Rejoice! Demon Hunter is already playable in-game, but not clear enough, apparently.

[Jtree]

Blizzard isn't going to gut Demonology. Lets stop even trying to suggest this is an option. For a standalone class, that then leaves you with the option of a DH redesign to the point they don't have any resemblence to the current DHs, or having two classes with a large overlap in theme and skills.

No way should Blizzard touch Demo, it's awesome right now. I don't want it changed into a tanking spec, or a melee spec. It's pretty damn fun as a pet-swarming, shape-shifting caster.

And they don't need to change it, because Demon Hunters have a wildly different approach. As I've been saying, the thematic gap between demon hunters and warlocks is quite large, and as long as it's explained in game, probably via DH trainers and mobs mocking and threatening warlocks, the differences will seep into the collective understanding of the game.

There are currently 170 warlock abilities, talents, specializations, proficiencies, and glyphs. Even if two have some overlap with demon hunters, that's two among the 100+ other things that will be created for the new class. And it's a mighty big assumption to assume that the two spells would have the same effect and hold the same prominence for a DH.

I can imagine an entire spec called Immolation, focusing on all kinds of single target and AoE fire spells. That's one thing right there we don't have in the game right now: fire-melee.

DHs are a demon empowered class (just like Warlocks) who use Demon magics (just like warlocks) and summoned demons (just like warlocks) to fight demons and other enemies (just like warlocks) from both range (just like warlocks) and melee (not like warlocks but like rogues).

I've covered this a few times, what's one more go?

Demon hunters fight with stolen demonic powers. Warlocks wield assorted dark magics, some of which have a demonic source.

Warlocks ritualistically and contractually summon powerful demons to do their bidding. Demon hunters kill demons to take their power.

Demon hunters have one driving motivation: killing demons. Warlocks use their assorted dark powers to destroy whatever opposes them; sometimes that might be banishing demons, sometimes it's poisoning a nobleman who is close to exposing their secret coven.

Warlocks are casters, slinging spells from afar. Demon hunters are melee, fighting with weapons and backing it up with magic, much like shaman, paladins, death knights, and monks.

That said, we know nothing of the specs and rotations the class might use. The monk could have potentially overlapped significantly with rogues, but I don't hear that complaint now. Its asinine to say that a not yet created class would overlap with anyone else.

[Teriz]

I can imagine an entire spec called Immolation, focusing on all kinds of single target and AoE fire spells. That's one thing right there we don't have in the game right now: fire-melee.

Enhancement Shaman are "fire melee".

[Belisaurio]

Blizzard COULD indeed go that route. It seems doubtful that they would. As I said, they have no reason to do that. The DH doesn't bring anything new to the game. And magic type aside, the Priest and Paladins have very different themes, tropes and mechanics that woudl not necessarily be present between DHs and Warlocks. All of that would depend solely upon how Blizzard chooses to implement the DH at the time it does so.

Yes, they can have the same differences between Priests and Paladins. And more differences than this two, because warlocks demonology are pet-related class in wow, and DH shouldn't have any pet. Paladins and Priest share more things, like a healing spec, and I don't see a DH class in a full ranged-pet/demon summoning spec. So, apart from Metamorfosis in demonology-spec, I see more differences between DH and Warlocks than Paladins and Priests.
I'm not going to quote all your post, but you assume that a DH can't be different from a warlock, and I can't see anything close apart from the energy that they use (demons) and, again, the Metamorfosis skill.

DHs are a demon empowered class (just like Warlocks) who use Demon magics (just like warlocks) and summoned demons (just like warlocks) to fight demons and other enemies (just like warlocks) from both range (just like warlocks) and melee (not like warlocks but like rogues).

In my opinion, you don't know what a DH is. You only saw demon-corrupted Illidan, and you have a wrong view of DH. Let's talk more slowly:

DHs are a demon empowered class (just like Warlocks).

Yes, you are right. Thematically, they are demon-energy users. Like a Priest and Paladins are holy-energy users. So we have the same in game and it's cool no?

who use Demon magics (just like warlocks).

