Oh, I don’t know. BM and SV do have their charm. I enjoy marksman more, of course, but there is a place for them all.
Well, allow me to respond in kind. This is an open forum and I’m here to share my opinion on this topic. I would genuinely like to try the new marksman spec that removes the pet and adds an equal companion. If I want to go back to using a pet, I have beastmaster
How is advocating for a role that is always present having an ability that is always needed?
Right now you have, what, 4 DPS classes filling that role, meaning those 4 automatically get a spot based on a single ability. Shifting it to tanks, a role that is always needed, eliminates having to take a certain class just for a single ability. This way it is ALWAYS present and the other classes can be chosen based on other factors.
1 Like
Eh, just buff drums at that point. Leatherworkers deserve some money.
3 Likes
And we have items like this for other classes to use if the tank feels to “busy” to be bothered to hit the button.
It’s a win-win to shift it to tanks.
Playing the devils advocate, I think having a Hunter have access to a pet is conceptually fine. But realistically the pet needs to actually do something.
Which has been the problem with MM Hunters. The ONLY useful thing the pet does mechanically is tank stuff, which is fine mechanically, but needing something to pin a guy down so you can land your shots is pretty contradictory to the idea of a marksman.
Having a pet that acts as a spotter and marks targets for the Hunter on the other hand is a way better execution of a marksmans pet.
Just feels weird because throughout the decade+ that lust has existed, it’s been exclusive to DPS and Healers.
Funnily enough at this point more Tanks have access to Battle Res than Healers do.
TBH it’d probably be better if you just reintroduced scrolls + buffed drums to be on par with the full flavour versions so you don’t NEED xyz buffs for M+. Spreading out utility is fine for Raids cause you got 20 people, but it’s a terrible concept for an end-game as limited in group size as M+ is.
Well in the cases that have them they make sense. Druids and Paladins function as healers as well, and DKs “raise the dead” so why not an ally?
I agree, that at minimum Priests should have the ability as well. Stands to reason they could bring someone back to life, even in the heat of battle.
True, but for almost 20 years certain race/combos didn’t exist either, but here we are.
Things change.
Very much this. If you look at every marksman talent between classic and wrath, you find excactly one talent involving pets and it is a minor increase to focus regen. Plus it’s so early in the tree, I believe its there almost solely for bm that wants to dip into marksman. It wasn’t until cata that they got anything else (a minor chance to reset kill command if the target moves) and then panda did away with all the talents. In MoP, you actually did have access to 2-3 talents involving you pet, but that was mostly because the talents were spec agnostic. By the time of legion, marksman was back to zero pet interaction.
1 Like
My hunter has almost never done anything other than BM since the day I made it. If you loved your pets so much you would be a BM. Be a more lore accurate Dark Ranger then you would go MM, use black arrows and have the DR mog. That build has no pets. But even if not a DR fan, still BMs are the pet spec. The class was literally called Beast Master in WC3, not a hunter. The Beast Masters had pets. Then there was the Dark Ranger class that you could also play that did not have any pets.
Not everyone wants a zoo to fight alongside them.
So those that want a pet as MM have a solid argument.
6 Likes
The volume of feedback begs to differ.
9 Likes
It’s such a massive juxtaposition between (modern) BM and SV who have massively leant on their pet for both their playstyle and class fantasy, with BM being the traditional “pet tanks while the hunter shoots” and SV and it’s pet going toe-to-toe alongside its pet, both of which are VERY traditional Ranger archetypes.
THOSE are pet specs.
If you play MM with a pet you’re playing suboptimally. If you don’t mind that, just play BM suboptimally and don’t take stuff like Dire Beast.
ez pz
I mean the difference is that those were additions, we weren’t losing idk, Gnomes Warlocks so we could get Draenei Warlocks.
If you want Lust to be omnipresent, taking it away from DPS/Healers to give to Tanks makes less sense than simply making it so Drums is equal to lust.
Like I said it’s happening whether people like it or not.
Why? I would never tell them to take way a feature others obviously like just because I don’t use it. Here’s the question, in what way to others with MM Hunter pets adversely impact you?
The solution is easy, they could just create another class , MM2, that has the new non MM Hunter Pet feature they want. Or not even that, they could just create another option in the talent tree.
4 Likes
This is spam at this point.
1 Like
I dunno if framing this as a megathread is the best idea, but do you I guess.
Would be better to have the OP have more information as to why losing your pet sucks for MM.
Things like you lose survivability in open world & delves, you lose access to some pet abilities between slowfall, pet slowing targets, etc.
You lose some themes for your character especially for roleplay, you lose the help of a pet to spin nodes in BGs for PvP.
It’s on PTR and it plays worse than live, they’re trying to push explosive shot, precise shots (RNG-ish procs) and the new ‘mark’ from the owl (RNG PROC)
You also only have one talent that promotes you to NOT use a pet. What is your point?
Not at all.
That’d be for a SNIPER not a marksman, should we make it so hunters can only shoot if they /lay or /prone and then set up a SINGLE shot? not multiple! That’d be against a sniper for ONE shot not to blow a target apart! The whole ‘spotter/marker’ is a SNIPER thing not a MARKSMAN thing.
2 Likes
Daily reminder that this is not feedback. It’s noise.
2 Likes
Trolls gonna troll.
1 Like
I wish people would realize the report button is not a downvote button. Disagreeing with something doesn’t mean it breaks ToS.
2 Likes