Rejoice! Demon Hunter is already playable in-game, but not clear enough, apparently.

[Verain]

That isn't an ability, that's a combat range. How many specs and classes are dual weapon melee?

Several, but none like the Demon Hunter.

The point is- nothing in the game is like a Demon Hunter. The closest is rogues, who can actually wield glaives (but not really, as the ONLY glaive model in the game is a legendary), have evasion, are lightly armored, and are full on melee.

But two other DH abilities are on an unrelated caster, who gets them by copying the demon hunter ability (and who really stacks up dreadlord abilities too).


So, the demo lock is nothing like a demon hunter, doesn't fit the niche, isn't important or relevant to a demon hunter discussion. The closest thing to a demon hunter in game is a rogue- and rogues aren't demon hunters.

[Teriz]

Several, but none like the Demon Hunter.

The point is- nothing in the game is like a Demon Hunter. The closest is rogues, who can actually wield glaives (but not really, as the ONLY glaive model in the game is a legendary), have evasion, are lightly armored, and are full on melee.

But two other DH abilities are on an unrelated caster, who gets them by copying the demon hunter ability (and who really stacks up dreadlord abilities too).


So, the demo lock is nothing like a demon hunter, doesn't fit the niche, isn't important or relevant to a demon hunter discussion. The closest thing to a demon hunter in game is a rogue- and rogues aren't demon hunters.

Except Warlocks don't need to play exactly like Demon Hunters to take their place in WoW. Just like Shaman don't need to throw bladed harpoons at targets to take the place of Shadow Hunters. Just like Warriors don't need to play exactly like Blademasters.

As long as it covers the important stuff, they work just fine.

[Verain]

I would say that if you are set on a Shadow Hunter or a Blademaster, then you don't have your class in WoW.

The important stuff- what a Demon Hunter spends most of his time doing- is farming in melee, tanking, and warding off enemy heroes. Demo locks really don't having anything like that stuff. They don't share a playstyle, they don't share a goal, they don't share a concept, they don't share lore, they don't share flavor, they don't share mechanics.


Locks copied the demon form spell. Grats. Not the same.


We'll need a Demon Hunter, soonest!

[Teriz]

I would say that if you are set on a Shadow Hunter or a Blademaster, then you don't have your class in WoW.

Or maybe you're simply too irrational to understand that both of those concepts are integrated into larger class archetypes?

The important stuff- what a Demon Hunter spends most of his time doing- is farming in melee, tanking, and warding off enemy heroes. Demo locks really don't having anything like that stuff. They don't share a playstyle, they don't share a goal, they don't share a concept, they don't share lore, they don't share flavor, they don't share mechanics.


Locks copied the demon form spell. Grats. Not the same.

That's lore. Gameplay is based on mechanics. And gameplay >> lore. In terms of mechanics, we already have several classes that are DW and utilize magic while DWing. Three more specs like that would be a saturation. So instead, you can take that concept, and apply it to a caster, thus making something original and interesting. That's clearly what Blizzard did with the Demon Hunter concept and the Demonology spec. It may not be your idea of what a DH is, but that isn't Blizzard's problem, it's yours.

[kensim]

Or maybe you're simply too irrational to understand that both of those concepts are integrated into larger class archetypes?



That's lore. Gameplay is based on mechanics. And gameplay >> lore. In terms of mechanics, we already have several classes that are DW and utilize magic while DWing. Three more specs like that would be a saturation. So instead, you can take that concept, and apply it to a caster, thus making something original and interesting. That's clearly what Blizzard did with the Demon Hunter concept and the Demonology spec. It may not be your idea of what a DH is, but that isn't Blizzard's problem, it's yours.

Your trying to speak for Blizzard again, like you have some authority to do so. Was it clear to us that DKs were never going to happen when they gave Warlocks Death Coil? Did people believe DKs would happen because Warrior T3 had skulls and was very DK-ish in theme? You have no idea what Blizzard is doing, stop stating that you do. Makes you look moronic.

In fact if you want to play the "assumption" game then the fact Blizzard backed down from the DA glyph and has downplayed the whole DH/Warlock relationship in the latter half of WoW should tell you something. Personally I will just wait for Blizzard to do their thing.

