Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And the right guy for judgment is you?
You can't even comprehend a Hunter's animal aspect.

the right people for that judgment is blizzard as they are the ones with the power to fix flaws.

But between the two of us? Ya I’m infinitely more qualified then you given that you said such laughably stupid things as, “Sylvanas had no powers until recently, what banshee voice, Illidan went through the same process as other DH’ Illidan is always in meta’ sylvanas doesn’t use domination magic, Chen is from pandaria, Varian wasn’t in classic, Malfurion and Tyranda were always next to each other in classic” and so on.

You can’t even be bothered to check any thing or even read up on the basics when they are provided to you and you think you should take precedent over any one?

Lol.

So, roleplay if you want.
"Cool and already there" aren't good reasons.

it is when blizzard has already said it’s one of the metrics they are using when deciding things from items to add to the new class talent trees.

It doesn't. It makes you more accurate. Which, in turn, affects your damage.

Hawk doesn’t effect your hit or expertise and again that’s not how Bows work.

You asked for a lore reason.
As for WoW, many of the Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter abilities were not even in the game before their addition. So, i don't know why you would rely on that to disprove anything.

no I asked for them being used in game or in lore not a reason those aren’t the same thing.

But that’s besides the point as you didn’t provide a lore reason touch of the grave isn’t drain life nor is it in the lore and the WC3 quote says nothing about mind control, but again we’re circling we already went over all of this.

They have nothing to do with Hunters in particular.
They have to do with Priests, Witch Doctors and Shadow Hunters.

they have quite a bit to do with hunters in particular with true shot lodge being founded due to a Loa, the hunter spear being tied to multiple Loa, Huln the “greatest” hunter being blessed by a Loa, Sprit beast being tied to Loa, And night elf’s and trolls being directly tied to wild gods/Loa.

Any cases of nature-reliant Dark Rangers?

I could tell a little white lie here and say yes 100% and point to Sylvanas in the new novel but I’ll be a more truthful then that.

There are atleast two points in the sylvanas novel where post raised Sylvanas and the wild comes up. One is when she’s mixing poison for Arthas and is going over various herbs and other wild related things from her ranger days and another where she closes her eyes and feels Like wilds around her taking in the smells feel of the wind ect to shoot a arrow at genn blind.

You could argue that both of these and a few other examples are proof that she still has a connection to the wilds, but I’m Not even going to go that far, I’ll stick to something is only Canon when it is actually established in canon and undead losing there connection to the wilds is never established any where outside of the non canon RPG and is no more canon then gnomes having no connection to the wild because the handful of them use robot pets elusively.

[Triceron]

Do you really think red eyes and a bow would make you into a Dark Ranger? They gave Night elves blindfold option in vanilla as a tribute to Illidan (with a mad face). You could only roleplay as one. At this point, it's just play-pretend, no matter how much you call it by its name.

For the final time

It does not matter what I think makes a Dark Ranger.

It's all about what BLIZZARD thinks a Dark Ranger is, and they have deliberately been applying the term directly to Darkfallen Hunters.

Blizzard never called Rogues with Blindfolds Demon Hunters, while they HAVE directly referred Darkfallen Hunters as Dark Rangers. So is Dark Ranger just all about Red eyes and a bow? Sadly, that is absolutely the case since Blizzard has literally defined Dark Rangers in this way.

Nathanos is literally a Forsaken Hunter with red eyes and a bow. He exhibited zero Sylvanas abilities and did not use daggers, and was called a Dark Ranger. Red eyes and bow was literally his only connection to this title. Blizzard absolutely defines Dark Ranger this way.

In my own opinion? They fucked up by making Nathanos an official Dark Ranger, because that ultimately leads them implying Dark Ranger is a much broader and less specific term than we regarded it for.

So having Sylvanas abilities? Yes, that is also a Dark Ranger, but so are regular undead Hunters with red eyes. And if you actually take one second to look at the signs 9.2.5 is indicating, you can see Blizzard leaning towards the red eyes and bow definition more than ever.

