If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[TheRevenantHero]

Er, no.

I didn't claim the opposite. You changed the criteria when it was not specified before.

I said Kel'thuzad is a Necromancer who expressed interest in the Afterlife, and that is what we got this expansion. You then asked when that happened 'prior to this expansion', and no he would not have expressed interest in the afterlife explicitly prior to this expansion. The context of your original statement was not exclusive to being prior to this expansion. I was addressing the direct claim that 'Necromancers have not demonstrated any interest in the shadowlands' including current lore, and when I brought up Cult of the Damned working under the Jailer you made zero efforts to say it had to be prior to Shadowlands.

If you change the criteria then you are asking a separate question, and I would appropriately give you a separate answer. If you are accusing me of changing my answer then you should realize you changed the question, or at least were applying it too vaguely without specifying it had to be prior to this expansion, as well as failed to specify when I brought up the Shadowlands Cult of the Damned examples.

On top of this, lore is not dependent on having anyone express an interest in any subject prior to them having one in the future. You were shifting the goalposts away from the original point that Necromancers wouldn't have any direct connections to the Shadowlands, and whether they expressed an interest or not previous to Shadowlands doesn't prevent them from having that connection in current or future lore, just as Kel'thuzad has exemplified.




There isn't enough separating Demon Hunters from Warlocks and Rogues to justify it being an entire class. They only have like... Two spells that Warlocks didn't have.

That's factually wrong but ok.

- - - Updated - - -

we know nothing of the night warrior

for all intents and purposes it can easily be the next class

We know plenty about the Night Warrior. It's absolutely not a class and has zero unique abilities. It's literally just a ritual that boosts the power of the person in the ritual. Does Goku become a different person because he went super saiyan?

[Triceron]

That's factually wrong but ok.

Yup, that was the point.

[Traveler Voltin]

Gul'dan was a warlock.

Necromancers, Dark rangers, and Death knights are death themed.

[TheRevenantHero]

Yup, that was the point.

How was that the point? you were saying that Demon Hunters are pretty much the same as rogue and warlocks when they're not. Meanwhile, dark rangers have...what? One spell hunters don't have? Black Arrow was a hunter spell for years.

[Triceron]

. Meanwhile, dark rangers have...what? One spell hunters don't have? Black Arrow was a hunter spell for years.

And that's factually wrong, but ok.

Either way we're using baseless generalizations of the class concepts, does it matter if we use facts? I mean either way, Black Arrow is not what defines a Dark Ranger and whatever Rogues and Warlocks had wouldn't have defined a Demon Hunter.

Just making a point of how meaningless the generalization is. That you don't consider the Dark Ranger any different from a Hunter with Black Arrow doesn't make it a fact either, right?

[TheRevenantHero]

And that's factually wrong, but ok.

Either way we're using baseless generalizations of the class concepts, does it matter if we use facts? I mean either way, Black Arrow is not what defines a Dark Ranger and whatever Rogues and Warlocks had wouldn't have defined a Demon Hunter.

Just making a point of how meaningless the generalization is. That you don't consider the Dark Ranger any different from a Hunter with Black Arrow doesn't make it a fact either, right?

I can't see a single thing that what separate dark ranger from hunters from both a gameplay and lore standpoint. Dark rangers are literally just undead blood elf hunters.

[Triceron]

I can't see a single thing that what separate dark ranger from hunters from both a gameplay and lore standpoint. Dark rangers are literally just undead blood elf hunters.

That's okay, you don't have to recognize that they were WC3 heroes that used an assortment of necromantic abilities and weren't just an invention of WoW. You're allowed to have that opinion, you're just not factually right and somewhat biased by how WoW has chosen to depict then so far.

[TheRevenantHero]

That's okay, you don't have to recognize that they were WC3 heroes that used an assortment of necromantic abilities and weren't just an invention of WoW. You're allowed to have that opinion, you're just not factually right and somewhat biased by how WoW has chosen to depict then so far.

They had life drain and charm. That's it. Their other abilities were silence(just an interrupt by a different name) and Black Arrow (something hunters had for years). They had absolutely no other abilities.

[Triceron]

They had life drain and charm. That's it. Their other abilities were silence(just an interrupt by a different name) and Black Arrow (something hunters had for years). They had absolutely no other abilities.

