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

[Triceron]

Well that's another issue; Only Sylvanas has demonstrated shadow projection abilities. Other Dark Rangers are just Forsaken MM Hunters.

But its pretty clear they aren't since you once advocate them having a separate spec. So are they MM hunters or a separate hunter spec?

[threads]

one thing I notice after the war campaign, Sylvanas goes to the ghostlands where she walks around the spire that is surrounded with a lot of banshees called fallen rangers. maybe a clue that a dark ranger class will actually be former banshees like sylvanas.

another hint by alleria during the campaign, she randomly tells the faction leaders that only sylvanas has an army that can fight what's coming.

[Teriz]

just saying, anything can be overgeneralized if you try hard enough.

There's a difference between over generalized and pretending that two completely different things are the same.

- - - Updated - - -

But its pretty clear they aren't since you once advocate them having a separate spec. So are they MM hunters or a separate hunter spec?

What are you talking about?

[qwerty123456]

No, I understand it perfectly. What I'm saying to you is that a Portal is not a destructible object, and imps are robotic goblins. Additionally, Clockwerk Goblins are mechanical and melee, while Imps are Demonic and ranged.



Well no, because a vehicle is not the same as a Bear or cat. For example, a Tinker mech could self destruct, or the pilot could park and eject from his parked vehicle. You can't do that with Druid forms.



Cluster Rocket could lose its stun for balance purposes, but you don't "win" because of that. Your argument is that non-related abilities are in fact Cluster Rocket's replacement. In reality, Cluster Rocket is an already existing ability in the game that doesn't exist in Engineering or in the Goblin Racial.



Tinkers are engineers.

I dont think you realize my whole point was that you continually say spells somewhat related to dark ranger skills or skills named the same but different are reasons why dark rangers can't exist and then I do the same with tinkers and you come up with all these convoluted excuses to prove why you are right. And where did it ever say that Robo-goblin is a vehicle?

Also the very fact you admit that tinkers are related to engineers and engineering exists in the game means by your own dismissal of Dark Rangers that Tinkers shouldn't be playable as you can already create and play an engineer which is athousand times closer to a Tinker than a hunter is to a dark ranger. And just because an Engineer in a totally different game and who was originally a named sapper has a certain skills does not mean they would be related to the Tinker class. You keep throwing shit together to hope it sticks which is why people obsessed with the tinker have had them piloting mechs as a spec, using bombs as a spec, healing stuff as a spec, ghost busting as a spec, having an alchemy spec, and a thousand other potential specs. They even toss them in mail armor to add another mail user but when you actually look at every tinker in game and in books, etc mail is one of if not the least used armor class for them.

I'm fine with playing around and making your own class concept off of 4 skills but when someone does that and completely dismisses any other possible class because they are obsessed with their own idea is when I go and call them out on their bullshit.

[Teriz]

I dont think you realize my whole point was that you continually say spells somewhat related to dark ranger skills or skills named the same but different are reasons why dark rangers can't exist and then I do the same with tinkers and you come up with all these convoluted excuses to prove why you are right. And where did it ever say that Robo-goblin is a vehicle?

Except the Dark Ranger spells I mentioned aren't somewhat related. They're actually the same spells. Hunter's Black Arrow in Legion was pretty much the same spell as Dark Ranger's Black Arrow. The Warlock's Drain Life ability is the Dark Ranger's Drain Life ability. The Priest's Silence ability is the Dark Ranger's Silence ability.

The only deviation from that is the Charm ability. Charm appears to have been split among the classes into the Control abilities seen in Death Knights and Priests (Control Undead, Control Mind), but it does the exact same thing Charm would do.

That is a far cry from your ridiculous approximations such as comparing Wild Imps to Pocket Factory, or comparing Avatar to Robo-Goblin. Those abilities don't have the same name, graphic, purpose, or function.

As for Robo-Goblin being a vehicle, that's exactly what it is in WC3;




So why wouldn't it be in WoW?

Also the very fact you admit that tinkers are related to engineers and engineering exists in the game means by your own dismissal of Dark Rangers that Tinkers shouldn't be playable as you can already create and play an engineer which is athousand times closer to a Tinker than a hunter is to a dark ranger. And just because an Engineer in a totally different game and who was originally a named sapper has a certain skills does not mean they would be related to the Tinker class. You keep throwing shit together to hope it sticks which is why people obsessed with the tinker have had them piloting mechs as a spec, using bombs as a spec, healing stuff as a spec, ghost busting as a spec, having an alchemy spec, and a thousand other potential specs. They even toss them in mail armor to add another mail user but when you actually look at every tinker in game and in books, etc mail is one of if not the least used armor class for them.

