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

[Teriz]

No, they don't. Death knights use necromancy. Shadow priests use void magic. Warlocks use fel magic.

All Shadow Magic.

Demon hunters use chaos magic.

And Shadow magic.

And gameplay-wise the damage type does not matter.

Sure it does, some races take less Shadow damage than others. Examples;

Void Elves:

Chill of Night: Reduces Shadow damage taken by 1%.

Undead:

Shadow Resistance: Reduces Shadow damage taken by 1%.

Some abilities like Shadow Ward only absorbed Shadow damage.

You can apply this to pretty much every damage type.

And it won't happen as a class ability.

I'm sure you have a statement from Blizzard to back that up.

We're talking about that one, single, specific mechanic: i.e. "mech piloting", and how it is no different than the druid's shapeshifting, mechanic-wise.

Like I said, that wasn't what *I* was talking about. Again, sorry you misunderstood.

It grants the warlock extra damage as AoE for their abilities. And on top of that, it also grants them new abilities depending on the demon sacrificed:
• Voidwalker: Shadow Bulwark
• Felguard: Pursuit
• Felhunter: Spell Lock
• Imp: Singe magic
• Succubus: Seduction
So, yes, it does grant the warlock new abilities.

Actually it doesn't. Their pets have those abilities regardless. They just show up on the Warlock tool bar instead of the pet bar.

EDIT: looking over Grimore of Sacrifice, you must be looking at an older build. The current talent states this;

Grimoire of Sacrifice
Talent
Unlimited range
Instant 30 sec cooldown
Requires Warlock (Affliction, Destruction)
Sacrifices your demon pet for power, gaining its command demon ability, and causing your spells to sometimes also deal (43.75% of Spell power) additional Shadow damage.

Lasts 1 hour or until you summon a demon pet.

It even says this at the link you used.

And your pet always has the command demon ability in its talents/toolbar. When you sacrifice it, it simply moves to your action bar.

Which is irrelevant because that is purely cosmetic, therefore not a mechanic.

If it grants you a new ability, it's also mechanical.

Your exact words:

Once again, you try to lie your way out.

I'm talking about Eject a class ability. Not the action "leave vehicle". They're not the same thing. Again, I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

Just like my warrior can continue to keep fighting after their vehicle has destroyed and can return to the vehicle to get a new one? Regardless, that is something that is not happening to WoW in terms of a class feature. Blizzard is not going to give a class two health bars, which is essentially a permanent "cheat death".

Again, I'm sure you have a statement from Blizzard to back that up. Mech-using NPCs have that ability, including Gazlowe in Island Expeditions alongside the HotS Tinker abilities, so there's little reason to assume that a mech-using class wouldn't also have the ability.

[Ielenia]

All Shadow Magic.

Irrelevant. That is just a game mechanic that in no way indicates that fel, void and necromantic magic are the same, or even "branches". Especially since the lore specifically mentions they are not even related.

Sure it does, some races take less Shadow damage than others. Examples;

I'm talking about your claims that all those types of magic are "the same" because they're categorized in the game mechanics as 'shadow magic'.

I'm sure you have a statement from Blizzard to back that up.

No class is going to have a permanent, passive cheat death ability.

Like I said, that wasn't what *I* was talking about. Again, sorry you misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand. You failed to communicate. Your words were specific. Now you're trying to backpedal.

And your pet always has the command demon ability in its talents/toolbar. When you sacrifice it, it simply moves to your action bar.

And they become the warlock's ability, not the demon's, actually acquiring a new ability.

If it grants you a new ability, it's also mechanical.

You're moving the goalposts here considering my answer was to this line of yours:

In addition, you should be able to see the new device on the mech when you merge.

In other words: nothing but cosmetic. Just like the mage catching on fire when using Combustion is just cosmetic.

I'm talking about Eject a class ability. Not the action "leave vehicle". They're not the same thing. Again, I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

Once again, you're moving the goalposts, considering this was your previous statement:

I didn't say pilot a vehicle, I said pilot a mech.

Stay in the argument.

Mech-using NPCs have that ability,

NPCs aren't players. NPCs aren't player classes. NPCs can get away with stuff us players cannot. NPCs follow different rules than us players. Anduin is a priest wearing plate. Thrall is a shaman that has wore plate armor for years. Tyrande is a priest who can use a bow. Genn can attack unarmed despite not being a monk. Rexxar is a melee beastmaster.