Just like Demon Hunters had all their abilities used by rogues, warlocks and priests. What are we misunderstanding with gross generalizations?

Are you saying Dark Rangers are Hunters? Or do you see them as their own class? Differences in abilities doesn't really matter, considering Warlocks and DH both had metamorphosis at one point or another.

I mean if we really want to boil it down, Warlocks are just mages who use fel magic, Death Knights are just warriors with necromancy, Paladins are just Priests in plate, Monks are just shamans with some punches and kicks etc etc. It all depends how grossly you want to generalize them all.

[TheRevenantHero]

Just like Demon Hunters had all their abilities used by rogues, warlocks and priests. What are we misunderstanding with gross generalizations?

Are you saying Dark Rangers are Hunters? Or do you see them as their own class? Differences in abilities doesn't really matter, considering Warlocks and DH both had metamorphosis at one point or another.

I mean if we really want to boil it down, Warlocks are just mages who use fel magic, Death Knights are just warriors with necromancy, Paladins are just Priests in plate, Monks are just shamans with some punches and kicks etc etc. It all depends how grossly you want to generalize them all.

I don't see ANYTHING different between dark ranger and hunter. Literally nothing.

[jellmoo]

I don't see ANYTHING different between dark ranger and hunter. Literally nothing.

Now, I'm no fan of the Dark Ranger, it's not a class I'm itching to see added, but I think the problem is that we always go back to WC3 and analyze the abilities the units had, and well, it really misses the entire theme of what a playable class would/could be.

A nature based archer with an animal pet is a unique theme, as is an archer that uses Necromancy and magical trickery. Is there overlap? Absolutely. But overlap exists amongst a metric ton of classes. I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to think that a class could be made that would be distinct from the Hunter class. The similarity of using bows shouldn't be the thing stopping it from happening. Take the theme of a dark and forbidding archer that uses vile magics and run with it. Let your imagination run wild with what it could possibly do. I'm pretty sure that something distinct from the Hunter could be made.

[Triceron]

I don't see ANYTHING different between dark ranger and hunter. Literally nothing.

That's your problem, not a fact.

I can say I see no difference between Mage and Warlock if a Mage could just use fel magic as a spec. Doesn't mean anything but one perspective.

Do Hunters use Necromancy as a part of their class identity? Do Hunters even formally use magic for that matter? Not really. Rangers and Dark Rangers do use magic, Dark Rangers using Necromancy specifically.

[AzureMage]

That's your problem, not a fact.

I can say I see no difference between Mage and Warlock if a Mage could just use fel magic as a spec. Doesn't mean anything but one perspective.

The mage and the warlock are commonly recognized fantasy archetypes, the wizard/magician and the black/dark mage/evil magic user respectively. saying the mage could just use fel magic as a spec ignores that the warlock archetype has a number of concepts (summoning, afflictions, curses, shadow/chaos/fel magic) that couldn't just be fit into a single spec, they have a distinct parts to their identity to stand as their own class.

Dark Ranger is a far more specific identity with far fewer concepts that are distinct to them, Hunters already have an assortment of magic arrows, priests have mind manipulation, death knights have necromantic powers, Only thing unique to them is banshee powers and I don't see that being enough for an entire class, only other thing it really has is being the "sylvanas class". Only comparison i could make would be the Demon Hunter class which is another niche but popular concept associated with a popular warcraft character that did get turned into an entire class even though the only things it had going for it was metamorphosis, unique customization and being the "illidan class" but personally i don't think we need more classes with a similar design philosophy as Demon Hunters.

Do Hunters use Necromancy as a part of their class identity? Do Hunters even formally use magic for that matter? Not really. Rangers and Dark Rangers do use magic, Dark Rangers using Necromancy specifically.

Hunters don't use Necromancy (they have used necromancy in the past such as Black Arrow and their ability to tame undead beasts now comes from a tome written by the House of Rituals who are necromancers but it's certainly not a major part of their identity) but they do use magic (arcane shot, binding shot, aspect abilities, tame/revive pet) the Hunter class is based on the Ranger class from D&D which has (mostly) been a divine (nature) half-caster that got druid spells. Hunter can be seen as the martial equivalent to the druid same way the paladin is a more martial priest, the Druid is overtly a spellcaster while the Hunter uses it in more subtle ways such as imbuing their arrows with magic, taking on the aspects of certain animals and forming magical bonds with beasts.

