So Bear-Cat was OP, but Gladiator Stance is acceptable?

[Fugus]

Additionally...Tank Druids with DPS-Subspec could also be a healer with second spec. Warriors can't do this.

Neither can Hunters but you don't see Beast Master spec given a new talent point that turns them into a 100% viable tank spec though do you?

[exochaft]

Oh, there's issues. But it really doesn't belong here. Glad isn't synonymous with Bearcat at all, so this kind of discussion belongs in the warrior forum or the general forum. I'm not overly concerned for two reasons:
1) They already have 23 dps specs to balance anyway. One more is just a drop added to the bucket.
2) At its core it is a very simple spec. Shield bash to build rage. Devastate to try to proc shield bash. Revenge on cooldown (assuming Revenge keeps the rage boost of defensive stance, if not probably drop it). Spend rage on Shield Charge. There aren't a whole lot of knobs they would need to tune - even less than something as simple as an arcane mage which has about as many buttons but have to metagame their resources.

While it's "just one more DPS spec," Blizz has been hesitant for a LONG time about adding additional specs to existing classes. Druids only have four specs because of the precedent of the roles associated with druids and necessity to make an extra spec because of said precedent. It was truly the lesser of all evils, but it was still not the result they wanted if they could've done everything over again. Blizz didn't add a fourth spec to druids because it was a just cool ideal and "just one more spec" to balance, they had to do it to maintain the class integrity and the already-established roles within the class.

Granted most of this conversation could probably take place in the warrior forums, but to druids that went through the balancing process of 4 roles in a 3-spec system (and all the problems associated with it) it's like watching Blizz potentially making the same, or at the very least similar, mistakes again. While the conditions are obviously not the same, the parallels are definitely evident.

I honestly think the best solution would be the one they took with druids if they're intent on making a DPS spec with sword-and-board, or a close variant. However, let's view it from a similar perspective that Blizz had when dealing with Feral and Guardian.

Solution #1 would be to get rid of Arms or Fury and turn it into Glad. Stance... probably the easiest to accomplish and balance the class, however the social ramifications would be huge. That would be like Blizz getting rid of Balance to accommodate Feral and Guardian specs to maintain a 3-spec integrity.

Solution #2 would be to add a fourth spec to warriors. It would be more challenging than Soln #1 in terms of balancing the class, and the social issues would be a little less. However, this solution would be opening the floodgate for increasing the number of specs for other classes because "it's cool" (and people are already requesting it). Keep in mind, druids added a 4th spec out of necessity to keep all the roles they had for years, this change is adding something that's completely optional.

Solution #3 is what they're doing now, proposing an ability (via talent) that would allow Glad. Stance. This is probably the most challenging of the three solutions in terms of balance (and is pretty close to bearcatting in terms of potential balance issues, even with combat restrictions), but it has the least social issues as well. It still opens the floodgates for people to request "optional" specs built into their class infrastructure, and the question remains where the line will be drawn. I know why they tied it to Protection spec, but it likely be a better sub-spec for Arms or Fury for less issues. However, it's a restriction of the new spec system, so it's going to feel like putting a square peg in a round hole just from the nature of the change.

Regardless, the underlying issue that separates bearcatting from Glad. Stance isn't necessarily just it's power, but the conditions under which the changes are made. As a druid, I'm concerned Blizz is making a decision to implement a totally optional "spec" with very few upsides and a massive amount of downsides and potential problems from a game balance and social perspective. While it was necessary for druids to undergo this process because of bearcatting, I don't wish for a similar situation to arise for something non-essential.

[huth]

While it's "just one more DPS spec," Blizz has been hesitant for a LONG time about adding additional specs to existing classes.

Is it really that long? MoP was the first time this came even up, and WoD was already well into the concept stage at that point. They haven't even had all that much time to seriously consider the idea yet.

As far as flood gates go, i'd say they opened that one when they introduced Guardian already.

[Pua]

It actually makes me sad that this thread has gotten to the point it has; Hell, even the premise is a tragic indictment of where this community has ended up with regard to warriors.