Close. Warlocks can only use demon-energys, but DH can use their "empowerment" to be melee fighter without using any demon-magic abilities. They are already more powerful (agility and strenght) that others, like a super-hero, so they don't need to release some "demonic-power" that resides inside them.
So you could have an entirely spec that only use rogue-warrior melee-style if you want, but in my opinion, Ì like DH to be using demon-magic in melee combat, but that's just my preference.

and summoned demons (just like warlocks).

No. DH is empowered for demon-entities or energies. That's true, but they can't summon any demon. Why they should summon any demon? They hate them, they are am avatar of vengeance focused on demons. They aren't summoners, they are fighters (that's something very important to know). DH have something evil inside them, so they can "release" to be something "demonic", but again, it's like an steroid, not like a summon. So you are really wrong here.

to fight demons and other enemies (just like warlocks)

At first, DH were focused only in vengeance against demons, and warlocks are selfish demon-users that had some demon-slaves to accomplish whatever they want. Like DKs focusing only in scourge...that's only thematic, but you see them fighting Shas and other races. So DH should be like other classes.

from both range (just like warlocks)

Are you sure that you know what's a DH? DH are not ranged. They had in WC3 an steroid to fight ranged, something to help them killing air unites without elemental-orbs. You can't say that a Tauren chieftain is ranged because he had 1 ability to hit air unites...So DH are not ranged. Warlocks, in the other hand, are ranged-casters.

and melee (not like warlocks but like rogues).

So you are comparing and assuming that warlocks and DH are the same or really close, but in the final comparison you know that they are different. That's correct, they fit a melee position like: Paladins retri, warriors, rogues, feral druids, guardian druids, shamans enhancement, Dks, Monks, etc... unlike warlocks.

[Orloth]

Practicality. Its just easier to make a new class with 3 specs than 11 new specs at a time.

I don't think this is the case. Ghostcrawler tweeted a while back that they would be about even in development time, as a new spec would take less overall work (development, artwork, animations, tech, etc) then the base mechanics of a new class. All that says, really, is that they've at least discussed the idea internally enough to have a cost analysis, not that they're actually considering it.

[Jessicka]

I don't think this is the case. Ghostcrawler tweeted a while back that they would be about even in development time, as a new spec would take less overall work (development, artwork, animations, tech, etc) then the base mechanics of a new class. All that says, really, is that they've at least discussed the idea internally enough to have a cost analysis, not that they're actually considering it.

Think it's evident from the introduction of 2 new classes what the result of that cost analysis was. As more classes are added, it only becomes relatively easier to add more than expand existing.

[Orloth]

Think it's evident from the introduction of 2 new classes what the result of that cost analysis was. As more classes are added, it only becomes relatively easier to add more than expand existing.

He has only started tweeting recently, and that particular one was only a few months ago. Therefore it is not evident from the introduction of 2 new classes as 2 new classes have not been introduced since the tweet.

[Jessicka]

He has only started tweeting recently, and that particular one was only a few months ago. Therefore it is not evident from the introduction of 2 new classes as 2 new classes have not been introduced since the tweet.

I don't recall that tweet, but in any case, it will only get easier relatively to create and continue to balance 34, 37, 40, 43.... than 34, 44, 55, 66... etc. Also the issue of expanding classes into roles they didn't previously assume is very contentious, as is defining multiple DPS specs within existing classes.

[Teriz]

This seems like a very real possibility.

[Orloth]

I don't recall that tweet, but in any case, it will only get easier relatively to create and continue to balance 34, 37, 40, 43.... than 34, 44, 55, 66... etc. Also the issue of expanding classes into roles they didn't previously assume is very contentious, as is defining multiple DPS specs within existing classes.

Yes. Without question. I don't think that it would be difficult to come up with new specs, especially if it is done to expand the roles a class can play. (site: Teriz's image) However, as a member of the warlock tanking community, It is quite clear that many warlocks (about half) simply don't want to stop being pure. I don't know why, I don't understand it, but yes. It will be contentious to expand the roles that classes can play. But that is not an argument I feel it is productive to repeat at this stage, so truce?

[Teriz]

Yes. Without question. I don't think that it would be difficult to come up with new specs, especially if it is done to expand the roles a class can play. (site: Teriz's image) However, as a member of the warlock tanking community, It is quite clear that many warlocks (about half) simply don't want to stop being pure. I don't know why, I don't understand it, but yes. It will be contentious to expand the roles that classes can play. But that is not an argument I feel it is productive to repeat at this stage, so truce?

