Tinker Class

[Drilnos]

That's actually a really cool idea. Like how Dalaran was changed into a floating city, the new Kezan/Undermine could be an underwater city, with a touch of Rapture.

And possibly a healthy dose of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. In the non-canon materials it occupies a network of caverns, so if they wind up using that it could have a bit of the Mines of Moria thrown in for good measure.

[Thimagryn]

And possibly a healthy dose of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. In the non-canon materials it occupies a network of caverns, so if they wind up using that it could have a bit of the Mines of Moria thrown in for good measure.

GC, make this happen. I know you read this thread!

[Talen]

Demon Hunter playable class would be based on source material - The Warcraft 3 Demon Hunter hero. Demon Hunter heroes do not summon or sacrifice demons to obtain their power.

Again...a quote to show that. Evidence? Anything?

The Warlock challenge gear is based on Illidan as a half-demon.

Was Illidan a Demon Hunter? Yes.
Is he still considered a Demon Hunter? Yes
Is he considered THE archetype for Demon Hunters? Yes
Is a he a Demon Hunter class "hero"? Yes.

The Challenge gear is based on Illidan. The look the Demon Hunter illidan had after he absorbed the Skull of Gul'dan.

In essence, Warlocks have gear modelled after the major hero and defining figure for Demon Hunters. No other class has that look. Not ever will.

Now - given Illidans importance to the class, and the way he is identified both ingame and out as being a Demon Hunter - not a Warlock, but a Demon Hunter - and given Blizzards stated opinion of the importance of how a class looks do you really think it likely that Blizzard would model a Warlocks armor after him if they have the slightest intention of ever bringing in Demon Hunters as a standalone class? Given Blizzards desire to avoid any more class homogenisation...is it likely they're going to put in a class so alike to Warlocks in theme, abilities and look?

It's beyond my personal vision. If I were the only one replying to you about it, then it would be personal, yes. What I'm telling you, and have been telling, has been echoed by many others here, as well as from other threads.

Its the way YOU see the class....and its different from the class that's shown in game. Its how you PERSONALLY see the class and because its based on an out of date non canon source, its one that's shared by others.

How many people who support a Demon Hunter class actually agree with you that the Demon Hunter should be a Warlock spec? Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're the one with the unpopular theory. I've seen the thread you made polling if Demonology Locks are Demon Hunters. It was definitely not in your favour.

It also wasn't mine. I don't believe the polls on these forums are an indicator of anything.

By different, I assume you mean different from Warlocks

No, I mean actually rebuilding them from the ground up so they have nothing in common with the current Demon Hunter save the name. The D3 DH, for example, would have no real overlap with Warlocks. But it also wouldn't be a WoW style Demon hunter.

I mean, if all you what is a class called the DH and don't care about the look or in game history or whatever, then thats easy to do. Pointless, but easy.

So - if you take away the demon theme from DHs.....what theme can you give them? Death Knights have Undeath. Druids have nature. Shamans have the Elements. Warlocks have Demons. Monks have the Martial Arts.

Just on this one aspect of the class design....if they can't have the demon theme, what theme could you give Demon Hunters and yet keep them the way they are?

Well based on Warcraft 3, the Demon Hunter had one ability that Warlocks took because they learned it from mimicing Illidan.

Yes. Blizzard created yet another link between Demon Hunters and Warlocks. We know this already.

They actually use leather, not cloth.

All you can tell is what it looks like. It looks like cloth.

Again that set focuses on aspects of Illidan's appearance that are iconic for him, and him alone, not the other Demon Hunters.

And you don't find a set that focuses on an aspecst of ILLIDANS appearance of some interest to Demon Hunters?

I'll ask again - would you model a paladin set on Gul'dan?

It is permanent

Then give the ref.

it is lore, but it is relevant, because it gives explanation for DH to use abilities related to fel magic, like Metamorphosis.

In that case...its completely irrelevant...because who cares where the power comes from. Its technobabble. If it has no gameplay element, then class designers are free to say whatever they want. And in this case, if a Warlock chooses to permanently bond with a Demon that's up to him.

GAMEPLAY arguments - not lore - is what is important here. You want to show why a DH cannot be a Warlock? The you need a pretty strong Gameply element. Because any lore you can come up with, I can integrate into the Warlock.

