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

[Traveler Voltin]

Teriz unbanned = +10 pages of "anyone who using bow is hunter","anyone who using necromancy is death knight"

..... so for teriz Sylvie just Death Knight Hunter.

show me a Dark ranger NPC in WoW that uses the same abilities that it had in WC3 outside of sylvanas.

[Triceron]

Teriz unbanned = +10 pages of "anyone who using bow is hunter","anyone who using necromancy is death knight"

The thread felt a lot more progressive in the past week I'd say.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard hard nerfed Dark rangers in WoW.
i dont get why people refuse to see this.

i want the WC3 dark ranger too but Blizzard destroyed them(outside of Sylvanas)

They hard nerf practically any class concept that doesn't formally have their own class.

Look at how Monks were before Pandaria, or how Death Knights even looked in Naxx before Wrath. DK's were literally Warlock/Warrior hybrids and different DK bosses had themes and abilities all over the place like Zeliek using holy abilities or Karthazz dropping meteors from the sky. It wasn't until we got Arthas back into the lore that we got a unified DK concept that made sense.

[Teriz]

False. Again, that is demonstrable. Here is the hunter concept:

"From an early age the call of the wild draws some adventurers from the comfort of their homes into the unforgiving primal world outside. Those who endure become hunters. As masters of their environment, hunters are able to slip like ghosts through the trees and lay traps in the paths of their enemies. These expert marksmen drop foes dead in their tracks with flawless shots from a bow, crossbow or rifle. With the ability to wield two weapons simultaneously, hunters can unleash a flurry of blows against anyone unfortunate enough to stumble into close combat with them.

The art of survival is central to the isolated life of a hunter. Hunters track beasts with ease and enhance their own abilities by attuning themselves to the feral aspects of various creatures. Hunters are known for the lifelong bonds they form with animals of the wild, training great hawks, cats, bears, and many other beasts to fight alongside them."

And here is the dark ranger concept:

"Dark rangers are undead archers in service of the Forsaken or Sylvanas Windrunner. These cunning individuals, adept at manipulating opponents, are mainly composed of forcibly raised Farstrider rangers of Quel'Thalas. They now enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension and hatred within the enemy ranks."

Notice how both concepts wildly differ and are not at all the same, even remotely.

Not really. The Dark Ranger concept is merely an evil version of the Hunter class. There's no "wild" variation there beyond sowing dissension and hared within enemy ranks which was really only mentioned because the Dark Ranger hero unit had "charm". And frankly I don't see how Charm is any different than Tame animal or any of the multiple control abilities in multiple classes. Essentially what you're arguing here is that we should create a new class because Hunters don't have Mind Control.


For example;



I don't see how you can justify a new class just because you have an undead version of a Hunter. Again, no different than a Shaman and a Dark Shaman, or a Druid and a Druid of the Nightmare.

- - - Updated - - -

Are Hunters Dark rangers because they have access to Covenant abilities? Simple answer, no they aren't.

They are Hunters with access to Unholy and Shadow abilities, just like every class has. Their class hasn't changed into Dark Rangers as a result of this, any more than Paladins changed into Death Knights by having Unholy abilities.

Hunters had access to Shadow and Undead abilities before Shadowlands.

Having access to an ability and having it be a part of their class fantasy and class identity is two different things. Warlocks could have Metamorphosis, but it was not an ability core to their fantasy, thus it could be added/changed/removed at will. It's not a permanent part of their fantasy. However, you couldn't simply remove all Fel Magic away from the Warlock, otherwise it would no longer be a Warlock.

The difference is that in the case of Dark Rangers and Hunters both are simply bow users who manipulate nature. The Dark Ranger manipulates nature in "darker" ways, but that darker type of manipulation isn't foreign to the Hunter class, since they can tame undead beasts, and have a history of using Shadow magic and Necromancy.

You can't take Unholy and Shadow spells away from a Death Knight or Dark Ranger without changing its core fantasy. You can take away Unholy and Shadow spells from a Hunter or Paladin because it is not part of their core fantasy.

Again, the Hunter class had Black Arrow in its spell book for nearly a decade, and now has the ability to utilize undead creatures. So Flayed Shot and Death Chakram are hardly out of place in the Hunter class.

