This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Specialisation Names & Class 4th Spec Ideas
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheReal
People with open minds will take your suggestions for what they are: suggestions.And others with open minds can show how something wouldn't work as well in the Warcraft universe.
...and that is shortsighted. Must the World of Warcraft universe forever remain as it is?
Post by
Adamsm
People with open minds will take your suggestions for what they are: suggestions.And others with open minds can show how something wouldn't work as well in the Warcraft universe.
...and that is shortsighted. Must the World of Warcraft universe forever remain as it is?
No of course not; doesn't mean that the mechanics of specific classes should be just thrown out the window for 'cool' effect.
Post by
Nathanyal
That is what I have been trying to get at this entire time Hal. Couldn't really see mages or warlocks healing others. The same with hunters trying to heal.
Rift is different from WoW. In WoW fire is a form of arcane/nature magic that is used for destruction. Mages control it, make it burn. Warlocks are like mages, just a lot more corrupt. They control the fire. Shamans don't force the element, they plead with the spirit of fire to help them fight.
If the devs want to retcon it so that fire heals and arrows can be used to heal, then let them. But as it stands, fire isn't used to heal and I know of no arrows that have healing properties.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
Apparently you didn't read my other post.
Nathanyal you just said that you weren't against having a 4th spec so don't even start lol.
No, this is what I said: And I'm not arguing against a 4th spec. I'm arguing about how you decided on a class's 4th spec. I'm not against the idea of a fourth spec
There are 2 different things I'm discussing here. One of them is implementing it into the game, the other is if it can actually work with the lore.
I'm not arguing against the idea of the fourth spec. You can come up with all the "ideas" you want. As long as they are believable, there is nothing wrong with them.
That is why I can agree with some of them, as some people have tried to do it before. DKs use to tank as frost, shamans could tank some back in BC, if spec'd right you can make a shockadin work. My friend will go into LFR and just use PoM, shields, Penance when the tank needs a good heal. If he has nothing to do he'll just smite the boss. But the thing like having a mage, warlock, hunter or rogue heal is something I can't see as it is far-fetched.
But if you implement any of these ideas, they will more than likely break the game.
Right now each spec does about the same amount of dps. The difference between the top and bottom is like 8k dps, if done correctly. Some fights the numbers will differ due to movement and adds, but they are all really close.
Please don't tell me what I have and haven't said. Thank you.
Edit: As for why a mage healing wouldn't work, its because mages aren't healers. Mages don't study the divine magics, they don't study nature. They study the arcane, which includes all schools of magic that isn't divine or nature.
Druids, Monks and Shamans use nature to heal. Priests and Paladins use divine light to heal. Shamans don't use fire as it isn't used that way. Fire is used to cause damage and destruction, it has no healing abilities. Shamans use mainly water to heal others, while using earth to help some. They can also use the Air to help, but again Air is mainly used for damage.
Edit 2: After reading through it some more, some mages to study some nature magic. But it isn't used for healing, it is used mainly for working on "magical" farms. They use it to run the place, they can also use it to "take a seed and pull the youth from it until its a flower"
source
Post by
TheReal
People with open minds will take your suggestions for what they are: suggestions.And others with open minds can show how something wouldn't work as well in the Warcraft universe.
...and that is shortsighted. Must the World of Warcraft universe forever remain as it is?
No of course not; doesn't mean that the mechanics of specific classes should be just thrown out the window for 'cool' effect.
Isn't that what Blizzard is doing in MoP? Isn't that what Blizzard did in Cataclysm? Now OP can't suggest Blizzard do it again for a future expansion?
Just a refresher:
Hunters > Mana to Focus
Paladins > Nothing to Holy Power
Warlocks > Soul Shards to whatever they have now
DK > 2 tank specs eliminated
Priest > Archangel/Atonement
Those are changes in mechanics that produced "cool effects." As adamantly as you stand behind at least most of Blizzard's decisions, I don't see why OP's ideas have to be crucified when they're not at all different from what Blizzard themselves have done in the past.
