Discussion: What IF no new classes were ever added, but specs instead?

[Meanshield]

I'd rather they did as with DHs. Just 2 specs, mayb 3 for Druids. Wud make it better for balancing purposes and maybe remove the whole, this patch you play spec1, next patch spec2, next one spec3, back to spec2 and then spec1.

Survival has clearly not gone as planned and could easily be consolidated with either MM or BM both more flavourful. Why do DKs need 2 dps specs? Bcos lore says it? No. Same cud be said for Rogue, Warrior (They've never been able to balance Fury & Arms, EVER!), Warlock (Demo hasnt worked since Old PRE-Hellfire Citadel Demo). An argument could be made for consolidating Shadow and Discipline or merge Holy with Discipline to one, where talents define whether you'll be healing with shields & smite or with regular heals.

And with how the game is designed now, they cud merge Feral and Guardian as it once was, just making a talent decide whether you'll be a tank or damage dealer.

Overall I think less choices in specs but more choices via talents will make for more interesting gameplay and overall better for balancing purposes.

[Darktbs]

Not sure I agree here. In many cases existing classes have suffered as a result of new classes being added.

(1) DH didn't need 2 specs. Both are very bare bones, and could have easily been 1 spec.

Thats subjective so i have no ground to say otherwise.

I don't think Rogues were gutted for Dh to be realesed and i think Outlaw is the most fun of the 3 specs.

(2) Demonology got gutted in favor of demon hunters, rogues too

(3) Some existing specs completely change in favor of new classes and their specs. Frost DKs and enhancement shamans for example. While Frost didn't exactly gut enchancement. Its playstyle became that of enhancement, and enhancement was forced to change. I found myself playing my frost DK come Cata, only to be edged out because of our downsizing in Cata as dps plate/str users were far too many for the guild to sustain. So I didn't like the way enhancement played, and the new class I wanted to play was overplayed.

You said gutted, i see oportunity.

See this.Demo was changed in Legion as well as all other specs but in that changed Uh Dks, Demo Warlocks and BM hunters.Showed that blizzard is more open in creating pet focused playstyles which open possibilities for other possible classes/specs to be created.

(4) Some classes may now never exist due to, too many classes. For example a necromancer class. Its far too similar to DK and warlocks, and would inevitably gut both to make a viable class (probably with only 1 spec). Stifling "creativity".

I hate having to discuss this.The general public doesn't have a creative mind, after reading many class/specs threads people on don't come with new things but rather reimagine(poorly) what already exist or only see what already exist as the only possible way.

People only saw Dh for Immolation and Meta but did any one thought of them using this and havin a "hulk" transfomation.?No, because they can't see anything else.
http://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/screen...mal/493283.jpg

Personally, if "creativity" is your argument I find it way more freeing to allow for multiple specs, themes, and potentially totally different armor/weapons within a given class, than creating a new class by stripping down a predecessor. Furthermore, if you have to tear down an existing class, to make your new one... how creative are you being really?

The problem is that mind-set doesn't work in wow.If it were in a game like, Path of Exiles for example, where you have the basic version and you go from there, then maybe i could see your point.But wow classes from day one are defined, they have "X" Lore, "Y"Asthetics and so on.

Think of the Dk, the starting quest explores the idea of what a Dk is and what they do.If it were to fit in a Paladin spec you would be limited to what is/was while being it own classe allow for the concept to spread its wings.

The OP gave the example the Frost Dk to be a spec for the Shaman.If that happened, you can't have Frost Dragons, rune blades, or murderous themes because you need to tie everything to what the Shaman is.

Also, thinking a class design or spell would fit better on another class is part of creativity and other times you want to try something else with that specific class but they can't because "X" concept is on the way.

What do you do?

- - - Updated - - -

Overall I think less choices in specs but more choices via talents will make for more interesting gameplay and overall better for balancing purposes.

I was kinda with you until this part, you essentially gone back to stage 1 of the problem.Because now you have people asking for their playstyle to be viable.

and the problem of there being many more playstyles then specs you just made the problem bigger.

