Ol' Grumpy and the crushing disappointment of roles

One of the reasons I hate the argument that pure DPS classes should have dibs on top DPS weapons is that in order for me to play a character that uses a two-hander, I have no choice but to play a hybrid. In fact, in order to play as melee DPSer at all, I either have to play a rogue (all three rogue trees dual wield small, fast weapons) or a hybrid. Those are my options. If I wanted to play ranged DPS, I could pick from one of three possible pure classes, but if I want to melee, I'm forced to either give up the weapons I enjoy and take up a playstyle I don't like or accept that I will be forced to DPS at a penalty and be expected and/or pressured to tank.
This to me is asking me to pay twice, and it's unacceptable. Last week, Ghostcrawler posted an excellent discussion on class and role that I highly recommend everyone check out, and it seriously has me pondering what design I'd prefer for World of Warcraft and indeed how I feel about classes and roles entirely.
Cataclysm removes the pure class
If the rogue combat tree could equip, say, polearms and behave like a Blademaster, then I would be playing one. I don't have that option. Frankly, with all polearms being agility weapons now, I think making combat into a two-handed weapon tree would be a fantastic idea. I dislike when class roles become straightjackets that confine my choices unnecessarily or force me to be incapable of excelling at my chosen task not due to lack of skill but an inherent mechanical or systemic advantage given to another class to prop up their percentage of the playerbase.
At the same time, I understand the difficulties. Hybrid classes don't just gain the dubious benefit of being able to respec to tank or heal in order to benefit the other four, nine or 24 people in a group. They also gain access to the utility inherent in their other roles to a degree. No, a feral druid can't be expected to suddenly heal if one of the resto druids goes down. But he or she can use their Tranquility on big AoE damage fights, shift to Innervate or cast Rebirth, go into bear temporarily while someone else battle resses the tank, etc., etc. Druids are an extreme case in terms of hybrid flexibility, of course, and they've also lost quite a bit of it over the years. However, while this ability exists, it's hardly exclusive to hybrids anymore.
Utility abilities like Time Warp, Cloak of Shadows, Cauterize, Ice Block, Deterrence mean that many pure DPSers can do things that previously only two hybrids could do. Anyone who's working on heroic Ultraxion recognizes that druids and warriors would be far worse soakers than rogues, mages and hunters. As more and more utility abilities like Recuperate have been parceled out to pure DPSers, the line between pure and hybrid has grown weaker. Frankly, between all the CC and cooldowns some pure classes have, they've effectively become hybrid. Instead of worrying that hybrid classes do too much damage, we're now in the position of having to consider if pure classes bring too much utility to the table to be called pure DPS anymore.

Roles that we did not expect to play
This to me is the fundamental difficulty of role in MMOs -- it's counterintuitive. I can see emphasizing a light, agile combatant who relies on speed and grace to avoid incoming damage and deal it in return. I can see emphasizing a heavily armored brute who smashes his or her body into the enemy. I can see having archetypes from the Blademaster to the Juggernaut, from the Sentinel to the Assassin. But enshrining tank vs. DPS isn't something most people understand when they first come into this subgenre of game.
I played tabletop D&D for years, and never once did any of my characters think of themselves as meat shields. I killed things. Sometimes I did it with a shield, absolutely. Sometimes I did it in light armor with a great, honking sword. Sometimes I shot people with a bow, and one of my favorite characters used fist weapons exclusively. He was also a lizard man. The point being, none of these characters knew or cared about the dividing line between tanking and DPSing.
Healing at least fulfills a generally understood role that's clearly defined -- you keep your side alive while they make the other side dead (although it too can be confusing for newcomers and costs the player who merely has a healing spec even if he or she never intends to use it, does not gear for it, has never spent a point in it and is absolute rubbish at it). It doesn't matter if you could heal your way out of a fight with a level 16 using grey daggers. You're throttled in your DPS role merely because you have the potential to do it. The group benefits -- it gains your utility and can pressure you into switching to heals. Whether or not you benefit from this is entirely up to you, your willingness to spec, gear and learn to do it and your desire to perform that role.
What defines you best?
This also ignores the inverse. Class role decisions are made for you by the class you choose. If you picked up World of Warcraft, read the class list and decided that man, you liked the sinister and aggressive warlock because the idea of an arcane spellcaster who consorts with demons and learns their secrets appeals to you ... great. Hopefully, it won't turn out that you're an awesome tank -- or if it does, hopefully your group will have another awesome tank so that you're not faced with the prospect of being forced to switch mains. And even if you're not under that kind of pressure, selecting the warlock didn't just close you off from tanking and healing; it also locked you into ranged DPS. And this is despite warlocks' history of special tanking duties and Metamorphosis cooldown, which frankly baffles me. Seriously, look at that talent. All that would have to be is something that stayed up as long as you wanted and it would be a tanking stance.