I'm not saying OP's ideas are perfect in their current form, but for crying out loud at least acknowledge the fact that Blizzard
could
cludge something like this into WoW if they wanted. Like I said, an alien race might crash into Azeroth (again) and bring with them some mystical power source that breaks and fuses itself into the elements of Azeroth, and after some period of time mages learn how to control the new alien-infused fire element to make it heal wounds.
All I mean to say is that if Blizzard thinks they can make more money by allowing mages to heal, they'll do it whether the current lore supports it or not.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
I like the
IDEA
of the fourth spec. The
idea
behind another spec for each class is something I can think about. I can think of that tanking mage/warlock, the ranged paladin, the priest dpsing with light instead of shadow, or the shaman that could tank if built right.
But if they put it into the game, it will ultimately break the game. Thinking about adding a fourth spec is one thing, but if they decide to put it in the game, it would make it even harder to balance. It would add so many complexities that it wouldn't be worth it.
Here is an example. As of right now, there is no resistance to Holy damage. If they make it so paladins and priests can do more damage with holy, they would either have to add in Holy resistance, or keep holy damage lower than the others to keep PvP balanced. But that would make PvE unbalanced so they would just have to put in Holy resist. With that they would have to add in whole new goodies that'll add on the resist. Unless they just take out all the resists.
So I pick e.
e) like to think about an alternative spec, but wouldn't want it in the game
If the devs want to retcon it so that fire heals and arrows can be used to heal, then let them. But as it stands, fire isn't used to heal and I know of no arrows that have healing properties.
It also seems that someone broke the quote boxes.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
The deal with Druids is they didn't add a 4th spec, they always had 4 specs. With other classes, they would have to invent and come up with the 4th spec.
Again though, why add a 4th spec for every class? Do we really need 3 more tanks (for a total of 6 classes that can, not 5 like you have in the OP), 4 more healers and 3 more dps to choose from? There are already 5 tanks in the game, 6 healers in the game (counting the 2 existing specs from priests) and 23 different types of dps. That is quite a bit of depth already in the game.
And you can't really compare making up a 4th spec to letting different races do different classes. Sure it was something different, but it wasn't anything real game changing. The same with the little changes like different resources and symbiosis. Sure they will add in some issues to the game, make it a little harder to balance. But those won't change the game as much as adding in a new spec for each class. Doing something like that will change the game so much. And if Blizzard still wants faster expansion release, which so far isn't going so well as it has almost been 2 years since Cata came out, they would have to start working on this years ago.
I wasn't around for the introduction of DKs. But I have heard of how they were hard to balance. Adding in that hero class in Wrath made it hard to balance the game when they did. Imagine if they added in 11 new specs.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
But after they add the new specs, are they just going to stop giving us new abilities every time we reach a new level cap? We go from 90-95 and they add in the 4th spec. But they'll also need to add abilities in for the 90-95 for all 4 specs now. Then when they go from 95-100 they have to add more abilities in for not just 3, but 4 specs now. Adding in a 4th spec won't stop them from adding in new abilities every other level like they have in the past.
Unless you want them to just stop giving classes new abilities because they added in a new spec for each class. But what if someone doesn't like the new spec and still just plays 2 of the old ones? Do those players get left out because they decided to not play a new spec?
So far I have 5 85s, I would have 6 but I haven't played WoW in about 2 months. I still have fun with them all. I could easily raid as frost on my mage for something different. I could go get gear and play as enhancement or ret on those classes. There is still a ton of variety in the game. Add in too much variety and it can make someone "spring a leak" so to say. They might get in the mindset that they must play each of their class's new specs, or something will happen and they won't get to. But if they spend to much time on one class, they'll feel like they're leaving the others out of their loop.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
@adamsm Players who have level 85's will know how to play their classes - they're not relearning the class... the only new abilities they're gaining are those they get through spec (roughly ~4-8 depending on role). Look at the mage talents for example there's only like 6 abilities and then the mastery. Other's like hunters only have 2-4 active abilities, the rest are all passives.That's really not what I meant: I meant when it comes to learning this new spec, it's a lot better to learn it as you level, rather then trying to do it at max level.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
I'll admit it does feels odd that the monk specs are named as if they were subclasses/prestige classes, whereas the specs of the other classes are named as schools of magic/combat, and I also agree that it would be cool if the old specs for the other classes were renamed into something cooler.
