The Dark Ranger: Does it have enough material to become a class?

[Teriz]

Too lazy to keep doing this quote thing.

1) Yes, Nathanos, all the Dark Rangers that use Black Arrow, etc.

When and where did Nathanos ever use mind control on someone? When did Nathanos ever display Banshee abilities?

2) Just like shooting simple non magical arrows, taming wild beasts, and utilizing traps and poisons is the same as summoning undead minions from corpses, shooting waves of death magic, sucking the life out of enemies(see Sylvanas AND WC3 Dark Rangers), etc. "Okay."

Except Hunters have Arcane, Chimera, and Binding shots, and formerly had Black Arrow. All of those are magical shots.

Also again, the abilities you're attributing to Dark Rangers have only been displayed by Sylvanas.

3) And Tinker abilities are nothing more than a few gadgets my SV hunter has, Engineering consumables, and a mount. And Dark Rangers are not that different than Sylvanas.

Really? Where's Pocket Factory, Rock-It-Turret, Deth Lazor, Robo-Goblin, and Gravity Bomb in the Survival spec?

4) Yes, it is my opinion it didn't fit. It was also their opinion because it no longer exists. If they did like it thematically, it'd still be there in some form. But they didn't. I'm 95% sure they talked about it when it was removed and MM was redone in BFA from the ground up.

So what if the ability returns to the Hunter class in the next expansion?

[Renley]

You mean those same Demon Hunter NPCs that had Rogue and Warlock abilities?



All of the ones that were similar to them were introduced in the same expansions that introduced the player class. Before that, you'd never see a Demon Hunter with horns and wings in elf form, or a Death Knight using Frost powers. Prior to the introduction expansions, all Demon Hunter NPCs had Rogue/Warlock abilities, all Death Knights NPCs had Warrior/Warlock abilities. Even Death Coil was a Warlock ability back then, mind you.

And you'd not see any Dark Ranger NPC with Banshee powers until the expansion that introduces that too. I mean, why show something that would be an obvious hint to the next class? They've never done that before, why would they do it now? We didn't get any Monk abilities on NPCs prior to Pandaria, and we never saw the DH tanking form exist before Legion. Wouldn't you think that we would have seen the DH Tanking form at least once on an NPC?

And 100% this.

[DotEleven]

Void too can resurrect vide Shadowmoon skeletal goons.

If we're talking the Shadowmoon clan (AU), it's a little interesting to not that it marks it as "using the void they can raise undead and call creatures of shadow" but then immediately turns to note "their nobility was sacrificed for Necromantic power"

Although, the reference being used to say they used the Void to raise undead doesn't actually mention using it to raise the undead.

Although, either way, both Main Univers and AU Shadowmoon Clans have been linked to Necromancy itself.

[Teriz]

You mean those same Demon Hunter NPCs that had Rogue and Warlock abilities?

Yep.

All of the ones that were similar to them were introduced in the same expansions that introduced the player class. Before that, you'd never see a Demon Hunter with horns and wings in elf form, or a Death Knight using Frost powers. Prior to the introduction expansions, all Demon Hunter NPCs had Rogue/Warlock abilities, all Death Knights NPCs had Warrior/Warlock abilities. Even Death Coil was a Warlock ability back then, mind you.

And you'd not see any Dark Ranger NPC with Banshee powers until the expansion that introduces that too. I mean, why show something that would be an obvious hint to the next class? They've never done that before, why would they do it now? We didn't get any Monk abilities on NPCs prior to Pandaria, and we never saw the DH tanking form exist before Legion. Wouldn't you think that we would have seen the DH Tanking form at least once on an NPC?

Yeah you're a little confused. Baron Rivendare for example was regarded as a Death Knight with Necromantic abilities before WotLK. If he was like Nathanos, he'd just be a warrior who wears black armor.

[DotEleven]

There is more to Dark Rangers then just that, per the Wiki/game/Sylvanas/Nathanos/other named Dark Rangers.

But also:

Warriors are about running into battle, swinging their big weapon, inspiring others, while remaining sturdy and safe in heavy plate.

Paladins are about running into battle, swinging their big weapon, inspiring others, while remaining sturdy and safe in heavy plate, using the Light.

You can break the classes down like this if you want, but it doesn't make it accurate at all levels. Dark Rangers are as much Hunters, as Paladins are Warriors.

It's really not. Like I said the lore literally talks about how she's still using her ranger training, just altered. I mean, if a Paladin still leapt in, using Bladestorm and crushing their opponents armor in feats of massive martial prowess like a Warrior did, while using the light, I'd be with you.

But when Dark Ranger lore literally says "Ranger training, but with necromantic abilities" I don't get how that can be argued against.

