Talk:Class/Archive01

Back-links
Hey guys! I just wanted to ask that any pages which are linked from this page get a back-link at the bottom. For example, at the bottom of every class page should say Return to Classes... just to make back-linking easier. :-) -- AlexanderYoshi 13:12, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

I think all class pages have a back link of some sort now. I used "Go to" more, because pages are often cross-linked from multiple places. In some cases I've put in a couple of links at the bottom, e.g. from the Starting a Warrior type pages it makes sense to link back to both the classes and the warrior page. (I better check I've actually done that now :)) I'm trying to remember to put back-links in at the bottom of most pages I add - but sometimes I forget :o That's the beauty of Wiki though, you guys can correct my mistakes and vice-versa :) -- Goldark 15:35, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

Templates
On a related note, I'll create a Templates page where we can create a base-template for any pages which are going to have similar copies for all the classes/races etc. Can probably throw in a template for Quests and other stuff too. Only thing I'd suggest is that we keep the UI stuff separate as that's a pretty huge section all of its own! Any thoughts? -- Goldark 13:45, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

Templates page is now underway, I've added a few templates but its definitely a work in progress, and looking for further contributions! -- Goldark 15:35, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

Clarification
This page is not referring to the same "Template" same as a. These are skeletons for filling in sections, where as are essentially macro replacements, like  ->. -- AlexanderYoshi 15:43, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

Hmm, yes I just looked at those and its a bit confusing. How about if I rename em all "Skeletons"? And if I did that, what'd happen to all the old "Template" named bits I've made, can they be removed? Maybe its just best left as is, I dunno *Wails for help* -- Goldark 15:49, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)


 * This response is obviously a little late (about a year late), but if you changed the names to "skeletons", it would redirect any link to the "template" articles to the proper "skeleton" article. Then you could edit each link to avoid redirect, or just leave it. I wouldn't worry about it. It's pretty basic, and should be evident. -- Schmidt talk 00:12, 8 Sep 2005 (EDT)

This is pointless - use subst:, as in &x0 07b;{subst:delete}} will substitute the content of the delete template in once rather than simply linking to it like a marco.
 * [[User:SilverSide| Silver\Side]] 23:42, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)

Categories
Ok so I've been looking at Categories a bit: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categories

I'm wondering how far we want to go with these - I guess we need a balance between having too many and too few.

As a starting point it'd seem to make sense to stick all of this area into a "Gameplay" category as done on the front page. Below this we could perhaps add the following:


 * Newbies - newbie guide, Starting a Class guides
 * Classes - all the class pages
 * Races - all the race pages
 * Professions - the as yet to be written pages on professions (Mining, Engineering, Tailoring etc)
 * PvP - for all PvP specific stuff
 * Group tactics - for grouping stuff
 * Raiding - for raiding tactics etc
 * Environment - maps, locations of vendors etc
 * Quests - all the quest stuff

Is there anything that wouldn't fit under one or other of these? Is this too many for a top-level? I know many UI guides say 7 items per level max :) We could stick PvP/Group/Raiding together as a "Fighting" category perhaps, and have those as sub-categories. Any thoughts?

Items can fall under multiple categories. So the Starting a Warlock guide would be under Gameplay:Newbies and Gameplay:Classes, but the Warlock Tactics page would only be under Gameplay:Classes.

Also we can have additional sub-categories if we feel its necessary. So we could add Gameplay:Classes:Warlocks for example. Any thoughts on this? I'm not sure how deep we want to go, but I can see being able to search for all pages with stuff about a given class could be very useful.

''Caveat: I'm new to Wikis so if I grasped the wrong end of the stick on categories someone please tell me!! ''


 * Well, I have no idea who posted this last, there is a list of categories here: Category policy - add to or edit that as you see fit with your suggestions, and make sure to document your thoughts on the talk page ^^/
 * Ignore the main page - it is out of date, will probably get around to getting an admin to fix it later when I've got may other things done!
 * Silverhttp://avxworkshop.com/img/ss16.pngSide|undefined 21:01, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * PS. Welcome if you are new!

Specialties Modifications
I moved the comment below to this discussion area.

* Note: The new Specialties table (Melee, Cast, Heal, Tank, CC) needs to be checked over to be sure it's accurate - I'm not very familiar with some of the classes.
 * --FeldmanSkitzoid 18:49, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)

I also added a Scout column and Legend (which was a pain to put below the table for some reason) for the specialties part of the class table.


 * --- Fandyllic 6:26 PM PST 15 Mar 2005

I changed Mage from a Healer + to a Healer -, since I can't figure out why a Mage is proficient at healing.


 * --- Fandyllic 5:14 PM PST 16 Mar 2005

Cool. I don't know anything about Mages. :)

Also, I modified that Druid thing very slightly. Hope you don't mind. The Outdoors thing applies to Shamans as well (with both Far Sight and Ghost Wolf).
 * --FeldmanSkitzoid 20:29, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)

I changed Shaman from a Melee ++ to a Melee +, since I can't figure out how a Shaman can be roughly equivalent to a Rogue in Melee.

I changed Paladin from a Melee + to a Melee ++, since with high armor, good weapons, and stuns/absorbs a Paladin can match up with a Rogue in Melee.


