If you've never played a Hunter, you may be unfamiliar with the concept of a "dead zone." The term is used to describe a certain distance between the Hunter and their target in which the target is too close for the Hunter to fire ranged weapons and yet too far away for the Hunter to use melee attacks. It's an interesting feature of the Hunter class that is shared by none of the other ranged-attack classes: all of the casters, for example, can throw painful spells at you even when you're right in their face.

Many Hunters argue that the dead zone is entirely unnecessary -- and weakens the class by giving it a range in which it's completely helpless. Some Hunters argue that their dead zone should simpy be removed while others suggest the addition of some mid-ranged attacks or allowing regular ranged attacks to work in the dead zone with reduced damage, to at least allow them something. (Though the melee classes are likely to disagree: the melee zone in which they do their best damage is much smaller than the Hunter's ranged zone in which they do their best damage.)

But what do you, Hunters and non-Hunters, think about the issue? Is the dead zone required to keep Hunters balanced? Or is it nothing but a weakening nuisance?

Tags: dead zone, DeadZone, hunter, hunters, melee, ranged, world of warcraft, WorldOfWarcraft, wow

Filed under: Hunter, Analysis / Opinion