My argument isn't that we should remove classes' having roles. My argument is more that we should loosen restrictions on those classes based on those roles and diversify those classes. A rogue two-handed weapon tree, a warlock tanking tree, a hunter dual-wield pistol tree (possibly even for ranged tanking -- other games do this and do it well) won't hurt a game that's seven years on and needs to break from its roots to a degree. It's time for role to be something cool that adds flavor, not a governor of what you can and can't do. If this means we all become hybrids to one degree or another, frankly, I think maybe that's already happened.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm has destroyed Azeroth as we know it; nothing is the same! In WoW Insider's Guide to Cataclysm, you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion, from leveling up a new goblin or worgen to breaking news and strategies on endgame play.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Cataclysm






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Luotian Feb 16th 2012 12:27PM
I don't like the idea of losing closely defined roles. At all.
Long experience in retail tells me that people dislike making their own decisions. They want you to tell them what to do (thus "Would you like a sample of x bread?" works so much better than "Would you like a sample of any of our breads?").
What you'd end up with is a big pile of people who would be trying to do multiple things and failing at all of them because they didn't have the ability to chose just one.
Secondly, I play a hunter main because I LIKE being forced into range. If I wanted to play melee, there are lots of other things to do that different ways. I am both excited and loathe to lose minimum range because now I'm going to be asked to stand closer. I don't enjoy being close to the thing that's trying to kill me. I like being a sniper sitting far far away and do not want to be pressured to change that style.
You brought it up yourself, Rossi. People pressure you into doing things you don't want to. Avoiding that pressure is exactly why I refused to roll a hybrid class for the first five years I played the game. It wasn't until September 2011 that I even tried it. Making all classes have that kind of utility would simply mean that everyone would have pressure, including those who deliberately rolled to avoid it.
Lastly, the game is confusing enough to explain to new comers. My sister just finished a dungeon with a hunter in all intellect leather and spirit cloth (a level 65 dungeon, I might add) who refused to turn of AotP because she thought she was helping. How on earth would having more options help that? "You can use x in this situation, but in situation f you want a or c, although option z could probably work..."
No, just no.
tmenzel Feb 16th 2012 12:57PM
@Luotian
Having more classes with the potential to tank or heal would reduce the pressure on any particular individual to tank or heal. Not increase it, as you suggest. Sure, if your Hunter became no longer a pure dps class, it might increase the pressure on you specifically to do something other than dps. But it eases the pressure on every other member of the group.
My main is a Druid. I mostly heal, but can do rDPS. I'd also have a tank spec if triple spec were allowed. My second character is a DK who mostly tanks but also has a potent frost spec.
From the perspective of someone who's healing or tanking four times a week because it's the role the raid needs filled, I've always seen the pure dps classes and those who chose to play them as rather selfish. Particularly when they complain that they can't get a group.
Your "All I ever want to do is ranged dps, so don't give my character the potential to do anything else or I might be asked to change!" attitude says everything I need to know about your priorities.
rr5582 Feb 16th 2012 2:08PM
@tmenzel
If you're *paying* to play a game, then I don't think it's selfish to play the style that you want. We're not talking about, say, the military where everybody needs to work as a team or somebody dies, IRL. When I want to tank, I jump on my DK. But when I get tired of it, or the knuckleheads I find in LFG, I jump on my Warlock and nobody bugs me to tank. It's my $15/month, and it's not selfish for me to want to spend it however I want.
I do agree, however, that adding more tanking classes may increase the pool of available tanks, provided that people actually pick those roles and enjoy them. But in a pinch, somebody may be pressured by the group to change roles, however I'm not sure how often that would happen.
I somewhat agree with the OP regarding complexity; Blizzard has made strides to make things simpler for new players, but more could still be done. Some classes I stay away from because there's just too many damn abilities. And there's tons of abilities that are very situational. It gets annoying to have two or three additional action bars of abilities that you "might" need to use as some point.
Jyotai Feb 16th 2012 2:17PM
Part of why I left one guild not long ago was that my feral-tank / resto druid kept getting told to 'just hit cat form and DPS this fight'.
- Nevermind that the other tanks all had a DPS offspec and could have done the same... the perception was that a druid could do it better...
So for that toon at least, I'm looking forward to druid going to 4 specs and being able to say 'not only do I lack DPS gear, but I lack a DPS spec now as well, so I can, if you folks think 9-manning + 1 tourist is fine on this boss. I'll even take screencaps, but I left my bermuda shorts back in the bank in Orgrimmar.'
