If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Imperator4321]

Yeah, the difference between Demon Hunter and those other concepts is that Demon Hunters had Metamorphosis. Meta is one of those rare abilities that can carry a class concept all by itself because it's so novel. The ability for a melee-based elf to transform into a demonic monster is a class defining concept along the same lines as the Druid being able to shapeshift into an animal..

We've seen Sylvanas use her banshee powers for multiple things, empowering allies, weakening enemies, killing people with her voice, flying, become incorporeal. doesn't this concept have as many potential applications as "become a demon" could the Dark Ranger be about being a "range-based elf to transform into an undead monster" with additional stuff like shadow infused thrown daggers and arrows, summoned chains and other mawsworn stuff (just speaking hypotheticals here).

Before Legion stuff like Demon transformation/meta was lore-wise a mostly Illidan thing yet in Legion it became the a class defining concept for the entire class and Illidan's unique powers were retconned into being something he could teach and others could learn to do en-masse, couldn't Dark Rangers become heavily centered around banshee and maw powers to give them more uniqueness?

[Teriz]

We've seen Sylvanas use her banshee powers for multiple things, empowering allies, weakening enemies, killing people with her voice, flying, become incorporeal. doesn't this concept have as many potential applications as "become a demon" could the Dark Ranger be about being a "range-based elf to transform into an undead monster" with additional stuff like shadow infused thrown daggers and arrows, summoned chains and other mawsworn stuff (just speaking hypotheticals here).

Before Legion stuff like Demon transformation/meta was lore-wise a mostly Illidan thing yet in Legion it became the a class defining concept for the entire class and Illidan's unique powers were retconned into being something he could teach and others could learn to do en-masse, couldn't Dark Rangers become heavily centered around banshee and maw powers to give them more uniqueness?

To be fair, Illidan showed the ability to transfer his power to others in TBC. Members of his Illidari in Black Temple had Metamorphosis and other Demon Hunter specific abilities. None of Sylvanas' Dark Rangers have ever demonstrated her banshee powers, and Blizzard made it rather apparent in Cataclysm that Dark Rangers were simply the Forsaken version of Hunters with Nathanos becoming a Hunter trainer, and Hunters getting the Black Arrow ability. The majority of stuff that Sylvanas does is a Sylvanas thing, not a Dark Ranger thing.

[Imperator4321]

To be fair, Illidan showed the ability to transfer his power to others in TBC. Members of his Illidari in Black Temple had Metamorphosis and other Demon Hunter specific abilities. None of Sylvanas' Dark Rangers have ever demonstrated her banshee powers, and Blizzard made it rather apparent in Cataclysm that Dark Rangers were simply the Forsaken version of Hunters with Nathanos becoming a Hunter trainer, and Hunters getting the Black Arrow ability. The majority of stuff that Sylvanas does is a Sylvanas thing, not a Dark Ranger thing.

My bad meant Classic and Burning Crusade changed Illidan's uniqueness when it came to Metamorphosis, wheras before it was something Illidan got from the fel energy within Skull of Gul'dan, Classic had Loramus gain a demon form from a regular demon and BC had multiple demon formed Demon Hunters (along with changing the nature of it from "fel energy" to "demon within"), changing Sylvanas uniqueness as a banshee in a undead body wouldn't be too extreme especially for Blizzard.

As for other Dark Rangers using banshee powers Dark Ranger Alina, Dark Ranger Clea and generic Dark Rangers in the Legion Warden Towers could use "Wailing Arrow" which was described as "A deafening banshee's wail erupts from the arrow's impact, inflicting Shadow damage and silencing nearby enemies.".

I don't see how Dark Rangers couldn't get a Retcon to all be Banshee/Specters or even just say they trained themselves to mimic how Sylvanas could temporarily change her corporeality, don't even need to all be women since they added specters as a male equivilent to Banshee's in Legion.

[Teriz]

My bad meant Classic and Burning Crusade changed Illidan's uniqueness when it came to Metamorphosis, wheras before it was something Illidan got from the fel energy within Skull of Gul'dan, Classic had Loramus gain a demon form from a regular demon and BC had multiple demon formed Demon Hunters (along with changing the nature of it from "fel energy" to "demon within"), changing Sylvanas uniqueness as a banshee in a undead body wouldn't be too extreme especially for Blizzard.