The bottom line is that this talent is the best thing to happen to warriors since WotLK, finally putting some flavour into the class after the rest of it had been siphoned away, and how do people react?

"OMG, no, warriors shouldn't have something I can't have!"

The discussion about Feral has been done to death, so I won't go over old ground, but it is worth me pointing out just how the conceptual view of a warrior has taken a hammering. The bottom line is that players are attracted to a class thanks to fun and flavour, and these should really be the first consideration for the class designers. The introduction of the death knight robbed a lot the philosophical "kit" from warriors, something that paladins and rogues had arguably always done, and the balance has never been properly addressed.

Fast forward to Mists of Pandaria, and monks then also step on warrior toes (with the class being gutted in the process) to the extent where several warrior abilities were fixed and then actually given to monks instead.

The problem I'm referring to here is that warriors are really an archetype more than a class, which is why most players simply move on from them (outside of relative strength in high-end PvP or PvE). All of the so-called unique aspects of the class have either been diluted over time, or found themselves given to other classes. The weapon master view exists for the death knight, paladin, rogue and monk while the stalwart defender archetype also exists for the paladin. The class that has unrivalled movement across a battlefield, being where they need to be at a moment's notice, has also been completely undercut by monks, whose movement is simply better.

We could even talk about the warrior-general, the one who dictates how a battle goes and strengthens his allies, but that's also been eroded by the paladin and monk.

The issue here isn't about who has what ability, it's about what makes a person want to play a warrior. Every part of the warrior toolkit is found elsewhere, typically in an improved incarnation, with classes that have other things to go along with it. The assassinating rogue, the Holy defender of the light, the Necromantic death knight or the discipline of the monk.

Now, we arrive at Stance of the Gladiator.

It's a DPS-stance for those who love the sword-and-shield archetype of combat, and it only fits the warrior class as Blizzard represents their eleven. It's something that will provide a new avenue of theorycrafting, RP and enjoyment to a class that's simply been left behind since Northrend and the result is a lot of people complaining because warriors just can't have anything without complaints - they MUST, come what may, be the bottom of every conceivable barrel when it comes to philosophical design.

Every class has unique flavour.

This is for warriors.

Stop being so fucking hateful.

[huth]

It actually makes me sad that this thread has gotten to the point it has; Hell, even the premise is a tragic indictment of where this community has ended up with regard to warriors.

Frankly, i don't think this has anything to do with warriors so much as somebody being jealous of somebody else getting something she or he perceives as having lost. That the somebody getting it is a warrior is incidental.

[Pua]

Frankly, i don't think this has anything to do with warriors so much as somebody being jealous of somebody else getting something she or he perceives as having lost. That the somebody getting it is a warrior is incidental.

I completely agree with you. Alas, warriors are the last class to get some actual flavour and it's considered unacceptable because every other class isn't allowed to stay ahead.

Why are all the Class Threads demanding Gladiator Stances for non-Warriors? Why not embrace diversity more?

Basically, that's it. Since Street and his team took over, class diversity has taken a nosedive in favour of "perfect PvE balance" which they've, as yet, not even gotten close to achieving anyway.

[Trubo]

Neither can Hunters but you don't see Beast Master spec given a new talent point that turns them into a 100% viable tank spec though do you?

The most obvious reason to me as to why Warriors are getting Gladiator Stance is because their tanking spec does not share the weapons used in its DPS specs versus Monks, Druids and Death Knights. I'd imagine Paladins getting similar treatment if Gladiator Stance takes off since they're in the same boat as well.

[xuthos]

It actually makes me sad that this thread has gotten to the point it has; Hell, even the premise is a tragic indictment of where this community has ended up with regard to warriors.

The bottom line is that this talent is the best thing to happen to warriors since WotLK, finally putting some flavour into the class after the rest of it had been siphoned away, and how do people react?

"OMG, no, warriors shouldn't have something I can't have!"

