Some Reasons Demon Hunters and Warlocks doesnt share the same theme

[Deleted]

No, it doesn't, at all. Other than seeing an Energy bar, they play completely different, and even the Energy bar doesn't behave the same way for a number of reasons. Chi is not Combo Points and plays very differently, also for numerous reasons.

Mechanically, they have almost nothing in common. Leather and Dual-Wielding is about the most similarity they have, and they don't even use their weapons, it's just a fancy-looking backpack; plus they can use Staves/Polearms. So... Leather.

So, I guess we're saying Druid and Rogue also have significant overlap since they both wear leather, use Energy, and Stealth. And combo points. (Except playing Feral is basically nothing like any Rogue spec other than the superficial shared resources — which is like saying Mage & Elemental are the same because they both use Mana).

Demon hunters would be exactly the same, they would have their own style and gameplay that none of the existing classes would not have.

If functional overlapping were an issue, we would not have ww monk, rogue, feral, mage, warlock etc. WoW would only have 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 ranged dps, 1 melee dps.

[Teriz]

Demon hunters would be exactly the same, they would have their own style and gameplay that none of the existing classes would not have.

Their physical side is covered by Rogues. Their magical side is covered by Warlocks. You can pretend to be a Dual Wielding Demon Hunter by speccing into Combat, getting the Warglaives of Azzinoth, the Cursed Visage of Sageras, and rolling a Night Elf. You can pretend to be the more demonic, black temple style Demon Hunter by speccing into Demonology, getting the Glyph of Demon Hunting, and getting the Betrayer Regalia.

At that point, there will be no functional difference between you and a Demon Hunter.

[Deleted]

Their physical side is covered by Rogues. Their magical side is covered by Warlocks. You can pretend to be a Dual Wielding Demon Hunter by speccing into Combat, getting the Warglaives of Azzinoth, the Cursed Visage of Sageras, and rolling a Night Elf. You can pretend to be the more demonic, black temple style Demon Hunter by speccing into Demonology, getting the Glyph of Demon Hunting, and getting the Betrayer Regalia.

At that point, there will be no functional difference between you and a Demon Hunter.

Rogues physical side is covered by ww monks.

[Lovestar]

Rogues physical side is covered by ww monks.

In what way?

[Traveler Voltin]

In what way?

they hit stuff idk.

[Deleted]

WW monk covers rogues "physical side" by hitting stuff, just like rogue covers demon hunter "physical side" by hitting stuff.

[Teriz]

WW monk covers rogues "physical side" by hitting stuff, just like rogue covers demon hunter "physical side" by hitting stuff.

No, Rogues cover DH's physical side by being able to equip the Glaives of Azzinoth, and the Visage of Sageras, as well as having Evasion, Stealth, Shadowport, and Cloak of Shadows.

[Traveler Voltin]

No, Rogues cover DH's physical side by being able to equip the Glaives of Azzinoth, and the Visage of Sageras, as well as having Evasion, Stealth, Shadowport, and Cloak of Shadows.

now your just reaching.

[Talen]

Guess we'll have to disagree that it was contradicted in game, I'll use common sense, you use something else.

Yes.....I'll take the game content over a source that was contradicted by other cannon sources at the time it was printed.

I'm happy with my decision.

You also claim that warlocks used to have sense demons in response to someone speaking about spectral sight not being exclusive to Illidan. I think you'll find that sense demons isn't the same thing as spectral sight. Spectral sight is the unique type of vision that DH's have after removing their eyes. It allows them to see everything, not simply demons as sense demons did.

Spectral sight is an ability which allows the hunter to see demons with greater clarity. Players get it in game by donning a blindfold. It pops up as an ability that mimics Sense Demons.

Which was a Warlock baseline spell at the time.

There's nothing that says this sight can't be granted to someone else for a time, as a matter of fact, sindwellers questline makes that abundantly clear.

This very sentence shows that the "ritual" you would have us believe DHs undertake is totally unnececssary. That you think that, given a choice between carving out theirs eyes or donning a blindfold, they would do both.

What are they after here? Resiliency? They want the cool look that goes with the blindfold but need a back up "Sense Demon" spell in case a demon snatches it...and that they prefer this ability to their own eyes?

Or Blizzard has to pull new Demon Hunter abilities and talents from somewhere !!

Only needed if they are in the actual game. They aren't.

The design direction for the past 7 years has been to take spells, abilities, looks, Concepts and so on from the DH and give them to the Warlock.

That shows no sign of changing. Even if it didn't, Warlcpoks have too much of the DH for Blizzard to ever annoy them by taking those abilities away.

As for your "ability list". The simple truth is the one and only ability of note for Demon Hunters is Metamorphosis. That is the signature ability. That is the iconic ability. EVerything else can be dropped and reworked....it is Metamophosis which makes a Demon Hunter special.

