I’ll give you a hint, it’s in the bloody name. Momma always said you can’t fix stupid.
5 Likes
So you cant, way to waste your own time.
With all the issues with pets and summons, it just blows my mind they wanna toss in another one.
For me, pets are like ‘borrowed power’ and you have little to no control in regards to them getting bugged out and fighting the wrong target, getting stuck on terrain, breaking CC in PvP.
I want the power increases tied to my actual player character.
3 Likes
A title of authority does not inherently convey to you the themes or skillsets of your subordinates, only indirect control (authority) over them (assuming that authority, as the case here, is respected).
Being called Deathlord, even by the 4 Horsemen, would not make you a 5th Horseman.
If you were a general with some dragon riders who form a group by that name (the Dragon Riders), who would be the “Leader of the Dragon Riders” — the senior/most respected Dragon Rider who leads their actual missions on the field, or you, the general?
- I suspect most would say the prior, the one who’s actually a Dragon Rider.
Nor is this…
…an objectively bad take, either, even if you don’t agree with it (which would be reasonable and fine).
Lorewise, the Riders all have their own theme, legacy, (initially) unique or enhanced skills. Apart from Death Charge, yours is basically just to… randomly get help from one or more of them.
If that were all it took, every cliche fantasy damsel in distress would be innately a master of arms.
- I don’t consider that a problem, personally; you’re not one of the Four Horseman, but you have been invited to ride with them. But, I could see why it’d feel lackluster to many.
Someone frequently making bad takes doesn’t make all of their takes inherently bad.
2 Likes
This is my largest concern as well.
Out of curiosity, though, what kinds of interactions might we like to see, and how should they be set up to make those interactions leverageable without being ‘overly’ central / overwhelming?
1 Like
Besides the fact that you ignore everything else I said about literally forming the Four Horsemen via class hall quest your logic is highly flawed.
In a classroom is the teacher not the leader of the group of student? Directly responsible for what they are learning and teaching? Or the best student is going to teach the class? Flawed logic my guy
The president of the united states in the cheif in command. of course hes not on the field but he has the final say on what the armed forces are doing.
Again flawed logic by a bunch of nerds over the fantasy of a video game. yall can argue amongst yallselfs. gonna go chill with my girl. follow me on IG be well gang
1 Like
if you so passionate about a talent tree name Blizz is hiring. go apply and change it
Your analogy is bizarre (the Four Horsemen are not schoolchildren, and you, the Deathlord who they came to serve only long after being the Four Horsemen, are not their instructor), so let us instead be brief:
Who would you typically call the leader of a brigade, their general distant from the front, or the literal brigade leader?
From the post you just quoted:
If you’re under the assumption that signing off so cringily somehow means you alone are chill / less… however “nerdy” one must be for not going ape over a difference of opinion… It’s not really having that impact.
1 Like
ah there u go moving the goal post lmao using a literal sense. am i not a horseman if i can ride a horse? lmao yall are riduclous man lmao its sad
A teacher is a teacher, not a student itself. The LK created the 4 Horsemen, both of them it was just the 2nd time was through you. Bolvar couldnt do it because he was still in ice.
That doesnt make the president a soldier.
You wouldnt know flawed logic if it bit you. You said you wanted DnD to act like desecration from wrath.
Then every single person in WoW is a horseman. But that isnt what is up for debate, its if the PC is a Rider of the Apocalypse and its not. Just because you can ride a horse doesnt mean you are part of a cavalry, it just means you can ride a horse. This spec is what a Harbinger would be 100%. You are the person that signals the approach of the actual riders of the apocalypse which are the 4 horsemen.
Its like whoever blows Ghallarhorn is the harbinger of Ragnarok, it doesnt make that person anything more than that.
2 Likes
Dude, Altani had a decent counter argument to your semantics debate. You let your personal opinion of Kelliste override your reasoning. I don’t like most of what he says either but I happen to agree with the guy that this feels more like a commander then one of the Riders. I already put my feedback on the spec in, so I wont waste time repeating it here. Just take a step back and try not to jump down someone else’s throat just because you don’t like the guy they are agreeing with.
2 Likes
using lore names for these trees were clearly a mistake. but i cant blame blizzard, i didnt think people would get so hung up about the “name” of hero trees over the actual content in them.
1 Like
He hasn’t agreed with a single person on anything. Believe it or not I agree with plenty on here. Eye color is a nope, and the direction people want to take and continue to take is a nope. Digging a hole deeper doesn’t mean you get to your destination.