[Renley]

All Blizzard has to do is take what Sylvanas has become, what Nathanos is doing with his squad of Dark Rangers/archers, sprinkle in Shadowlands expansion, and boom, you have exactly everything you need to make a death-themed archer/duelist using new spells pulled from Sylvanas and other sources. Regardless of existence of previous Dark Rangers. It's not hard to imagine. They did it with DH and DK, creating new specs, abilities, themes, etc, that never existed for those classes until they became classes in WoW. Just like they can do it for Tinkers, Necromancers, etc.

[Selah]

Maybe, depends on how Blizzard wants to approach the subject. I think with the DH class Blizzard proved that if they choose to make a new class that they'll knock it out of the park as far as making it stand on it's own two legs as a class. I personally think it'd make a great addition as a fourth spec.

[Triceron]

Yeah you're a little confused. Baron Rivendare for example was regarded as a Death Knight with Necromantic abilities before WotLK. If he was like Nathanos, he'd just be a warrior who wears black armor.

Which goes to say - Our Player Characters are nothing like NPCs, and using them as an example of Player Classes is a fallacy

Thanks for proving that point.

Death Knights are well beyond Baron Rivendare's 'Forsaken Warrior with some magic' roots. I mean, if we were using Baron Rivendare as an example, I'm sure you'd be all over the 'Why can't Warriors just get a Necromantic abilities spec?' suggestions.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[Fetus Rex]

If we're talking the Shadowmoon clan (AU), it's a little interesting to not that it marks it as "using the void they can raise undead and call creatures of shadow" but then immediately turns to note "their nobility was sacrificed for Necromantic power"

Although, the reference being used to say they used the Void to raise undead doesn't actually mention using it to raise the undead.

Although, either way, both Main Univers and AU Shadowmoon Clans have been linked to Necromancy itself.

Which can be apparently achieved through void and death magic.

[DotEleven]

All Blizzard has to do is take what Sylvanas has become, what Nathanos is doing with his squad of Dark Rangers/archers, sprinkle in Shadowlands expansion, and boom, you have exactly everything you need to make a death-themed archer/duelist using new spells pulled from Sylvanas and other sources. Regardless of existence of previous Dark Rangers. It's not hard to imagine. They did it with DH and DK, creating new specs, abilities, themes, etc, that never existed for those classes until they became classes in WoW. Just like they can do it for Tinkers, Necromancers, etc.

But the whole thing is, the demon hunter and dk didn't have a pre-existing class that fit in the same niche like Dark Rangers do. That's pretty much why although I've never stated it can't happen, it's just, why would they? If you had the ability to, why would you create an entire class when it already fits quite tidily in something already in the game? Although, even there I have my reservations. Even as a 4th hunter spec it means a 4th dps spec for them as well, which would also be the 6th mail dps spec, more than likely the 4th mail ranged dps spec. And all of these issues still happen even if they somehow made it a class, except even more exaggerated because you'd have multiple specs, so we'd have anywhere from 6-8 mail DPS specs and 1 non-dps mail spec. And lord help me if they did it and made it ANOTHER leather class.

[Teriz]

Which goes to say - Our Player Characters are nothing like NPCs, and using them as an example of Player Classes is a fallacy

Thanks for proving that point.

Death Knights are well beyond Baron Rivendare's 'Forsaken Warrior with some magic' roots. I mean, if we were using Baron Rivendare as an example, I'm sure you'd be all over the 'Why can't Warriors just get a Necromantic abilities spec?' suggestions.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Again you miss the point. Rivendare was a proof of concept of an undead warrior with necromantic abilities. Thus proving that there could be multiple Death Knights with necromantic abilities just like arthas/Lich King.

We have yet to see a single example of a non-Sylvanas Dark Ranger with banshee abilities. Let me know when you find one.

[Triceron]

Again you miss the point. Rivendare was a proof of concept of an undead warrior with necromantic abilities. Thus proving that there could be multiple Death Knights with necromantic abilities just like arthas/Lich King.

We have yet to see a single example of a non-Sylvanas Dark Ranger with banshee abilities. Let me know when you find one.

Except he wasn't.

The Death Knights we have are beyond simply having Necromantic abilities. We have Frost and Blood as well. This creates the identity of a fully playable class that is rich and full of its own themes, an argument that you can't just apply to any existing class.

Having Unholy alone opens up the simple preface you have right now - Why can't this be a Warrior spec. And inversely, without Blizzard's own lore to define the Death Knight class, any fan suggestion would seem out of place.

If I were to suggest giving Death Knights Frost spells, for example, then your argument would be 'Why would Death Knights use Frost? No other Death Knight NPC has this ability'.

In effect, you have a fallacy of confirming what is only seen, rather than applied knowledge of what would actually happen. You can't see the Forest for the Trees. You aren't regarding Classes as fully developed concepts, rather you're picking apart everything in its own little bubble. 'This gameplay already exists on this other class' 'This ability doesn't exist on NPCs' 'This theme is the exact same as this other theme'. But nowhere do you actually address the actual identity of the Dark Ranger as a class.