That said, I do agree that the game needs a melee two-hander role. Wait, that's Arms warrior. But it'd still be need to have an agility one also. But I think Monk DPS will end up being "YET ANOTHER DUAL WIELDER, AS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE 34 OF THEM ALREADY."
tmenzel Feb 16th 2012 2:28PM
I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying "all pure DPS players are selfish" nor am I saying "pure classes are inferior" or anything of the sort. Skilled DPS are just as necessary as skilled tanks or healers, being good at it requires skill and attention, and players who enjoy and are good at it are contributing as much as any others.
Rejecting the idea of your pure class gaining the ability to fill an additional role, because then you might be asked to fill that other role, sounds selfish to me.
Even if you don't want to fill that role, a higher population of characters potentially filling the under-represented roles benefits everyone.
My perspective is mostly from raiding. On my ideal raid team, everyone does the most that they can to contribute to the success of the group. Individual players refusing to step into a different role because they don't enjoy it as much, while expecting others in the group to do exactly that, have gotten under my skin. I meant no offense to the pure DPS population at large, and I apologize if I offended.
Luotian Feb 16th 2012 5:20PM
@tmenzel: And THAT is why I call this a 'first world WoW problem'. I don't raid. I want to, but, as I said, I work retail and my availability changes every week. There are no days I can guarantee to be free. What I do with my time is largely 5-man pugs (except the one character who raids in LFR). I don't want to get on my hunters that I love to play after work to unwind is "this healer/tank sucks! Hunter, you do it" like I get on my Shaman. Yes, I have a resto spec and healbot for it, but if I wanted that stress I would have qued for it. Instead, I either have to do it, get votekicked, or find myself facing yet another 20 minute que when they all leave. Selfish? Heck yeah, it is, but I'm paying for this game. It is my free time, the only time I'm allowed to be selfish. So, yeah, I'm going to take it while I can.
GhostWhoWalks Feb 16th 2012 6:24PM
...Your argument has to be one of the most counter-intuitive that I've ever seen. Amidst all the complaints of changes to the game "dumbing it down", you're arguing in defense of this dumbing-down? If nothing else, I must commend you for playing the Devil's Advocate.
However, the fact remains that WoW is an intelligent game. It has complexity. The only way you could completely avoid this is to have every class in the game have only 1 spec, only 1 rotation and rely on only 1 stat. Add any more depth to the game and you will ALWAYS have idiots running around doing dumb and incorrect things. So why use that as evidence against complexity? Why not make the game MORE complex, and then include plenty of educational tools to help the...*ahem* "slower" individuals get caught up to speed. If these people still can't figure out what to do, even with all of these tutorials and helpers, than there's nothing else you can do about them.
Diversity is great. No, scratch that, diversity is FANTASTIC. The more options a person has, the more of an opportunity for them to display their skill and intelligence by making the right choices or an odd choice but make it work really well. "Easy to learn, hard to master" is the silver bullet of game design, a major component for success; you want to make it easy to get into, but leave plenty of room to excel. In addition, the more options a person has, the more likely it is that they'll find a niche they enjoy. Hunters (no offense) and Mages are the major antithesis to this concept, because all three specs of the class do the same basic thing; they all get the same weapon and all perform their jobs in very similar ways. Sure, Beast Mastery might be able to rely more on a stronger pet and Frost may be more adept at freezing things, but when it comes time for the player themselves to actually do damage, things proceed generally the same as the other specs. A Hunter is a Hunter is a Hunter, just as a Mage is a Mage is a...you get the idea. Whereas you could look at 3 Paladins and, depending on their chosen spec, they could be doing completely different things and playing in completely different ways.
And if you don't like having a tanking or healing spec available to your class and just want to DPS...do that. If somebody in the group gives you flack about it, tell them that you only have DPS specs and that they just have to Deal With It. Warriors who spec Arms and Fury are in the same boat, as well as Death Knights who spec Unholy and Frost, Shamans who spec Enhance and Elemental, Priests who spec Discipline and Holy (as a Priest told me the other day "sure, I can DPS, as long as spamming Smite and Holy Fire counts as being a DPS") Just because your class has a particular role available to it doesn't mean you HAVE to spec for it if you don't want to. In fact, that's the overall point of the article; WoW needs to be the place where you can play the way you want and not what the game or other people want.
Angus Feb 17th 2012 9:32AM
Luotian: even if you they could tell you to tank that fight in LFD, you can't. You can no longer attempt to switch roles in an LFD.
The next person would be a tank, period. An that guy that queued as tank either finishes the instance and accepts being the tank for how 10 second wait and bag of goodies, or he drops or is kicked.
Unless you queued up as a tank, a decision you make prior to joining, you won't be called to do it.
Now let me point out the other obvious thing wrong with your comment. The guy telling you to yank probably has his own tanking tree now, or one of the other people do. Why do you automatically assume YOU would be asked? Maybe someone would volunteer? Maybe tanks would be a lot more available and you can just re-up and boom, tank shows?
