I play HS since beta. For many years I didn't like Hunter, because it was a straightforward and very aggressive class, focused on hitting face with cheap stuff. However, this changed a few expansions ago. Since then we have had: Control Hunter, Mech Hunter, Deathrattle Hunter, Spell Hunter, Quest Hunter, Combo Hunter, Dragon Hunter... A huge amount of diverse decks! Of course, not all of them were equally good, but still. And all this only because usual identity ceased to be the main, rigid determinant of Hunter's class.
It made me think. Maybe it's time to say goodbye to all base and classic cards and HoF them out from the standard? Thanks to this, each class could be completely different in each season, designed from scratch and without anything to hold them back.
In my opinion, class identities at this point do not help the game at all, they only harm it. For example, Rogue is known for not being able to clean wide boards and this is part of her so called identity... but why? Obviously, because this ability, in combination with her base and classic cards, would make her too powerful. But what if base and classic cards were not there?
Can you imagine Mage as a class based on murlocs and hand buffs? Warlock based on beasts and treants? Pure spell Warrior? What do you think about this?
The problem is that if you remove class identity, you remove much of what the classes really ARE. At its core, each class is an individual class BECAUSE of class identity. The classes also draw from world a warcraft (WoW), and many of the cards that are playable are actually spells/units from world of warcraft. They must, to some degree, stay consistent with the lore.
The other reason is because gamers seem to like class identity. This could have many reasons - easy to learn for new players, creates imagery of what your class represents, creates rivalries and teams, etc. Look at the top card games on twitch - besides Poker, the top 3 card games, Hearthstone, Legends of Runeterra, and Magic the Gathering ALL have established class identities.
In conclusion, the idea is interesting, but would cause Hearthstone to lose a lot of its appeal.
What's the point of having classes if there isn't a theme? And every AAA card game has "classes" that have their own special synergies, so why would you bother taking out one of the core mechanics that make card games fun in the first place?
Class identities are the very point behind class systems. The concept is as old as (probably even older than) Dungeons and Dragons.
The idea has always been, that it's fun to play with limitations, to act within the boundaries of a defined role. Some systems might allow you to multi-class or mix different aspects of classes, but limitations and a combination of advantages and disadvantages are what make a class system an interesting concept. If everyone can do everything equally well, if there's virtually no difference between A and B, there's no point in differentiating between them anymore.
Hunter had some good amount of variance over the last couple years (like a few other classes), but none of these decks was outside of Hunter's identity. Hunter didn't get a massive board clear, or lots of card draw. Despite the variance, Hunter decks are still generally aggressive, and mostly in line with established Hunter themes. Dinotamer Brann summons King Krush, not only the Classic legendary, but also giving Highlander Hunter an aggressive direction, compared to the control-oriented Highlander Mage. Spell Hunter had a strong focus on summoning powerful beasts, whether it was with To My Side!, Unleash the Beast, or Lesser Emerald Spellstone. Dragon Hunter plays and feels very much like other Midrange Hunter decks, with Stormhammer behaving similar to Eaglehorn Bow, and pressure-building cards like Rotnest Drake feeling similar to Flanking Strike.
By the way, your argument for removing the core set doesn't make much sense. You say the core set is holding classes back, and then mention how diverse Hunter was, while Hunter is one of the classes with the most intact core sets (next to Shaman and arguably Paladin), with 0 cards HoF'd and comparatively few drastically nerfed or changed (Hunter's Mark, Starving Buzzard and Unleash the Hounds, for those who've been playing for a very long time).
A class can have that amount of variety when different themes are explored with strong cards and mechanics. The same happens with other classes too. Druid is now going into a spell direction that picks up old token and combo themes, and gets new ramp tools and support. Warlock has gotten a few hand-size related cards again, picking up the old-school Handlock archetype, etc. But not every attempt succeeds, not every spin on an established class theme turns out to be successful, highlighting that some mechanics need more support to be functional, like Secret Paladin in Rise of Shadows.
