I'm not saying this as a means to shut down the possibility of any Dark Ranger, I am literally pointing at what current info we have on Dark Rangers as a speculative argument for them being playable, with that literally being ZERO right now.

If you need hints at present time to take any future class into considerstion, then discussing with you wouldn't be very fruitful, because you only see in the short term.

Let me ask you this. If we were talking 12 years ago, at the era of Cataclysm, about a potential Dragonsworn class, and all you had to show for are some random mortals who serve Dragons, would you treat the discussion the same way you treat Dark Rangers right now, with skepticism? Because surely, they don't have enough meat on the bones to be their own class at the time of the Cataclysm, am i right? So, why are you taking some random ass NPCs and claim that they represent the entire class? Do these guys stand for Dark Rangers as a whole?
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=91950/fo...hots:id=668960
If i claimed that these miserable sack of bones represent the Dark Ranger perfectly, wouldn't i be doing a disservice to the archetype? I would. And that's exactly the same as reducing them to Hunters with purple colored shots. Sylvanas should be the ideal standard for such a character class, as she was the one who has been developed all these years. Not anyone else.

And I've been open to discuss Dark Rangers as a class, yet every time you've presented your concept, you've shown me ways that simply don't work at all. Your concept is nothing but a bunch of loose concepts that make no sense happening. Even your thread of all possible future classes is full of people arguing against your concepts. Hell, it didn't even age well considering you presented it right before Evokers were officially announced, rendering your speculative concepts completely irrelevant now. Try posting the same thing today and see how people react, you think people are still convinced Dark Ranger Class will be playable? The only ones who do will be the ones who are holding on to a belief that they want it to happen.

So yeah, not my fault you continue to live in a bubble. This is a discussion forum, not your personal blog. Learn to deal with opinions.

My thread is as old as 2019. Or 2020. I did it when i first joined the forums and updated it to what it is now following my first encounter with Teriz, which was a long time ago. I still stand by it, because while the standards have been changed to RPG classes and not WC3 ones, Dark Ranger is still an RPG class.

no it doesn’t work on the same principals hit/expertise crit and attack power are not interchangeable with all cover different things and the likelihood of a miss doesn’t matter to the power behind an arrow.

What about a Hawk would increase your strength?

Your avoiding the question.

So again you think touch of the grave a racial exclusive to forsaken applies to now all undead including classes and is canon lore, but the varies other nature racial’s don’t apply to DK’s and isn’t lore?

There’s no possible way you can justify this stance without it being a double standard.

No, you don't get it. I'm not applying a Forsaken cultural thing to classes. I'm applying an Undead aspect to other Undeads, be it races or classes.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What about a Hawk would increase your strength?

nothing,which is why I never brought it up.

No, you don't get it. I'm not applying a Forsaken cultural thing to classes. I'm applying an Undead aspect to other Undeads, be it races or classes.

first off it’s not an undead aspect it’s a racial that only forsaken have and it’s not even in the lore any where.

Second off you can’t take take a “undead aspect” and apply it to every undead that’s not how any thing works undead are not interchange almost every kind of undead has different characteristics based on how they were raised which makes them different from others with little over lap other then dying and being raised.

Third off none of the things I listed are cultural things they are all innate to the races night elfs don’t culture them selfs to turning into forest spirits on death, and more importantly all of them are actually part of the lore.

[username993720]

nothing,which is why I never brought it up.

So, how do you tie it to Attack Power?

first off it’s not an undead aspect it’s a racial that only forsaken have and it’s not even in the lore any where.

Second off you can’t take take a “undead aspect” and apply it to every undead that’s not how any thing works undead are not interchange almost every kind of undead has different characteristics based on how they were raised which makes them different from others with little over lap other then dying and being raised.

Third off none of the things I listed are cultural things they are all innate to the races night elfs don’t culture them selfs to turning into forest spirits on death, and more importantly all of them are actually part of the lore.

