More specs or more classes?

[Faerillis]

I mean.... Yes? Both.

As stands, and I realize this is controversial on this forum, Tinker is a very obvious missing class with a robust fantasy currently not overlapping significantly with any existing class and quite substantial grounding in the setting. I'm quite partial to the often floated idea of a D.Va like Tank spec (God I miss OW1), a more alchemically inspired Support/Healing spec like the Alchemists in Motherlode, and some sort of turret-y DPS spec. But I also don't see us getting this class until The Last Titan at the earliest.

But I am also VERY strongly on the side of more Specs. The absence of Earthwarder Shaman tanks is still heartbreaking to me. I am also a big fan of the idea of a Battlemage Tank spec that utilizes all 3 schools of Mage spells but defensively (also being built around having a 1h and a Staff as an off-hand Gandalf style). Obviously DHs really want a new spec as well, I would personally have it be Ranged (or Evoker medium range) with heavy blood theming and call it Sacrifice.

[Triceron]

Not really. They view it as a problem with the class' general design.

The problem is those people have issue with what they already have, not with the class being incomplete.

Their desire for change stems from not liking how Havoc is designed. And that's what needs to be tackled first and foremost. A class with 3 specs and none of them being 'fun' would also run into the same problem. And frankly, we had that with a while with Warlocks and Shamans, where plenty of players were shitting on every spec for underperforming and wanted an update overall.

THIRD spec, not a heal spec.

So what 3rd spec would a Demon Hunter need in order to be considered complete? Can you elaborate?

- - - Updated - - -

Cynicism aside, i do wonder that if they weren't bound by the 3 specs pattern at launch, which specs wouldn't have seen the light of day and which ones would have been added on top of that.

There were no real specs at launch. There were talent trees, and you were left to your own devices in how you wanted to plop your points. Hybridization was a legitimate way to play a class.

The only reason things became cookie cutter and specialized is because the Talent Tree system was quite imbalanced and prone to min-maxing. Most of the trees were filled with fluff, while other talents were considered key or necessary for a certain types of gameplay (ie Innervate, Blessing of Kings for Raiding).

And instead of tackling Min-Max cookie cutter builds with better balance, Blizzard decided to double down on them and keep them as the meta. And they designed and balanced encounters around those cookie cutter builds instead, and chose to fine-tune balance every cookie cutter build, until they were considered the 'true way' to play the game.

That's why we have Specs today, really. It's all evolved from cookie cutter builds instead of retaining the open gameplay that Vanilla originally offered, where you could be a Feral Druid that both DPS and Tanks in one spec, or have a Warrior that could tank by switching a stance and equipping a shield with no real talent change, or have a Paladin go buffing just by throwing on some spirit gear. That doesn't exist today, because classes are now built around Specs, rather than the other way around. It's just a different game altogether. And as a result of being evolved from cookie cutter builds and Specs defining roles, we have a lot of homogenization and redundancy between various classes and specs. A Guardian Druid, for example, is designed like a Warrior with slightly different abilities, rotation and stat priority. The gameplay isn't really filling the fantasy of 'playing a Shapeshifter' like you might have in other games like Diablo 4 or Path of Exile 2. In those games, you feel the real impact of playing as a massive 'Werebear' and swapping back to toss out a few spells, whereas in WoW a Guardian Druid is basically a Warrior with different buttons and it doubles down on using only one form, performing one role, at a time.

[oblakoff]

None.

Current specs needs to be more differentiated and with more specialization and flavour. The Hero classes are step in the right direction. We need more customization to existing specs, not more samey classes, or GOD FORBID the idiotic ideas like the tinker class.

[epigramx]

They should make only 3 classes. The 3 classes though will have 3 giga-specs; one giga-spec will be 3 variations of DPS (short-mid-long); the others would be healing and tanking with also 3 variations each.

E.g. mage will have a giga-spec of DPS and it will have frost and arcane and fire variations; it will also have a tanking spec but fuck that just give it 1 sub-spec (it doesn't deserve more); for healing give it half a spec that barely works just to spite those on the official forums asking for it for years lol..

- - - Updated - - -

They should make only 3 classes. The 3 classes though will have 3 giga-specs; one giga-spec will be 3 variations of DPS (short-mid-long); the others would be healing and tanking with also 3 variations each.