Identities are not as limiting and rigid as you make them out to be, far from it. The limits actually encourage new design ideas, because exploring themes further, and emphasizing strengths and weaknesses more and more, is what makes the class system so fascinating in the long run. We have seen several cases already, where the exploration and development of class themes gave some classes entirely new themes that are not present in the core set. Paladin is good with buffs, Murlocs are known for buffing each other, so we got Murloc Paladin as a class theme. Shaman is known to build and benefit from wide boards, which led to the development of Evolve, and the theme of Evolve Shaman. Other examples for new class themes are Deathrattle Hunter, Deathrattle Rogue, Resurrect Priest, Beast Druid, Rush Warrior, Elemental Shaman and many many others. Also, we had a few cases of baseline changes (all the HoF rotations, most notably the Priest Overhaul we just had), that (ideally) help define the lines between classes further and allow more of these developments for new archetypes.
I think it's actually quite possible that Mage someday gets Murloc synergies, but it would be in line with Mage's other themes. Like a minion that summons a random murloc whenever you cast a spell, or minion that gets +1 spell damage for every other Murloc you control. Spell-related minion summoning, spell synergy and spell damage are established themes in Mage and could be explored with Murlocs that way. It really comes down to what the developers ultimately prefer. Maybe it won't happen because they don't want another class with a Murloc theme, or maybe it will happen because they eventually want every class to have a unique way to interact with Murlocs. And again, the interesting part here is "unique". If Murloc Paladin plays exactly the same way as Murloc Shaman and Murloc Warlock, there's no point in having different classes. But if Murloc Paladin focuses on single target buffs and divine shields, Murloc Shaman focuses on resource generation and wide board synergies, and Murloc Warlock is able to summon a lot of murlocs in one turn by sacrificing health (like combining Seadevil Stinger and Darkglare), things get more interesting.
What you suggest (or what it sounds like) is just giving up any kind of boundary and direction, turning every class into an empty container. Your idea sounds like you want 10 empty boxes, that you fill with random combinations of mechanics and tribe synergies, and when the set rotation happens, you empty the boxes again and start anew. In Standard, there'd be no rhyme or reason to classes getting X instead of Y, all to be turned around with the next set or year of sets, and in Wild, you'd eventually have no differences between classes whatsoever, with Rogue having as many board clears as Priest, and Priest having as many damage spells as Mage, and Mage having as many weapons as Warrior.
Why is Rogue not good with wide boards? It's not because the Base and Classic set don't suggest that. Actually, Fan of Knives and Blade Flurry do allow you to target all enemy minions; they are just not as good as Hellfire or Flamestrike. But if you give Rogues demons, discards and board clears, and give Warlock weapons and pirates and random card generators, there's not much of a point anymore to differentiate between Rogues and Warlocks, except for the Hero Power.
Of course, your idea can have some appeal as well. What you suggest is something like a Randomizer, as some people have developed it for Pokemon and a few other games. A lot of variety, a lot of surprising moments and in some cases you get some really cool and crazy combinations of types and moves and abilities. But I personally, as boring as it sounds, like it better when things are actually designed in a way that makes sense and has an idea to it.
To me, Hearthstone without (well-defined) classes is not Hearthstone anymore.
I have the impression that you forget about a few things:
Hero powers would remain unchanged, so there would still be constant differences between classes.
Each class would still have fitting theme, consistent - more or less - with the lore. The difference would be that theme could be completely different in each season (e.g Rogue based on secrets in one season then based on weapon buffs in another).
Lore never had a dominant role in HS. In WoW Warlock is based on pets and curses (that's his theme) but that was never a case in HS (instead he got bs like discard). Paladin never relied on summoning stuff but in HS his hero power does that. For virtually no reason...
While I agree identities are important.. comparing hearthstone classes to magic colors or even runeterra factions and stating they have identies really is apples to oranges comparison.