The trouble is...Warlocks have it so DHs wouldn't be getting it. Its noteworthy that DHs use Warlocks spells, and its noteworthy that Warlocks have DH spells...including Metamorphosis... because it shows us Blizzards thinking on the matter - they themeselves have linked the two classes with their current design.

But the ability list itself isn't truly important. And DHs not getting Metamorphosis? That could be worked around. It's a critical spell for the DH flavor and image, but it could be worked around.

Here's an eye opener: If Blizzard want's to introduce a new class, and they want demon hunters to be in it because it fits the theme of an expansion, they are not going to hold back because for some reason they overlap with warlocks....... They will work around it. What you hear on these forums so much is: "can't" "can't" "can't", well this just came in: THEY CAN!

As a matter of fact- the impact on Warlocks is precisely why they wouldn't being the DH in as a class. They can, yes. You are right there. They simply won't. The impact on several classes would be negative. The only time they could have added Demon Hunters was in Vanilla, because then they could have adjusted the design space for the classes and worked to create a unique design space for the DH. They didn't, and the DH design space was swallowed up by other classes instead.

General gameplay and feel overlaps with rogue. Of course lore is different but its not related.

Monk has similar abilities than rogue, like jab, combo points system etc

So, you are stating that the Monk and Rogue have a fair degree of overlap in the gameplay department.

The rest of the design space - concepts, theme, lore, looks, and so on - is something that doesn't matter.

Further - Monks and Rogues share few, if any, abiliites, have a different playstyle and roles, but do share a combo point system. In addition, they are both capoable of being lightly armored, dual wielding AGI based DPSers.

All of this - to you - is a massive degree of overlap.

To me - its near separate design spaces with some overlap in the general themes of the gameplay aspect. Namely, they dual wield, have a DPS role and wear leather.

Is it doable? Sure, absolutely.

Only if you ignore the current design space of the existing DH class. In which case it's easy - but you won't have a DH at the end.

Demon hunters would be exactly the same, they would have their own style and gameplay that none of the existing classes would not have.

Yes - but the issue isn't gameplay. Give the DH whatever gameplay and abilities you want. The rest of the class design space and the weay it overlaps with the existing classes is whats holding it back.

WW monk covers rogues "physical side" by hitting stuff, just like rogue covers demon hunter "physical side" by hitting stuff.

If you are going with that line of reasoning, Warlocks covers the physical side becaue they too are capable of hitting stuff with swords. And they cover the magical side as well.

So - by YOUR line of reasoning, Warlocks right now are DHs who can't dual wield.

End of the day?

Blizzard would not be cannibalising the Demon Hunter class if it had any intention of ever adding it to the game. Blizzard would not be giving away its looks and abilities if it had any intention of ever adding the class to the game. DHs have a certain style, a certain cachet - and DH players would be looking to tap into that. But they can't because all of that belongs to the Warlocks now.

Bringing DHs into the game as a class has a negative effect on existing classes because it is likely to be seen as superior. Why play a Hunter when you can play a Demon Hunter? Why play a Rogue when you can play a Demon Hunter? Why play a Warlock when you can play a Demon Hunter?

Bringing DHs into the game would be a disservice because DHs could NEVER gain access to what makes DHs cool. Warlocks have the look. Warlocks have the key abilities. DHs will not gain them back because Blizzard will not wreck one class to service another.

Why should Blizzard bring them in when doing so will annoy at least four classes?
Why should Blizzard bring them in when they bring nothing new?
Why should Blizzard bring them in when they add nothing to the game?
Why should Blizzard bring them in when there are other class concepts it could develop, concepts that ARE unique, that DO have their own design space, which WOULD add to the game and bring something new?
Why should Blizzard bring them in as a class when doing so can only hurt the game?
Why should Blizzard bring them in as a class when they have a better way of doing so - via a spec?

EJL

[Deleted]

Wow never intended to have more than one expansion, yet they decided to continue developing more because of succes.

WW monk covering rogue was just as good line of reasoning as rogue covering demon hunter.

If people would chooce demon hunter over rogue because "its cooler and is dual wielded", people can just as easily chooce monk over rogue because "its cool kunfu panda". That argument is completely ridicilous, also there are class descriptions so people dont have to make class decisions based on purely the name. All classes have their own flavor and theme, hunter is nothing like demon hunter so there will always be people who like hunters and demon hunters.

Also I bet many people would chooce deathknight over warrior because deathknight looks and sounds alot cooler than warrior.

[Talen]

Wow never intended to have more than one expansion, yet they decided to continue developing more because of succes.

I think you just took your credibility out back and shot it.

EJL

[Lovestar]

WW monk covers rogues "physical side" by hitting stuff, just like rogue covers demon hunter "physical side" by hitting stuff.

Uh... so you're saying that any class that is capable of meleeing overlaps with Windwalker and Rogue?