 * --- Fandyllic 5:30 PM PST 16 Mar 2005

This table needs some granularity to make better sense... I like the table, but it's not giving very new players the right impression. A rogue is an extreme melee damage dealer, top in the game, so putting them at the same level as warriors doesn't do them any justice. At the same time, moving warriors down to ++ with druids, paladins, and shaman doesn't do THEM any justice either. Maybe reserve +++ for only the best at any given thing. Rogues get +++ melee, mages get +++ nuke, warriors and paladins share +++ tank, then have a = rank for "proficient" and a - rank for "not recommended for this role". I changed the table to show what I mean. If you disagree, roll that sucker on back. --RoJ 14:39, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * From reading what the CMs say on Blizz's forums and playing both rogues and warriors post 30, there is no "best damage dealer". With specific talent builds and good itemization a warrior can easily equal, if not beat, a rogue in his ability to deal damage. Either class can be a top damage dealer. The difference between the two is how they deal it. Rogues deal damage in bursts while Warriors deal it in a more sustained fasion. A warrior can easily qualify for (+++) in melee. --Arandmoor 22:24, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)

Yet again, I changed Paladin from a Melee + to a Melee ++, since with high armor, good weapons, and stuns/absorbs a Paladin is definitely better than a Druid (listed as a +). I don't know who keeps demoting the Paladin as a melee class, but as someone who has played both a Druid and a Paladin over 30th lvl there is no way they are equal.

Also would someone explain to me why a Shaman is supposed to be such a good melee class with only leather armor? They have cool totems, but c'mon.


 * --- Fandyllic 4:15 PM PDT 20 Apr 2005

I changed Hunter from a Tank ++ to a Tank +, since Hunters aren't as good tankers as pallies. Hunters are more like rogues, maybe a bit better but not by far. Pet helps, but doesn't fill the gap with pallies, specialy at high levels

I changed Hunter from a Scout + to a Scout ++, since they have a few good tools for scouting without too much worries.

I feel a bit disturbed by the "Nuke" column. I left as it is right now, but it may be renamed "range damage" as hunters aren't really nukers


 * --Kirguen 8:30 AM PDT 18 May 2005

Changed druid from + to ++ in tanking, and to = in crowd control (Hibernate, which is beast / dragonkin only, but works indoors). Also, I didn't change it, but not certain about druids being +++ in scouting while rogues are ++. Rogues seem to get more scouting utility, such as +15% movement speed and distract. Also not certain of a shaman as ++ tank (would say +), but left unchanged. --Yrys 16:13, 26 May 2005 (EDT)

Actually, went ahead and changed the scouting thing, as I just remembered rogues have vanish too. Miles head of druids on the scouting. Changed hunter back to = on melee (was at -). --Yrys 16:24, 26 May 2005 (EDT)

My first edit, so please bear with me and correct me if I did something wrong. Shamans are better healers than Paladins in my experience, so the given marks (+ to Shamans and ++ to Paladins) seems wrong. I was tempted to switch the marks, but I guess someone has a reason for giving ++ to the Paladin? Anyway, I just changed the Shaman's healing mark to ++.
 * --sasja 14:09, 31 May 2005 (EDT)

It makes sense that a Shaman would be equal if not better to a Paladin as a healer. Most likely the rating for a Shaman was done by someone who doesn't know much about a Shaman.
 * --- Fandyllic 10:09 AM PDT 31 May 2005

I threw another wrench in the works. Since most classes can get very good (or at least better) at one of the categories by putting a lot of points into it in their talent tree, I've started marking some of that with blue. For example, a shaman is a good healer, but can become great by maxing out their Restoration tree. So, I put it at + + . Priests should naturally be +++, and in general Druids (++) are better healers than Shamans (+).

Fan: Shamans can wear Mail after 40. :D

Also, I put in a Parentheses thing to show which is #1 at each category.


 * --FeldmanSkitzoid 04:17, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Okay, I play as a paladin, and melee should be + + , for that unless you pursue retribution talents, you do NOT do much damage. Now I can't compare a Paladin to Priests, but the Holy talent tree makes a big difference. But I do not know in comparasion. And there is the defense(protection) talent tree, but I haven't tried that one.


 * --Asimodai 19:59, 29 Jun 2005 (GMT)

I downgraded Warlock from a + in tanking to a - = . While warlocks can easily stand toe to toe with normal mobs if there is some serious lifedraining (specifically with the Fel Concentration talent) going on, the minute an elite of any kind starts beating on you, you go down. Warlocks do better in the tanking department than Mages or Priests - mostly because of a normally heavier focus on stamina equipment - but they fall very short of anything close to decency at the role.


 * --Tharr 19:29, 12 July 2005 (PST)

I'm not sure if people are going to like this, but I removed the "melee" and "nuke" columns from the Class table. If you really don't like this, go ahead and revert. But this is my explanation why. I changed it to plain ol' "DPS". It doesn't really matter where the DPS comes from in my opinion as long as it's there. Hunters, Rogues, and Mages frequently are the ones who come out on top for DPS in groups which is why I classed them all as potential bests, but I consider Mages to have the best potential since they have more Area Effect spells. I don't think groups that want a damage dealer really care about how they deal their damage (except most will prefer to see sustained DPS since it's less likely to accidentally grab aggro). The ranged/melee doesn't really matter as much either since if you grab aggro, it all relies on your "tanking" ability (with the exception of mobs with AoE spells... ranged units may be able to stay out of the range of the AoE, though if they did grab aggro, the AoE spell will be targeted at them).