E.g. mage will have a giga-spec of DPS and it will have frost and arcane and fire variations; it will also have a tanking spec but fuck that just give it 1 sub-spec (it doesn't deserve more); for healing give it half a spec that barely works just to spite those on the official forums asking for it for years lol..

Then and to expand on that, the other two classes will have 3 giga-spec but with a heavier focus on another giga spec. The warrior will have 3 giga specs and only the tanking giga-spec will have 3 sub specs (a healing a defensive and an offensive); the Priest will have 3 giga specs with the healing one being the strongest (with 4 subspecs just cause Priest lol..) (the rest classes are deleted).

- - - Updated - - -

They should make only 3 classes. The 3 classes though will have 3 giga-specs; one giga-spec will be 3 variations of DPS (short-mid-long); the others would be healing and tanking with also 3 variations each.

E.g. mage will have a giga-spec of DPS and it will have frost and arcane and fire variations; it will also have a tanking spec but fuck that just give it 1 sub-spec (it doesn't deserve more); for healing give it half a spec that barely works just to spite those on the official forums asking for it for years lol..

- - - Updated - - -


Then and to expand on that, the other two classes will have 3 giga-spec but with a heavier focus on another giga spec. The warrior will have 3 giga specs and only the tanking giga-spec will have 3 sub specs (a healing a defensive and an offensive); the Priest will have 3 giga specs with the healing one being the strongest (with 4 subspecs just cause Priest lol..) (the rest classes are deleted).

OK and one final touch. We also bring a Rogue one as an alternative bonus class for seasonal events. The Rogue will obviously have 3 giga specs; all of them will be melee; each will have 3 sub-specs so the rogue will be the only class in the world with 9 specs of melee (and only that).

[Teriz]

The problem is those people have issue with what they already have, not with the class being incomplete.

Their desire for change stems from not liking how Havoc is designed. And that's what needs to be tackled first and foremost. A class with 3 specs and none of them being 'fun' would also run into the same problem. And frankly, we had that with a while with Warlocks and Shamans, where plenty of players were shitting on every spec for underperforming and wanted an update overall.

I believe they have with being the only 2 spec class in the game. They had some validation for it when they were the most recent added class, because you could argue that Blizzard simply designed two spec classes moving forward.

When Evokers arrived with two specs, this notion was somewhat verified, and DHs felt secure in the fact that there were simply 2-spec classes and 3-spec classes.

Evokers getting a third spec shattered that belief entirely. Now DH being 2 specs sticks out quite a bit, and makes the class feel a bit shallow and incomplete. After playing the class earlier today, I can understand this feeling completely.

TBF, it was truly a terrible gaming experience. I can see why DH numbers are falling rapidly with each subsequent expansion.

So what 3rd spec would a Demon Hunter need in order to be considered complete? Can you elaborate?

Any third spec really. That said, I don’t believe they’ll ever get one.

[Triceron]

Evokers getting a third spec shattered that belief entirely.

Which is about the same as Devs talking about Shaman future specs. That also shatters the belief that 3 spec classes can and only will have 3 specs, and thus opens up that potentiality for more. And depending on where you stand, one can absolutely argue that a class is 'incomplete' until they have all fan expectations met.

Whether it be a Earth-based tanking spec or some future Support spec or something wildly different, that open potential will contribute to any feeling of 'incompleteness' if that's how you want to look at it. Which is exactly how you're addressing DH here really.

You're looking at it from a grass-is-greener perspective, that's all.

Any third spec really. That said, I don’t believe they’ll ever get one.

The fact you can't even come up with one simple example shows how you can't even support your argument.

Demon Hunters are known to melee DPS and Tank. What else do you need to make them feel more complete than that?

If the identity is already filled, then the notion of any 3rd spec is simply a means of being a 'nice to have'. Fundamentally, they are complete.

Again, any disatisfaction beyond that has been about the lackluster existing specs, with an appeal for change or more. Which is literally no different than what Warlock and Shamans have already been through, both classes having players express interest in Tanking options since well before Demon Hunters even existed.

[Teriz]

I mean.... Yes? Both.

As stands, and I realize this is controversial on this forum, Tinker is a very obvious missing class with a robust fantasy currently not overlapping significantly with any existing class and quite substantial grounding in the setting. I'm quite partial to the often floated idea of a D.Va like Tank spec (God I miss OW1), a more alchemically inspired Support/Healing spec like the Alchemists in Motherlode, and some sort of turret-y DPS spec. But I also don't see us getting this class until The Last Titan at the earliest.