Luotian Feb 17th 2012 10:35AM
@Angus: You don't officially switch roles. Everyone just kind of agrees, you change your spec and you go. Which sucks, because then you don't get the bag of goodies and the guy you're carrying does.
End.User Feb 16th 2012 12:28PM
"Frankly, between all the CC and cooldowns some pure classes have, they've effectively become hybrid. "
That is a bunch of BS Mr. Rossi.
CC and cooldowns does not make a Frost Mage a fricken Hybrid. Do you know why? Because no matter how much CC and cooldowns a Frost Mage has, they will never be able to tank a boss.
arkhan Feb 16th 2012 1:13PM
Was going to post pretty much the same thing.
You can't equate utility with being a hybrid. Those are two different kinds of utility. One is the kind where you can maybe mitigate some damage or CC a mob, the other is the kind where your utility lies in the fact that you can change specs between fights and perform a completely different ROLE. Just because my warlock can battle ress somebody and pass out cookies doesn't mean that I can suddenly jump in and tank the next boss or heal, because someone has to go offline.
gofortheeyesboo Feb 16th 2012 1:25PM
There's no saying they couldn't throw in another boss like Krosh Firehand. Gimmicy fight? Yup! But there's the mage tanking...
rynxx Feb 16th 2012 2:03PM
@End.User
I would have to pick at your argument a bit. What exactly do you mean by "tank a boss"? I'd argue that *no* class can handle a level-appropriate boss by itself, even a tank. Sure, a tank might last longer in a fight but s/he always need the support of a healer and would never be able to take a boss down alone. Given the presence of a healer, however, I think any class could tank in a pinch. (Or maybe not a pinch. I'd be curious to try some time.)
Once upon a time I was in a pug on my fire mage and the tank and 2 dps died fighting Ulthok in Throne of Tides. He was somewhere between 20% and 30% health but I managed to down him while running/blinking the entire time, with the healer's help of course. (It was one of my most thrilling moments in WoW. I was shaking like a leaf the whole time, and when Ulthok finally died I jumped out of my chair and screamed.)
suzurambles Feb 16th 2012 2:31PM
I think the point of this statement was not that because of cooldowns and utility skills a pure class could match the healing or tanking ability of a hybrid in that spec, but rather they are a match for the DPS versions of those classes using cross spec abilities.
For example, between drains, soul harvest and a few other tricks a warlock can probably heal themselves about as well as a shadow priest could. Another example from personal experience, I know as a rogue I get a WHOLE lot more out of Recuperate than my cat druid ever did from shifting out of form to use some neutered heals.
So saying "Well, Pure DPS should be better cause hybrids have their tank/healing abilities to fall back on" is less true today than it was in the past.
drew.wrong Feb 16th 2012 4:16PM
@rynxx
It's a good point, but I think you're confusing the ability to tank a boss and solo a boss. My understanding of a tank role is not the ability to survive alone, but the purpose is that you soak up as much damage as possible. That means you are the main focus of the boss' attacks.
I don't like tanking (too stressful for me), and I have had moments like yours (I also shook like a leaf - gotta love adrenaline!). But I think it's important to note that is very different than if Blizzard changed our beloved mage design so we would regularly keep bosses focused on us, while we juggled magic shields.
That does sound kind of cool, tho...standing at the eye of a cyclone of arcane, frost and fire shields...
drew.wrong Feb 16th 2012 4:19PM
@rynxx
It's a good point, but I think you're confusing the ability to tank a boss and solo a boss. My understanding of a tank role is not the ability to survive alone, but the purpose is that you soak up as much damage as possible. That means you are the main focus of the boss' attacks.
I don't like tanking (too stressful for me), and I have had moments like yours (I also shook like a leaf - gotta love adrenaline!). But I think it's important to note that is very different than if Blizzard changed our beloved mage design so we would regularly keep bosses focused on us, while we juggled magic shields.
That does sound kind of cool, tho...standing at the eye of a cyclone of arcane, frost and fire shields...
(re-posting because comment system ate my homework - I hope it's not doubled)
DrPestilence Feb 16th 2012 12:28PM
I totally agree and miss weilding polearms on my warrior.
JACKALX619 Feb 16th 2012 12:32PM
"A rogue two-handed weapon tree, a warlock tanking tree, a hunter dual-wield pistol tree"
Just a few ideas thrown out there, but hell yes gimme..
Telwar Feb 16th 2012 11:16PM
I remember, back in my 3e days, playing a rogue with a 2h weapon. Power Attack was handy for times when I couldn't Sneak Attack.
The problem, of course, in WoW is that you'd have ridiculously big Sinister Strike hits.
So, probably not.
Dementron Feb 20th 2012 6:12AM
I know this reply is way late, but I want to tank on a Demonology warlock soooooo bad...