Also i would ask for you to clarify your vision of balance because it can go many ways.

[Enrif]

But wow classes from day one are defined, they have "X" Lore, "Y"Asthetics and so on.

That's a quite good point. Most classes have a "class identity" which was hammered down in Legion. While it worked for some (DK, Warlock, DH) for others i felt really shoehorned into it (Warrior!, Rogue, Hunter)

And the most iconic classes are not even invented in WoW but brought over from WC3 (Paladin, Death Knight, Demon Hunter)

The OP gave the example the Frost Dk to be a spec for the Shaman.If that happened, you can't have Frost Dragons, rune blades, or murderous themes because you need to tie everything to what the Shaman is.

Actually, you can. i maybe didn't told this perfectly. But in my example the Paladin, Warrior and Shaman class would undergo a "Death Knight Quest" to get their spec. So while the base class of the shaman would be still as it is, the frost spec would be inspired by death knight themes, because you get it by "becoming/learning" from Death Knights

Think of it like how Priests are Holy and Shadow at the same time. The Holy spec is based on human priest Lore, while the shadow spec was mostly based on Forsaken priest lore but still in the same class

[Darktbs]

Actually, you can. i maybe didn't told this perfectly. But in my example the Paladin, Warrior and Shaman class would undergo a "Death Knight Quest" to get their spec. So while the base class of the shaman would be still as it is, the frost spec would be inspired by death knight themes, because you get it by "becoming/learning" from Death Knights

But, isn' tthis gonna leave us in a similar state we are now?But instead of having to switch to one class to have all 3 specs, one would have to level 3 classes to play?

[God Save The King]

I don't agree with where you placed each spec, but I do like the idea in general. It's hard to retroactively add the specs of new classes to old classes, since Blizzard has tried to make each new class unique enough to warrant a new class.

The other issue I have with adding new specs, is potentially diluting certain classes. In Modern WoW, it's not unreasonable to expect someone to be able to play each spec to a decent level. As a druid, I play resto/guardian/balance, and use all of them in raids, alt runs, and M+. Someone who rolled a mage may not want to heal, and adding a time healing spec could shift expectations that they know how to heal. Anecdotally, the Shadow Priest in my guild hates healing, but is expected to maintain a Holy Set and proficiency in case we're low on healers for the night. When he complains, the GM says he's welcome to reroll to a DPS only class, like warlock, but all raiders are expected to maintain their other specs enough to use them if we need them. It's similar to the argument against Survival Hunters. If hunters had wanted the melee option, they'd have rolled a melee class, or a class with both melee and ranged DPS specs. Likewise, if someone wanted to tank/heal, they'd have rolled that class.

So I'd be happy to add more specs to the game, but I wouldn't want to add roles to classes that did not previously have them.

[Enrif]

But, isn' tthis gonna leave us in a similar state we are now?But instead of having to switch to one class to have all 3 specs, one would have to level 3 classes to play?

If you only want to play Death Knight yes. But if you play Paladin, Warrior or Shaman and only want a little bit of DK flavor you get it with one spec, but you don't need to reroll to taste it and see if you like it.

If anyone ever played current Guild Wars 2, they have a similar system where they add Specs to the core classes instead of new classes(except for 1 class to even out all armor types). There you are as a base class, for example a Ranger. But through the new addes specs they can become druids or spiritbeasts which are not part of the core class but flavors with different playstyles

[A dot Ham]

I don't think Rogues were gutted for Dh to be realesed and i think Outlaw is the most fun of the 3 specs.

That's great. Perhaps a 4th spec was appropriate. Rogue abilities were cut, and given to DHs. Not up for discussion... it happened. You liking Outlaw is irrelevant. Some people don't. Fuck them right? Progress or gtfo... SMH.

See this.Demo was changed in Legion as well as all other specs but in that changed Uh Dks, Demo Warlocks and BM hunters.Showed that blizzard is more open in creating pet focused playstyles which open possibilities for other possible classes/specs to be created.