You're just making my case. Sylvanas is currently missing in action, like you say Illidan was. So, why wouldn't her "former" followers join us in a playable manner like they did?

Because her former followers would be represented as being playable as soon as they introduce Darkfallen.

Dark Ranger has become merely a racial term for Darkfallen Hunters. The only missing key being Darkfallen are not yet playable.


If Blizzard really wanted Dark Rangers as a class, they could have implemented them for Shadowlands. I think somewhere along the way, their plans to do so were changed, and they cut up the Dark Ranger's story and representation into becoming customizations, Legendary weapons, and Allied Races.

[Teriz]

They did that way back in Legion when they added the Demon Hunter. 1 Melee DPS spec. Was it the end of all Melee DPS specs? Heck, they even did it with the Monk, with the other two being a healing and a Tanking spec.
You thought Legion and the Demon Hunter marked the end of classes, yet here we are with an Evoker class. The quickness in which you just give up on new classes, even with your beloved Tinker, is astounding.
It's clear that they've taken to a reduced amount of specs, but it is not the end of classes, as Dragonflight showed you.

The difference is that after Monk they didn't say "we have enough melee". They literally said that when they announced the Evoker class.

And while I would like to have a Tinker class, my passion for the class was always predicated on the general need for such a class to exist. That need has now been greatly reduced, and they have become a nice to have instead of a need to have.

Suddenly Tinkers are Hunters? What a waste of time arguing with you for pages over pages....

No, I'm saying I could see a scenario where Blizzard could implement that in place of a Tinker class. The same applies to the Dark Ranger. This is completely predicated on them possibly be done implementing new classes.

By the way, don't you have an Evoker forum to moderate? I thought you said you'd go into retirement after a class you wanted gets added.

If you notice, I haven't been posting here much. After I'm done with this thread, I won't be back here for awhile.

[username993720]

the right people for that judgment is blizzard as they are the ones with the power to fix flaws.

But between the two of us? Ya I’m infinitely more qualified then you given that you said such laughably stupid things as, “Sylvanas had no powers until recently, what banshee voice, Illidan went through the same process as other DH’ Illidan is always in meta’ sylvanas doesn’t use domination magic, Chen is from pandaria, Varian wasn’t in classic, Malfurion and Tyranda were always next to each other in classic” and so on.

You can’t even be bothered to check any thing or even read up on the basics when they are provided to you and you think you should take precedent over any one?

Lol.

Said the guy who thinks a Hawk aspect gives arrows strength.

it is when blizzard has already said it’s one of the metrics they are using when deciding things from items to add to the new class talent trees.

For an already established class fantasies.
Metamorphosis in the Warlocks was also cool. Didn't mean it lasted or made the Warlock into a Demon Hunter.

Hawk doesn’t effect your hit or expertise and again that’s not how Bows work.

The animal has nothing to do with the weapon. It has to do with the Hunter.

no I asked for them being used in game or in lore not a reason those aren’t the same thing.

I just showed you in lore. WC3 lore.

But that’s besides the point as you didn’t provide a lore reason touch of the grave isn’t drain life nor is it in the lore and the WC3 quote says nothing about mind control, but again we’re circling we already went over all of this.

Undead beings have a natural life drain aspect, coming from their necromantic properties.

Manipulation is part of the Dark Ranger's dark magic, from Mind Control to Possession (Charm).

they have quite a bit to do with hunters in particular with true shot lodge being founded due to a Loa, the hunter spear being tied to multiple Loa, Huln the “greatest” hunter being blessed by a Loa, Sprit beast being tied to Loa, And night elf’s and trolls being directly tied to wild gods/Loa.

You're talking about either special cases or racial cultures.
At most, the Hunter is inspired by Wild Gods. It doesn't draw its powers from them like a Druid would.

I could tell a little white lie here and say yes 100% and point to Sylvanas in the new novel but I’ll be a more truthful then that.