As for other Dark Rangers using banshee powers Dark Ranger Alina, Dark Ranger Clea and generic Dark Rangers in the Legion Warden Towers could use "Wailing Arrow" which was described as "A deafening banshee's wail erupts from the arrow's impact, inflicting Shadow damage and silencing nearby enemies.".

I don't see how Dark Rangers couldn't get a Retcon to all be Banshee/Specters or even just say they trained themselves to mimic how Sylvanas could temporarily change her corporeality, don't even need to all be women since they added specters as a male equivilent to Banshee's in Legion.

I would argue that Wailing Arrow is just a magical arrow ability, which is something not out of place in the existing Hunter class. I would honestly place it in the same vein as Chimera Shot, an arrow/shot ability that mimics a Chimera just like Wailing Arrow mimics a Banshee.

If Blizzard intends to retcon Dark Rangers into something outside the Hunter class, they need to start doing so. As of this writing, they still haven't done it yet. In fact, with Sylvanas and Nathanos gone into Shadowlands, the identity of a Dark Ranger is even more fused with the standard Hunter class.

[Ielenia]

I hadn't heard that explanation firsthand. Would be interested to read if you could find a source.

It's from WAY back in 2009. I've been trying to find an actual source, but so far all I found is a WoWWiki article full of "citation needed" snippets.

- - - Updated - - -

The Dark Ranger and the Hunter is no different than the Dark Shaman and the Shaman, or a Druid of the Nightmare and a Druid.

You don't know that. In the end, though, all your contention against the dark ranger, the SOLE reason you insist to push this idea that "hunter = dark ranger" is because, like the hunter, the dark ranger uses a ranged weapon as its primary weapon.

And considering this is the real only point of contention you've demonstrated, your insistence ends up sounding quite illogical since it's all about "sharing weapon type". And sharing weapon types does not make two classes the same. Monks and rogues are not "the same" because both happen to be able to dual-wield. Paladins and warriors are not "the same" because both happen to have one spec where they both wield one two-handed weapon, and one spec where they both wield a shield and a one-handed weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

None of Sylvanas' Dark Rangers have ever demonstrated her banshee powers,

This doesn't matter, though. Because it's easy to fix: just update the current dark ranger NPCs if the dark ranger class is added, just like the current death knight NPCs were updated when the death knight became a playable class.

and Blizzard made it rather apparent in Cataclysm that Dark Rangers were simply the Forsaken version of Hunters with Nathanos becoming a Hunter trainer, and Hunters getting the Black Arrow ability.

This is a "confirmation bias" fallacy. Especially since, by that same token, I can say "Blizzard has made it rather apparent in Cataclysm" that the hunter class is NOT a magic user because they removed their mana resource.

The majority of stuff that Sylvanas does is a Sylvanas thing, not a Dark Ranger thing.

By that same token, we could say, way back in vanilla or TBC, that what the Lich King could do was a "Lich King thing, not a death knight thing". But we still got a lot from the Lich King in the class, didn't we?

[Teriz]

You don't know that. In the end, though, all your contention against the dark ranger, the SOLE reason you insist to push this idea that "hunter = dark ranger" is because, like the hunter, the dark ranger uses a ranged weapon as its primary weapon.

And considering this is the real only point of contention you've demonstrated, your insistence ends up sounding quite illogical since it's all about "sharing weapon type". And sharing weapon types does not make two classes the same. Monks and rogues are not "the same" because both happen to be able to dual-wield. Paladins and warriors are not "the same" because both happen to have one spec where they both wield one two-handed weapon, and one spec where they both wield a shield and a one-handed weapon.

What makes it any different than the Shaman/Dark Shaman dynamic? Even the names are similar; Ranger vs Dark Ranger. The Dark Ranger is just an undead Hunter that uses shadow arrows. This is no different than a Dark Shaman who only differs from a baseline Shaman because it uses shadow magic on top of its standard elemental abilities. It goes quite a bit beyond simply a similarity in weapon type, we're talking about simply a corrupted version of an existing class.