If we're being honest here, the only "core fantasy" of Dark Ranger is Sylvanas, which Blizzard has demonstrated to not be a typical Dark Ranger but something else entirely. Beyond Sylvanas, a Dark Ranger is simply a forsaken Hunter. Just look at Nathanos and Delaryn Summermoon. You take Sylvanas out of the picture (which is happening now) and you're truly left with a Hunter that shoots shadow arrows. Something Hunters have been doing for years now.

- - - Updated - - -

Teriz unbanned = +10 pages of "anyone who using bow is hunter","anyone who using necromancy is death knight"

..... so for teriz Sylvie just Death Knight Hunter.

Sylvanas is definitely a special case. However she's no longer in the equation as far as Dark Rangers are concerned since she's abandoned the Forsaken and is more than likely never coming back from the Shadowlands.

So with her gone, we should refocus on Dark Rangers like Delaryn Summermoon or the various other Kaldorei Dark Rangers which along with the undead Blood Elf variety form the majority of the DR order. Those NPCs are really no different than your typical Hunter.

[Triceron]

The difference is that in the case of Dark Rangers and Hunters both are simply bow users who manipulate nature.

Nope.

"The dark ranger is a cunning hero, adept at manipulating opponents. Forcibly raised from the dead, the former rangers of Quel'Thalas enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension and hatred within the enemy ranks."

They don't manipulate nature, they manipulate their opponents. Their use of unholy and shadow magic are tools that assist them in this. Sylvanas' gameplay in Heroes of the Storm exemplifies this. Their ultimate is Charm for a reason. They have very close ties to Banshees, which are known for causing fear and agony. The class is built around manipulation, while Hunters are simply nature-going survivalists. I wouldn't even say Hunters manipulate Nature, that's more of a Druid thing.

If we're being honest here, the only "core fantasy" of Dark Ranger is Sylvanas, which Blizzard has demonstrated to not be a typical Dark Ranger but something else entirely. Beyond Sylvanas, a Dark Ranger is simply a forsaken Hunter. Just look at Nathanos and Delaryn Summermoon.

The only core fantasy of Demon Hunters was Illidan and we could also argue that he was something else entirely since he consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and received a permanent demon form as a result. It didn't stop our player characters from obtaining permanent Horns too, even if we don't get the Hooves and Wings as permanent customizations.

As for NPCs, none of Delaryn or Nathanos' abilities are in the Hunter kit. Not sure how that equates to simply being a Hunter.

Hunters don't use Shadowburn Shot or Smoke Bomb.

[jellmoo]

Because at the end of the day, a Dark Ranger is still just a Ranger, and a Ranger class (Hunters) would cover the vast majority of what a Dark Ranger would do.

That doesn't answer my question though. If a Dark Ranger is boiled to an undead dude with a bow and an undead pet, then surely a death knight is boiled down to an undead dude with a two hander and an undead pet. The same logic should apply and the Death Knight class shouldn't be needed.

But both the Death Knight and the Demon Hunter stuck close to their source material.

And a Dark Ranger could stick closely to the source material as well and still play differently to a Hunter. The only thing about all three is that they are a very specific thing, which seems to be the whole schtick of what a hero class is.

And I agree that they could. My contention is that they wouldn't, because that defeats the purpose of how they've built up this concept since day one.

Fair enough. I think there is a world of difference between couldn't and wouldn't though. If somebody says "I don't think that Blizzard would create a Dark Ranger class" I'd probably agree with that statement. However, if somebody says "I don't think that Blizzard can make a Dark Ranger class", then I'm gonna disagree.

She's shown extensively using a glaive.

She's also shown using a bow and spells though. But honestly, I'm not going to debate yet another class I certainly hope wouldn't be made. If they introduced a Night Warrior class I almost certainly would skip the expansion entirely.

If it's not support and buff, then it's just a generic magic class. There is nothing inherently unique about music-based magic outside of channeling and causing consistent spell effects.

Why? That's all every class is. A mage is a generic wizard class. A Priest is a generic holy class. A Warlock is a generic spooky wizard class. None of these things are unique until you actually build them and make them unique. Look at the Minstrel in LotRO, It's a Healer/DPS class that is a metric ton of fun. It uses a system of spells that work almost like a combo. It's kit is music themed and gives it a very unique play experience.