There are atleast two points in the sylvanas novel where post raised Sylvanas and the wild comes up. One is when she’s mixing poison for Arthas and is going over various herbs and other wild related things from her ranger days and another where she closes her eyes and feels Like wilds around her taking in the smells feel of the wind ect to shoot a arrow at genn blind.

Poison isn't a connection to the wilds. Apothecaries use it.
The second quote sounds like she is trying to focus. Smelling the air or feeling the breeze doesn't make much sense as she's undead. Can you link the quotes?

You could argue that both of these and a few other examples are proof that she still has a connection to the wilds, but I’m Not even going to go that far, I’ll stick to something is only Canon when it is actually established in canon and undead losing there connection to the wilds is never established any where outside of the non canon RPG and is no more canon then gnomes having no connection to the wild because the handful of them use robot pets elusively.

Being risen as Undead is the reason in the first place. You are infused with necromancy, which replaces any previous nature connection.

For the final time

It does not matter what I think makes a Dark Ranger.

It's all about what BLIZZARD thinks a Dark Ranger is, and they have deliberately been applying the term directly to Darkfallen Hunters.

Blizzard never called Rogues with Blindfolds Demon Hunters, while they HAVE directly referred Darkfallen Hunters as Dark Rangers. So is Dark Ranger just all about Red eyes and a bow? Sadly, that is absolutely the case since Blizzard has literally defined Dark Rangers in this way.

Nathanos is literally a Forsaken Hunter with red eyes and a bow. He exhibited zero Sylvanas abilities and did not use daggers, and was called a Dark Ranger. Red eyes and bow was literally his only connection to this title. Blizzard absolutely defines Dark Ranger this way.

In my own opinion? They fucked up by making Nathanos an official Dark Ranger, because that ultimately leads them implying Dark Ranger is a much broader and less specific term than we regarded it for.

So having Sylvanas abilities? Yes, that is also a Dark Ranger, but so are regular undead Hunters with red eyes. And if you actually take one second to look at the signs 9.2.5 is indicating, you can see Blizzard leaning towards the red eyes and bow definition more than ever.

Nathanos is in no way at the same league as Sylvanas. We already know he favors axes more than daggers, was Forsaken Undead in origin and changed to a preserved Human one, and lacks many of the traits of an Elven Ranger. He also can't be a Banshee in origin, since he's a human and not an elf.

Darkfallen were established as Undead elves. But, where does it say "Darkfallen Hunters are Dark Rangers"?

Because her former followers would be represented as being playable as soon as they introduce Darkfallen.

Dark Ranger has become merely a racial term for Darkfallen Hunters. The only missing key being Darkfallen are not yet playable.


If Blizzard really wanted Dark Rangers as a class, they could have implemented them for Shadowlands. I think somewhere along the way, their plans to do so were changed, and they cut up the Dark Ranger's story and representation into becoming customizations, Legendary weapons, and Allied Races.

Darkfallen also encompasses San'layn, raised from slain Blood Mages. Would you be a vampiric blood caster when you make a Darkfallen Mage?

The difference is that after Monk they didn't say "we have enough melee". They literally said that when they announced the Evoker class.

They wanted a change. That's why introduced the spellcasting Evoker. Because all they've been adding in past expansions were Melee combatants. So, they wanted something new and different. Doesn't mean there is no more room for Melee.

And while I would like to have a Tinker class, my passion for the class was always predicated on the general need for such a class to exist. That need has now been greatly reduced, and they have become a nice to have instead of a need to have.

How was that reduced? Is the Tinker just a playstyle? Or is it a fantasy that is currently unrepresented?

No, I'm saying I could see a scenario where Blizzard could implement that in place of a Tinker class. The same applies to the Dark Ranger. This is completely predicated on them possibly be done implementing new classes.

You said so previously, with the Demon Hunter.
Then, your urge for a new class surfaced and you desperately asked for one.
What makes you think that after you'll be tired of the Evoker that you wouldn't suddenly see a new class being heavily needed?

If you notice, I haven't been posting here much. After I'm done with this thread, I won't be back here for awhile.

