[Suggestions updated] Pre-Legion/Ranged Survival

[F Rm]

A hunter fighting with poisons obtained from animals, with tamed pets and using specialized weapons and traps is pretty standard, using death magic is what breaks the entire thing since it has no business coexisting with the rest of the spec.
Sure you could argue the grenades would fit a tinker better, id agree with that and it could be something culled form the spec in favour of something more thematic, but thats only one thing that is arguably out of place (though hunters can already use guns, and azeroth has beasts that taking a grenade to kill wouldnt be entirely out of place), and even then its not nearly as jarring as using death magic, an exploding arrow and poisons.

By "death magic" I assume you mean Black Arrow as it was designed for MM in Legion where it summoned an undead boar to fight for you?

First off, that design was part of MM, not RSV.

Secondly, Black Arrow as designed for RSV never had anything to do with "death magic" and "necromancy". It dealt Shadow-damage, that's all.
You can find many poisons and other toxins in this game, and in the RPG, which have nothing to do with actual death, while still focusing on Shadow-damage.

And as for your argument about it being an inconcistent mess, having a spec which works with poisons, animal venom and explosives etc. This is just a case of you not understanding what they all amount to. And why/how they DO make for a coherent theme.

Sure, unlike Mages where one spec focuses almost entirely on a single school of magic, RSV did not only focus on one of: physical/nature/fire/shadow damage etc. It technically only focused on Arcane and Shadow, as actual magical damage.

But the above is not where you should look in terms of determining coherency. But instead, like you said, RSV was a spec that focused on different types of augmented shots/projectiles.
No matter if it was an explosive or a poison or animal venom, or magic, they were all designed with the same coherent theme in mind. Augmented shots/projectiles.

And it all makes perfect sense as to why you would, as a munitions expert, want to be able to utilize many types of augmentations/enhancements.

Its theme was essentially marksman that had special ammo, but there was zero good reason to deny that exact fantasy to marksman itself since there was literally nothing unique that survival had that wouldnt make sense on marksman hunters if it made sense on survival hunters in the first place

It wasn't "Marksman but with special ammo".

Marksman focused/focuses on the theme of a sharpshooter/master archer. One who is skilled at handling their ranged weapon. The impact and the point of impact is what matters. RSV never focused on that theme at all. It specifically focused on enhanced/augmented shots because it did not intend for you to focus on having perfect aim.

And, as for that second part, it sounds as if you're currently missing the basics of what specializations are about. Yes, ofc you can design MM to also be about augmented shots. The point with specializations isn't that each respective theme simply cannot function with one another but instead, it's about giving us/presenting us with multiple distinguished choices.

Specializations are there for US to choose for ourselves as to which part(s) of the class we want to focus on. Again, yes, ofc a MM hunter could focus on using special ammo. The point with specializations is that you're choosing not to. You as a player choose to opt for a particular fantasy.

[Saltysquidoon]

Secondly, Black Arrow as designed for RSV never had anything to do with "death magic" and "necromancy". It dealt Shadow-damage, that's all.
You can find many poisons and other toxins in this game, and in the RPG, which have nothing to do with actual death, while still focusing on Shadow-damage.

Pretending not to know the historical context of black arrow and why it was added to the hunter class in wow does not strengthen your argument the way you think it does.
In fact, it opens you up to another unnecessary avenue of attack in that in refusing to concede an irrelevant point (yes black arrow was a homage to sylvanas so what?) you decided to die on that hill and now pedantic assholes (such as my self) can pick at this one point you are objectively wrong about and ignore the rest of your logically sound argument.

[F Rm]

Pretending not to know the historical context of black arrow and why it was added to the hunter class in wow does not strengthen your argument the way you think it does.
In fact, it opens you up to another unnecessary avenue of attack in that in refusing to concede an irrelevant point (yes black arrow was a homage to sylvanas so what?) you decided to die on that hill and now pedantic assholes (such as my self) can pick at this one point you are objectively wrong about and ignore the rest of your logically sound argument.

I'm not pretending with anything.

What you said there is ironic considering they redesigned Black Arrow for WoW, thus removing the actual part of it that revolved around necromancy and "death magic".

When they added it to the hunter class, it dealt Shadow damage and was a damage amp for other abilities.

The part of it from WC3 which actually catered to the "death magic" was removed, specifically for it to fit the class.

[Saltysquidoon]

I'm not pretending with anything.

What you said there is ironic considering they redesigned Black Arrow for WoW, thus removing the actual part of it that revolved around necromancy and "death magic".

When they added it to the hunter class, it dealt Shadow damage and was a damage amp for other abilities.

The part of it from WC3 which actually catered to the "death magic" was removed, specifically for it to fit the class.

You are doing exactly what I said you shouldn't do and dying on a hill you are objectivly wrong about (and thus making your overall argument look weaker then it has to) when you shouldn't even be defending the point because it's irrelevant to your greater argument.