There is absolutely no reason that a Bard has to be support and nothing else. If other games can make Bards viable at a variety of roles, there's no reason Blizzard couldn't and make a damn fun class while doing it.

[Teriz]

Nope.

"The dark ranger is a cunning hero, adept at manipulating opponents. Forcibly raised from the dead, the former rangers of Quel'Thalas enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension and hatred within the enemy ranks."

They don't manipulate nature, they manipulate their opponents. Their use of unholy and shadow magic are tools that assist them in this. Sylvanas' gameplay in Heroes of the Storm exemplifies this. Their ultimate is Charm for a reason. They have very close ties to Banshees, which are known for causing fear and agony. The class is built around manipulation, while Hunters are simply nature-going survivalists. I wouldn't even say Hunters manipulate Nature, that's more of a Druid thing.

I've already addressed this, but okay, let's break this down into a class. How would this work into actual class abilities? You say manipulation of opponents is a key aspect of Dark Rangers (since everything else about them is firmly in the Hunter class), outside of Mind Control which is the dominion of the Priest class, or Fear which is the dominion of Warlocks, how would this work exactly?

The only core fantasy of Demon Hunters was Illidan and we could also argue that he was something else entirely since he consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and received a permanent demon form as a result. It didn't stop our player characters from obtaining permanent Horns too, even if we don't get the Hooves and Wings as permanent customizations.

And Demon Hunters was an incredibly narrow concept that relied on one class-defining ability and to this day is largely considered a shallow class with only 2 specs. Dark Ranger is an even shallower concept than Demon Hunters. At least the Demon Hunter class offered something novel gameplay wise.

As for NPCs, none of Delaryn or Nathanos' abilities are in the Hunter kit. Not sure how that equates to simply being a Hunter.

Hunters don't use Shadowburn Shot or Smoke Bomb.

No, they are shadow variations of Hunter abilities. Like I said, no different than Dark Shaman versus your standard Shaman class.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't answer my question though. If a Dark Ranger is boiled to an undead dude with a bow and an undead pet, then surely a death knight is boiled down to an undead dude with a two hander and an undead pet. The same logic should apply and the Death Knight class shouldn't be needed.

Again no, because Death Knights incorporate the entire aspect of the scourge faction, which included Lichs, Abominations, Blight, diseases, Frost Wyrms, etc. The Dark Ranger was always just an inverted version of a Ranger. Essentially a Ranger who had died, risen from death and can now shoot shadow arrows and be depressed because their life now sucks.

Pretty much exactly what a Forsaken Hunter is in WoW.

And a Dark Ranger could stick closely to the source material as well and still play differently to a Hunter. The only thing about all three is that they are a very specific thing, which seems to be the whole schtick of what a hero class is.

People keep saying this, but they have yet to provide exactly how that would work. The only differing aspect between a Dark Ranger and a Hunter is Sylvanas' ability to manipulate minds. Something that is the domain of Shadow Priests.

Why? That's all every class is. A mage is a generic wizard class. A Priest is a generic holy class. A Warlock is a generic spooky wizard class. None of these things are unique until you actually build them and make them unique. Look at the Minstrel in LotRO, It's a Healer/DPS class that is a metric ton of fun. It uses a system of spells that work almost like a combo. It's kit is music themed and gives it a very unique play experience.

There is absolutely no reason that a Bard has to be support and nothing else. If other games can make Bards viable at a variety of roles, there's no reason Blizzard couldn't and make a damn fun class while doing it.

Yeah, but each one fills their niche, and their niche is what makes those classes interesting in their own way.

What's the Bard's niche? Singing instead of casting? What's special about the Bard's magic that sets it apart from the vast amount of other magic users in the WoW class lineup? That's the problem, and its a problem exacerbated by no example of a Blizzard Bard.

[Traveler Voltin]

i would say you only partly correct Teriz. In WoW dark rangers are kind of just undead hunters.

WC3, they were banshees that took back their bodies so they kind of had a mix of ranger, necromancer, and banshee skills.

[Teriz]

i would say you only partly correct Teriz. In WoW dark rangers are kind of just undead hunters.