[Teriz]

Irrelevant. That is just a game mechanic...

And for the las time, we're talking about game mechanics.

No class is going to have a permanent, passive cheat death ability.

I never said they would.

I didn't misunderstand.

You clearly did.

And they become the warlock's ability, not the demon's, actually acquiring a new ability.

Except nothing stops you from using the ability when it's in the Pet's toolbar. You can even put it in your toolbar if you want.

You're moving the goalposts here considering my answer was to this line of yours:

In other words: nothing but cosmetic. Just like the mage catching on fire when using Combustion is just cosmetic.

You were asking me how it was different from the Warlock ability. I was pointing it out for you.

Once again, you're moving the goalposts, considering this was your previous statement:

Stay in the argument.

The argument was always about the mech. Again, we're talking about a class ability, not the vehicle system used by WoW. You even said yourself that the mechanic for the actual ability would operate like the Druid forms. The Druid forms are not the same mechanic as the WoW vehicle system. So if anyone needs to stay in the argument, it would be you.

NPCs aren't players. NPCs aren't player classes. NPCs can get away with stuff us players cannot. NPCs follow different rules than us players. Anduin is a priest wearing plate. Thrall is a shaman that has wore plate armor for years. Tyrande is a priest who can use a bow. Genn can attack unarmed despite not being a monk. Rexxar is a melee beastmaster.

And these are mechanics that Blizzard has shown mech-users using that could come with a class that also uses a mech. These mechanics are different than the vehicle system, and it's different from any other class in the game. Nothing stops Blizzard from implementing those mechanics for a mech-based class.

That's the point. Feel free to have the last word.

[Alkizon]

Since HOTS and WoW, they seemed to give Sylvanas more Rogue connections. Shadow Daggers, using Daggers in melee, heavy use of shadow magic and shadow clones, shadow-step-like ability baked into Haunting Wave.

Well, in general, I have already eloquently expressed that presence of "shadow magic" (regardless of used weapons) by itself in no way adds anything rogues' to DR's concept. And also it's quite literally being said in cited by you message about where their power comes from and how it works - this is just shadow mage in skin armor, who very skillfully enchants own weapons and corresponding specific (non-rogue) skills. In other words, neither fighting style nor their abilities are in any way associated with what rogues have, and this is especially true of all that (abilities, effects; their source of dodges, parries, strikes and other things are magical, and not physical, like rogues'; any similarity is only visual, even in-game warriors have more in common with rogues than DRs does; they fight in melee sometimes, no doubt, but their fight is closer to enh.shaman's "battle mage" performance in mechanics than rogue's) was shown in regards to DR or in videos with Sylvanas
- - -
at least those, which aren't made on game engine, I'm skipping any "with in-game models", their peacockery and pretentious pretentiousness and grimacing, both facial and literal, game animations cause just headache and persistent vomiting, I can't force myself to watch at such stuff, too disgusting... however, I strongly doubt that they have at least something in favor of this conclusion
- - -
ps. And here I once again draw attention to fact that I mean literal implementation of rogues' fantasy in game (whole class mechanics; dagers/bows are just tools, they don't speak for anything, direct mechanics/implementation is important; DR uses literal shadow magic, not subpar/suppositive/mimic-material), but not in some hybrid external "specializations" from other official/amateur projects.

[Ielenia]

And for the las time, we're talking about game mechanics.

And those game mechanics you're talking about are irrelevant to what you're trying to do, as explained several times over.

I never said they would.

"Ejecting from the mech when it dies" is a "cheat death" ability.

You clearly did.

If I did, it was of no fault of my own, as I explained.

Except nothing stops you from using the ability when it's in the Pet's toolbar. You can even put it in your toolbar if you want.

Who's to say you can't do the same thing to the tinker?

You were asking me how it was different from the Warlock ability. I was pointing it out for you.

Except what you pointed out was just a cosmetic difference, not a mechanic difference.

The argument was always about the mech. Again, we're talking about a class ability, not the vehicle system used by WoW. You even said yourself that the mechanic for the actual ability would operate like the Druid forms. The Druid forms are not the same mechanic as the WoW vehicle system. So if anyone needs to stay in the argument, it would be you.

Yeah, I did say that. Because it's true: mechanically speaking, the ability to pilot a mech is no different than the ability of a druid to shapeshift.