Touch of the Grave
Forsaken racial
Passive
Your attacks and damaging spells have a chance to drain the target, dealing X Shadow damage and healing you for the same amount. Additionally, you can breathe underwater indefinitely.

Life Drain
Heal for 15% of damage dealt by Sylvanas to enemies with 3 stacks of Banshee's Curse. Healing is doubled against Heroes.

Siphon Life
1% of base mana 40 yd range
Instant
Requires Warlock (Affliction)
Requires level 25
Siphons the target's life essence, dealing 25 Shadow damage over 15 sec and healing you for 30% of the damage done.

Death Coil
40 Runic Power 30 yd range
Instant cast
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 2
Fires a blast of unholy energy at the target, causing (50.3% of Attack power) Shadow damage to an enemy or healing an Undead ally for (265% of Attack power) health.

Necromancy has a tendency to do it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

So, how do you tie it to Attack Power?

we have already gone over my thoughts on it just go reread those post.

Touch of the Grave
Forsaken racial
Passive
Your attacks and damaging spells have a chance to drain the target, dealing X Shadow damage and healing you for the same amount. Additionally, you can breathe underwater indefinitely.

Life Drain
Heal for 15% of damage dealt by Sylvanas to enemies with 3 stacks of Banshee's Curse. Healing is doubled against Heroes.

Siphon Life
1% of base mana 40 yd range
Instant
Requires Warlock (Affliction)
Requires level 25
Siphons the target's life essence, dealing 25 Shadow damage over 15 sec and healing you for 30% of the damage done.

Death Coil
40 Runic Power 30 yd range
Instant cast
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 2
Fires a blast of unholy energy at the target, causing (50.3% of Attack power) Shadow damage to an enemy or healing an Undead ally for (265% of Attack power) health.

Necromancy has a tendency to do it.

So affliction warlocks are necromancer now? Death coil is now a life drain even though it has nothing to do with it and it’s just a undead heal?

Even you have to see how your bending over backwards to not admit your using a double standard to try and justify non canon RPG lore.

[Triceron]

1-2 spells do not constitute a spec. You can't say the Marksmanship spec represents the Dark Rangers' magic, only its archery.

Blizzard themselves have allowed Hunters to be able to use Dark Magic imbued weaponry that grants them Dark Ranger abilities. It doesn't need to be part of a 'spec' when the literal meaning of Dark Ranger right now is broad enough to be applied to Darkfallen Hunters, and in the case of Nathanos, a Forsaken Hunter. What Dark Ranger magic did Nathanos really use? None. And yet he was still a formal Dark Ranger.

As for a race, it is only complementary to a class. A race alone cannot stand in for an entire class. Meaning, Dracthyr alone do not substitute the Evoker.

Er, at the moment they absolutely do stand in for an entire class. What other race can be an Evoker?

We're not talking about which class was speculated right. We're talking about how it will be added. And, you keep claiming that Dark Rangers have no way to be added, despite the fact that you couldn't predict the way Evokers and Dracthyr were.

I didn't claim there is no way to be added.

I said no one has come up with a compelling speculation or theory on how they would be added, based on what we know of the story right now.

This thread was about Dark Rangers playable through customizations. This was never a 'Dark Ranger Class' thread. You simply inserted yourself into this topic whining about how customizations aren't as good as a new class. I can respect the sentiment, but really no one else is really talking about a Dark Ranger class concept. I'd even go as far as saying you haven't been talking about them as a class, you've only been arguing that you think a class would be better than customizations and otherwise saying no one can prove that a Dark Ranger class would not be a class in the future. No one is actually presenting a Dark Ranger class concept to discuss in this thread.

We literally go over the Dracthyr and Evoker original origins, yet you keep wondering what can they pull with Dark Rangers... unbelievable.

