Cataclysm Class Changes: Mage Analysis

We'll look at the Cataclysm class preview in more detail in the coming weeks in warlock-free (I promise) verisons of Arcane Brilliance, but for now, let me unload some of my initial reactions on you.
New spells
Three spells were announced, and only one is a mechanic we're really familiar with.
Time Warp, which enters our arsenal at level 83, appears to be akin to what is arguably the single best raid buff in the game: Bloodlust/Heroism. One key difference exists, though, and that is that Time Warp will also turn mages, briefly, into rogues. Rogues in silly dresses. I really, really hope that this speed increase:
- is significant enough to make mages into truly mobile casters, both in PvP and PvE. I don't want a rehash of Blazing Speed, which was a fun mechanic that simply wasn't powerful enough,
- doesn't share a cooldown with Icy Veins (or whatever that talent's Cataclysm equivalent ends up being), or better yet, stacks with it, so as not to render that beloved spell redundant,
- and lasts long enough that it's worth blowing the cooldown either during the burndown phase of a fight (if somebody else isn't already using Heroism/Bloodlust) or during a high-mobility phase of a fight, simply for the haste bonus.
Flame Orb will be our first new spell, learned at level 81, and is an undeniably intriguing concept. New mechanics are always chancy propositions, and this one seems exceptionally difficult to balance. A powerful DPS spell that's tuned for single-target damage, but can also damage multiple targets if aimed properly? That seems easily exploited. If Blizzard's stated aim is to make the spell a useful part of the rotation on bosses, how can it possibly do AoE damage as well? Imagine that Arcane Explosion did as much single target damage as Arcane Blast. That kind of spell simply couldn't exist within the current framework of WoW. Still, just like on that glorious island that provides the main setting for Lost, every parcel of info we get only brings more mysteries. There is so very much we don't know. A sampling of burning questions:
- What kind of mana cost/cast time/cooldown will this spell have?
- If it is tuned for single target damage (as Blizzard claims), will it be a useful part of the rotation for all mages? Or just a specifically talented fire mage? Or not at all?
- The preview states that the spell will damage passing targets. How much range will it have? Is this something that if dispatched down a hallway (or, say, through a hole in the wall in Wintergrasp) will do damage to everything standing therein? I'm eagerly awaiting more specifics on the actual area the orb will affect.
Wall of Fog, at first glance, screams PvP ability. It's going to lay down a 30 yard field of control for the mage, snaring and doing damage. An AoE snare that lasts 10 seconds, is not broken by damage, and does damage? Yes please. Some big questions occur to me here:
- What kind of damage? Are we talking Blast Wave? Or Frost Nova?
- Is this wall something enemies will need to move out of ASAP? Will the damage tick while they remain inside the wall? Does the snare refresh?
- How long does the snare last once enemies pass through the wall?
- Will this wall of fog make my graphics card chug and hum like a 1979 Pinto with 200,000 miles on it like it does when Skadi's stupid dragon deploys its foggy breath attacks?
Ability/Talent/Mechanics changes
I have some assorted thoughts here, and I intend to present them to you in no particular order:
- I'm in favor of our spellbook being pruned a bit. Bon voyage, Amplify Magic. I forgot you were around, but I'm sure somebody will miss you. The Ward spells were marginally more useful, but only situationally so. I assume the meager protection they provided will be replaced in some fashion by more generally useful spells.
- Will my new proc-based Arcane Missiles still be speedy and cool like it is when Missile Barrage procs now?
- So...now every mage--fire, frost, frostfire, arfrostfirecane--will want to find room for Arcane Missiles on their action bars. Right?
- The Scorch change looks like it will absolutely make Scorch a more regular part of a fire mage's rotation, though I'm very curious to see how it meshes with the other spells in that rotation. At what point will it become more valuable to insert another Scorch, and its attendant buffs, into the rotation instead of continuing to spam Fireball? Will it be a stacking buff, or will it simply be a one-time thing you only cast when the buff timer is about to run out? Will Scorch do enough damage on its own to warrant a cast that isn't expressly a buff-refresher?
