In Legion, you could not easily swap to and from lone wolf, so world quest content as MM was annoying. Black arrow summoned a skeleton to taunt the target for you.
That iteration isn’t relevant in BFA as you can summon pet whenever
That is very true yes.
Although, they removed that element when at first implementing it into WoW, because the Hunter class, was not a Dark Ranger.
Necromancy etc. Does not fit the Hunter fantasy(as it’s meant for WoW).
If they were to make some sort of Dark Ranger class skin option. I would not oppose that concept/design.
But as far as the Hunter Class goes. It shouldn’t have anything to do with necromancy.
I would even go as far as to say that, Dark Ranger as a concept, is closer to a ranged version of the Death Knight class. At least in terms of fantasy and references.
Oh yeah, the LW being a talent option back then, escaped me^^
That was probably a factor yes.
Although, IMO, summoning a Scourge boar as a hunter, still doesn’t fit the class fantasy. Despite the added practicality.
Dark Ranger is within class fantasy of WoW.
I think he means not within the class fantasy of the Hunter class specifically. And I think he means that because Hunters use animal pets exclusively.
Nevertheless, I personally think that there is room for a Hunter that does not rely on animals. Maybe even one that gets an undead variant of them. I.e., your “tame” turns into “raise undead” requiring you to kill the animal first, then raise it to become your pet.
Not that I’m suggesting such a thing. I’d rather no pet at all. Just throwing out ideas.
1 Like
Mas is right in what he said. I meant the Hunter class specifically.
Ofc Dark Rangers have a strong connection to WoW(Warcraft in general). Potentially even as a playable class option.
As long as they can make it feel distinct from that of the current Hunter class.
Agreed.
Also agree on the pet thing. At least if were talking about Dark Rangers as they are in WoW.
Sure, go back to WC3, and you have a bit more focus on…a type of necromancy.
I would not oppose that either if that’s what players would want from a Dark Ranger Class.
As for my personal opinion towards that of Dark Rangers. I would prefer if they were entirely “petless”. Idd.
I still have my doubts though, that they would be able to make Dark Rangers feel different enough from that of Hunters, despite any differences in appearances or spell animations and such.
But to be honest, I haven’t thought about that particular class fantasy a lot so couldn’t really give a good answer…
1 Like
My suggestion (really it was just a idea) was how to integrate Dark Ranger as a Hunter spec. Your tame becomes a raise undead, everything else wrt the pet would (or at least could) remain the same. Your pets would just look dead.
As for it being its own class…
I have thought about this several times. The problems I run into is that its too easy to make Dark Ranger into a single spec and too hard to make it into more than one. In truth, its pretty much a Ranged SV Hunter with some flavor changes and maybe without a pet. You just need to add stealth (which needs to be added to all Hunters), take away the pet (already a direction they have been trying to implement as a meaningful option for 6 years) and add those flavor changes (fire damage becomes shadow damage e.g.) and your done.
Let me address petless Hunter specifically. People are attached to their pets in WoW. I get that. I think that’s a great and immersive thing. The problem is, Hunter is WoW’s answer to an entire fantasy genre, the Archer. Hunter is, at its core trying to take on two different identities. It is both a pet class at its core, and an Archer class at its core. Melee SV proves it doesn’t have to be. LW MM proves it doesn’t have to be. It just needs to be designed better and it can fully encompass all the desired playstyles, both legacy and new.
For example, Lets implement the following changes:
- Make LW as close to neutral in both damage AND utility as possible. They don’t have to be exactly even in all cases, but ffs at least make the attempt.
- Create a 4th spec for Hunter, call it Dark Ranger. Something similar to what I have described above (RSV remake with flavor).
- Bring MM back to its former glory but with a physical damage focus (which means just redo what it was before, stop trying to reinvent the wheel when we have a perfectly good wheel sitting in the garage!)
- Give all Hunters stealth. Baseline oldstyle Camo, maybe a talent or glyph for full stealth. Just make that option available somehow.
- Give Dark Ranger and MM a LW option baseline.
What this does:
- We get a pet focused ranged spec (BM)
- We get a pet focused melee spec (SV)
- We get a sniper/physical damage true Archer spec with both a pet and petless option (MM)
- We get a magic based archer spec with both a pet and petless option (DR)
All 6 of these playstyles are fundamental in lore, both outside of and within WoW. Since Hunter is really two genre’s mashed into one, it really needs a 4th spec to fully describe the fantasies that exist within WoW lore.