I know it will never happen since it would be a redundant change, and overall confusing for some, asides from being unnecessary other than "Rule of Cool" but since this is a "What if" thread, I'll post the names I'd like the specs to have anyways.
Death Knight
: Blood = BlackGuard. Frost = Frost-Reaver. Unholy = Grim Reaper.
Warrior
: Arms = Centurion. Fury = Berserker. Protection = Phalanx.
Rogue
: Assassination = Assassin (Duh). Combat = Myrmidon. Subtlety = Shadowdancer.
Hunter
: Beast Mastery = Beast Lord. Marksmanship = Sniper. Survival = Ranger.
Mage
: Arcane = Arcanist. Fire = Pyromancer. Frost = Frostweaver.
Priest
: Discipline = Prophet. Holy = Cardinal. Shadow = Heretic.
Warlock
: Affliction = Nethermancer. Demonology = Summoner. Destruction = Maleficarium.
Shaman
: Elemental = Stormcaller, Enhancement = Earthwarden. Restoration = Wavespeaker
Druid
: Balance = Talon Druid. Feral (DPS) = Fang Druid. Feral (Tank) = Claw Druid. Restoration = Keeper.
Paladin
Holy = Judicator. Protection = Seraph Knight. Retribution = Vindicator.
As for adding a fourth spec............
All I'm gonna say about it is:
Its not necessary for classes that can already manage more than 1 role, however, for the pure DPS classes (Rogues, Hunters, Warlocks, and Mages) I do believe they at some point in the future "should" have a fourth spec that should allow them to at least do a secondary role. Being pigeonholed into a single role forever doesn't feel like much fun to me, everyone should have some manner of choice when it comes to what role to perform.
As to what fourth spec to add for each? Mages and locks with a healing spec, rogues and hunters with a tank one. (its the one combo that would create the least disruptions in resources and itemization, as healers HAVE to use mana, and forcing rogues or hunters to use mana would be counter-productive)
Post by
Okie
I would just rework each class to have specs and cover all 4 rolls ( Like a druid)
its simple to just add the 4th spec for some classes like :
Paladin (Caster) and Shaman (Tank) and Monk (Caster)
others need a rework but those are for a later Discussion! :)
Spoilers !
They set out to do 4th specs, why else would they base monks off the 4 Celestial Aspects!
OX - Tank / Tiger - Dps / Serpant - Heals / ..... That leaves Crane Range Dps ?
Post by
Adamsm
Spoilers !
They set out to do 4th specs, why else would they base monks off the 4 Celestial Aspects!
OX - Tank / Tiger - Dps / Serpant - Heals / ..... That leaves Crane Range Dps ?
Except....Crane does heals too.
Post by
Okie
im not talking about there abilities im talking about the fact that there are 4 of them as a "place holder for a 4th spec"
thats was all not here to get picky just something i noticed like the in WoD we are seeing alot more WARDENS ?
Post by
Adamsm
im not talking about there abilities im talking about the fact that there are 4 of them as a "place holder for a 4th spec"
thats was all not here to get picky just something i noticed like the in WoD we are seeing alot more WARDENS ?
The only reason that Druid's got a fourth spec was because they actually needed it to show a difference between Cat and Bear. There really isn't reason at all to give every class fourth spec since most of them do what they are suppose to do already without any difficulty.
And there have been new Wardens since the book Wolfheart came out.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.