Talk: Class

Discussions about the table itself, as in structure / color / style should be moved here: Template talk:Classtableall

Template:Archives1

Quick Summaries

I added these recently, but they were mostly off the top of my head, so I would appreciate if people would review them and add any key bits I may have missed.

--Fandyllic 11:04 AM PDT 24 September 2005

I wordsmithed all the summaries for "improved" flavor and better grammar, while adding and removing a few minor tidbits in a few cases. Most of the information is substantively the same. Please feel free to iterate.

--Flick 19:04, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

(Note that fandyllic's comment is more than a year old, and that the summaries took a detour via a separate page :-))

Beautifully written. My only concern is that some of them became a bit wordy for a "quick" summary; after all, there's Choosing a class as well as the own pages for each class. I took some liberties with a scissors in a few of the longer ones.   --Mikk (T) 01:06, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

(yup, the summaries took a detour but were recently merged back in)

Good idea to pare it down and make it more concise: I brought out the machete to see about trimming the fat and removed most of the "opinion fluff" and made the tone a bit more consistent.

--Flick 14:45, 30 October 2006 (EST)

Warlock Tanking

Soul Linked + Master Demonologist warlocks can out tank pretty much anything but a protection warrior or feral druid (Horde side - don't know about Paladins). It's a very "niche" ability, but a reasonably equipped warlock (Tier 1) can hit 7k HP raid buffed without Flasks, and about 70% damage mitigation, which is similar to a prot warrior with about 8,000 AC. We use this for Nefarion stage 1: A warlock tanks the Drakonids using Hellfire to help pin them for the mages.

Going to upgrade warlock tanking to: "2+1"

[different person starting] Sorry, I have know idea how to do anything in WoWWiki other than type, I can't even start a new, what do you call it, section. But I think that hunters should definitely be 2 tanking, and warlocks should be 2+1. Voidwalkers and pets can tank almost as well as a shaman.

Hrms. I play one of those "reasonably equipped" warlocks, and I just don't agree with a flat 2+1. You have to take aggro keeping abilities into account and whatnot. Sure, give a warlock some time to hellfire with three healers pouring healing into him and he'll keep aggro for a bit but... uhm... he'll kind of run out of mana. I could POSSIBLY call it a 2^+1. (2 against special mobs). So I'm putting that in.   --Mikk (T) 16:28, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

Hm never mind. It's still a 1+1 and I'm not going to be the one to upgrade it.   --Mikk (T) 16:29, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

Well a warlock has to tank one of twin emperors... so put the ^ at warlock tanking

warlocks should have 2+1 at AOE, but.... meh.. TBC is coming... 3+1 --Nexxius

Pally healing

Why is paladin healing only 2+1 when my blue-geared healbot pally outheals fully epixed-out priests by more than a factor of two (assuming a sane, constant healing/second rate, going from full mana to dry.) I'd call it 2+2. Priests still get (4) for versatility even though paladins out-endure them.   --Mikk (T) 16:34, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

My personal opinion is that paladins, while offering a great amount of healing, lack the opportunities that Priests and Druids have. No HoT, no group heal, no fast, effective heal. Currently, hardly anyone cares, as it's more important to be able to cheaply spam some heal, however in times where gear was a lot worse and people played 5-mans, Paladins did not come close to the main healing classes. I think the healer column perfectly represents the situation. --bfx 10:30, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Yeah, valid point. This is to help people choose a class before they know much about them, and pallies really aren't healbots until they start stacking gobs of +heal equipment, which isn't really available until lvl55+.   --Mikk (T) 13:28, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Id have to agree that a pally 2+2 makes sense if you count gear. Sure running scarlet monastary a paladin isnt going to be amazing, but the fact is in end game raids a pally can meet or beat any other healer, and I AM a priest. Deadsniper 14:54, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Ranged Weapons

Maybe in the Burning Crusade all classes will be able to use ranged weapons. If you look at this page, there is a bow in the reward box(Farstrider Longbow) that all classes are allowed to use. --N'Nanz 12:01, 29 October 2006

That's a mod bug, there are a few items that show up like that. --Tinkerer 07:08, 29 October 2006 (EST)

That's a nonsense!!! Why does my Pally have an item that he can't use!? If that will be true... well Blizz: always a surprise!! --N'Nanz 12:13, 29 October 2006

Surprise? Since when is it a surprise that the only 3 classes that can use ranged weapons are rogues, warriors and hunters? Just choose a different reward.   --Mikk (T) 09:29, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Mage DPS

In the Class Table, there are four classes that are noted to be able to out-DPS Mages (with talents). Rogues are kings of DPS, sure (due to Feint and the benefit of Energy over Mana in a long fight), but is the consensus really that appropriately specced Hunters, Warlocks, and Warriors are all capable of dealing more damage than Mages? I should think that Mages should get a 4 or at the very least a 3+1 (Fire-specialized).
-- Dreamwolf, 2006-10-30 18:32 EST