Priests are usually relatively crappy at DPS but Shadow Priests are pretty bad ass, hence the "acceptable" (=) up to very good (++).

I reclassed Warlocks to + in tanking. Warlocks aren't classed decently in this category because of their own tanking ability but because of the tanking ability of the Voidwalker. The Voidwalker is a decent tank and it even has aggro managing abilities, a normal taunt and an AoE taunt.

Druids have been reclassed to ++#^ in crowd control. # = outdoors only. ^ = dependant on type of mob. Druids can be awesome in CC if they're outdoors (entangling roots) and fighting beasts and dragonkin (hibernate).

I also added the ^ symbol to Mages (Polymorph only affects humanoids and beasts), Warlocks (demons and elementals), Rogues (humanoids).


 * --Spork 2:14 PM, 9 August 2005 (PST)

Made a few changes. I lowered the DPS rating for Priests, Warriors, Hunter, and Shaman. For Priests, Warriors, and Shamans I gave them =, blue +. The reasoning is that they are capable of being the DPS class but not ideal(which is the definition of the "=" rating. The blue plus signifies that via talents they could be good for that role.  I disagee with the previous poster on priests being good enough for two blue +'s - Priests have little ability for good burst damage or long term sustained damage which you sometimes need from your DPS group member.  They also can't touch mages, rogues, warlocks, or hunters in the overall DPS department.  For the hunter I lowered them to +, blue +.  The two primary DPS classes are Rogues/mages.  Hunters aren't in that same elite group, but are still good for the role and can be quite good (hence the blue +) with talents.

I upped the DPS for Warlocks to add a blue +. With the proper talents Warlocks can approach rogue/mage DPS and will actually pass most hunters. I also upped the CC rating for Warlocks. Between regular fear, AoE fear, succubus's seduction, banish, voidwalker offtank, and enslave demon no class has more ways of controling a fight than a Warlock. The drawback to Warlocks CC is that their CC skills are all specialized by creature type/situation - hence keeping them at a ++ rating.

I also lowered the healing rating of paladins from ++ to one regular + one blue +. This brings them in line ratings wise with Shamans (who many would argue are better healers). Keeping them with two +'s also would suggest that with talents a paladin is as good a healer as a druid is normally - which is not the case. Thinking maybe this ranking was left over from before buffs/debuffs were given their own rankings maybe...


 * --Psyber 15:59, 26 August 2005 (PST)

I'm not going to make any changes (they're up to other posters or you) but...
 * 1) From what I hear, in most end game instances, Hunters, Mages, and Rogues are usually the top of the DPS charts.  Hunters over Mages when there's fewer but more powerful mobs.  Mages over Hunters when there are bigger mob groups.  Rogues are often tops as long as the mobs don't have those area of effect spells.  This is pure heresay so I don't know.
 * 2) Shadow Priests do a lot of damage with the bonus 15% from shadow form and if he's undead he also has devouring plague.  With Shadow Form at level 60, SW:P does 54.4 dps.  Devouring plague does 43.3 dps (over 24 seconds).  Mind Flay does 163.3 dps for 3 seconds.  So for 3 seconds a shadow priest is doing 261 damage per second.  That's not even counting the extra damage from the darkness talent (which adds another 10% damage to the base damage) and possible crits.  Mind Blast with Darkness + Shadow Form will do 646 damage.  Plus there's Shadow Vulnerability...  I dunno, but I think Shadow Priests do quite fine damage wise.
 * 3) I'm not familiar with Warlocks, but Fear/AoE Fear effects are normally risky to use as CC since the feared mobs can trigger adds.  Banish and Enslave demon are very situational since you don't meet elementals and demons as often as humanoids and beasts.  Though Warlocks are definitely awesome if you're fighting Demons/Elementals.
 * 4) I'm skeptical whether or not a specced warlock will reach the DPS of a Hunter, Rogue, or Mage who is also specced for damage.
 * 5) Paladins were listed higher because Resurrection is a part of healing and they rez better than druids (who can't really rez with a cooldown like that).
 * --Spork 18:28, 26 Aug 2005 (EDT)

No changes being made either - Just discussion.

I think part of what you are hearing (or not hearing really) is going to be based off of the fact that Warlock is the least played class in the game currently. While it's becoming a sort of flavor of the month it's still much less likely you'll have a Warlock than any other DPS class. Check out the Warlock forums on the official WoW site if you want to see some crazy burst DPS screen shots. Arguably they can have the best burst DPS in the game (4000+ damage shadowbolts from a 2.5 second cast). A properly specced Warlock can hit 350+ DPS without any problems.

As far as DPS classes go here's how I look at it:

Mage - Best AoE's. Very good ranged DPS on a single target. Amount of time able to DPS is medium (Abilities based on mana pool). Warlock - 2nd best AoE's. Good ranged DPS on a single target. Amount of time able to DPS is medium (abilities based on mana pool). Rogue - No AoE. Melee DPS. *Best* overall DPS on a single target - DPS is sustained (Can go on indefinitely). Has agro control abilities. Hunter - Has an AoE but it not suited for primary AoE (good backup AoE). Good ranged DPS on a single target. Damage can be sustained long term (Can go very long battles). Also DPS is controlled via agro control abilities. Really the only time where sustained damage is going to come into play is instance fights with adds, instance bosses, or raid level mob's/bosses. Casters also have abilities to stay in the fight (Mana gem, life tap, evocation, e.t.c.).