WC3, they were banshees that took back their bodies so they kind of had a mix of ranger, necromancer, and banshee skills.

Very true. They were altered to fit into the framework of WoW.

However when you think about it, that makes sense; Sylvanas' origin is pretty unique.

In the end, Sylvanas is out of the picture now, and the Dark Rangers remaining after her departure are pretty much joining the Forsaken ranks since Tyrande wants nothing to do with the Night Elf version of DRs. So that's that. I fully expect them to go the way of the Dark Shaman that were extremely common in MoP and WoD and are now nowhere to be found.

[Traveler Voltin]

Very true. They were altered to fit into the framework of WoW.

However when you think about it, that makes sense; Sylvanas' origin is pretty unique.

In the end, Sylvanas is out of the picture now, and the Dark Rangers remaining after her departure are pretty much joining the Forsaken ranks since Tyrande wants nothing to do with the Night Elf version of DRs. So that's that. I fully expect them to go the way of the Dark Shaman that were extremely common in MoP and WoD and are now nowhere to be found.

until more dark rangers show up like Sylvanas. the class idea is dead.
i can only think 2 specs for it anyway and they both would be dps.

[Triceron]

I've already addressed this, but okay, let's break this down into a class. How would this work into actual class abilities? You say manipulation of opponents is a key aspect of Dark Rangers (since everything else about them is firmly in the Hunter class), outside of Mind Control which is the dominion of the Priest class, or Fear which is the dominion of Warlocks, how would this work exactly?

No class has 'dominion' over game mechanics. Easy to answer, it wouldn't fit your narrow perspective of how classes would be designed, it would be designed akin to how Demon Hunters have been added to the game, with 99% new mechanics inspired by WC3 and Heroes of the Storm's abilities as well as completely new mechanics derived from WoW itself.

It's something that you're unwilling to accept as a possibility, that a class can have fears or mind controls because another class already has them.

And Demon Hunters was an incredibly narrow concept that relied on one class-defining ability and to this day is largely considered a shallow class with only 2 specs. Dark Ranger is an even shallower concept than Demon Hunters. At least the Demon Hunter class offered something novel gameplay wise.

Didi having a narrow concept prevent Demon Hunters from being added?

And that you think the Dark Ranger is an even shallower concept is simply an opinion, not something against the possibilities itself. Brewmaster was absolutely shallow in WC3, and it was expanded with Martial Arts themes that weren't really there in WC3 before. Dark Ranger can be opened up with all sorts of themes we simply haven't associated to them thus far.

Death Knight was also a shallow concept that ended up representing the Scourge, as you said. Dark Ranger may open up to a variety of different 'Dark' powers if Blizzard wishes to make those connections. Shadowlands has opened up a lot of potential in what we understand as Death magic.

[jellmoo]

Again no, because Death Knights incorporate the entire aspect of the scourge faction, which included Lichs, Abominations, Blight, diseases, Frost Wyrms, etc. The Dark Ranger was always just an inverted version of a Ranger. Essentially a Ranger who had died, risen from death and can now shoot shadow arrows and be depressed because their life now sucks.

Pretty much exactly what a Forsaken Hunter is in WoW.

The Dark Ranger isn't anything. The class doesn't exist. They can literally make it be whatever they want. They can build it into whatever they want. They can have it fill whatever niche and whatever story element they want. It's only a Forsaken Hunter if that's all you make it. Make it something else, and surprise, it's something else.

They are an archetype and that archetype can be crafted in many ways. There is no reason that a playable class is just a Forsaken Hunter with a dead dog than a Demon Hunter is an Elf with wings and comically oversized weapons.

People keep saying this, but they have yet to provide exactly how that would work. The only differing aspect between a Dark Ranger and a Hunter is Sylvanas' ability to manipulate minds. Something that is the domain of Shadow Priests.

Why do you need somebody to spell out how it could work? I'm not going to build out the entirety of a class that I really don't care about. Use your imagination here. Take the concept of a dead archer that uses Necromancy, shadows and trickery to fight and build it. And one class does not own the entirety of a thing. Just because a Shadow Priest can do mind stuff doesn't mean that no other class can touch on it. There is example, after example, after example, of claases having similar abilities and crossover themes. It's more than doable to add a Charm ability to the game that doesn't make the the Shadow Priest suddenly irrelevant.