[Alkizon]

jellmoo
Take the theme of a dark and forbidding archer that uses vile magics and run with it.

Well, I still think, that something like this

There was some concept thread about it not so long ago. Looks like witch (kind of banshee) who uses bow as magical object (wand/staff for spells projection/point of own magic force application), but mostly in role of decoration. Looks quite viable within current overall wretchedness of classes design.

could fit as one. Actually said same stuff, when "witch theme" was discussed:

Imo, concept that I mentioned (mix of dark ranger with witch/banshee), is the most stylistically possible of candidates to fit into lore of Azeroth without having to invade others... although they could pick up witches tools from all classes (mentioned above), but without taking away their abilities. As I already said before "warlocks didn't have to lose their demon form, this was purely devs decision".

After all, Garrosh's words (everyone remembers tumultuous debate, do you?) could very cleverly turn "one thing into another" with, on one hand, "encouraging" such concept, and on the other hand, making wording less aggressive/dismissive

So, it won't be called as DR, just witch, still something that could close this fantasy
- - - - -
in other words, it could have 3 dev.directions (int-stat bow here could also be returned): banshee as spellcaster (hence justification for dark casual abilities), DR as direct fighter (give "using bow&daggers" as projection tool together with thematically appropriate fighting style) and third (here I would say "necromancer" - to justify corresponding complementary branch, but being afraid, that for this I'll be eaten alive for example) witch doctor as souls'user (direction with dark part of voodoo rituals)... kind of

Triceron
It's a mix of shadowy dark magic with nature and life magic, with some Alchemy thrown in between. It's like a mix of Druidism and Necromancy, having aspects of both and being neither.

- - - Updated - - -

Imperator4321
Hunter class is based on the Ranger class from D&D which has (mostly) been a divine (nature) half-caster that got druid spells. Hunter can be seen as the martial equivalent to the druid same way the paladin is a more martial priest, the Druid is overtly a spellcaster while the Hunter uses it in more subtle ways such as imbuing their arrows with magic, taking on the aspects of certain animals and forming magical bonds with beasts.

Triceron
Hunters use traps and animal pets, have a strong connection to beasts and the wilds, and they're themed on survival and resourcefulness. Dark Rangers are very much themed more as shadowy assassins fueled by hatred and vengeance, using their own torment to cause pain and fear to their enemies. I think these are very different concepts at the core which can't be ignored and simply equated as a Hunter specialization.

I agree with ^ that:

main hunters' role-playing aspect is care and control of animals, symbiosis and coexistence/friendship/mutual assistance with them, this is hunting and survival in the wild (while use of "technologies" here as such is limited to "handy material", and not something so artificial and alien to this) environment, ability to merge with it and landscape, use of nature magic (about which "Gnomes and Forsaken" have zero knowledge), reading footprints, knowing habits and predicting behavior of booty... main thing is lore/fantasy, main thing is whole set of class' core mechanics.

[TheRevenantHero]

That's your problem, not a fact.

I can say I see no difference between Mage and Warlock if a Mage could just use fel magic as a spec. Doesn't mean anything but one perspective.

Do Hunters use Necromancy as a part of their class identity? Do Hunters even formally use magic for that matter? Not really. Rangers and Dark Rangers do use magic, Dark Rangers using Necromancy specifically.

Mage and warlock have two completely separate toolkits when it comes to their spells. Dark rangers don't have much of anything unique that separates them from hunters. It would be a massive waste of resources for Blizzard to make a dark ranger class. Especially because I can't think of a way to give dark ranger more than one spec.

[Ielenia]

Mage and warlock have two completely separate toolkits when it comes to their spells. Dark rangers don't have much of anything unique that separates them from hunters.

That's not a fair comparison to make considering mages and wrlocks have different toolkits because both are fully realized as their own separate playable form. The dark ranger is not yet realized as its own playable class, so it doesn't have its own "separate toolkit" to compare it to others.

The concept of the hunter is of a wilderness tracker who tames and befriends the beasts around them. The concept of the dark ranger is of a marksman who employs dark magic to raise the dead and sow chaos in their enemies, represented, in WC3, by the 'black arrow', 'silence' and 'charm' abilities. Yes, the hunter class had the 'black arrow' ability for years, but it currently does not anymore, plus the concept of the ability never really felt like it fit the hunter's concept, to me.