Hearthstone classes are pretty rigidly enforced while the other two games allow one to mix and match to find a playstyle. If you want to play ramp in hearthstone you play druid and if it happens to be weak in the current rotation your out of luck. Wanna ramp in mtg you splash green.. or if you look at most colors in mtg they can be played in multiple way like white is both a controling color and an aggro color. Runeterra also allows a bit of flexibility here something like ionia can be used in aggro or control.
Most classes in hearthstone dont have that flexibility set to set.. and outside of tavern brawls we cant mix classes. Where Demon Hunter is right now is where all the classes should be. Atleast with deck variety. We dont have to get rid of classes.. Blizzard just has to be ok breaking the class rules for an expansion.
While I agree identities are important.. comparing hearthstone classes to magic colors or even runeterra factions and stating they have identies really is apples to oranges comparison.
Hearthstone classes are pretty rigidly enforced while the other two games allow one to mix and match to find a playstyle. If you want to play ramp in hearthstone you play druid and if it happens to be weak in the current rotation your out of luck. Wanna ramp in mtg you splash green.. or if you look at most colors in mtg they can be played in multiple way like white is both a controling color and an aggro color. Runeterra also allows a bit of flexibility here something like ionia can be used in aggro or control.
Most classes in hearthstone dont have that flexibility set to set.. and outside of tavern brawls we cant mix classes. Where Demon Hunter is right now is where all the classes should be. Atleast with deck variety. We dont have to get rid of classes.. Blizzard just has to be ok breaking the class rules for an expansion.
Yes, hearthstone classes are rigidly enforced - and others can mix and match. However, that's why hearthstone has more classes. Hearthstone has a total of 10 identities and a neutral set. Meanwhile, LoR (at the time of this post) has only 6 regions, and NO neutral set. Magic the Gathering has only 5 regions, and a mostly useless neutral set. So yes, Hearthstone might not allow for mixes of classes, but that's made up for by the high number of classes HS has. Hearthstone classes also have lots of flexibility. Most classes have multiple deck archetypes that are at least tier 3. Yes, there are classes that are out of options and don't have enough power - but that's also true with the other card games. "5 color good stuff" always exists in magic, but it's basically never part of the meta.
The whole point of classes is that they are all different from each other. What's the point of classes if they can basicly do same/similar stuff?
No, you got it wrong. Classes would still be different, but not anymore carved in stone and based on same, constant rules. Right now, Blizzard can't print card X, as long as card Y exists. And since card Y will never go away (because it's part of classic/basic set), they will never print that card X... After throwing both of those sets away, this problem would be gone. Classes would still have identities, but each time different one, unrestricted by any design obstacles from the past. E.g this season Warlock is based on summoning demons and buffing them, the next one, he will be casting curses and discarding. Still in line with lore and overall identity, but different each time. Simple as that.
I would support a revision to the current class identities. For example,
Shaman does NOT have drawing issues, while priest lost two staple draw cards that were 2 of in every successful priest deck. They literally have ONE draw card in mass dispel, and that is a laughable suggestion for draw.
I would support a revision to the current class identities. For example,
Shaman does NOT have drawing issues, while priest lost two staple draw cards that were 2 of in every successful priest deck. They literally have ONE draw card in mass dispel, and that is a laughable suggestion for draw.
Exactly. On top of that, some classes have no identities at all and their base sets are just laughable (like Paladin or Warlock).
I think they've pushed class identies even further in the last few sets than they ever did before.
Yes Hunter has a few slower, more resource-driven decks but those are still very much focused on beating down your opponent. Either through efficient rush-based trades.
Mages are way more focused on conjuring minions and using spells effectively. Warlocks have doubled down on their discard and self-damage mechanics. Druids have brought back mana ramp in a big way.
