Possibilities and Variants

[hiddengecko]

Who is to say that culture is in fact not the limitation here? Yes, there are humans with pets, but that does not mean that they are hunters. Yes, there are humans with bows and guns, but that does not make them hunters either. We do not see in WoW any significant number of hunter-esque humans, until Cataclysm. It's therefore clear that the hunters arts are not widely positively regarded by humans, for the same reason tauren and draenei cannot be rogues, despite that being a purely physical class. Again, until Cataclysm.

Also, comparing a warhorse to an attack dog is a bit strange. And, as a point of irony, Forsaken are able to be Hunters in Cata as well.

And no, this is not what the approval system is for. See my posts earlier in the thread.

Now, for someone who denounces "give an inch and they'll take a mile" as a logical fallacy, are you not doing the exact thing here? Have we not given an inch, and you are now attempting to take a mile?

Well, I'd argue that Tauren and Draenei anatomy and size(not to mention hooves) makes it rather unlikely that either could be rogues--however, as you say, humans are physically capable of both having pets and using ranged weaponry. Again, I do not argue that they could be Hunters (this implies magical usage and a cultural background) but rather that the ability to have a combat pet and ranged weaponry shouldn't be limited to the Hunter class.

Comparing a warhorse to an attack animal isn't terribly strange, I think, given that I read they were trained to trample enemy soldiers under their feet and kick attackers (the instinctive reaction is to jump over and flee, respectively.) And I was aware of Forsaken being Hunters, even if I admittedly find that rather ludicrous--if not impossible, simply unlikely.

Regarding the third paragraph, I have to admit I'm not actually not certain what you mean. I don't think I'm 'taking a mile' by debating your mode of thought, but if you feel I am being disrespectful I apologize. When I debate a point, I don't do it out of malice. There's no ill intent in disagreeing on a public forum, or at least should not be.

[Aphetoros]

Tauren have rogues in-game, as do Draenei-- they are npcs. With hunters in the forsaken society they appear to somehow tame/control the undead in a way-- not true animals.

And you've not given an inch. :l

[Kaghuros]

Well, there was once a Human trained as a Ranger by the High Elves. He was a scout who ended up becoming one of the greatest generals the Alliance has ever had, and the first Human Ranger Lord on Sylvannas' insistence. After his untimely death, he became one of the greatest generals the Forsaken have ever had, and the first Human to ever become a Dark Ranger. Neither Human Hunters nor Forsaken Hunters are particularly without evidence leading into Cataclysm.

http://www.wowpedia.org/Nathanos_Marris

For Humans who exclusively wield ranged weapons, also see:
http://www.wowpedia.org/Archer
http://old.wowhead.com/npc=16896
http://old.wowhead.com/npc=6237
http://old.wowhead.com/npc=29578

[Grakor456]

Well, I'd argue that Tauren and Draenei anatomy and size(not to mention hooves) makes it rather unlikely that either could be rogues--however, as you say, humans are physically capable of both having pets and using ranged weaponry. Again, I do not argue that they could be Hunters (this implies magical usage and a cultural background) but rather that the ability to have a combat pet and ranged weaponry shouldn't be limited to the Hunter class.

Comparing a warhorse to an attack animal isn't terribly strange, I think, given that I read they were trained to trample enemy soldiers under their feet and kick attackers (the instinctive reaction is to jump over and flee, respectively.) And I was aware of Forsaken being Hunters, even if I admittedly find that rather ludicrous--if not impossible, simply unlikely.

Regarding the third paragraph, I have to admit I'm not actually not certain what you mean. I don't think I'm 'taking a mile' by debating your mode of thought, but if you feel I am being disrespectful I apologize. When I debate a point, I don't do it out of malice. There's no ill intent in disagreeing on a public forum, or at least should not be.

If you are not arguing for human hunters, then what exactly is your argument?

Giving combat pets to non-hunters is something we won't ever do. Besides the potential UI problems with certain classes, it would require granting characters in-game skills. I'm not sure why you'd argue for this in this particular case.