Personally I never liked the metamorphosis idea for warlocks. I much prefer the "minion master" spec that it has become. That's irrelevant though, because again SOME people didn't/don't.

This entire discussion is about adding new specs to existing classes, in favor of gutting favorite existing specs/playstyles. Essentially then... we could have created 3 new specs for warlocks, demonhunter havoc, demonhunter vengeance, and a new minion master demo spec. Perhaps only 2 given that demonology was already heading toward a tankish spec anyway.

I hate having to discuss this.The general public doesn't have a creative mind, after reading many class/specs threads people on don't come with new things but rather reimagine(poorly) what already exist or only see what already exist as the only possible way.

Then don't because you aren't winning over hearts and minds, and you don't earn any Blizzard Brownine points HERE by sucking up to developers and their decisions. That's a really weak argument on several levels. First, your arguing a point I never made. So thanks for the strawman. In any case you're wrong. Yes, they pull from existing WCIII, and original dota spells/abilities. They also reference existing mmos, and other mobas, etc. Guess what Blizzard does too. This whole "Blizzard is more creative than you..." is a totally bogus argument and is easily countered by a point I've already made. If you have to gut existing classes, to create a new one... you aren't being THAT creative. So cut the crap.

Think of the Dk, the starting quest explores the idea of what a Dk is and what they do.If it were to fit in a Paladin spec you would be limited to what is/was while being it own classe allow for the concept to spread its wings.

The OP gave the example the Frost Dk to be a spec for the Shaman.If that happened, you can't have Frost Dragons, rune blades, or murderous themes because you need to tie everything to what the Shaman is.

Here is where your own creativity is lacking.

These themes could easily be explored under a Frost DK, spec for paladins. An unholy spec for paladins... or whoever it ends up getting the spec.

The spec itself lends to the theme.

I think its funny that you use this as an example after directly criticizing me for saying that a necromancer will probably now never be a thing.

In any case I'm really not interested in the discussion, and I kind of hate people like you that pick and choose point by point to respond to a person. As if each part needs to refuted individually. Read, absorb, respond.

You can't see how the game could have existed without new classes, and just new specs. That's YOUR creative blindspot. Because YOU can't see past what already exists.

[iamthedevil]

36 specs instead of 2-3 for one class.... Yeahh....

OP is essentially describing subclasses.

[Zerzuru]

Since Vanilla there were NPCs who were technically priests, but yet also monks. and i think it blends thematically.

... and let me answer your question with a question:

The fuck are you smoking?

[Darktbs]

That's great. Perhaps a 4th spec was appropriate. Rogue abilities were cut, and given to DHs. Not up for discussion... it happened. You liking Outlaw is irrelevant. Some people don't. Fuck them right? Progress or gtfo... SMH.



Personally I never liked the metamorphosis idea for warlocks. I much prefer the "minion master" spec that it has become. That's irrelevant though, because again SOME people didn't/don't.

This entire discussion is about adding new specs to existing classes, in favor of gutting favorite existing specs/playstyles. Essentially then... we could have created 3 new specs for warlocks, demonhunter havoc, demonhunter vengeance, and a new minion master demo spec. Perhaps only 2 given that demonology was already heading toward a tankish spec anyway.


Then don't because you aren't winning over hearts and minds, and you don't earn any Blizzard Brownine points HERE by sucking up to developers and their decisions. That's a really weak argument on several levels. First, your arguing a point I never made. So thanks for the strawman. In any case you're wrong. Yes, they pull from existing WCIII, and original dota spells/abilities. They also reference existing mmos, and other mobas, etc. Guess what Blizzard does too. This whole "Blizzard is more creative than you..." is a totally bogus argument and is easily countered by a point I've already made. If you have to gut existing classes, to create a new one... you aren't being THAT creative. So cut the crap.



Here is where your own creativity is lacking.

These themes could easily be explored under a Frost DK, spec for paladins. An unholy spec for paladins... or whoever it ends up getting the spec.

The spec itself lends to the theme.

I think its funny that you use this as an example after directly criticizing me for saying that a necromancer will probably now never be a thing.

