Two Spec Thoughts

[Vanyali]

Opinions on this?

I like it, and kinda wish they'd do it for other specs (too late now, but still..). Would solve a lot of balance issues, especially with pures, and fix a lot of weirdness where one spec can't do something because the other spec.

[Imnick]

Better than trying to squeeze the concept of one spec into two, you just end up with two inferior specs that way.

[Wrathonia]

Considering I was still hoping for 4 specs for all classes, that kind of kills it. And that makes me sad.

[Vanyali]

Considering I was still hoping for 4 specs for all classes, that kind of kills it. And that makes me sad.

i don't even like four specs as a druid, tbh. It really killed the hybrid feel druids had going on.. or put the final nail in the coffin, at the very least :\

besides.. four dps specs for pures? balancing *nightmare*. Easier just to add more classes at that point!

[Wrathonia]

i don't even like four specs as a druid, tbh. It really killed the hybrid feel druids had going on.. or put the final nail in the coffin, at the very least :\

besides.. four dps specs for pures? balancing *nightmare*. Easier just to add more classes at that point!

You just lack imagination my good friend. Rogues could get a tank spec with a sword and dagger, or maybe go with thrown weapons. Warrior could get the use of ranged weapons back or get gladiator as a full spec. I could go on and on.

[Vanyali]

You just lack imagination my good friend. Rogues could get a tank spec with a sword and dagger, or maybe go with thrown weapons. Warrior could get the use of ranged weapons back or get gladiator as a full spec. I could go on and on.

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.

[TheWindWalker]

They really should have included a ranged spec. It wouldn't have been difficult in the slightest to do so and would have added more flavor and did quite the opposite of "watering down." That said, the fact they chose to make a stand and say "We think two is enough for now" is enough for me to just let it go.

-snip-

There's plenty that can be done to separate Assassination from Subtlety but the wave of vitriol from the fans the moment they start taking away even a single ability is staggering. The two could be completely non-overlapping like Warlock specs currently are but they'd have to redesign at least one spec to make sure of it.

[Slybak]

Considering I was still hoping for 4 specs for all classes, that kind of kills it. And that makes me sad.

There's really no point to having four specs for every class just because Druids have four.

What would be the point of adding an extra rogue, hunter, mage, or warlock spec - for the purpose of giving those classes another role - that couldn't be done just by modifying one of the existing specs? Why do the existing multi-role classes need yet another role, or another variant of an existing role, added to their repertoire? Doing it just for the sake of having four isn't a really good reason, existing specs for each class already accommodate their background lore, and adding 10 new specs is the functional equivalent of adding three new classes to game for purposes of balancing (and the devs don't have the best track record of balancing one new class in a reasonable time frame when they add one).

[Vanyali]

They really should have included a ranged spec. It wouldn't have been difficult in the slightest to do so and would have added more flavor and did quite the opposite of "watering down." That said, the fact they chose to make a stand and say "We think two is enough for now" is enough for me to just let it go.


There's plenty that can be done to separate Assassination from Subtlety but the wave of vitriol from the fans the moment they start taking away even a single ability is staggering. The two could be completely non-overlapping like Warlock specs currently are but they'd have to redesign at least one spec to make sure of it.

What would they use, though? DH, in lore, do not use bows. Unless they turn into just a caster class, which also isn't supported at all in the lore. That's one of the biggest issues with DH like this.. the lore is way too established! They attack things in melee, fast and clean, and sense / destroy demons with melee weapons. Their training is so extreme most cannot survive it, so where would they get the time to "graduate" from trainee to full DH.. then learn a completely different fighting style?


I agree with you on the second, though. That's 99% of the problems with the specs. They were separated too late, and things couldn't be moved without massive uproar.

[Forde]

I honestly don't mind. I think it brings unique flavor to the class and allows for it to have a strong and diverse dps spec and not having it watered down across two DPS specs.

[xquizite]

I'm honestly surprised they didn't do a fully meta'd ranged dps form. Granted demonology warlocks already have illidan's ranged build realized which is likely why they didn't do it.

I'm fine with the 2 spec's, but it does stand out in a game with 3 talent specs for all classes. I'm surprised that they didn't try harder to build 2 dps specs similar to DK's, but having played a DK during progression I'm ok with not having to worry about multiple gear sets / weapons / foods / chants ect.

[Sesshomaru]

I like the idea. For as far as PvP balancing, the only stuff you need to worry about are the talents, as the abilities is fully known as soon as you discover the DH without tanking skills, and the opposite.
Then again, I simply don't PvP as I truly believe WoW was made with PvE in hindsight.
That also makes the thing of "forcing" oneself to play a dps spec in which you truly dislike an invalid claim. I played as Shaman throughout most of MoP and found the Elemental spec to be the worst spec to play as (I levelled everyone to 90, mained the shammie for some time), still do, but I feel forced to go Elemental to deal dps.