Yeah, every class has the potential for new specs because Blizzard pulled each class from large archetypes.

This is one of the problems with believing that Demon Hunters could become a class; Their archetype is so narrow that its very difficult to come up with three, let alone 4 diverse specs that still retain the flavor of the WC3 unit, or WoW NPCs. However, a Warlock melee spec or a Dark Apotheosis spec would work perfectly.

Tinkers on the hand is quite easy to accomplish, because they come from a much larger and varied archetype.

Like the rest of WoW's classes.

[Talen]

I really wish you would understand that your idea of 'themes' is a collection of inconsistent pairings that you're grouping together and using as your argument. You can't describe 4 classes as 'DnD archetypes' and 4 others based on the magic they use (in lore, mind you).

Yes, I can. And why not? Each and every class has its on unique central theme around which it is based. For warriors....its fills the trope of the generic D&D/MMO/RPG warrior. For Shamans? The control and manipulation of Elementals. For Warlocks? It is demons.

And they don't need to change it, because Demon Hunters have a wildly different approach. As I've been saying, the thematic gap between demon hunters and warlocks is quite large

"Large" equating to "One is melee and the other is ranged". A distinction which is relatively meaningless, especially gievn how (relatively) melee friendly Warlocks were in past XPacs.


Anything else is lore and backstory and hence is *totally* meaningless as a game design distinction.

I can imagine an entire spec called Immolation, focusing on all kinds of single target and AoE fire spells. That's one thing right there we don't have in the game right now: fire-melee.

Elementals Shamans. Also misses the point....Blizzard CAN design a DH class. Blizzard CAN design three specs around that class. Blizzard can give that class a different feel from Warlocks.


Should it?


The core objection remains.


Either you end up with a class which shares 90% of its toolkit and looks with the warlock, or you end up with a class which ends up bearing no resemblence to the existing DH class outside the name.


Neither is good. Neither is desireable.

Demon hunters fight with stolen demonic powers. Warlocks wield assorted dark magics, some of which have a demonic source.

Backstory. Irrelevant.

Warlocks ritualistically and contractually summon powerful demons to do their bidding. Demon hunters kill demons to take their power.

Backstory. Lore. Inaccurate. Irrelevant.

Demon hunters have one driving motivation: killing demons. Warlocks use their assorted dark powers to destroy whatever opposes them; sometimes that might be banishing demons, sometimes it's poisoning a nobleman who is close to exposing their secret coven.

Backstory. Lore. Irrelevant.

Warlocks are casters, slinging spells from afar. Demon hunters are melee, fighting with weapons and backing it up with magic, much like shaman, paladins, death knights, and monks.

Game mechanics. Relevant. Solved by giving the Warlock class a Dual wield skill and a strike.

Yes, they can have the same differences between Priests and Paladins.

Classes which have large differences in gameplay and which were part of the original setting of the game and which have little overlap in theme or mechanics. They both use Holy magic and the paladin can heal being the main similarities.

And more differences than this two, because warlocks demonology are pet-related class in wow, and DH shouldn't have any pet.

They currently can and do summon demons. Should players versions have the same ability?

I'm not going to quote all your post, but you assume that a DH can't be different from a warlock, and I can't see anything close apart from the energy that they use (demons) and, again, the Metamorfosis skill.

A DH can be differnet from a Warlock.


But if you go that route, then you can't have a DH summonign demons. Using Shadowbolt or Shadowfury. You have to drop Meta. Can't have the DH using his curses.


If you take the Warlock out of the DH, then you are left with a class with a few melee skills.

That's true, but they can't summon any demon. Why they should summon any demon?

Who knows? We have an in game example of them doing it. So much for your advice.

Are you sure that you know what's a DH? DH are not ranged.

They have rnaged combat abilities and spells allowing them to attack from range. And have done since WC3.

This seems like a very real possibility.

No, it doesn't.


EJL

[Teriz]

No, it doesn't.

Given all the other leak rumors and the random testing of tri-spec for no real reason, I disagree.