I don't even know what the subject have to do with you as a user? You oppose everything and anything and you got what you asked for.

[TheRevenantHero]

I don't understand why this is still going. It's just everyone trying in vain to explain to one person that even Blizzard has declared that dark rangers are hunters and not a separate class.

[Triceron]

Nathanos is in no way at the same league as Sylvanas. We already know he favors axes more than daggers, was Forsaken Undead in origin and changed to a preserved Human one, and lacks many of the traits of an Elven Ranger. He also can't be a Banshee in origin, since he's a human and not an elf.

And 'Leagues' don't matter if we're talking about how Dark Rangers become represented in a playable form.

Are Dark Rangers defined by red eyes and a bow? Yes, they absolutely are. Anything beyond this is wishful thinking, that you *want* a Class that has Banshee origins and all the abilities that Sylvanas represents. Blizzard however has indicated otherwise.

Honestly I'm not even quite sure why you think Tyrande and Sylvanas are going to have playable classes based on them. Blizzard sure hasn't indicated wanting to make any new class based on their archetypes at all.

I mean to be honest, the specs you want to play as already exist in the game. I doubt Blizzard is interested in doubling up on specs they already put in the game. You want a dual wielding dagger spec that uses shadow magic? Because this one Edge of Night weapon has a Dark Ranger themed unique ability to it? Edge of Night was designed to be used by Rogues. It's the same reasoning why you think Blood Mage doesn't need to be its own class just because Felo'melorn existed. We don't need a new class or spec designed around the unique properties that a weapon provides. Those type of unique properties would be perfectly fine as Class Customization options, rather than simply borrowed power from weapons that eventually become obsolete.

Darkfallen were established as Undead elves. But, where does it say "Darkfallen Hunters are Dark Rangers"?

You acknowledge that Farstriders are Hunters yes?

Dark rangers are undead archers in service of the Forsaken or Sylvanas Windrunner. These cunning individuals, adept at manipulating opponents, are Darkfallen mainly composed of forcibly raised Farstrider rangers of Quel'Thalas. - Wowpedia

On top of that, having formally joined the Unseen Path, they are formally Hunters. They're not just allies or participants, they are active members of the Unseen Path.

Darkfallen also encompasses San'layn, raised from slain Blood Mages. Would you be a vampiric blood caster when you make a Darkfallen Mage?

It depends on what classes and what lore Darkfallen would get if and when they become playable.

Like Orcs in the Horde don't just represent every and all Orcs. The Orc player race did not encompass the Blackrock Orcs that were lead under Rend Blackhand. Or Goblin player race is specific to the Bilgewater Cartel, and you aren't just playing a Goblin if any origin. It would depend on whether Blizzard intends to incorporate the San'layn or not, and I am unsure whether the 9.2.5 Darkfallen quests involve San'layn or not. I only know there were some BFA quests involving them at some point, but it seemed to go nowhere.

[Teriz]

How was that reduced? Is the Tinker just a playstyle? Or is it a fantasy that is currently unrepresented?

It's both, and the Tinker definitely deserves its own class. However, I can see a scenario where Blizzard simply attaches it to an existing class and maybe even beefs up enngineering in order to avoid having to create an entirely new class.

You said so previously, with the Demon Hunter.
Then, your urge for a new class surfaced and you desperately asked for one.
What makes you think that after you'll be tired of the Evoker that you wouldn't suddenly see a new class being heavily needed?

I won't get tired of the Evoker. Next to Tinker, playing as a dragon is something I always desired in WoW. Wrathion is one of my favorite characters.

I don't even know what the subject have to do with you as a user? You oppose everything and anything and you got what you asked for.

I was merely pointing out that any future classes will now have a tougher time getting implemented because pretty much every niche is filled. Technology class is the only real niche that could be filled, and there could be an argument made for creating another class that uses guns, and a class that Gnomes and Goblins actually fit into. However, again, with the third mail armor slot filled, and us getting a new ranged and healer spec, those are nice to haves, not needs to have.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Said the guy who thinks a Hawk aspect gives arrows strength.

let’s see.

not knowing even the most basic lore and being willfully ignorant to the point that you won’t even read the lore when provided to you.