There is no reason to assume they do summon demons. I don't have to provide arguments to prove they don't summon demons. We simply have no reason to assume they do. If you want to prove something that doesn't happen in game, you have to provide proof.

Ever worked with Loramus?

Same schools of magic.

Shadow and fire.

Different themes

Both have a Demon theme

Different moves and abilities, except for the few related to using the same school of magic

They're different except when they are the same? Really? seriously?

Completely different look.

Except when Warlock don the Betrayer armor or use Meta,

Illidan the corrupted lord over demons is similar to warlock. Illidan the Demon Hunter, on whom would be the new class based, is not.

So - are you now saying Illidan was a Warlock?

So there is. It is also in line with what DHs in WC3 did.

So - you actually have no in game lore to support your theory wrt permanent absorption. And were in fact unaware of Leotheras. The one example we have of so-called permanent absorption is a case where the Demon POSSESSED the Demon Hunter. And drove him insane as a result. That isn't much of an example.

Sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it does (Leotheras).

Who was more possessed BY the Demon rather than empowerd through its absorption.

[quote]What is ridiculous? Claiming that policeman who joined a gang and is working for them isn't representative of what a policeman should be? That is ridiculous?[]/quote]

Claiming that a Demon Hunter identified as a Demon Hunter in game isn't a Demon Hunter.

They game calls them Illidari Demon Hunters. You know, like there is a difference between Paladin and Fallen Paladin

Yes. Their story and background and lore. That doesn't stop them being Paladins. The fact that Illidari Demon Hunters are members of the Illidari and loyal to Illidan doesn't change what they are. Demon Hunters loyal to Illidan. Yes...I know that shatters the argument that Demon Hunters never work with Demons, and are selfless individuals but what are you going to do? Deny even more in game evidence?

What it comes down is Blizzard gave Warlocks a look identified by many/most as belonging to Demon Hunters and Illidan. They would never have done that if DHs as a standalone class were going to be.
What it comes down to is Blizzard has been bringing the Demon Hunter into the game as a part of the Warlock class and has been following that design direction for years. They would never have done that if DHs as a standalone class were going to be.
Blizzard have continued to expand upon and strengthen the links between the links between Demon Hunters and Warlocks. They would not be doing that if DHs as a standalone class were going to be.
What it comes down to is that - right now - Warlocks have access to everything that makes a Demon Hunter a Demon Hunter and GC has tweeted concerns over the available design space. What it comes down to is that Warlocks are more than halfway to actually being a viable Demon Hunter right now. What it comes down to is that the Warlocks have many of the spells, the theme, the look that makes up a Demon Hunter and while they don't officially fill the tanking role, that IS a side of the class Blizzard wishes to restore. What it comes down to is that Blizzard aren't going to bring even more homogeneity into the game when a class has that much overlap with an existing class. What it comes down to is the only objections you and other seem to have are 100% lore based and thus worthless from a class design point of view - and even then, any lore you bring up can be worked into Warlocks anyway.

All of which makes the design of a standalone DH class unnecessary, a waste of time and resources, and totally pointless.

EJL

[Rhamses]

And possibly a healthy dose of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. In the non-canon materials it occupies a network of caverns, so if they wind up using that it could have a bit of the Mines of Moria thrown in for good measure.

That's what I'm thinking. If we're going underwater, I'd be amazed if we didn't run into Undermine and the Tinker union.

I'd be very interested to see which way Blizzard goes with the Tinker concept. They could do pretty much anything.

[Gamevizier]

Can this thread be only about Tinkers? We've discussed it time and time why Tinkers are more likely than Demon Hunters. if anyone wants to discuss demon hunter related issues they should make a thread called "Demon Hunter Class"

best regards.

-------------

If Undermine is the home of "Tinkerers Union" then that would pose some problems regarding Alliance Tinkerers as they may need something in return (Kezan is a Goblin zone afterall, and Goblins don't really like Gnomes.)

[But I Hate You All]

Can this thread be only about Tinkers? We've discussed it time and time why Tinkers are more likely than Demon Hunters. if anyone wants to discuss demon hunter related issues they should make a thread called "Demon Hunter Class"

best regards.

Agreed we have about 9 threads about Tinkers going the mods should just merge or lock the others.


OT: The goblins have a city in azshara, I expect Gilneas to be similar.