Black arrow is, was and always will be a 'death magic' spell
1. It is obviously related to the WCIII ability. You know because Sylvanas was a famous hunter.
2. Sylvanas uses it in wow.
2a. Sylvanas uses it as a stun in the ICC 5 man so the fact it didn't summon undead on kill is an irrelevent consideration to its 'deathiness'.
3. Dark rangers (including narthanos) us it in wow.
4. The MM version did summon undead minions and MM is no more or less 'death alligned' then survival was.

I can see from your sig you're clearly on some crusade, cool w/e I don't particualrly care if survival is ranged or melee because most people agree the current version is just shit.
What you should think about is how expedient it is to get people to agree with you by choosing to die on irelevent hills because apparently in internet argumenst you can only be 100% right or wrong (do note I never said black arrow was bad or unfitting for the spec).

[F Rm]

You are doing exactly what I said you shouldn't do and dying on a hill you are objectivly wrong about

What am I "objectively wrong about"?

I never said that Black Arrow as given to the class wasn't a reference to the original WC3 ability. This wasn't exactly a unique situation. Lot's of abilities have over the years been implemented into WoW which were designed as versions of what they were in the past.

The only thing I disputed was the argument that Black Arrow, as designed in WoW for RSV, made us be about using "death magic".

Black arrow is, was and always will be a 'death magic' spell

Are you one of those who say that we can just go MM and play RSV through that spec(because it has Explosive Shot, Serpent Sting and Lock & Load)?

I hate to break it to you but, if you vastly change the design of something or if you remove it from a larger coherent theme, it no longer amounts to what it was about in the past.

Ofc you can argue that it, as designed for WoW, focused on magic and it dealt damage to enemies and so it was about "death magic". Although that would be the definition of changing the goalpost. And yes, I'm aware that you weren't the one to originally start this conversation/argument.

I'm only saying that, because they removed the signature function from it, the one where you reanimated the corpse of the fallen enemy(if they died with Black Arrow still active), because they removed this from the ability once they put it into WoW, it was no longer focusing on "death magic". Just because it retained the same name doesn't mean that it was still the same ability. Case-in-point, old RSV abilities which has been redesigned for MM.

1. It is obviously related to the WCIII ability. You know because Sylvanas was a famous hunter.

Related? Yes, in the way that it references the original ability through it's name.

The same ability? Not even close.

Sylvanas? She was an Elven Ranger. Though before she died/was brought back as a Dark Ranger, she did not use any "death magic". Once she started doing so, she was no longer a Hunter. Check for yourself, Dark Rangers in the RPG are not classified as Hunters. They are their own class, closest to that of a "Hero Class". Much like Death Knights or Demon Hunters.

2. Sylvanas uses it in wow.

Yep. And?

2a. Sylvanas uses it as a stun in the ICC 5 man so the fact it didn't summon undead on kill is an irrelevent consideration to its 'deathiness'.

That might be your argument. But it wasn't the basis in the original argument of this conversation.

Besides, Sylvanas is a major lore character. And as you probably know, they can do a lot of things which are not reflected within existing classes/specs.

Also note that you're now acknowledging a modification of the ability, and you use that as an argument to support what you said earlier. But you denied this when I made that same argument earlier as a basis for why Black Arrow(as it was designed for RSV) was not about "death magic" because they removed the part of it's design which actually catered to that concept.

3. Dark rangers (including narthanos) us it in wow.

Yep. And?

There are about 10 different versions of Black Arrow as an ability in the game atm. Several of which actually deals physical damage. Only half of them are actually designed with the intent of using "death magic" - as in summoning/reanimating corpses of fallen enemies.

4. The MM version did summon undead minions and MM is no more or less 'death alligned' then survival was.

The original argument was focused specifically on RSV. Not MM. And thus, what it did for MM has no relevancy. Nor was that ability designed by the person who put the original version of it into the game back in WotLK.

I can see from your sig you're clearly on some crusade, cool w/e I don't particualrly care if survival is ranged or melee because most people agree the current version is just shit.

Why do you judge me based on my signature when you can't even bother to read all of it? My signature is literally less than half a sentence...

If you did, you'd notice that I have no interest in turning current SV into the old RSV.

What you should think about is how expedient it is to get people to agree with you by choosing to die on irelevent hills because apparently in internet argumenst you can only be 100% right or wrong (do note I never said black arrow was bad or unfitting for the spec).

You assume a lot based on what you read from my posts. Yet you clearly don't get what I'm saying a lot of the time.

[Saltysquidoon]

The RPG is non-canon

An ability not being a direct 1:1 translation from WCIII being ipso facto, not the same ability is a fatally flawed argument that is doomed to collapse in on itself. Is metamorphosis a different ability to the WCIII one because it functions differently? Devo aura? Avatar? Flame strike? Storm Earth and Fire?