Vs not agreeing that “hawk eyes” would make arrows hit harder because I understand how bows actually work.

Ya this is why I’m infinitely more qualified then you on any matter of lore.

Can you link the quotes?

Go read the book.

Being risen as Undead is the reason in the first place. You are infused with necromancy, which replaces any previous nature connection.

again this isn’t canon any where but the RPG, no matter how many times you repeat it that won’t change and it will never be apart of wow lore.

[Eapoe]

Exactly.
So, you need to know what is skin material and what is class material.



Now that you've acknowledged Rogues, what are they exactly? Because you make a Dark Ranger into just one of them. And by doing that, some aspects are lost in the process



You think they'd just do 1 class skin (a feature on its own) and axe the other classes? Unlikely...



But, at the end of the day, they are just clones. Very poor clones. If they supposedly expanded the concept to other characters they wouldn't have dedicated 3 entire expansion to her, building up the concept using her and introducing new abilities to her. Everything Dark Ranger is dedicated to her. From WC3, to HotS, to SoD and cinematics. You'd be blind to not notice it.



5.4, not 5.4.5.
And, he did feature in the Garrison cutscene.



The whole azerite is the continuation of the sword. You literally try to heal her wound during BfA. It's after this that the sword was ignored.

The last X.5 patch usually introduces features that relate to the next expansion, like Allied races. Same would be the case for 9.2.5.



He was always a Hunter. A Beastmaster Hunter.
The same applies to the other examples i've given you. They played an active role, they were part of their class halls, but are not related to the classes mentioned.
You don't realize that they have to force some things into other ones because they have no other alternative. Like Demon Hunter abilities in the Warlock, like Blademaster abilities in the Warrior, etc etc...
Why are there no Dark Rangers in the Rogue class hall if they're Rogues too? The Edge of Night dagger makes it abundantly clear, just like the Sylvanas bow.



Which Hunters can't?



Are all of them Hunter spells?
Are you aware Death Knights had Warrior and Warlock abilities before WotlK?



They have clear magic that they are associated with.
What magic does the Hunter use?



I know what they technically give. I meant in lore. What does that cause them in lore?



So, it gives it air speed? I didn't know aspects were arrow enchants.



Source?



What magical parts? Except for magically imbued arrows, i don't recall them casting any spells in lore.



Eche'ro's Blessing — Eche'ro heals Huln.



Shadow Hunters? Not hunters.



Hunters are associated with nature magic at best due to their closeness to the wilds. Meaning, plant life magic. All others animalistic "spells" are fantasy representations of physical capabilties.



Why only Hunters? Do other classes not deserve class skins as well?



Not going to happen.
But, you can probably expect Dark Rangers, Wardens, Night Warriors, Blademasters, Tinkers, Shadow Hunters and Alchemists.



They do:
"The Forsaken's Banshee Queen, Sylvanas Windrunner, was a hunter/ranger during her lifetime and after being raised into undeath by Arthas Menethil found herself out of touch with the wilds, which was replaced by necromancy, making her a dark ranger which would later be taken up by others in the Forsaken."



I like how there are two options for a Dark Ranger.
It's almost like it's undefined by just one class.



There is. Shadow like magic akin to Sub Rogues.



Hunters do not use dark magic.
You confuse Rangers with Dark Rangers because of the similarities, but they are as distinct as Death Knights are from Knights.

No, I just decided to cover my bases before someone goes “but they are shown with daggers and that’s what Sylv used in the cinematic.”