I did not intend to imply that you were being disrespectful or malicious. I was simply pointing out what I thought was ironic: that, in immediately following a denouncing of the slippery slope argument, you then proceed to ask for more liberties, thus showing the dangers of a slippery slope.

And you've not given an inch. :l

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

For the sake of this argument, honestly allowing any class to use any abilities outside of their spellbook is giving an inch, something that I don't necessarily have to allow.

That is not to say that it's a concession that I feel is wrong. My own feelings on the matter are fairly irrelevant, but to say I've given nothing to the playerbase as far as this topic is concerned is, to be honest, rather ludicrous.

[Kaghuros]

The argument here is not that you give ingame anything to anyone, as far as I've read. It's that people should be allowed to play pretend in ways that make sense in the setting.

[hiddengecko]

If you are not arguing for human hunters, then what exactly is your argument?

That a human should be allowed to ICly claim (via emotes or what have you) that they have an attack animal, and that this is plausible.

Giving combat pets to non-hunters is something we won't ever do. Besides the potential UI problems with certain classes, it would require granting characters in-game skills. I'm not sure why you'd argue for this in this particular case.

Oh--no. Certainly not, this would be pointless and rather silly. A misunderstanding, I think; look to my previous comment.

I did not intend to imply that you were being disrespectful or malicious.

Ah, alright. No offense, then!

I was simply pointing out what I thought was ironic: that, in immediately following a denouncing of the slippery slope argument, you then proceed to ask for more liberties, thus showing the dangers of a slippery slope.

Unless you imply that discussion is dangerous, I do respectfully disagree on this point. Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think I asked for any liberties--merely that I do think someone should be able to say they have...oh, an attack dog, or what have you, if it makes sense.

In short, I am simply saying that the iconic abilities of Hunters (Ranged weapons and pets) are not unique to them in-character.

I do apologize for any unintended misunderstanding.

[Rigley]

And you've not given an inch. :l

Your mileage may vary.

Really after so many people were going into hysterics over not being able to have ranged weaponry (which was nothing more than a misunderstanding), isn't that an inch that you are allowed to? The question is 'can we play a hunter like class', as far as I saw; and the response was given that 'you can use hunter weapons, but not on par with a hunter'.

Isn't that an inch? I don't get it. To say you want the rest of it (or the traps, or the animal companion) seems like an additional request to me.

...Just clarifying.


As to what Khag said, I don't believe anyone was speaking about giving stuff in-game. I don't think anyone here really expects us to fiddle with spells and such and give them to players for kicks.

And... people are allowed to play pretend as they wish in the setting. But if you want a hunter roll a hunter, and if you want a warrior roll a warrior. There is some room for mixing and mashing and all that stuff, but if you want a fuzzy wuzzy bear then you're going to have to take the class that is experienced in training Mister Snuggums.

Your mileage may vary. You may decide to name your bear Ursalox or Burr.

((I'll say once more that I don't believe I have -ever- seen a character playing with an combative animal pet and not be a hunter. Am I wrong? 'Cause if this isn't really an issue, then I still don't see why it's being discussed like it is one. It's kinda like flipping out because we decided to say that we can't raise undead crabs or summon a wolfoid.))

EDIT: Wait, wait.

In short, I am simply saying that the iconic abilities of Hunters (Ranged weapons and pets) are not unique to them in-character.

iconic abilities

...If the iconic abilities of a class aren't restricted to that class, then why is it a class and why am I playing it.

If I can do everything a hunter can AND have plate, then why would there be any hunters instead of Huntarriors?

[hiddengecko]

If I can do everything a hunter can AND have plate, then why would there be any hunters instead of Huntarriors?

Ranged weapons and pets don't make a Hunter a Hunter, any more than simply using a dagger to backstab someone after hiding in a room makes one a Rogue. Both classes have mysticism to them; they're not purely physical skillsets.

For instance, I could very easily make a human who enjoyed hunting recreationally with a rifle. This man would have no particular connection with nature, save enjoying being outside and 'roughing it' purely for kicks. This man could also buy a guard dog that would protect him. This wouldn't make him a Hunter, though--not unless he was magically healing the dog with his nature-powers and tracking people with almost preternatural canny.

