Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Triceron]

Gee, i wonder why... *looks over at Arthas and Illidan*

This "only Sylvanas can" argument is getting old...

Neither Arthas nor Illidan are playable.

Like every other main character.
Since when can Death Knights perform the abilities Arthas, the Lich King, can? Since the Death Knight class was added, of course. They draw abilities from main characters because they're based on them, obviously.

The DK class does way more than Arthas as well. When does Arthas use Death Grip? When does Illidan use Vengeance tanking form?

Our characters are not Arthas or Illidan.

I thought Evokers were something else.
Not very Dragon-related name, is it?

Cuz you never read the writing on the wall and kept operating under your personal beliefs, which continue to blind you to what is actually happening in WoW.

Evoker name gets leaked, we have an expansion called Dragonflight that is dragon related, and we know Blizzard chooses to tailor classes to story and setting. And you thought Evokers were something else that was not Dragon related even though it was pretty clear it would be.

Same seems to be happening to Dark Rangers and Darkfallen now. I mean, you do acknowledge something may be happening at least, don't you?

[username993720]

Neither Arthas nor Illidan are playable.

*facepalm*

The DK class does way more than Arthas as well. When does Arthas use Death Grip? When does Illidan use Vengeance tanking form?

Our characters are not Arthas or Illidan.

You can't put all of that in a single character.
But, of course our classes are based on them, like they should be. That's what you have significant characters for.

Cuz you never read the writing on the wall and kept operating under your personal beliefs, which continue to blind you to what is actually happening in WoW.

Evoker name gets leaked, we have an expansion called Dragonflight that is dragon related, and we know Blizzard chooses to tailor classes to story and setting. And you thought Evokers were something else that was not Dragon related even though it was pretty clear it would be.

How does the name Evoker relates to Dragons?

Same seems to be happening to Dark Rangers and Darkfallen now. I mean, you do acknowledge something may be happening at least, don't you?

I do. I'm not blind.
But, that would be the equivalent of giving Mages an Evoker skin.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Because of their similarities:

sure fine what ever, either way you agree that an orc would bare there teeth and hiss like a animal right?

What the...?
You really think the shots take the characteristics of a Hawk? Now i know who i'm arguing with...

aspect of the hawk doesn’t even say any thing about characteristics you just took that from another aspect and are trying to apply it to hawk.

And yes when the options are they use magic to enchant the flight of there arrows or get hawk eye sight to increase the power of there shots the former will always be the more likely answer given that hawk eyes don’t make arrows fly faster.

Apparently, it was.
Even Thrall didn't sport a unique model. Neither did Jaina, nor Rexxar, or even Vol'jin or Cairne. None of the major characters did back in the day, which indicates the opposite.

again we know for a fact it wasn’t. you can’t say they didn’t have the resources when they were pumping out new models every single patch for less important characters.

They had the resources they just didn’t seem using them on those characters as important.

That's where you error comes from.
1. You do not build an archetype based on some throwaway NPCs.
2. Hunters, pretty much, cannot do what Dark Rangers do except for shots. That is very limiting. That is not all what the Dark Ranger is about.

were not talking about building a archetype we’re taking about how it could be forced into hunters with recolours.

So again what are all of these things none sylvanas’s dark rangers can do that hunters haven’t already had.

[username993720]

sure fine what ever, either way you agree that an orc would bare there teeth and hiss like a animal right?

That's not the sound i would describe.
By the way, talking of sounds, what happens when you put on an aspect?

aspect of the hawk doesn’t even say any thing about characteristics you just took that from another aspect and are trying to apply it to hawk.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Aspect_of_the_Hawk

And yes when the options are they use magic to enchant the flight of there arrows or get hawk eye sight to increase the power of there shots the former will always be the more likely answer given that hawk eyes don’t make arrows fly faster.

Jesus christ...
Increasing your aim directly increases your power.
There's no magic, voodoo, or old God shenanigans involved.

again we know for a fact it wasn’t. you can’t say they didn’t have the resources when they were pumping out new models every single patch for less important characters.

They had the resources they just didn’t seem using them on those characters as important.

Yet, it would happen later on, would it?
Why would they update a character's look if they did just fine, according to you, back in the day?

were not talking about building a archetype we’re taking about how it could be forced into hunters with recolours.

Why would you force something that doesn't fit entirely?

So again what are all of these things none sylvanas’s dark rangers can do that hunters haven’t already had.

These are not true Dark Rangers. These are pale versions of the real deal.
Would you be satisfied with a recolored Rogue for Demon Hunter?
A recolored Paladin for the Death Knight?
I bet you wouldn't.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

That's not the sound i would describe.
By the way, talking of sounds, what happens when you put on an aspect?

I mean it is the sound you would describe as it’s the one you used in a earlier post.

But that’s besides the point, you do agree that they would bare there teeth and make (insert animal noise) while using beastral wrath ya?

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Aspect_of_the_Hawk

The word characteristics isn’t any where on that page.

I know you don’t read any thing you link but you really should as you just prove your self wrong again and again.

Jesus christ...
Increasing your aim directly increases your power.
There's no magic, voodoo, or old God shenanigans involved.

that’s not how bows work having good aim isn’t gonna give you a greater air speed you’d need more tension on the bow string for that and a snappy release. A increase in aim would be a increase to hit or crit not attack power.

And yes it id magic as we already established earlier.

The hunter is a combat class, like the rogue and warrior, but where- as those classes rely on melee attacks, the hunter relies on ranged power. It does have spellcasting ability, but the hunter's spells are supportive ones, used to enhance the hunter's natural abilities.
To complement its ranged attacks, the hunter has a number of spells that imbue its gun or bow with additional damage, damage over time, or other magical effects.
Hunters also have a unique line-of-buff spells he can cast only on himself, which are called aspects. These spells emulate features of certain beasts. The aspect of the cheetah spell, for instance, boosts the hunter's movement speed, while the aspect of the monkey increases its dodge ability.