[qoozy]

Dark Ranger is a hunter. And hunter already had similar abilities, like Black Arrow, Silencing shot.
Btw, tinker is a hunter, too, because of traps, mechanical pets.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Add them as a barbershop option for night elf and blood elf hunters and give us the gear and bow [the toy doesn't count]

[fenixazul]

It will basically a hunter without pet and with dark power source? I cant see blizzard making a unique class of it. They are having issues with the DH and The evoker, since they were only able to make 2 specs for them (which are tank/dps and healer/dps)

Dark rangers will probably be a full DPS class , cant see them healing or tanking.

[Araxie]

I play rogue and DPS classes with 3 of the same type of damage dealing specs really offer nothing to the game.

Im all for giving rogues a bow and sacrificing sub. Im also for sacrificing a mage spec for another healer, a warlock spec for tank/meele spec etc. What they did with survival hunters was actually great.

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully in the future they'll be more confident in taking bigger risks when it comes to changing core mechanics to certain classes/specs. Like, we have classic for a reason. People who like the old can play that, and the devs can take bigger changes to retail. Just like how RS3 and OSRS are operating now, and they're doing great.

[wowrefugee]

Dark Ranger is a hunter. And hunter already had similar abilities, like Black Arrow, Silencing shot.
Btw, tinker is a hunter, too, because of traps, mechanical pets.

Not to mention the big battle mechsuit and rockets

[Triceron]

Not to mention the big battle mechsuit and rockets

I mean, if you supplement with Engineering you already have that. All Blizz has to do is push the customization to allow mech suits to be visually used while in combat.

That being said, I'd be all for having mounted combat be represented in game. Not sure how it would be implemented, but I'd love mounted combat in some form.

[Unholyground]

They could easily combine the 2 things people want into a single class.

Acolyte class that has 2 specs, maybe 3.

Necromancy which would focus on poison/bone/blood spells, summons and curses. Uses staves, swords, daggers, shields, off-hand.
Can imbue summomed minions with poison, bone, or blood granting passive buffs until replaced. Poison will grant a toxic cloud that pulses damage over time. Bone would form bony bladed growths on summoned minions to add attack speed and a stacking bleed effect that negates a portion of healing. Blood will grant the minions a blood rage and hunger causing them to leech health from their foes with each attack and cause thier foes to see them as the immediate threat.

Dark Ranger which would specialize in ranged combat with dark magics to allow for short periods of stealth with deadly shots to cripple foes and the ability to take on a banshee form allowing for serveral ghostly blinks around the battlefield, it can be used in any direction including into the air, fall speed is reduced for a short time after you blink.
Uses Bows, Crossbows, Guns, Daggers.
3 Ghostly Blink Charges that refill over a short time, doesn't begin cooldown until all 3 are used or instantly once out of combat for 3 seconds.

[username993720]

I don't understand why this is still going. It's just everyone trying in vain to explain to one person that even Blizzard has declared that dark rangers are hunters and not a separate class.

Just like they did with the Demon Hunter and Warlock?

And 'Leagues' don't matter if we're talking about how Dark Rangers become represented in a playable form.

Are Dark Rangers defined by red eyes and a bow? Yes, they absolutely are. Anything beyond this is wishful thinking, that you *want* a Class that has Banshee origins and all the abilities that Sylvanas represents. Blizzard however has indicated otherwise.

Are Death Knights merely Blue eyes and a Runeblade? Because it could be achieved by the Warrior back in the day.

Honestly I'm not even quite sure why you think Tyrande and Sylvanas are going to have playable classes based on them. Blizzard sure hasn't indicated wanting to make any new class based on their archetypes at all.

Because of how they built their characters. There's no need to introduce new Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon capabilities through Sylvanas and Tyrande if you're not gonna do anything with it. That's indicative of how they expand these 2 concepts.

I mean to be honest, the specs you want to play as already exist in the game. I doubt Blizzard is interested in doubling up on specs they already put in the game. You want a dual wielding dagger spec that uses shadow magic? Because this one Edge of Night weapon has a Dark Ranger themed unique ability to it? Edge of Night was designed to be used by Rogues. It's the same reasoning why you think Blood Mage doesn't need to be its own class just because Felo'melorn existed. We don't need a new class or spec designed around the unique properties that a weapon provides. Those type of unique properties would be perfectly fine as Class Customization options, rather than simply borrowed power from weapons that eventually become obsolete.