The discussion about Feral has been done to death, so I won't go over old ground, but it is worth me pointing out just how the conceptual view of a warrior has taken a hammering. The bottom line is that players are attracted to a class thanks to fun and flavour, and these should really be the first consideration for the class designers. The introduction of the death knight robbed a lot the philosophical "kit" from warriors, something that paladins and rogues had arguably always done, and the balance has never been properly addressed.

Fast forward to Mists of Pandaria, and monks then also step on warrior toes (with the class being gutted in the process) to the extent where several warrior abilities were fixed and then actually given to monks instead.

The problem I'm referring to here is that warriors are really an archetype more than a class, which is why most players simply move on from them (outside of relative strength in high-end PvP or PvE). All of the so-called unique aspects of the class have either been diluted over time, or found themselves given to other classes. The weapon master view exists for the death knight, paladin, rogue and monk while the stalwart defender archetype also exists for the paladin. The class that has unrivalled movement across a battlefield, being where they need to be at a moment's notice, has also been completely undercut by monks, whose movement is simply better.

We could even talk about the warrior-general, the one who dictates how a battle goes and strengthens his allies, but that's also been eroded by the paladin and monk.

The issue here isn't about who has what ability, it's about what makes a person want to play a warrior. Every part of the warrior toolkit is found elsewhere, typically in an improved incarnation, with classes that have other things to go along with it. The assassinating rogue, the Holy defender of the light, the Necromantic death knight or the discipline of the monk.

Now, we arrive at Stance of the Gladiator.

It's a DPS-stance for those who love the sword-and-shield archetype of combat, and it only fits the warrior class as Blizzard represents their eleven. It's something that will provide a new avenue of theorycrafting, RP and enjoyment to a class that's simply been left behind since Northrend and the result is a lot of people complaining because warriors just can't have anything without complaints - they MUST, come what may, be the bottom of every conceivable barrel when it comes to philosophical design.

Every class has unique flavour.

This is for warriors.

Stop being so fucking hateful.

No one is complaining about warriors getting flavor. I think everyone is on board with getting a sword and board dps. What we are asking is why give warriors access to 3 "specs" and not druids, who had this in the first place?

Secondly, warriors are in a very good place, and have been since MoP came out. I wouldn't say they have been "gutted" at all. If you're complaining that you feel boring, maybe you're playing the wrong class. Death Knights didn't "rob" anything from warriors. Dk, rogue, monk, and paladin are not at all "Weapon Masters" especially because Monks don't even fight with their weapon, it's more for show.

"Warrior-General" taken by Paladin and Monk? I don't see monks or paladins with intervene, banners, shouts, etc. If you are complaining that other classes have buffs, then there's a bigger problem here.

Warriors have plenty of kit that isn't "stolen" by anyone. If you are complaining because monks have mobility in roll and flying dragon kick, I have no sympathy for you. Warriors get charge, banner intervene, leap, etc. They have never been the "most mobile" class, that spot goes to Rogues/ferals. Not because it was stolen, but because it's a part of THEIR kit.

Just because another class can do something doesn't mean they "stole" kit from warriors. You act like warriors should get to charge around the battle field slaying things left and right and every other class should watch lest they "steal warrior kit".

TL;DR No one cares if warriors get this, but we feel we should have access to similar since we had it and it was "stolen from us" as you are so fond of saying.

/rant

[frymastermeat]

I'm more concerned with the idea that it's going to do competitive (or even more frighteningly, more) damage than arms and fury. Why would anyone play the arguably more difficult "dps" specs when you can do such a simple rotation for similar damage?

[Pua]

No one is complaining about warriors getting flavor.

I think you should read through the thread again. There's an awful lot of complaining about warriors getting this and it's already been objectively answered as to why this isn't the same as the original hybrid spec that druids had. Feral was too strong (conceivably) thanks to the ability to shift, while that same ability won't be found in the new stance.

Any comparison is, therefore, not going to work before it even starts.