I don't think you're honestly that naive, but I do think you are using an ignorant, dismissive argument for the sake of arguing.

Honestly, I don't even know why, considering you fully know well you don't have a convincing argument. There's nothing substantially agreeable about any of the points you bring up. They're baseless and full of nonsense. It's the point where you're actually swaying people against your ideas, on the basis that they're so easily debunked and sometimes, outright ridiculous.

This thread has grown from 1 person replying to you how you're wrong, to at least 5-6 people doing so. And that's kind of the sad thing about this - If it were an opinion you're presenting, I'd be happy to agree to disagree. But instead of providing opinions, you're trying to back it up with 'facts' that simply aren't true, like a Player Class' gameplay being based on NPCs.

[Kagdar]

Then how is it different gameplay wise than shadow magic?

What's the gameplay difference between one handed mace and one handed axes. There is none. They are just tools to attack your enemies with.
The theme of a class doesn't determine the gameplay of the spec/class.

It's been told to you countless of times in this thread and you still don't understand this. Or you just don't want to understand this because acknowledging that is true would just mean we are correct in thinking DR are a possibility.

[Teriz]

Except he wasn't.

The Death Knights we have are beyond simply having Necromantic abilities. We have Frost and Blood as well. This creates the identity of a fully playable class that is rich and full of its own themes, an argument that you can't just apply to any existing class.

Having Unholy alone opens up the simple preface you have right now - Why can't this be a Warrior spec. And inversely, without Blizzard's own lore to define the Death Knight class, any fan suggestion would seem out of place.

Nonsense. It can't be a warrior spec because warriors don't use magic. Rivendare had multiple shadow abilities, including Unholy Aura, which was a DK ability from WC3.

If I were to suggest giving Death Knights Frost spells, for example, then your argument would be 'Why would Death Knights use Frost? No other Death Knight NPC has this ability'.

More nonsense. The Lich King is shown surrounded by ice and frost at multiple points during and after TFT, so Frost would make sense, especially since it is connected to Lichs.

In effect, you have a fallacy of confirming what is only seen, rather than applied knowledge of what would actually happen. You can't see the Forest for the Trees. You aren't regarding Classes as fully developed concepts, rather you're picking apart everything in its own little bubble. 'This gameplay already exists on this other class' 'This ability doesn't exist on NPCs' 'This theme is the exact same as this other theme'. But nowhere do you actually address the actual identity of the Dark Ranger as a class.

I don't think you're honestly that naive, but I do think you are using an ignorant, dismissive argument for the sake of arguing.

Honestly, I don't even know why, considering you fully know well you don't have a convincing argument. There's nothing substantially agreeable about any of the points you bring up. They're baseless and full of nonsense. It's the point where you're actually swaying people against your ideas, on the basis that they're so easily debunked and sometimes, outright ridiculous.

This thread has grown from 1 person replying to you how you're wrong, to at least 5-6 people doing so. And that's kind of the sad thing about this - If it were an opinion you're presenting, I'd be happy to agree to disagree. But instead of providing opinions, you're trying to back it up with 'facts' that simply aren't true, like a Player Class' gameplay being based on NPCs.

Yeah, which was never my argument. My argument has always been that Sylvanas is a one and done deal, unlike Arthas or Illidan who were shown before WotLK or Legion that they were capable of reproducing Death Knights and Demon Hunters similar to themselves. Sylvanas has never demonstrated that ability. She has raised undead Hunters which have at best shadow-based shots and arrows. That's a problem with the Dark Ranger concept that Blizzard will need to address if they ever decide to make Dark Rangers into a class.

Anyways, feel free to have the last word.

[Triceron]

Nonsense. It can't be a warrior spec because warriors don't use magic.

Using a terrible argument I would say - "But we have Forsaken with Necromantic abilities as Warriors. Surely, Baron Rivendare could have been an extension of that."

More nonsense. The Lich King is shown surrounded by ice and frost at multiple points during and after TFT, so Frost would make sense, especially since it is connected to Lichs.

Using your own argument, that's something on the Lich King has been shown to do. Why would other Death Knights have it when there's no Death Knight NPC using Frost magic?

Same applies with Sylvanas having crazy Banshee powers, and now using even crazier Death magic.

Yeah, which was never my argument. My argument has always been that Sylvanas is a one and done deal, unlike Arthas or Illidan

But it's just like Arthas and Illidan. Like I said, no other DK used Frost, no other DH had horns and wings. And here we are with Player Classes that mirror the one and done deal Heroes.