Yeah, but each one fills their niche, and their niche is what makes those classes interesting in their own way.

Which is exactly what I said. The Bard is absolutely no different there.

What's the Bard's niche? Singing instead of casting? What's special about the Bard's magic that sets it apart from the vast amount of other magic users in the WoW class lineup? That's the problem, and its a problem exacerbated by no example of a Blizzard Bard.

What's the Warlock's niche? Fel Magic? The Shaman? Elemental Magic? The Priest? Holy Magic? How is this different? Why are these concepts so doable and possible to make into a playable class but a Bard isn't? How is it set apart? The absolute same ways all of the above classes are set apart. They are built differently.

[Teriz]

No class has 'dominion' over game mechanics. Easy to answer, it wouldn't fit your narrow perspective of how classes would be designed, it would be designed akin to how Demon Hunters have been added to the game, with 99% new mechanics inspired by WC3 and Heroes of the Storm's abilities as well as completely new mechanics derived from WoW itself.

Your argument is that the Dark Ranger is different than a Hunter because it "manipulates people". I'm simply asking how this would work outside of Shadow Priests various mind control mechanisms.

It's something that you're unwilling to accept as a possibility, that a class can have fears or mind controls because another class already has them.

Exactly. What we're talking about here is a Hunter with Mind control. That really isn't a strong foundation for a new class.

Didi having a narrow concept prevent Demon Hunters from being added?

No, because it was a one-trick pony. Dark Rangers are a no-trick pony.

And that you think the Dark Ranger is an even shallower concept is simply an opinion, not something against the possibilities itself. Brewmaster was absolutely shallow in WC3, and it was expanded with Martial Arts themes that weren't really there in WC3 before. Dark Ranger can be opened up with all sorts of themes we simply haven't associated to them thus far.

There was no Monk class in WoW. Monk is a rather robust archetype. I'd be more than willing to entertain a Dark Ranger if you can find a major RPG archetype to place it into.

Death Knight was also a shallow concept that ended up representing the Scourge, as you said. Dark Ranger may open up to a variety of different 'Dark' powers if Blizzard wishes to make those connections. Shadowlands has opened up a lot of potential in what we understand as Death magic.

Same thing. Death Knights were placed in the rather robust Necromancer archetype. The problem is that you simply can't do the same thing with Dark Rangers. This is especially the case with Sylvanas being moved out of the picture.

- - - Updated - - -

The Dark Ranger isn't anything. The class doesn't exist. They can literally make it be whatever they want. They can build it into whatever they want. They can have it fill whatever niche and whatever story element they want. It's only a Forsaken Hunter if that's all you make it. Make it something else, and surprise, it's something else.

They are an archetype and that archetype can be crafted in many ways. There is no reason that a playable class is just a Forsaken Hunter with a dead dog than a Demon Hunter is an Elf with wings and comically oversized weapons.

The concept exists. That concept is an undead Ranger, and that concept is firmly in the Hunter class due to Forsaken Hunters. There's no reason to make it anymore than that. Based on how Blizzard has constructed lore, that's exactly what the Dark Ranger is shaping up to be, and what it was always meant to be. People don't talk about a potential Dark Shaman class because they no how absurd that is, so this desire to have a class that is essentially a "Dark Hunter" is very puzzling.

Why do you need somebody to spell out how it could work? I'm not going to build out the entirety of a class that I really don't care about. Use your imagination here. Take the concept of a dead archer that uses Necromancy, shadows and trickery to fight and build it. And one class does not own the entirety of a thing. Just because a Shadow Priest can do mind stuff doesn't mean that no other class can touch on it. There is example, after example, after example, of claases having similar abilities and crossover themes. It's more than doable to add a Charm ability to the game that doesn't make the the Shadow Priest suddenly irrelevant.

So do you believe that the Dark Ranger is a viable class concept simply because of Charm? Because that's really the only thing that makes it somewhat unique from the Hunter class, and even then, Hunters have Tame Beast which is pretty much Charm for Beast mobs, so even then the Dark Ranger isn't unique or different than what we already have in the class lineup.

Which is exactly what I said. The Bard is absolutely no different there.