For the record, however, I do feel that the introduction of the Guardian spec was a bad move. Personally, I loved the idea of druids changing specs in order to be the quintessential hybrid that could help out with all required, and I personally believed there were multiple other solutions to the problem they had. If they took Tranquility away from bears and cats, that'd have probably been enough if balance was really the concern.

Personally?

I think they couldn't be arsed trying to balance the way Feral worked anymore, so sold druids a gram of salt and tried to placate them with Heart of the Wild.

That's just my opinion, though.

Secondly, warriors are in a very good place, and have been since MoP came out. I wouldn't say they have been "gutted" at all. If you're complaining that you feel boring, maybe you're playing the wrong class. Death Knights didn't "rob" anything from warriors. Dk, rogue, monk, and paladin are not at all "Weapon Masters" especially because Monks don't even fight with their weapon, it's more for show.

Warriors have been functional throughout MoP, and that's it. Having played the class since Outland, take my word for it that the class has been gutted since the heady days of WotLK. That transition has seen us lose things like meaningful stances or shield-play, while talents such as the wonderful Unrelenting Assault, (original) Warbringer, Heroic Fury or Rampage have all been entirely removed and nothing put in their place. We lost abilities like Intercept while Charge was nerfed into talented necessity, our self-healing was utterly destroyed without our CC-resistance being fixed and most of the class' depth was removed in favour of a three-minute burst bot with worse versions of Charge, Retaliation or Disarm than monks were given.

Now sure, in PvE, warriors have done okay. They were second-rate tanks until the Siege of Orgrimmar, but Fury did okay and Arms works fine in the arena assuming the composition is good. But deep, meaningful and enjoyable gameplay has been almost entirely shoehorned out in favour of class design that nobody particularly wanted and few particularly like according to the work by the peerless Cynwise.

Hell, the designers got rid of armour penetration in WotLK and then replaced it with Colossus Smash for warriors and have utterly failed to balance it properly ever since. Even Heroic Leap, something that looked exciting, has been neutered lest anyone dare to exploit it.

Warriors have plenty of kit that isn't "stolen" by anyone. If you are complaining because monks have mobility in roll and flying dragon kick, I have no sympathy for you. Warriors get charge, banner intervene, leap, etc. They have never been the "most mobile" class, that spot goes to Rogues/ferals. Not because it was stolen, but because it's a part of THEIR kit.

I'm not talking about mobility in a vacuum (or anything else for that matter), but the impact of the design kit on how the class evolves. Many warrior complaints will see blues say things like "yeah, but your mobility is great!" while they completely ignore the fact that warriors spend their entire lives sat in crowd-control effects. These are the symptoms of a muddled design philosophy that's even had them admitting that new things for warriors are hard to come up with outside of shouts (or the failed banner experiment) because almost anything else fits another class better.

I'm not arguing that because another class can do something means they've "stolen" anything from warriors. Yes, I'll admit there's resentment at the things the class has lost; but the problem is that warriors have lost too many things without them ever being replaced or accounted for. The same archaic and typically busted mechanics have been left alone for crap like the new skill panes (I can't bring myself to call it a talent tree) where warriors got absolutely nothing they didn't have at some point before.

Just because another class can do something doesn't mean they "stole" kit from warriors. You act like warriors should get to charge around the battle field slaying things left and right and every other class should watch lest they "steal warrior kit".

No, I just think warriors should get something unique. I feel this way about every class.

If you roll a rogue, you get a one-on-one combatant that strikes from the shadows.

If you roll a mage, you get a flamboyant and mobile spellcaster.

If you roll a warlock, you get a dark caster who fights with minions.

If you roll a warrior, you get an excommunicated paladin with a broken leg.

[Curlyfry]

OP asks a question and gets a very well said answer from multiple people and gets angry and tries to argue a point not relevant to the topic. Why do people do this? Bear-cat was tanking and dpsing while in combat, Gladiator Stance is DPSing for the whole fight/as long as you are talented into it. VERY different, you are comparing parts of the specs that people had no issue with and are using that as your arguing point.