On another note that made me chuckle. In your Tinker Class thread one of the pics you use (for chemist) is a rogue. OH NO! YOU WERE SO CLOSE! YOU ALMOST HAD YOUR BELOVED CLASS...AND THEN YOU REALIZED THAT ROGUES BREW CONCOCTIONS AND USE THEM IN COMBAT! NOOOOOOOOOOO! CLEARLY WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! REJOICE TINKERS ARE ALREADY IN WOW AND THEY ARE ROGUES! WHO KNEW! WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, THEY CAN HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT...CLEARLY ADVANCED STEALTH TECHNOLOGY!!!

I so enjoy it when you trip over yourself like this Teriz...you provide me entertainment in much the same way the Keystone Cops were humorous back in the day.

[Jtree]

Nope. The twelfth class will be the final class. There's no point of going beyond the 12th class when all the gaps are filled, and all the WC3 heroes are gone.

I love how you say this with such certainty.

Logic is a powerful ally.

Logic is forming a reasonable conclusion from known facts. Even then, the conclusions reached can be wrong.

The only fact you have here is that 12 is an even number. There is no other information available about future plans to make a sure assumption about what is coming.

What you do have is a lot of strongly held ideas and opinions. These give you beliefs about the future of the game. That is not a bad thing at all, but it is also not conclusive facts.

[Teriz]

Logic is forming a reasonable conclusion from known facts. Even then, the conclusions reached can be wrong.

The only fact you have here is that 12 is an even number. There is no other information available about future plans to make a sure assumption about what is coming.

What you do have is a lot of strongly held ideas and opinions. These give you beliefs about the future of the game. That is not a bad thing at all, but it is also not conclusive facts.

Well let's look at everything shall we?

With the 12th class you have multiple items being filled by Blizzard.

Armor types: With the 12th class Mail, Leather, Plate, and Cloth will all have an equal number of class wearers.
Class types: With the 12th class, the three class types; Full Hybrid, 2-role Hybrid, and Pure DPS will all have 4 classes per type.
WC3 Heroes: Assuming it is the Tinker/Alchemist class, there will be no more heroes left from WoW to pull classes from.
Archetypes: After a technology class is in the game, there will be no more broad archetypes to pull from.

So logically, the 12th class will be the final WoW class. Is that certain? Of course not, but given the current trajectory of the game, which is downward, the game isn't going to last long enough to support a crazy amount of classes anyway. Also, Blizzard could add things like 4th specs or prestige classes to keep interest in the game without adding new classes.

and
http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...ryptlord.shtml
wants to talk. maybe I missed sth but which classes have his abilities?

Death Knights. Unholy Blight is the WoW version of Locust swarm.

[rarhyx]

Class types: With the 12th class, the three class types; Full Hybrid, 2-role Hybrid, and Pure DPS will all have 4 classes per type.
WC3 Heroes: Assuming it is the Tinker/Alchemist class, there will be no more heroes left from WoW to pull classes from.

and this 3 full hybrids can be seperated into 1 real full hybrid and 2 semi full hybrid (for now)
what if the new class get 4 talent trees like the druid?

and
http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...ryptlord.shtml
wants to talk. maybe I missed sth but which classes have his abilities?

[Jtree]

and this 3 full hybrids can be seperated into 1 real full hybrid and 2 semi full hybrid (for now)

For that matter, I've never seen the term "full hybrid" used outside this thread. I'm certain I've never heard it come from Blizz. In this game, hybrid just means more than one role. There's no distinction on whether the hybrid do two, three, or all four roles.

[Teriz]

For that matter, I've never seen the term "full hybrid" used outside this thread. I'm certain I've never heard it come from Blizz. In this game, hybrid just means more than one role. There's no distinction on whether the hybrid do two, three, or all four roles.

So you don't see a distinction between Shaman that can only DPS/Heal, and Paladins that can DPS/Heal/Tank?

[Jtree]

So you don't see a distinction between Shaman that can only DPS/Heal, and Paladins that can DPS/Heal/Tank?