Yet, it would happen later on, would it?
Why would they update a character's look if they did just fine, according to you, back in the day?

I gave you the reason like two post ago but I’ll reiterate once.

Varian to reflect his comic art.

Sylvanas because her model was just wrong and she wasn’t a night elf.

Malfurion to reflect his changes from the storm rage book.

And so on. In most changes the updates are to reflect how the characters are portrayed in out of wow media and in a few to fix things that are just wrong like in sylvanas’s case.

They always had the resources to change the models as evident by them putting in new models left and right every patch they just didn’t see the need to do it until they were trying to link the characters to out of wow media which they were trying to sell.

Why would you force something that doesn't fit entirely?

well in this case it does fit as shown by hunters already getting dark ranger abilities and if they did add a dark fallen option it would fit even more.

[These are not true Dark Rangers. These are pale versions of the real deal.
Would you be satisfied with a recolored Rogue for Demon Hunter?
A recolored Paladin for the Death Knight?
I bet you wouldn't.

so you think sylvanas is the only real dark ranger all others are fakes?

And he’s I would be fine with demon hunters being recoloured warriors as blizzard was originally planning for hero classes.

[Triceron]

I do. I'm not blind.
But, that would be the equivalent of giving Mages an Evoker skin.

Which is completely possible if that's how Blizzard wanted to roll things out. Here, we see that they chose to make Evoker a new class despite it not being a concept that ever existed before in WC3 or the RPG books like some people kept insisting classes must be based on.

We can't just keep circling around faulty logic as if Blizzard even cares about those reasons. You really think Evokers couldn't be represented as a skin? Evokers literally didn't exist until a few weeks ago and suddenly you know it's unable to be represented by Mages? Blizzard could have just as easily made 'Evoker' the name for Dracthyr Mage just like Sunwalker is merely the name of Tauren Paladins, and not made a full class of it. And all of the unique aspects of the Evoker could merely be Dracthyr racials or part of an overall Mage class revamp that adds the Empower gameplay to them.

Like, pretty sure people were half expecting all Dragon Covenants this expansion, providing new draconic abilities for all classes. That would have been a very strong possibility as well.

But, of course our classes are based on them, like they should be. That's what you have significant characters for.

Dark Ranger customizations would still be based on Sylvanas. Is anyone saying otherwise here?

Just because you think Sylvanas is capable of doing more than a player doesn't mean the class customizations stop being based on her. Like if I point out Felo'Melorn providing Verdant Spheres, would you say it's not based on Kael'thas because it doesn't also provide Gravity Lapse? No, you wouldn't. Verdant Spheres is absolutely part of that Kael'thas Blood Mage identity, intentionally so. It doesn't matter what else Kael'thas is capable of doing, Felo'melorn provides Mage customizations that are based on a significant character like Kael'thas.

The only difference here is these customizations have not been formally added to the Mage class or any particular spec, and are exclusive to Felo'melorn instead of being a class-wide customization. I wouldn't be opposed if Blizzard one day made it a permanent customization option like they had Green Fire questline.

[username993720]

I mean it is the sound you would describe as it’s the one you used in a earlier post.

But that’s besides the point, you do agree that they would bare there teeth and make (insert animal noise) while using beastral wrath ya?

Probably.
Just like aspect of the Cheetah:

The word characteristics isn’t any where on that page.

I know you don’t read any thing you link but you really should as you just prove your self wrong again and again.

Aspect
"a particular part or feature of something."
Synonymous with: Feature, Facet, Side, Characteristic, Particular, Detail, Point, Ingredient, Strand, Angle, Slant, Sense, Respect, Regard.

that’s not how bows work having good aim isn’t gonna give you a greater air speed you’d need more tension on the bow string for that and a snappy release. A increase in aim would be a increase to hit or crit not attack power.

Attack Power isn't Haste. It is a direct increase to your damage. Again, this does not make your arrow faster.

And yes it id magic as we already established earlier.

It's a fantasy game. How do you expect them to explain the supernatural?
Game mechanics do not always equate to lore.

I gave you the reason like two post ago but I’ll reiterate once.

Varian to reflect his comic art.

Sylvanas because her model was just wrong and she wasn’t a night elf.

Malfurion to reflect his changes from the storm rage book.

And so on. In most changes the updates are to reflect how the characters are portrayed in out of wow media and in a few to fix things that are just wrong like in sylvanas’s case.

They always had the resources to change the models as evident by them putting in new models left and right every patch they just didn’t see the need to do it until they were trying to link the characters to out of wow media which they were trying to sell.

What's the reason for Wrathion's new looks in BfA?
Or Baine's?

well in this case it does fit as shown by hunters already getting dark ranger abilities and if they did add a dark fallen option it would fit even more.

But wouldn't represent it fully, would it?
You'd just be play pretend, like you did with a Demonology Warlock back in the day.

so you think sylvanas is the only real dark ranger all others are fakes?

All others are not representative of the class. They are nobodies with barely any abilities.

And he’s I would be fine with demon hunters being recoloured warriors as blizzard was originally planning for hero classes.

Unbelievable.
Do you plan on playing the new Evoker class? Because you could just play a Mage and imagine you are playing one.

Which is completely possible if that's how Blizzard wanted to roll things out. Here, we see that they chose to make Evoker a new class despite it not being a concept that ever existed before in WC3 or the RPG books like some people kept insisting classes must be based on.