Again, people would laugh at the idea of a Dark Shaman or a Druid of the Nightmare class. The Dark Ranger is in exactly the same position as those concepts.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a "confirmation bias" fallacy. Especially since, by that same token, I can say "Blizzard has made it rather apparent in Cataclysm" that the hunter class is NOT a magic user because they removed their mana resource.

And they still had a wide variety of magical arrows, including Black Arrow.

By that same token, we could say, way back in vanilla or TBC, that what the Lich King could do was a "Lich King thing, not a death knight thing". But we still got a lot from the Lich King in the class, didn't we?

Nah, we had Death Knights in Naxx who had necromantic powers. That was way back in Vanilla.

[lolmmofuture]

Tinkere and Bard is what id like to see

[Ielenia]

What makes it any different than the Shaman/Dark Shaman dynamic?

Because your entire premise is name and the use of the same weapon type.

Even the names are similar; Ranger vs Dark Ranger.

Hunter and demon hunter. Similar names.

The Dark Ranger is just an undead Hunter that uses shadow arrows.

And the paladin is just a warrior who uses holy magic. I've said this already: you dumb down the concept in such a way it negates existing classes.

It goes quite a bit beyond simply a similarity in weapon type, we're talking about simply a corrupted version of an existing class.

Like the death knight originally was "simply a corrupted version of an existing class"?

Again, people would laugh at the idea of a Dark Shaman or a Druid of the Nightmare class.

Except I don't think anyone is asking for those classes? This is you making a "reduction to absurd" fallacy. Not to mention that, unlike dark shamans and druids of the nightmare, the dark rangers are not necessarily hunters. You keep saying they are simply because they share a weapon type.

The Dark Ranger is in exactly the same position as those concepts.

In your biased opinion.

And they still had a wide variety of magical arrows, including Black Arrow.

And I'll repeat, again, what I said before;

Arcane Shot can be easily explained by being ammunition that the Hunter acquires that is already enchanted, and other abilities like 'mend pet' and 'revive pet' can be explained as just to expedite and smooth out gameplay, to avoid having the hunter to stay put by ten seconds while applying bandages to their pets or tending to their mortal wounds, instead of being actual representations of how the abilities work.

Nah, we had Death Knights in Naxx who had necromantic powers. That was way back in Vanilla.

"One in a hundred"-ish, which could lead to believe that is not something the playable class would do, considering we're not the Lich Kings, the Thralls, the Tirions, the Malfurions, the Jainas of WoW.

[Teriz]

Because your entire premise is name and the use of the same weapon type.

And abilities and concepts.

Hunter and demon hunter. Similar names.

Different weapon type, different concept, different abilities.

And the paladin is just a warrior who uses holy magic. I've said this already: you dumb down the concept in such a way it negates existing classes.

But Warriors don't use holy magic, so there's a difference of concept between Warriors and Paladins.

Like the death knight originally was "simply a corrupted version of an existing class"?

And the corrupted version of that existing class ended up being a completely different class type due to the nature of the Paladin. A Dark Ranger isn't a completely different class type than a Ranger, because the base Ranger class allows the use of magical abilities due to its affinity to nature.

Except I don't think anyone is asking for those classes? This is you making a "reduction to absurd" fallacy. Not to mention that, unlike dark shamans and druids of the nightmare, the dark rangers are not necessarily hunters. You keep saying they are simply because they share a weapon type.

And why is no one asking for those classes? They're exactly the same as the Dark Ranger conceptually; A "dark" version of an existing class.

Ranger is the same thing as a Hunter, so yes, they are Hunters. You can use Ranger and Hunter interchangeably.

And I'll repeat, again, what I said before;

And that's entirely your head canon. The fact of the matter is that Hunters use magical arrows.

"One in a hundred"-ish, which could lead to believe that is not something the playable class would do, considering we're not the Lich Kings, the Thralls, the Tirions, the Malfurions, the Jainas of WoW.

No, but we take abilities from the Lich King constantly. DK abilities like Remorseless Winter, Soul Reaper, Defile, and others come directly from the Lich King raid boss.

[Triceron]

Well the Death Knight in WC3 had Death Pact which was a Vampiric ability, and they had Vampiric Rune blades. So the concept of Blood did exist even in WC3.

