Do any other class deserve a 4th spec?

[Deleted]

And these kind of threads are the EXACT reason why Blizzard is very, very cautious with giving in to players "demands".
You give them one finger, they take the whole hand.

[DocQuantum]

I don't know that "deserve" is the right word... but I've been wanting an honest-to-goodness warlock tank spec for as long as I can remember. Not just a "off-tank this one fight this tier" type deal, and not just the glyph - but a "real" tanking spec.

[Albert the fish]

Exactly. Which is why the new specs would likely be extremely cheesy. "90 Rogue LFR, can heal," say what???


Or possibly ruin their entire foundation for the game. Seems risky, eh?

if that's risky then adding a neutral race to the game, which has never been done before MoP, was also risky. so was adding the DK class that started at 55.
so was splitting Druid in the first place. so was opening up more freedom with race/class combinations in Cata.

it's no more risky than any of those moves and Blizzard didn't seem phased. somehow i don't think "it's a little risky" is going to hold much water as an argument.

[apepi]

I can see shamans getting a tank spec, and a spec for warlocks to heal could work.

[Sam the Wiser]

The day they add Battle-Mage it become my main.

[Albert the fish]

The day they add Battle-Mage it become my main.

a 4th dps spec seems unlikely. maybe battle-mage as a tank spec, but if 4th specs are going to be added it'll be likely that all classes would become hybrids.

[Mawnix]

If Death Knights could heal I'd actually become a healer.

[Skulljin]

There should be a fourth spec for everyone.

Priests should get an holy-based DPS Spec
Mages an Heal Spec which utilizes fire, frost and arcane healing spells
Warlocks should get their demonic Tank-Spec they are longing to see.

Rogues should get an Tankspec which uses all of their dirty tricks and maybe some nice selfcrafted bombs for some sorts of tanking
Monks should get an ranged DPS Spec using Chi-based casts (Kamehame ha inc?)
Druids are well served

Shamans could get the already mentioned Tank spec and some elemental distinction between there specs.
Hunters should get an Meleespec (There, I said it, sue me)

Paladins should get an Holy based caster Spec (Shockadin?)
Death Knights should get an Spec which focusses on generation and usage of death runes and lastly
Warriors.....well, here I am lost. Maybe seperating SMF Fury and TG Fury.

[Cafua]

I voted for Shaman and Warlock, both of which would be tank specs. A demon hunter tank spec for warlocks and an earth tank spec for shaman, as their is some history to each one. I think you could add a 4th spec to every class if you really wanted to given the way they currently do the specs, some examples:

Warriors - a Ranged DPS spec using bows
Hunters - a melee DPS spec or petless spec
Rogues - a ranged DPS spec using thrown weapons
Mages - a shadow or lightning spec
Death Knights - a blood rune focused dps spec
Paladins - a holy caster DPS spec using int gear
Priests - a Holy caster DPS spec
Monks - a ranged DPS mana/chi spec

Going from 34 specs to 44 specs is a huge change though, and likely not something that could be fit in until a new expansion, and even then would likely consist of much of class development for that expansion.

My only problem with this is you turning warriors into hunters.....and mages into spriest/ele shaman....

I could see the Holy caster dps for priest but some would argue disc is already that. And if they made holy dps it's own spec they would probably have to use what they sort of already use in disc dps/healing. Too many players love atonement healing. but if they made disc a strict healing spec like holy with no dps healing then that would open the opportunity for a holy dps spec. I would play it!

[Melodi]

That's something people have wanted for a while yes, But it's nothing like what happened to druids
Feral used to be 2specs in one, you went one way for tank, the other for DPS, so it was always 2specs, they just finaly made it official, There isn't any other class in game currently that have 1specc that works as 2, so i think if they ever did it for another class, they would have to do it for all classes as they all "need" one of their specs split just as much as each other, -Not at all

Hit the nail on the head. No other class needs or has talents that are two specs rolled into one. That's why it was done to druids. It had nothing to do with druids "deserving" a fourth spec. It was always awkward to have the tanking and melee dps roles all squished into one talent tree. They finally fixed it when they made them completely separate. There is not a single class that needs it to be done other than druids. You'd just be making up a completely new spec out of thin air, not one that was actually being used for a real role.