Like the Dragonsworn? It's clearly inspired by that.

We can't just keep circling around faulty logic as if Blizzard even cares about those reasons. You really think Evokers couldn't be represented as a skin? Evokers literally didn't exist until a few weeks ago and suddenly you know it's unable to be represented by Mages? Blizzard could have just as easily made 'Evoker' the name for Dracthyr Mage just like Sunwalker is merely the name of Tauren Paladins, and not made a full class of it. And all of the unique aspects of the Evoker could merely be Dracthyr racials or part of an overall Mage class revamp that adds the Empower gameplay to them.

Being satisfied with things like that is what brings the game to its current state. Less specs, one-class race, no wearable armor visible.

Like, pretty sure people were half expecting all Dragon Covenants this expansion, providing new draconic abilities for all classes. That would have been a very strong possibility as well.

Because it made sense, given the covenant feature in Shadowlands.

Dark Ranger customizations would still be based on Sylvanas. Is anyone saying otherwise here?

The inability to translate some of her abilities to the Hunter class?

Just because you think Sylvanas is capable of doing more than a player doesn't mean the class customizations stop being based on her. Like if I point out Felo'Melorn providing Verdant Spheres, would you say it's not based on Kael'thas because it doesn't also provide Gravity Lapse? No, you wouldn't. Verdant Spheres is absolutely part of that Kael'thas Blood Mage identity, intentionally so. It doesn't matter what else Kael'thas is capable of doing, Felo'melorn provides Mage customizations that are based on a significant character like Kael'thas.

So, the question remains: would a Dark Ranger only shoot dark arrows and that's it?

The only difference here is these customizations have not been formally added to the Mage class or any particular spec, and are exclusive to Felo'melorn instead of being a class-wide customization. I wouldn't be opposed if Blizzard one day made it a permanent customization option like they had Green Fire questline.

Wouldn't be opposed.

[choom]

Dark Ranger could be achieved just by giving Sub Rogues access to ranged weapons.

[Alanar]

Neither Arthas nor Illidan are playable.
The DK class does way more than Arthas as well. When does Arthas use Death Grip? When does Illidan use Vengeance tanking form?

Come on man, you are now taking game mechanics way to serious here. Dks and demon hunters are literally based on them. Trying to fullfill that fantasy. People always want that stuff that cool characters have, nothing new. I remember getting remorseless winter as a talent, it was asked by players and we got that. An arthas encounter abillity. Defile is another one.

Its also highly possible encounter or HoTs abillities make it in the game. There is enough proof for that. Wailing arrow for example is a funny one, just because hunters are the only ones who use a bow and its a borrowed power thing. Its also possible this will end up being in their new talent tree for example.

[Triceron]

Come on man, you are now taking game mechanics way to serious here. Dks and demon hunters are literally based on them. Trying to fullfill that fantasy. I remember getting remorseless winter as a talent, it was asked by players and we got that. An arthas encounter abillity. Defile is another one.

Its not really about being Arthas or Illidan, but its highly possible encounter or HoTs abillities make it in the game. There is enough proof for that.

Yes but my point is you aren't actually either of the characters, nor does your character actually represent everything they are capable of.

Example - Arthas was able to create Sylvanas by ripping her soul out of her body. Can player Death Knights create Darkfallen, Banshees and Dark Rangers? No, they can not. We are not Arthas. We are not capable of everything they're shown to be able to do in the lore, or through extension, their gameplay.

That Blizzard allows certain abilities to mimic named character abilities is one thing, to imply that all Dark Rangers are willingly capable of using all of Sylvanas' Banshee form and abilities is quite another. If Blizzard intends to have other Dark Rangers tied to the Banshee aspect, they should be seeding that information into the game or in the lore. What we have is clear enough evidence of the contrary, considering even the Sylvanas novel omits a Banshee origin connection to the other Dark Rangers.

- - - Updated - - -

Like the Dragonsworn? It's clearly inspired by that.

Evoker is both a Dragonsworn and not a Dragonsworn. It's the Dragonsworn concept of merely being a class that has Draconic powers, but with a new name Blizzard can freely define whatever they wish out of an 'Evoker'.

Which is no different than Blizzard having chosen class titles like Blood Mage and Blademaster and to this day not have any full representation of them as their own class, while having very clear connections to existing ones like Mage and Warrior. There's quite a gap between what they consider lore and what they choose to represent through gameplay, and that gap can be filled any number of ways. It's not like 'Evoker' must be a class and could never have been represented by any existing class. It didn't exist till literally 2 weeks ago, and everything we knew about 'Evoker' was merely as a type of Mage NPC. Blizzard literally took the name and redefined it as its own class. They could have just as easily defined it as another type of Mage, ala Sunwalker was another type of Paladin.

Being satisfied with things like that is what brings the game to its current state. Less specs, one-class race, no wearable armor visible.

It has nothing to do with satisfaction or not. I mean, are you literally denying that Blizzard has made a new one-class race that has less specs? You already admit this is the direction they're going, while still arguing that they'll make a completely 3 spec Dark Ranger class in the future. Why do you think I'm literally telling you that's not likely to happen considering what we know now?

The inability to translate some of her abilities to the Hunter class?

Some of her abilities were never meant to be translated at all considering they're raid mechanics and lore specific to her.

Why would any other Dark Ranger have Domination chains? Or her Banshee abilities?

So, the question remains: would a Dark Ranger only shoot dark arrows and that's it?

The answer is whatever Blizzard wishes to define as a playable Dark Ranger, if they present it as an official Hunter customization.