And these are mechanics that Blizzard has shown mech-users using that could come with a class that also uses a mech.

You do know we have WAY more tech-users without mechs than with mechs, right? And as I pointed out: NPCs are not classes. NPCs are not players. NPCs have much greater freedom about the abilities they can have than players. Which is why a warrior can have attacks that deal void damage, a priest can wear plate, a warrior can fight unarmed and a priest can wield a bow, and dual-wield glaives.

[Triceron]

And here I once again draw attention to fact that I mean literal implementation of rogues' fantasy in game (whole class mechanics; dagers/bows are just tools, they don't speak for anything, direct mechanics/implementation is important; DR uses literal shadow magic, not subpar/suppositive/mimic-material), but not in some hybrid external "specializations" from other official/amateur projects.

No point making that distinction since Dark Rangers will ultimately be Dark Rangers. They are not hunters, not sure necromancers, not rogues by definition or by gameplay association.

Yet the simalarities and tools of each are present in the Dark Rangers core fantasy. They are akin to Paladins having multiple connections and similarities to Priests and Warriors. Comparisons will always be drawn.

[CharlieIrwin]

When it gets to a point you CANNOT do the same things, or the experience is so shot (Think multi-hour queues for everything), is when they'll decide it's time. Not before.

[razorpax]

Ok we are looking at 9.2 for any last minute classes to be excluded from the possible line up

Due to blizzard’s statements about the NecroLord set helping with the necromancer fantasy I’m still thinking that will be a possibility

I really wanna see the story behind that infinite pirate dragon

[Teriz]

Ok we are looking at 9.2 for any last minute classes to be excluded from the possible line up

Due to blizzard’s statements about the NecroLord set helping with the necromancer fantasy I’m still thinking that will be a possibility

I really wanna see the story behind that infinite pirate dragon

I think you should give up on the necromancer class. If it were going to be a class, this would be the expansion to do it. The next expansion isn't going to be another death expansion.

Infinite Pirate Dragon is definitely a tantalizing clue, and Dragon isles are definitely a possibility. However does Blizzard really want to go with Cataclysm 2.0 right after WotLK 2.0? Even if they go with Dragon Isles, there might not be a class next expansion either. They might be saving the next class for the 20th anniversary of the game.

[Alkizon]

Triceron
Yet the simalarities and tools of each are present in the Dark Rangers core fantasy.

If post didn't refer to specific classes, I'd agree. In general, it's not contradictory, there are certain classes with common mechanics, especially since there're too many of them now. My phrase was based on fact that I was referring to original concepts, and not to the moment after their head was blown off, when they lost fear, wisdom and conscience and began to break mechanics in favor of homogenization, in favor of role/specialization, but not for class fantasy. In principle, I'm not particularly inclined to argue on this topic (there may be some divergence of "opinions" in contrast to principles of core design, which has certain hard rules), it takes a long time, however, difference between mechanics of original paladins, warriors and priests is easy to explain, they have nothing in common in field of key elements, these are so diametrically opposite classes that I can't even imagine how such a question could arise. We raised this topic (influence of armor, weapons and resource) of binding/linking with fantasy even in necromancers' old topic
- - - - -
it was recently even taken from the bottom, however, additions on "part of PvP talents" are useless, since there shouldn't be any, as such, it's dictated by design requirements, but I promised myself not criticize any local concepts, at least even because people put a lot of work into them, also brain warming up on its own is useful activity, in any case this part (sane part of it), with good circumstances, can simply be introduced into core mechanics of those classes
- - - - -
All I can tell you is that everything that you refer to has no effect within immediate class mechanics (and it's literally what we talked about DR), all this doesn't apply to them, but fault isn't yours here, rather devs, who, as I said, due to their irrepressible stupidity, don't want/bother to maintain necessary "rhythm and consistency" and because of this such controversial issues arise.

I don't want to intermeddle in this mess again *pointing on stuff that happening around* This, as I understood, not only does take plenty of time, but even more - doesn't give any significant results. Sorry.

Ielenia
So, reading what was written here on Bellular's interview, apparently there is a new "type of magic": domination magic. What it is and what exactly it can do are not defined, but it's an interesting possibility to consider for the future, I imagine.