Rider is a Harbinger spec. The spec would have to be a new 5th rider but the 4 Horsemen already takes up the 4 Horsemen that is from Christianity. I don’t think Blizzard actually asked the question “what would a 5th horseman be”. If they did and this is the best they could come up then that is disappointing.
Deathbringer is at least interesting and you can think of ways to get 40-50 stacks within 12 seconds. Mountain Thane shakes up Fury even though it’s basically a passive spec. Rider is a glorified trinket as I have said.
2 Likes
I mean, isn’t that just that many would prefer gameplay befitting a Rider of the Apocalypse (the name we were given) over, to put it as spitballed earlier, a Harbinger of the Horsemen (the gameplay we were given)?
If the complaints could be fully addressed by just renaming the Hero Tree, then that would, as you’ve said, just be a weird hang-up on the name. I expect it has far more to do with the gameplay, though.
1 Like
we gotta define what gameplay means here, cause what is rider of the apocalypse gameplay here? you get a perma horse in outside content and temporary sizeable movement increase shaped as a horse. if its just theme and fantasy then this hero tree hits it on the head. if anything youre the 5th rider. frankly the riders we do know about are just deathknights :shrug: with nazgrims only unique feature (blood beats) going to another hero tree
for me gameplay means somethign way different from what alot of people here consider to be “gameplay”. for example. this hero tree is a design failure for unholy. unholy a spec which has obscene burst to the point where using two on use trinkets and afking 10 seconds to use the other was a real possibility for maximum burst. a spec that blizzard tried to fix with the reshuffling of damage from cds to baseline sustain only to be fumbled with this tree and going full throttle into burst again by summoning 4 horsemen during your main cooldown “army of the undead”. thus undoing the work to rein in its burst. not to mention the issues with trollbane slowing random targets, imagine that happening during sanguine week.
to me this tree is all flash and horrible decisions. what makes it worse is that people are way to hung up on the fantasy and name and theme of this hero tree when its literally the only thing it did good.
1 Like
Imo, both parts need fixing, though, yes, as you’ve said, the simple fit to existing gameplay is the most important part.
If we’re to be Riders of the Apocalypse, the riders need to individually more active and interesting (ideally in ways that provide distinct, tactically-minded mini-burst phases, and with more control over their timing) and we need to feel a bit more apocalyptic ourselves.
While that’s a tall order, I would have to say the same for all Hero Trees. They shouldn’t merely be elaborate, minimally invasive tier sets. If we’re going to bother with something called Hero Talents… they should feel heroic. No, I don’t care that the misnomer is all they originally intended by it; it’s still a misnomer — a Checkov’s Gun situation. If it’s not meant to feel heroic, then why use that name, disclaimer or no?
1 Like
as much as i like the idea of mini burst phases, i dont think fixing huge spec issues should fall to hero trees tbh. i believe that spec issues should be fixed with the baseline talent trees which are hinted to be changed.
ultimately i think the main issue of hero talents that ive seen is just the name. if they were named anything else then alot of the feedback i see here and other threads would disappear. hero talents at this rate feel like artifact weapons without the artifact, the same amount of impact which is fitting because like legion spec reworks, hero talents are the extension of the df spec reworks.
for example the majority of feedback for paladin templar hero spec is just “why is it hammers, it should be swords like templars.” or “why dont we have two handed swords and shield gameplay like the templars” which again highlights how alot of feedback for alot of hero trees is trivial stuff like that, from what i see! its the same thing here “im not a rider im a overseer.” eclipsing more important gameplay loop feedback
1 Like
To be a clear, I wasn’t suggesting that as an alternative to fixing UH tree woes, only something that would be (all the more) fun to see as an additive to both UH and Frost after their respective fixes.
oh ya i agree then
So what would be the 5th Horseman?
Again the 4 Horseman are after the Christian 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Famine, Conquest, War, and Death. So what would the 5th be? That is what should have been asked and then answered and it wasnt. If it just means DK on a horse then that is the most boring uninspired bad design ever and could have just been a glyph for DA.
In actuality this is just Unholy and Frost as it is now that calls the 4 Horsemen. That is it, you arent a 5th rider.
These Hero Specs seem like a failed attempt at Elite Specializations from GW2 because they have to create so many and a lot of classes already fill that fantasy. DK being one of them which is the Hero unit / spec turned into a full fledged class.
For example, Necromancer in GW2 got a Reaper specialization which turned a class from ranged, to melee. Allowed the use of a Greatsword (would still want a ranged alternative weapon) and changed your class mechanic from Death Shroud to Reaper Shroud gaining a giant scythe, some mobility, extra freeze, and a whole lot of damage.
These hero talents are either a hit or a miss and Rider is 100% a miss.
2 Likes