People shouldn't accept classes with 2 specs

[Graywolfofmibu]

Does this "magical creature" casts spells? If the answer is 'yes', then the creature is a spellcaster.

You linked to an image of a blue dragon, who are part of the Blue Dragonflight, literally the dragons that watch over magic. Malygos was the Aspect of Magic, remember?

So, yes, it is fair to call a blue dragon a "mage".

They are the aspect of magic but that doesn't make them mages.

[Teriz]

Does this "magical creature" casts spells? If the answer is 'yes', then the creature is a spellcaster.

You linked to an image of a blue dragon, who are part of the Blue Dragonflight, literally the dragons that watch over magic. Malygos was the Aspect of Magic, remember?

So, yes, it is fair to call a blue dragon a "mage".

Do Blue Dragons actually cast spells? I always envisioned them just utilizing Arcane energy for various feats. Like I wouldn't consider firing a volley of Arcane breath to be spell casting, or using Arcane energy to teleport around to be casting a spell.

[ChairmanKaga]

Discussions here get so in the weeds.

[jellmoo]

Does this "magical creature" casts spells? If the answer is 'yes', then the creature is a spellcaster.

You linked to an image of a blue dragon, who are part of the Blue Dragonflight, literally the dragons that watch over magic. Malygos was the Aspect of Magic, remember?

So, yes, it is fair to call a blue dragon a "mage".

This seems like a good distinction for the lore buffs in the audience to chime in on. What exactly is a spellcaster within WoW what exactly get labelled as spells?

If we look at an alternative setting and ruleset like 3.x Dungeons & Dragons we would have a clear answer: Dragons are spellcasters because they have actual spell slots. They cast spells in the same manner that any character would. Whereas a magical creature like say a Lamia, has a number of spell like abilities, wouldn't be considered a spellcaster. They have a caster level for the sake of determining the rules around how the spell like abilities work. But their abilities aren't actually spells. They don't have the same requirements that casting a spell would have. It's just an innate thing they can do. This would seem to be the distinction between the two within this ruleset.

Within WoW, I'm genuinely curious to know if such a distinction exists. It probably gets a little muddled when you look at game mechanics and how things are presented, but which character classes within the game are considered spellcasters? Is an Evoker, using natural abilities they are born with, considered a spellcaster?

[Aresk]

Not true, Tank players really should stop acting like spoilt brats, honestly you've had 3 new tanks all with new classes over the years and because one class doesnt have a tank spec you are all spitting your dummies out, get over it.

Everyone else who plays Ranged DPS have had to wait a VERY long time for this treatment and we've been very patient, this will probably be the only ranged DPS we get ina VERy long time again so let us have our moment ok?!

I think there's a disconnect here between "tank players" and "players who want to be able to tank." As a tank main this expansion, I'm not at all disappointed that they can't tank, as I already have my class. Why would I care if a new class could or couldn't tank? However, back when I was a healing main (late Legion and early BfA), I'd be disappointed that they don't have a tank spec, because when I was looking to swap out of my healing class (I really don't like melee DPS), I was only looking at classes that could do all three roles. Given that druid is the only tanking class with a ranged DPS spec, I think there's definitely a need for tanks that can also ranged DPS, and this could've fit nicely there, but I'm by no means saying that evoker needs to tank or at all suggesting that tanking should take precedent over ranged DPS.

They are the aspect of magic but that doesn't make them mages.

The former aspect of the blue flight sits on Dalaran's Council of Six, so they're close enough to mages to functionally serve in the same position.

- - - Updated - - -

This seems like a good distinction for the lore buffs in the audience to chime in on. What exactly is a spellcaster within WoW what exactly get labelled as spells?

Within WoW, I'm genuinely curious to know if such a distinction exists. It probably gets a little muddled when you look at game mechanics and how things are presented, but which character classes within the game are considered spellcasters? Is an Evoker, using natural abilities they are born with, considered a spellcaster?

I'd generally go with interrupts and spell lock for this distinction. Can the class get interrupted and locked out of schools of magic? If yes, then they're a spellcaster. Note that some non-caster class characters can still be casters in certain circumstances by this definition (e.g. Heart of Azeroth giving a spell to the character), but in terms of a class, I think it's a decent go-to definition.