What's the Warlock's niche? Fel Magic?

Demonic Pets and Dark Caster.

The Shaman? Elemental Magic?

The ability to be a heavily armored magic user and combining casting and melee (battle mage).

The Priest? Holy Magic?

Balancing Shadow and Holy magic.

How is this different? Why are these concepts so doable and possible to make into a playable class but a Bard isn't? How is it set apart? The absolute same ways all of the above classes are set apart. They are built differently.

See above. Again, this would be far better if we actually had a true example of the Blizzard Bard. Blizzard tends to have unique spins on RPG concepts. Without that, we're just spinning our tires.

[Triceron]

Your argument is that the Dark Ranger is different than a Hunter because it "manipulates people". I'm simply asking how this would work outside of Shadow Priests various mind control mechanisms.

They would have an assortment of Fears, Mind Controls and Silence abilities, as would be expected of a Dark Ranger class themed around Banshees and Sylvanas. I explained this thoroughly in the same statement about manipulation, which Hunters do not do. Where is your confusion?

Also, you should elaborate on what 'outside of Shadow Priests various mind control mechanisms?' means. Do you mean Shadow Priests should have exclusivity on this mechanic and that no other class can have mind control abilities? I would simply disagree with this if this is the case.

Exactly. What we're talking about here is a Hunter with Mind control. That really isn't a strong foundation for a new class.

If we are talking about Hunters with Mind Control, I fully agree with you that this would not be a strong foundation for a new class.

Paladins with Necromancy wouldn't be a strong foundation for a new class either, and it's a good thing that Playable Death Knights were built up to be much more than that.

I think the big question is - if Hunters had Mind Control, would you call it a Dark Ranger? If you did, then I'd agree that your idea of a Dark Ranger would not be strong for a new class.

There was no Monk class in WoW. Monk is a rather robust archetype. I'd be more than willing to entertain a Dark Ranger if you can find a major RPG archetype to place it into.

They wouldn't need a major RPG archetype, they're already a well established class concept within WoW. Same as Demon Hunters.

What major RPG archetype is a Demon Hunter class exactly?

Same thing. Death Knights were placed in the rather robust Necromancer archetype.

Dark Rangers aren't typically Necromancers as much as they are shadowy assassins who manipulate their opponents with dark magic. Death Knights use Necromancy in a direct and forceful way, while Dark Rangers employ subtlety.

Watch the Sylvanas vs Bolvar fight. Very different uses of Unholy and Shadow magic between these characters. Even on a thematic level, Sylvanas' shadow magic is purple as opposed to the traditional unholy greens we see.

[jellmoo]

The concept exists. That concept is an undead Ranger, and that concept is firmly in the Hunter class due to Forsaken Hunters. There's no reason to make it anymore than that. Based on how Blizzard has constructed lore, that's exactly what the Dark Ranger is shaping up to be, and what it was always meant to be. People don't talk about a potential Dark Shaman class because they no how absurd that is, so this desire to have a class that is essentially a "Dark Hunter" is very puzzling.

The concept exists only as an undead ranger because you continue to frame it that way. Just repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't suddenly make it true. It is more than that the same way that a Death Knight is more than "undead guy with sword". The concept combines a variety of themes and potantial mechanics that can be made into a class. Just because you can't see what people want from a class concept doesn't invalidate it automatically.

So do you believe that the Dark Ranger is a viable class concept simply because of Charm? Because that's really the only thing that makes it somewhat unique from the Hunter class, and even then, Hunters have Tame Beast which is pretty much Charm for Beast mobs, so even then the Dark Ranger isn't unique or different than what we already have in the class lineup.

Why do you keep looking for the absolute roughest equivalencies to something and then hand wave things away with the notion that it should be good enough?

I mean, people mention that a Dark Ranger could be a master of trickery with the ability to influence the minds of enemies and the solution is Tame Beast? That is supposed to fill the class fantasy? Why is it that as soon as you don't like a class concept everyone should have to compromise on the class fantasy with wild ability stretches and settle for something that obviously isn't fulfilling the fantasy since they are seeking the new class?

Demonic Pets and Dark Caster.

The ability to be a heavily armored magic user and combining casting and melee (battle mage).

Balancing Shadow and Holy magic.