I don't find this concept terribly interesting; I merely maintain that it is plausible.

[Grakor456]

The argument here is not that you give ingame anything to anyone, as far as I've read. It's that people should be allowed to play pretend in ways that make sense in the setting.

To an extent, I actually agree. The problem is that I want for two things to also be true, however: one, that no character playing one class match or exceed another in its particular speciality (non-warrior/rogues beating warrior/rogues in non-magic, melee combat; non-hunters beating hunters in archery and beastmastery, etc. etc.) and keeping within the race/class limitations that Blizz put forth (as, however silly some may see them, I don't wish to break out of those boundaries for the sake of consistency and fairness.)

People always seem to take my words in the worst possible manner, and that I am far more extreme in my views than I really am. Perhaps this is a problem with how I express myself, I can't say, but honestly I think I'm going to be more careful with how I word things in the future.

That a human should be allowed to ICly claim (via emotes or what have you) that they have an attack animal, and that this is plausible.

--

Oh--no. Certainly not, this would be pointless and rather silly. A misunderstanding, I think; look to my previous comment.

--

Ah, alright. No offense, then!

--

Unless you imply that discussion is dangerous, I do respectfully disagree on this point. Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think I asked for any liberties--merely that I do think someone should be able to say they have...oh, an attack dog, or what have you, if it makes sense.

In short, I am simply saying that the iconic abilities of Hunters (Ranged weapons and pets) are not unique to them in-character.

I do apologize for any unintended misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding indeed.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anyone, besides the pet classes (hunters/warlocks/DKs/mages) use combat pets. Like, at all. So, this is more of a theoretical argument from the beginning. In fact, I see so many hunters and warlocks not using pets when they are, by definition, pet classes, that I'm honestly not sure I'd ever see someone actually wanting to do this.

However, from a theoretical standpoint, would I have a problem with, say, a warrior with a trained hunting dog?

This is more difficult to answer than "is it okay for a warrior to be good with a gun?" because there's a decided difference in this case: you have no model to represent the faithful canine. In addition, warriors can use guns, they don't get pets by default.

I would say that I wouldn't have a personal problem with this in theory, if we could get around that problem. However, giving people the tame beast spell to work around this would be problematic for the same reasons I outlined above. This would, however, also go with the understanding that hunters are better animal-trainers than non-hunters, again for the same reasons I wouldn't want to see a warrior out-shooting a hunter.

Now, if someone made a human warrior that both specialized with a bow and had a hunting dog pre-Cata, I might have some words.

[hiddengecko]

Misunderstanding indeed.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anyone, besides the pet classes (hunters/warlocks/DKs/mages) use combat pets. Like, at all. So, this is more of a theoretical argument from the beginning. In fact, I see so many hunters and warlocks not using pets when they are, by definition, pet classes, that I'm honestly not sure I'd ever see someone actually wanting to do this.

However, from a theoretical standpoint, would I have a problem with, say, a warrior with a trained hunting dog?

This is more difficult to answer than "is it okay for a warrior to be good with a gun?" because there's a decided difference in this case: you have no model to represent the faithful canine. In addition, warriors can use guns, they don't get pets by default.

I would say that I wouldn't have a personal problem with this in theory, if we could get around that problem. However, giving people the tame beast spell to work around this would be problematic for the same reasons I outlined above. This would, however, also go with the understanding that hunters are better animal-trainers than non-hunters, again for the same reasons I wouldn't want to see a warrior out-shooting a hunter.

Now, if someone made a human warrior that both specialized with a bow and had a hunting dog pre-Cata, I might have some words.

Precisely! --although I don't see the significance of the bow, but that's natter. And you could certainly use the worg puppy or...that other dog pet with the enlargement biscuits. This is the sole point I was arguing, and it is as you say purely hypothetical.

[ThePharaoh]

I think the RP should dictate itself more so than the class. Someone said something like I pick the class OOCly to represent the type of character I want to potray. That's true.