In the basic pure/hybrid dynamic, no. Those terms were coined to separate mages/warlocks/rogues/hunters from the other classes, and in discussions are generally used when comparing the pures to hybrid classes' DPS specs. They also had a historical connotation of the hybrid DPS specs doing less damage because they brought other utility to a raid group. Blizzard has moved away from that since BC, of course.

By that dynamic, paladins and shaman are as alike and different as warriors and death knights. In a general, hypothetical sense the classes offer various options, but when you put it into practice the classes can become less important to you than the specs you are being offered.

When building a raid or a PvP group, you don't just throw a paladin and shaman in and go. You take them based on specs the individuals offer and the slots in the group you need to fill. If you have to leave one out, you're going to choose between holy and resto, or ret and enh/ele. Or the paladin is prot, and doesn't contend with the shaman's spot at all.

Unless the shaman is the group's only option for bloodlust. Then he'll bump someone else playing the same role, even a pure.

When I raid lead a 25-man guild back in Wrath, I broke my group up into four units: tanks, healers, melee DPS, ranged DPS. Those were the four overarching elements of the the raid. Everything else, the buffs, debuffs, classes, armor and weapon types, were details to be worked out after I had mostly filled the raid group.

By my way of thinking, we can divide the classes into four groupings: the four pures, three bi-roles, three tri-roles (trybrids?), and only one quad-role class. However, I find it much more important to look at the number of specs per role: 5 tanks, 6 heals, 11 melee, 12 ranged. That's where the real comparisons between classes happen.

[nightfalls]

As for 12 classes, there's really no need to go any further. All the armor and type gaps will be filled. People are already saying that Blizzard should stop making classes, and focus on the existing ones. After class #12, Blizzard could refocus on developing 4th specs for the existing classes. This may include a Demon Hunter spec for Warlocks.

12 classes is already too many. Fuck, 11 was too many.

If anything, take an example from most other games, from what I can tell they feature only about 4-6 classes, and each class has many specs with far more interchangeable features. This is far more compelling, especially since the more classes = smaller class communities and generally speaking, more alts and less mains. Didn't Blizzard even say they wanted to "get players on their mains?"

Maybe stopping making new classes and diluting players' attention would be a good place to start. I think they really blew it by making so many classes in the first place instead of expanding each class's powers, specs, and abilities.

[Thimagryn]

To be fair, when WoW started, we had 9 classes, 4 of which were DPS-only. Most people wouldn't have included Priests and Warriors as 'hybrids', even if they were able to fill multiple roles. It wasn't exactly 3:3:3 back then.

It's a convenient idea for them to make the last class a hybrid, since that means opening up many new styles of play. It's still better than adding a new class that only has one role.

[Teriz]

12 classes is already too many. Fuck, 11 was too many.

If anything, take an example from most other games, from what I can tell they feature only about 4-6 classes, and each class has many specs with far more interchangeable features. This is far more compelling, especially since the more classes = smaller class communities and generally speaking, more alts and less mains. Didn't Blizzard even say they wanted to "get players on their mains?"

Yeah, it worked wonders for Rift and SWTOR.

[Jessicka]

Yeah, it worked wonders for Rift and SWTOR.

WoW isn't Rift or SWTOR though. Nor should it be. Different games should be different, I mean I loved the old SpellForce model where you didn't have a class, but instead just levelled skills in each tree; that doesn't mean I think WoW should be that.

As long as there are unique concepts, I think there's room for new classes. Peceived 'gaps' and balance of 'types' aren't actually relevant things to players' desires for character concepts and roles. I don't think adding a pure tank or pure healer would improve numbers of tanks or healers, but I am quite sure there would be non-trivial numbers of players who would play those classes.

[nightfalls]

As long as there are unique concepts, I think there's room for new classes. Peceived 'gaps' and balance of 'types' aren't actually relevant things to players' desires for character concepts and roles. I don't think adding a pure tank or pure healer would improve numbers of tanks or healers, but I am quite sure there would be non-trivial numbers of players who would play those classes.

Why not room for adding specs to existing classes? Perhaps "gaps" and "balance" aren't relevant, but things like "number of alts to fully experience the game" are.