What blizzard thinks is "class identity" isn't just nonsense, honestly. Two ideas that they developed were that druids shouldn't be able to deal with wide boards or big threats easily and warlocks shouldn't be able to deal a lot of damage in a pinch (which was supposedly the reason why naturalise, doomguard and power overwhelming got relegated to wild). And if you consider that cubelock (the only warlock archetype - until the recent resurgence of discolock - that uses doomguard) and that jade druid are tier 1 decks in wild, you can obviously see how these "deviations" from what is considered class identity were quite broken (and still are). Priest in standard has been pigeonholed into heavy control with no way whatsoever to deal damage to the enemy face easily; look at wild and yet another tier one deck, shotgun priest (you don't even need that, just remember the fond memories of kft) and you can see why the blizzard team wants things to be a certain way. I'm not saying that it's all correct but I can see where they're coming from.
Paradoxically, one of the best standard classes, hunter, is the worst of all in wild, specifically because it never really had any proper tools to do anything other than smorc (and other classes received far better instruments to go face, as everyone was made aware during the pirate warrior times of old). Even their reno decks rely on smorcing and I've played against multiple reno hunters who died one turn after playing their reno. Why? Because unlike all control decks that ever existed, hunter doesn't have any realistic way to deal with a wide board or heck, even with big threats more often than not.
If you forgo class identity then it'll become an even bigger ****show than it is today, with hunters having aoe, priests having tons of face damage and so on and so forth. I don't really find that too appealing.
To avoid misunderstandings and to make it more clear (I see many people get it wrong), I updated the title. I'm not against class identities in general! I'm only against permanent and constant identities and I believe, that they should change over time.
More isnt more in this situation though.. 10 classes sounds better then 5 or 6 but in the case of LoR that 10 is competing with 12 combinations and magic has even more.. 5 color magic might not be meta.. but 1,2, and three colors are all used in the top decks right now. so more classes doesnt equal more options. In the case of magic, jeskai, rakdos, and esper currently have multiple decks in the still settling meta.
rotating class identities similar to how magic handles blocks where during that block a class may have a different identity.
I think they should make 2 different hero powers for each class... one offensive heropower and one defensive heropower... at this point with the class of hunter we cannot play a defensive deck, at least the heropower doesnt allow it...
Just for imagination purposses... the defensive heropower for hunter could be, 1 mana deal 1 damage to an enemy minion... or the offensive heropower for warrior could be 2 mana gain +2 attack... defensive heropower for mage: 2 mana summon a 0/2 taunt (the 0/2 from the 1 mana spell) warlock's heropower could be used both offensive as defensive, but a second would be as summon a 1/2 demon.
this way, keeping class identities in tact you can experiment with different kind of decks... at this point hunter is just an aggro class, and priest plays normally a deck that takes long and controllish.
Just like the title says.
I play HS since beta. For many years I didn't like Hunter, because it was a straightforward and very aggressive class, focused on hitting face with cheap stuff. However, this changed a few expansions ago. Since then we have had: Control Hunter, Mech Hunter, Deathrattle Hunter, Spell Hunter, Quest Hunter, Combo Hunter, Dragon Hunter... A huge amount of diverse decks! Of course, not all of them were equally good, but still. And all this only because usual identity ceased to be the main, rigid determinant of Hunter's class.
It made me think. Maybe it's time to say goodbye to all base and classic cards and HoF them out from the standard? Thanks to this, each class could be completely different in each season, designed from scratch and without anything to hold them back.
In my opinion, class identities at this point do not help the game at all, they only harm it. For example, Rogue is known for not being able to clean wide boards and this is part of her so called identity... but why? Obviously, because this ability, in combination with her base and classic cards, would make her too powerful. But what if base and classic cards were not there?
Can you imagine Mage as a class based on murlocs and hand buffs? Warlock based on beasts and treants? Pure spell Warrior? What do you think about this?
The problem is that if you remove class identity, you remove much of what the classes really ARE. At its core, each class is an individual class BECAUSE of class identity. The classes also draw from world a warcraft (WoW), and many of the cards that are playable are actually spells/units from world of warcraft. They must, to some degree, stay consistent with the lore.