In any case I'm really not interested in the discussion, and I kind of hate people like you that pick and choose point by point to respond to a person. As if each part needs to refuted individually. Read, absorb, respond.

You can't see how the game could have existed without new classes, and just new specs. That's YOUR creative blindspot. Because YOU can't see past what already exists.

First, calm your tits.

Two
"I kind of hate people like you that pick and choose point by point to respond to a person. As if each part needs to refuted individually. Read, absorb, respond."
Idc if you hate it or not but i do it because its a simple way to adress thing so that loads of text don't overlap and others that are reading dont take things out of context and know what im talking about.FOr example if i didn't separate your text and said that "this is subjective and i don't want to talk about it" and then proceed to talk about it, it leaves a bad first impression as "if you don't want to talk about it why are you talking".

Now, to your points.

That's great. Perhaps a 4th spec was appropriate. Rogue abilities were cut, and given to DHs. Not up for discussion... it happened. You liking Outlaw is irrelevant. Some people don't. Fuck them right? Progress or gtfo... SMH.

Congrats you just described gaming design as a whole.
Things changed, its falls to the players to give feeback, either way accept, change or wait.Thats what everyone does.

Then don't because you aren't winning over hearts and minds, and you don't earn any Blizzard Brownine points HERE by sucking up to developers and their decisions. That's a really weak argument on several levels. First, your arguing a point I never made. So thanks for the strawman. In any case you're wrong. Yes, they pull from existing WCIII, and original dota spells/abilities. They also reference existing mmos, and other mobas, etc. Guess what Blizzard does too. This whole "Blizzard is more creative than you..." is a totally bogus argument and is easily countered by a point I've already made. If you have to gut existing classes, to create a new one... you aren't being THAT creative. So cut the crap.

Ever heard of Remakes?Like the ones every spec got in Legion?They are a means to reacreate the old stuff in hopes of making them better.Even in LoL this is done to make Old champions better in playstyle or to give new life to them.

So yeah, removing is a way of creativity as a means to either remove unecesseray things or give to others that will use it better.

Like it or not, Dh used meta in a much better way then Warlocks, since its playstyle revolves around it and have many ways to let the Demon out.

What does Warlock was?A Cd.

What does the Dh meta do?A form that can be achiev by many means and interacts with many talents, Pvp talents and spells.

Not even mentioning the lore and new looks of the Dh forms.

So you took something away from a class to make it better.Some people will whine, others will not, you can't please everyone.

Also, my complain about lack of imagination was not directed to you, but if you related i can't do anything.So congrats you made the strawman yourself.

Was to people that label everything as"already exists" or "it doesn't exist in the original idea" to give a few examples.

Mistweavers weren't part of the Brewmaster hero of wc3 yet they are a unique spec created for the Monk, same as Dk Frost Spec, Affliction Warlock,Vengeance Dh.They are things created from nothing or from small concepts which is something your average forum poster does believe its possible even after 3 classes proving it wrong.

And for last parts if you saw the conversation before, Op explained how the specs would play as i was under the impression they would be tied to the class,but rather they are just a upgrade.

I think its funny that you use this as an example after directly criticizing me for saying that a necromancer will probably now never be a thing.

When did i said this?None of my comments are directly related to the Necromancer for the surprise of some.

[Enrif]

36 specs instead of 2-3 for one class.... Yeahh....

OP is essentially describing subclasses.

Read. Again. It's a what If scenario. What if Blizzard instead of adding a class every other expansion, they add 3 spec to 3 old classes. We would still have 36 spec like today, but on 9 classes instead of 12.

also it's not a Subclass, Or else enhancement is a Subclass of Shaman, or Prot is a Subclass of Warrior. Those are just Specializations

... and let me answer your question with a question:

Ever heard of those guys?
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Scarlet_Monk

[Shadowsgrace]

Only if I finally get PLAYABLE Battle Mages!!