Definitely not a 4. Warlocks, hunters and dps warriors do out-dps them in endgame raids. But fire mages outdps at least warlocks and probably also hunters in 5-mans where the burst and aoe dps makes a big difference. That'll make it 3 or 3+1 to me.   --Mikk (T) 03:05, 31 October 2006 (EST)

In non-raid content, mages are definitely a 3+1 if not 4 for single-target DPS (discounting AoE, which has a separate category), because mana limitations are not an issue. What it really comes down to is - what is the context of this table? Is it a raid-role table? 5-man content table? So many things change when going 5-man -> raid that it's pretty silly to lump it together and have these goofy, highly subjective numeric ratings. --Flick 14:15, 31 October 2006 (EST)

"Able to" does not mean "they always will". ;) --Tinkerer 14:17, 31 October 2006 (EST)

I'll call it: This is relevant for 5 man content. Fire specced mages are 4, so the table entry is 3+1. There. Solved :-)   --Mikk (T) 17:27, 31 October 2006 (EST)

I think these arguments are ultimately just people yelling and wanking off. There are so many factors involved in who does more DPS in a certain fight that there is no substantial evidence. I've been in guilds where the top DPSers were warlocks and guilds where the top DPSers were rogues, and it always varies, because of how hard the people are playing, gear, specs, mobs, the nature of each class' roles in an encounter, etc etc.

Any argument about "This class does more overall DPS than this class" should be hurled out the window. It's downright retarded. I didn't even take into account the current faction differences which places an enormous gap for the DPS of certain classes in an encounter. For example, you will rarely see Horde hunters and casters topping DPS charts for certain fights. But on Alliance, they are consistently on top because of JoW and BoW. You simply cannot just lump it up as "class x beats y in raids".--Grid 16:12, 10 November 2006 (EST)

how the #$^@#$%^ is supposed any class to outdps a skilled fire mage?? oh... whatever 3+1... but in TBC must be changed to (4) because *ALL* trees get substantial dmg and will be no matter for any mage to outdps any class with any build (Spell Power+Ignite=245% fire crit dmg/Spell Power+ice shards= 225% frost crit/ molten fury/ empowered talents,....,..,... )--Nexxius 12:00, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Sign your posts and stop being an asshat. --Grid 16:15, 28 November 2006 (EST)

asshat? for what? /:) ??? --Nexxius 12:00, 29 November 2006 (EST)

There we go. Now, please try to restate your previous post in a way that's understandable, because what I got out from it was only the first sentence. Which is false.

Head to Onyxia, Rag and BWL and tell me if fire mages are ZOMG RIPPING APART the DPS charts kthx. If anything you just proved my point. Declaring a "king of DPS" class is idiotic because the every single boss encounter in WoW is designed for a certain class to shine so everyone is required in a raid. There is no king of anything. It's a pitiful argument propogated by people who feel insecure over their digital identities in a make-believe game, and an unhealthy psychological projection of themselves onto their game character.

So in short: It's all a load of bull.--Grid 17:46, 29 November 2006 (EST)

i'm not saying that mages are the kings of dps, all i say is that mages deserve that "4" on class page because of their high DPS in all builds; you have right, every boss is designed for a certain class , but for example a fire mage can do some good dps in mc or bwl with some support from Curse of Elements (and Improved Scorch). I'm sorry if you don't understand "my english" but i'm not a fan of it :P . --Nexxius 13:22, 30 November 2006 (EST)

A fire mage could, but he would only excel in certain fights. Many fights in MC and BWL (Rag, Vael, Geddon, etc...) will render their Fire DPS useless, and as we all know, Blizz LOVES to create elemental based encounters -- usually against a major magical tree. And I can't see Arcane ever becoming a raid build. It's core talents lie in burst damage in exchange for more mana costs.

I think a mage is good at 3. Hunters should be a 2, and shamans should definately be higher because at this point they're faction exclusive. They're the only support we got.--Grid 20:06, 30 November 2006 (EST)

yes, you have right, another example could be Sapphiron wich is immune to frost,... until some new mechanics or improvements in the future expansions and patches should remain 3+1 --Nexxius 06:53, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Why on earth is there a quantified list of abstract abilities? List what each class can do and be done with it, stat freaks. Anyone who would actually find any value in such a list is the sort of person who doesn't know how the class in question works. So what you're doing is compounding prejudices held by noobs about the efficacy of specific classes. --Grendel 15:53, 15 March 2007 (GMT)

Priest Tanking

Currently, a Priest has 0+1 to tanking. I don't think that is a good reflection. Considering Shadowform and Inner Fire, damage mitigation is at least on par with a rogue (1+1). Also, threat-wise there is no problem for a Shadow Priest with Mind Blast and Vampiric Embrace. I'd definitely put him as high as a rogue; 0+2. --bfx 03:57, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I'd give you that damage mitigation from armor is on par with a rogue. But a rogue dodges and parries a heck of a lot more than a priest.   --Mikk (T) 08:55, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I've already counted that in. A priest with Inner Fire has roughly as much armor as a rogue. Shadowform pushes that 15 % further. I think they are pretty much on par.