I understand there are no BE warriors, but if their bodies can physically take the weight of plate mail shown by pallies. Why not be able to roll a pally and not use his light powers and say he's an elf in armor with a sword? No he can't beat a warrior in an fight, but not everyone rolls their class at peak abilities.

Just because I have a warrior doesn't mean he will beat every hunter in a one on one fight. ( although he probably would.) Because what if this warrior is a novice? or has a weakness or something debilitating? And this hunter prefers skills like mongoose bite, and that other melee attack while fighting along side his pet. It's possible is all I'm saying. Aspect of the beast and what not.

I think that if we don't have a system, and people can just roll what we want that would be cool, and beneficial in a perfect world. But some ridiculous stuff may slip by and the GM's need to be involved with what is allowed to be played. That said give us a break and some credit. There are some unsavory things people do as RP'ers but people do unsavory things its going to happen. I'd rather not be penalized by the certain few. Instead of attacking those who know how to play in the boundaries of lore or within the levels of No god modding and Over powered chars. Find the ones breaking the rules and correct them.

Also.. If the varient system was implemented. Say I wanted to roll a tormentor or a class similar. Which would basically be a death knight with the abilities listed. Would I have to make an application listing the weaknesses to even it out. And after approval would it be okay to play or would their be another system of waiting or posting?

[Kirabo]

I will not leave a vote. On the other hand, I completely agree with Flammos on every single thing she said. The 'variants' should not be a programmed group of abilities for each character, no. You should leave it up to the players' creativity and imagination to mold a character at their own will. Restriction will grant nothing but failure, as always. Of course, there mus be limits, but I am certain that the GM and admin team can handle that.

5. Provide a system that encourages character development, as opposed to a system that encourages power grabbing.

See, this. People want power. Everybody wants power. Bee it power in wealth, power in reputation, physical power, nobody cares - as long as it is power. No matter how hard you try to make a system (which I by no means encourage you to do) that's 'perfect', and causes character development instead of character power, you will fail.

Duraza wrote something in the lines of player whining. Yes. It's bound to happen with individuals. Approach them with an archmage and tell them that you are one, they will subconsciously start considering how they want one of those 'powerful' positions. They will envy, they will hate.

I'm out.

[Rigley]

We will allow prestige characters to write a variant sheet for the characters in question if they believe they can apply their desired changes onto them in the system.

Also I believe we should post more examples if this is going to be accepted-- and it is steadily in the lead, so...

[Grakor456]

I won't be typing over-long, as it's 8 in the morning here and I haven't slept, so my typing is all loopy. Don't ask, just one of them nights.

I spoke with Kretol a few hours prior, chatting over what was said and expressing my thoughts and hearing his in return. I'm re-evaluating my stance and collecting my thoughts, trying to find a way to convey my thoughts while at the same time allowing for others to have a degree of creativity available to them. While I haven't completely changed by stance, I do recognize that my way of speaking may make me come across harsher than I intend, doesn't fully articulate why I think the way I do, and that my viewpoint is also perhaps a little narrower than it needs to be.

I would ask that, for now, we keep this thread on-topic, as to whether we'll be going with the variant system or not. Other arguments on things like playing characters with X or Y abilities can be discussed in another thread, when I find way to better formulate my thoughts and I'm not half-asleep. Which might take a while. I am, after all, a cranky old bastard who never likes to admit he's wrong, even on little things.

Get off my lawn.

[Uthaniel]

It's a given fact that there is absolutely no system whatsoever you can make that will make -everyone- happy.

There just isn't. If there was such a thing, CotH would become the closest thing to an internet utopia as it is;

And even then, eventually peons that hate the system would appear.

Hating the lack of the system or the system itself, it's best to just go ahead and pick the one that the great majority will approve.

...Which I figure is what occured to staff and is what this pool is about.

In other words, haters gonna hate.

EDIT:

Which might take a while. I am, after all, a cranky old bastard who never likes to admit he's wrong, even on little things.

Get off my lawn.

I love this bit of your post. Can I adopt it, take it home and call it Fluffkins?