Overall the Warlock is usually going to do a bit more DPS than a hunter but may have to hold back on damage after a crit if he pulls agro. Hunters can manage agro much better. Really each can excel as a DPS class in the right environment.

As far as Shadow priests being a DPS class. They can be in theory, but there are problems.

A) Priest damage spells are typically more mana inefficient. B) If a shadow priest pulls agro they can be tougher to save for a tank(do not have the HP of a warlock, armor of a hunter, escape abilities of a Mage, e.t.c). C) They also won't touch the DPS any of the other classes can do without some serious +dmg euipment (at the expense of +stats/healing). D) They will also run into the issue of having to fight creatures with high shadow resist. Melee classes don't really run into this issue and Mages/Warlocks have multiple types of spells they can fall back on. E) Cannot sustain DPS for extended periods F) No Damage AoE

At the end game you will virtually never find a group with a priest who has a DPS assignment. Even full shadow specced priests are expected to be healers/buffers. I think it would be wrong to give people the impression on here that if they roll a priest that they can expect to be running instances end game as a damage class.

As far as healing and Druids vs Paladins goes. The only things keeping a Druid from healing as well as a priest are their ressurection and their AoE heal. Other than that they can often meet or exceed priests as far as healing. Also it cannot be discounted that druids Rez works while the caster is in combat and boosts the character rezzed to a worthwhile amount of HP/MP for combat. Paladins simply cannot compare to druids in regards to HOT's (More important endgame than you might think) or larger heals during boss fights. Also druids armor is typically much better suited for a primary healer role (Int, Spi, and +heal). At the end game your primary healer is almost always going to be either a priest or a druid (if a druid there will usually be a Paladin/Shaman as backup for rezzing).

Also endgame you will not find many 5 man groups willing to go without either a druid or a priest as primary healer. it happens, but those runs are signifigantly more likely to wipe/fail. Usually a Shaman or Pally will be secondary healer on these runs. I think the rating should coincide with that.

Lastly - Warlock crowd control. I agree that some Warlock CC is situational. Fear is only used in certain situations (General in UBRS, mostly cleared rooms, near wipe situations, e.t.c.) but when used properly it is a very powerful CC. Banish is again a very powerful CC (Can be used in combat, cannot be broken) but is limited to elementals and demons. Succubus's Mez is a shorter length CC that only works on humanoids, but it can be used in combat, can be reapplied, and you can switch targets if needed. Voidwalker offtank often will not last that long in high end instances but has the benefit of having the AoE taunt (Can control multiple mob's at once). The reason for the "++" rating is that the CC's are situational, however given the sheer volume of CC's a Warlock has they can often provide the CC needed for most situations. If you're not aware of what a Warlock can do CC wise it speaks poorly of the Warlocks you've grouped with up to this point.


 * --Psyber 15:59, 26 August 2005 (PST)

Minor change hunter, DPS "++" changed on "+++". Hunter/Rogue/Mage - DD classes. Full Hunter's Damage = Hunter's Damage + Pet's Damage. Mage Best AOE DPS. Rogue Best melee DPS on a single target. Hunter Best ranged DPS on a single target.

Shaman: Totem this not reagent. Buffs "++*" changed on "+++".
 * --Sleepwalker 00:01, 8 September 2005 (PST)

Priest only + at buffing? And Druid isn't at least ++? (I honestly don't remember what stat was given to druid.) But Paladin is +++? This doesn't really make sense to me. I play a pally, my brother plays priest, and I've played with druids. Priests should have at least ++, because they have Fortitude, which is excessively helpful. Druid is pretty good because they have thorns and mark of the wild (neither is awesome, but decent). And what does the Paladin have? Devotion, which is very helpful for squishies, and blessings of might and wisdom, but neither of these are awesome. This seems a bit off. -- Schmidt talk 01:17, 8 Sep 2005 (EDT)


 * I meant "consumable" not reagent. So totems and poisons are consumables, ie they're used up and you need to buy them.  This is different from arrows/bullets though since most Hunters carry over a thousand arrows/bullets with them (one full medium sized quiver/bag) where as you'll never find a Shaman or Rogue with 1000 totems or charges of poison.
 * Druids have Thorns and Mark of the Wild. Priests have Fortitude.  Paladins have Auras (Devotion, Retribution, Concentration, Shadow Resistance, Sanctity, Frost Resistance, Fire Resistance) and Blessings (Might, Protection, Wisdom, Freedom, Sanctuary, Salvation, Kings).   They have a lot more.  They're not necessarily as good individually but for example the right resistance aura will be very powerful.  And if you spec for Blessing of Kings, that's a good buff.  Paladins just have a huge selection of buffs which is why I put them at +++.  As for the priest, I'm just not sure about giving a ++ to a class with only one real buffing spell.
 * Usually a Shaman or Pally will be secondary healer on these runs. I think the rating should coincide with that. -- I agree with this statement but I think in general if you don't have a rezzing class in your party you'll take the paladin or shaman over the druid.
 * --Spork 12:02, 8 Sep 2005 (EDT)

For using totems only mana need. Сertainly after quest on totem.
 * --Sleepwalker 12 September 2005

I made a few changes.