I still disagree, for two reasons. A rogue dodges+parries more than that and has no problem keeping dps up when getting beat -- on the contrary, with the right spec they actually go _higher_ (riposte). And also no mana to run out of.   --Mikk (T) 17:51, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Unfortunately, I'm not perfectly informed about how much damage mitigation can be achieved through parry + dodge. Though I don't think it is that much higher than a Shadow Priest's mitigation (who can even have Improved Inner Fire). With Martyrdom, a Priest rarely has trouble keeping DPS up. Furthermore, Mind Flay's DPS is only reduced slightly, whereas beating reduces DPM. Considering mana, against an average mob, mana is not an issue. Rogue's threat is reduced by 30 % if I'm not mistaken, whereas Priest's threat is above 100 % (through Mind Blast). I've often played as a Shadow Priest off-tank, and it seemed to work much better than a rogue tanking. :) --bfx 06:50, 2 November 2006 (EST)

On a related note, I think that 1+1 is too high for a warlock. I think the warlock should be 0+1 same as the priest. And mages 0, period.   --Mikk (T) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I'm with you. The warlock should have 0 as base, as well as the mage. However, as it is the situation with the priest, I'd give a Soul Link warlock with VW or FH +2, as additional 30 % damage "mitigation" (actually it's just transferred) plus either another 10 % or 60 spell resistances is a lot. --bfx 06:50, 2 November 2006 (EST)

Warlocks deserve at least a base of 1, capable in this role, because with no talents they still have a voidwalker that may suck at tanking and need lots of heals but can do it, as opposed to a class like a mage that just can't tank without speccing for it. --Jameth 08:59, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Paladin Stub

I'm planning on deleting the sentence claiming that 'paladins generally have the highest DPS potential using the Warladin build'. Sounds fishy and anything claiming to be highest DPS potential across the board is POV.--Grid 12:47, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Priest Debuff

I think with the addition of Misery, priests probably deserve a 3 for debuff if specced for it. Adding 20% shadow damage, 5% all other spell damage and a 50% snare is pretty impressive debuffing. Also with sw pain and vampiric touch. Is alot of debuffs. Deadsniper 14:54, 28 December 2006 (EST)

I agree, speccing into the updated shadow tree gives those two amazing raid boosting debuffs. Casters, especially warlocks benefit greatly from a shadow priest's debuffs.--Stiverton 02:16, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Rogue Main Assist

I might drop them from 4 to 3, or at least comment by it. Becuase there are quite a few encounters where you dont want the primary assist to be in melee. Either because its harder to see the next thing coming up with oversized badguys like mc, or if its becuase of constant chance of CC untargeting for him (Jindo the Hexar). --14:57, 28 December 2006 (EST)

I would agree for a different reason. Once a rogue is in stealth, you cannot target them from a distance, and cannot see what they are targeting. -Dreadlock 18:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Priest DPS

With the new sets coming out from TBC, as well as several priests reporting highest dps numbers in Naxxramas raids http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=patchdamagefz6.png Speakeasy picture of dps meters on a naxx raid.

By no means is he the only example, however, examples such as this should push the priest to a base 2, with a +2 modifier based upon spec, or a base 1, with a +3 modifier based upon spec. (the later I strongly suggest, as it represents the class the best, you wouldn't take a healer priest to dps, but they can do small amounts of it. (representing a 1). With some priests reporting top dps, logically, the rating should be increased to a possible 4, as 'top', in my language at least, means 'best'.

My vote: 1+3

Seconded, 2.06 Caster DPS Comparison has some interesting dps cycles listed in more detail with different builds: as you can see any viable mage dps(on a single target) is actually lower except for arcane blast spamming which is absurdly mana inefficient.

My Vote: 1+3 also. --Klai 13:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Warrior/MT pulling

Hunter is listed as the best puller; however, there is hardly any situation where I would have the hunter, or any long-range DPS pull. Yes, the Hunter can feign death, but this is not reliable as feign death can be resisted.

In most PvE groups, be it an instance group, an instance raid, or just world grouping, the MT is the better puller as getting initial agro against either a single mob or a group of mobs is better for the group than a more damaging initial attack. This is ESPECIALLY true on boss fights where the MT often must accumulate a large amount of threat right off the bat to prevent healers from getting agro, and to allow DPS classes to function at their best potential. MT pulling is not just a convenience, it is the most reliable way to pull without error.