[Rhamses]

Can this thread be only about Tinkers? We've discussed it time and time why Tinkers are more likely than Demon Hunters. if anyone wants to discuss demon hunter related issues they should make a thread called "Demon Hunter Class"

best regards.

-------------

If Undermine is the home of "Tinkerers Union" then that would pose some problems regarding Alliance Tinkerers as they may need something in return (Kezan is a Goblin zone afterall, and Goblins don't really like Gnomes.)

Well Gnomes have Tinkertown. IF they can retake Gnomeregan, that would cause a lot of things to change for the Gnomes. Most of it being them having access to their technology.

[But I Hate You All]

Well Gnomes have Tinkertown. IF they can retake Gnomeregan, that would cause a lot of things to change for the Gnomes. Most of it being them having access to their technology.

Thanks for reminding me, the trolls also have a city so the Gilneas thing would balance that. make it in to a quest hub

[Gamevizier]

Well Gnomes have Tinkertown. IF they can retake Gnomeregan, that would cause a lot of things to change for the Gnomes. Most of it being them having access to their technology.

rofl IF they retake Gnomeregan...we've been waiting for that since WoW was launched. tbh if Gnomes started building a Gnomeregan V.2 at vanilla they'd have finished it by now.

[Thimagryn]

Again...a quote to show that. Evidence? Anything?

Play Warcraft 3? Demon Hunter heroes have 4 abilities: Immolation, Mana Burn, Evasion and Metamorphosis. They are blind, have runic tattooes, use Warglaives and are melee combatants. This is what a Player class would be based on. This is what we as Demon Hunter fans want to see as a playable class. Not Illidan, not Illidari.

I will not repeat this statement any further, and will be ignoring all your arguments relating to Illidan. He is not the defining representation of a Demon Hunter playable class. He is an important figure and inspiration, but not all playable Demon Hunters will be Night Elf/Half Demons who wield Warglaives taken from Doomguard Commanders.

Its the way YOU see the class....and its different from the class that's shown in game. Its how you PERSONALLY see the class and because its based on an out of date non canon source, its one that's shared by others.

There is no class shown in game. There are only NPCs. Again, I point to Death Knights and Monks, if you based the DK or Monk based on NPCs that existed prior to their introduction, we would have DK's that summon skeletons, using holy magic and dropping meteors from the sky; and Monks that wear Scarlet Monastery garb or come from Auchenai Crypts. NPCs are not relevant to Playable Characters.

No, I mean actually rebuilding them from the ground up so they have nothing in common with the current Demon Hunter save the name. The D3 DH, for example, would have no real overlap with Warlocks. But it also wouldn't be a WoW style Demon hunter.

But that's all depending on the definition of a Demon Hunter, a topic that we've been debating about for months now, through multiple threads. Is there a definition of 'Demon Hunter' that we agree on? No. The main problem starts from one thing - You think Demon Hunters and Warlocks are the same thing.

So - if you take away the demon theme from DHs.....what theme can you give them? Death Knights have Undeath. Druids have nature. Shamans have the Elements. Warlocks have Demons. Monks have the Martial Arts.

Demon Hunter is a title. Just like Brewmaster. Brewmasters don't actually brew ale, it is a title for a tanky martial artist spec for the Monk. Demon Hunter is a title for a Heroes that are (Paraphrased straight from Warcraft 3 manual):

Dark, shadowy Warriors who fight against the forces of chaos using its own terrible powers against it. They ritually blind themselves to develop Spectral Sight to see demons and undead more clearly. They wield demonically charged warblades in battle, and call upon demonic energies to augment their already formidable fighting skills

From the outset, this is open to interpretation. The use of Demonic energies, for you, makes them Warlocks. The fact they 'fight fire with fire' identifies them as guys who can manipulate energy against their enemies, like a Spellbreaker. The fact they are shadowy warriors who use Warblades and have formidable fighting skills makes them like exotic Barbarians. This is all based on actual, written lore about Demon Hunters. Anything we can draw from it is really up for interpretation.

So there you have it, I've defined 3 possible specs for a Demon Hunter class; Demonology, Spellbreaking and Brawling. The theme of Demon Hunters overall? Anti-Magic (a short term for magic/energy manipulation and redirection). Theme of the class? Fel Magic-powered Warriors. Theme of class mechanics? Absorbing all types of spell/magic damage, converting Arcane energy into Fel/Chaos energy, or redirecting pure Fel magic at their opponents. All of this would allow the use of Fel/Demonic energy without actually requiring the use of a Demon.