- So Burnout is Life Tap now? I really hope this doesn't end up how it sounds. I guess the key difference will be the fact that it doesn't start to use health as a spellcasting resource until the fire mage has already run out of mana. At least we'll have a lot more stamina in Cataclysm than we do now...
- I can't wrap my head around the Arcane Focus thing. Somebody please explain it to me in such a way that makes it sound rational. The way it sounds now, I have visions of arcane mages actively avoiding hit rating so that more of their spells miss and thus return more mana. That sounds terrible. And stupid.
This section of the preview, I feel, is the single best indicator we have of the role of each tree in Cataclysm.
Arcane will be a mana-based tree. The more mana you have, the more damage you do. This, essentially, means that every spell cast lowers the damage of the following spell? I guess? I'm concerned, but I cling to the idea that we still know so very little. The class revamp, at this point, seems like it will be so total, so all-encompassing, that it's likely futile to draw even the simplest of conclusions from our current frame of reference.
It sounds like the going concept here will be that a good arcane mage will deftly juggle his spell rotation with mana-returning mechanics, so that his mana pool never goes too low, and his damage fluctuates but stays comparatively high. I'm not inclined to prophesy gloom or doom, but holy crap does that sound crazy hard to balance. Good luck with that, Blizzard.
Fire, on the other hand, sounds far more straightforward. Fire mages will be warlocks. They will have DoTs and Life Tap.
Yucko.
Now, certainly, there will be a number of unique qualities that set fire mages apart from their ancient foes. But I think the comparison is fair. Fire mages are getting a number of decidedly warlockian qualities in Cataclysm, and that particular slippery slope is one I think we'd all like to steer well clear of.
I'm not diametrically opposed to DoTs. The idea of health as an extension to your mana pool isn't one I am automatically set against. In fact, I've already more than embraced the concept of frost mages as a pet class. The problem I have is not with each specific warlockish change, its with the trend as a whole. I don't mind the occasional area in which warlocks and mages overlap. I just worry that eventually, warlocks will learn to change mobs into little demonic sheep, and water elementals will start to look like evil, whip-wielding devil-whores, only blue. Keep our class flavors unique, please. Because nobody wants to taste like a warlock.
Nobody.
Frost is still largely an unknown. We know that Deathfrost will encourage the use of other spells and discourage the straight spamming of Frostbolt, which is a welcome change. But we're given no other real hint as to which direction the tree will be taking in the coming expansion. Will it remain the PvP tree? I assume so, but the real question is whether Blizzard intends to use this class reset to continue trying to make the tree PvE viable.
Deathfrost doesn't promise to increase frost's overall damage output (which is what the tree needs), but only seems designed to increase the variety of spells the spec will wish to use in its rotation. More decisions to make--more options to choose from, more general interactivity--means more fun, in my opinion, but doesn't necessarily mean more DPS.
Frost in particular seems comparatively under-represented in this preview, so I have to believe a lot more information is coming down the pipe as the testing process progresses. Let's hope it's information of the high-damage variety.
Keep an eye out for more analysis in upcoming editions of Arcane Brilliance, fellow mages. We have a lot more to discuss, and the proverbial surface of this glut of new info has really only been scratched. Oh, and in case you were wondering if the fact that Dominic Hobbs, our resident warlock, was allowed to fill in for me during my absence this week means that I will perhaps be presented with the opportunity to return the favor in an upcoming Blood Pact, I have an answer for you:
Yes.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm will destroy Azeroth as we know it. Nothing will be the same. In WoW.com's Guide to Cataclysm you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion. From Goblins and Worgens to Mastery and Guild changes, it's all there for your cataclysmic enjoyment.Filed under: Mage, Analysis / Opinion, Cataclysm
Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 news





Reader Comments (Page 4 of 7)
Teron Apr 11th 2010 8:30PM
Burnout's not a nerf, it's a buff to all the other players in the group who get to find out fast if a mage is a retard or not, and allows raiding guilds to check their new members for stupidity fast. (sorry mages, there are some great, and even incredible members of your class out there, and two of my longest-lasting friends in WoW are mages, but there are also idiots who I would love to see set themselves on fire)
Also, does wall of fog require an enemy to walk into it? Can't you just set it down on top of the enemy? Maybe I'm not understanding the skill, but I don't see the reason it can't be used in PVE. Also, it "might" be useful in instances if the tank dies and the order to run out's given. You can cast it and hopfully snare the mobs, allowing the group to run away. Not that great, but worth mentioning.