[Trassk]

Monk having a range spec, that somehow manipulates the dark and light chi energy from a distance.

Shaman's having a tank spec where they use things like earth or water based powers to make them stronger and able to maintain regeneration like a dk can.

Hunters having a melee spec, they lose the ability to use bows but have beast like moves that make use of there pets that is in no way a copy of feral druids.

Mages having a healer spec, using arcane, fire and time based magics to heal others.

Deathknights having a range spec, a necromancer spec using intellect plate to control the undead and plagues from a distance.

Paladin having range spec, kind of like a priest but doing stuff like shouting holy words, might combine range and melee in one.

[huth]

Monk: See Zen-Archery. That could easily work.

Exactly. Which is why the new specs would likely be extremely cheesy. "90 Rogue LFR, can heal," say what???


Or possibly ruin their entire foundation for the game. Seems risky, eh?

No risk, no gain. Though you massively overstate the risk. Class roles aren't exactly the foundation of the game.
Also, if rogues got a heal spec, you'd get a few confused people at the beginning until everyone catched on, but that's about it. Cheesy is something different entirely and does not apply to that situation at all.


Warriors are a tough one... there's not really much you could do with the class that they can't already do. Blademasters are pretty much arms warriors, and neither a ranged nor a healing spec would make a terrible lot of sense. Splitting up TG and SMF isn't that great either, since about the only real difference is weapon choice.
If we had support specs, you could probably do some sort of commander or warlord, but lacking that, i'm drawing a blank here.

[proteen]

I voted for Shaman and Warlock, both of which would be tank specs. A demon hunter tank spec for warlocks and an earth tank spec for shaman, as their is some history to each one. I think you could add a 4th spec to every class if you really wanted to given the way they currently do the specs, some examples:

Warriors - a Ranged DPS spec using bows (Hunters)
Hunters - a melee DPS spec or petless spec (Hunters had a similar spec, and they got rid of it since it wasn't very viable)
Rogues - a ranged DPS spec using thrown weapons (That sounds... so boring - gimped hunters)
Mages - a shadow or lightning spec (Shadow priest or shaman. How many elements should mages have control over..?)
Death Knights - a blood rune focused dps spec (/sigh...)
Paladins - a holy caster DPS spec using int gear (Priests somewhat, and they already have spells that do extra damage to undead)
Priests - a Holy caster DPS spec (so now they can deal shadow and holy damage, hooray!)
Monks - a ranged DPS mana/chi spec (i know nothing of monks)

Going from 34 specs to 44 specs is a huge change though, and likely not something that could be fit in until a new expansion, and even then would likely consist of much of class development for that expansion.

My point of cracking down on this one single example is that when you start adding more and more specs, you start to realize you require less and less classes. Let's say they do make a shaman tank. What is the benefit to adding a tanking specialization? Tanks in the past, warriors were great for block and high HP pools; druids were great for dodge and mitigation through armor; paladins were great for large groups of enemies and block. Blizzard has basically done away with the majority of these individual-benefits and balled them up under the same systems. Sure, there is still uniqueness between the three tanks, but not nearly as much as there had been. Adding in a shaman tank would likely lead down the same road, towards being a non-unique and unnecessary addition to the game. If you really want to tank, go play a tanking class. There are already a lot out there.

if that's risky then adding a neutral race to the game, which has never been done before MoP, was also risky. so was adding the DK class that started at 55.
so was splitting Druid in the first place. so was opening up more freedom with race/class combinations in Cata.

it's no more risky than any of those moves and Blizzard didn't seem phased. somehow i don't think "it's a little risky" is going to hold much water as an argument.

I'm not sure if you intentionally left out the fact that the "neutral race" is in regards to the pandas. That's all I'm going to say about pandas...

Monk: See Zen-Archery. That could easily work.