Another silly comment from you. The engineering profession is not even in the same league as a possible class, nor does it contain abilities but items instead. You know this, so to argue that a profession is any proximation to a class borders on trolling. None of the Tinker's abilities exist as items in the profession. The profession does not provide the necessary gameplay to support the Tinker fantasy. You will NEVER be able to tank, heal, or DPS for a group using solely the Engineering profession's items.

On the other hand, if you look at the Dark Ranger NPCs outside of Sylvanas, I challenge you to find an ability that would be out of place in the Hunter class. I doubt you'd find one. You could even add the majority of Sylvanas' HotS abilities to the Hunter class without a problem. Again, Hunters had shadow abilities for almost a decade, so getting something like Wailing Arrow or Shadow Dagger wouldn't be out of line. There is no class in WoW that can house the WC3 or HotS abilities of the Tinker.

As for Gazlowe, I didn't make him into a Tinker avatar, Blizzard did in HotS. They reinforced that connection by giving Gazlowe his HotS abilities in WoW via the Island Expeditions. Gazlowe pilots a mech in WoW. Gazlowe uses bombs in WoW. One of Gazlowe's underlings summons a healbot, and he too has the Tinker's abilities from HotS in WoW. So why wouldn't we connect the Tinker to those abilities? Blizzard has already given HotS abilities to a few classes in the game, and the Demon Hunter's incarnation in WoW was largely based on its HotS incarnation. So why wouldn't we use WC3 and HotS to construct a WoW Tinker when WC3 and HotS was used to construct the Death Knight, Monk, and Demon Hunter classes?

I'm fine with playing around and making your own class concept off of 4 skills but when someone does that and completely dismisses any other possible class because they are obsessed with their own idea is when I go and call them out on their bullshit.

Yeah, except we're basing the Tinker class off of 15 skills (Pocket Factory, Cluster Rocket, Engineering Upgrade, Robo-Goblin, Xplodium Charge, Rock-it Turret, Deth Lazor, Gravity Bomb, Salvager, Robot-Shield, Self Destruct, Healbot, Skyfall, Flamethrower, Turbocharged) from WC3, HotS and WoW.

Also I never completely dismissed the Dark Ranger class. I wouldn't be surprised if they are in fact the next class given that Blizzard seems obsessed with Sylvanas. I'm simply saying that given what they bring to the table, they seem to be a pretty shallow choice that could easily be replicated into an existing class.

Hell, I'll go so far as to say that they may be even worse than the Demon Hunter.

[Ielenia]

No, I'm simply asking how Shadow Word: Pain is different than Agony?



No, I'm asking how is a Destro Warlock's fire spell is different than a Mage's fire spell.

Both your questions show how terribly you lack understanding regarding class design. I'll repeat what I said in my previous post:

Teriz, what makes two classes, or even just two specs, have different gameplay from one-another is not just "one thing". It's a combination of many different factors: it's the character theme, character concept, mechanics, passives, active abilities, mastery, interaction between active and passive abilities, spec role, etc.

Picking apart specific abilities doesn't work like you think it does. How is Flash of Light different than Flash Heal? How is Resurrection different than Redemption?

And worst thing is: you don't realize that no matter the answer given to your questions, regardless if they say they're different or the same, it still backfires heavily on you. Because even if the spells are similar, or even the same, it shows that this is not a deterrent to have both versions in different classes.

[Teriz]

Both your questions show how terribly you lack understanding regarding class design. I'll repeat what I said in my previous post:

Teriz, what makes two classes, or even just two specs, have different gameplay from one-another is not just "one thing". It's a combination of many different factors: it's the character theme, character concept, mechanics, passives, active abilities, mastery, interaction between active and passive abilities, spec role, etc.

Picking apart specific abilities doesn't work like you think it does. How is Flash of Light different than Flash Heal? How is Resurrection different than Redemption?

And worst thing is: you don't realize that no matter the answer given to your questions, regardless if they say they're different or the same, it still backfires heavily on you. Because even if the spells are similar, or even the same, it shows that this is not a deterrent to have both versions in different classes.