I don't see the food issue as a nerf. It's still there, just they're making it so food is less important at lower levels, and only becomes necessary at later levels, and you get the spells at 40 anyways.
The pyromaniac bit isn't useful in single-target, but I don't see that as a reason to call it useless. There may be multi-boss fights in the future, or maybe we'll get the return of actually dangerous trash goups, like the kind that anyone who did MgT or Shattered halls in BC will remember (The pull before Kael stands out pretty well, and I'm not 100% sure about how nasty they were, but I remember in the eye there was someone who whirl-winded, and the tank was talking over vent about how he couldn't get his rage below 100...)
Deathfrost just seems to me to be a way to buff those frost skills that are currently worthless in PVE so that after you use a frostbolt, mabye you'll want to hit the enemy with a deep freeze when availiable, or maybe an ice lance or cone of cold or frostfire bolt, depending on the situation, and maybe move out of the tree itself for the spells.
Sinthar Apr 12th 2010 8:10AM
TL;DR
Sorry but im NOT going to read every posters analysis about the same abilities the article did - (and from a trusted source - archmage pants). Say something interesting or constructive. We dont CARE if you opinion matches his.
Shade Apr 12th 2010 8:44AM
@Sinthar
If you didn't read it, how do you know nothing constructive was in it?
Sinthar Apr 12th 2010 9:11AM
I take it you didnt read it yourself then - you TOLD us :-
"Copy/pasted from the change announcement page" First line - remember?
Shade Apr 12th 2010 9:16AM
Yeah - but I hope you can tell that by "c/p from announcement" I meant
"copy/pasted my comment on page 1348325978239874239874239874972834978492 of the announcement page so people actually get to read it if they want"
and not
"copy/pasted the announcement itself"
I concede that it is a very long interpretation of the changes announced. At the same time, it *is* an interpretation, so for the people who choose to read, it might offer some clarification or alternate point of view.
Sinthar Apr 12th 2010 10:21AM
Nope thats about as clear as mud mate- its NOT what you said, although it may well be what you MEANT. Secondly it does come across as 'i was right give me credit' type of post - again that may not be what you meant - but thats how it comes across.
As to 'clarification' im sorry but that doesnt wash either - its YOUR interpretation of it - not a clarification (unless ofc your the Blizz dev posting about it and KNOW how it will be implemented), although i agree that it is an alternative point of view. All posts are interpretation atm
That said with your post i have now read your ideas - my reply is :-
please use a numbering system others can refer to - numbering 1-4, 1-4, 1-4 etc etc means it difficult to reply by directly referencing your points in a long winded manor.
Flame Orb is a fire n forget - so straight line in front of us - rest i dont know - questionable BUFF? - questionable dps spell id have put it
TW - agreed - assuming the buff is equivalent over the raid means the haste component is of dubious value (as you have to use it at best time for raid - not when you need to move and blink is on cd)
WoF - situational imo - think waves of mobs - like when your healing a certain dragon in icc
AM change - seems reasonable
Spell removal - i liked DM for solo questing, PVP etc, and removal of wards means IA is completely buggered now - Nurf indeed
Food - neligable imo - you dont need food at low lvl - and we have it at 40+
Scortch - not enough info imo - until we know buff durations etc
Talents - reserving judgement until more is known (but with current info mostly agree)
Mastery - well lets say im a little underwhelmed atm with them
Shade Apr 12th 2010 12:09PM
Aah yeah... I stuck this in the comments during a 5-minute break from writing a colossal essay last night. Sorry for the lack of clarity, and thanks for giving your input as well :D
(And as for the buff/nerf terminology, I meant that in terms of the value of the class, not in terms of actual raid buffs, etc.)