This is just one example of how a Demon Hunter can be viewed as without destroying the core concept of the class. The misnomer comes from the 'Demon' in its own title, but really the class is not about consorting with the enemy, it is about using their energies against them. The idea of energy manipulation is far stronger than their ties to demons, as evidenced by their tattooes that help them contain raw arcane (and fel) energy, and their Spectral Sight, which allows them to see Magic in its purest form.

In conclusion, Warlocks are about Demons. Demon Hunters are about manipulating arcane energy.

[Hengwulf]

Was Illidan a Demon Hunter? Yes.

Yes.

Is he still considered a Demon Hunter? Yes

No.

Is he considered THE archetype for Demon Hunters? Yes

Until he ceased to be one.

Is a he a Demon Hunter class "hero"? Yes.

As above.

The Challenge gear is based on Illidan. The look the Demon Hunter illidan had after he absorbed the Skull of Gul'dan.

Which is rather unlikely to happen for any other Demon Hunter.

In essence, Warlocks have gear modelled after the major hero and defining figure for Demon Hunters. No other class has that look. Not ever will.

And no other class aims to have it. Your point?

Now - given Illidans importance to the class, and the way he is identified both ingame and out as being a Demon Hunter - not a Warlock, but a Demon Hunter - and given Blizzards stated opinion of the importance of how a class looks do you really think it likely that Blizzard would model a Warlocks armor after him if they have the slightest intention of ever bringing in Demon Hunters as a standalone class? Given Blizzards desire to avoid any more class homogenisation...is it likely they're going to put in a class so alike to Warlocks in theme, abilities and look?

It is really irrelevant what was Blizzard's intention at that time.

All you can tell is what it looks like. It looks like cloth.

I think it was Drilnos who was kind enough to provide few links to DH NPCs, please go and have a look. Leather.

And you don't find a set that focuses on an aspecst of ILLIDANS appearance of some interest to Demon Hunters?

Illidan the DEMON? No, not at all.

Then give the ref.

WC3, Leotheras the Blind.

In that case...its completely irrelevant...because who cares where the power comes from. Its technobabble. If it has no gameplay element, then class designers are free to say whatever they want. And in this case, if a Warlock chooses to permanently bond with a Demon that's up to him.

Except that Warlocks can't do this. In this game gameplay mechanics are explained and to some point restricted by the lore.

GAMEPLAY arguments - not lore - is what is important here. You want to show why a DH cannot be a Warlock? The you need a pretty strong Gameply element. Because any lore you can come up with, I can integrate into the Warlock.

No, without making Warlock what it isn't, you can't.

Ever worked with Loramus?

Can't say I remember the questline, but is there anything there showing that Demon Hunter summon demons? Outside of how everyone including player characters can?

Shadow and fire.

Indeed.

Both have a Demon theme

Not unlike Paladins and Priests. Not unlike Warriors and Paladins. Not unlike Druids and Hunters. But when you try to narrow it a bit, it turns out to be quite different theme.

They're different except when they are the same? Really? seriously?

Really, seriously. They're different except when they use the same schools of magic.

Except when Warlock don the Betrayer armor or use Meta,

Yes, demon-like appearance will look like DH in demon form, who would have thought. Amazing find really. Outside of meta, they don't look like warlocks AT ALL.

So - are you now saying Illidan was a Warlock?

After he turned into demon, he was pretty close to being warlock, yes.

So - you actually have no in game lore to support your theory wrt permanent absorption. And were in fact unaware of Leotheras. The one example we have of so-called permanent absorption is a case where the Demon POSSESSED the Demon Hunter. And drove him insane as a result. That isn't much of an example.

WC3. Leotheras. Outside of that, there isn't much. Also, I have no idea what you are talking about being unaware of Leotheras. Demon possessed him because he was too weak to control it, as he was supposed to. Which is rather clear when you do the fight and listen to his quotes.

Who was more possessed BY the Demon rather than empowerd through its absorption.

Poor Leo is a failure. Can't remember which SMV quest stated so.