So, in each case a class mechanic or theme that identifies the class and gives it an identity. Why on earth do you think that a playable Bard class wouldn't have exactly that? You seem to be under the impression that the entirety of such a class would be: Generic Musical Ability #1, Generic Musical Ability #2, Generic Musical Ability #3, etc... As though Blizzard wouldn't actually attempt to build a robust class with unique mechanics and unique flavour all its own.

See above. Again, this would be far better if we actually had a true example of the Blizzard Bard. Blizzard tends to have unique spins on RPG concepts. Without that, we're just spinning our tires.

Why though? I mean, they obviously can create classes. They've done it a ton. They can obviously create classes based on very little. They've done that too. Why on earth is it difficult to visualize how they could potentially add a Bard class to the game? We don't need an example of something before it exists. Literally every game out there creates things like this for their game. Blizzard can do just that, creating something new and exciting as a hook for an upcoming expansion. Like every other feature they introduce, it can happen for the first time within an expansion.

[Ielenia]

Not really. The Dark Ranger concept is merely an evil version of the Hunter class.

You're once again posting your headcanon as fact. Nowhere it says that

There's no "wild" variation there beyond sowing dissension and hared within enemy ranks which was really only mentioned because the Dark Ranger hero unit had "charm".

Notice the complete lack of any mentions of the wilderness and beasts in the dark ranger description, and the complete lack of mentioning magic or necromancy in the hunter description.

And frankly I don't see how Charm is any different than Tame animal or any of the multiple control abilities in multiple classes. Essentially what you're arguing here is that we should create a new class because Hunters don't have Mind Control.

You say you don't see any difference between Charm and Tame animal. You're saying you see no difference between befriending a beast, and mind-controlling a humanoid? Are you serious? And once again: you're reducing everything to their most basic, to the point of dishonesty. Do you really see no difference between the warlock's Enslave Demon and the death knight's Control Undead? By that very same token, I can say that I see no difference between your tinker turrets and the shaman's totems or the monk's statues.

I don't see how you can justify a new class just because you have an undead version of a Hunter.

It's your headcanon that the dark ranger is "just an undead version of the hunter class".

[shoc]

The only reason I'd say Dark Rangers aren't Hunters is because they'd look terrible in Mail armour, a true Dark Ranger would need access to Leather transmogs, not Mail.

Which is why I say they'd be a perfect fit to replace Sub Rogue. Add bows, rejig Shadow Magic to Death Magic and it's done.

Rogues in classical RPG use Bows all the time. It's the epitome of the shadowy, ranged assassin fantasy.

[Teriz]

They would have an assortment of Fears, Mind Controls and Silence abilities, as would be expected of a Dark Ranger class themed around Banshees and Sylvanas. I explained this thoroughly in the same statement about manipulation, which Hunters do not do. Where is your confusion?

So essentially a Hunter with Shadow Priest CC abilities.

Also, you should elaborate on what 'outside of Shadow Priests various mind control mechanisms?' means. Do you mean Shadow Priests should have exclusivity on this mechanic and that no other class can have mind control abilities? I would simply disagree with this if this is the case.

Warlocks have access to mind control abilities as well. Adding a Hunter that tames or scares humanoids instead of beasts is hardly a novel addition to the class lineup.

If we are talking about Hunters with Mind Control, I fully agree with you that this would not be a strong foundation for a new class.

Well that's what you're talking about; A Hunter that tames and fears humanoids instead of beasts.

Paladins with Necromancy wouldn't be a strong foundation for a new class either, and it's a good thing that Playable Death Knights were built up to be much more than that.

They had nothing to do with Paladins though. None of the Paladin's abilities appeared in the Death Knight class. You're actually advocating for a class that takes Hunter abilities and concepts from Priests. That's simply not a good foundation for a new class.

Dark Rangers aren't typically Necromancers as much as they are shadowy assassins who manipulate their opponents with dark magic. Death Knights use Necromancy in a direct and forceful way, while Dark Rangers employ subtlety.

I would argue that Dark Rangers aren't really Necromancers at all. There's been multiple examples of Black Arrow that has no necromancer component. It's appearance in HotS was one such example. Further, Hunters have aspects of assassination as well via Marksmanship which has quite a few sniper aspects within its theme. Interestingly, most Dark Rangers were assigned to that spec in Legion.