[jellmoo]

I'd generally go with interrupts and spell lock for this distinction. Can the class get interrupted and locked out of schools of magic? If yes, then they're a spellcaster. Note that some non-caster class characters can still be casters in certain circumstances by this definition (e.g. Heart of Azeroth giving a spell to the character), but in terms of a class, I think it's a decent go-to definition.

My worry here is that we're using a game mechanic to identify a lore item, and that's a massive can of worms as we have abilities that we use that are mechanics to make the game function, that just plain don't exist within the lore.

[Ielenia]

Do Blue Dragons actually cast spells? I always envisioned them just utilizing Arcane energy for various feats. Like I wouldn't consider firing a volley of Arcane breath to be spell casting, or using Arcane energy to teleport around to be casting a spell.

That's magic. Using arcane magic to teleport is magic. By all intents and purposes, dragons of the blue dragonflight are "mages".

- - - Updated - - -

Within WoW, I'm genuinely curious to know if such a distinction exists. It probably gets a little muddled when you look at game mechanics and how things are presented, but which character classes within the game are considered spellcasters? Is an Evoker, using natural abilities they are born with, considered a spellcaster?

Pretty sure it does. It is casting spells, it is using magic. I believe there's a reason why the playable mage class has that name, "mage", and not "wizard". As I believe it encompasses everything that casts arcane spells, both learned and innately.

[Teriz]

That's magic. Using arcane magic to teleport is magic. By all intents and purposes, dragons of the blue dragonflight are "mages".

Well since all dragons can use magic, does that mean that ALL dragons are in fact Mages?

[jellmoo]

Pretty sure it does. It is casting spells, it is using magic. I believe there's a reason why the playable mage class has that name, "mage", and not "wizard". As I believe it encompasses everything that casts arcane spells, both learned and innately.

I'm not sure that we can safely say that using magic=casting spells. Let me jump back to D&D for a quick second just to illustrate my thought process here:

You have two classes that fulfill a similar function. Wizards and Sorcerers. Wizards learn to cast magic through arduous study. They brute force the casting of spells. Sorcerers are bron with it in their blood. Both cast spells the same way though in that they have to wave their hands in a magic pattern, say the magic words, and use whatever magic components the spell needs. This is identified as spellcasting. This combination of "ingredients" (verbal, somatic, material) is what lets the spell happen.

Now, staying within D&D we take the Gnome race. In 3rd edition, every single one of em can cast (in 3rd edition) Speak with Animals as a spell like ability. If the Gnome has a minimum Cha of 10, they get some cantrips like Dancing lights and Ghost Sound as well. Within the rules of this game system, they aren't actually casting a spell. They are using a spell like ability, which means they don't need to worry about the pesky verbal, somatic and material components. The magic just happens.

Now this is absolutely not WoW so this is just a way to illustrate a thought process rather than using it as a concrete example. I'm wondering if a similar distinction works here as well. Spellcaster = Somebody who has to force the magic to happen, Magical by Nature = They can just perform magic by the very nature of what they are.

[Ielenia]

You have two classes that fulfill a similar function. Wizards and Sorcerers. Wizards learn to cast magic through arduous study. They brute force the casting of spells. Sorcerers are bron with it in their blood. Both cast spells the same way though in that they have to wave their hands in a magic pattern, say the magic words, and use whatever magic components the spell needs. This is identified as spellcasting. This combination of "ingredients" (verbal, somatic, material) is what lets the spell happen.

And I believe the WoW's mage concept encompasses both concepts, of the studious and the innate, which is why I believe blue dragonflight dragons are mages, if we are to fit them into a playable class.

[jellmoo]

And I believe the WoW's mage concept encompasses both concepts, of the studious and the innate, which is why I believe blue dragonflight dragons are mages, if we are to fit them into a playable class.

I think that even if this is the case though, it could still leave room for magical creatures as being something different. If the Mage class includes:

- People who fervent study arcane tomes and scrolls and have to essentially learn everything from scratch (classic D&D Wizard)
- People have magic in their blood but still need to learn how to actually cast spells (Harry Potter)

That could still give us another category that is distinct and separate: Creatures that can perform magic through no training, just by virtue of being what they are.