Because Dracthyr are completely new invention, while Dark Rangers have a very specific and well established origin. BFA literally shows us how new Dark Rangers are created, and it is not involving any Banshee origins. What they've established is that new races and genders other than Female Undead High/Blood Elves can become Dark Rangers. At no point have they implied any one of them becoming a new class.

Whether is was the Lich King who granted us powers or Illidan who trained us, or even Deathwing who created the Dracthyr Evokers, you can't expect a no-named nobody to be the representative of the class other than Sylvanas, unless it gets special powers.

You're right.

I don't expect anyone to present the Dark Rangers as a class at all, because this thread topic was about adding them through customizations.

You're saying the gameplay already exist, yet you can't replicate it in-game using existing classes. So, does it really exist?

It exists to a point where you don't need a new class.

This was your very argument about not needing a Blood Mage class because we already have Fire Mages that already do most of what a Blood Mage is known to do.

Right before their addition? That's wisdom in hindsight. I would have expected you to predict years in advance, with everything they've got going on right now. If a class doesn't exist in your mind because it's not currently being hinted at, then you're blind to any future possibility.

Tell me, what in the story is actually indicating a Dark Ranger class? Everything we have in the lore right now suggests customization options.

We had a Dark Ranger quest in BFA that offered the Dark Ranger's Hood transmog. That very questline was updated and datamined in 9.2.5, with more Hunter specific connections. Do you really think this is pointing at a future Dark Ranger class? Because I don't find it convincing if so.

If you need hints at present time to take any future class into considerstion, then discussing with you wouldn't be very fruitful, because you only see in the short term.

Except it's the only way to have fruitful discussion. Short term discussion allows us to hone in on what type of fruit will be borne next.

Consider the fact that none of your other predictions of a future playable class has borne any fruit at all.

Let me ask you this. If we were talking 12 years ago, at the era of Cataclysm, about a potential Dragonsworn class, and all you had to show for are some random mortals who serve Dragons, would you treat the discussion the same way you treat Dark Rangers right now, with skepticism?

I didn't even have that skepticism as recently as mid BFA/pre-Shadowlands announcement.

That you're trying to shift the goalpost to talking about Dark Rangers being a potential class circa 2011 means you really have nothing to present in a 2022 modern discussion on Dark Ranger as a class.

My thread is as old as 2019. Or 2020. I did it when i first joined the forums and updated it to what it is now following my first encounter with Teriz, which was a long time ago. I still stand by it, because while the standards have been changed to RPG classes and not WC3 ones, Dark Ranger is still an RPG class.

And if you're unwilling to incorporate new information to update your concept, then you're talking about a concept that only works in a bubble.

No different if I told you Runemaster was going to be playable because at one point in time in Cataclysm I believed their concept was ripe to be explored. The chances of a Runemaster concept becoming playable diminished considerably when we have Monk as a playable class. It would be quite ridiculous if I held on to the same hopeful optimism for a Runemaster class today as if Monks have zero effect on them becoming a potential playable class.

[Teriz]

Didn't Blizz kinda hint at them possibly introducing Dark Rangers as a class skin for hunters, similar to green fire?

That makes the most sense. Blizzard isn’t going to make an expansion where Dark Rangers are a major theme.

[Ersula]

That makes the most sense. Blizzard isn’t going to make an expansion where Dark Rangers are a major theme.

Never say never. The undead lore in warcraft is one of its most popular motifs. We can expect another Undead expansion around 2030. I'm sure by 2040, Dark Rangers will be a class.

[TheRevenantHero]

Never say never. The undead lore in warcraft is one of its most popular motifs. We can expect another Undead expansion around 2030. I'm sure by 2040, Dark Rangers will be a class.

I'm pretty sure by 2040, WoW will have shut down long before then.

[Teriz]

Never say never. The undead lore in warcraft is one of its most popular motifs. We can expect another Undead expansion around 2030. I'm sure by 2040, Dark Rangers will be a class.

With Sylvanas gone, there’s literally no point.