The Titan expansion is also when I expect the next class to drop. That would line up with when we would expect the next class announcement (2025).

[schmonz]

I would love new classes, as like Necromancer or Tinker.

[Teriz]

You're looking at it from a grass-is-greener perspective, that's all.

Nothing could further from the truth. TBH, DH players begging for a third spec and getting nothing brings me a great deal of satisfaction.

The fact you can't even come up with one simple example shows how you can't even support your argument.

See above. You misunderstand my position completely.

However for the sake of discussion, a Demon Hunter spec utilizing bows could be interesting.

[Triceron]

Nothing could further from the truth. TBH, DH players begging for a third spec and getting nothing brings me a great deal of satisfaction.

You be you.

That doesn't change the fact that many other players feel the same way about other classes, like Shamans and Warlocks who want a Tanking spec. That demand has been there since Cata, probably even earlier in some cases.

See above. You misunderstand my position completely.

However for the sake of discussion, a Demon Hunter spec utilizing bows could be interesting.

Yes, I agree bows would be interesting nice to have.

But would anyone who isn't you say that DH are incomplete without a Bow spec? No, no one would.

Your position is completely based on whims and fancy, that's the crux of the problem here. If you can't define how a DH could actually be complete with a 3rd spec, and merely come up with a 'nice to have' that is on the same level as Shamans or Warlocks gaining an interesting new spec, then your position isn't really all that different from any 4th spec discussion. You're simply applying a double standard, that's all.

This tangent is honestly no different than saying a tanking or support spec for Shamans could be interesting. There's no correlation to Shamans being incomplete without it, and this would not support the idea that Shamans are somehow lacking in options or identity. Even if players want to tank, the Shaman class itself is self-contained and complete as far as their identity goes. Same can be said about Demon Hunters, and others here have spoken out on this while no one has seemed to come to the defense of your position that DH are somehow incomplete.

If we're on the topic of what classes could use more specs, then that discussion pretty much applies to all classes sans Druid.

[Teriz]

You be you.

That doesn't change the fact that many other players feel the same way about other classes, like Shamans and Warlocks who want a Tanking spec. That demand has been there since Cata, probably even earlier in some cases.

Again, I see no collective sob session among Shaman or Warlock players in regards to Blizzard ignoring or short-changing them because they don't have a tank spec. Demon Hunter players on the other hand feel like they have an abusive step parent.

Yes, I agree bows would be interesting nice to have.

But would anyone who isn't you say that DH are incomplete without a Bow spec? No, no one would.

As I've already demonstrated, there are DH players stating that their class is incomplete without a third spec.

Your position is completely based on whims and fancy, that's the crux of the problem here. If you can't define how a DH could actually be complete with a 3rd spec, and merely come up with a 'nice to have' that is on the same level as Shamans or Warlocks gaining an interesting new spec, then your position isn't really all that different from any 4th spec discussion.

The same way the Evoker class became more complete when it got a third spec, and the same way Demon Hunter players felt their class was incomplete when Evokers got said third spec.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, a quick Google search got me this:

Yeah, that's not the same thing. That's in the "nice to have" category, not the "Blizzard ignores us and doesn't care about Demon Hunters" category.

That's what you've been saying for over a decade. It's always "coming in the future", and yet we're no closer to that now than we were back then.

Well in that time look what we've gotten.

We got a Demon Hunter class that I correctly predicted would be a shallow class design wise.
We got Dark Rangers that I correctly predicted would be an appendage of the Hunter class.
We never got Necromancers since I've said many times that Death Knights already are.
We got a dragon class that I correctly predicted would be a race/class combination utilizing the powers of the dragon flights and some HotS abilities.
We got that dragon class a third spec mid-expansion which I also correctly predicted.

Now we have an upcoming void and titan expansion, with the titan expansion lining up with a typical class inclusion time frame. Not saying that we'll get a mechanical class during that expansion, but the chances are looking quite promising.

[Wildberry]

Again, I see no collective sob session among Shaman or Warlock players in regards to Blizzard ignoring or short-changing them because they don't have a tank spec. Demon Hunter players on the other hand feel like they have an abusive step parent.

Every Shaman player I've met in-game will always eventually rattle off some variation of "You know, back in the day Shamans could tank!" Where do you think the excitement from SoD Shaman Runes in coming from?