[Thimagryn]

Yes, I can. And why not? Each and every class has its on unique central theme around which it is based. For warriors....its fills the trope of the generic D&D/MMO/RPG warrior. For Shamans? The control and manipulation of Elementals. For Warlocks? It is demons.

EJL

You may as well be comparing half the classes to 'Lord of the Rings characters' and the other half that doesn't fit to 'He Man'.

The archetype that fits Warlocks into your loose 'DnD' model is Summoner. Their identity is maintained that they summon different types of creatures for different roles, whether to tank, to deal damage or for crowd control.

Demon Hunters are not Summoners.

[kensim]

I would be fine with 4 specs. (WOAH TERIZ AND I SEMI_AGREE ON SOMETHING!)

I would be fine with that addition of Tinker.

It would make sense to get in as much new content as possible to produce the business surge I am sure they are looking for.

[Jessicka]

Yeah, every class has the potential for new specs because Blizzard pulled each class from large archetypes.

This is one of the problems with believing that Demon Hunters could become a class; Their archetype is so narrow that its very difficult to come up with three, let alone 4 diverse specs that still retain the flavor of the WC3 unit, or WoW NPCs. However, a Warlock melee spec or a Dark Apotheosis spec would work perfectly.

Tinkers on the hand is quite easy to accomplish, because they come from a much larger and varied archetype.

Like the rest of WoW's classes.

How is it hard? Two thirds of the way there with a tanking and a DPS spec. That's exactly why it shouldn't be an expansion on Warlocks, because there's demand for the tanking and melee DPS logically follows.

Still not seeing what relevance a Tinker has, other than your own self enforced 12 class limitation.

[Talen]

You may as well be comparing half the classes to 'Lord of the Rings characters' and the other half that doesn't fit to 'He Man'

The theme fit and give each a unique identity. The aim isn't to be consistent but to provide each class with a central core identity that players of this game can recognise. What I've described are the four basic MMO classes that are a staple of mos, if not all, MMOs and then given a one or two word short description for the others to show what their class identity is centered around.

You seem to object to the option that there can be two such groupings. I don't understand why....except that by identitifying the core class identity in such a way, we do end up with Warlocks having Demons.

Which would be a ridiculous concern. Yes, its something Blizzard would have to consider. But if they want to bring in DH, that won't stop them.

To put it another way...if I were to add a Demon themed spell into the game right now...do you think it should go to Shamans?

EJL

[Belisaurio]

Classes which have large differences in gameplay and which were part of the original setting of the game and which have little overlap in theme or mechanics. They both use Holy magic and the paladin can heal being the main similarities.

And DH can have the same differences...or more:
Warlock: Ranged, only magical, pet users.
DH: Melee, hybrid magic/physical, no pet users.

Like I said, there is only Metamorfosis that overlap their theme and rol.

They currently can and do summon demons. Should players versions have the same ability?

Why you say this? I haven't got any proof that DH can summon any demon and catch them to be their slaves. In WC3 they couldn't summon anything. In Wow, there areonly 5 or 6 DH and only one can summon (Illidan). Other DH only call some adds (maybe leotheras, but I only see that for game-mechanics).

A DH can be differnet from a Warlock.
But if you go that route, then you can't have a DH summonign demons. Using Shadowbolt or Shadowfury. You have to drop Meta. Can't have the DH using his curses.
If you take the Warlock out of the DH, then you are left with a class with a few melee skills.

I never saw a DH atacking with curses, summoning demons and using shadowbolt or shadowfury. The closest thing that I remember doing that is some skills in Boss-mechanics. I thing that you are talking about warlocks, with all their curses, destruction spells and their pets, but this is only related to warlocks, not DH.
The meta of a warlock (in my opinion), it's a magical caster with demon pets, that use curses and other thematic abilities from demons/dark arts.
The meta of DH, in WC3, was a semi-tanky class, that countered casters-characters and had a hit & run style, with a steroid to become aggressive in skirmishes.
So I don't see anything close in their meta.

Who knows? We have an in game example of them doing it. So much for your advice.

The only DH slaved-demons that I remember in wow were near Loramus Thalipedes, that had 3 fel hunters. So, for one DH that had 3 pets, we can assume that DH can control 3 pets at the same time. It's hard to believe that theory, but I don't see DH class like a pet-user. But who knows...