I'd say that this is about "area/method of application", but not about its type/school. In any case, this is exactly impression from said phrases. I can just assume that basic schools for them can be both light and shadow *looking with apprehension at Star wars* I'm afraid to be unoriginal, but let's say that first suppresses/obscures mind, and second calms/inspires on something more creative. So it's more like something about how and what you do, but not about what magic you use for that. Moreover, even from discussion this is clear that people don't see "something new" in it.

[Ielenia]

So, reading what was written here on Bellular's interview, apparently there is a new "type of magic": domination magic. What it is and what exactly it can do are not defined, but it's an interesting possibility to consider for the future, I imagine.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you should give up on the necromancer class. If it were going to be a class, this would be the expansion to do it. The next expansion isn't going to be another death expansion.

No, it would not. Because necromancers are about undeath, not the afterlife. And this is an expansion about the afterlife.

[pacotaco]

There is nothing rogues' in DR and full-fledged hunters' too, they're more of "agile mind-ed shadow mage", all its weapons are defective in themselves, but they are enchanted, magic is its weapon... but they aren't necromancers either, there are some common elements that intersect, but these are attacking and protecting spells, and not a full-fledged life/death force manipulation (for the same reason DK can't act as full-fledged necromancer). And when I mention these classes, I speak precisely for their literal mechanics, for their concept, and not for specific weapon or its use. You better forget already about these idiotic boundaries, that devs have drawn for their convenience here and there without any logic (narrow/tied scope in terms of weapons/specs'abilities/armor and other stuff, this is frank narrow-mindedness). All this was cut under auspices of balance, but in the end nothing like that happened, which indicates completely different nature of such phenomenon.

They have elemens of all 3 if you look at all sources (WC3, WoW, HoTs and the tabletop RPGs):

- Rogues: in the TTRPG they can stealth, they have ranged backstab, they have dodges similars to rogues. In WoW, they can stealth and disguise.
- Hunter: ranged attacks with bows, melee attacks dual-wielding. In W3 they are a dark version of the elven rangers. In the TTRPG they have a lot of abilities similar to rangers. In WoW, they use a lot of hunter abilities
- Necromancer: in W3 and HoTs they raise the dead, they curse and plague enemies, they posses enemies. In the TTRPG they have A LOT of necromancy spells. In WoW, is truth that we don't see DRs do a lo of necro stuff, save Sylvanas, raising dead, using Banshee stuff, etc.

The concept I see from all media is a mix of those 3 archetypes. I think that's the idea that Blizzard has in mind. Then, they adapted it to each medium according to the gameplay.

[Alkizon]

of abilities similar to

dude, really... also previous speakers at least took the trouble to finish reading

ps. And here I once again draw attention to fact that I mean literal implementation of rogues' fantasy in game (whole class mechanics; dagers/bows are just tools, they don't speak for anything, direct mechanics/implementation is important; DR uses literal shadow magic, not subpar/suppositive/mimic-material), but not in some hybrid external "specializations" from other official/amateur projects.

not that you have to read the entire discussion that follows, but still... they really don't. Read entire message, part of which I copied and may be also what is on this page above. What you're talking about doesn't apply to key class mechanics. It's like "big specialists" who called old survival and mm "too alike" because "thiy r shutng boff". They just don't. To refer personally to Sylvanas is separate topic in itself (I have provided links to pictures solely to illustrate, answer interlocutor to his literal part).

1. A Ranged Tank.

every time seeing this statement it touches me. It's not long to answer. Listen: to make sense of range tank, you need range boss, okay? There were several of them during entire existence of this game and for them "right away" players already found range tanks. Anything that is now "trying to run up" to tanking character, which means that even with opportunity to tank from distance, character will be forced to tank in close combat. Is this understandably? In other words, players have had range tanks for a long time, party just don't need them today, so they aren't being in use.

[monkfailz]

1. A Ranged Tank.

Currently, all tanks are melee.

A class that can tank the boss at ranged would be awesome.
It's never been done before, would be very interesting.


2. A Tinkerer class. (as everyone has said.)

Kind of like the Engineer class in TF2.
Set traps and gadgets to kill his enemies while he just sits back and relax.

[Teriz]

1. A Ranged Tank.

Currently, all tanks are melee.

A class that can tank the boss at ranged would be awesome.
It's never been done before, would be very interesting.


2. A Tinkerer class. (as everyone has said.)

Kind of like the Engineer class in TF2.
Set traps and gadgets to kill his enemies while he just sits back and relax.

