Two Spec Thoughts

[Deleted]

Glad that they're willing to break the mold if it's best for the game, rather than feel obliged to make 3 specs and have one that's just lackluster and unwaranted.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't be too sure.. a spear can be thrown as well as poke people.

And a spear-throwing ranged class would be cool as hell.

It could, but it would be more surprising to me in some ways. It's kind of awkward to just be chucking a huge polearm around and having it regenerate in your hand or something, and it has implications for weapons going forward when we leave the artifacts behind.

[Annarion]

I think they should go further and prune specs.

Priests don't need two healing specs, roll absorbs into holy and make it part of the kit, delete disc.
Get rid of 2h for frost DKs. (not a spec prune, but delineate the styles between frost and unholy)
Hunters are actually good if they make surv melee.
Druids are fine, mages are fine.
Rogues should just have combat and assassination. Aka daggers and other weapons.
Monks are fine, paladins are fine, shaman are fine, warriors are fine. I would maybe lose TG but it's a unique ability so prol keep it.
Warlocks, I'm sorry, but warlocks, you should lose demonology. Now that demon hunter is in the game... come on now. They already gave away metamorphosis.

The idea that different classes can have different numbers of specs based on what makes sense is so much better than trying to shoehorn in specs that don't fit the class.

[Reyzzz]

Change Survival then if its that essential. Hunters basically do two things: Shoot shit and have animals attack shit. Marksmanship and Beast Mastery cover them both, and even then there's some overlap between the two. Why do you need a third "shoot shit" spec? If you want a "stab shit with a spear" spec - and I'm not entirely convinced such a thing is warranted - just change the other "shoot shit" spec to do that.

I belive this is the case regarding any pure dps class. If they aren't playing the one that does the most dps, they are doing it wrong.

[Vanyali]

It could, but it would be more surprising to me in some ways. It's kind of awkward to just be chucking a huge polearm around and having it regenerate in your hand or something, and it has implications for weapons going forward when we leave the relics behind.

Yeah, it's weird thinking about it. Not sure how they'd reintroduce the weapon to be thrown (would you have to go and retrieve it? XD), but would be an interesting thing to see in a world of bows and crossbows as the only main throwing weapons.

[Slybak]

I belive this is the case regarding any pure dps class. If they aren't playing the one that does the most dps, they are doing it wrong.

Seriously. If they changed Demonology to a tanking spec, the only thing that would change for me and 9 out of 10 other people who play Warlocks is that we'd have two DPS specs to judge which is the best for any given patch cycle instead of three. I don't imagine Rogues, Hunters, or Mages would be any different. And given the choice betweem:

1) Four specs, one Tank and three DPS
2) Three specs, one tank and two DPS

I'd gladly take the second option just on the basis of having fewer balancing issues for the devs to work out. Having fewer gear sets to juggle for min-maxing from patch to patch is just icing on the cake.

[Feali]

If it works this is gonna be great for future classes.

[-Zait-]

At first I wasn't a fan, but after thinking on it I think it's fine. A lot of work put into two specs rather than a little into three would be nice.

[Tragedia]

Bold decision but I think it is a good one in the short and long term.

[Deleted]

Honestly it's lame as fuck. I'm re-rolling don't get me wrong the class looks good but I just know 6 months down the line I will be missing a third spec.

[Vanyali]

Honestly it's lame as fuck. I'm re-rolling don't get me wrong the class looks good but I just know 6 months down the line I will be missing a third spec.

Honest question: why?

What about having a third spec will make you miss it other than it being there?

[Deleted]

they COULD, that doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Rogues are already suffering from identity issues - sub attacks from the shadows. so does assass. Okay uh... well one uses poisons.. uh.. more. the other.. uh.. bleeds. Combat is the most unique of the three, with a toe-to-toe rogue. So if you were going to add another spec (I'm guessing swashbuckler is your idea?) why not just put it instead of one of the three and create a stronger identity for all three rather than two meh, 2 solid?