You're forgetting that we have 3 reference points for Dark Rangers:

1. The Dark Ranger from WC3
2. Sylvanas from HotS
3. Dark Rangers in WoW

In those three reference points, nothing really stands out from what's currently in the class lineup. Further, the majority of the established abilities will fit just fine within the Hunter class, with a couple of abilities looking like something out of the Shadow Priest spec. The Shadow Priest style abilities also seem to be confined to just Sylvanas herself.

That's really my point; This concept really isn't bringing anything new to the table. At worst, its just a Hunter with a few shadow abilities. Like I said earlier; We can just give MM Hunters a few new talents (Wailing Arrow, Black Arrow, and maybe Shadow Dagger) and we'd have a Dark Ranger.

[Nohara]

Probably mentioned before (a lot), but wouldn’t DR make more sense as an Allied Race rather than a class? Some of you probably won’t agree, but I’d toss Survival spec for Ranger spec, and have a race specific DR ‘skin’ on it. Hunter, Rogue and perhaps Warlock (also with skins, replace demons with wights and banshees) as playable classes.

[Teriz]

Probably mentioned before (a lot), but wouldn’t DR make more sense as an Allied Race rather than a class? Some of you probably won’t agree, but I’d toss Survival spec for Ranger spec, and have a race specific DR ‘skin’ on it. Hunter, Rogue and perhaps Warlock (also with skins, replace demons with wights and banshees) as playable classes.

Thing is, Survival is already considered a Ranger.

Per Blizzard:

Survival
An adaptive ranger who favors using explosives, animal venom, and coordinated attacks with their bonded beast. Preferred Weapon: Polearm, Staff

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...unter/survival

[Baconeggcheese]

They could really make any class work, it doesn't matter if it'd seem redundant with the current lineup. Generally speaking they just strip the current classes of the abilities that were inspired by the WC3 / previous games versions of those classes. Like I've played warlock for quite some time now and we lost death coil to DK's, the entire demonology spec was based heavily off of demon hunters and they just completely reworked the spec from the ground up so they could give demonhunters those spells.

Just a matter of whether or not they want to go that route, though I'm honestly at this point where I feel like they should make I don't know... sub classes / specs(?) that are just different aesthetic versions of the current classes as there's already plenty and the game absolutely doesn't need more. They already have too many specs to keep them all relevant.

[Ielenia]

You're forgetting that we have 3 reference points for Dark Rangers:

1. The Dark Ranger from WC3
2. Sylvanas from HotS
3. Dark Rangers in WoW

In those three reference points, nothing really stands out from what's currently in the class lineup. Further, the majority of the established abilities will fit just fine within the Hunter class, with a couple of abilities looking like something out of the Shadow Priest spec. The Shadow Priest style abilities also seem to be confined to just Sylvanas herself.

That's really my point; This concept really isn't bringing anything new to the table. At worst, its just a Hunter with a few shadow abilities. Like I said earlier; We can just give MM Hunters a few new talents (Wailing Arrow, Black Arrow, and maybe Shadow Dagger) and we'd have a Dark Ranger.

I'm not "forgetting" anything. I know full well of those. I, however, know that if Blizzard decides to add the dark ranger as a playable class, using those three "reference points" you mentioned, then they will expand on them and make them different, gameplay-wise, from what we currently have in the line-up.

Before Wrath, death knights were just "warriors with warlock abilities", but then Blizzard expanded on the concept to add blood magic and frost magic into the mix.

Dark Rangers have more going for themselves, concept-wise, right now in Warcraft than death knights, monks and demon hunters ever had prior to their implementation.

But the point is, Teriz:

• "X ability already exists in another class" is not a strong argument, because classes gain but also lose abilities from time to time, even to other classes.
• "X ability is too similar to another ability currently in the game" is also not a strong argument, for two reasons:
  • Plenty of classes already share heavily similar abilities, in a vacuum. Flash of Light and Holy Light, for example.
  • Blizzard can alter either ability's functionality to make them less similar. Evasion and Blur, for example.
• "Your class is just X class with Y class abilities" is, unsurprisingly, not a strong argument either. Paladins are just "warriors with priest abilities", for example.

- - - Updated - - -

Thing is, Survival is already considered a Ranger.

Per Blizzard:



https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...unter/survival

Shaman: https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...culator#shaman

"A totemic warrior who strikes foes with weapons imbued with elemental power."

So, warriors shouldn't be a class, then?