Shaman's DPS is lowered =, talent to +. There's no way a shaman can match a Destruction warlock in pure nuke, despite their combination of melee and spellcasting damage. Conversely, their healing is +b+, because while their heals are often slower and less mana efficient than a Paladin's, their chain heals and healing totems easily make them even.

Removed the from druid's buffing. While their Mark of the Wild is a great buff, it lacks specialty - MotW on a warrior or rogue during a raid is a waste of +12 int and spirit. MotW on a cloth class is a waste of +12 str and +12 agi. Only the hybrid classes benefit from all abilities. While the resistance and armor are appreciated all-around, the armor and Thorns buff are really only important to the main tank. The Paladin can tailor his buffs to match the class in question - Blessing of Might is equivilant to +75 strength to a warrior, and Devotion Aura (while wasted on the party) is equivilant to two and a half MotWs. 30 mana per five seconds vastly outdoes +12 spirit, and -30% threat to aggro-likely classes is often far more of a lifesaver than extra damage or 120 hit points. While MotW is a great buff and the new Druid auras can be handy indeed, Thorns is rather useless and the combination of auras and useful buffs from the Paladin leave them quite even.

Warrior debuffing raised to (+++). Warriors drop their target's armor by 450, stacking up to 2250... debuff attack speed by 10% or attack power by 140... half healing (on top of a nice damage hit)... slow speed to 50%... disarm a target... all of which can stack. Warlocks have been changed to ++ as they can drop resistances by 75, trade 640 less armor for 90 attack power (just as often a buff as a debuff, really), lower the target's damage by 31, and half casting speed. The important thing is -none of those stack.- While they can talent to cause shadow damage increases on target and movespeed debuffs, their curse-based debuffing is limited and hardly the best. Warlocks' power lies in DoTs. While they occupy debuff slots, they're primarily a contributor towards DPS and should not be counted towards the Debuff category. In light of this, I also suggest the Debuff slot be removed, or possibly folded into the Buffs category. Nobody takes along a Warrior or Warlock to specifically debuff enemies - it's part of their standard fighting order.

Paladin recieves a - in CC. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the Paladin has a + in crowd control. One fear against undead only, one short stun with a minute cooldown... the warrior's got just as equal CC, as far as I can tell, between fear, snare and stun. A paladin cannot be depended on to lessen mobs, not even undead ones.
 * --Arkhain October 11, 2005

Added Main Assist column to the Specialties Table. My thinking on what is the best for MA is that they always need to have a mob targeted that people should be killing. (Eliminates Priests, and takes Warriors low since when they are tanking they should be changing targets frequently. Mage is less likely since they frequently have their sheep targeted) They also need to have a clear view of the fight, so being at range is advantagous, which bumps hunters up the list. --Muert 16:06, 20 Nov 2005 (EST)

I bumped the Hunter's scout rating up to a +++. Hunters just have way too many observation abilities to be labeled ++. If a group has a hunter, then they are always aware of any named mobs, patrols, adds, etc. that may be approaching. Their tracking abilities are not limited by walls, trees, etc. Their pets can explore areas and get killed without endangering the group. If their pet is a cat, the cat can stealth around like a rogue or feral druid. Outdoors, they can view places up to 50000 yards away. No group with a decent hunter can be caught off guard by patrols or adds. Also, if hunters draw aggro while scouting, they have a number of tools for losing aggro without transfering it to the group--Disengage, Feign Death, pet scream, etc. Ideally, hunters would be placed in a new class as "Puller," simply because the hunter has more tools for controlling aggro than any class in the game. I know that some will disagree with this, because groups running easy raids that require VERY basic aggro management can just use the tank as the puller. The logic behind this is "the tank has to eventually take the aggro anyway, so why bother transferring it from the hunter in the first place?" The reason is that when the hunter makes a good pull, transferring the aggro is easy using disengage or FD. If the hunter makes a bad pull, then he can FD to lose the aggro and try again 30 seconds later. If FD is resisted, then he can get his pet to scream at the mobs while he disengages and runs far enough away to die somewhere the healer can rez him easily.

I have to disagree with current DPS ratings. My primary char is a damage specced warlock. It's not so easily outdamaged by other classes that it would deserve FIFTH overall position in the rating. It is usually outdamaged somewhat by rogues; on par with mages and hunters; never by priests ( even shadow specced ) or druids. Rating should go more like this:
 * Rogue +++
 * Mage ++
 * Warlock + +
 * Hunter + +
 * Warrior = +
 * Priest = +
 * Druid = +
 * Paladin =

My second concern is with Main Assist column. What exactly makes Mages better as MA than Warlocks and Warriors? Most groups/raids with assigned MA's I've been in used Warriors as Main Assists, it does make most sense to me. Even assuming we only have 1 warrior and we don't want to have MT=MA, what's the difference between Mages and Warlocks that makes them differently capable MAs?