You can't combine an MM Hunter and a Sub Rogue. You can't combine an MM Hunter, a Demon Hunter and a Balance Druid. Just like you couldn't combine Warlock and Rogue to represent the Demon Hunter. And like how you couldn't combine Warrior and an Affliction Warlock to represent the Death Knight. There's no playable form for Sylvanas and Tyrande. Those Hero characters usually get added as playable classes.

You acknowledge that Farstriders are Hunters yes?

Dark rangers are undead archers in service of the Forsaken or Sylvanas Windrunner. These cunning individuals, adept at manipulating opponents, are Darkfallen mainly composed of forcibly raised Farstrider rangers of Quel'Thalas. - Wowpedia

On top of that, having formally joined the Unseen Path, they are formally Hunters. They're not just allies or participants, they are active members of the Unseen Path.

So are Death Knights converted Paladins. We already know Death changes you class fundamentally. Death Knights are no Knights, just like Dark Rangers aren't Rangers.

So, an Alchemist is a Rogue? Didn't know that.

It depends on what classes and what lore Darkfallen would get if and when they become playable.

Like Orcs in the Horde don't just represent every and all Orcs. The Orc player race did not encompass the Blackrock Orcs that were lead under Rend Blackhand. Or Goblin player race is specific to the Bilgewater Cartel, and you aren't just playing a Goblin if any origin. It would depend on whether Blizzard intends to incorporate the San'layn or not, and I am unsure whether the 9.2.5 Darkfallen quests involve San'layn or not. I only know there were some BFA quests involving them at some point, but it seemed to go nowhere.

A race encompasses all of its variations, unless it is a different race. There' no sense in leaving out the San'layn after establishing they are the same thing.
So, i ask you again. How do you represent a risen Blood Mage? As a Mage? Because they are now vampiric.

It's both, and the Tinker definitely deserves its own class. However, I can see a scenario where Blizzard simply attaches it to an existing class and maybe even beefs up enngineering in order to avoid having to create an entirely new class.

So, suddenly, you accept their lazy new approach. Congraulations, you wasted a lot of time for many people.

I won't get tired of the Evoker. Next to Tinker, playing as a dragon is something I always desired in WoW. Wrathion is one of my favorite characters.

We'll see about that, when your Tinker senses start to tingle...

I was merely pointing out that any future classes will now have a tougher time getting implemented because pretty much every niche is filled. Technology class is the only real niche that could be filled, and there could be an argument made for creating another class that uses guns, and a class that Gnomes and Goblins actually fit into. However, again, with the third mail armor slot filled, and us getting a new ranged and healer spec, those are nice to haves, not needs to have.

There's nothing restrictive about a new mail wearer or a new ranged and healer class. We got 3 melee classes back to back. We got 2 leather wearers. Did the first stop them from adding more? No.
Your belief is like the superstition that Blizzard would have stopped at level 100.

let’s see.

not knowing even the most basic lore and being willfully ignorant to the point that you won’t even read the lore when provided to you.

Vs not agreeing that “hawk eyes” would make arrows hit harder because I understand how bows actually work.

Ya this is why I’m infinitely more qualified then you on any matter of lore.

Hawk eyes have nothing to do with the bow itself but with the Hunter's accuracy.

Go read the book.

As usual....

again this isn’t canon any where but the RPG, no matter how many times you repeat it that won’t change and it will never be apart of wow lore.

Death Knights. They are an established necromancy class. Can you point to any nature connection?

No, I just decided to cover my bases before someone goes “but they are shown with daggers and that’s what Sylv used in the cinematic.”

I don't even know what you are referring to.
Learn to quote.

It will basically a hunter without pet and with dark power source? I cant see blizzard making a unique class of it. They are having issues with the DH and The evoker, since they were only able to make 2 specs for them (which are tank/dps and healer/dps)

Dark rangers will probably be a full DPS class , cant see them healing or tanking.