What is the literal difference with Beastmastery Hunters literally being unable to fully represent WC3 Beastmaster 'Summoner' gameplay? For the longest time they never had Stampede, only had 1 pet, and had their dual wield melee component taken away. Yet Beastmastery still represents Beastmasters. Over time we're getting closer, but we're still not actually doing what Rexxar was capable of. And I ask, do we actually need to in order to play as a Beastmaster? I don't think we do.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Probably.

so you agree then beastmasters would mimic animals in combat without it having to have any thing to do with the magical aspects.

B]Aspect[/B]
"a particular part or feature of something."
Synonymous with: Feature, Facet, Side, Characteristic, Particular, Detail, Point, Ingredient, Strand, Angle, Slant, Sense, Respect, Regard.

don’t know where your getting theses from and given that you already tried to bullshit with emulate so I’m Just gonna go with Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...spect#synonyms

Attack Power isn't Haste. It is a direct increase to your damage. Again, this does not make your arrow faster.

haste is an increase of character speed, it would apply to pulling arrows from quivers and getting ready to fire them it wouldn’t apply to arrow speed.

Arrow speed would be attack power as the faster your arrow goes the more power it’s going to have when it punches into an enemy and the more damage it’s going to do.

It's a fantasy game. How do you expect them to explain the supernatural?
Game mechanics do not always equate to lore.

with magic, the direct thing they say hunters use numerous times to enhance there abilities, in non gameplay function where list things that distinguish hunters and rouges/warriors.

You simply don’t have a leg to stand on this is a out of game source describing what a hunter is in no uncertain terms and saying they use magic multiple times and giving examples of the magic they use listing the aspects as one of them.

You might as well say wow has no magic at all and it’s all gameplay that doesn’t reflect the lore as it would be just as valid as you bending over backwards as trying to dismiss hunter magic.

What's the reason for Wrathion's new looks in BfA?
Or Baine's?

wrathion to show the progress in age, baine to reflect The pre BFA novel.

not that either are relevant to them lacking resources in classic which has already been demonstrated to be untrue.

But wouldn't represent it fully, would it?
You'd just be play pretend, like you did with a Demonology Warlock back in the day.

It would represent it fully as all they would have every thing a non sylvanas dark ranger has.

All others are not representative of the class. They are nobodies with barely any abilities.

there is no class as it hasn’t been made into what.

But that’s a yes then? Sylvanas is the only dark ranger every one else is just pretending and blizzard is lying to us by calling them dark rangers?

[Alanar]

Yes but my point is you aren't actually either of the characters, nor does your character actually represent everything they are capable of.

Example - Arthas was able to create Sylvanas by ripping her soul out of her body. Can player Death Knights create Darkfallen, Banshees and Dark Rangers? No, they can not. We are not Arthas. We are not capable of everything they're shown to be able to do in the lore, or through extension, their gameplay.

That Blizzard allows certain abilities to mimic named character abilities is one thing, to imply that all Dark Rangers are willingly capable of using all of Sylvanas' Banshee form and abilities is quite another. If Blizzard intends to have other Dark Rangers tied to the Banshee aspect, they should be seeding that information into the game or in the lore. What we have is clear enough evidence of the contrary, considering even the Sylvanas novel omits a Banshee origin connection to the other Dark Rangers.

- - - Updated - - -

Ofc you are not literally them. The point is they are literally based on them. They are hero characters. As mages you are also not able to let a ship fly and shoot with arcane canons. As they cant allow the player to summon an huge army of undead and raise dragons. This should be obvious idk why you are telling me this.

Encounter or boss abillities that makes you feel like them such as remorseless winter are also lower tier versions of them, this is a cool way. They def tried with the dk to mimic or stay clise to what a dk could do Arthas being the main reference. AotD, valkyr then also defile and used frostmourne shard to get close as possible to.. Arthas. You cant be him ofc, (one shotting players wouldnt be fsir duh) but they still want to make you feel like him. Just pure fantasy. Lets not make this hard shall we.

I wasnt talking about dark rangers specifically, but a dark ranger class could use all sort of influences, encounters hots, hearthstone it really doesnt matter. If blizz decidea to double down on an banshee aspect they could still do that. I am not saying they will or anything, but its pointless to continue to focus on npc abillities, when we know a new class will always end up having way more or just differnt abillities. I remember the same argument with demon hunters. Peoples focus on those couple of demon hunters in outland. They had no dh abillities.

If dark rangers end up being an actual class (which I doubt really) it could end up completely different and not something you and me have in mind. They can change things, add things. It just doesnt matter.

[Triceron]

Ofc you are not literally them. The point is they are literally based on them. They are hero characters. As mages you are also not able to let a ship fly and shoot with arcane canons. As they cant allow the player to summon an huge army of undead and raise dragons. This should be obvious idk why you are telling me this.

Encounter or boss abillities that makes you feel like them such as remorseless winter are also lower tier versions of them, this is a cool way.

Right.

My comments were being taken out of context. Let me put things into perspective then.

Username implied that a Dark Ranger wouldn't be able to be represented by Hunters because Hunters don't have Sylvanas specific abilities like Banshee Forms, Possession and Life Drain.

My response to that is Hunters wouldn't need to be based on Sylvanas specifically to represent Dark Rangers. She is a Hero character, and a Dark Ranger customization option for Hunters would still be based on Dark Rangers and Sylvanas even if they are unable to use Banshee forms and Possession.

Just like a Mage is still based on Heroes like Jaina even though they can't raise a flying battleship that shoots arcane cannonballs.

As for reasons why Hunters wouldn't have those abilities, my response is that so far those abilities are unique to Sylvanas, and we aren't playing as Sylvanas. They literally wrote a novel recently that outlined how unique her powers are to her. Yet we can still have a Dark Ranger be represented in the game, in playable form, without tapping into any of those unique abilities that Sylvanas had.