Or, perhaps, the word 'ranger' is being used just like the word 'warrior', as a generic descriptor? Either way, your argument doesn't work.

[F Rm]

I mean, the thing is, Undead Hunters basically are Dark Rangers in all but name. If you take a hunter, kill them, resurrect them, ta-da you have the makings of a Dark Ranger because the way it is is that the Ranger portion of the Dark Ranger is taught, but the Necromantic part is obtained from the resurrection. Yeah, they might need to be taught a little, but basically the pieces are there.

Yes, and still...

You would have the restriction of Dark Rangers being tied to a single sub-faction/race, that is the Forsaken.
You still have the restriction of anyone who wants to be a Dark Ranger, also has to become Undead.
You also have the fact that no living hunters would ever want to abandon their very core essence and teachings in favor of something so unnatural to them as the practice of unholy magic.

If they ever wanted to add more specs to classes (kind of like how Druids have 4...) they could make dark ranger a rogue or hunter spec.

No matter my standpoint when it comes to whether if the Dark Ranger fantasy fits the Hunter class or not.


Before suggestions such as that are even put on the table. As far as 4th spec options go, they should give us back the old ranged Survival spec with a theme/fantasy focusing on poisons, venoms and explosives.
The spec that was actually taken away from us.

-A lot of players liked that spec very much.
-It's intended fantasy/theme fit the general class fantasy so well.
-And in todays WoW, it could easily be designed to provide the class with additional strengths that it's currently lacking.
-It could also be designed to have a clear identity of it's own.

(Want specifics? Check my signature below)

[Teriz]

I'm not "forgetting" anything. I know full well of those. I, however, know that if Blizzard decides to add the dark ranger as a playable class, using those three "reference points" you mentioned, then they will expand on them and make them different, gameplay-wise, from what we currently have in the line-up.

But hasn't that concept already been expanded across multiple classes? For example, Priests expanded on the Banshee concept (Silence, Possession) and Hunters expanded on the magical Archer/Ranger concept (Magical arrows, traps, glaives, explosives, throwing weapons, venom, animals, etc).

Before Wrath, death knights were just "warriors with warlock abilities", but then Blizzard expanded on the concept to add blood magic and frost magic into the mix.

Which worked out because there wasn't a necromancer style class in the game at that time. Thus the Death Knight had plenty of room to fill that design space. The Blood and Frost aspects of the Death Knight came directly from the Undead/Necromancy faction of WC3.

Dark Rangers have more going for themselves, concept-wise, right now in Warcraft than death knights, monks and demon hunters ever had prior to their implementation.

I disagree completely. Again, when Death Knights entered the game, there was no Necromancer class. For Monks, the Brewmaster concept was unused by any class, and there was no unarmed martial arts class in the game. Once metamorphosis was taken from Warlocks, Demon Hunters had a small, yet solid space to move into, since no other class ever utilized Demonic melee, and the Demon Hunter had fairly solid and reliable characteristics attached to it.

With the Dark Ranger, we have to attach outside aspects in order to make it work, and not make it a Hunter clone. For example, we need Wardens to give it a viable melee spec. We need to give it a Banshee spec in order to make it feel like something different. That's a very problematic, because it means that the Dark Ranger concept on the foundational level does not stand on its own even as a 2-spec concept.

But the point is, Teriz:

• "X ability already exists in another class" is not a strong argument, because classes gain but also lose abilities from time to time, even to other classes.
• "X ability is too similar to another ability currently in the game" is also not a strong argument, for two reasons:
  • Plenty of classes already share heavily similar abilities, in a vacuum. Flash of Light and Holy Light, for example.
  • Blizzard can alter either ability's functionality to make them less similar. Evasion and Blur, for example.
• "Your class is just X class with Y class abilities" is, unsurprisingly, not a strong argument either. Paladins are just "warriors with priest abilities", for example.

The difference is that Warriors never had Priest abilities. Hunters had Black Arrow for a very long time. Warlocks and Priests still have Dark Ranger abilities. If we have to extensively mine other classes for abilities to make a new class work, should we bother with this new class, or just attach it to an existing class?

Shaman: https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...culator#shaman

"A totemic warrior who strikes foes with weapons imbued with elemental power."

So, warriors shouldn't be a class, then?

Or, perhaps, the word 'ranger' is being used just like the word 'warrior', as a generic descriptor? Either way, your argument doesn't work.