They have rnaged combat abilities and spells allowing them to attack from range. And have done since WC3.

I can't find anything ranged in their skill-sets. They had only one ranged-steroid (metamorfosis).
Only one ability that interacted with aire or ranged unites.
So, knowing that, all other classes that had one ranged ability were ranged? Because knowing that, all WC3 heros were rangeds (like DKs, that had one ranged ability too).
I can't find anything to maintain this argument. I never saw a DH atacking only from ranged for an entire match/battle/skirmish/whatever. But in the other side, we can assume that warlocks are magical-ranged casters.

I'm not saying that DH is the new class of course, perhaps the next expansion will have only races and 0 new classes!!! And I like Tinkerers too, but I liek DH too.

[Talen]

And DH can have the same differences...or more

Sure they can. That isn't the point. The problem is if you do so, you end up with a DH that has nothing in common with the existing in game DHs except the name.
The problem is that regardless of anything else, you ARE going to annoy Warlocks by giving Demon Hunters demon themed abilities because Warlocks see that as their balliwick. Their niche. Their flavor.

Blizzard can ignore that but being blunt - they don't have any reason to do so.

Why you say this?

Because its actually in the game.

I never saw a DH atacking with curses, summoning demons and using shadowbolt or shadowfury.

Then you haven't done your research.

The only DH slaved-demons that I remember in wow were near Loramus Thalipedes, that had 3 fel hunters. So, for one DH that had 3 pets, we can assume that DH can control 3 pets at the same time. It's hard to believe that theory, but I don't see DH class like a pet-user. But who knows...

So we've gone from "Can't possibly happen" to "Hard to Believe because it doesn't fit in with my personal vision of the class".

Regardless of the fact that YOU don't see DHs as a pet class, the truth is that in lore they have been shown to be fully capable of doing so. That doesn't mean that Blizzard will develop that ability, but it is one more crossover between the two classes that can't be ignored...no matter what your personal vision states.

All of which brings us back to the core central problem of developing the class as a standalone class.

Blizzard isn't going to change Demonology.

So either Blizzard create a very different Demon Hunter class that bears little if any resemblence to the existing model (making the entire exercise of developing a class to cater to players who want a DH totally null and void) or it creates a class which shares a large degree of overlap in both toolkit and theme with Warlocks, which will cause Warlocks to be angry at the DHs for stepping on their territory and DHs to be angry for not developing a unique class identity.

Which of these two options strikes you as viable?

For me...the answer is neither. Blizzard gains nothing by labelling an entirely new class with no in game history "Demon Hunters" and it is likely to actively avoid ticking off players by designing a class so alike in theme and feel to an existing system. Once we add in that DHs don't bring anything new to the game, that their theme and niche is already filled, and that there are other options Blizzard can explore instead, DHs as a standalone class seem very unlikely.

Of course, Blizzard can ignore all that. It doesn't seem even remotely likely that they will since it doesn't actually give them anything..

EJL

[Thimagryn]

The theme fit and give each a unique identity. The aim isn't to be consistent but to provide each class with a central core identity that players of this game can recognise. What I've described are the four basic MMO classes that are a staple of mos, if not all, MMOs and then given a one or two word short description for the others to show what their class identity is centered around.

Except by creating inconsistent comparisons, you are misrepresenting their identities. Just like I've explained numerous times how your description of a Warlock has no bearing on your description of a Priest. I have further laid out what each class represents if you were to compare them side by side, which you simply ignored.

Again I state - In context to classic fantasy archetypes, if Priests are Healers, then Warlocks are Summoners.

To put it another way...if I were to add a Demon themed spell into the game right now...do you think it should go to Shamans?

EJL

You're implying that Blizzard creates spells and abilities, then fits them into different classes. That's not how spells are designed.

Design starts from addressing the classes first, by analyzing their gameplay mechanics and THEN creating the appropriate abilities. Spell creation comes last. They don't arbitrarily create 'Demonic spells' or 'Elemental Spells' and give them to whatever class fits.