And for the most part, I don't think I'm making anything difficult here. I think we're mostly on the same page, with slight disagreements in opinion. You think there is still room for Dark Ranger as a class. I do too, and I don't think I've said anything contrary to this belief. I merely don't think Blizzard is intent on agreeing with either of us, since 9.2.5 has some significant evidence towards what could be customization options instead. I don't think they are interested in making Dark Ranger into its own class, even if I personally think they should have.

[Alanar]

Right.

My comments were being taken out of context. Let me put things into perspective then.

Username implied that a Dark Ranger wouldn't be able to be represented by Hunters because Hunters don't have Sylvanas specific abilities like Banshee Forms, Possession and Life Drain.

My response to that is Hunters wouldn't need to be based on Sylvanas specifically to represent Dark Rangers. She is a Hero character, and a Dark Ranger customization option for Hunters would still be based on Dark Rangers and Sylvanas even if they are unable to use Banshee forms and Possession.

Just like a Mage is still based on Heroes like Jaina even though they can't raise a flying battleship that shoots arcane cannonballs.

As for reasons why Hunters wouldn't have those abilities, my response is that so far those abilities are unique to Sylvanas, and we aren't playing as Sylvanas. They literally wrote a novel recently that outlined how unique her powers are to her. Yet we can still have a Dark Ranger be represented in the game, in playable form, without tapping into any of those unique abilities that Sylvanas had.


And for the most part, I don't think I'm making anything difficult here. I think we're mostly on the same page, with slight disagreements in opinion. You think there is still room for Dark Ranger as a class. I do too, and I don't think I've said anything contrary to this belief. I merely don't think Blizzard is intent on agreeing with either of us, since 9.2.5 has some significant evidence towards what could be customization options instead. I don't think they are interested in making Dark Ranger into its own class, even if I personally think they should have.

I refuse to piece every single bit in different quotes lol, but

yes I agree. To put it short, It would be more meaningfull for me if they would give a nod to those old warcraft 3 dark ranger abillities in the future (either hunter or new dark ranger class) for example it could be in the form of a glyph, quest or what ever. Drain life would be odd for hunters tho.

Sylvanas had a few op abillities, thing being dominion stuff. Anything else could still end uo being a downdraged version or just an abillity like I mentioned more of a nod to warcraft 3 and end up being some kind of fun possesion spell. Idk what is wrong with that.
I still think there is a grey area on banshees and getting their bodies back. I dont think its really that hard to make that a small part of the player character. It has to mean something being a dark ranger and using that bit and either retcon how others got it or just change that bit of lore to suit it for player power wouldnt hurt the story at all.

Sylvanas isnt persee needed to represent them, but they would need to do a lot of build up for it to be somenone whos cool or interesting imo, sylvanas was always that other hero class from warcraft 3 we never got to play, all other main ones are, so thats why I think its hard for most to shift to something else. They never bothered to give other dark rangers anything else then since wrath their standard dark shot abillity. You cant tell me thats the only thing sylvanas best army could do.

Yes, there are more hints towards it being a cosmetic options then anything else. Am I sad about it? Uch idk, I dont think I am just because the hype or interest started to fade away earlier on. They just take to damn long to play on peoples wishes or requests. It still baffles me after all this time when sylvanas was still cool, they never bothered to give players something of that. The dark ranger cowl in legion was a complete joke and a kick in the dick. It didnt even look like the ones they are wearing

[Triceron]

Sylvanas had a few op abillities, thing being dominion stuff. Anything else could still end uo being a downdraged version or just an abillity like I mentioned more of a nod to warcraft 3 and end up being some kind of fun possesion spell. Idk what is wrong with that.

The thing is, I never actually said there was anything wrong with that.

My argument and responses to Username are specifically that I don't think they're necessary in representing a playable Dark Ranger (either as Hunter or a new class). And his responses have been very much cycling around the idea that Hunters don't have specific abilities like Drain Life or Possession. Whether Blizzard decides to add or represent them is up to them, but it's never been a necessary criteria for them to regard a Dark Ranger considering neither of these abilities have appeared for Sylvanas in WoW either. If you actually look at what she has in WoW, and even her raid mechanics, Drain Life and Possession are both absent. Have been absent since Vanilla. And anything beyond that like Banshee Forms have been quite unique to her in the lore so far.

I still think there is a grey area on banshees and getting their bodies back. I dont think its really that hard to make that a small part of the player character. It has to mean something being a dark ranger and using that bit and either retcon how others got it or just change that bit of lore to suit it for player power wouldnt hurt the story at all.

I never argued against the possibility, merely pointing out that Blizzard has shown zero intent on making that connection, especially when they could have easily done so in the novel. I mean, does it break current lore to have one or two known Dark Rangers who share Sylvanas' Banshee origins? I don't think so. I merely point out what isn't in the lore considering Username's argument implied that Dark Rangers are already 'based on Sylvanas', and they clearly are not. They're merely represented as Darkfallen 'Hunters' who use some dark magic abilities, with zero connections to Banshee powers or domination magic so far.

This is quite different from the DK/DH situation, where we literally have lore telling us their origins and rituals that make them similar to Arthas and Illidan. It's not a case where Arthas is completely unique to his Death Knights because he has Frostmourne and they do not; all DK's were known to wield Runeblades and that explains most of the source of their powers. All Demon Hunters go through rituals taught by Illidan himself to cover themselves in tattooes and blind themselves to contain demonic power. Yet for Dark Rangers, there's literally no connection between the ones we know in WoW and to Banshees. That all has to be implied, or 'retcon' of what they've been telling us in the game and in the novels. I don't take a retcon as a basic standard when discussing what Dark Rangers in WoW currently are.