All other columns seem reasonable to me. I'd add a "resurrect" column in addition to "heal", with Priests, Paladins, and Shamans ++, and druids =*. --Itinerant 14:38, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)

I disagree with your classification of warrior as = + and moved them to + +. A warrior speced for dps can easily keep up with a warlock once the warlock's mana runs out because a warlock speced for damage isn't going to have the same ability to keep up the damage as the warrior is. Even with a warlock's ability to trade in hp for mana. By specing for damage you sacrifice your almost unlimited mana pool, and by specing for mana-conversion you sacrifice burst. I'm not saying that Warriors are better than Warlocks, they're just in the same boat by a different method (sustained vs. burst). Also, yes Warlocks work well with a healer, but then again so do Warriors which is why I don't give the Warlocks the advantage.

I don't agree with priests being + + on DPS, but it's a lot more of knee-jerk reaction for me. I don't believe they're anywhere near the same level on damage as a warlock, even with a shadowspec. They're just more survivable. I'm not going to change it though because I don't have a high level priest where I have a warlock and a warrior and can talk from experience with those two. --Arandmoor 00:03, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

Warlock's ability to keep up the damage does not really depend on spec. You must be thinking about Dark Pact talent that drains mana from the pet and gives it to Warlock. If Warlock is out of mana and has to use Dark Pact for continued casting, his damage will go down by as much as 30%, because mana regen speed of Dark Pact is only 200 mp per second, and casting warlock spends at least 366/2.5 = 146 mp per second.

Instead, in most prolonged combat situations, Warlocks will use Life Tap, which is so fast ( 470 mp per second without talents; 510 mp with low-level affliction talent ), that it will not affect average DPS much. --Itinerant 13:21, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

The level of DPS isn't the issue. It's the ammount of time the two classes can keep it up. While a warrior built for DPS won't be up with a warlock built for burst DPS, he'll be ablt to sustain it indefinetly. A warlock built for sustained DPS will also be able to sustain his DPS almost indefinetly but, unlike the warrior, he will have to stop eventually. This is commonly seen in two places: end game boss raids like rag, nefarion, or ony that can last upwards of 30 minutes, and sustained non-elite PvE. Even with a priest healing a warlock will eventually go OOM and his DPS will drop. A warrior will simply never stop untill he dies, and both gain the same benefits from healing which is why I say they're on the same level. --Arandmoor 15:18, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

It takes something like 40-60 seconds for constantly casting warlock to run out of mana, and another minute to run out of health, if he's completely on his own ( no healers paying attention ). Only a handful of bosses in the game are so tough that they can't be brought down in 2 minutes, and that they require 100% attention of all healers on tanks and there's no one left to look after casters. In this situation, warlock's DPS does drop, but he still has a number of options, such as healthstone, first aid, etc.

Unless he's destruction speced in which case the 40-60 seconds turns into something more like 20-30. While an affliction spec won't have the mana problems they won't have the Warrior's TTK. The Warlock's advantage is taking on adds. Where a warrior will be hard pressed to not die, the warlock is going to take a bit longer to kill them and get on to the next mob. Especially mobs that can snare or root. --Arandmoor 15:16, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

Itinerant, the reason a Warlock would be lower on the MA ranking is that they tend to change targets frequently to keep DOTs on all non CCed MoBs. Anyone who would be limited in their abilities if they are not changing targets is less then ideal as a MA. --Muert 16:56, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

There are a few ratings here I question, mostly with Shaman (since I play that). Most glaring, Shaman are listed as able to fulfill the roll as puller only if they are outdoors. why on earth is this? The only spells I can think of off the top of my head that are outdoors-only are Ghost Wolf and Farsight. If you're pulling with Farsight, I gotta see it. :) I also think the Buff level is too low and we errantly have a listing as deBuff.  What debuffs do we have at all?  We can remove buffs well, but we cannot cast debuffs, at least for the first 40-some levels.  Any totems are generally at least at the level of buffs like the Warrior's.  Many totems, even better: it should be higher.

--Solare I changed the Paladin to better represent my impressions having both a 60 druid and 60 Paladin, I dont see the Paladin as inferior in everything as most seem to see it. Paladins just require alot more understanding and special talent builds to be as effective as other classes.

Hmm...
Maybe it would be a good idea to switch to a 1-10 rating system instead of all these weird symbols.

Yea, I know I was the one who started it. :)


 * --FeldmanSkitzoid 09:32, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * Done (-:
 * Silverhttp://avxworkshop.com/img/ss16.pngSide|undefined 15:17, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

{moved last posts to the appropriate pages}

Priest for debuffing
I bumped the priests' rank to debuff up to 3. All self buffs are magic and priest can disspell them all pretty much casting Disspell Magic rank 2 once or twice.


 * Three on a scale of what? Schmidt 22:30, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

Warrior should be a 4 in tank with no exceptions. No matter how a warrior spends their talent points, they are always great tanks. Druids and Paladins, on the other hand, are not great unless they have talents that specifically allow them to tank.

Debuff
This must be a mistake because you have the Warrior listed as (4) for Debuff where Warlock should be (4). Went back and RTFM, by the definition of Debuff (not removing Buffs but hendering the opponent in some form or fashion other than Damage), then I guess Warriors should be 4. I would change that to 3(+1) since Mortal Strike is only available via Talents and other Debuffing abilities improved with Talents.