The funny thing about this all is - They never even had to give Sylvanas crazy banshee powers. There was no precedent for it. It never appeared in anywhere prior to BFA's opening cinematic, and it's carried through the entire expansion. Now that they've shown it, it opens the same 'Whoa this is cool!' aspects that will make lots of players want to play a class that does that. Same with showing Arthas using frost magic and raising Sindragosa from the dead; that's a huge draw for getting players accustomed to the idea of DK's using Frost magic.

Anyways, feel free to have the last word.

lol, you said you were done for the month and you still came back. But at least you've realized what I said. This whole thread kinda backfired, best to leave before you convince more people how Dark Rangers can work.

[Teriz]

What's the gameplay difference between one handed mace and one handed axes. There is none. They are just tools to attack your enemies with.
The theme of a class doesn't determine the gameplay of the spec/class.

It's been told to you countless of times in this thread and you still don't understand this. Or you just don't want to understand this because acknowledging that is true would just mean we are correct in thinking DR are a possibility.

So in other words, there's no difference gameplay wise with Void magic and Shadow magic.

Okay, at least we got that cleared up.

[Kagdar]

So in other words, there's no difference gameplay wise with Void magic and Shadow magic.

Okay, at least we got that cleared up.

Still doesn't prevent a new class that has a Void theme from integrating new gameplay.

[Katchii]

So we should create an entirely new class with a spec that is based around something that Rogues can already do? Again, let's remember that you're advocating for a class that has a DW melee spec that uses "shadow blades",when we already have three classes that have DW melee specs that utilize Shadow magic of some type.

I'm not advocating for a new class, simply saying that it's possible to have classes with similar themes and some overlap as long as their game play and mechanics are different enough.

I never said it was.

You insinuated that it was when you said giving Hunters Black Arrow back would be enough to call them Dark Rangers.

With that said, let's make it a theme: What's wrong with MM Hunters simply getting Black Arrow as a passive, Shadow Dagger, Withering Fire, and Wailing Arrow either as talents or as abilities? None of that breaks the MM Hunter thematic, and it is the HotS Silvanas abilities, thus they are Dark Ranger abilities.

This is different than what you said before, and is better but you're still adding this to a class that already has an established theme and lore as not being magic oriented and really goes against what a Dark Ranger represents.

HotS and WoW are different games and therefore the class mechanics and game play in WoW will need to be much more fleshed out than what a HotS character has. Giving some additional themed abilities to an existing class isn't really enough, though I suppose you could make a spec out of it, but IMO there's plenty of material to draw from to warrant a new class. As I said above, having some overlap doesn't automatically exclude the class as an option.

You seem to keep falling back to that and the game clearly proves otherwise with the classes that are already implemented.

At this point it just feels like you're being deliberately obtuse, because as your class concepts show you're clearly capable of imagination when it comes to class design and mechanics. You're not "unable" to think of ways to make Dark Ranger viable, you're unwilling.

- - - Updated - - -

So in other words, there's no difference gameplay wise with Void magic and Shadow magic.

Okay, at least we got that cleared up.

There's no difference game play wise between any school of magic. The difference is in the mechanics and overall theme. Stop ignoring shit that's been said at least dozens of times in this very thread in just the last few pages.

[Triceron]

Which can be apparently achieved through void and death magic.

I think it's interesting that over the years, we've been given a lot of different sources of Necromancy.

The term seems to just relate to any type of undead-related reanimation or ressurection.

We have it listed as Arcane in Dalaran. We have it being sourced by Void magic in Alternate Universe Shadowmoon. We have Blood Trolls sourcing it from an experimental Old God. We have the Drust and whatever means of magic they use, which seems to be tied to nature somehow. We even have Alchemy able to ressurect the dead, like the Plagues in the Plagueland.

I don't think Necromancy is limited to simple Shadow and Death magic.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote Originally Posted by Teriz
So in other words, there's no difference gameplay wise with Void magic and Shadow magic.

Okay, at least we got that cleared up.

At this point it just feels like you're being deliberately obtuse, because as your class concepts show you're clearly capable of imagination when it comes to class design and mechanics. You're not "unable" to think of ways to make Dark Ranger viable, you're unwilling.

Well said. I think this illustrates his bias against the Dark Ranger.

[Fetus Rex]

I think it's interesting that over the years, we've been given a lot of different sources of Necromancy.

The term seems to just relate to any type of undead-related reanimation or ressurection.

We have it listed as Arcane in Dalaran. We have it being sourced by Void magic in Alternate Universe Shadowmoon. We have Blood Trolls sourcing it from an experimental Old God. We have the Drust and whatever means of magic they use, which seems to be tied to nature somehow. We even have Alchemy able to ressurect the dead, like the Plagues in the Plagueland.

I don't think Necromancy is limited to simple Shadow and Death magic.

- - - Updated - - -





Well said. I think this illustrates his bias against the Dark Ranger.

I agree. Necromancy has many mothers.