They should let MM hunters 'sacrifice' their pets.

[Deleted]

Grimoire of Sacrifice for warlocks is only present due to pet mechanics killing their viability on some fights.

Have you forgotten Atramedes already? We were quite easily the worst ranged on that boss, at least imps / water ele could hit the boss for the whole fight....

[Vintersol]

People complain about class homogenization and then demand we have the functionality of Warlock sac.

The general idea is older than the warlock implementation. But the warlocks are the lucky guys to get this.

[Lushious]

In othe rword, putting the pet on passive?

It's already in game.

Putting the pet on passive does not increase dmg by X%, might actually want to read the usggestion another time

[VoodooChyle]

Lol I can't help but laugh at this thread. Hunters tame animals, befriend them, and (used to) have to keep then happy so that they may obey your every command. They are one with animals and nature. Warlocks sacrifice demons because the demons are summoned against their will. They are summoned via spell and don't really die they just get sent back to the twisting nether. They obey locks because they are under their spell and command. Demons are not befriended so the idea of sac'ing them is not strange. Warlocks have been asking to sacrifice pets since before they wanted green fire. I would lose my shit laughing if I ever saw a hunter perform a sacrifice ritual in game. It makes absolutely no sense to the class or lore or anything related to a Hunter. If they let hunters sac they might as well let mages do it too. Oh and how about some ghost wolf sac's for our shaman buddies. There are a million things wrong with the hunter class that need fixing before we start turning them into warlock demon hunters.

[Hyde]

Putting the pet on passive does not increase dmg by X%, might actually want to read the usggestion another time

well if you find pet as cumbersome and is horrible at controlling it, making you lose dps, then yes, putting your pet on passive would make incompetent hunters dps more.

[Lushious]

Lol I can't help but laugh at this thread. Hunters tame animals, befriend them, and (used to) have to keep then happy so that they may obey your every command. They are one with animals and nature. Warlocks sacrifice demons because the demons are summoned against their will. They are summoned via spell and don't really die they just get sent back to the twisting nether. They obey locks because they are under their spell and command. Demons are not befriended so the idea of sac'ing them is not strange. Warlocks have been asking to sacrifice pets since before they wanted green fire. I would lose my shit laughing if I ever saw a hunter perform a sacrifice ritual in game. It makes absolutely no sense to the class or lore or anything related to a Hunter. If they let hunters sac they might as well let mages do it too. Oh and how about some ghost wolf sac's for our shaman buddies. There are a million things wrong with the hunter class that need fixing before we start turning them into warlock demon hunters.

Let me light the set for you.
You are spec'd Marksman and are fighting a dozen fire Elementals emitting pure flame, you love your animal and your nature.
What would you rather do:
A: Let your pet stand by your side, not letting it attack the target, instead give the usual buff and increase ranged attack damage done by you by X%
B: Send your beloved pet into a dozen enemies of pure flame, burning them to cinders

What sounds more like a sacrifice? A or B?

well if you find pet as cumbersome and is horrible at controlling it, making you lose dps, then yes, putting your pet on passive would make incompetent hunters dps more.

What exactly makes you so fanny-troubled about an idea of an OPTIONAL way to increase ranged damage for a spec (looking at your sig) which you most likely don't even play ?

Here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optional

[Hyde]

Let me light the set for you.
You are spec'd Marksman and are fighting a dozen fire Elementals emitting pure flame, you love your animal and your nature.
What would you rather do:
A: Let your pet stand by your side, not letting it attack the target, instead give the usual buff and increase ranged attack damage done by you by X%
B: Send your beloved pet into a dozen enemies of pure flame, burning them to cinders

What sounds more like a sacrifice? A or B?

There where you get it wrong, calling it as pet, when a companion is equal. You really are not suited to play as hunter. YOu should try warlock or DK, maybe you would feel more comfortable enslaving minions that way and you will have better dps?

[Lushious]

There where you get it wrong, calling it as pet, when a companion is equal. You really are not suited to play as hunter. YOu should try warlock or DK, maybe you would feel more comfortable enslaving minions that way and you will have better dps?