The big question with ranged tanks is how are you truly ranged if the bosses are all melee based.

I think a possible answer is an offshoot of the pet system where you launch a forcefield sort of like Orisa or Sigma from Overwatch. The forcefield follows your movements and generates threat while you stay 30-40 yds away blasting it with your mech cannons. Damage to the field causes "feedback" that in turn damages you.

I think that's one way to do it.

Another way would be the "faux" range tanks from SWTOR where you're using ranged weapons but you're still in melee range (5-10 yds).

[pacotaco]

dude, really... also previous speakers at least took the trouble to finish reading
not that you have to read the entire discussion that follows, but still... they really don't. Read entire message, part of which I copied and may be also what is on this page above. What you're talking about doesn't apply to key class mechanics. It's like "big specialists" who called old survival and mm "too alike" because "thiy r shutng boff". They just don't. To refer personally to Sylvanas is separate topic in itself.

It's not a problem of not reading you, is a problem of not getting your point. You need to be clearer. E.g.:

And here I once again draw attention to fact that I mean literal implementation of rogues' fantasy in game

What is "rogue fantasy in game"?
WoW currently have 3 rogue concepts: assassin (poisons & brute force), ninja (silent & fast), and pirate (dirty combat).

(whole class mechanics;

Fantasy != class mechanics. Mechanics are just way to deliver fantasy, but theme is important too.

dagers/bows are just tools, they don't speak for anything, direct mechanics/implementation is important;

Wrong, weapons matter too. A Dark Ranger not using a bow would be like a sniper shooting with his fingers. You can make it work, mechanically, in a videogame but it just looks wrong.
Is like a priest healing people by hitting them with an axe.

DR uses literal shadow magic, not subpar/suppositive/mimic-material)

So? What the point? Whta does have to do with the mechanics subject you're exposing?

, but not in some hybrid external "specializations" from other official/amateur projects.

????

I think what you're trying to ask is "What makes DRs unique like a rogue?"
That's more of a philosophical question.

Paladins are warriors + priest, warlocks are mages with pets, druids are a 4 in 1 class, monks are stealth-less rogues with healing, etc.

Hell, if you simplifies it more, you can say there just 4 mechanics: Health, damage, build resources, consume resources.

For me is less of a uniqueness on single mechanics, and more on how you combine them to create a new thing.

For example: Monk and rogue use both energy bars and combo points, but they don't play the same.

- - - Updated - - -

1. A Ranged Tank.

Currently, all tanks are melee.

A class that can tank the boss at ranged would be awesome.
It's never been done before, would be very interesting.


2. A Tinkerer class. (as everyone has said.)

Kind of like the Engineer class in TF2.
Set traps and gadgets to kill his enemies while he just sits back and relax.

Both are mechanically and technically doable, but they have problems:
1- How you keep the enemies away? Does the thing you use stays away with the boss? Do you need to use both ranged (your body) and melee mechanics (your "tanking body") on an encounter?

2.- That was how Shaman worked, and the problem is that by the time you deployed your turrets (totems) the combat was done and moving away. That why they are jus short CDs now, instead of permanent things planted in the ground.
And if you make them movable, whats the difference between shaman (if make them short CDs) or a class with pets (if you make them movable permanent elements)?

[Alkizon]

- snip -

Post you first quoted has 3 links. In each of them talking about specific class. But before you go there, you must understand one simple thing that was discussed on those pages that you missed and it's formulated quite simply, I'll take a more substantive (to use words you used here) essence from another message (you can follow quote link and read entire message to understand general idea, it won't be superfluous):

There is no fantasy, there are only rules in form of mechanics used, realization of this basic fantasy. There are no swashbucklers, no ninjas, nothing of this kind, there are only bare "numbers". In other words, you can play as ninja or swashbuckler, but within limits of mechanic available to whole class (when I say class, I don't mean even just one class at all, you can be swashbuckler-warrior/hunter), but game has no right to impose such thing, focus on it at expense of class, it's your personal choice.

Until you understand and accept this, it makes no sense for you to go further.

There is only class, "specs" don't exist, they were invented by Blizzard to get out of trap into which they drove themselves. They decided that this is good way to fight homogenization, but it didn't work because in the process of both getting into trap and trying to get out of it they ignored banal design rules. Strictly speaking, I have never seen such blatant negligence in details in any game with possibility of development.