Enough of that. What I want to say for a hero class, going with only two specs were the right choice.
Those who can't stand of DH tanking can go dps in both PvP and PvE (given if you use different glyphs), else EVERY DH will have a secondary spec of tank, which means they can be make-shift tanks if you are in dire need of one. (Looking at you, Mr. LFR of Legion)

Maining Lock with a possible power-change of DH, making it my main alt, maybe even swapping mains from time to time.

Although currently more obsessed with Overwatch beta release date and such. I want my Reinhardt/Tracer/Reaper.

[Slybak]

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?

This identity crisis dates back to Vanilla, when specs basically buffed different ability schools. The problem with Rogues was that their ability schools covered different types of attacks that every Rogue wanted to use, and thus the organization of their talent trees was a bloody mess.

Meanwhile, specs for other classes were typically based on an archtype of that class. Either an archtype centered on a particular role for multi-role classes, or a distinct visual/combat style for single-role classes, so they became much easier to differentiate later on.

[Vanyali]

This identity crisis dates back to Vanilla, when specs basically buffed different ability schools. The problem with Rogues was that their ability schools covered different types of attacks that every Rogue wanted to use, and thus the organization of their talent trees was a bloody mess.

Meanwhile, specs for other classes were typically based on an archtype of that class. Either an archtype centered on a particular role for multi-role classes, or a distinct visual/combat style for single-role classes, so they became much easier to differentiate later on.

Rogue talents were the most hilarious fucking things, swear to god (my first class.. sub in vanilla, never used snd... i was best rogue)

But yeah, that's what I'm drawing at. DH.. it just doesn't have a toolkit that can be expanded that far to make multiple melee dps unique. Better to have one strong than two meh.

[zito]

I was expecting some kind of range dps spec tbh. Strange that they felt 2dps specs would be convoluted. My guess is they just ran out of time

[Wrathonia]

There's really no point to having four specs for every class just because Druids have four.

What would be the point of adding an extra rogue, hunter, mage, or warlock spec - for the purpose of giving those classes another role - that couldn't be done just by modifying one of the existing specs? Why do the existing multi-role classes need yet another role, or another variant of an existing role, added to their repertoire? Doing it just for the sake of having four isn't a really good reason, existing specs for each class already accommodate their background lore, and adding 10 new specs is the functional equivalent of adding three new classes to game for purposes of balancing (and the devs don't have the best track record of balancing one new class in a reasonable time frame when they add one).

Nobody wants their favorite spec changed into something else. That really should go without saying. More specs could be added for fun, flavor and variety. Paladins have wanted shockadins since BC. Shaman used to be able to tank to some degree. A lot of warlocks would love to tank. Tons of hunters would love a melee option. And all of them have spells now or at one time that made those things possible. Step out of your box and look around. Confining yourself doesn't do you any favors.

[Deleted]

I like it.

I hadn't thought about classes having less than three specs before, but with the Demon Hunter it makes sense.
I'm glad they're focusing on two specs and not half-assing the third like Rogues and Hunters. Kinda makes me want only two specs for a few other classes but i guess it's too late to change that. Will also make gearing a lot easier by only having two specs.

[Deleted]

Their inability to ever add a ranged spec beyond the initial classes is getting fucking annoying. Not only are we getting more melee but based on the Survival weapon we could be losing one of the ranged specs we already had too.

[Vanyali]

Their inability to ever add a ranged spec beyond the initial classes is getting fucking annoying. Not only are we getting more melee but based on the Survival weapon we could be losing one of the ranged specs we already had too.

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.

[Slybak]

Nobody wants their favorite spec changed into something else. That really should go without saying.

Everyone has had their favorite spec changed into something else already. Some have had this happened multiple times. It's called playing an MMO that's 12 years old.

Paladins have wanted shockadins since BC.

Just because some people want something doesn't mean that the class necessarily needs it. Shockadins don't fit the Paladin kit, in the same way a fire-based ranged DPS spec for Monks (which some had asked for) doesn't fit the Monk kit. Hell, I'd argue that sitting in the back casting heals doesn't even fit the Paladin kit, and this has been a common observation of many Paladins since vanilla.

Shaman used to be able to tank to some degree.

Shamans are perhaps the only class that warrants a fourth spec, based on the four elemental types. But they're it.

A lot of warlocks would love to tank.

Change Demonology then. Some wouldn't like it, sure. Some, like me, who likes Demonology, wouldn't have a problem with it. You don't need to introduce all sorts of balancing issues that would invariably come with adding an entirely new spec just to add another role for current single-role classes.

Tons of hunters would love a melee option.

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.