What you basicly said is you have no argument for the case I presented, essentially proving me right - you only attacked my choice of words which does not change my argument at all, please feel free to come up with another argument for as to why you think my scene was wrong

[Hyde]

What you basicly said is you have no argument for the case I presented, essentially proving me right - you only attacked my choice of words which does not change my argument at all, please feel free to come up with another argument for as to why you think my scene was wrong

NO I'm saying is hunter is fine as it is, people love it, one of best played class and is not the class for you, reroll a dk. Why should blizz change hunter to suit your selfish man-child's whim?

---------- Post added 2013-05-20 at 04:21 PM ----------

People complain about class homogenization and then demand we have the functionality of Warlock sac.

Yeah, and the funny thing is, other non-pet ranged classes can be played as well.

[3clipse]

To be fair, we're the only ranged physical class.

[nyctre10]

Bold part says that you don't want pet to be killed. In next sentence you say that you want a buff when you don't have a pet, so you want your pet either dead either in stables.
They can't make pet-less spec for a pet-class without messing up class lore. Warlocks can sacrifice demons they summon to get benefits because they are evil and don't gives a shit about their demon because they will never die but just return to twisting nether where they will be summoned and tortured again.
Hunter can't do that. It's like weapon-less warrior spec. Or magic-less mage class.

Taken from wowwiki hunter lore:
The hunter is one of the oldest classes in history. They represent a deep connection between man and beast, and the hunters of Warcraft are not merely individuals who track animals and slay them for food, but custodians of balance.

If bolded part is removed - it is no longer a hunter class

Well, here's an idea : Your bond is so strong that you can perform a ritual and become one with your companion...literally

[Lushious]

NO I'm saying is hunter is fine as it is, people love it, one of best played class and is not the class for you, reroll a dk. Why should blizz change hunter to suit your selfish man-child's whim?

Your personal attacks do make me wonder who really is the "man-child" here. Let me introduce you to a new word for your vocabulary, it seems like you missed in my previous post.

What exactly makes you so fanny-troubled about an idea of an OPTIONAL way to increase ranged damage for a spec (looking at your sig) which you most likely don't even play ?

Here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optional

and I'll play the class I like, thank you

[Radio]

In othe rword, putting the pet on passive?

It's already in game.

No, not really no.

Hunters are already relied upon for their raid buffs and debuffs, so we aren't getting rid of a pet anytime soon. And we can't put a pet on passive if we wanted it to be applying debuffs to targets.

Hunters are also a class based around kinship with their pet, so we aren't getting rid of a pet anytime soon.

But there is still room for non BM hunters, or at least just MM hunters be able to choose to play as a ranger that uses their pet as a boon instead of as a secondary damage source. It can be an optional glyph if needed.

I'm sure plenty of hunters would appreciate it for fights like Megaera where Blizzard just can't seem to get pet pathing right, our hunters pet goes for a swim and stops attacking on almost every bloody head.

[DrStiglit]

I don't like the older part.. I say kill my pet revive it and kill it again... You're a hunter, hunt and kill animals... The bond between hunter and beast is that you drank it's blood now it's crazed spirit lives in you making you nuts and you do more dps.. You can then revive your pet to remove its spirit from your body.. Sounds good to me.

[Mr. Casual]

yea i always wanted to mm to be more like ranger, strong bow abilities and no pets

[Deleted]

To be fair, we're the only ranged physical class.

Just to expand on this, and to show the logic of pets; Hunters are the only ranged physical class, you're treated more as a melee spec that happens to attack mostly (though NOT entirely) from range and you have the same weaknesses that a melee has, you have a non-mana pool resource [note by resource I mean primary resource like Mana, not secondary like Embers or Eclipse] that you have to manage and spend time building (focus, built with Cobra/Steady Shot), you're dependant on your weapon for damage so that disarming prevents you from doing your normal attacks, and you're able to be kited (or rather, your pet, the melee aspect, is able to be kited and such so that it isn't able to reach the target and do it's damage, indeed to go further if your pet is killed a large portion of your damage is instantly removed and you need to go through a laborous cast to regain your pet).