[FuxieDK]

Every new class should have a tank spec, they're always in demand.

Nah..... It's ALWAYS healers that are missing in the queues.

[Branflakes6000]

Not true, Tank players really should stop acting like spoilt brats, honestly you've had 3 new tanks all with new classes over the years and because one class doesnt have a tank spec you are all spitting your dummies out, get over it.

Everyone else who plays Ranged DPS have had to wait a VERY long time for this treatment and we've been very patient, this will probably be the only ranged DPS we get ina VERy long time again so let us have our moment ok?!

You could've still had a ranged DPS spec, and that was definitely needed along with mail armor. Still should've had a tank spec too. Having different flavors of tank does entice more to the role. Just compare the tank drought in classic vs retail, it's much better now.

[apepi1337]

I honestly think 3 specs for most of the classes is dumb. I main a lock and have not changed from Affliction since Wrath. Why do we need 3 ranged dps specs? Why does warrior or DK need 2 melee dps specs? Druid 4 spec is fine. Shaman, Monk and Paladin 3 spec makes sense. I can see the argument with Priest having 3 but everything else can get away with 2 and maybe even 1. So yes, we should accept 2 specs if the lore supports it. In no way should DH have a 3rd like healing or ranged. Envoker could possibly be tank or melee but the magic aspect of it does support it as well as something like a tinker. Imho I think Blizz got this right.

[Kiria]

You could've still had a ranged DPS spec, and that was definitely needed along with mail armor. Still should've had a tank spec too. Having different flavors of tank does entice more to the role. Just compare the tank drought in classic vs retail, it's much better now.

No I completely disagree, balancing is always the excuse and Tank balancing is whack as it will ruin DPS balance aka, Warrior/Druid so fourth.

Tanks wanting more because they feel entitled, The class will do fine between us RDPS players and Healers, No Tank spec needed at all!

[Coldkil]

Ok, then why add 2 more to the game then? This is a self-defeating argument. You can't make the claim that 3 more specs would be bad for the game, but 2 more are fine.

Agree. But the point/question is "are you fine with a new class with only two specs?" Yes, i am fine with it. Then, i would go even further and make all classes multi role with one spec per role. I can see how a paladin or druid can have 3 or 4 specs based on the role. I see it bloated whena rogue, a mage or a warlock has 3 dps specs which basically end being played only when one is the strongest/more efficient.

To me a character specialization should represent a playstyle. Stabbing with poisons, slashing and stabbing with shadows are not different playstyles to me. Only a change of pace in the same generators/finisher cycle. but that's me, i won't complain if things stay like this. A change like this would probably alienate more players than doing good so i don't think it's really worth pursuing.

[Schizoide]

It sucks that DH and now Dracthyr only have two specs, but what is there to "accept", or reject for that matter? Am I going to quit over it? C'mon.

It's just one more thing that sucks about the game, one of the millions of papercuts we live with every day. Eventually those tiny cuts do lead to people quitting, and it's totally worthwhile to provide feedback about each one. Maybe the newly chastened devs will even listen to it. Could happen.

[Iain]

I honestly think 3 specs for most of the classes is dumb. I main a lock and have not changed from Affliction since Wrath. Why do we need 3 ranged dps specs? Why does warrior or DK need 2 melee dps specs? Druid 4 spec is fine. Shaman, Monk and Paladin 3 spec makes sense.

Yes. Exactly. Couldn't agree more. 3 specs each is an arbitrary constraint. Maybe there's a hypothetical class that only needs one spec, maybe there's a hypothetical class that needs six specs.

[Aleksej89]

blizzard has become synonym for minimal effort.
look at overwatch 2.

much bigger problem is that the existing classes have been more and more awful ever since MOP ended.

[LazarusLong]

Yes. Exactly. Couldn't agree more. 3 specs each is an arbitrary constraint. Maybe there's a hypothetical class that only needs one spec, maybe there's a hypothetical class that needs six specs.

Less specs will also provide variety in class fantasy, since you won't need to create things like vengence DH.