Claiming that a Demon Hunter identified as a Demon Hunter in game isn't a Demon Hunter.

Identified as Illidari Demon Hunter. Also, I am not saying he isn't a demon hunter - I am saying he may do more and less than a real Demon Hunter, because of his affilation.

Yes. Their story and background and lore. That doesn't stop them being Paladins. The fact that Illidari Demon Hunters are members of the Illidari and loyal to Illidan doesn't change what they are. Demon Hunters loyal to Illidan. Yes...I know that shatters the argument that Demon Hunters never work with Demons, and are selfless individuals but what are you going to do? Deny even more in game evidence?

It does change what they are. It lets them do things they couldn't so before. The fact there are half demonic elves in the SWP doesn't mean player character BEs can also do that.

What it comes down is Blizzard gave Warlocks a look identified by many/most as belonging to Demon Hunters and Illidan. They would never have done that if DHs as a standalone class were going to be.

Or they didn't care at that moment. Doesn't mean it is impossible to change, especially that nothing really crucial for DH was gibven to Warlocks, except for Metamorphosis.

What it comes down to is that - right now - Warlocks have access to everything that makes a Demon Hunter a Demon Hunter and GC has tweeted concerns over the available design space. What it comes down to is that Warlocks are more than halfway to actually being a viable Demon Hunter right now. What it comes down to is that the Warlocks have many of the spells, the theme, the look that makes up a Demon Hunter and while they don't officially fill the tanking role, that IS a side of the class Blizzard wishes to restore. What it comes down to is that Blizzard aren't going to bring even more homogeneity into the game when a class has that much overlap with an existing class. What it comes down to is the only objections you and other seem to have are 100% lore based and thus worthless from a class design point of view - and even then, any lore you bring up can be worked into Warlocks anyway.

Warlocks have no access to melee and warglaives. Warlocks have no lore that is a base for DHs blindfolds. Warlocks are nowhere near close to being DHs. Blizzard could easily implement DHs into WoW if the wished to.

[Teriz]

Can this thread be only about Tinkers? We've discussed it time and time why Tinkers are more likely than Demon Hunters. if anyone wants to discuss demon hunter related issues they should make a thread called "Demon Hunter Class"

best regards.

Yeah, when you really examine the two concepts, its amazing how little baggage a Tinker/technology class is carrying. Not only does the Tinker class not have to worry about class overlap, it also isn't trapped by mechanics like DHs are with melee, demons, etc.

Its also hard to deny that Tinkers are pretty unique when compared to the existing classes. Something Blizzard views as pretty important in class design.

[Deleted]

This EPIC thread is better than anything on TV! /popcorn

[Talen]

This is what a Player class would be based on. This is what we as Demon Hunter fans want to see as a playable class. Not Illidan, not Illidari.

And I fail to see how this can't be implemented as a Warlock sub spec....barring the MB move of course.

I will not repeat this statement any further, and will be ignoring all your arguments relating to Illidan

. He is not the defining representation of a Demon Hunter playable class. He is an important figure and inspiration, but not all playable Demon Hunters will be Night Elf/Half Demons who wield Warglaives taken from Doomguard Commanders.

You may not like it....but he IS the archetypical DH. Both in his demon form and his NElf form. The big difference between him and others is he wears pants, not a kilt.
[quote]But that's all depending on the definition of a Demon Hunter, a topic that we've been debating about for months now, through multiple threads. Is there a definition of 'Demon Hunter' that we agree on? No. The main problem starts from one thing - You think Demon Hunters and Warlocks are the same thing.[/quote}

No. Blizzard thinks Warlocks and DHs are the same thing.

The use of Demonic energies, for you, makes them Warlocks. The fact they 'fight fire with fire' identifies them as guys who can manipulate energy against their enemies, like a Spellbreaker. The fact they are shadowy warriors who use Warblades and have formidable fighting skills makes them like exotic Barbarians. This is all based on actual, written lore about Demon Hunters. Anything we can draw from it is really up for interpretation.

And not one word of it says they can't be represented as Warlocks.

EJL

[Guyviroth]

Calling a demon hunter a warlock with glaives is like calling a paladin a priest with a sword and shield.

Demon Hunters can be represented differently from warlocks despite using the same power source.

[Talen]

No.

So - your big argument for why Warlocks can't be a DH..