Also, monks are bad example on your part, if only because they appeared during period of that homogenization, formally they are "played" mostly in same way, difference is quite insignificant... apparently for this very reason, friend, when criticized new design, wrote "all are monks now" speaking about work of resources and mechanics. I suppose it was clearly "written in state of being angry", but still it was one of first references to "builder-spender" type of gameplay. So... what makes them different is class fantasy and therefore - fewer such elements, the worse. For their imaginary increase devs come up with "specs" idea, but they aren't able to come up with different gameplay for 36 specs, therefore they unified it as much as possible (with which, ideologically, my previous opponent doesn't want to agree). Whereas prior to this, main combat mechanics represented entire class, any direction had almost complete set of class mechanics and therefore could refer to itself as belonging to it. Of course, these (different) were required much less, which naturally led to their significant difference between classes and mostly absence between builds (which differed only in priority of mechanics, these were mostly passive talents, whose task was to modify existing toolkit). It was simple, cool and right. The END.

This is why use of same type of armor, weapon, or magic school can't in any way be related to similarity of class fantasy.

ps. Fearing still not to reach you, same way as character nearby (men knows), I'll say right away that I'm not going to discuss obvious for another 3 pages, so if you have problems with this, then let's finish right here and now. I see no need for a waste of time, neither mine nor yours. Moreover, with potential for swearing with someone, I'm here not for these.

[Teriz]

2.- That was how Shaman worked, and the problem is that by the time you deployed your turrets (totems) the combat was done and moving away. That why they are jus short CDs now, instead of permanent things planted in the ground.
And if you make them movable, whats the difference between shaman (if make them short CDs) or a class with pets (if you make them movable permanent elements)?

One way you solve that problem is to give Tinkers the ability to pre-set the turrets and also allow them to project the turret array to a location up to 30 yds away.

[pacotaco]

Post you first quoted has 3 links. In each of them talking about specific class. But before you go there, you must understand one simple thing that was discussed on those pages that you missed and it's formulated quite simply, I'll take a more substantive (to use words you used here) essence from another message (you can follow quote link and read entire message to understand general idea, it won't be superfluous): Until you understand and accept this, it makes no sense for you to go further.

There is only class, "specs" don't exist, they were invented by Blizzard to get out of trap into which they drove themselves. They decided that this is good way to fight homogenization, but it didn't work because in the process of both getting into trap and trying to get out of it they ignored banal design rules. Strictly speaking, I have never seen such blatant negligence in details in any game with possibility of development.

Also, monks are bad example on your part, if only because they appeared during period of that homogenization, formally they are "played" mostly in same way, difference is quite insignificant... apparently for this very reason, friend, when criticized new design, wrote "all are monks now" speaking about work of resources and mechanics. I suppose it was clearly "written in state of being angry", but still it was one of first references to "builder-spender" type of gameplay. So... what makes them different is class fantasy and therefore - fewer such elements, the worse. For their imaginary increase devs come up with "specs" idea, but they aren't able to come up with different gameplay for 36 specs, therefore they unified it as much as possible (with which, ideologically, my previous opponent doesn't want to agree).

ps. Fearing still not to reach you, same way as character nearby (men knows), I'll say right away that I'm not going to discuss obvious for another 3 pages, so if you have problems with this, then let's finish right here and now. I see no need for a waste of time, neither mine nor yours. Moreover, with potential for swearing with someone, I'm here not for these.

OK, I think I get what you're saying now: that Dark Rangers can't be a spec of rogues because they are fundamentally too different from what a rogue conceptually is.
I agree. Adding them as a spec of rogues it would be like adding paladin as a spec of warrior.
Dark Ranger are suficiently different from rogues on their current game implementation to be a spec.
They're closer to hunter, and it would be also very difficult thematically.

[Cosmic Janitor]

A ranged tank simply doesn't work with the encounter design in WoW unless it is a pet tank and those have so many issues in games like WoW that they are rarely ever used because they aren't reliable (unless they are simply broken OP). In general it's not so much tank as a ranged doing kiting or CCing anyway if you want to fully realize it, otherwise it's just what we already have in high m+ keys. To begin with, the concept of kiting is causing issues as it is in WoW's tank scene, so going a step further solidifying the role seems to be rather counter intuive to current design goals.