Possibilities and Variants

[Jonoth]

A couple years makes all the difference it seems...

[Psychyn]

So, in a choice between allowing all or none, I would rather have none, for the sake of consistency and fairness.

Fair enough! Scrap my post, didn't knew that about the Tauren Paladins but hey.. The only thing I think of with Tauren is a good steak.

And edit ; See below. Rig took the words out of my mouth.

[Rigley]

Apparently I've simply been misreading this.

From what I gather the argument is not 'warriors can't be good with guns/bows', but is rather 'warriors can't be as good as hunters with guns/bows'.

...Which I'm actually pretty alright with, in that case. It doesn't detract from anything, save say that their skill is ultimately inferior to the actual masters of the professions.

[aroes]

A couple years makes all the difference it seems...

Good lord I lol'd hard.

[HelveteSong]

Grak, you say that a human 'archer' (warrior) will steal the hunter's class' thunder. But I really see no reason that a human cannot be more proficiently trained with a bow. He gets none of the other abilties hunters get (arcane shot, traps, etc.), he does not get an ally creature, he cannot track...He shoots a bow. That's it. He's not a human warrior who's being played as a hunter, he's a human warrior who's weapon of choice is a bow. Will he be as good as a shot as, let's say, a night elf huntress? Hell no. She's been shooting arrows for hundreds of years, so there's no way he will have the skill she has. Could he compete with a tauren hunter? Possible, but highly unlikely. The human lacks the talents and abilities the hunter class provides. The point is, refusing to allow a human warrior to learn how to proficiently use a bow due to them just being a 'human hunter' is unreasonable as they don't get the skills, the pets, any of the other things that makes the hunter class what it is. It's just a character who prefers long range combat compared to closer range.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Well, now that that's over.

Any clue what Pyremaster fits into? Not really a Custom Model, nor very Redundant. Sooo, just Special Profile in general?

[Grakor456]

Apparently I've simply been misreading this.

From what I gather the argument is not 'warriors can't be good with guns/bows', but is rather 'warriors can't be as good as hunters with guns/bows'.

...Which I'm actually pretty alright with, in that case. It doesn't detract from anything, save say that their skill is ultimately inferior to the actual masters of the professions.

That's what I'm saying, yes. I'm sorry if there was some misinterpretation with regards to my intent here.

[Rigley]

Grak, you say that a human 'archer' (warrior) will steal the hunter's class' thunder. But I really see no reason that a human cannot be more proficiently trained with a bow. He gets none of the other abilties hunters get (arcane shot, traps, etc.), he does not get an ally creature, he cannot track...He shoots a bow. That's it. He's not a human warrior who's being played as a hunter, he's a human warrior who's weapon of choice is a bow. Will he be as good as a shot as, let's say, a night elf huntress? Hell no. She's been shooting arrows for hundreds of years, so there's no way he will have the skill she has. Could he compete with a tauren hunter? Possible, but highly unlikely. The human lacks the talents and abilities the hunter class provides. The point is, refusing to allow a human warrior to learn how to proficiently use a bow due to them just being a 'human hunter' is unreasonable as they don't get the skills, the pets, any of the other things that makes the hunter class what it is. It's just a character who prefers long range combat compared to closer range.

From what I gather the argument is not 'warriors can't be good with guns/bows', but is rather 'warriors can't be as good as hunters with guns/bows'.

I think a lot of the outcry here seems to stem from nothing more than miscommunication.

EDIT: DAMMOT GRAK.

[aroes]

Looks like Rigley's question hit the nail on the head...indeed there was much misinterpretation. Pack up people, no more argument to see here.

