If you were to make a say molotov cocktail, it would also be … a jar and yet ?
One of which can stun, one of which can slow with additional effects available.
Plus a number of other ranged abilities be it shuriken toss (which also turned all AAs ranged), deadly throw that could be used to interrupt, etc.
But your argument for current SV going pet-less leaves it with very little “fantasy” available.
Yes, the specs aren’t exactly the same, as one would expect them to not be, but they’re both from the same archetype (say fury vs arms) and bringing specs closer together in flavor doesn’t seem like a good thing.
it’s an explosion of poison? and named a bomb. I think you’re reaching a bit to try and ignore the similarity.
you can also use poisoned knife to guarantee the damaged poison.
what specialized range tech does a hunter have?
the support for petless SV makes it even more of a weird mishmash of themes and fantasy than it was in legion / wod. it would be a more agile warrior, a less agile rogue, that can throw bombs.
not to mention, almost all of the petless SV support comes from people who want it to just be a tinkerer…which would be best left for its own class I feel
I wasn’t comparing it to Wildfire Bomb. It is indeed a molotov.
Explosive Trap and Explosive Shot still exist, though, last I checked.
I didn’t ask for SV to lose its pet. I asked for KC not to require it and CA not to be stuck behind pet Basic Attacks. It shouldn’t need a pet for basic functionality. It should be able to focus on ANY of its available tools as it sees fit.
We should feel less constrained for having pets, not more constrained for having them.
First, I would argue they do literally any time pet pathing may bug or their pet can be killed or CCed more easily than they, themselves, can be.
That said, BM’s KC isn’t a generator and it obligatorily picks up a second charge.
A one-charge generator and a two-charge spender do not “function the exact same.”
Regardless, we’re getting further and further off-point.
Consider:
Let’s say you have two options.
Generator A – Your pet deals, if able to reach your target, a total of X damage and generates Y Focus.
Generator B – You and/or your pet deal, if either is able to reach your target, a total of X damage and generate (a total of) Y Focus.
The first requires a pet for Focus management. The first is your own, extended and improved by having a pet. It therefore makes the pet feel like an additional resource, not an additional point of vulnerability.
Or consider:
Spender A – Requires a poison on the target. Deals X damage, plus up to a further Y damage based on the number of seconds a poison has ticked on the target.
Spender B – Deals X damage, plus up to a further Y damage based on the number of seconds a poison has ticked on the target.
Which makes poisons feel more like a leverageable bonus that fits with one’s flexible rotational space? Which makes poisons instead feel like a constraint?
We have scatter, freezing trap, explosive trap, intimidation, counter shot, binding shot, and bursting shot to interrupt a cast. We can also FD to cancel a cast, as well good movement options to LoS a cast.
Why would we need more stuns than what we have? Aside from Warrior and Rogue, do any classes have access to two stuns simultaneously?
Again, so long as you don’t frame “beast mastery” as specifically pet usage but instead mastery of bestial skills, bestial qualities, persistent units, and temporary summons alike… Yes.
While that’s true, consider: A boon to Hunters is not necessarily a boon to the wider community nor broadly warranted.
Hunter being able to tap into the weapons desired by that larger group of (mostly exclusively) Agility one-hander-users means, in turn, those specs having to compete with yet another… who didn’t even need those weapons to begin with.
Flip that on its head and think about that for Rogues. Should they get access to 2-handers to open up their loot tables? Should Enhance? Should Havoc?