It would be a massive waste of resources for Blizzard to make a dark ranger class. Especially because I can't think of a way to give dark ranger more than one spec.

You're kind of putting yourself above Blizzard here. It's a "I cannot think of a way, therefore there is no way" kind of thought that doesn't really go anywhere, because it implies that if you cannot think of a way, then Blizzard cannot think of a way. And, no offense, but I figure a team of people who are paid to put their creativity to work has greater imagination than a random poster in a fan forum website.

Concept-wise, do the two have some overlap? Yeah, both use bows. But such overlaps exist in almost all the classes in the game. But otherwise, they are defined differently enough to be made into separate classes. Perhaps not a 3-spec class, but Blizzard has shown that we don't need 3 specs to make a class viable.

[Triceron]

Mage and warlock have two completely separate toolkits when it comes to their spells. Dark rangers don't have much of anything unique that separates them from hunters. It would be a massive waste of resources for Blizzard to make a dark ranger class. Especially because I can't think of a way to give dark ranger more than one spec.

You could absolutely have a 2 DPS and one Heal spec design given to them.

They have an association with Banshees, and the Banshee was a support caster in WC3 as well as a Healer unit in the Darkshore Warfronts. Anti Magic Shell, Curse, Deathly Wail, Wisful Spirits, Grave Glow and Cadence of the Boneless could all be translated into this kit. The connections are there, Blizzard simply has to reinforce it in WoW's lore just like they tied Frost magic to DK's or Totems to Shamans whereas they only had a loose connection to them in WC3. Even Frost DK spells have immediate overlap with Frost Mage, but it's used so differently that the overlap isn't a big deal at all.

As for the DPS specs, Dark Ranger would obviously have one based on direct damage, ala Marksmanship, but with more necromantic flair. This spec would focus on their archery skills while supporting them with magic. Plenty of acrobatic skills as well. I'd say design them almost like Valla in Heroes of the Storm, very mobile and shooty. Classic Black arrows, Dark Minions, life drains and some general Ranger skills loosely based on Valla, like Hungering Arrow, Strafe and Rain of Vengeance. . We could even have those cool chain arrows that Sylvanas uses against Bolvar.

Another DPS spec would revolve around Shadow magic and Banshee themes. This could be loosely based on Subtlety Rogues, dealing more with shadow magic and shadow doubles, like how Sylvanas plays in Heroes of the Storm. There could be a stealth component added to this spec, playing on the use of stealth and shadow doubles to avoid damage rather than any life-drains that the Ranger spec would use. This also employs more of the possession/charms, silences and fears associated with Banshees. Wailing arrows, withering fire, haunting wave, Shadow Dagger etc. It could even tie in the Banshee Form that Sylvanas uses as a cooldown ability.

Of course, they could go even more varied with the specs with what we've seen from Shadowlands, and give each a much more fantastic flair.

I don't think the class concept is limited to any one spec. There's plenty of potential to explore.

[Varx]

Mage and warlock have two completely separate toolkits when it comes to their spells. Dark rangers don't have much of anything unique that separates them from hunters. It would be a massive waste of resources for Blizzard to make a dark ranger class. Especially because I can't think of a way to give dark ranger more than one spec.

Dread: Shadow Dot spec,

Sadism: Melee spec (sylv vs saurfang)

Blight: Bursty Nature dmg spec using the blight.


And if they had gone the DR for horde and VR for Alliance route...

Abyssal: Dot spec

Entropy: Melee spec

Subzero: Burst spec with frost dmg.



Man I'm good. Still on the Dragonsworn train though.

[howdy]

We know nothing about the Night Warrior. It's absolutely a class and has multitude of unique abilities. It's literally a ritual that boosts the power of the person in the ritual. Do Priests become a different class when trained in the arts of war? (answer: yes - a Paladin). Do Mages and Shamans become a different class when delving into the fel? (answer: yes - a Warlock). Do classes being raised into Death Knights become a different class? (answer: yes).