The other reason is because gamers seem to like class identity. This could have many reasons - easy to learn for new players, creates imagery of what your class represents, creates rivalries and teams, etc. Look at the top card games on twitch - besides Poker, the top 3 card games, Hearthstone, Legends of Runeterra, and Magic the Gathering ALL have established class identities.
In conclusion, the idea is interesting, but would cause Hearthstone to lose a lot of its appeal.
www.twitch.tv/mistermath314
Check out some of my decks:
What's the point of having classes if there isn't a theme? And every AAA card game has "classes" that have their own special synergies, so why would you bother taking out one of the core mechanics that make card games fun in the first place?
Like how shamans weakness was card generation? It was a joke from the start.
Class identities are the very point behind class systems. The concept is as old as (probably even older than) Dungeons and Dragons.
The idea has always been, that it's fun to play with limitations, to act within the boundaries of a defined role. Some systems might allow you to multi-class or mix different aspects of classes, but limitations and a combination of advantages and disadvantages are what make a class system an interesting concept. If everyone can do everything equally well, if there's virtually no difference between A and B, there's no point in differentiating between them anymore.
Hunter had some good amount of variance over the last couple years (like a few other classes), but none of these decks was outside of Hunter's identity. Hunter didn't get a massive board clear, or lots of card draw. Despite the variance, Hunter decks are still generally aggressive, and mostly in line with established Hunter themes. Dinotamer Brann summons King Krush, not only the Classic legendary, but also giving Highlander Hunter an aggressive direction, compared to the control-oriented Highlander Mage. Spell Hunter had a strong focus on summoning powerful beasts, whether it was with To My Side!, Unleash the Beast, or Lesser Emerald Spellstone. Dragon Hunter plays and feels very much like other Midrange Hunter decks, with Stormhammer behaving similar to Eaglehorn Bow, and pressure-building cards like Rotnest Drake feeling similar to Flanking Strike.
By the way, your argument for removing the core set doesn't make much sense. You say the core set is holding classes back, and then mention how diverse Hunter was, while Hunter is one of the classes with the most intact core sets (next to Shaman and arguably Paladin), with 0 cards HoF'd and comparatively few drastically nerfed or changed (Hunter's Mark, Starving Buzzard and Unleash the Hounds, for those who've been playing for a very long time).
A class can have that amount of variety when different themes are explored with strong cards and mechanics. The same happens with other classes too. Druid is now going into a spell direction that picks up old token and combo themes, and gets new ramp tools and support. Warlock has gotten a few hand-size related cards again, picking up the old-school Handlock archetype, etc. But not every attempt succeeds, not every spin on an established class theme turns out to be successful, highlighting that some mechanics need more support to be functional, like Secret Paladin in Rise of Shadows.
Identities are not as limiting and rigid as you make them out to be, far from it. The limits actually encourage new design ideas, because exploring themes further, and emphasizing strengths and weaknesses more and more, is what makes the class system so fascinating in the long run. We have seen several cases already, where the exploration and development of class themes gave some classes entirely new themes that are not present in the core set. Paladin is good with buffs, Murlocs are known for buffing each other, so we got Murloc Paladin as a class theme. Shaman is known to build and benefit from wide boards, which led to the development of Evolve, and the theme of Evolve Shaman. Other examples for new class themes are Deathrattle Hunter, Deathrattle Rogue, Resurrect Priest, Beast Druid, Rush Warrior, Elemental Shaman and many many others. Also, we had a few cases of baseline changes (all the HoF rotations, most notably the Priest Overhaul we just had), that (ideally) help define the lines between classes further and allow more of these developments for new archetypes.