2 Likes
You asked where it came from. When Ion et al decided to go for hardcore specialization fantasy the design team went beyond World of Warcraft for inspiration with hunters. However, the World of Warcraft Hunter is a Ranger at it’s base, which has roots in the Elf Ranger of which Dark Ranger is simply a variant.
You can say shadow instead of necromancy if that makes you feel better, but World of Warcraft Hunters have historically added magical effects to their repertoire and in fact Rangers in fantasy often have some magic (typically in the form of Nature magic) in their arsenals.
Survival being the ultimate survivalist and jack of all trades makes sense to pick up a bit of magic along with poisons and exotic munitions.
Again, in World of Warcraft it goes back to Elf Rangers who utilize nature magic along with ranged weapons. This is true for Sylvanas prior to Arthas when she was Ranger General. Post Arthas Nature magic was no longer a comfortable fit thus the switch to shadow/death magic. Which is the same evolution as Alleria going from standard Elf Ranger to her new Void powered form.
I can reduce every specialization in game to a series of the same repeated hot keys. The differences in cadence and animation as well as priorities makes all the difference.
Consider Hunter prior to Legion:
-
Beast Mastery centered around high cost Arcane Shots, high cost Kill Commands, and Cobra Shot spam to regenerate Focus. It featured highs and lows where you switched between these 3 main shots while preparing for Bestial Wrath burst window ability spam. It was mobile but spent a moderate amount of time generating and managing Focus.
-
Survival was a different beast. Black Arrow, Cobra Shot, Arcane Shot, and Explosive Shot worked differently. Lock and Load Explosive Shots were resource free and being able to generate procs with traps changed the dynamic of how one built and spent within the rotation. Particularly coupled with Thrill of the Hunt having proc based reduced cost Arcane Shots. It made the specialization less about casting Cobra Shot and more about reacting to instant cast abilities.
-
Marksmanship was slower, less mobile, and spent more time casting both with Aimed Shot and Steady Shot. Particularly with Steady Focus and Master Marksman building up to increased Focus regeneration and instant Aimed Shots.
There was lots of ability overlap, as there should be within a thematically connected Class, but specialization towards different aspects of the Class theme reinforced by different animations, spell effects, and most importantly the flow of their rotations.
In a game with 19 and 15 magic caster specializations and fantasies the idea that there is no room for more than 2 variations of ranged weapon fantasies is patently false.
I like this concept but I also like the idea of making a talent or passive spell option for both Survival and Beast Mastery to allow them to permanently switch roles based on player preference. Which also allows for branching out more through talent options to enhance either stance.
1 Like
Sorry, bit of a long post here. But it brings up why I think as I do.
They did yes, but as have been pointed out earlier, they needed something that alleviated MM hunters during solo play(without having to opt out of the Lone Wolf-talent).
If you ask me, they should’ve focused more on providing MM with a way to keep their distance to enemies, via ranged shots, traps or otherwise(hint @Masoschism 
). The solution they came up with was to just add in a summoned temporary pet mechanic to one ability.
And out of the ones MMs had access to. I would agree that Black Arrow made more sense than anything else that they had. Due to it’s history prior to WoW as you pointed out.
But that, still, does not make it fit with what the playable Hunter class that we’ve had in WoW, has been about in the past, or even now in it’s modern version(s).
Dark Rangers, as you say, have more focus on various types of magic schools/-based shots. They ofc aren’t pure casters, they are as you say, rangers that dip into the magical elements to make them stronger in combat.
This ofc, is just an opinion, but if you ask me, the hunter as a playable class that we have access to. Based on the design directions and themes it has been given, both with Vanilla, and ever since then. The class have had VERY little to do with actual spells(magic).
I’m not saying that the concept of Dark Rangers as a playable class(or spec), does not fit within WoW.
I’m just saying that, considering what the Hunter class and it’s design has been about, historically as well as in more current iterations, a more magic-based theme/spec, does not fit this class very well.
Also, looking at past iterations of the old Survival-spec we had up until it turned melee in Legion. That spec, was not based on Dark Rangers(despite that it had Black Arrow). Or I should say, not on the magic-based nature of Dark Rangers.
I know it was called Black Arrow. And that could ofc make you want to draw references to the original version from WC3 and Dark Rangers.