And frankly, that's about as much evidence as the following:

As I've already demonstrated, there are DH players stating that their class is incomplete without a third spec.

Which, I have to admit, I'm a little let down by. For someone who has been so eager to post their class ideas all over the forums, and dissect every class in an attempt ot divine some unwritten rules regarding future classes, I genuinely expected you'd have made at least some argument as to why Demon Hunters are incomplete.

[Triceron]

Again, I see no collective sob session among Shaman or Warlock players in regards to Blizzard ignoring or short-changing them because they don't have a tank spec. Demon Hunter players on the other hand feel like they have an abusive step parent.

Because you're willingly ignorant and prone to confirmation bias. You literally admit you enjoy the tears of DH players. Do you go out of your way drinking the tears of Shaman and Warlock players either? No? Well that explains everything.

As I've already demonstrated, there are DH players stating that their class is incomplete without a third spec.

You haven't though. You demonstrated that there is a demand for a 3rd spec, not that they are incomplete without one.

I also feel (like others have said) that DH being the ONLY class with only 2 specs at this point sucks…because if HAVOC is designed poorly by devs (not saying it is or is not at this point), then you are stuck with tanking, and if tanking is badly designed for an expansion, you are stuck with one DPS…at least give us a third option

See here? This is a criticism of the performance and design of the existing specs. The root issue is Havoc and Tanking are deemed poorly designed. That is the crux of the issue. We've heard this SAME complaint from Shamans and Warlocks time and time again, when their specs perform poorly and they feel they are lacking options. That is the core issue here.

I want a third spec, i want to be able to play other elf races, there is literally no reason not to.

So tired of my class being ignored, and not having bugs fixed, the only time a bug gets fixed is when it possibly works in our favor, because you wouldn’t want our class to do well.
I will also never be inviting this new evoker class to mythic plus, id rather a third dps that actually does damage.

See here? They just want to because there's no reason not to. That's a nice-to-have suggestion right there. Nothing to do about incompleteness.

Then they go on to voice discontent about the overall design of the class and underperforming, same as the poster above. This has nothing to do with a 3rd spec, and all to do with the class itself feeling lackluster.

Yeah was just going to make a ragebait thread asking what you all did to make the devs hate you so much. Was sure dh was going to get a 3rd spec after seeing evokers get theirs, and then when I saw only 2 hero specs on the panel for dh, i was like, wow. Someone is blizzard’s redheaded stepchild and they don’t even want to mask it.

See here? Literally just a 'grass is greener' issue. Someone wanting all classes to have parity and meet a status quo. And as a 61 DH? To me it looks like someone literally jumping on their alt to voice a complaint, which anyone can do.

The same way the Evoker class became more complete when it got a third spec, and the same way Demon Hunter players felt their class was incomplete when Evokers got said third spec.

Grass is greener syndrome.

All you've got are examples of players who believe some magical 3rd spec will fix all the issues they have with their class. There's absolutely no consensus of what that 3rd spec would even be. Hell, you can't even bring up a single example that would complete them, all you can do is suggest a 'nice to have' spec that has nothing to do completing the Demon Hunter's core gameplay or identity.

[Teriz]

Which, I have to admit, I'm a little let down by. For someone who has been so eager to post their class ideas all over the forums, and dissect every class in an attempt ot divine some unwritten rules regarding future classes, I genuinely expected you'd have made at least some argument as to why Demon Hunters are incomplete.

Why hear it from me? Listen to DH players saying it themselves;

Statement from Lvl 70 DH player

I also feel (like others have said) that DH being the ONLY class with only 2 specs at this point sucks…because if HAVOC is designed poorly by devs (not saying it is or is not at this point), then you are stuck with tanking, and if tanking is badly designed for an expansion, you are stuck with one DPS…at least give us a third option

Response:

I think this is an important point that devs are ignoring. Having the same flexibility as other classes to change specs without having only one other option would be a huge plus, regardless of how that spec plays.

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...ding/1702306/7

- - - Updated - - -

Because you're willingly ignorant and prone to confirmation bias. You literally admit you enjoy the tears of DH players. Do you go out of your way drinking the tears of Shaman and Warlock players either? No? Well that explains everything.



You haven't though. You demonstrated that there is a demand for a 3rd spec, not that they are incomplete without one.