Also, Druids, cannot tank as well as Warrior. No one else can. Warrior doesn't have to put one single point into Protection and he can still tank better than tank-specced Druids and Paladins based on experience (if he has leveled 1-60). With Protection Spec, it is 4(+1).

I know you are switching to 1-10 so all you need to do is get the get the specialist classes (e.g. Hunters with Pulling, Warriors with Tanking, Warlocks with Debuffing, Priests with Healing) and mark them at 9 (give them + if the spec right). Then everyone else and everything else is under that.

How are we going to take submissions on how the classes should score with the new scoring system?


 * Well, on the whole chart, it is subject to debate. One argument would be to go with what people commonly accept, even if it is not 100% accurate. I told a guild member that warriors were rated highly for debuffs, and he laughed at the idea. Also, keep in maind that classes are supposed to be balanced, and yet have the option to specialize and do more then one would expect.
 * As for druid tanks, I have heard several accounts of druids being far and above better tanks. For example, druid tanks can surpass 20k armor. Both healers and DPS have sworn by the ablity of druids to never lose aggro. But of course there are situations where one is clearly better then the other. Druids cannot be polymorphed, yet they do not have some skills that are needed for some bosses, such as fear avoidance.
 * Personally, I would rate any class that can tank end bosses in 40man raids a 4. And that is Both warriros, and druids with the right talents.--Stfrn 14:39, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)

=Changes?= I think Paladins should get some bonus points in DPS and Tanking marked as Mob-type Dependant... They are just uber against Undead. --Adonzo 23:23, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

Whoooooaaaaaaaaaaaa... I am almost offended by the fact that Hunters and Druids scored a 4 on DPS but Mages only got 3. Especially the Druid part. --Adonzo 00:28, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

I made some changes, feel free to alter as you see fit...
 * Bumped mage DPS by 1
 * Designated Rogues and Mages as the best DPS classes
 * Gave warlocks +2 DPS via talents
 * Normalized shaman DPS at 2
 * Gave paladins +1 DPS via talents and dependant on enemy type
 * Labeled paladin tanking as dependant on enemy type
 * Added reagent tag to paladin buffs
 * Gave mage +1 debuffs via talents
 * --Adonzo 18:24, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

WoW has jumped the shark.
Well not particularly, but:



Alliance gets shamans and Horde gets pallys.

Oh and someone help me edit that table to reflect this. Wiki-editting such as this hurts mein eyes. >_<

Pzychotix 12:29, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Added alliance faction to Shamans, and horde faction to Paladins. Note these columns are perhaps not very useful any more since every class has both factions.

It could perhaps be said that Paladins are still "alliance faction" and Shamans "horde faction" since most them are on these sides. In that case, Priests and Warlocks should be classified the same way.

--Ratfox 18:48, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Changed the faction column to indicate how many races of each faction could be each class. --Adonzo 19:10, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

I believe that the notes should be kept since random users may find it as useful information that can be known at a glance rather than going to the respective races. As much as some of us would like that Draenei and Blood Elves not be given these classes on a whim (yourself included likely, with your affinity towards Warcraft lore), and hope that they might renege on their decision later, this is information that has been confirmed and planned for in the upcoming Burning Crusade.


 * Ach, what is it with the 'lore' excuses. Warcraft isn't an unchanging world - Draenei shamans fit in with the previously known info. Blood Elf paladins are not a huge leap of the imagination (they have priests already!). I doubt they'll change the decision, since end-game instances are being designed around it -- Kirkburn 02:06, 28 July 2006 (EDT)


 * Mmmm, to me it just seems sort of tacked on. Draenei being both Paladins and Shammys just seems a bit out of it to me, and the overall idea just seems like a lazy developer's way of balancing the two factions. Bliz's recent RTSs have leaned toward the "Different, but equal" design, which I praise them for. This recent decision seems to just toss it out the window. Also, pallys allying with undead? That's like a nono in common medieval lore, but I guess that's a view we should change. Meh, anyways, the comment for the notes was about the fact that they got removed. I don't know why they did (summary should be like a required form to fill out), but I assume that was the reason for it since he mentions lore in his user page as his main reason for being here. Pzychotix 02:41, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Rogue is not best in class for Pulling Moved my comment to Template_talk:Classtableall/Rogue -- StrCat 10:57, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

=AoE= Added a column for AoE.

Priests and Rogues are 0. Warriors are 1 for Whirlwind. Mage are (3+1) for Blizzard, Cone of Cold, Blast Wave, Flamestrike, Arcane Explosion and the many ways they can improves these via talents. Druids are 2 for Hurricane (would be 3 if Hurricane didn't have a cooldown). Hunters are 2 for Volley (would be 3 if Volley didn't have a cooldown). Warlocks are 3+1 for Rain of Fire and Hellfire, and the few talents they have to improve these. Shaman are 1+1 for Fire Nova Totem and Magma Totem, and the minor improvements they can make via talents. Paladins are 1^+2. 1^ for Holy Wrath, which demolishes Undead mobs. +1 for Consecrate.--Adonzo 23:21, 4 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Are priests not able to AoE? Holy Nova? -- Kirkburn 01:11, 5 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Sorry, forgot that existed >.> --Adonzo 18:31, 5 August 2006 (EDT)
 * This is through talent, so should it not be 0+1? -- TNSe 20:32, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

=DoT= I am new to WoWWiki, and don't know how to do much, but can somebody ad DoT? Warlocks are 2+2, for immolate, curse of agony and corruption, and for the ability to improve all of these through talents. Hunters are 1 for serpent sting. Warriors are 1 for rend. Priests are 1 for shadow word: pain. I don't know about the rest.