I think it's actually quite possible that Mage someday gets Murloc synergies, but it would be in line with Mage's other themes. Like a minion that summons a random murloc whenever you cast a spell, or minion that gets +1 spell damage for every other Murloc you control. Spell-related minion summoning, spell synergy and spell damage are established themes in Mage and could be explored with Murlocs that way. It really comes down to what the developers ultimately prefer. Maybe it won't happen because they don't want another class with a Murloc theme, or maybe it will happen because they eventually want every class to have a unique way to interact with Murlocs. And again, the interesting part here is "unique". If Murloc Paladin plays exactly the same way as Murloc Shaman and Murloc Warlock, there's no point in having different classes. But if Murloc Paladin focuses on single target buffs and divine shields, Murloc Shaman focuses on resource generation and wide board synergies, and Murloc Warlock is able to summon a lot of murlocs in one turn by sacrificing health (like combining Seadevil Stinger and Darkglare), things get more interesting.
What you suggest (or what it sounds like) is just giving up any kind of boundary and direction, turning every class into an empty container. Your idea sounds like you want 10 empty boxes, that you fill with random combinations of mechanics and tribe synergies, and when the set rotation happens, you empty the boxes again and start anew. In Standard, there'd be no rhyme or reason to classes getting X instead of Y, all to be turned around with the next set or year of sets, and in Wild, you'd eventually have no differences between classes whatsoever, with Rogue having as many board clears as Priest, and Priest having as many damage spells as Mage, and Mage having as many weapons as Warrior.
Why is Rogue not good with wide boards? It's not because the Base and Classic set don't suggest that. Actually, Fan of Knives and Blade Flurry do allow you to target all enemy minions; they are just not as good as Hellfire or Flamestrike. But if you give Rogues demons, discards and board clears, and give Warlock weapons and pirates and random card generators, there's not much of a point anymore to differentiate between Rogues and Warlocks, except for the Hero Power.
Of course, your idea can have some appeal as well. What you suggest is something like a Randomizer, as some people have developed it for Pokemon and a few other games. A lot of variety, a lot of surprising moments and in some cases you get some really cool and crazy combinations of types and moves and abilities. But I personally, as boring as it sounds, like it better when things are actually designed in a way that makes sense and has an idea to it.
To me, Hearthstone without (well-defined) classes is not Hearthstone anymore.
I have the impression that you forget about a few things:
While I agree identities are important.. comparing hearthstone classes to magic colors or even runeterra factions and stating they have identies really is apples to oranges comparison.
Hearthstone classes are pretty rigidly enforced while the other two games allow one to mix and match to find a playstyle. If you want to play ramp in hearthstone you play druid and if it happens to be weak in the current rotation your out of luck. Wanna ramp in mtg you splash green.. or if you look at most colors in mtg they can be played in multiple way like white is both a controling color and an aggro color. Runeterra also allows a bit of flexibility here something like ionia can be used in aggro or control.
Most classes in hearthstone dont have that flexibility set to set.. and outside of tavern brawls we cant mix classes. Where Demon Hunter is right now is where all the classes should be. Atleast with deck variety. We dont have to get rid of classes.. Blizzard just has to be ok breaking the class rules for an expansion.
Yes, hearthstone classes are rigidly enforced - and others can mix and match. However, that's why hearthstone has more classes. Hearthstone has a total of 10 identities and a neutral set. Meanwhile, LoR (at the time of this post) has only 6 regions, and NO neutral set. Magic the Gathering has only 5 regions, and a mostly useless neutral set. So yes, Hearthstone might not allow for mixes of classes, but that's made up for by the high number of classes HS has. Hearthstone classes also have lots of flexibility. Most classes have multiple deck archetypes that are at least tier 3. Yes, there are classes that are out of options and don't have enough power - but that's also true with the other card games. "5 color good stuff" always exists in magic, but it's basically never part of the meta.
www.twitch.tv/mistermath314
Check out some of my decks:
The whole point of classes is that they are all different from each other. What's the point of classes if they can basicly do same/similar stuff?