Warriors don't need ranged weapons - they're warriors. If they want to pick up a bow, they really become either rangers or hunters... and both are included in the Hunter class already. Occasional use yes, a big spec.. doesn't fit the identity. Glad spec COULD be a full spec (and it's the only spec in the game strong enough to separate the way feral / guardian did, imo).. but it's not even really a spec unless they decided they really wanted a shield-wearing dps class. Which is a sort of weird idea with the wow works with shields being either defensive or decoration.

Watering down class identity for more specs hurts each spec's identity, which stifles their spells in turn. Why can't a sub rogue decide to be more poison-y and subtle about killing something? Oh, well, assassins are doing that already.. even though an assassin would likely make a lot of use out of being able to cause someone to bleed to death rather than be poisoned to death sometimes.

There are plenty of cases where warriors would use ranged weapons. Fighters(warrior of D&D) have been among the best ranged weapon specialists in the past.

I really like the idea of a ranged warrior spec actually. It could even be a half and half spec. Using charge to get back into the fray and then a backwards leap shot kind of thing to get to range again. Idk. But limiting a warrior to be strictly melee is a flaw imo.

Edit:
That being said i actually love the idea of only two specs for the DH. I do think it could have had room for a dark archer/ranger spec with a bow/spells combo. But hey.

[Vanyali]

There are plenty of cases where warriors would use ranged weapons. Fighters(warrior of D&D) have been among the best ranged weapon specialists in the past.

I really like the idea of a ranged warrior spec actually. It could even be a half and half spec. Using charge to get back into the fray and then a backwards leap shot kind of thing to get to range again. Idk. But limiting a warrior to be strictly melee is a flaw imo.

But again: how would that differ from hunters or rangers? In terms of wow classes, not D&D classes (yes, the influence is there... but it's also different). A warrior, in wow, has melee weapons, has rage, gets blinded by rage and charges forward to beat the shit out of something.. a warrior is much more a brawler than a guy that sits back and shoots - that's a marksman hunter. Which is already a class.

And the "charge and leap back" is exactly what DHs can do, which illustrates (again) how hard it is to keep the identity sharply defined.

[PuppetShowJustice]

I like it. Remember how Death Knight came out and all the specs were a mess with no real defined role? This gives Demon Hunter a focus without having to spread abilities across multiple redundant specs.

[Rasbid]

There's several classes in the game which suffer from homogenization between their specs, mostly Rogues and Hunters, so I'm glad to see just one DPS spec.

[Deleted]

Seeing the ashamed dev trying to desperetly justify the " only 2 spec" thing and trying to hide their lazyness was priceless

3 new class in 10 years, 3 melee ? wtf ? a bow ranged was needed

[Deleted]

But again: how would that differ from hunters or rangers? In terms of wow classes, not D&D classes (yes, the influence is there... but it's also different). A warrior, in wow, has melee weapons, has rage, gets blinded by rage and charges forward to beat the shit out of something.. a warrior is much more a brawler than a guy that sits back and shoots - that's a marksman hunter. Which is already a class.

And the "charge and leap back" is exactly what DHs can do, which illustrates (again) how hard it is to keep the identity sharply defined.

Its more alike to the hunters disengage. And yes there would be similarities and that could possibly hurt spec identity. I agree.

I would have liked to see a ranged spellcasting/dark arrow shooting spec for DH tho(not like the DH from Diablo, but more like the Dark Ranger from WC3)

- - - Updated - - -

Seeing the ashamed dev trying to desperetly justify the " only 2 spec" thing and trying to hide their lazyness was priceless

3 new class in 10 years, 3 melee ? wtf ? a bow ranged was needed

I didnt see anyone ashamed on that stage.

[Floopa]

2 specs is fine

every pure dps spec basically has 2 specs anyway lol

[Algearond]

Despise it. This completely turned me off to ever playing a DH. With duel spec in the game this essentially means each person playing a DH can do everything, no choice whatsoever involved.

[Floopa]

Despise it. This completely turned me off to ever playing a DH. With duel spec in the game this essentially means each person playing a DH can do everything, no choice whatsoever involved.

applying there's choice in specs atm

:^)