The argument was that the Survival spec should be changed into a "Ranger" spec. I think the argument that Survival is already considered a "ranger" works just fine.

[Swnem]

Fuck tinkers that shit would be tripe gimme dark rangers, Honestly I think a tinker class would be boring as fuck I have ZERO interest in that shit like I've still never rolled a monk because I have ZERO interest in that shit we want a purely ranged new hero class not another piece of shit melee piece of garbage.

And i rolled no demon hunter cause i'm not interested in the weeb stuff. It took me years to even try Death Knight.

Shocking but different people have different tastes and we've had 2 edgy classes and 1 traditional class. It's time for another one. Hunters with some purple animations won't get me to play the next expac very much. So, touché.

Also, as usual Tinker haters have no idea about what Tinkers can do. In short, melee tank spec, ranged DPS and ranged healer. A melee dps spec could be made but if you even bothered to look during island expeditions, you'd notice it's a ranged DPS spec. Oops? You'd think the gun gave it away.

[Teriz]

Yeah, because demon hunters are just melee warlocks, or hunters with warglaives and fel

Well no, because Warlocks do what Demon Hunters don't/can't do, and vice versa.

Monks are just kung fu rogues

Death Knights are just warriors with death magic

Enhancement shaman are just warriors with elemental magic

Paladins are just warriors with holy magic

The difference is that Warriors have never used Death, Elemental, or Holy magic at any point in WoW's history.

Hunters have utilized Shadow magic on multiple occasions.

If we were to make the same comparison with tinkers JUST being gnomish beastmaster hunters with mechanical pets and engineering you'd throw a tantrum despite it being true if we boil it down enough.

Hardly. I would merely point out for the millionth time that Tinkers aren't a pet class, and Hunters don't pilot mechs into combat.

And what is Sylvanas? THE QUINTESSENTIAL dark ranger, if you can pull from Gelbin and Gazlowe or even fucking WC3 abilities like they mean anything, and say they have all these things that tinkers would also have, then for all intents and purposes a dark ranger class would have the same as Sylvanas.

I'm pulling WC3 abilities because every expansion class (Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters) have their WC3 abilities as their foundation. Why wouldn't the same apply to a Tinker class?

The Sylvanas example is a different one entirely. Blizzard themselves have established that Sylvanas is one of a kind, and that 99% of Dark Rangers DO NOT have her abilities. That remaining 1% is Sylvanas herself. So in short, what appeals to you is Sylvanas Windrunner, not the Dark Ranger class in of itself.

And your point is terrible, if it brings nothing new to the table I'd love you to point me to a class that fulfills the fantasy of being a dark ranger, WITHOUT being obtuse and listing forsaken hunters, you can't because nothing exists in the game that let's players truly be dark rangers, so they'd absolutely bring something new to the table. Additionally if we're just adding black arrow and shadow dagger to a MM hunter we're leaving out a lot of what dark rangers have been portrayed as.

So if we're trying to be a Dark Ranger like Nathanos, why wouldn't the simple reintroduction of Black Arrow Wailing Arrow, and Shadow Dagger into the MM Hunter spec make us Dark Rangers? Just curious.

[Ielenia]

But hasn't that concept already been expanded across multiple classes? For example, Priests expanded on the Banshee concept (Silence, Possession) and Hunters expanded on the magical Archer/Ranger concept (Magical arrows, traps, glaives, explosives, throwing weapons, venom, animals, etc).

No. Not at all. Because the shadow priest encompasses the void caster aspect, and the hunters encompass the wilderness hero. Hunters don't have the monopoly of ranged weapons, nor they should.

You can make another class that wields ranged weaponry. Could some of those abilities be given to the hunter instead? They could. But it doesn't mean they should. Many of the Mistweaver monk's healing abilities could have easily been given to the Restoration shaman. Many of the Holy paladin's abilities could have been given to the Holy priest and vice-versa. Many of the Destruction warlock's abilities could have been given to the Fire mage, and vice-versa. Many of the Frost death knight's abilities could have been given to the Frost mage, etc, etc, etc...

Which worked out because there wasn't a necromancer style class in the game at that time. Thus the Death Knight had plenty of room to fill that design space. The Blood and Frost aspects of the Death Knight came directly from the Undead/Necromancy faction of WC3.

Frost did not fit the death knight since the WC3 unit had no frost abilities, and a lich is not a death knight. To say it 'fits' just because both are undead is like saying paladins should have arcane magic because the Humans in WC3 had mages and paladins.