Further to that, you know Black arrow in WCIII doesn't just summon minions right? It also increases on-hit damage, you know like how black arrow was a damage amp in wrath?

The argument that the MM version of the ability being closer to the WCIII is irrelevant is batshit insane. There is absolutely no reason why when one spec uses a spell it's not 'death magic' but when another spec uses the spell it suddenly wouldn't be. That means someone at blizzard at some point agrees they are the same spell.

By the same token, you cannot agree the spell was added as a reference to sylvanas' spell from WCIII and then argue that because sylvanas is no longer a ranger she is no longer a hunter and that makes it a different spell.

Why is the specific designer relevant at all to this discussion? The version of trueshot aura presently in the game likely wasn't added by the same person who added it in vanilla (or WCIII) does that make it not the same spell?

My point about sylvanas using it in HoR as a stun was that the spell doesn't suddenly cease to be 'death magic' or indeed 'black arrow' because she didn't summon a minion with it.

The exact version of a spell an npc is using just doesn't really matter in general (for a whole bunch of logistics reasons). There are lots of DK mobs from wrath using outdated DK abilities or abilities that are no longer in the game. They don't cease to be DKs or do their abilities cease to be the ability so named because they aren't exactly the same as the current DK ones on the live patch.

[F Rm]

The RPG is non-canon

Okay, and?

I'm still gonna refer to that over anything that is nothing more than your personal view of what is or isn't a hunter.

An ability not being a direct 1:1 translation from WCIII being ipso facto, not the same ability is a fatally flawed argument that is doomed to collapse in on itself. Is metamorphosis a different ability to the WCIII one because it functions differently? Devo aura? Avatar? Flame strike? Storm Earth and Fire?

The actual design of an ability, at a specific time/point of a game's development is VERY much a valid argument as to whether an ability should still be considered the same as it was in the past(originally designed).

If you actually remove the partial elements of an ability which cater to for example the "death magic" which was brought up here, then by definition, it is NO LONGER an ability which is designed to revolve around the use of "death magic". Whether said ability still deals magical damage as a base function, or if it still has the same name, is irrelevant here. All that matters if it's design still fits the previous argument.

And in this case, it no longer does/did.

Further to that, you know Black arrow in WCIII doesn't just summon minions right? It also increases on-hit damage, you know like how black arrow was a damage amp in wrath?

Yes, I know. And? I never stated otherwise.

All I said was that the ability, as introduced in WotLK, dealt Shadow damage and was a damage amp for other abilities/attacks.

The argument that the MM version of the ability being closer to the WCIII is irrelevant is batshit insane. There is absolutely no reason why when one spec uses a spell it's not 'death magic' but when another spec uses the spell it suddenly wouldn't be. That means someone at blizzard at some point agrees they are the same spell.

It has less to do with the actual spec and more to do with how it was designed, when moved over to MM with Legion.

Honestly, stop trying to twist my words here.

To make it perfectly clear:

Black Arrow, it's design in Legion(when it was made part of the MM spec), was a closer fit to the original iteration we saw in WC3. Why? Because with Legion, they reintroduced the design element where the ability was themed around the concept of summoning/reanimating undead minions.

Black Arrow, it's design prior to Legion(when it was a part of RSV) only dealt Shadow damage as a base, and it originally was a damage amp + additional talents allowed it to have interaction with Explosive Shot. The latter effect was later made a baseline function. For RSV, the ability never summoned/reanimated undead minions.

Is this enough to show why they were different? And why that difference matters as to whether the original argument holds merit or not?

By the same token, you cannot agree the spell was added as a reference to sylvanas' spell from WCIII and then argue that because sylvanas is no longer a ranger she is no longer a hunter and that makes it a different spell.

You do know that Sylvanas never had/used Black Arrow before she stopped being a Ranger(Hunter)? She started using that ability when she became a Dark Ranger.
The ability Black Arrow, is not a reference to Sylvanas from the time when she was the Ranger-General of Silvermoon. It's a reference to Sylvanas from when she had become a Dark Ranger.

Those are two completely different versions of Sylvanas as a character in Lore/the game's history.

Why is the specific designer relevant at all to this discussion? The version of trueshot aura presently in the game likely wasn't added by the same person who added it in vanilla (or WCIII) does that make it not the same spell?

Ofc it matters...

If one person redesigns an ability for a class in WoW, he/she obviously had a specific reason for making said changes. If then, years later, another person redesigns that ability, once more, into something different from what the first person did, it changes the very foundation of what said ability means to the class.

Who designs the game, and why they make the changes they do/did matters A LOT.

My point about sylvanas using it in HoR as a stun was that the spell doesn't suddenly cease to be 'death magic' or indeed 'black arrow' because she didn't summon a minion with it.

Why is the partial element of a "stun effect" relevant here?