But the Black Arrow that they designed for the Hunter class in WoW, was not intended to be what it was for Dark Rangers in WC3. It did cause Shadow damage, but it wasn’t meant to be a magic-based spell.
I would say that, the reason they made it deal Shadow damage, was because we have a limited amount of magic schools in this game, and they wanted Hunters at the time to have some diversity for their abilities.
For Dark Rangers in WC3(and WoW as well), Black Arrow is as you say, a magic-based shot.
For the Hunter class in WoW, Black Arrow was a shot where you applied a self-made toxin that was meant to have a negative effect on the enemy you hit.
It dealt shadow damage yes, but it wasn’t meant to be made out of actual magic.
On another note, I know that Hunters at the start of WoW(up until the Cata pre-patch) had Mana as a resource. The reason for this was not because they though of the class as a caster/magic-based fighter.
The reason that we got Mana, was most likely out of convenience.
Their original intent for a spendable resource for the class, was Focus.
They have explained this themselves. They have also talked a little about how they intended that Focus would work at the start, as a resource. And I can very much understand why they stepped away from that concept as it most likely caused a lot of trouble when trying to implement it.
Most likely, we got Mana as a “last-moment” fix so that they could ship the class with the game at launch. The Hunter class was the last out of all to make it into the game. If it was the last one that they decided to give us? No idea.
But the fact that it took so long for it to make it into WoW at the start, was probably partially due to the many issues with it’s design. Focus as a spendable/manageable resource, being one of those issues.
Lastly, if you look at the history of WoW and when Dark Rangers as a concept was introduced to the game.
They aren’t considered to be Hunters(as defined by WoW).
Dark Rangers are separate from that of the actual Hunter class.
Dark rangers are undead archers in service of the Forsaken and led by Ranger Lord Nathanos Blightcaller.
Nearly all dark rangers are undead high elves found only among the Forsaken. No other faction has the elves’ history coupled with the personal knowledge of shadows to learn the arts of a dark ranger.
In fact, many dark rangers refuse to teach their arts to anyone who wasn’t a former elf. While these rangers have slackened their restrictions some, most dark rangers were once elves.
You tell me. Does it make sense for a Tauren or Night Elf to be a Dark Ranger, if you go by the fantasy of, and lore behind them?
True that as an example Sylvanas, was one of the Elven Rangers prior to Arthas, and what he did to her.
But Elven Rangers, are/were not the same as current Dark Rangers.
Elves, weren’t undead.
Dark Rangers, they are.
Fair enough, but, you mean that you then want to add in another class that is based more on physical damage + spells and magical damage?
Rather than the original design of the old SV spec that was based on physical damage combined with explosives, posion and animal venom.
I know the abilities we had, dealt Elemental damage(which you can say is magical), but looking at the fantasy and the theme of the design, the abilities that dealt Elemental damage, were not actual spells.
Your view of Hunter’s not being magic based has no basis in reality. We have always had strictly magic based abilities. They weren’t magic based because of game restrictions. They were magic based thematically.
From the Classic database we have:
- Frost Trap
- Revive Pet
- Arcane Shot (a shot of pure magical energy)
- Eagle Eye
- Hunter’s Mark
- Viper Sting
- All 6 Aspects (maybe)
- Mend Pet
- Freezing Trap
- Eye’s of the Beast
I could see an argument for Aspects being magic based going either way, but for the rest of them they have zero explanation without the intentional use of magic.
That’s just Vanilla. We got even more purely magic things later, including Dark Arrow which you are attempting to explain away as somehow only magic because the game mechanics didn’t have another option.
Hunter’s have always been a magic using class. Whether or not I think that is necessary is not the point. It is just a fact of their design. Hunter is absolutely open to a slightly more magic themed spec (Dark Ranger) within the scope of its historical design.
There is nothing prohibiting the Night Elves from learning the ways of the Dark Ranger from a captured one because its an effective fighting style. They decide to teach all Alliance Hunters this fighting style. The Forsaken are then forced to teach all of their Hunters as well to keep up the arms race.
I fixed the lore in 5 seconds. It wasn’t hard. It’s a story that is being added to all the time. As long as that story makes sense (self consistent), it can go anywhere they want.
There are ways to create frost traps without magic.
Out of necessity. How would they otherwise have given you the ability to resurrect your pet if it died?
Fair enough. Though IMO, the only class that should have access to Arcane magic(of any kind), should be Mages.
But okay, can give you this one.