Where is the class ability thingy page, anyway? It disappeared. And what causes you to think that certain classes are that good at that thing? Could I get some descriptions?


 * DoTs aren't really needed, since they fall under the categories of DPS and debuff. Pzychotix 16:23, 6 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I do believe the Debuff category was meant to cover all forms of debuffs, including DoTs, which is why Warlocks have a 4 on that list... But I'm just curious as to why Warriors are indicated as having the best Debuffs?  Yes, they do deserve at least a 3 in this category, but should they really be considered better than those of Warlocks?  --Adonzo 19:08, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

= editing class tables =

On preexisting values, I hope people will notify their changes in here, because it's a bit hard to track the changes on each class since each class is split into their own template page. Just recently many of the values got changed on several of the template pages. I'm not one to officiate such changes, nor do I have the experience in endgame to justify some values. However, some of the values I think that were changed were a bit off. I hope people will justify their changes here. (see recent edits by KoenPater) Pzychotix 04:46, 7 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I checked out all of KoenPater's edits, and they seem to be fine. However, there is the matter of this StrCat feller... Seems to have something against Rogues, and heavily favors Hunters. --Adonzo 19:50, 7 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Wrong, I have no love for eather, I simply pointing out the facts, two can't be best... Rouges are simply not the best at pulling, when the hunter was designed by blizzard as the master puller ...  there DPS may be sustained Adonzo said him self( see the [Template talk:Classtableall/Rogue]) I expect you to remove the parentheses ...  not sure why class specific issues are clutering up this page when at the top is a block telling us where to talk about individual class tables? Rogues are best at MA, be happy : ) for Rogues -- StrCat 09:36, 8 August 2006 (EDT)


 * shrugs* everyone has their own biases. Can't fault him for having some predispositions on some values. Pzychotix 22:05, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Gave mages +1 to tanking via talents (Ice Barrier, most notably) --Adonzo 01:51, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Gave priests 3 to buffs, removed "best" tag for rogue pullers (they are still a 4 though). --Adonzo 17:46, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

KoenPater's changes:

Druid DPS - 2+2 to 2+1 Hunter Buffs - 2 to 1 Mage AoE - (3+1) to (4) Paladin Buffs - 4* to (4*) Priest DPS - 2+1 to 1+2 Shaman DPS - 2 to 2+1 Shaman Pulling - 1# to 1 Shaman Buffs - 2+1 to 2 Shaman Debuffs - 1 to 2 Warlock Debuffs - 3 to (3+1) Warrior Tanking - (3+1) to (4) Warrior Pulling - 2 to 3 Warrior Buffs - 2 to 1 Warrior Debuffs - (4) to 2

--Adonzo 17:57, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Suggestion
I chose not to do it myself, but I put it to you that Shaman should be 3(+1) Healers not 2(+1), I as an Enhancement shaman regularly to MC runs and am a very effective healer usually rating somewhere in the Top 3 for the run.

I have raided with Shaman, completely spec'd and geared for Healing who have completely outstripped even the epic priests.

Shaman are very apt healers and to say otherwise is actually quite insulting. That or poor you, you clearly have never raided/grouped with a competant shaman.


 * Shaman can heal well... and then they run out of mana. --Adonzo 20:58, 10 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Shamans heal just fine in MC. They start to run out of steam in BWL and beyond. Same as warlocks frequently outdamage mages in MC, where our lack of mana regen / efficiency is meaningless because the fights are so short. Much tough to keep up with the mages in the tougher instances. Ahlak


 * That's kinda the point. When you're looking for serious healing for content that is challenging you, you're not going to be looking for shamans, nor would they be on par as other healers when it gets down to a seriously crazy fight. That's why they're not a 3(+1). Pzychotix 06:24, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Warlock running out of mana before a mage? All self respecting raiding warlocks spec MD and sacrifice their doggies for infinite mana :-P  -- Mikk  (T) 16:32, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

External Links to Unofficial Strategy Guides ?
What is the stand on adding external links to strategy guides as found http://www.killerguides.com ? While free resources are available and a lot of content is provided already on WoWWiki, the extent and format is not really comparable. Since I am affiliated with the site I don't want to add them myself, but would like to hear what the thoughts are on the issue (Scott-bell 01:41, 15 August 2006 (EDT))

Linking to guides for sale is the same thing as advertising. So no, don't add non-free guides.--Stfrn 01:49, 15 August 2006 (EDT)


 * A link nearly always is an advertisement or at least endorsement. However, I take it you are specifically referring to links to commercial sites and/or paid content. With 90% of the community sites being commercial enterprises (thottbot to name the most prominent one) every link to them is an advertisement. As for the required payments / subscriptions you could take Wikipedias policy, which comes down to "okay if the extent or quality isn't achieved by free resources" - but that didn't seem to be the point. (Scott-bell 06:57, 17 August 2006 (EDT))