ILLIDAN isn't a Demon Hunter.

I think that in itself says a lot about the strength of your argument.

It is really irrelevant what was Blizzard's intention at that time.

Blizzards comments on their design intentions...are irrelevant in a debate about Blizzards design intentions?

WC3, Leotheras the Blind.

Neither of which show anything to support your claim.

Except that Warlocks can't do this.

If Blizzard states that Warlocks can do this to become DHs, then they will.

In this game gameplay mechanics are explained and to some point restricted by the lore.

Even were this true - and it isn't - it still doesn't stop Warlcoks being DHs.

No, without making Warlock what it isn't, you can't.

Yes. I can.

Can't say I remember the questline

Its easy to remember - he's the Demon Hunter that has a pack of Demonic fel hounds.

Not unlike Paladins and Priests. Not unlike Warriors and Paladins. Not unlike Druids and Hunters. But when you try to narrow it a bit, it turns out to be quite different theme.

You may want to rethink your examples...the core themes of those classes don't actually overlap one bit. There's overlap...certainly. But not in the the theme or archetype or whatever you want to call it.

Really, seriously. They're different except when they use the same schools of magic.

Again...your big argument is that they are totally different except when they are the same. They have the same capabilities, but totally different. Same theme, but totally different. Same look but totally different.

After he turned into demon, he was pretty close to being warlock, yes.

So - the big difference between a Warlock and A Demon Hunter is - A Demon Hunter grows horns and wings when he absorbs the Skull ot Guldan.

WC3. Leotheras. Outside of that, there isn't much.

Outside of two sources which don't support your theory, there is nothing.

Or they didn't care at that moment. Doesn't mean it is impossible to change, especially that nothing really crucial for DH was gibven to Warlocks, except for Metamorphosis.

No. It means there isn't a chance that DHs are coming. Because if they were even considering the possibility, that ended 6 years ago when Blizzard made the deliberate design decision to strip DHs. A design decision that they have continued with since then. A design decision they show no signs of reversing. A design decision they CAN'T reverse.

Warlocks have no access to melee and warglaives.

A simple toggle on the skill system. And they can sue swords.

Warlocks have no lore that is a base for DHs blindfolds.

You need lore to wear a blindfold?

Warlocks are nowhere near close to being DHs. Blizzard could easily implement DHs into WoW if the wished to.

Yes. They could. But "could implement" isn't the same as will implement and there are other considerations to take into account. All of which state "DHs aren't coming".

EJL

[Thimagryn]

And I fail to see how this can't be implemented as a Warlock sub spec....barring the MB move of course.

It's never been an issue of can or can't. I've even said before, if Blizzard wants to do that, then that's perfectly fine.

It's always been a question of why.

If the only thing you are doing for Warlock 4th spec is adding melee abilities, dual wield and allowing use of Warglaives, then you've satisfied absolutely nothing of interest about using the Demon Hunter title.

Do you not agree that by making Demon Hunters a part of Warlocks, you're hurting Demon Hunter lore, such as having Spectral Sight?

No. Blizzard thinks Warlocks and DHs are the same thing.

No, they do not. If they did, we wouldn't have any issue here, because I agree with anything Blizzard does. Understand?

And not one word of it says they can't be represented as Warlocks

Of course not. I've never been contrary to that, have I? Can Demon Hunters and Warlocks be the same class? Sure. But there is no evidence of that in lore. Game Mechanics? Meaningless without context of lore. Lore ultimately defines the difference between any class, otherwise Monks and Rogues would be the same thing for being Energy-using, Dual Wielding Leather-wearing Melee DPSers. They're not because they have very different backgrounds.

Demon Hunters and Warlocks have different backgrounds. Spectral Sight is a defining aspect of Demon Hunters, and Warlocks simply don't go through this ritual. Can they? Sure they can! But that isn't what Player Warlocks do, therefore they are not Demon Hunters.

Warlocks have the possibility of becoming demon hunters. The requirement would be that they go through the same blinding and tattooing rituals to become one. That is what defines a Demon Hunter in lore. At that point, the Warlock is no longer a Warlock. They are now a Demon Hunter. The change is permanent, just like any class taking the forced step into becoming a Death Knight. There is no return from permanence. Illidan was a Sorcerer, he is now permanently a Demon Hunter. He has never been referred to by his former role ever since that change. That is in effect the conflict.