Watch the Sylvanas vs Bolvar fight. Very different uses of Unholy and Shadow magic between these characters. Even on a thematic level, Sylvanas' shadow magic is purple as opposed to the traditional unholy greens we see.

Yeah, because at that point Sylvanas was infused with death magic from the Jailer. She is no longer a true Dark Ranger, but something else entirely. The true Dark Rangers are Daleryn Summermoon and Nathanos. They always were.

[Triceron]

So essentially a Hunter with Shadow Priest CC abilities.

Nope.

We're either talking about a Dark Ranger, or we're not talking about a Dark Ranger.

Any assertion that they're X class with Y ability is on the level of an existing class with Covenant abilities; they're not new classes. Paladins aren't new classes just because they have Necromancy abilities this expansion, right?

Well that's what you're talking about; A Hunter that tames and fears humanoids instead of beasts.

Would you call that a Dark Ranger?

I wouldn't, because that's not my definition of a Dark Ranger, and that is not what I'm talking about. If you wish to view it that way then by all means, we can both agree to dismiss the idea that Hunters that tame and fear humanoids would not be a new class.

They had nothing to do with Paladins though. None of the Paladin's abilities appeared in the Death Knight class. You're actually advocating for a class that takes Hunter abilities and concepts from Priests. That's simply not a good foundation for a new class.

Zeliek was a Death Knight who used Holy abilities. All Death Knights in Warcraft 3 were corrupted Paladins. There's no difference in this discussion because we're either talking about Paladins or we're talking about Death Knights, and the abilities within each don't define the class itself.

We can have Paladins that use Necromancy, we can have Death Knights that use Holy abilities, and their classes aren't changed just because of the abilities they are using.

Simply said, Dark Rangers aren't Hunters with new abilities. If you want Dark Rangers to be Hunters with new abilities, then you are right that your idea is not a good foundation for a new class.

As for what I'm talking about, I have an example of how the Dark Ranger could work here

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post52985279

I would argue that Dark Rangers aren't really Necromancers at all. There's been multiple examples of Black Arrow that has no necromancer component. It's appearance in HotS was one such example.

I would agree then.

They use Necromantic abilities, but are not Necromancers by definition and class fantasy.

Yeah, because at that point Sylvanas was infused with death magic from the Jailer. She is no longer a true Dark Ranger, but something else entirely. The true Dark Rangers are Daleryn Summermoon and Nathanos. They always were.

Eh, still too early to cast her as 'no longer a true Dark Ranger' because at the same time she is the 'living' definition of the class. Without Sylvanas, there would not be a Dark Ranger title at all. It would just be Forsaken/Undead Elf Hunters or Forsaken/Undead Elf Rangers, not a Dark Ranger.

And like I said, Delaryn and Nathanos both have unique abilities that they share with each other, but not with any Hunter in the game.

[jellmoo]

The only reason I'd say Dark Rangers aren't Hunters is because they'd look terrible in Mail armour, a true Dark Ranger would need access to Leather transmogs, not Mail.

Which is why I say they'd be a perfect fit to replace Sub Rogue. Add bows, rejig Shadow Magic to Death Magic and it's done.

Rogues in classical RPG use Bows all the time. It's the epitome of the shadowy, ranged assassin fantasy.

I mean, I think that having a ranged Rogue spec would be cool, and you're right, it certainly is an archetype that should be viable.

The problem is that there is always a ton of backlash when a spec gets revised in such a way that it is no longer recognizable. It happened with both Demonology and Survival. And Sub may actually be more popular a spec than either of those were. I can imagine that there would be a ton of people seriously pissed off that their spec was essentially stripped from the game.

[Kumorii]

The only reason I'd say Dark Rangers aren't Hunters is because they'd look terrible in Mail armour, a true Dark Ranger would need access to Leather transmogs, not Mail.

Which is why I say they'd be a perfect fit to replace Sub Rogue. Add bows, rejig Shadow Magic to Death Magic and it's done.

Rogues in classical RPG use Bows all the time. It's the epitome of the shadowy, ranged assassin fantasy.

Sub is the most rogue spec of the rogue specs... If something it should replace Outlaw.