Gladiator stance is not an off tank stance, its a pure DPS stance for someone who wants to DPS with a prot like playstyle. Enlightenment for everyone, cheers! <[:^)

[Pua]

I'm more concerned with the idea that it's going to do competitive (or even more frighteningly, more) damage than arms and fury. Why would anyone play the arguably more difficult "dps" specs when you can do such a simple rotation for similar damage?

They say they're going to balance it, but I'd be absolutely amazed if they made it truly competitive.

My bigger worry, I suppose, is if they use MH weapons as the biggest differential as that'd shove warriors toward Titan's Grip.

Not sure how many people would actually like that.

[Fugus]

The most obvious reason to me as to why Warriors are getting Gladiator Stance is because their tanking spec does not share the weapons used in its DPS specs versus Monks, Druids and Death Knights. I'd imagine Paladins getting similar treatment if Gladiator Stance takes off since they're in the same boat as well.

Gladiator SPEC would share weapons and gear just fine with PROT spec just like it does with Guardian and Feral druids.

We aren't having any issues with Warriors given the ability to do DPS with a sword and shield, our issues is with how they are implementing it.

I vote YES to giving Warriors a gladiator spec.
I vote not no, but hell no to giving warriors gladiator stance in prot spec.

Then warriors can have a DPS and Tank spec dual specced that both rely on the sword and shield.

[Trubo]

Gladiator SPEC would share weapons and gear just fine with PROT spec just like it does with Guardian and Feral druids.

We aren't having any issues with Warriors given the ability to do DPS with a sword and shield, our issues is with how they are implementing it.

I vote YES to giving Warriors a gladiator spec.
I vote not no, but hell no to giving warriors gladiator stance in prot spec.

Then warriors can have a DPS and Tank spec dual specced that both rely on the sword and shield.

Protection spec uses a 1h + Shield, Arms uses 2h and Fury either 2x 1h or 2x 2h. Please tell me what offensive abilities for Arms and Fury benefit from 1h+shield. Conversely, show me what offensive abilities available to Protection work with only 2h or 1h weapons.

[huth]

Gladiator SPEC would share weapons and gear just fine with PROT spec just like it does with Guardian and Feral druids.

We aren't having any issues with Warriors given the ability to do DPS with a sword and shield, our issues is with how they are implementing it.

I vote YES to giving Warriors a gladiator spec.
I vote not no, but hell no to giving warriors gladiator stance in prot spec.

Then warriors can have a DPS and Tank spec dual specced that both rely on the sword and shield.

So instead of having Tank and melee DPS, glad stance gives them the option to go Tank and melee DPS. I fail to see the issue here.

If tanks had a Heal or ranged DPS spec, you might be on to something, but as things are now, it's kind of a non-issue.

Also, unless you're a King or equivalent, stop saying "we".

[Fugus]

Protection spec uses a 1h + Shield, Arms uses 2h and Fury either 2x 1h or 2x 2h. Please tell me what offensive abilities for Arms and Fury benefit from 1h+shield. Conversely, show me what offensive abilities available to Protection work with only 2h or 1h weapons.

Protection is a Tanking spec, not a hybrid spec.
Gladiator should be a DPS SPEC that has gear overlap between them.

Same as Arms and Fury both have some overlap between them or Guardian and Feral has overlap between them. Just because Prot doesn't overlap much between arms and fury doesn't mean you need a talent point to give them a whole fourth spec rolled into a pre-existing one. Just because Holy Paladins share zero overlap between the Retribution spec doesn't mean it needs a new talent point to do damage based on spell power.

They need to have a Gladiator SPEC, not a talent and if they do otherwise, then will need to do the same for Guardian druids, Prot Paladins, whatever spec of DK tanks now and then prepare for the QQ from the Holy/Disc Priests, Resto druids, Holy Paladins and any other healer I forgot to mention so they can just change a talent and go from 100% healer to 100% DPS.