You can, through the Warden (Dark Warden).

[Triceron]

Are Death Knights merely Blue eyes and a Runeblade? Because it could be achieved by the Warrior back in the day.

Yes, it could have. And if Blizzard decided at that point in time that Hero Class should be a title granted to existing classes like Warriors being able to gain Blue Eyes and Runeblades, that would have been the definition of a Death Knight.

We see that Blizzard decided not to go in that direction with Death Knights, and instead give them a very specific origin and a very specific way to connect them back into the Alliance and Horde.

Where do we see that happening for Dark Rangers? The vast majority of them do not have unique backgrounds, do not perform anything particularly different from what a Hunter is able to learn or train, and otherwise are already folded back into the factions through Calia.

Because of how they built their characters. There's no need to introduce new Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon capabilities through Sylvanas and Tyrande if you're not gonna do anything with it. That's indicative of how they expand these 2 concepts.

And there's no reason to build any new class based on their archetypes either, considering the majority of their gameplay is covered by Hunters and other classes, whether we're talking about dual wielding shadow gameplay covered by Rogues or Faith-based healing that is covered by Priests or Paladins.

You can't combine an MM Hunter and a Sub Rogue. You can't combine an MM Hunter, a Demon Hunter and a Balance Druid. Just like you couldn't combine Warlock and Rogue to represent the Demon Hunter. And like how you couldn't combine Warrior and an Affliction Warlock to represent the Death Knight. There's no playable form for Sylvanas and Tyrande. Those Hero characters usually get added as playable classes.

You don't need to combine them to have them represent a class archetype.

Hunter does it fine. Look at all the people who have directly replied in this thread literally stating how Hunters would be a fine representative for Dark Rangers.

Like I pointed out before, Blizzard had provided Verdant Sphere customizations to both Mage and Warlock. Two classes representing the same Blood Mage archetype.

So are Death Knights converted Paladins. We already know Death changes you class fundamentally. Death Knights are no Knights, just like Dark Rangers aren't Rangers.

They had a specific origin that involved them gaining powers that were unique from Paladins, so there is enough distinction to warrant there being a difference.

Do you know what the lore of the newly risen Dark Rangers is? They're literally just raised Hunters and Rangers who continue to do the same thing in death as they did in life. I mean they're using the same dark magic that was available to the Hunter class for many years, considering Hunters had full access to abilities like Black Arrow.

So, an Alchemist is a Rogue? Didn't know that.

Being an Alchemist is not mutually exclusive from being a Rogue. Romuul is an Artificer who is also a Holy Paladin. Not quite sure why you even bother bringing this up.

A race encompasses all of its variations, unless it is a different race.

Not true at all. Allied Races exist because Races don't encompass all their variations, otherwise Dark Iron would have remained a customization option alongside Wildhammers. Or Human doesn't encompass the Kul Tirans or Gilneans even though they are also Human. Or Forsaken doesn't encompass all the Death Knight racial variants that we have.

You can, through the Warden (Dark Warden).

Except Dark Rangers have no way of becoming Wardens. None of them ever had Warden training, none of them learned Warden techniques, and the only known Dark Warden is a completely deranged villain with no redeeming qualities.

[gd8]

They should just make it a 4th spec for rogues, they can already equip ranged weapons so it would allow them to get some use out of that and also the dark ranger theme fits rogues more than hunters anyway

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Hawk eyes have nothing to do with the bow itself but with the Hunter's accuracy.

again not how bow’s work but at this point your just being willfully ignorant on that as well.

Death Knights. They are an established necromancy class. Can you point to any nature connection?

ya there is no lore at all about DK’s losing a connection to nature.

And If we are using your standard that racial’s are suppose to be lore then yes they do have a connection to nature through the Zandlari keeping there connection to the Loa (wild gods of nature) the Tauren keeping there connection to the earth mother giving them boost to herding/nature resist, and night elf’s still turning into nature sprits (wisp) on death.