If you remove partial elements from an ability to the point where it no longer revolves around the use of "death magic", ofc it then ceases to...well, be about "death magic". Just because it still has the same name or even retains certain other elements of it's past design, this doesn't change the fact that the part of it that was catering to the theme of using "death magic", was removed once it was implemented into the Hunter class back in WotLK.

The exact version of a spell an npc is using just doesn't really matter in general (for a whole bunch of logistics reasons). There are lots of DK mobs from wrath using outdated DK abilities or abilities that are no longer in the game. They don't cease to be DKs or do their abilities cease to be the ability so named because they aren't exactly the same as the current DK ones on the live patch.

Again, the actual design of an ability matters a lot more than the name it holds.

Why? Because of the original argument in this discussion; "death magic".


Let's take another example here, one that is very much relevant to the discussion.

The Hunter spec that is "Survival".

Would you say that Survival and it's design nowadays, that it is still the same, or that it is about the same general theme as it was prior to Legion? It's still called "Survival"... But does it still amount to the same type of gameplay as it did prior to Legion? I would argue NO.

Again, design matters. Intent of design matters.

[Saltysquidoon]

Okay, and?

I'm still gonna refer to that over anything that is nothing more than your personal view of what is or isn't a hunter.

You realise that by stating that you are going to refer to a non-canon reference as a source you are essentially just relaying your personal view of what is or isn't a hunter yes? That's how canon and non-canon works.

Beyond that, I'm just going to briefly address two points because we can quibble over details till the end of time:
1. Stating you believe that if an ability is not a direct 1:1 copy of an ability from WCIII is not the same ability because they do not have a literally identical function (when that even isn't always possible based on how the two games work) while ignoring all of the surrounding contex which clearly shows they are supposed to be the same ability. Is a fundamentally fatally flawed foundation of an argument which is entirely unsustainable with even the smallest amount of reality testing (which is why I suspect you decided to try and talk around it).

2. You're missing the point about why I keep bringing up sylvanas. She is a banshee possessing her own corpse, ergo all her abilities are powered by 'death magic'. Whether something is powered by death magic or not is entirely based on the source the ability is drawing from not the outcome i.e. the summoning or not summoning of an undead minion is not the sole or even primary consideration (which again is only relevant if we're ignoring there was a player usable version of the spell that did). Unless you're trying to contend the ability is wholly unrelated to the dark ranger ability (which you're not) and blizzard essentially just picked the name at random (which they didn't) there simply isn't a chain of logic that leads to the conclusion they don't have the same source.

[F Rm]

You realise that by stating that you are going to refer to a non-canon reference as a source you are essentially just relaying your personal view of what is or isn't a hunter yes? That's how canon and non-canon works.

Okay, awesome, and what supports your argument of what is or isn't a hunter(as portrayed in this game)?

I did not specifically point to the RPG because it is "the RPG". I mentioned it because of what, based on lore and history in this game, makes for the very foundation of what hunters are about. Which is exactly what is described through the RPG.

Dark Rangers are the embodiment of the literal opposites to everything that hunters are.

Beyond that, I'm just going to briefly address two points because we can quibble over details till the end of time:

By all means, ignore the details in order for your arguments to have merit.

1. Stating you believe that if an ability is not a direct 1:1 copy of an ability from WCIII is not the same ability because they do not have a literally identical function (when that even isn't always possible based on how the two games work) while ignoring all of the surrounding contex which clearly shows they are supposed to be the same ability

This is where you're wrong.

They specifically redesigned them because parts of the original iteration did not fit the class. The parts that actually support the argument of how it was about using "death magic".

You can tap around this all you want. It doesn't change the fact of the original argument. You continue to add your own interpretations to it in order for it to fit. But it doesn't. Not anymore.

She is a banshee possessing her own corpse, ergo all her abilities are powered by 'death magic'. Whether something is powered by death magic or not is entirely based on the source the ability is drawing from

Again, this is your personal interpretation of the term: "death magic", and how it applies to the original argument.

And, it doesn't even support your argument because, apart from the Forsaken faction, no Hunters are actually undead/possessing their corpses...

(which again is only relevant if we're ignoring there was a player usable version of the spell that did

Yes, and again, that redesign was not made by the same person that originally put it into the game in WotLK.

The whole argument in the beginning was pointing at this and to how the ability made no sense for RSV because of the "death magic".

Another party changing it after the fact does nothing to support that original argument.

[F Rm]

Changed the design of the Mastery-effect included in this concept, in order for it to fit better with other elements of the design, such as the major cooldown: Rapid Fire.

New design:

Mastery Bonus: Neurotoxin

Black Arrow increases all damage you deal to the affected target by X%(based on your Mastery).

When Black Arrow is about to expire from an enemy, there's a X% chance that it's duration will instead reset back to full(also based on your Mastery).