This is one hell of a slippery slope they are going down and a slap in the face to any old school feral druid and if you don't see the similarities you aren't even trying to look. They divided specs by role for a reason, Tanking specs are supposed to be for tanking unless they are going for a full overhaul and turning all specs into either pure DPS, Tanking/DPS hybrid spec or Healing/DPS hybrid spec.

- - - Updated - - -

So instead of having Tank and melee DPS, glad stance gives them the option to go Tank and melee DPS. I fail to see the issue here.

If tanks had a Heal or ranged DPS spec, you might be on to something, but as things are now, it's kind of a non-issue.

Also, unless you're a King or equivalent, stop saying "we".

So they get Tank spec and DPS spec all rolled into 1 spec effectively giving them tri-spec for any Warrior that goes down prot even if they have zero intention of ever tanking but on the bright side I guess it does put a lot more than tanks rolling on the tank drops so less wasted in raids.

I said "We" as the issues I have stated have been the exact same issues others have stated in the thread. I am not saying it to act like a King, I am saying it to make sure you don't try to ignore the issues by claiming it is just me saying it.

[huth]

So they get Tank spec and DPS spec all rolled into 1 spec effectively giving them tri-spec for any Warrior that goes down prot even if they have zero intention of ever tanking but on the bright side I guess it does put a lot more than tanks rolling on the tank drops so less wasted in raids.

I said "We" as the issues I have stated have been the exact same issues others have stated in the thread. I am not saying it to act like a King, I am saying it to make sure you don't try to ignore the issues by claiming it is just me saying it.

That's the point: Tri-spec doesn't get them anywhere because they only have two roles to begin with. They effectively still only have two different specs.

Using "we" makes it sound like you're speaking for all druids. You aren't. Stop doing it. It is just you and a few others saying it, using the "we" to make your position sound more important than it really is.

[Trubo]

Protection is a Tanking spec, not a hybrid spec.
Gladiator should be a DPS SPEC that has gear overlap between them.

Same as Arms and Fury both have some overlap between them or Guardian and Feral has overlap between them. Just because Prot doesn't overlap much between arms and fury doesn't mean you need a talent point to give them a whole fourth spec rolled into a pre-existing one. Just because Holy Paladins share zero overlap between the Retribution spec doesn't mean it needs a new talent point to do damage based on spell power.

Some overlap? Any piece of gear a Brewmaster Monk or a Guardian Druid has can be used to a high degree for Windwalker and Feral, respectively. The only exception is a stamina tank trinket and that's universal for all tanks. Brewmaster and Guardian are not hybrid specs either so please show me what passive(s) Warriors have that lets them benefit from tanking specific gear while as a DPS and vice versa.

And comparing gear similarity between Arms and Fury is kind of funny, the only real difference between the two is what weapons you used and that's solely dependent on what drops for your raid: got a single 2h? Go Arms. Loot a second 2h and have decent Crit? Go TG Fury. Get screwed on 2h drops but have two 1h dps weapons? Go SMF Fury. All other gear between the two is identical.

They need to have a Gladiator SPEC, not a talent and if they do otherwise, then will need to do the same for Guardian druids, Prot Paladins, whatever spec of DK tanks now and then prepare for the QQ from the Holy/Disc Priests, Resto druids, Holy Paladins and any other healer I forgot to mention so they can just change a talent and go from 100% healer to 100% DPS.

This is one hell of a slippery slope they are going down and a slap in the face to any old school feral druid and if you don't see the similarities you aren't even trying to look. They divided specs by role for a reason, Tanking specs are supposed to be for tanking unless they are going for a full overhaul and turning all specs into either pure DPS, Tanking/DPS hybrid spec or Healing/DPS hybrid spec.

That's quite a reach to say that if a single tank gains the ability to forgo their tanking role for damage for the entire duration of a fight that every healer is going to request a similar talent. I'm glad that we agree that Protection Paladins have it worse with regards to their offspecs in terms of the amount of gear farming they need to do to maintain multiple specs.