Sylvanas isnt persee needed to represent them, but they would need to do a lot of build up for it to be somenone whos cool or interesting imo, sylvanas was always that other hero class from warcraft 3 we never got to play, all other main ones are, so thats why I think its hard for most to shift to something else. They never bothered to give other dark rangers anything else then since wrath their standard dark shot abillity. You cant tell me thats the only thing sylvanas best army could do.

I completely agree here. Part of my argument stems from my interpretation of Blizzard's own intent. And if they haven't done anything interesting with any other Dark Rangers other than Sylvanas, then it tells me they intended everything unique about Banshees to be specific to her rather than be implied as a class-wide attribute.

It's not some mere oversight that Possession is completely missing from WoW, and that Sylvanas herself doesn't use it any more. To me, I see this as Blizzard's intent to distance Sylvanas and Dark Rangers from having this in the lore, and to an extent, as gameplay in WoW.

Would it be cool to have a Possession ability in WoW for Hunters to use? Sure, it would! I would abstract that as merely being gameplay taken from WC3 or HOTS. Hunters or Dark Rangers could abstract gameplay from Valla or Maiev too, for all that matters. There is nothing specific to taking gameplay from other sources and implying that it immediately has to have a connection back to Sylvanas, because we're literally talking about gameplay abstractions that generally have no lore explanation behind them. No different than why Warlocks suddenly lose the ability to use Metamorphosis or why Survival suddenly became Melee or why Demon Hunters have a wingless Vengeance Demon Form. These are merely gameplay abstractions that do not have any connection to lore or being based on any particular named character fantasy.

[username993720]

Dark Ranger could be achieved just by giving Sub Rogues access to ranged weapons.

That would need to be an entire spec of its own.

Evoker is both a Dragonsworn and not a Dragonsworn. It's the Dragonsworn concept of merely being a class that has Draconic powers, but with a new name Blizzard can freely define whatever they wish out of an 'Evoker'.

Which is no different than Blizzard having chosen class titles like Blood Mage and Blademaster and to this day not have any full representation of them as their own class, while having very clear connections to existing ones like Mage and Warrior. There's quite a gap between what they consider lore and what they choose to represent through gameplay, and that gap can be filled any number of ways. It's not like 'Evoker' must be a class and could never have been represented by any existing class. It didn't exist till literally 2 weeks ago, and everything we knew about 'Evoker' was merely as a type of Mage NPC. Blizzard literally took the name and redefined it as its own class. They could have just as easily defined it as another type of Mage, ala Sunwalker was another type of Paladin.

A Dragonsworn couldn't simply be a Mage, because a Mage does not have access to Red, Green and Black Dragonflights' magic. Only Blue and Bronze.

It has nothing to do with satisfaction or not. I mean, are you literally denying that Blizzard has made a new one-class race that has less specs? You already admit this is the direction they're going, while still arguing that they'll make a completely 3 spec Dark Ranger class in the future. Why do you think I'm literally telling you that's not likely to happen considering what we know now?

I can see the decline. Perhaps it will be a 2 spec class. Who knows.

Some of her abilities were never meant to be translated at all considering they're raid mechanics and lore specific to her.

Why would any other Dark Ranger have Domination chains? Or her Banshee abilities?

Because that's what a Dark Ranger is.
Why do you think they expanded on her abilities? Even Life Drain and Charm, clear Dark Ranger abilities, cannot be translated. So, expecting arrows only to represent a Dark Ranger is silly.

The answer is whatever Blizzard wishes to define as a playable Dark Ranger, if they present it as an official Hunter customization.

You can't be serious.
Is a Death Knight a plague-afflicting sword wielder only? Is the Demon Hunter a Fel slasher only? That's what you're trying to reduce it to.

What is the literal difference with Beastmastery Hunters literally being unable to fully represent WC3 Beastmaster 'Summoner' gameplay? For the longest time they never had Stampede, only had 1 pet, and had their dual wield melee component taken away. Yet Beastmastery still represents Beastmasters. Over time we're getting closer, but we're still not actually doing what Rexxar was capable of. And I ask, do we actually need to in order to play as a Beastmaster? I don't think we do.

The comparison is stupid.
You can already tame Bears, Boars and Birds of Prey.
Beastmaster Hunters have access to: Stamepede, Mend Pet, Bestial Wrath, Flare, Aspect of the Beast, Aspect of the Hawk (changed to aspect of the Eagle), Dire Beast, Thrill of the Hunt, Feign Death, Spirit Bond (in the past) and Kill Command.

so you agree then beastmasters would mimic animals in combat without it having to have any thing to do with the magical aspects.

They have everything to do with the aspects. You take on the aspects of a Beast when using these abilities.

don’t know where your getting theses from and given that you already tried to bullshit with emulate so I’m Just gonna go with Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...spect#synonyms

Jesus christ. I feel like i'm teaching English.

haste is an increase of character speed, it would apply to pulling arrows from quivers and getting ready to fire them it wouldn’t apply to arrow speed.

Arrow speed would be attack power as the faster your arrow goes the more power it’s going to have when it punches into an enemy and the more damage it’s going to do.

*stares in disbelief*

"Attack power (AP) is a physical damage attribute derived from strength and/or agility and character level, that serves to increase your base weapon damage by an amount relative to this statistic"

with magic, the direct thing they say hunters use numerous times to enhance there abilities, in non gameplay function where list things that distinguish hunters and rouges/warriors.

You simply don’t have a leg to stand on this is a out of game source describing what a hunter is in no uncertain terms and saying they use magic multiple times and giving examples of the magic they use listing the aspects as one of them.