[Rhamses]

I'd rather they did as with DHs. Just 2 specs, mayb 3 for Druids. Wud make it better for balancing purposes and maybe remove the whole, this patch you play spec1, next patch spec2, next one spec3, back to spec2 and then spec1.

Survival has clearly not gone as planned and could easily be consolidated with either MM or BM both more flavourful. Why do DKs need 2 dps specs? Bcos lore says it? No. Same cud be said for Rogue, Warrior (They've never been able to balance Fury & Arms, EVER!), Warlock (Demo hasnt worked since Old PRE-Hellfire Citadel Demo). An argument could be made for consolidating Shadow and Discipline or merge Holy with Discipline to one, where talents define whether you'll be healing with shields & smite or with regular heals.

And with how the game is designed now, they cud merge Feral and Guardian as it once was, just making a talent decide whether you'll be a tank or damage dealer.

Overall I think less choices in specs but more choices via talents will make for more interesting gameplay and overall better for balancing purposes.

They did two DH specs because there wasn't enough design space for more than that. There wasn't an issue of balance, it was an issue of the DH being a retread of multiple existing classes. If you push the DH any further in either direction you run into Warlocks on one side, and Rogues on the other. It also doesn't help that the DH took abilities and attributes from existing classes in order to "feel" unique. For example, they took DW tanking, Gift of the Ox, and Guard from Monks, and Metamorphosis (plus associated abilities) and Demonic fury from Warlocks. I'm sure if they would have went for a third spec, the DH class would have taken even more abilities from other classes.

In the end, people like having 3-4 spec classes. I love that if I get bored of Enhance, I can switch over to Elemental and try some ranged DPS. If I get tired of DPS I can always try my hand at healing. When I played DH, I didn't enjoy the Havoc spec, and I don't like tanking, so I ended up not liking the class. If there had been a second DPS spec, I could have seen if I enjoyed that as well and it would have given me another chance of enjoying the class.

Hopefully the next class, whatever it may be is a 3-4 spec class. Options are a good thing.

[Darktbs]

Hopefully the next class, whatever it may be is a 3-4 spec class. Options are a good thing.

-Oh you can rest assure my minion, there will be plenty of ways to deal with the dead.-Kel'thuzad's voice.

[Phookah]

3 times did the cheese move sideways to Switzerland.

[deviantcultist]

Blood DK transfered over to Warrior sounds cool even if it is impossible. Always wanted to play a dark-themed plate user who is NOT a zombie.

[Rhamses]

-Oh you can rest assure my minion, there will be plenty of ways to deal with the dead.-Kel'thuzad's voice.

Hmmm let's take a look at Kel'thuzad's HotS kit....

Death and Decay: Death Knights
Frost Nova: Mage
Chains of Kel'Thuzad: Death Knights (Chains of Ice)
Frost Blast: Choose one: Frost Orb, Comet Storm, Howling Blast, etc.

Another "new" class that leeches off of existing classes....

Here we go again....

[SirCowdog]

I think the specific examples he gave need some work, but I also think the underlying theme is a good idea.

Although personally I think "classes" should be ditched entirely in favor of a more free-form type of build. I understand why that will never happen in WoW, but I look at games like EVE online or Path of Exile and think they're LIGHTYEARS ahead in terms of enjoyability, depth, and replay value.

[Darktbs]

Hmmm let's take a look at Kel'thuzad's HotS kit....

Death and Decay: Death Knights
Frost Nova: Mage
Chains of Kel'Thuzad: Death Knights (Chains of Ice)
Frost Blast: Choose one: Frost Orb, Comet Storm, Howling Blast, etc.

Another "new" class that leeches off of existing classes....

Here we go again....

A pity you didn't read the "Plenty of ways" and instead focus on those.Also is laughable that you tried to hard to prove in another thread that Engineering is nothing like Tinker yet you label Chains of Ice as the same thing as the Hots spell and Frost Blast as the same as the other ones.

Really original from you.

[Halyon]

The idea isn't bad, but no, existing classes should not be baked in to other classes as specs now, that's entirely ludicrous, and I'm liable to ask for what you're smoking, 'cus it sounds rad.