Also, Guardians still have a talent that lets them forgo their primary role for a different role called Heart of the Wild. It's stronger than Gladiator Stance as it:

1. Doesn't require gear swapping (though it can benefit from a weapon swap)
2. CAN BE DONE IN COMBAT JUST LIKE OLD BEAR CAT.

This is not a slippery slope or slap in the face to old Druids. The only similarity that would matter between Gladiator Stance and old Bearcat would be if you could switch between Gladiator and Protection stances in combat, which you can't.

The community and Blizzard agreed that Druids played as if they had 4 specs so Blizzard chose to give them 4 specs. Could it have been handled differently? Certainly but the fact remains is that 5.4 is how Druids currently work in terms of power balance and any proposed change has to make sure Druids are still balanced in-line with the other classes. Seems like pointless extra work for Blizzard to sort out considering how long they're taking anyway to release the next expansion.

But all we're doing now is repeating our point-of-views like broken records. I'm bowing out of this conversation until something new comes to light from you.

[Callsignecho]

They need to have a Gladiator SPEC, not a talent and if they do otherwise, then will need to do the same for Guardian druids, Prot Paladins, whatever spec of DK tanks now and then prepare for the QQ from the Holy/Disc Priests, Resto druids, Holy Paladins and any other healer I forgot to mention so they can just change a talent and go from 100% healer to 100% DPS.

I believe they are planning on it for the expansion after Warlords. They stated that Glad stance is an idea and they want to see if/how it is going to work out. If it does, I would not be surprised at all if it becomes the Warrior's 4th spec in the future, and, if they are getting a 4th spec, everyone else will too. The way they are setting up some of the systems in Warlords would make an addition of a 4th spec to every class in the future easier.

[exochaft]

I believe they are planning on it for the expansion after Warlords. They stated that Glad stance is an idea and they want to see if/how it is going to work out. If it does, I would not be surprised at all if it becomes the Warrior's 4th spec in the future, and, if they are getting a 4th spec, everyone else will too. The way they are setting up some of the systems in Warlords would make an addition of a 4th spec to every class in the future easier.

Yay for real life making it hard to even check forums anymore... takes me forever to respond nowadays.

If that end's up being Blizz's intent, that's perfectly fine. Granted it conflicts with what blue posts have said in the past when it comes to adding additional specs/roles for existing classes, the possibility is still there that Blizz can change their minds (a la flying in WoD potentially).

To reference what huth said in response to one of my previous posts.

Is it really that long? MoP was the first time this came even up, and WoD was already well into the concept stage at that point. They haven't even had all that much time to seriously consider the idea yet.

As far as flood gates go, i'd say they opened that one when they introduced Guardian already.

For druids, I remember blue posts stating they were debating how to deal with the bearcatting problem as early as WotLK development (aka, while BC was still current content). Obviously, it was much more of a PvP problem during BC, but making kitty DPS and bear tanking competitive exacerbated the problem into WotLK PvE, making the issue more pressing. Most of the delay to the change was because the previous talent structure couldn't support the changes without removing one of the roles. Regardless, I'd contest that Glad. stance is much more analogous to "opening the flood gates" than creating the Guardian spec since it's a completely optional change versus trying to maintain the status quo with better balance.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, if Blizz is okay with giving extra specs to classes, that's their decision... however, increasing the workload for balancing specs is probably not a good idea, considering how it has been one of the major points against adding additional specs or even extra classes.

To avoid quoting a ton of things, I'll just address Zellviren outright: I think sword-and-board DPS is a cool idea that I hope gets implemented for warriors (and paladins potentially). The way that it's being done is what some of us have issues with, and I have zero "druid envy" or "zomg you took my stuff!" concerning the issue. I'm worried about the precedent that Blizz may be unintentionally setting with their method of implementation and the balancing issues the warrior class may have to face due to it. The parallels to bearcatting have little to do with how powerful it will be (PvE raiding is a non-issue at this point, it's all other content that may be problematic) and largely to do with balancing the warrior class internally with the methods they're using and their design intent with respect to all classes/specs.