Furthermore, you are arguing that Warlocks should gain all Demonic spells because that is their theme. You call the Paladin the Holy Warrior. In MoP, Priest gained new offensive and defensive Holy spells, like Holy Word: Chastise, Serenity and Sanctuary. Why are these classes sharing Holy spells exempt from your criticisms?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure they can. That isn't the point. The problem is if you do so, you end up with a DH that has nothing in common with the existing in game DHs except the name.
The problem is that regardless of anything else, you ARE going to annoy Warlocks by giving Demon Hunters demon themed abilities because Warlocks see that as their balliwick. Their niche. Their flavor.
EJL

I don't think Demon Hunters will be implemented as a class, but the potential for them to be created is there. Demon Hunters in Warcraft have relatively little lore. They are mysterious, and that's what makes them interesting. To say that making any changes or new additions would alienate their identity is a complete fallacy.

The Monk in WoW is almost a completely new creation, from lore to mechanics. Yet their one spec, Brewmaster, fully represents the same class from Warcraft 3. That's because the WoW class has a larger identity than simply being 'Brewmaster'. Brewmasters are only one aspect of what a Monk is.

Death Knights in WoW are an expanded version of the Warcraft 3 class. Unholy magic is what Death Knights prior to WoW are known for, yet in WoW they are expanded to use Frost and Blood magic, which incorporates many abilities taken from similar hero classes such as the Lich and Dread Lord. This is all encompassed as one class identity; the WoW Death Knight.

What you have been doing so far has been comparing the Warcraft 3 identity of the Demon Hunter to every other WoW class. You aren't considering the Demon Hunter as a potential WoW class, you are presenting it as a Warcraft 3 hero that uses Demons.

[Talen]

Except by creating inconsistent comparisons, you are misrepresenting their identities

No - Warlocks are consistently demon themed. Warriors are consistently warrior themed.

Just like I've explained numerous times how your description of a Warlock has no bearing on your description of a Priest.

Good, they don't.

I have further laid out what each class represents if you were to compare them side by side, which you simply ignored.

Because you are trying to compare the identity of one class with another even though the themes for both are based upon different criteria. The origin of the them isn't important....just that it exists.

Or are you going to try and tell me the Warlock is NOT strongly identified with demons in WoW?

Again I state - In context to classic fantasy archetypes, if Priests are Healers, then Warlocks are Summoners.

Sure. Irrelevant to the point, but yes. As far as WoW themes are concerned, the trope the priest fills is that of the generic D&D/MMO "healer" class generally known as the priest. You know - that guy who stand sin the back and heals. Druids don't fill that theme; they fill the role in game...not the theme. And the theme around Warlocks are designed is Demons.

I'm not sure how you can even try to deny either DHs or Warlocks have a strong Demon-based identity.

Furthermore, you are arguing that Warlocks should gain all Demonic spells because that is their theme. You call the Paladin the Holy Warrior. In MoP, Priest gained new offensive and defensive Holy spells, like Holy Word: Chastise, Serenity and Sanctuary. Why are these classes sharing Holy spells exempt from your criticisms?

Do you see the priest as a warrior? Someone whose primary goal and role in life is combat? Having combat spells and an in-game combat role doesn't really contribute to the class theme.

What you have been doing so far has been comparing the Warcraft 3 identity of the Demon Hunter to every other WoW class. You aren't considering the Demon Hunter as a potential WoW class, you are presenting it as a Warcraft 3 hero that uses Demons.

Could Blizzard design a Demon Hunter class that was different from Warlocks?
Yes. It just wouldn't have anything the current batch of Demon Hunters have. They would NOT be the WoW style Demon Hunters. The class coudl be implemented failry easily - perhaps akin to the D3 style DH - but it would not be the DH WoW players want to play.

Why bother? Why give players the expectations of the DH class and then disappoint hem by giving them a totally different one?

The alternative is worse. Why keep the existing design that is in game since that covers territory currently occupied by Warlocks? You are talking about a major overlap in theme, in toolkit and in look. Why would Blizzard want to anger adherents of an existing class in order to bring in a new class that ultimately doesn't bring anything of value to the game? Maybe Blizzard marketing research suggest the positive values of the DH class outweigh the negatives....but it still seems dubious.

EJL