On the other hand, you have the benefits that befit a melee, you have a resource that you CAN rebuild easily (unlike, say, mana which often requires cooldowns to regain), you're not hampered at all by movement save by the need to press keys to move (you don't need to stop casting or snare yourself or use a CD to cast while moving), you're not able to be interrupted by silences, LoS is less harmful than casters since your pet will already be on them behind a pillar and things such as KC (iirc) need pet LoS not Hunter LoS, you have quick, fast shots with very little casting (only your shots and certain talents), and you have a lot of movement tools (albeit unlike other melee classes, your movement is AWAY from the target, not towards).

Now, if you were to completely remove the pet, suddenly you have a class that is completely ranged, for all the good or bad it would do, that is still being balanced as a melee spec despite having the tools to escape melee effectively (arguably moreso than, say, an Elemental Shaman or Balance Druid). Logically, you'd need to be able to be balanced against other CASTERS again, not Melee, to allow the option of a no-pet talent. Remember, Warlocks are already casters in Blizzard's eyes (even removing Meta-Melee entirely) so that option doesn't affect them like it affects Hunters. This isn't even going into the whole argument about your pet based abilities (Frenzy, Cleave, buffs/debuffs/cc) or what would happen to Beastmastery. GC himself says that he's concerned that Warlocks have gone from a pet class to a caster class with the option of pets with a single talent tier, and Warlocks weren't the class most well known for having pets, Hunters are. That's why I'm against it, because of the balance issues, because of the flavor issues, and because it just doesn't make sense, a Hunter aesthetically is defined by having a pet out, without it Hunters are just rogues/monks with bow-attacks not melee attacks.

(Oh, and I'm not sure if it's come up, but to pre-empt the "I want to play the way I want to play" argument, tell that to Scorch Weaving Arcane, Melee Survival, Kitties/Demos who wanted to tank raids and Shaman who wanted their totems to all be dropped at the same time and constantly be a 5min buff like in Cata. Blizz changes things, and prevents classes from doing things that it thinks goes against the feel of the class, and that isn't a democractic process.)

[Deleted]

Honestly, all that "hunter is about bond with nature and blah-blah-blah" is crap. Why then Forsaken have hunters? Goblin hunters? Draenei?

Hunter is just a mash-up of various WC3 ranged units (including technological ones) and WC3 Breastmaster class (who was melee, tbh), and is first and foremost a physical ranged DPS.
I see no reason for not having an option to play petless.

[Tyranastus]

Forgive me, but I can't be arsed going through 7 pages of arguments that barely scratch the topic itself beyond lore or making a hunter comparable to warlocks.
This is a thread topic that I have seen countless times in my years on MMO-C, and one that I have only just thought of a way of doing this without detracting from the hunter/wilderness/pet ideal that is a hunter.

The only way I could really see this working would have to be a total revamp of hunters and moreso, hunter pets. I picture a talent along the lines of;
One With The Beast - The hunter's and pet's spirits become one, granting the hunter the abilities of their pet.
For that I suppose I would picture, cosmetically, rather than the pet disappearing, the pet becoming a type of spirit version of itself, and becoming purely cosmetic. Still being by the hunter's side, but non-interact-able. The hunter may then receive (lets use a turtle as an example) 20% decreased damage, 30% decreased movement speed, and the ability to cast http://www.wowdb.com/spells/26064-shell-shield.
Please note, there would be obvious balance issues and all kinds of ridiculous shit involved, so I don't believe it would ever happen... But that was my thought process along the lines of a hunter still remaining "huntery", keeping their pet, and having a "huntery" skill/talent to allow a "pet sacrifice".

[yetgdhfgh]

To me the marksman spec should be the ranger spec that shouldnt need a pet to help

Now if the wording was rephrased I could see a petless marksman spec cause lets face it the pet dps is negligible to a marksman hunter and would make more sense for them to do away with it as a talent

[Deleted]

Spirit Bind

Your pet assumes a spiritual state and merges with you. You gain access to your pet's most powerful ability and also spells and abilities that require a pet to work (ex: Bestial Wrath, Intimidation) will work without one as long as you are merged with your pet.

Summoning another pet will cancel the effect.