[Verain]

SWTOR really is just WoW classes light. Your smuggler can pick between being a scoundrel (melee / melee / heal) or gunslinger (rdps x3), but you can never revert that choice once made.

Rift has only four base classes with a lot of different ways to approach it. While you can never revert your base class choice, you can certainly tank or support as a rogue.

Except Warlocks don't need to play exactly like Demon Hunters to take their place in WoW.

Actually, the game mechanics aren't exactly that relevant, but yea, they probably would. The big deal is, a Demon Hunter is a melee fighter, who has some demonic magic, and can, as an ultimate (and not all DHs in lore can even do this) become a demon temporarily. I think by lore, that's an Illidan only thing.

Locks got the demon form thing. But they still cast a bunch of ranged stuff, they still act like warlocks. Warlocks are really far from demon hunter.

Rogues dual wield, are lightly armored, even have evasion. Closest to a demon hunter, but still really far. No magic though.
Fury warriors dual wield, but have nothing else. No magic though. Probably about as close to a demon hunter as
Enhancement shaman have very little in common, they can't even be night elves, but they do at least dual wield and cast spell rotationally, though they have no flavor in common. They also can't use swords.
Frost DKs can at least be night elves and use swords. Mechanically, they don't seem too far off from what at least one demon hunter spec MIGHT be.

Maybe we get to a ranged non-night elf caster eventually, but probably not.


locks ain't DH. This whole thread's premise is insulting to fans of Demon Hunters, and was really made just to pull their beards. I think it's even hard to argue, and that's why all the valid points are swept away with shit like "derp there's a lot of melee". Well, yes, there is. But that doesn't have anything to do with "pure non-nelf caster somehow is a melee night elf". That's just trying to convince us that Blizzard is less likely to put in a DH, so I guess we should... ?? ? ? ??

Or maybe you're simply too irrational to understand that both of those concepts are integrated into larger class archetypes?

But they haven't been. The Shadow Hunter is kinda like a shaman- I think if you really like that guy as your main pick, you'd probably be a shaman and be pretty happy. If you were a priestess of the moon fan, you could probably be ok with a balance druid JUST because of starfall, even though that's the only interaction. But the Blademaster is an agile hero with a giant weapon, an alpha strike, and a big part of his defense was making duplicates (a meaningful defense in an RTS) and his short range teleport. His special was critical strikes, which made a big difference on his attacks at times, especially on his alpha strike.

A warrior is a hard press into that kit. You have blade storm, but bladestorm doesn't whup nearly the correct amount of ass that you might expect (or even for what it was when launched). You might be ok with it because you at least have a melee rotation- an arms warrior is the closest the game has to offer. But it doesn't offer the alpha strike, or the misdirected attacks. None of the stealthers have an alpha strike anyway- the concern presumably being that you can generally open uncontested. So I think you'd be a bit unsatisfied with the Arms warrior as the blademaster. HOWEVER- if there was one spec of warrior that acted like a blademaster, you could probably be ok with that.


Could you make one spec of rogue that acts like a demon hunter? Well, probably. But it would be really odd. The rest of the class has no demonic lore whatsoever. It's entirely out of place thematically. The only other class with that much swing in its respecing is a shadow priest compared to the other two priests, and at least it is recognized that they are both priests.

Could you do it with a lock? Again, yes, but now you actually need to allow that lock to dual wield and be melee. Locks don't have any martial proficiency baseline, so it's sillier than the rogue who suddenly has a bunch of demon magic- the wizard who suddenly is a gish, but only in one spec.



So, Demon Hunter needs (and probably will get) its own class. If not in this next expac, then the one after that.



But right now? There's no Demon Hunters in game. Sure as shit not some caster that can't even be a night elf.

[Jessicka]

Why not room for adding specs to existing classes? Perhaps "gaps" and "balance" aren't relevant, but things like "number of alts to fully experience the game" are.

Practicality. Its just easier to make a new class with 3 specs than 11 new specs at a time.