[flammos200]

Grak, you say that a human 'archer' (warrior) will steal the hunter's class' thunder. But I really see no reason that a human cannot be more proficiently trained with a bow. He gets none of the other abilties hunters get (arcane shot, traps, etc.), he does not get an ally creature, he cannot track...He shoots a bow. That's it. He's not a human warrior who's being played as a hunter, he's a human warrior who's weapon of choice is a bow. Will he be as good as a shot as, let's say, a night elf huntress? Hell no. She's been shooting arrows for hundreds of years, so there's no way he will have the skill she has. Could he compete with a tauren hunter? Possible, but highly unlikely. The human lacks the talents and abilities the hunter class provides. The point is, refusing to allow a human warrior to learn how to proficiently use a bow due to them just being a 'human hunter' is unreasonable as they don't get the skills, the pets, any of the other things that makes the hunter class what it is. It's just a character who prefers long range combat compared to closer range.

This. Same way a Hunter can be good with swords and stuff. Even if they can't do the things/abilities/skills/spells/whatever that Warriors or Rogues do with them.

Same way a Warrior won't be able to parry every single attack that comes his or her way with a melee weapon, unlike a Hunter using Deterrence, nor will he fire magic arrows or volleys. But they can still fire a gun at someone, or shoot a bow, same way a Mage can try to hit someone with a sword, though not use any special skills with it.

...Unless they use it as a focus. So, we have fire-swords, ice-covered maces, and so on. Hence doing what -magi- do with swords, using them as spell foci.

[Uthaniel]

Like a few others have said here, a gnome can learn how to handle a gun and aim properly, but they can't throw mana shots and arrow bombs, or bind a savage beast to their whim with ease.

But that's about it, yes?
Nothing stops my gnome warrior for simply being capable of look down on a sight, find a target and press the trigger?

EDIT: I'm trying to understand. I honestly don't get the discussion up to now.

[Loxmardin]

Nope.

What has been said so far is that a Hunter for instance won't be as proficient in using swords in melee like a Warrior, for instance. Just like a Warrior won't be able to use a bow or gun as proficiently as a Hunter.

It's a statement saying "be your class".

Yes, you can use the weapons if you have the skills for them.

But you're not going to have proficiency with it outside your class' boundaries. A Warrior can still aim and fire a gun and be moderately accurate. Perhaps even pretty damn accurate. But he'll never reach the level of a Hunter.

That's all that's been said.

[Kenshiro]

I will try and put this simply.

You can make a human warrior who uses a bow, no problem. You can make it so that it is primary weapon and that he is proficient with it. However, this warrior will be less accurate, than a hunter of any race. A hunter is a (possible) 'marksman', just as they can be a 'beastmaster' and a 'survivalist'. A warrior who picks up and uses a bow will never be as good with it as a -pure- hunter class. His point as to why, is because if you could do that, why would you want to roll a hunter? You can just be a warrior and wear plate, while being just as good as a hunter. You may not have arcane shot or a pet, but that should just prove how much stronger a hunter is at ranged combat. It -could- also cause some powertrips. Some may claim deadly accuracy with a bow and a warrior' strength in close combat.

He's trying to allow for creativity, while at the same time making it fair.

Edit: Just look up to Lox. Beat me to it. And explained it better. :S

[Aphetoros]

I agree-- my battlemage-esque types would never overpower the warriors without magic! And if we're talking about legit mages (see: wizard) then I think it's silly.

[Brutalskars]

To be honest, I have had an orcish mage, and it made sense, I played it well. I don't see the issue with playing a base class if your species can logically play it. I see why no NE locks or magi, at least magi until cata, cuz that has to do with the highbourne. But seriously, what honestly stops a human from getting an animal companion before cata? Suddenly we gain the ability to train animals to be our companions?

What stops the forsaken from making traps and shooting arrows at people with great skill? I know, we are going to wait until a dragon pops out of the ground before we hone these skills.

You know, in all the hundreds and hundreds of years of dwarven history, and all their arcane magic with the dark irons and stuff. Why is it then only now do they seem to understand, "OH THAT IS WHAT MAGIC DOES!"...

I am sorry. But most of all the class combos are stupid, they were put in place for fairness between factions! I think it is complete rubbish that a human warrior can be just as good as a night elven warrior, but as soon as a human tries to use a bow, he is outclassed by everyone that was lucky enough to get hunter before cata!

It is flawed logic at best.