Gul'dan was, also, a necromancer:
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lieutenant_of_the_Tower

Demon Hunters are pretty much the same as rogue and warlocks. They had Evasion (Rogue ability), Immolate and Metamorphosis (Warlock abilities) and Mana Burn (Priest ability). Meanwhile, dark rangers have...what? One spell that hunters have? Black Arrow was removed a long time ago. Unlike the necromancer, who have all of its abilities in the Death Knight class.

I can't see a single thing that separates necromancers from death knights from both a gameplay and lore standpoint. Necromancers are literally just Death Knights.

Dark Rangers have Black Arrows, Withering Fire, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Wailing Arrow, Mind Control, Possession, Barbed Shot, Festering Wound, Evasive Fire, and Life Drain. None of which are in the Hunter, except for Barbed Shot. Black Arrow is long gone from the Hunter class. Meanwhile, Cripple was a Doomguard ability and Raise Dead and Unholy Frenzy are Death Knight abilities.

I don't see ANYTHING different between a necromancer and a Death Knight. Literally nothing.

The mage and the warlock are, literally, the same thing as Warlocks are former Mages in lore. Therefore, Mages with a fel specialization, completely, makes sense. Death Knights and Necromancers are commonly recognized in fantasy as summoners of undead archetypes. So, they are the same. If the the wizard/magician and the black/dark mage/evil magic user are different classes, then a nature-inclined Hunter and a necromancy-inclined Ranger are different classes. saying the Hunter could just use necromancy and manipulation magic ignores that the Dark Ranger archetype has a number of concepts (Necromancy, manipulation) that couldn't just be fit into the Hunter. they have distinct parts to their identity to stand as their own class.

Necromancer is a far more specific identity with far fewer concepts that are distinct to them. Death Knights already have an assortment of undead minions, plagues, bones, blood, insects and constructs. Only thing unique to them is cloth and a staff. I don't see that being enough for an entire class. only other thing it really has is being the "Kel'thuzad class". Only comparison i could make would be the Tinker class which is another niche concept associated with a gimmick warcraft character that didn't get turned into an entire class even though the only things it has going for it is engineering, midget races and being the "Gazlowe class". but, personally i don't think we need more classes with a similar design philosophy of the necromancer.

Hunters don't use Necromancy (they have used necromancy in the past such as Black Arrow and their ability to tame undead beasts now comes from a tome written by the House of Rituals who are necromancers but it's certainly not a major part of their identity) but they do use magic unrelated, whatsoever, to the Dark Ranger (arcane shot, binding shot). the Hunter class is based on the Beastmaster, Sharpshooter/Archer and Headhunter/Sapper units of Warcraft III, who were using beasts, arrows/bullets, tracking, traps and explosives. Death Knights can be seen as the martial equivalent to the necromancer same way the paladin is a more martial priest, the necromancer is overtly a spellcaster while the Death Knight uses it in more subtle ways such as imbuing their weapon strikes with necrotic magic, becoming undead and summoning an assortment of undead minions.

Mage and warlock have two completely identical toolkits when it comes to their spells. Dark rangers have a lot of unique things that separates them from hunters. It would be a massive waste of resources for Blizzard to make a necromancer class. Especially because I can't think of a way to give necromancers anything unique other than alchemical stuff.

New class Stripper.

Speccs - Necrotic, virus, pole dance

Decreased rested xp while in goldshire.

Basically, a necromancer.






Dark: Dark Ranger-based spec (Sylvanas).

Moon: Priestess of the Moon-based spec (Tyrande).

Tide: Priestess of the Tide-based spec (Vashj).

Like somebody here suggested.

Too bad a Void Ranger is not an actual class but, a race/class combination of a Void elf and a Hunter. Unlike the Dark Ranger, it has no Warcraft III unit (definitely not a hero one) or a HotS character.

Meanwhile, a Dragon-themed expansion would not bring with it a Dragonsworn class. It can only bring with it a Blademaster or an Alchemist, as a playable Dragon race, envisioned by Blizzard are:

Creatures called dragonmen were conceptualized for the original game

"At BlizzCon 2010, it was mentioned in an offhand comment that something called a "dragonman" was based on unused concept art for a scrapped idea for a playable race. It may have been these dragonmen."