I disagree completely. Again, when Death Knights entered the game, there was no Necromancer class. For Monks, the Brewmaster concept was unused by any class, and there was no unarmed martial arts class in the game. Once metamorphosis was taken from Warlocks, Demon Hunters had a small, yet solid space to move into, since no other class ever utilized Demonic melee, and the Demon Hunter had fairly solid and reliable characteristics attached to it.

With the Dark Ranger, we have to attach outside aspects in order to make it work, and not make it a Hunter clone. For example, we need Wardens to give it a viable melee spec. We need to give it a Banshee spec in order to make it feel like something different. That's a very problematic, because it means that the Dark Ranger concept on the foundational level does not stand on its own even as a 2-spec concept.

Abilities are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Hunters had Black Arrow. What makes a class is its concept, not abilities. Concepts shape abilities, not the other way around. And the dark ranger concept is not the hunter concept.

The difference is that Warriors never had Priest abilities. Hunters had Black Arrow for a very long time. Warlocks and Priests still have Dark Ranger abilities.

It does not matter, Teriz. Did you even read what I wrote? If you did, you wouldn't be writing this.

If we have to extensively mine other classes for abilities to make a new class work, should we bother with this new class, or just attach it to an existing class?

No. Because the existing classes do not cover the concept of the proposed new class. Priests don't fill the concept of the dark ranger. Warlocks don't fill the concept of dark ranger.

[Teriz]

No. Not at all. Because the shadow priest encompasses the void caster aspect, and the hunters encompass the wilderness hero. Hunters don't have the monopoly of ranged weapons, nor they should.

While Hunters don't have a monopoly on ranged weapons, Dark Rangers don't really expand beyond the capabilities of a Hunter. Again, every Dark Ranger ability from HotS save Haunted Wave fits in just fine within the existing Hunter class.

You can make another class that wields ranged weaponry. Could some of those abilities be given to the hunter instead? They could. But it doesn't mean they should. Many of the Mistweaver monk's healing abilities could have easily been given to the Restoration shaman. Many of the Holy paladin's abilities could have been given to the Holy priest and vice-versa. Many of the Destruction warlock's abilities could have been given to the Fire mage, and vice-versa. Many of the Frost death knight's abilities could have been given to the Frost mage, etc, etc, etc...

Your comparing specs. I'm talking about entire classes. The entire class concept of Dark Rangers outside of Sylvanas works within the existing Hunter class.

Frost did not fit the death knight since the WC3 unit had no frost abilities, and a lich is not a death knight. To say it 'fits' just because both are undead is like saying paladins should have arcane magic because the Humans in WC3 had mages and paladins.

The Lich fits within Necromancy, thus it fits with the Death Knight.

Also when the archetypal DK is this character;



It's kind of hard to argue that frost has NOTHING to do with DKs or doesn't fit them.

Abilities are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Hunters had Black Arrow. What makes a class is its concept, not abilities. Concepts shape abilities, not the other way around. And the dark ranger concept is not the hunter concept.

Black Arrow is one of the defining abilities of Dark Rangers. Just like Metamorphosis is one of the defining abilities of Demon Hunters. So its nonsensical to say that abilities are irrelevant. Abilities make a class what it is.

It does not matter, Teriz. Did you even read what I wrote? If you did, you wouldn't be writing this.


No. Because the existing classes do not cover the concept of the proposed new class. Priests don't fill the concept of the dark ranger. Warlocks don't fill the concept of dark ranger.

And what exactly is the concept of a Dark Ranger?

- - - Updated - - -

And Dark Rangers use magic that normal hunters do not

Such as?

Doesn't matter, they don't currently, ergo there's room to add a class that does, and in three different ways.

So would that mean that if we added Black Arrow back into the Hunter class you would agree that there's no longer room for Dark Rangers?

BTW, it should be noted that Blizzard restores removed abilities to classes all the time. Given that Blizzard wants to deprune classes next expansion, I would say there's a very good chance that Black Arrow simply returns to the Hunter class.

According to what authority on what a Tinker class in WoW would be?

Again, based on previous expansion inclusions, and the Tinker as shown in HotS, WC3, and WoW. So that authority would be Blizzard themselves.

WC3 abilities don't mean anything, the game is 17 years old, so much has happened since then, no class needs to be based on 4 abilities, and the fact that some Dark Ranger abilities from 17 years ago belong to a different class in current WoW means nothing.

