Still no, and even more stupid. Why would a hunter need a dog to track? THEY CAN TRACK ALREADY. And again, some people may argue the lore, I am NOT arguing the lore, I am arguing the game mechanics.
And yes, LM's and captain pets suck in towns, but they should not be asked to dismiss a vital part of themselves when they enter a town, because it would be silly for people to walk around with a huge shield in town as well, but guardians, minstrels, and wardens don't get asked to remove their shield.
Hmm yes, trust me, most towns would tell "heroes" to stow their weapons and shield out of hand. Peace band them, or even leave them at the gates. It would be hard enough on their militias to keep townsfolks from using what ever they have in town if a city wide thing happened, Imagine now if there were "heroes" deciding to try and impose their own laws?
Originally Posted by Waxe
Otherwise if you want to track something and you aren't a hunter, FIND ONE or buy a scroll in the store, they do sell them, which I imagine is a nice profit for turbine which works out great for everyone.
As the first post is about, it's about hunters, not every class. I'm backing the first post for hunters. I think it'd be wrong for all class to have those. Hunter, it makes sense. Now as I've posted somewhere else, you could easily justify the pet dog, if you wanted to do so, by taking the tracking skills the hunter has, and simply have it transferred to the hunter's wolfhound. Only usable when the wolfhound is active. Which then would suck for those of you who would not use the wolfhound. So instead, it's a compromise of having better tracking skill -IF- you use the wolfhound compared to what you would have if you do -NOT- use the wolfhound. Same way that, well sorry for the image, the hunter that dips his finger into the deer dung and eats some then sniffs it out, won't be able to track much of the deer compared to the "trained" dog. It's a fact. Sure hunters are able to follow tracks and trails, but with limitations. Even the best native trackers had their limits in how much time passed they could track. Dogs on the other hand have much more fine tuned senses and can track through much more than a hunter would ever bee able to. To take a RL image of this, police dogs can even track through pepper spray, would you be able to?
Originally Posted by Waxe
I don't understand why when several people post their opinions people like you combine them all in to one thing, your idea saying all of us argue based on lore, NO, we are not.
I'm not saying you (broad sense here) are arguing against based on lore. I'm saying that now that something has a basis in lore you are doing the opposite of what I've seen, as arguing against because of lore issues. Two different thing. Game mechanics are always circumventable. And the thing I've propose would have a negligible effect on hunters game play. Simply give them a boon on their tracking skills. Not giving them Huan to kill all wolves and Sauron by your side.
I thought you meant currently, not possibly. When you compare something that is not in game to something that is in game, you have a fault with your process, I assumed when you brought up hobbits with swords, that you meant that hobbits currently could NOT wield swords, which as I pointed out, they can, so why would one go to WoW to play a sword wielding hobbit? Where as going to WoW for a hunter with a pet would make sense.
And I realize that my opinion doesn't matter against lore and mechanics, but it would go against the current mechanics, hunters would have to have a nerf and the play style would be changed.
No, there's just a fault with comprehension. My point was that someone doesn't have to go play WOW because they make a suggestion which is just as likely to be in the game as something that is already in the game. It's a poor argument against a valid suggestion.
I used to think this was a good idea, but then I got lots of feedback saying that they liked the way their hunter was and if they made pets the hunter MUST be revamped. People didn't like the idea. Now that I am getting to become a higher level I am starting to understand more now.
Nice try for an idea but people will dislike the changes, if you really want a pet you could possibly switch games as many MMO's have Hunters w/ Pets
2 (Lore Master & Captain) of the 9 classes can summon followers. That hardly classifies as 'most'.
Well with the "Landscape Soldier" thing introduced recently they all "technically" can summon a follower including the hunter.
Pets on the other hand... Gregork is quite right. 2 Classes can summon pets, and that hardly counts as "most" (as stated in the original post).
Back when I was playing a hunter, I had always wanted a pet that just stood there and didn't fight back (kind of like an object that went in first, close enough to the enemy to get aggro), but could survive a beating. It could go in first, I tag one enemy at a time and burn it down, etc, etc. It just seemed like a more practical thing since you can barely get an induction off with half of Mordor in your face.
NO MORE LEGENDARIES - This isn't a job, it's a game.
if you get a pet, i'd say its more then fair that would take 20% hit on damage since hunters can hit for 10-13k with a skill not to mention others hit around 1.5-3k. Or the pets has 500 hp and deals 10 damage with 1 attack per 2 seconds with no skills. So it will seem like you're getting something to help you but hes effectively worthless, maybe throw in 100% threat so he can grab attention and get itself killed.
But all in all it would make hunters stereotypical as most other hunters/rangers in other MMOs are the class with the pet, also would be troublesome since if it were to be serious there would have to be trait reworks to improve pet play. Also the obvious nerf to hunters themselves because they're the pew pew machines they are because they don't have any meat shield pet, wouldn't make sense to give them a lm equivalent pet and be able to whip out as much dps as they do.