No, you got it wrong. Classes would still be different, but not anymore carved in stone and based on same, constant rules. Right now, Blizzard can't print card X, as long as card Y exists. And since card Y will never go away (because it's part of classic/basic set), they will never print that card X... After throwing both of those sets away, this problem would be gone. Classes would still have identities, but each time different one, unrestricted by any design obstacles from the past. E.g this season Warlock is based on summoning demons and buffing them, the next one, he will be casting curses and discarding. Still in line with lore and overall identity, but different each time. Simple as that.
I would support a revision to the current class identities. For example,
Shaman does NOT have drawing issues, while priest lost two staple draw cards that were 2 of in every successful priest deck. They literally have ONE draw card in mass dispel, and that is a laughable suggestion for draw.
Exactly. On top of that, some classes have no identities at all and their base sets are just laughable (like Paladin or Warlock).
I think they've pushed class identies even further in the last few sets than they ever did before.
Yes Hunter has a few slower, more resource-driven decks but those are still very much focused on beating down your opponent. Either through efficient rush-based trades.
Mages are way more focused on conjuring minions and using spells effectively. Warlocks have doubled down on their discard and self-damage mechanics. Druids have brought back mana ramp in a big way.
So I don't really agree at all tbh.
What blizzard thinks is "class identity" isn't just nonsense, honestly. Two ideas that they developed were that druids shouldn't be able to deal with wide boards or big threats easily and warlocks shouldn't be able to deal a lot of damage in a pinch (which was supposedly the reason why naturalise, doomguard and power overwhelming got relegated to wild). And if you consider that cubelock (the only warlock archetype - until the recent resurgence of discolock - that uses doomguard) and that jade druid are tier 1 decks in wild, you can obviously see how these "deviations" from what is considered class identity were quite broken (and still are). Priest in standard has been pigeonholed into heavy control with no way whatsoever to deal damage to the enemy face easily; look at wild and yet another tier one deck, shotgun priest (you don't even need that, just remember the fond memories of kft) and you can see why the blizzard team wants things to be a certain way. I'm not saying that it's all correct but I can see where they're coming from.
Paradoxically, one of the best standard classes, hunter, is the worst of all in wild, specifically because it never really had any proper tools to do anything other than smorc (and other classes received far better instruments to go face, as everyone was made aware during the pirate warrior times of old). Even their reno decks rely on smorcing and I've played against multiple reno hunters who died one turn after playing their reno. Why? Because unlike all control decks that ever existed, hunter doesn't have any realistic way to deal with a wide board or heck, even with big threats more often than not.
If you forgo class identity then it'll become an even bigger ****show than it is today, with hunters having aoe, priests having tons of face damage and so on and so forth. I don't really find that too appealing.
Yes, classes need to have identities. And by identities I mean weaknesses.
Just look at how broken warlock is in wild with all the healing and removal they have.
To avoid misunderstandings and to make it more clear (I see many people get it wrong), I updated the title. I'm not against class identities in general! I'm only against permanent and constant identities and I believe, that they should change over time.
More isnt more in this situation though.. 10 classes sounds better then 5 or 6 but in the case of LoR that 10 is competing with 12 combinations and magic has even more.. 5 color magic might not be meta.. but 1,2, and three colors are all used in the top decks right now. so more classes doesnt equal more options. In the case of magic, jeskai, rakdos, and esper currently have multiple decks in the still settling meta.
rotating class identities similar to how magic handles blocks where during that block a class may have a different identity.
I think they should make 2 different hero powers for each class... one offensive heropower and one defensive heropower... at this point with the class of hunter we cannot play a defensive deck, at least the heropower doesnt allow it...
Just for imagination purposses... the defensive heropower for hunter could be, 1 mana deal 1 damage to an enemy minion... or the offensive heropower for warrior could be 2 mana gain +2 attack... defensive heropower for mage: 2 mana summon a 0/2 taunt (the 0/2 from the 1 mana spell) warlock's heropower could be used both offensive as defensive, but a second would be as summon a 1/2 demon.
this way, keeping class identities in tact you can experiment with different kind of decks... at this point hunter is just an aggro class, and priest plays normally a deck that takes long and controllish.
To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffer!