It’s not spec specific though. It’s the monk class as a whole?
Lol forums…
Saying:
Isn’t making an extreme opposite opinion. I’m making an hyperbole to demonstrate how ridiculous those things sound to me. Of course it’s an exageration and I’m not implying that anyone is asking for this.
Let’s be real here. If we are adding this new spec for monk tomorow, what do we need to do?
First, the class tree: if this was another melee spec, it’s fair to say that we wouldn’t need to touch it. But we’re talking about a range spec here so changes are required. We have two realistic choices here (or a combination of both)
One: we make space for the new spec. Adding branches and paths to make the spec mesh in the class.
Two: change some nodes for this new spec specifically. Much like the new statue node that changes depending on the spec.
Like I said previously, I am against any big changes to the class tree after a whole expansion of junk tree. Also, 4 specs within a tree hasn’t been demonstrated to be a huge success if we look at the druid class tree.
So this leaves us with option 2. Which replaces nodes for our new spec. Either making new spells or adapting existing ones. But then again, why add one spec that is so different than the others that it needs those custom nodes while none of the other specs needs these?
For the spec tree in itslef. For me, it sounds like mw would be gutted no matter how you put it. Creating new specs and taking from others usually puts the old spec into a precarious position. Demo lock never really healed from demon hunter taking over metamorphosis.
Sure but notice how they changed the spec completely instead of creating a new one. Why didn’t they create a 4th hunter spec for melee?
You know that some disc priests are asking for a 4th spec too right? To have the shield gameplay separated from the atonement gameplay. Like here, this would gut atonement disc to oblivion, but hey why shouldn’t we do it?
Why not a 4th priest spec that is melee while we’re at it? (Oh wait, maybe this is paladin?)