Fully experiencing the game is a wholly subjective matter. How many threads do you see saying clearing LFR once must mean you completed the game because you killed the end boss? I don't believe that's anything close to it, but some clearly do believe finishing that that's all there is. By contrast, you might not consider it complete until you've completed every achievement and every quest on every class on both factions. That is so unrealistic a proposition for most already that its just not worth worrying about.

[Talen]

Again, theme is subjective.

No...not really. If you do something with Elementals in this game, you use Shamans. Nature? You turn to Druids. Demons? Warlocks. There is crossover between classes - Mages can summon Water Elementals for example, but that in't thei main focus of their theme. Their theme, as with Rogues, Warriors and Priests, would be the generic standard D&D style party members that act as the core and foudnation of many MMOs.

What separates theme and lore?

Quite a bit actually. Lore includes little things like history and backstory, relations and motivations, things that are actually irrelevant to the theme.

What would you equate a Shaman to using DnD terms? You can't, because such a parallel does not exist.

As far as them goes, no. It doens't. Which is irrelevant because the theme of Shamans is not to be part of the generic Fighter/Mage/Rogue /Priest quartet; the theme of the Shaman is Elementals.

Finally, I'll say one last time. 'Healer' is not a theme, it is a role.

If that term disturbs you, then a theme of "generic D&D priest" would fill the theme just as well.

we should see that demons are only a part of Warlocks' power.

Maybe so, but the Warlocks identity is based upon Demons.

Um...what? I'm trying to say that locks and demon hunters have different motivations at the very heart of the classes. Motivations as far apart as that of warlocks and mages, or warriors and paladins.

And which are completely irrelvant in class design - just as they are between Shadow Priest and Holy Priests. Paladins and Blood Knights. Arms and Fury Warriors. Druids of the Claw and Druids of the Talon. In short, the motivations of a DH matter little or nothing in the design of the class. It doens't matter for any other class, it won't matter for DHs. They will be easier to express, and expressed better as a standalone class, but if Blizzard introduces DHs as a Warlocks subspec, then that lore is what will be canon and thats what their story will be based upon. DHs will simply be Warlocks who choose to focus their energies into the mastery of melee combat and learn the skills necessary for that.

In different ways, to different degrees, and for different purposes. Much like how paladins and priest both wield the power of Faith, but in very different ways.

Blizzard COULD indeed go that route. It seems doubtful that they would. As I said, they have no reason to do that. The DH doesn't bring anything new to the game. And magic type aside, the Priest and Paladins have very different themes, tropes and mechanics that woudl not necessarily be present between DHs and Warlocks. All of that would depend solely upon how Blizzard chooses to implement the DH at the time it does so.

Expect that warlocks are not at all designed right to be dual-wield or two-hander melee DPS. Melee vs. caster is an immense difference, both in gameplay and in class theme. Trying to force a melee spec onto a cloth caster class would be far more convoluted than adding a DH class.

Which, even if true, would be more an argument for never introducing a DH class. As it is, dual wield can be added simply by virtue of adding the skill. Adding a melee role to a caster, however, can be done. Indeed, it has been done.

One lock spec has become DH derivative, in lore, and that could be addressed in game as well.

It can indeed. But it won't be. Blizzard isn't going to gut Demonology. Lets stop even trying to suggest this is an option. For a standalone class, that then leaves you with the option of a DH redesign to the point they don't have any resemblence to the current DHs, or having two classes with a large overlap in theme and skills.


Can you seriously tell me either of these options is desireable, feasible or likely?

Along with Arthas (and Thrall and Sylvanas), Illidan is the most famous and celebrated character in WoW lore. His story, history, and method of combat is not properly represented by any class in game.

And if Blizzard says he was a Mage who got involved with demons and focussed demonic energies into Demon Huntery stuff as opposed to the usual Warlockism, how does that change history?

I think there's too much potential to say it can't happen. If and when Blizzard does add demon hunters, we can be sure that they will look, feel, and play different than warlocks.

The problem with a standalone class, I will again repeat is simple.


Warlocks have been given everything outside melee that makes a Demon Hunter a Demon Hunter. Even the Challenge Mode armor gives them Illidans horns and tattoos.