No risk, no gain. Though you massively overstate the risk. Class roles aren't exactly the foundation of the game.
Also, if rogues got a heal spec, you'd get a few confused people at the beginning until everyone catched on, but that's about it. Cheesy is something different entirely and does not apply to that situation at all.


Warriors are a tough one... there's not really much you could do with the class that they can't already do. Blademasters are pretty much arms warriors, and neither a ranged nor a healing spec would make a terrible lot of sense. Splitting up TG and SMF isn't that great either, since about the only real difference is weapon choice.
If we had support specs, you could probably do some sort of commander or warlord, but lacking that, i'm drawing a blank here.

If by "until everyone catched [caught, btw] on" you mean "until the majority of their player-based quit," then I completely agree with your hypothetical situation.

[skrump]

I would say warriors simply because of Titans grip and single minded fury.

And Deserve is not exactly the word I would choose as Blizz would most likely gimp both specs if they tried to split them, not only that but it would just make more sense to make arms for 2handers period while fury focuses on 1handers

[huth]

The Pandaren, which, from the looks of it, where quite well received. So, what's your point again? Oh, right, you don't actually have one.

[Santti]

They pretty much had to give druids the 4th talent spec when we abandoned the old talent trees. Druid became a feral tank/dps by avoiding/choosing feral tank/dps talents in their talent tree. This would no longer be the case. There would be little to no difference in feral dps and tank with the current talent system, which would be problematic to balance in both PvE and PvP.

[jason1975]

Frankly the game would be better off if we got rid of a couple of specs or combined them.

Hunters should be MM/SV or BM. DKs should only have one DPS spec. Warriors (my main) should also only have 1 dps spec (so sick of the Fury vs. Arms).

And so on . . .

Less is more.

[Cafua]

Monk having a range spec, that somehow manipulates the dark and light chi energy from a distance.

Shaman's having a tank spec where they use things like earth or water based powers to make them stronger and able to maintain regeneration like a dk can.

Hunters having a melee spec, they lose the ability to use bows but have beast like moves that make use of there pets that is in no way a copy of feral druids.

Mages having a healer spec, using arcane, fire and time based magics to heal others.

Deathknights having a range spec, a necromancer spec using intellect plate to control the undead and plagues from a distance.

Paladin having range spec, kind of like a priest but doing stuff like shouting holy words, might combine range and melee in one.

I had a similar idea with shamans but I love the DK and Monk ideas, I would totally play DK if they had a ranged int spec, It could totally happen considering they could just apply diseases from a distance and just have casting abilities with a pet....almost like a hunter. Ive never liked hunters but DK pets are really cool

[Deleted]

That's something people have wanted for a while yes, But it's nothing like what happened to druids
Feral used to be 2specs in one, you went one way for tank, the other for DPS, so it was always 2specs, they just finaly made it official, There isn't any other class in game currently that have 1specc that works as 2, so i think if they ever did it for another class, they would have to do it for all classes as they all "need" one of their specs split just as much as each other, -Not at all

Vanilla sham sais hi.

[Albert the fish]

My point of cracking down on this one single example is that when you start adding more and more specs, you start to realize you require less and less classes. Let's say they do make a shaman tank. What is the benefit to adding a tanking specialization? Tanks in the past, warriors were great for block and high HP pools; druids were great for dodge and mitigation through armor; paladins were great for large groups of enemies and block. Blizzard has basically done away with the majority of these individual-benefits and balled them up under the same systems. Sure, there is still uniqueness between the three tanks, but not nearly as much as there had been. Adding in a shaman tank would likely lead down the same road, towards being a non-unique and unnecessary addition to the game. If you really want to tank, go play a tanking class. There are already a lot out there.


I'm not sure if you intentionally left out the fact that the "neutral race" is in regards to the pandas. That's all I'm going to say about pandas...

If by "until everyone catched [caught, btw] on" you mean "until the majority of their player-based quit," then I completely agree with your hypothetical situation.

what's the fact that they are pandaren got to do with anything again? you say it as if it's its own explanation and it's....well it's not.