When you bring the discussion back to why can't Demon Hunters be a Warlock 4th spec, it's not about Can't, it's about Why anyone wants this to happen. Again, it satisfies no Demon Hunter fan by doing this. It only confuses the lore of both classes. The very fact that you would be able to switch out of a Demon Hunter spec back into a standard, non-ritualized form is a travesty.

This is why being a spec of a new class would be acceptable, given that the new spec adheres to the same or similar rituals that a Demon Hunter goes through. If the core class had Spectral Sight and arcane tattooes, that would satisfy the core identity of a Demon Hunter. The use of Demonic magic could then be the defining theme of the Demon Hunter spec. Demon Hunter would literally be a specialization, not an identity change.

[Hengwulf]

So - your big argument for why Warlocks can't be a DH..

ILLIDAN isn't a Demon Hunter.

I think that in itself says a lot about the strength of your argument.

I think saying that Illidan the Demon Hunter is the same as Illidan from BT says much about yours.

Blizzards comments on their design intentions...are irrelevant in a debate about Blizzards design intentions?

What was good few years ago might not be so great nowadays. Hell, there was a time when giving Warlocks Death Coil seemed to be a great idea.

Neither of which show anything to support your claim.

Lol. Ok then.

If Blizzard states that Warlocks can do this to become DHs, then they will.

Ofc. Nothing so far supports that, though.

Even were this true - and it isn't - it still doesn't stop Warlcoks being DHs.

It is obviously true, and until changed, it does. So far it didn't change. Might happen ofc, haven't yet.

Yes. I can.

Under the condition I mentioned, you can do everything!

Its easy to remember - he's the Demon Hunter that has a pack of Demonic fel hounds.

So?

You may want to rethink your examples...the core themes of those classes don't actually overlap one bit. There's overlap...certainly. But not in the the theme or archetype or whatever you want to call it.

When your archetype is so broad and unspecific, they do. Just like locks/DHs. Demons! is like Holy Light!

Again...your big argument is that they are totally different except when they are the same. They have the same capabilities, but totally different. Same theme, but totally different. Same look but totally different.

They share same school of magic. Many classes do. Rest is different. They have diferent capabilities. They have different theme. And for heaven's sake, they don't even look similar! Melee vs caster. Leather vs cloth. They look similar to ROGUES. Not to warlocks.

So - the big difference between a Warlock and A Demon Hunter is - A Demon Hunter grows horns and wings when he absorbs the Skull ot Guldan.

Nice strawman. After Illidan turned into a demon, his actions and abilities were closer to warlock's than what he did before. He ceased to be someone who hunts and kills demons, instead he became someone who embraces the corruption and demonic power, who stops treating it like a necessary evil to defeat greater evil, but who enjoys it for itself and sets himself another, unrelated goals achievable with demonic power - like a warlock.

Outside of two sources which don't support your theory, there is nothing.

Two sources that DO support my theory is actually plenty, considering how little material there is.

No. It means there isn't a chance that DHs are coming. Because if they were even considering the possibility, that ended 6 years ago when Blizzard made the deliberate design decision to strip DHs. A design decision that they have continued with since then. A design decision they show no signs of reversing. A design decision they CAN'T reverse.

I really hope you're not serious. They can retcon, and in this case they wouldn't even have to. They can easily introduce DHs. If that would be good for the game, that is another question.

A simple toggle on the skill system. And they can sue swords.

No, they really can't. I'll pretend I said swords and not warglaives, but my point still stands they can equip swords, not use them in any meaningful way. Having melee related ability implies martial training, and warlocks have none.

You need lore to wear a blindfold?

You need a lore reason to need to wear a blindfold. You can wear whatever you like, mate. Noone is judging you.

Yes. They could. But "could implement" isn't the same as will implement and there are other considerations to take into account. All of which state "DHs aren't coming".

If they are coming or not, that I don't know. But if the point of this discussion is "can they happen", then answer is "yes, nothing really major in the way, why not, can be done".

[Teriz]

No. Blizzard thinks Warlocks and DHs are the same thing.
EJL

And that should really be the end of it.

Somehow, its not though....

[Hengwulf]

And that should really be the end of it.

Somehow, its not though....

The fact it is bs might have something to do with it.