You might as well say wow has no magic at all and it’s all gameplay that doesn’t reflect the lore as it would be just as valid as you bending over backwards as trying to dismiss hunter magic.

You want Hunter magic?

Arcane Shot
Level 2 hunter ability
40 yd range
40 focus
Instant
Requires Ranged Weapon
A quick shot that causes (57% of Attack power) Arcane damage.

"A hunter's deadly accuracy doesn't just seem like magic; sometimes, it is."

wrathion to show the progress in age, baine to reflect The pre BFA novel.

not that either are relevant to them lacking resources in classic which has already been demonstrated to be untrue.

And the Incubus to show their progress in attitude?

It would represent it fully as all they would have every thing a non sylvanas dark ranger has.

Which is what? 1-3 abilities? Hardly what i would call a proper representation.
Not to mention the Dark Rangers' Life Drain and Charm, which cannot be represented in the Hunter.

there is no class as it hasn’t been made into what.

But that’s a yes then? Sylvanas is the only dark ranger every one else is just pretending and blizzard is lying to us by calling them dark rangers?

Can you say minor Demon Hunter and Death Knight NPCs' abilities, back in the day, could genuinely fulfill the Death Knight and Demon Hunter fantasy?

[Triceron]

A Dragonsworn couldn't simply be a Mage, because a Mage does not have access to Red, Green and Black Dragonflights' magic. Only Blue and Bronze.

Red is Fire. It's exactly how they're representing Red's magic in Evokers.

I can see the decline. Perhaps it will be a 2 spec class. Who knows.

Right, it could be a 2 spec class. I don't think I've said otherwise. I never said it couldn't be.

Because that's what a Dark Ranger is.
Why do you think they expanded on her abilities? Even Life Drain and Charm, clear Dark Ranger abilities, cannot be translated. So, expecting arrows only to represent a Dark Ranger is silly.

My point is Blizzard has defined multiple Dark Rangers in WoW that do not have any of those abilities you've listed above. Nathanos is a Dark Ranger, and he does not have either Life Drain or Charm. He is a Dark Ranger. That is how Blizzard has changed the definition of Dark Ranger.

If we are talking about what a Dark Ranger is, then this is also what a Dark Ranger is.

You can't be serious.
Is a Death Knight a plague-afflicting sword wielder only? Is the Demon Hunter a Fel slasher only? That's what you're trying to reduce it to.

You listed a whole bunch of abilities that Sylvanas uses that the NPCs do not. So do you consider characters like Velonara and Nathanos who do not use Life Drain or Possession as not being Dark Rangers? Would you consider a Darkfallen Archer who has unique Dark magic customizations to not be a Dark Ranger?

That's my underlying point. For arguments sake, they are still Dark Rangers despite not having those abilities. And if Blizzard decides this is how they want to represent the Dark Ranger? Then that's what it would be.

There's no rule that says if Dark Rangers must have their Warcraft 3 abilities. None.

Dark Ranger is a title that Blizzard can choose to define however they want, whether it's a new class or merely as a customization for existing classes. No different than Wildhammer being literally a Dwarf customization instead of their own self contained Race/Allied Race option.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

They have everything to do with the aspects. You take on the aspects of a Beast when using these abilities.

beastral wrath is not a hunter aspect, it doesn’t require a hunter aspect, it has no relation to any of the hunter aspects beyond being a hunter ability.

*stares in disbelief*

"Attack power (AP) is a physical damage attribute derived from strength and/or agility and character level, that serves to increase your base weapon damage by an amount relative to this statistic"

yes that’s the description of attack power and what a faster arrow would lead to as it punches deeper then a slower arrow doing increased damage to the target.

Do you not know how bows and arrows work or something?

You want Hunter magic?

"A hunter's deadly accuracy doesn't just seem like magic; sometimes, it is."

um ya that’s one of the magical enhancements the manual says hunters do, what’s your point? This doesn’t refute the aspects being magic in any way.

And the Incubus to show their progress in attitude?

that’s one way to put, thought also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Which is what? 1-3 abilities? Hardly what i would call a proper representation.
Not to mention the Dark Rangers' Life Drain and Charm, which cannot be represented in the Hunter.

none sylvnas dark rangers only have 1-3 abilities in wow so it’s a rather perfect representation for any thing other then sylvanas her self.

Can you say minor Demon Hunter and Death Knight NPCs' abilities, back in the day, could genuinely fulfill the Death Knight and Demon Hunter fantasy?

I already said I’d be fine with blizzard original plan of having demon hunters just be duel wielding warriors so why would adding another minor layer change my answer?

[username993720]

Red is Fire. It's exactly how they're representing Red's magic in Evokers.

Life Fire. Probably because of its color, they decided not to make it part of the healing spec. You're still left with Green.

Right, it could be a 2 spec class. I don't think I've said otherwise. I never said it couldn't be.

Dark Ranger and Dark Warden. Less than that would be silly.

My point is Blizzard has defined multiple Dark Rangers in WoW that do not have any of those abilities you've listed above. Nathanos is a Dark Ranger, and he does not have either Life Drain or Charm. He is a Dark Ranger. That is how Blizzard has changed the definition of Dark Ranger.

If we are talking about what a Dark Ranger is, then this is also what a Dark Ranger is.

You're taking mostly minor NPCs and applying them to the whole concept. That is not how it works. As for Nathanos, probably because of his different origins, he doesn't exhibit true Dark Ranger capabilities.

You wanna know how Blizzard defined the Dark Ranger recently? Look at Sylvanas' HotS abilities and talents, her Sanctum of Domination raid abilities and her cinematic capabilities. That's how Blizzard has developed the Dark Ranger concept. Not by some no-named NPC that has no significance.