ENOUGH! Apr 11th 2010 8:07PM
What other mastery could arcane have?
I mean mana adept's mechanic of keeping the mana bar full seems particularly out of line with the other arcane passive of haste.
I'm thinking of something that you know actually increases damage.
Fire's mastery add DOT effects, Frost increases spell power for arcane and fire (seemingly).
Fire's mastery Ignite only add DOT to fire spells, so really only helps fire specs, might as well just add the DOT to the spells and find a new mastery there too. Any hybrid spec will only get fire mastery points applied to fire spells.
Deathfrost looks like a spell power buff (minus buff on frostbolt) mechanic. So this mastery seems to be the only one that directly deals with a damage primitive (spell power, crit, haste) .
The more I think about all the mastery abilities, the less I like them. They seem more like tuning shortcuts for blizzard than something for mages to get excited about. They can buff fire by tweaking the DOT component, buff frost by the spell power buff, and nerf arcane by messing with the mana pool.
Boobah Apr 12th 2010 10:00AM
"Any hybrid spec will only get fire mastery points applied to fire spells."
Did you miss that they've repeatedly stated that you only get mastery in your main tree? Points in other trees won't give you any mastery bonuses, just the actual talents. You won't have fire mastery unless you're a fire mage,
And yes, GC has said from the beginning that masteries were going to be extra knobs for tuning specs. This also means that just because all three trees give you spell damage for a mastery doesn't mean that they'll all get the same amount of spell damage per point (though I expect that they'll try to avoid that, trying to avoid some ignorant qq.)
Sidenote: Mana Adept is either going to suck or be awesome, depending on raid makeup, unless arcane gets a whole lot more tools to manipulate their own mana levels. Arcane mages are gonna be following paladins around like junkies looking for their next fix, between Judgment and Blessing of Wisdom. And retadins even more so, since they'll presumably still grant the nerfed Replenishment GC's been talking about.
Another option is that Mana Adept is such a small difference as to be negligible, which leaves you wondering what the point is. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't make it to live.
norm Apr 11th 2010 8:09PM
Cast. Just cast.
Calaana Apr 11th 2010 8:12PM
I believe the arcane mastery will work something like 0% damage(normal) will be 50% mana - you do more at 100%, less at 0%. So it's not as much less awesome each cast as it is returning to normal each cast.. until you pass the point you'd want to be getting mana back anyway.
As far as your hit fears go, it's going to be rarer in cataclysm than it is here. I think they implied we won't reach cap until last tier levels of rarity. The talent is a really good idea, in that light.
As far as magetap goes, I think it's mean to be something like the mage runs out of mana, still hungers for destruction and chaos, so starts dealing it at expense of her own well being. Fits the firemage well, imo, but mechanically comes too close to lifetap and I doubt it'll last.
Draniest Apr 11th 2010 8:14PM
I'm rather confused at this whole warlock vs mage thing. Is it just because you're both dps class that wear cloth and cast? If so, shouldn't priests have more claim to hating warlocks? Or... something? I don't know, I just don't understand.
From a lore perspective, it would be shamans and warlocks that are arch enemies, not mages. If anything, mages should hate druids, what with the night elfs removing any arcane practicing nelfs from their midst. With a low level mage that I've been working on, I need to understand why I hate warlocks. I mean, I already do, but there has to be a reason here for this larger hate issue than, "They look have the same robe on as me! Now I'm gonna have to go change!"
splodesondeath Apr 11th 2010 8:21PM
Your first guess is closer. Mages and warlocks have, for ages past, competed for raid spots. Each class brought certain utility, which basically was what made you pick one over the other. You can bring conjured food- or healthstones. Intellect buffs- or health buffs (in Vanilla, there was no Commanding Shout, so locks were the only +health providers). The list goes on.