[Traveler Voltin]

Wow never intended to have more than one expansion, yet they decided to continue developing more because of succes.

WW monk covering rogue was just as good line of reasoning as rogue covering demon hunter.

If people would chooce demon hunter over rogue because "its cooler and is dual wielded", people can just as easily chooce monk over rogue because "its cool kunfu panda". That argument is completely ridicilous, also there are class descriptions so people dont have to make class decisions based on purely the name. All classes have their own flavor and theme, hunter is nothing like demon hunter so there will always be people who like hunters and demon hunters.

Also I bet many people would chooce deathknight over warrior because deathknight looks and sounds alot cooler than warrior.

whats annoying is people keep ignoring the fact that demon hunters have a ritual to gain their powers. warlocks not so much.
people keep using illidan as an example which they shouldnt. Illidan was the first demon hunter he is going to have far more power and abilites than the average demon hunter. in WCIII illidan didnt have meta until he consumed the skull of guldan. before someone brings up WoE. that meta was a gift from Sargeras and it had to be chanted to be used. that meta form only augmented powers. the meta form from WCIII gave him range attacks.

also warlocks got meta in wrath and it was because the siphoned it from illidan.

so the average demon hunter doesnt have to have meta.

[DPA]

Once upon a time, search was discovered!

[Talen]

so the average demon hunter doesnt have to have meta.

If they don't have Meta....whats the difference between him and a rogue?

EJL

[Traveler Voltin]

If they don't have Meta....whats the difference between him and a rogue?

EJL

stop reaching.

- - - Updated - - -

"Demon hunters also possess a plethora of magical abilities, most notably the ability to metamorphose. Many abilities also tend to vary from demon hunter to demon hunter, possibly derived from the type of demon that they originally partially absorbed."

[Teriz]

stop reaching.

- - - Updated - - -

"Demon hunters also possess a plethora of magical abilities, most notably the ability to metamorphose. Many abilities also tend to vary from demon hunter to demon hunter, possibly derived from the type of demon that they originally partially absorbed."

Except we know what abilities the Demon Hunter has. It's not like its some huge secret.

WC3:

Evasion, Mana Burn, Immolation, Metamorphosis

TBC:

Shadowfury, Curse of Fire, Spellbreaker, Debilitating Strike

Well of Eternity:

Shadowcloak, Wall of Shadows, Return to Shadows, Aura of Immolation, Darklance, Demon Rush, Gift of Sageras, Taunt

Warlocks and Rogues possess almost every ability listed here.

[Talen]

stop reaching.

How is it reaching?

You have a lightly armored AGI based dual wielding meleer who makes use of magic and melee attack on one hand and you have a lightly armored AGI based dual wielding meleer who makes use of magic and melee attacks on the other.

True, the rogue isn't as associated with magic as the DH class is...but that doesn't stop him using the same system. Or...if you want the use of actual magic, we have the Monk.

Take away the demon and what is left is already in game. In two flavors. Do we really need a third?

EJL

[Traveler Voltin]

Except we know what abilities the Demon Hunter has. It's not like its some huge secret.

WC3:

Evasion, Mana Burn, Immolation, Metamorphosis

TBC:

Shadowfury, Curse of Fire, Spellbreaker, Debilitating Strike

Well of Eternity:

Shadowcloak, Wall of Shadows, Return to Shadows, Aura of Immolation, Darklance, Demon Rush, Gift of Sageras, Taunt

Warlocks and Rogues possess almost every ability listed here.

your still reaching. so stop.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it reaching?

You have a lightly armored AGI based dual wielding meleer who makes use of magic and melee attack on one hand and you have a lightly armored AGI based dual wielding meleer who makes use of magic and melee attacks on the other.

True, the rogue isn't as associated with magic as the DH class is...but that doesn't stop him using the same system. Or...if you want the sue of actual magic...the Monk.

Take away the demon and what is left is already in game. In two flavors. Do we really need a third?

EJL

demon hunters would use a different system and demon hunters can wear mail.

[Teriz]

your still reaching. so stop.

And that post represents your entire argument. You can't face the facts so you plug your ears and tell people to stop telling you the truth.

You can't deny that Blizzard has been actively feeding Demon Hunter abilities, themes, and attributes to the Warlock and Rogue classes.
You can't deny that Blizzard has said in several tweets that the Demon Hunter is impractical for current WoW.
You can't deny that significant overlap the DH has with existing classes, even down to its name.
You can't deny that Warlocks and Rogues do everything a DH would do in the game.
You can't deny that Demon Hunters aren't considered class material due to the division of their WC3 abilities.
You can't deny that the only things separating a DH from a Warlock isn't worth creating a new class over.
You can't deny that the Hunter class and the Warlock class renders the entire purpose of a Demon Hunter class obsolete and pointless.

So the arguments in this thread (and the other threads) are pretty much over at this point.