In closing, hunters not only do not make the 'best' pullers, for the purposes of reliably surviving as a group, they should not pull. Period.

Ah, but you are forgeting atleast two ablities: at level 70, hunters have access to misdirection which is the best pulling ablitiy in the game, as the hunter can pull directly to anyone. But what at lower levels? That's where you have the unter build up a lot of threat by using aim shot/distracting shot... and then taunt the target off of the hunter. Then the hunter can FD to make sure you have everything, and no one should be able to pull aggro off of you.--Stfrn 21:59, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I was not aware of Misdirection, so I retract my statement. But earlier levels, having the hunter build up a lot of agro and then taunting is NOT reliable at all. Taunt doesn't create agro it just gives the warrior a 6 second window where the mob is attacking him.... so he can build rage and some form of agro ability. If the hunter does enough damage, and gets enough agro, then it can be very hard for a Warrior to pull that off in 6 seconds, much less get the 2-3 other mobs that are also likely there.

And as I've said, FD can be resisted, so that's not reliable.

But I interpret these tables to be accurate for the top level of the class, and with Misdirection, I think that the 4 the hunters get is well deserved. --Zeteginera 09:09, 12 March 2007 (EST)

Tuanting does indead give the tank 100% of the aggro. They then have a few seconds where they don't need more aggro to hold the mob, but if the hunter feigns then the tank won't have any problem staying far ahead of everyone else. It is risky as taunt can be resisted, but is highly successfull.--Stfrn 23:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

First off, before lvl 30 the MT should be pulling because the hunter has no reason to. However, your forgetting one very important factor about hunters with feign. First off, feign is not nearly as unreliable as you claim, and if you spec imp feign the resist chance is very low. Plus, and most importantly, a skilled hunter will run far ahead to pull, and if they overpull a second group they can run half-way back and feign,resetting the entire pull. Second, a hunter has a LOT easier time using freezing trap or other traps if he/she pulls the mob. In my guild, which has a lot of pre-BC and current raiding experience, we have lways used a hunter to pull for the simple reason that they can reset a pull whenever its needed.

Assuming that the "+1" on Paladin as puller in fact means "+1 if protection specced" - I'd say this is a way too low value. A tanking Paladin's Avenger's Shield is by far the best pulling skill in the game, excluding pulls where a Rogue's Sap is required, and varrants a higher value. In addition, I would think that even non-specced, a Paladin would get atleast a "1^" for Exorcism - instant pulls of undeads and demons, front-loading a huge amount of aggro either for the Paladin to hold the mob or for the MT to gain through taunt (especially with Righteous Fury). Suggesting Paladins are upgraded to atleast 1^+2 or maybe even +3.

2 Tables

Don't know if this goes right, pretty new to wiki but if somthing goes wrong please correct me. Over to the idea, Reading through the talk page and seeing quite some discussion either uppgrading ones tank heal CC ability or not, quite good arguments there but most of them goes from 5man to raids, Would there not be a posibiliti to make 2 tables, 1 for 5man/pre end game and 1 for raids/endgame

Some Suggested Revisions, Especially Regarding the Mage

First of all, Warlocks properly spec'd potentially have the same burst DPS as a Mage as well as a potential for great sustained DPS if properly spec'd. I suggest upgrading them to at least 3+1, if not 4.

Secondly, I don't care if a Paladin doesn't have HoTs- they are still every bit as capable of main healing as a Priest or Druid is, if not better. They should be rated at least 2+2, if not 3+1, for healing.

Also, reconsider upgrade a Mage's pulling ability. With Ice Lance, Mages have an instant cast, low damage spell with reasonable range (30 yds untalented, 36 yds talented.) Why should Mages not be at least 2+1 for pulling?+

In addition, a Mage's Improved Scorch debuff is MUCH more desired now that Warlocks have Incinerate. I would suggest increasing a Mage's debuffing rating from 0+1 to 0+2 or so.--Wenry the mage 18:37, 9 March 2007 (EST)

/agree with all three. As said in previous posts Warlocks have crazy DPS now, they outdo mages for single target burst and DPS.

A ret pally would be a 2 in healing, but a holy pally with proper gear could be a 4 in healing.... the fact that they don't get HOTS is overshadowed but the fact that their healing spells don't generate agro in PvE, and in PvP they have crazy survivability compared to a priest or a resto druid.

Paladin healing gets a nerf in next patch. I think that without emergency healing and mass healing, the Paladin really shouldn't be listed as on par with the Priest, especially considering the fact that a Paladin really has to put a lot of talents/gear into healing for it to work.

Mages? Should be 3+1 or 2+2 for pulling because of sheep and ice block. Sheep pulling is one of the most versatile ways to start a pull, though it only works on humanoids and beasts. Ice Block drops all agro and cannot be resisted unlike a hunter's feign death. --Zeteginara 09:14, 12 March 2007 (EST)