What does this have to do with actual magic? What magical source does it belong to? Fire? Frost? Arcane? Etc.
All hunter stings were based on you using venom taken from various animals. Serpents/Vipers, Scorpids, Wyverns.
Stings had nothing to do with actual magic.
I can sort of agree here. Even though, “taking on the aspect” of something can be defined in many ways.
I would say that this is in the same area as Revive Pet. It was given to us out of necessity. How would we otherwise keep our pets alive during combat?
Only allow them to regain health after combat has finished? By eating, licking their wounds?
There would’ve been A LOT of dead hunter pet’s in that case.
But again, fair enough. Especially the version of Mend Pet that we have today that essentially works as a HoT. Compared to Vanilla when it was channeled(giving you sort of the fantasy of tending to your pet’s wounds).
Same as with Frost Trap. Can be created without magic.
Hunter traps overall had nothing to do with actual magic. They were Traps. There are various types of “Magical Traps” as well. But those are not the same as Hunter Traps as made in WoW.
Can agree on this.
Note that I also said that we did have some elements that involved using magic. Just, not a lot.
And certainly not on the level of more, caster-based classes.
Having said that, how much Dark Rangers as a playable class would be based on the use of magic, I couldn’t say. I’m sure we all have different opinions on this as well.
But IMO, it would still make more sense if Dark Rangers became playable to us as a separate class.
Or even a class skin like many are talking about. One that can be specific to Blood Elves, Void Elves and Humans if so wanted. Even Night Elves.
But, honestly…
Gnome Dark Ranger?
Tauren Dark Ranger?
Highmountain Tauren Dark Ranger?
I claimed the exact opposite.
I said that Black Arrow for the Hunter class as it is in WoW, and for the Survival spec, that it wasn’t a spellcast/spellbased shot.
But it was a shot where you applied a poison of your own making(via things from what you could find in the nature.), that weakened the affected target. Made them more vulnerable to other attacks. Magic is not required for something like this.
Yes, but not on the level you claim.
I guess it’s here that our opinions differ. Based on our respective interpretations of what the Hunter class is(and have been about in the past).
And yet, this would never happen.
Current Dark Rangers(the few that exists in WoW), would most likely rather die(again) than give the Alliance(Night Elves as you say) any knowledge into their ways of fighting.
With modern chemistry and dispersal systems sure. The game is not designed around late 20th century tech. It is much easier to use magic.
Or maybe just thematically. Why do you insist that the designed intent of the Hunter theme was non-magical when there is so much evidence otherwise?
How exactly do you drain the essence of magic without magic?
Uh… WIth a beam of green coming out of your hands?
I agree, but if magic is a basic part of the class and always has been (a true statement we both agree on) then it is a VERY small stretch for one spec to have more magic.
You have given me no reason to agree with you. I am not opposed to agreeing with you, but you better give me a reason that is logical and not reasons based on your own personal desires for the class that are obviously contrary to lore and design.
Magic is required to do shadow damage, because shadow damage is strictly magic.
EXACTLY on the level that I claim, because my claims were only a list of facts. Each of the abilities I listed (I’ll have to think about Hunter’s Mark) is clearly magic based. You claim some were only magic based by necessity, yet so many others were obviously thematically intended as magic, so why are you trying to minimize the ones that are OBVIOUSLY magic as not intended to be magic?
Sure do. The difference is I base my opinion on fact, you base yours on whimsy.
Said no creative person ever.
Uhm…
Your own words.
Despite my thoughts on how lore should play into class design/spec design. You just said yourself that Lore and prior design does not matter because it can just be changed however they feel like it.
Now, let’s go with lore for a second.
According to WoW/Warcraft Lore, Dark Rangers, are not Hunters.
In WoW, Hunters are defined to be different from, as an example, Dark Rangers.
Because, according to WoW Lore, only fallen Elves will in some cases be taught what it means to be/and how to be a Dark Ranger.
In one rare case, Nathanos Blightcaller, as a fallen and later raised Human, became a Dark Ranger.
In WC3, Dark Rangers were considered to be an entirely different class.
I believe this next part, very clearly show how unfit actual Hunters are to become Dark Rangers. As, in order to become a Dark Ranger, they would have to unlearn everything they have been thought and focused on in their former life.
Not to mention the “must’ve died-followed-by-being-resurrected-part”.
An elven ranger seeking to convert to a dark ranger must, of course, have died, returned as a Forsaken, and seek to learn the arts of the shadow rather than the wild.