I also feel (like others have said) that DH being the ONLY class with only 2 specs at this point sucks…because if HAVOC is designed poorly by devs (not saying it is or is not at this point), then you are stuck with tanking, and if tanking is badly designed for an expansion, you are stuck with one DPS…at least give us a third option

See here? This is a criticism of the performance and design of the existing specs. The root issue is Havoc and Tanking are deemed poorly designed. That is the crux of the issue. We've heard this SAME complaint from Shamans and Warlocks time and time again, when their specs perform poorly and they feel they are lacking options. That is the core issue here.

I want a third spec, i want to be able to play other elf races, there is literally no reason not to.

So tired of my class being ignored, and not having bugs fixed, the only time a bug gets fixed is when it possibly works in our favor, because you wouldn’t want our class to do well.
I will also never be inviting this new evoker class to mythic plus, id rather a third dps that actually does damage.

See here? They just want to because there's no reason not to. That's a nice-to-have suggestion right there. Nothing to do about incompleteness.

Then they go on to voice discontent about the overall design of the class and underperforming, same as the poster above. This has nothing to do with a 3rd spec, and all to do with the class itself feeling lackluster.

Yeah was just going to make a ragebait thread asking what you all did to make the devs hate you so much. Was sure dh was going to get a 3rd spec after seeing evokers get theirs, and then when I saw only 2 hero specs on the panel for dh, i was like, wow. Someone is blizzard’s redheaded stepchild and they don’t even want to mask it.

See here? Literally just a 'grass is greener' issue. Someone wanting all classes to have parity and meet a status quo. And as a 61 DH? To me it looks like someone literally jumping on their alt to voice a complaint, which anyone can do.



Grass is greener syndrome. Shamans felt the same way when Druids initially got their split to 4 specs. All we're talking about are individuals who don't feel content with their class and want more, that's all. It's not a class-wide problem, it's an individuals issue.

All you're doing is correlating all the demand for 3rd spec for DH coming from all different types of reasonings for it, and it all stems from a general discontent for the actual class. And as I've said before, this has already existed with Shamans and Warlocks time and time again, when they've been underperforming or when class reworks kick in or whatever the case may be.


The crux of the issue is players being unable to quantify a reasonable solution to the issues they have with their class, and the immediate scapegoat for all of the DH's issues is to bring in some magical 3rd spec that will somehow fix all those issues. That's all you're bringing up here.

You don't view a class having only 1 additional option for spec change while every other class has multiple options as an example of that class being "incomplete" or handicapped?

Again, when Evokers got a third spec not only did it make the class feel more robust, but it also completed the class fantasy by offering players the ability to play as a black dragon based spec.

[Yarock]

Neither, lets get rid of 1 spec per class.

[Triceron]

You don't view a class having only 1 additional option for spec change while every other class has multiple options as an example of that class being "incomplete" or handicapped?

Handicaps are defined by design and balance, not by how many Spec options they have.

Like I said, Warlocks and Shaman players have felt handicapped for years depending on how their class performed in certain expansions. And in many cases, these classes have had points where all of their specs had mediocre performance. Imbalance is the root cause of any handicaps.

And you still haven't really addressed the fact that there are Shaman and Warlock players who demand a tanking spec. You kinda just brush them off, even though these are the type of people that your argument literally addresses.

Again, when Evokers got a third spec not only did it make the class feel more robust, but it also completed the class fantasy by offering players the ability to play as a black dragon based spec.

But based on your argument, they're also not complete. You and many others have argued for, and some continue to argue for, a tanking or melee spec that uses polearms. Based on your argument, this would also define them being incomplete until they reach an aforementioned 4th Tanking spec. They are literally missing that fantasy portraying them with polearms in their lore and cinematics.

And I would have to question, would Evokers even need a Tanking spec in order to feel 'complete'? This would be completely subjective, and it all depends on whether people still feel they need a tanking/melee spec at all. So this really has nothing to do with what they already have, or how robust a certain spec makes them feel. It's all about the missing potential that was never tapped into and how that makes people feel about that class.

[Wildberry]

Why hear it from me? Listen to DH players saying it themselves

People on the forums say lots of things, often mutually exclusive things.

Statement from Lvl 70 DH player

Wow, a guy, who hit max level? He must be an expert!
My God, am I back in 2004?