Dragonmen use the playable worgen skeleton.


and they use abilities, like:
Rejuvenating Serum — Drinks a potion, healing 4% of maximum health every 3 sec. for 12 sec.
Vileblood Serum — Poison erupts from the target's skin, creating puddles that inflict 16875 Nature damage every 1.5 sec.
Salve of Toxic Fumes — Covers the target in toxic poison, inflicting 15000 Nature damage every 1.5 sec to all nearby allies.

[Triceron]

"At BlizzCon 2010, it was mentioned in an offhand comment that something called a "dragonman" was based on unused concept art for a scrapped idea for a playable race. It may have been these dragonmen."

Dragonmen use the playable worgen skeleton.


and they use abilities, like:
Rejuvenating Serum — Drinks a potion, healing 4% of maximum health every 3 sec. for 12 sec.
Vileblood Serum — Poison erupts from the target's skin, creating puddles that inflict 16875 Nature damage every 1.5 sec.
Salve of Toxic Fumes — Covers the target in toxic poison, inflicting 15000 Nature damage every 1.5 sec to all nearby allies.

That model was used for Maloriak in Blackwing Depths. With those abilities intact. Not sure if this was done after the Blizzcon 2010 thing, but they definitely used this concept in WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

The mage and the warlock are commonly recognized fantasy archetypes, the wizard/magician and the black/dark mage/evil magic user respectively. saying the mage could just use fel magic as a spec ignores that the warlock archetype has a number of concepts (summoning, afflictions, curses, shadow/chaos/fel magic) that couldn't just be fit into a single spec, they have a distinct parts to their identity to stand as their own class.

Very true. There definitely is an archetype, and many of those are drawn from the original RTS games which framed the casters in very specific archetypes. You have the Conjurer who was the typical Arcanist/Mage, the Cleric which is the Priest, the Necrolyte who covers the Necromancer and Death Knight, and the Warlock who covers the evil summoner tropes.

Dark Ranger is a far more specific identity with far fewer concepts that are distinct to them, Hunters already have an assortment of magic arrows, priests have mind manipulation, death knights have necromantic powers, Only thing unique to them is banshee powers and I don't see that being enough for an entire class, only other thing it really has is being the "sylvanas class". Only comparison i could make would be the Demon Hunter class which is another niche but popular concept associated with a popular warcraft character that did get turned into an entire class even though the only things it had going for it was metamorphosis, unique customization and being the "illidan class" but personally i don't think we need more classes with a similar design philosophy as Demon Hunters.

Valid as an opinion, though I would say that Dark Rangers, like any playable class in the game, would get much of its flavour and definition from whatever themes Blizzard chooses to associate them to. The fact is, they're fairly passive in terms of having any unique themes in WoW, whereas they have MUCH more theme and flavour in Warcraft 3 and Heroes of the Storm. I've even provided a mock up of what their themes and gameplay could be based on. Of course, there is always going to be retread in certain themes and tropes that already exist in the game, but more or less than the existing new classes already do.

Hunters don't use Necromancy (they have used necromancy in the past such as Black Arrow and their ability to tame undead beasts now comes from a tome written by the House of Rituals who are necromancers but it's certainly not a major part of their identity) but they do use magic (arcane shot, binding shot, aspect abilities, tame/revive pet) the Hunter class is based on the Ranger class from D&D which has (mostly) been a divine (nature) half-caster that got druid spells. Hunter can be seen as the martial equivalent to the druid same way the paladin is a more martial priest, the Druid is overtly a spellcaster while the Hunter uses it in more subtle ways such as imbuing their arrows with magic, taking on the aspects of certain animals and forming magical bonds with beasts.

Those aren't the type of spellcasting which I'm referring to. The limited nature magic connection that they have is often ill-explained, and for many non-magical Hunters (of particular races like Gnome or Goblin) it could be an abstraction of using enchanted arrows and having really strong animal handling skills. These don't really translate into the Dark Ranger class concepts, which aren't really about using enchanted arrows or handling animals in the same way. The Dark Ranger's spell arrows aren't simply enchantments, they're usually more powerful and are akin to spells in arrow form. It's more similar to the type of arrows that Tyrande uses.

Hunters use traps and animal pets, have a strong connection to beasts and the wilds, and they're themed on survival and resourcefulness. Dark Rangers are very much themed more as shadowy assassins fueled by hatred and vengeance, using their own torment to cause pain and fear to their enemies. I think these are very different concepts at the core which can't be ignored and simply equated as a Hunter specialization.