This ordeal is difficult, as the dark ranger must twist everything she was taught about nature to start learning her darker trade.
Does this not speak to logic and facts? Rather than…whimsy?
There is a huge difference between coming up with new lore that is consistent with everything that came previous (the thing you quoted) and CHANGING previous lore based on personal desires (what you are doing by saying Hunter is not a class with roots in magic usage.)
It does, and is a reasonable argument. However, what you quoted above was my very brief attempt at new lore that is completely consistent with the old lore. How? Because instead of the “old” way of becoming a Dark Ranger, these new Dark Rangers learned how through analysis of a captured original Dark Ranger.
The original Dark Ranger can’t work in any way whatsoever without some sort of adjustment of this nature since only one faction could become one. Worse, that faction is a CROSS faction. I.e. you would need to start out as a NE (alliance) then die and switch to horde. So there is no version of Dark Ranger (new class or new spec of existing class) that can exist without a new way of becoming one AKA new lore.
you arent alone. ive hated my hunter since we lost old SV. mostly play other classes now.
3 Likes
I can see what you’re getting at. I just disagree with your claims that there’s any type of spec option focusing on embracing the ways and nature of Dark Rangers. That would actually fit with the Hunter class.
They(hunters) have some magic tied to them. That is obvious. But nothing whatsoever in the same areas as Dark Rangers.
Etc.
However, I won’t continue this discussion here as it has derailed quite a bit from the OP. This discussion really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Sorry @Loneshotta 
Edit:
Going back more towards the topic of this thread, I’ve thought of what you could do in the future for SV to give it the theme of a melee-fighter, but still allowing the spec to be of the hybrid-nature. Where you could also do a lot from a far.
What has come to mind, is a typ of combo between a Headhunter along with a Wilderness Stalker.
Headhunters, I think most players have some idea of their fighting style(s).
Wilderness Stalkers according to Lore, I would say fits better with for example Rexxar of the Mok’Nathal.
Both however, have strong ties to that of the Hunter Class.
What would this combo allow? Mostly, the main difference, is that you could make the spec now focus on the use of 1-handed weapons(mainly axes), or focus on spears(not polearms).
These weapons allow for melee combat as well as they can be used as thrown weapons.
As for combat animations, what ones you have, would be based on your distance to the enemy target. As in, if you’re in melee range, the abilities would be based on animations suited for melee-combat. And if you’re out of melee range, the game would make the combat animations be based on throwing the weapons.
Would this require work? Yes.
Would it be doable? I believe so. The team focusing on this part, have done some incredible work over the years. I believe it can be done.
What would we get?
A spec that can focus on both melee-/ranged combat.
A spec that can rely less on pets for certain attacks to be usable from a far. As well as for those that just don’t like pets.
A spec that would not feel like a compilation of other specs. It would still feel unique, however still also have strong ties to the fantasy of Hunters in Warcraft.
Several core abilities + talents and effects from current Survival could remain as part of the new spec.
Some like Lacerate could be brought back.
1 Like
^ This. BM is supposed to be the quintessential pet spec, yet BfA Surv got all the abilities themed around coordinating attacks with your pet, and you and your pet having each other’s backs and fighting side-by-side, and it just makes BM feel more like a slavery spec than the hunting companion spec it used to be.
3 Likes
I think Survival is more about coordinating attacks like you said, or using gadgets and weapons, but BM is literally just chucking pets out and using them as a flood of pets. Legion was better thematically, though BFA is the stronger version.
Meh. The SV pet aspects are all things BM already has. Kill Command is just a retooling of BM’s kill command and Coordinated Assault is just a renamed Bestial Wrath. BM has that stuff already on top of the Frenzy interaction and now that BM sticks to a single pet it conveys the pet coordination aspect just fine. I just see this talk of SV having more pet coordination to be more empty promotion of SV based solely on the name of “Coordinated Assault”.
I don’t know if you’re talking about SV in this second sentence but in case it’s about BM: I think BM is better mechanically and thematically in BFA. Sticking to one pet is just better and I think it’s a lot less about “pet slavery” now that Dire Beast isn’t part of the rotation.
2 Likes
What i meant was that Beast Mastery, in hindsight, can either be based on having multiple pets against your foe or buffing your single pet, So Legion followed one theme,though weaker and BFA changed them to one of the others and is stronger.