While the actual point he's making is understandable, it is not evidence for the claim:

makes the class feel a bit shallow and incomplete. After playing the class earlier today, I can understand this feeling completely.

Come on, you played the class earlier, please actually provide some evidence! Because as it stands, it certainly seems like you're just citing DHs wanting a new thing because someone else got a new thing rather than the class itself having some deep mechanical issue that needs a 3rd spec to resolve. In fact, it seems like you've made an own goal on this front:

I believe they have with being the only 2 spec class in the game. They had some validation for it when they were the most recent added class, because you could argue that Blizzard simply designed two spec classes moving forward.

When Evokers arrived with two specs, this notion was somewhat verified, and DHs felt secure in the fact that there were simply 2-spec classes and 3-spec classes.

And because I can't help myself, and we're on the topic of own goals:

We got a Demon Hunter class that I correctly predicted would be a shallow class design wise.

Did you really, now? If you did, it seems like it would be really easy for you to detail to all of us how DH is incomplete!

[Teriz]

Handicaps are defined by design and balance, not by how many Spec options they have.

Aren't handicaps also defined by having less options?

But they're also not complete, considering you and many others have argued for, and some continue to argue for, a tanking or melee spec that uses polearms. Based on your argument, this would also define them being incomplete until they reach an aforementioned 4th Tanking spec. They are literally missing that fantasy portraying them with polearms in their lore and cinematics.

Again, you're talking about a nice to have. Wanting a tanking spec isn't the same as wanting a third spec. The former is an example of wanting extra, the latter is an example of just being equal to the other classes in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Come on, you played the class earlier, please actually provide some evidence! Because as it stands, it certainly seems like you're just citing DHs wanting a new thing because someone else got a new thing rather than the class itself having some deep mechanical issue that needs a 3rd spec to resolve.

Didn't I already do this? I said that having only a single spec to switch to gives the class less options than any other class in the game, thus making the class feel shallow and incomplete. Evokers had similar problems before Augmentation, but thankfully that problem was addressed.

Beyond that, I find Havoc being rather reliant on throwing glaives and shooting eyebeams to be kind of sad. However, that's completely my opinion.

[chrisisvacant]

"New class" is a selling point of an expansion. "New specs?" Not so much.

Says who? Adding the fourth spec to Druid was a major coup and adding multiple new specs would be even bigger. Especially if they were truly subclasses like Survival Hunter that change the paradigm of the parent class. No doubt this is what they're testing for proof of concept with their added subclass specializations in TWW. It paves the way for entirely new specs to be built and we can break away from this ridiculous tethering to the classic 3 (the concept of 3 specs is just to mirror the holy Trinity of rpg group makeup and is in no way a thing outside of WoW's bespoke design from 20 years ago).

[Triceron]

Aren't handicaps also defined by having less options?

Not if they don't affect the balance or performance of a class. That would simply be grass is greener syndrome.


Would you consider the Druid class to be functionally or conceptually incomplete and handicapped by having less racial options? Or Paladins? Or Shamans?

By all measures, you can perceive them to be incomplete or handicapped, but it doesn't actually make a lick of difference if we're talking about how the class itself performs. Lacking those extra race combos doesn't actually handicap the class whatsoever.

It would handicap the class if those missing options directly affected their gameplay balance. Thankfully, it doesn't, and racials have been toned down to the point where they have minimal affect to overall class balance. So all we're talking about here is a perception that a certain class feels handicapped by lack of options, even though it doesn't impact their performance.

Again, you're talking about a nice to have. Wanting a tanking spec isn't the same as wanting a third spec. The former is an example of wanting extra, the latter is an example of just being equal to the other classes in the game.

And if you're unable to show a difference in how a class is considered handicapped or incomplete, then contextually they're the same problem. Grass is greener syndrome, which you still haven't acknowledged. Wanting a 2nd tanking spec is the same as wanting a 3rd tanking spec is the same as wanting a 4th tanking spec. There's literally no difference, because it all stems from a perception of incompleteness while disregarding the actual performance of the class. Does any class need an extra tanking spec? Not really. Do Demon Hunters need a 3rd spec? Not really. What the do need is better design and balance.

Handicaps and incompleteness are derived from individuals who are discontent with what they have and simply want more, under the belief that more options will somehow fix the problems with their class. See above with the Druid Races example. There's a massive gap between perception and reality in defining what that actual handicap would be.