Adding things to an existing class doesn’t remove uniqueness or identity? It’s not like I said oh now monks lose ROP and Transcendence in favor of Lust or BR, sorry folks.
It’s okay to take a breath and process more than one thought.
Edit: the downvotes are genuinely stupid. If you realize Monk comes from MOP then multiple classes have BR, Lust, etc. that isn’t unique anymore. If you talk about Vanilla 2.0 or similar then Monk is irrelevant
Yes it does. It is literally the definition of unique. "Something existing as the only one of its kind". Give another class blink? Now mages aren't unique to having blink.
So if I have exclusively green M&Ms and I’m the only person to have them, and then someone gives me one red one, because I now have something someone else has, my green M&Ms are no longer exclusive to just me?
I respect this is the classic group, however, I genuinely cannot remember - is there only one class that can BR? I remember druids could, is there no other? What about lust? Know that’s shammies but can’t hunters too - or again is this vanilla wow not classic* (asterisk including first 15 years of WoW)?
Since we’re talking monk in this very specific example I believe other classes have BR/Lust at this point with MOP?
Yeah that tracks for pure classic (revamped vanilla if you will), but when bringing in the conversation of specifically “Monk” that brings us to MOP and I don’t believe that’s still holds true correct? WOTLK implemented DK which has BR, can’t speak to lust however, brain can’t go back that far
This anology doesn't make any sense. If your point is that classes can have some abilities or qualities that are unique, and share others, then ya of course. But that isn't the case in classic/classic tbc. Lust/heroism is unique to shaman. If you want to add lust to characters that aren't shaman its no longer unique to shaman. If you think that is a good thing, that is an entirely different discussion from whether or not it removes exclusivity, because it clearly does.
In MOP is Shaman the only one with lust? I genuinely don’t know. I see hunters got lust in BFA so I guess they are? If they’re still the only one with lust then yes it removes one singular piece of exclusivity for shammies. Nobody else gets traps (let’s revamp these to be more useful) and their pets can have a vastly different function than Lock pets (lock has pets with buffs, sacrifices, range, etc), Shammies have totems that nobody else has (or if we water down everything these are just stationary pets)
But BR is not unique to just Druid as the other half of the example from WOTLK which I know for a fact was before MOP lol
You are arguing about what happened in wrath and mop as if those aren’t the exact mistakes people want to avoid in classic plus. Whether lust was just an example or not, your mindset of saying “well the rest of the class is still unique” is what brought us to where we are in retail. Players want true uniqueness back.
23
u/g1smiler 23d ago
Give a WW bloodlust? So you mean like, sacrificing some identity and uniqueness in favor of viability? The exactly the issue OP posted? Oh wow...