The choice therefore is to either:


1: design a brand new Demon Hunter class from the ground up so it bears no resemblence at all to the existing DHs in game or lore.
2: Keep the existing DH design and accept a large degree of overlap between it and the Warlock class.


Those choices, IMO, are simply not viable. They are possible but there is no reason to call option 1 a DH, and no reason to annoy Warlocks with option 2. There is no option 3.


DHs add little, if anything, to the game. At least the tinker class offers an opportunity for a tech theme/flavor. A Bard the opportunity for a sound theme or a support class. Timewalkers the theme of Time (though shared with Arcane mages makes this less likely). Wardens the them of Police or Bounty Hunter. DHs are a demon empowered class (just like Warlocks) who use Demon magics (just like warlocks) and summoned demons (just like warlocks) to fight demons and other enemies (just like warlocks) from both range (just like warlocks) and melee (not like warlocks but like rogues).


And while Blizzard could introduce different versions of the spells, the problem is that they would be just different versions and share flavor, theme and general style with Warlocks. I don't think you, or anyone else, can present a convincing argument to suggest why they would do that to the warlock players.


Blizzard COULD do that. Certainly. Do you really think that's even unlikely to happen?

DA was xelnath's and he was fired.

Being blunt - there are a lot more people involved in class/spec/glyph design than you seem to think. One person, no matter who he was, could never have pushed his own criteria onto the design without agreemnt from the others; class design does not operate in a vacuum.

blizzard has been pushing away from, what people perceive as, demon hunter style since; nerfing DA to the ground, ridding melee, lore, and even firing the designer who pushed for it.

Or you could take what he wrote and realise that they decided to work on the DPS aspect before the tank aspect, and that the tank aspect had to be nerfed because it was overpowered thanks to the introduction of active mitigation. If Blizzard really was pulling away, then a: its too late b: the challenge mode armor probably wasn't a good idea and c: they never would have released the Glyph.

They are moving away from the "demon hunter design" with demonology believe it or be as illidan states "blind fool."

I'd like to see your argument for why you think this is the case.


As it is, you can never say a standalone Demon Hunter class is impossible.


But if you leave aside the premise "some players want it" - which is true for many other class ideas - then what does it have going for it?


Demonology has all its gimmicks, Warlocks have cannibalised the DH theme and identity for the past few years, the DH class offers neither flavor, nor theme, nor lore, nor a unique role/mechanics and the archetype can be implemented quite well if attached to Warlocks. Is it different enough to be worth adding as a standalone class with the need for lore, background, armour, and so on to be developed specifically for it?

I really don't think so. You give Warlocks Dual wield, a strike ability and a new armour spell, balance the rotation for melee and you have a DH without all that extra work and with none of the problems.

EJL

[Thimagryn]

No...not really. If you do something with Elementals in this game, you use Shamans. Nature? You turn to Druids. Demons? Warlocks. There is crossover between classes - Mages can summon Water Elementals for example, but that in't thei main focus of their theme. Their theme, as with Rogues, Warriors and Priests, would be the generic standard D&D style party members that act as the core and foudnation of many MMOs.

I really wish you would understand that your idea of 'themes' is a collection of inconsistent pairings that you're grouping together and using as your argument. You can't describe 4 classes as 'DnD archetypes' and 4 others based on the magic they use (in lore, mind you).

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the difference between a theme and a role. Separate your apples and oranges.

If you use 'Healer' as the basic archetype for Priest, because they're a healing class, then Warlocks are 'Summoners'. They are the Pet-based caster class. That is their archetype. What they summon is irrelevant in this comparison, since you're not factoring what type of magic a Priest uses to heal either. The Demon Hunter is obviously not a 'Summoner' type. Demon Hunters are closest to a 'Barbarian' archetype.

If you are saying Warlocks use Demons as a theme, then Priests are Divine/Faith based. That is the type of magic they use, that is the source of their power. Paladins also happen to be Divine/Faith based. Themes are not mutually exclusive to any one class.

If that term disturbs you, then a theme of "generic D&D priest" would fill the theme just as well.

A "Priest" core class does not exist in D&D.