Two Spec Thoughts

[Hawthorne Wipes]

Is it definitive?
I don't mind with'em just having two specs, if that way they're well differenciated between those and the existing ones.
But.. seeing the make two different demon forms for dps and tank, It'd be easy to make a third demon form just for ranged.
that'd be nice.

[Kyux]

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.

^^ this. It's better that they do 2 specs than try and force 3. Yeah it'd be nice to have a 3rd DH spec, maybe it'd be more magic-y and the other is more weapon-y, but I agree. It's better two have two good specs with proper flavour than to force a 3rd and water down 2 specs.

[Feali]

Is it definitive?
I don't mind with'em just having two specs, if that way they're well differenciated between those and the existing ones.
But.. seeing the make two different demon forms for dps and tank, It'd be easy to make a third demon form just for ranged.
that'd be nice.

I would think they are definitive. But same with the races they could change that during beta if people don't like it. Which doesn't seem like it's the case going by this forum

[Deleted]

Instead of Demon hunter class it would be way more cooler if :

-Hunters got a 4th spec for melee that would work by taming demons and absolving their soul to gain wigs, horns and goat feet and it would give different variants of the extra features and skin color depending on what demon you have tamed.

-Either give warlocks a 4th spec to tank or make demonology a tanking spec.



That way you still get to have the demon hunter fantasy, and there won't be more competition for tier tokens or raids slots per class.

[Itisamuh]

I like it. I kind of wish they would just do away with specs altogether. The limitations get on my nerves more than they make choices interesting.

[Nozuka]

I was hoping for a new ranged caster dps class

but i guess it wouldn't fit with the demon hunter... or would end up being a warlock

but still... every new DPS class after vanilla was melee...

[waddlez]

I was hoping for a new ranged caster dps class

but i guess it wouldn't fit with the demon hunter... or would end up being a warlock

but still... every new DPS class after vanilla was melee...

They do need more ranged, maybe because there are so many hunters and that healers are defacto ranged classes they think they can get away with adding 3 melee classes.

[Metaslave]

I think it's fine. It's better than having two half-arsed dps specs. Just look at current hunter state.
And it's not like they'll never add a third spec. If it makes sense down the line, they'll add it for sure.

[Dyptheria]

@thread

I personally think it's a good idea. As others have said, better to have x number of strong specs than y number of weak ones.

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.

Disclaimer: I own a Shadow Priest.
This actually makes a certain kind of sense. Since a Priest cannot tank, racking up points based on damage prevented isn't really a thing and Blizzard have been struggling to find an identity for Discipline since day one, removing Discipline would be logical. The howls would be deafening though.

Get rid of 2h for frost DKs. (not a spec prune, but delineate the styles between frost and unholy)

Disclaimer: I own an Unholy Death Knight
Has a certain kind of logic, however Frostmourne is a two-hander and Frost Death Knights continue to live in hope, I suspect.

Hunters are actually good if they make surv melee.

I don't own a Hunter, but the change to Survival - along with Marksmanship being pet-less - actually makes sense to distinguish
between the specs.

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.

Disclaimer: I own a Warlock.
I'm gonna disagree with this. I've always thought that Metamorphosis was a bad idea for Warlocks, and that a Warlock's demonology was centered around them being masters and commanders of Demons, rather than becoming Demons. Hopefully, this will force Blizzard's hand into pulling Demonology Warlocks in the direction they should have gone in a long time ago.

[jayinjersey]

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."

As someone who has played a melee shaman for years....


HELL NO


having a ranged and melee means the other cannot be strong while the other exists.

If ranged >= melee, ranged always wins...

[demonik]

I'd like to think that they're initially going to make only 2 specs, which is IMO is a good thing. As long as those 2 specs are really well thought out and fun. Then maybe later on in the following expansion(if there will be another expansion) consider adding a 3rd spec. That's what I'm hoping for at least.

[Primalthirst]

This is an excellent decision. There's far too many specs in the game already where they struggle to generate individual identity. I'd rather have 1 DPS spec done well than have all the cool ideas split into two mediocre specs.