It wasn't blood though, that was all purely defined as Unholy abilities since they also existed on the WC2 Death Knight in similar forms. Unholy magic can also heal undead, like Death Coil already had shown to do. The Vampiric nature of the Runeblades was meant to reflect Frostmourne's ability to drain the life-force from their victims, not indicate there was any use of Blood magic, which didn't even formally exist in WC3.

Blood magic was a new theme that was created and given to the Death Knights with a heavy influence from Dreadlords.

With that in mind, you could devise any number of new themes and assign them to the Dark Ranger to differentiate their already-unique concept from Hunters. Hunters don't use unholy or shadow magic to fight, while Dark Rangers are centered around its use. Hunters don't even have Black Arrow any more, there's less connection to Dark Rangers than there ever was.

[Teriz]

With that in mind, you could devise any number of new themes and assign them to the Dark Ranger to differentiate their already-unique concept from Hunters. Hunters don't use unholy or shadow magic to fight, while Dark Rangers are centered around its use.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Black_Arrow
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=325028/death-chakram
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=324149/flayed-shot
https://www.wowhead.com/item=183124/...f-bone-binding

[Ielenia]

And abilities and concepts.

Abilities are meaningless. Because the warlock having metamorphosis, priests having mana burn and rogues having evasion did not stop the demon hunter from being brought into the game in playable form. And dark rangers have different concepts than hunters. That is demonstrable.

Different weapon type, different concept, different abilities.

And the dark ranger would have different abilities AND concept too.

But Warriors don't use holy magic, so there's a difference of concept between Warriors and Paladins.

And hunters don't use necromancy.

And the corrupted version of that existing class ended up being a completely different class type due to the nature of the Paladin. A Dark Ranger isn't a completely different class type than a Ranger, because the base Ranger class allows the use of magical abilities due to its affinity to nature.

First and foremost: we do not know if the hunter class is a spellcaster or not. The fact of the matter is that the class lost its mana component and was never intended to have one in the first place heavily suggests that the class is not a spellcaster.

Second: you just stated that the warlock class is the same as the mage class "because the base mage class allows the use of magical abilities due to its affinity to arcane". You're completely ignoring the fact that, even if we granted you that the hunter is a spellcaster, it has access to nature magic, while the dark ranger would have access to necromancy.

And why is no one asking for those classes? They're exactly the same as the Dark Ranger conceptually;

You're making a wild assertion with no evidence. Perhaps they simply have no interest for those concepts? And, again, no: the dark ranger concept is not the same as the hunter concept. That's like saying the mage concept is the same as the warlock concept.

And that's entirely your head canon. The fact of the matter is that Hunters use magical arrows.

And again: that fact is useless because we are unable to ascertain the nature of the hunters' supposedly magical arrows. Your assertion that having magical arrows makes the hunter a magic user is just as much headcanon as you accuse my arguments to be. The difference is that I am not asserting what I'm proposing as fact, unlike you.

No, but we take abilities from the Lich King constantly. DK abilities like Remorseless Winter, Soul Reaper, Defile, and others come directly from the Lich King raid boss.

And so would dark rangers take abilities from Sylvanas as the playable class evolves, after it goes live.

[Traveler Voltin]

dark rangers NPCs got turned into normal hunters in WoW. which i find annoying.

[Ielenia]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Black_Arrow

No longer exists in the hunter's repertoire, does not and never did fit the hunter class' theme, and would not change the class in any way, shape or form if it was removed.

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=325028/death-chakram
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=324149/flayed-shot

Covenant abilities, which, by your own words, are irrelevant:

Nope, because covenant abilities don’t really count for general class themes, it’s just an expansion feature. In the end, the difference between Priests and Paladins is the use of Shadow magic.

https://www.wowhead.com/item=183124/...f-bone-binding

A tome that teaches hunters how to tame undead beasts is nowhere near the same thing as "using necromancy magic".

[Triceron]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Black_Arrow
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=325028/death-chakram
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=324149/flayed-shot
https://www.wowhead.com/item=183124/...f-bone-binding

All of which could be given to the Dark Ranger after this expansion.

Nothing from the Hunter would be lost since they aren't keeping any of these by the end of Shadowlands anyways. Win-win.