WC3 abilities don't mean anything yet every expansion class released since Death Knights contain them? Okay.....

BTW, it's not just that the WC3 abilities are in other classes, its that HotS and WoW Dark Ranger abilities wouldn't be out of place in the existing Hunter class.

Dark Rangers have been shown to use dual wielding, archery and dark magic, Blizzard can work with that just fine.

Hunters could Dual Wield, so big deal. I'm sure Survival Hunters would love the option to get DW back in the next expansion. Past iterations of Hunters can utilize shadow-based abilities, so even that isn't off the table. Remember what I said earlier about Blizzard wanting to restore removed abilities next expansion?

The point is, you're not proposing anything that is outside the realm of the existing Hunter class.

Why would we need to be an implementation of lower ranked and subordinate dark rangers when we're player characters.

Nathanos isn't a lower-ranked Dark Ranger. Once Sylvanas leaves the scene, he will be the leader of them. So again, if the goal is to be a Dark Ranger like Nathanos, why wouldn't Black Arrow, Wailing Arrow, and Shadow Dagger accomplish that goal?

[DotEleven]

Yes, and still...

You would have the restriction of Dark Rangers being tied to a single sub-faction/race, that is the Forsaken.
You still have the restriction of anyone who wants to be a Dark Ranger, also has to become Undead.
You also have the fact that no living hunters would ever want to abandon their very core essence and teachings in favor of something so unnatural to them as the practice of unholy magic.




No matter my standpoint when it comes to whether if the Dark Ranger fantasy fits the Hunter class or not.


Before suggestions such as that are even put on the table. As far as 4th spec options go, they should give us back the old ranged Survival spec with a theme/fantasy focusing on poisons, venoms and explosives.
The spec that was actually taken away from us.

-A lot of players liked that spec very much.
-It's intended fantasy/theme fit the general class fantasy so well.
-And in todays WoW, it could easily be designed to provide the class with additional strengths that it's currently lacking.
-It could also be designed to have a clear identity of it's own.

(Want specifics? Check my signature below)

Oh, no I know. Personally on my belief of "if it will happen" is a no. They're too specified. I don't know of any other class that is so ingrained into a single race. Like, if we follow the actual lore, firstly they needed to be born a high elf. Afterwards they needed to proceed to be trained as a ranger. Then at some point they needed to be resurrected into undeath. Then they get to be a Dark Ranger. Like no other class is anywhere near that specific in origins.

[F Rm]

People kill themselves to be raised into undeath to be taught by sub group of Dark Rangers that have chosen to share their knowledge and skills to fight X villain, problem solved

How would that solve the issue of the Dark Ranger-fantasy/concept requiring us to have died?

You'd still have the fact that there are a lot of living hunters out there that won't kill themselves to pursue this darker craft.
Meaning you would have a lot of Hunters where the Dark Ranger-concept still won't fit.

Maybe yours wont, if noone wanted to be undead, then every forsaken or death knight would fall on a sword, but they don't. There's power in the dark, some would take it, having themselves killed and raised to wield it.

Not saying that noone wants to become undead. I'm saying that for those that don't want that. It doesn't make sense.

Like I've said before. Dark Rangers, aren't just a fighting style or a set of abilities you have to learn and then you're set.
A big part of what makes the Dark Ranger-fantasy, is the process they have to go through to become just that.

Take that process(death -> resurrection -> twist everything from your past life) away and you would no longer have Dark Rangers. You would just have some odd bow-wielding character that knows how to utilize unholy magic.

I'm not saying that it cannot be done. I'm saying that it should not be done in that way.
By all means, give us playable Dark Rangers. But at the very least, go about it the right way so they retain their fantasy.

Don't derail the thread with your Survival concept please, just because it's buried in the general discussion because noone cared enough.

Not what I was doing at all.
I was just responding to someone that brought the 4th spec option up for the Hunter class.

I was just giving my opinion on what the class should get first of all, if a 4th spec option would ever be on the table.

No, it's not buried in the general discussion because noone cared enough.
The topic of bringing the old SV playstyle back is among the most popular topics of all on most class discussion-related forums.

[threads]

i feel like they are going to go the banshee route. opens up cool banshee powers that sylvanas uses, and the possibility of a healing spec. the darkshore warfront banshee you can play as uses healing spells.