You listed a whole bunch of abilities that Sylvanas uses that the NPCs do not. So do you consider characters like Velonara and Nathanos who do not use Life Drain or Possession as not being Dark Rangers? Would you consider a Darkfallen Archer who has unique Dark magic customizations to not be a Dark Ranger?

Would you consider your warrior having raise dead a Death Knight?
Would you consider the Warlock with Metamorphosis a Demon Hunter?

That's my underlying point. For arguments sake, they are still Dark Rangers despite not having those abilities. And if Blizzard decides this is how they want to represent the Dark Ranger? Then that's what it would be.

Why would they represent something with the lowest possible amount of Dark Ranger capabilities? That's like basing your Demon Hunter on an Outland NPC with two abilities or a Death Knight on a NPC with Warrior+Warlock abilities and raise dead. Would you say it's a proper representation?

There's no rule that says if Dark Rangers must have their Warcraft 3 abilities. None.

No? Death Knights, Demon Hunters and Monks didn't get theirs?

Dark Ranger is a title that Blizzard can choose to define however they want, whether it's a new class or merely as a customization for existing classes. No different than Wildhammer being literally a Dwarf customization instead of their own self contained Race/Allied Race option.

I'm not gonna get into the whole allied race reasoning, but it probably has to do with ethnicity.
Again, there are archetypes who can be represented by existing classes and there are some who can't. I didn't choose them randomly. I checked their abilities and lore and seen if they matched our classes. Dark Ranger isn't one of them. Would you say a D3 Demon Hunter is a WoW Hunter? Or would you say it's a Rogue+Hunter?

beastral wrath is not a hunter aspect, it doesn’t require a hunter aspect, it has no relation to any of the hunter aspects beyond being a hunter ability.

Beastmasters' closeness to wild animals is also depicted by their wild behavior.

yes that’s the description of attack power and what a faster arrow would lead to as it punches deeper then a slower arrow doing increased damage to the target.

Do you not know how bows and arrows work or something?

Or the time you charge the attack, like with Evokers.
Don't apply real-life logic into that. We're talking about a video game with magic and mythical creatures.

um ya that’s one of the magical enhancements the manual says hunters do, what’s your point? This doesn’t refute the aspects being magic in any way.

We know Arcane is magic.
Animal aspects are the natural conncetion of Beastmasters to the different wild animals. Hunter, in general, are not magic users. Unless you are an elf, it is mostly a non-magical class. Everything from shots, to traps, tracking, animals and wild behaviour is mostly the character's inner power that comes from their kinship with the wilds.

that’s one way to put, thought also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No? It is a new model.

none sylvnas dark rangers only have 1-3 abilities in wow so it’s a rather perfect representation for any thing other then sylvanas her self.

1-3 abilities isn't a proper representation. You want a repeat of the Demo lock?

I already said I’d be fine with blizzard original plan of having demon hunters just be duel wielding warriors so why would adding another minor layer change my answer?

Then, you would be play-pretending. If you're satisfied with that, just wear some dark clothings and imagine your Hunter to be a Dark Ranger. That's already enough for you. Don't preach if your standards are that low.

[Triceron]

You're taking mostly minor NPCs and applying them to the whole concept. That is not how it works. As for Nathanos, probably because of his different origins, he doesn't exhibit true Dark Ranger capabilities.

Er, there literally are no other 'major Dark Ranger' characters. The majority of them do not use Banshee powers whatsoever.

You wanna know how Blizzard defined the Dark Ranger recently? Look at Sylvanas' HotS abilities and talents, her Sanctum of Domination raid abilities and her cinematic capabilities. That's how Blizzard has developed the Dark Ranger concept. Not by some no-named NPC that has no significance.

Abilities which they gave to the Hunter class through her Legendaries. We're literally circling here.

Would you consider your warrior having raise dead a Death Knight?
Would you consider the Warlock with Metamorphosis a Demon Hunter?

If that is how Blizzard wanted to choose to define it, would there be any other choice?

I don't like how they made Beastmasters a bow class, yet here we are. I don't like Mountain Kings not having Thunderclap in Fury, yet here we are.

Why would they represent something with the lowest possible amount of Dark Ranger capabilities? That's like basing your Demon Hunter on an Outland NPC with two abilities or a Death Knight on a NPC with Warrior+Warlock abilities and raise dead. Would you say it's a proper representation?

Because Customization implies they fill in the gaps with visuals that make sense. You keep ignoring the entire concept.

I'm not gonna get into the whole allied race reasoning, but it probably has to do with ethnicity.
Again, there are archetypes who can be represented by existing classes and there are some who can't. I didn't choose them randomly. I checked their abilities and lore and seen if they matched our classes. Dark Ranger isn't one of them. Would you say a D3 Demon Hunter is a WoW Hunter? Or would you say it's a Rogue+Hunter?

It doesn't matter what I think if Blizzard is already in the process of adding this stuff to the 9.2.5 PTR. Understand?

If Blizzard has set up every known Dark Ranger who isn't Sylvanas as merely being an Archer who uses some dark magic, then Hunters can fully represent that theme given that they have Darkfallen race playable. That's what I see Blizzard doing
.

Would a Dark Ranger class be better? Of course! But there's very low chance it would ever be realized considering Shadowlands and Sylvanas' story has come and gone. Who will usher in Dark Ranger with Banshee forms and Dark Ranger gameplay? You understand these concepts were tied directly to Sylvanas right? And her Valkyr are gone.

Velonara has no access to Dark Wardens or raising new Dark Rangers that have Banshee powers.