[Teriz]

Abilities are meaningless. Because the warlock having metamorphosis, priests having mana burn and rogues having evasion did not stop the demon hunter from being brought into the game in playable form. And dark rangers have different concepts than hunters. That is demonstrable.

Warlocks and Priests had both lost those abilities by the time Demon Hunters entered WoW. In addition, the Dark Ranger concept is definitely not different than the Hunter concept. Again, the Hunter is a broad concept designed to absorb multiple archer concepts. Dark Ranger was one of those concepts.

And the dark ranger would have different abilities AND concept too.

None of which would be out of place in the Hunter class.

And hunters don't use necromancy.

https://www.wowhead.com/item=183124/...f-bone-binding

Facts are facts.

First and foremost: we do not know if the hunter class is a spellcaster or not. The fact of the matter is that the class lost its mana component and was never intended to have one in the first place heavily suggests that the class is not a spellcaster.

Second: you just stated that the warlock class is the same as the mage class "because the base mage class allows the use of magical abilities due to its affinity to arcane". You're completely ignoring the fact that, even if we granted you that the hunter is a spellcaster, it has access to nature magic, while the dark ranger would have access to necromancy.

I never stated that the Mage class is the same as the Warlock class. That is you straw-manning the argument. The argument is that Hunters use magical arrows including Shadow arrows, so their concept incorporates the Dark Ranger concept because that's pretty much all Dark Rangers are; An undead Hunter that uses shadow magic and undead creatures. A Forsaken Hunter using Death Chakram or Flayed Shot with an undead pet fits that concept to a "T".

You're making a wild assertion with no evidence. Perhaps they simply have no interest for those concepts? And, again, no: the dark ranger concept is not the same as the hunter concept. That's like saying the mage concept is the same as the warlock concept.

So are you saying that a Hunter is not a Ranger? If you believe this, then please explain the difference between a Ranger and a Hunter.

Also Mages don't use demons or shadow magic. Hunters do use undead minions and shadow magic.

And again: that fact is useless because we are unable to ascertain the nature of the hunters' supposedly magical arrows. Your assertion that having magical arrows makes the hunter a magic user is just as much headcanon as you accuse my arguments to be. The difference is that I am not asserting what I'm proposing as fact, unlike you.

Facts are never useless. Head canon on the other hand....

And so would dark rangers take abilities from Sylvanas as the playable class evolves, after it goes live.

Abilities like what? Black Arrow that Hunters had in their spell book for almost 10 years?

- - - Updated - - -

All of which could be given to the Dark Ranger after this expansion.

Nothing from the Hunter would be lost since they aren't keeping any of these by the end of Shadowlands anyways. Win-win.

So wouldn't that mean that Hunters DO use unholy and shadow abilities? You previously stated that the use of these abilities separated the Hunter from the Dark Ranger.


- - - Updated - - -

dark rangers NPCs got turned into normal hunters in WoW. which i find annoying.

Yep, there's a reason Blizzard put Dark Rangers in the Hunter's class hall.

[Traveler Voltin]

Blizzard hard nerfed Dark rangers in WoW.
i dont get why people refuse to see this.

i want the WC3 dark ranger too but Blizzard destroyed them(outside of Sylvanas)

[Ielenia]

Warlocks and Priests had both lost those abilities by the time Demon Hunters entered WoW.

Really? Aren't you one of the proponents that Warlocks lost metamorphosis because of the demon hunters? Because your statement there implies that you mean it was coincidental.

In addition, the Dark Ranger concept is definitely not different than the Hunter concept.

False. Again, that is demonstrable. Here is the hunter concept:

"From an early age the call of the wild draws some adventurers from the comfort of their homes into the unforgiving primal world outside. Those who endure become hunters. As masters of their environment, hunters are able to slip like ghosts through the trees and lay traps in the paths of their enemies. These expert marksmen drop foes dead in their tracks with flawless shots from a bow, crossbow or rifle. With the ability to wield two weapons simultaneously, hunters can unleash a flurry of blows against anyone unfortunate enough to stumble into close combat with them.

The art of survival is central to the isolated life of a hunter. Hunters track beasts with ease and enhance their own abilities by attuning themselves to the feral aspects of various creatures. Hunters are known for the lifelong bonds they form with animals of the wild, training great hawks, cats, bears, and many other beasts to fight alongside them."