Clydtsdk-Rivendare Apr 11th 2010 9:31PM
I thought it was more because Warlocks were ridiculously OP during TBC while mages were near useless?...
Amber Apr 12th 2010 10:07AM
The main two magic classes druids use are arcane (Starfire/Starfall/Moonfire) and nature (Wrath/Hurricane/all healing spells) based. We have no other spells that branch out into other classes.
splodesondeath Apr 11th 2010 8:16PM
I, for one, am really excited about Mana Adept. More damage for more mana? At long last, arcane mages will be able to creatively use the time they get from their unexciting rotation to do some fast math and time Evocation and Mana Gems so they can max out their damage. However, I don't think this will play nice with Arcane Power, so we'll have to see.
Arcane Focus seems more like an incentive for Arcane mages to not stand in fire. While it's not the primary reason for the change, I know some Arcane mages were standing in fire with a fat PW:S on when IA still worked with it. This change seems to basically mean, along with the other awesome movement-related spells in Cata:
1. Everyone will be running from fire more. Nubs will die, Heigan will laugh. This is demonstrated by Stampeding Roar, Time Warp, that shaman spell, Life Grip, etc.
2. Seeing as Arcane does its damage by standing still and spamming Arcane Blast, which has a short debuff timer (i.e. it will wear off if you're running about), Arcane Focus is saying: "Woops, you're standing in fire. Better stop casting and run the *&@# out of there."
I would prefer if the Burnout change didn't go live. Making you lose health instead of mana will just kill mages more in PvP and in the newer, more movement-intensive PvE encounters.
The Pyromaniac change will boost mage AoE, the Playing with Fire change will boost fire mage PvP in fun ways. We'll be able to blast off the rogues who aren't stunlocking us nearly as much, then DB and Firestarter. These two changes together will hopefully help bring about fire mage Battleground dominance.
Flame Orb sounds wacky and cool, but it also sounds a lot like Living Bomb with a fancier animation. Maybe they will implement it so it can be what Living Bomb was before the multiple-target change. One target, but more Hot Streak proccing. Seeing as it's not damaging the target while it flies but rather people in its way, it may have some interesting uses in PvP as well, as some kind of missile you can send into big packs of people. Will it have a set target on the ground like Flamestrike and Blizzard, or will it just charge a target?
I don't know what Blizzard is doing with Frost. Time will tell what will happen to Frostbolt's monopoly on their rotation. Deathfrost may herald the return of a deep frost FFB spec, possibly the most ignored mage spec in the game right now. We shall see.
TL;DR version: Mages will become kings of rated Battlegrounds.
WoWie Zowie Apr 11th 2010 8:32PM
hey mr belt i think the arcane focus change will be for leveling mages. not for endgame mages. i assume it will be on one of the first tiers of talents.
there's no missing spells in endgame raiding of course, which would make that a useless talent point(s) once you hit 85.
Listerofsmeg Apr 11th 2010 8:43PM
so the more mana you have the more damage you do? Is this total mana or useable mana? I believe it could be for total as did blizzard not say that Intellect would be boosting spell power? or have i gone mad again?
ENOUGH! Apr 11th 2010 8:55PM
From Ghostcrawler post:
The intent behind Mana Adapt (Arcane mastery) is that Arcane currently has a pretty fun mana management game going, at least at relatively high level. We thought it would be fun to extend that concept even further to where Arcane mages that use the mechanics to keep their mana high would do higher dps. I find many of the predictions that Arcane is doomed in PvE based on the very limited information you have at the moment to be quite premature.
From me: O RLY! who says it's fun? And fun enough to be a mastery for an entire tree?
Listerofsmeg Apr 11th 2010 8:59PM
Thanks for that sir. And I agree with you about it being "fun"