And here is the dark ranger concept:

"Dark rangers are undead archers in service of the Forsaken or Sylvanas Windrunner. These cunning individuals, adept at manipulating opponents, are mainly composed of forcibly raised Farstrider rangers of Quel'Thalas. They now enjoy nothing more than sowing dissension and hatred within the enemy ranks."

Notice how both concepts wildly differ and are not at all the same, even remotely.

None of which would be out of place in the Hunter class.

Mind controlling humans would be wildly out of place in the hunter class. Draining the life force of their enemies would be wildly out of place in the hunter place. Raising humanoid skeletons from the ground would be wildly out of place in the hunter class.

https://www.wowhead.com/item=183124/...f-bone-binding

Facts are facts.

Except none of those "facts" you presented even comes close to proving that the hunter class is using actual necromancy magic. I've explained that multiple times. Nothing in that tome says it's "necromancy magic".

I never stated that the Mage class is the same as the Warlock class. That is you straw-manning the argument.

It's not a strawman. That is literally your argument. Because you reduce classes to the most bare-bones concepts, ignoring everything else and declaring the classes to the be the same because of this one bare-bones thing they happen to have in common.

The argument is that Hunters use magical arrows including Shadow arrows, so their concept incorporates the Dark Ranger concept because that's pretty much all Dark Rangers are

It does not. It really does not. Because, once again using your own argument against you: "the hunters use bombs and traps, so their concept incorporates the tinker concept because that's pretty much what tinkers are."

And before you say "tinkers are much more than just bombs and traps!", congratulations: so is the dark ranger more than just "shadow arrows".

A Forsaken Hunter using Death Chakram or Flayed Shot with an undead pet fits that concept to a "T".

Nope, because covenant abilities don’t really count for general class themes, it’s just an expansion feature. In the end, the difference between Priests and Paladins is the use of Shadow magic.

Double-standards.

So are you saying that a Hunter is not a Ranger? If you believe this, then please explain the difference between a Ranger and a Hunter.

I never said "hunters aren't rangers". I said "hunters are not dark rangers". And the answer for THAT, is at the top of this post.

Also Mages don't use demons or shadow magic. Hunters do use undead minions and shadow magic.

Hunters don't mind-control humanoids. Hunters don't drain the life of their foes with shadow magic. And to make things worse for you: here you are conflating "taming undead beasts" with "raising undead skeletons", and yet you go ballistic every time someone conflates two bits of technology together, like when you cry out to the high heavens how hunters "taming mechanical beasts" is not the same as tinkers "creating robotic minions".

Facts are never useless. Head canon on the other hand....

Facts are useless without context. And we are missing the context regarding the hunter's magical arrows, i.e. their origins.

It's just downright amazing how you constantly try to dismiss other people's arguments as "headcanon" in an attempt to dodge having to address them, while at the same time you state your own headcanons as facts.

Abilities like what? Black Arrow that Hunters had in their spell book for almost 10 years?

Tell me again about this other ability that belonged to a class' spell book for almost 10 years? More specifically, Metamorphosis?

[cocomen2]

Teriz unbanned = +10 pages of "anyone who using bow is hunter","anyone who using necromancy is death knight"

..... so for teriz Sylvie just Death Knight Hunter.

[Triceron]

So wouldn't that mean that Hunters DO use unholy and shadow abilities? You previously stated that the use of these abilities separated the Hunter from the Dark Ranger.

Are Hunters Dark rangers because they have access to Covenant abilities? Simple answer, no they aren't.

They are Hunters with access to Unholy and Shadow abilities, just like every class has. Their class hasn't changed into Dark Rangers as a result of this, any more than Paladins changed into Death Knights by having Unholy abilities.

Having access to an ability and having it be a part of their class fantasy and class identity is two different things. Warlocks could have Metamorphosis, but it was not an ability core to their fantasy, thus it could be added/changed/removed at will. It's not a permanent part of their fantasy. However, you couldn't simply remove all Fel Magic away from the Warlock, otherwise it would no longer be a Warlock.

You can't take Unholy and Shadow spells away from a Death Knight or Dark Ranger without changing its core fantasy. You can take away Unholy and Shadow spells from a Hunter or Paladin because it is not part of their core fantasy.