How is a class like Hunter not given any Nature spells? Seems to be in lock-step w/ it's "class identity" or general theme for the class. Both, Druid and Hunter would seem to be a natural "nature" class. If nothing else, Serepentbloom could/should be a Nature spell - the zero mana give a beast poison card. Then there could be some synergy w/ Toad of the Wilds (2 mana, 2/2 taunts that grants 2 health if holding a Nature spell) so those of us who like Hunter but refuse to play Meta could have another route to go...just an example. It seems like Blizzard consistently doesn't follow through with things they start in prior expansions. No new Nature spells in the mini-set as an example...and somehow from the previous expansion Rogue has Nature spells which are the weapon poisons. Meanwhile, Serpentbloom gives actual "poison" and is a picture of a little frog sitting on a plant leaf within a flower...IN NATURE!!!
I believe that the whole spell school thing was a massive failure. Imagine how big the colection got to be, in order to give all classes solid interactions with their schools.
This is not a magic based game it's a board centered game, or at least it should be.
Also it drove me nuts when I tried to make a Guff Deck to see that there are still spells without a school. How does that make sence now?
Spells without schools fall under the "physical" damage category. Why warrior and hunter and rogue spells are without a proper school. Druid "transformation into beast form" cards also fall under that. Stuff that summons minions is also school-less most of the time.
Hunter, warrior, rogue and feral druid are physical types in WoW. Rogues have some shadow stuff, other druid specs are more magic focused with nature and arcane, but warrior and hunter are very simply your average human.
Now i agree hunter should have more spells considered Nature, and there should be a definitive "Physical" type too. The reason they gave was that physical isn't really magic, it's just an ability, and it would take away from the "spell school fantasy".
Tbh Hunter could use nature. But IMO. Druid,shaman is a given then Rouge becouse they have poisens. Most off the Hunter spells that would go in that catagory could also go With an beast tag. Since that is almost all that intetaction they would have
How is a class like Hunter not given any Nature spells?
Because hunters don’t use nature magic. Look at the nature spells of druid: it’s magic drawn from nature. Hunters use abilities and lean on other, more traditional types of magic (Arcane Shot, Explosive and Freezing Trap).
Serpent Bloom could be considered poison-ish, but it’s just the single plant and not more complex like rogue poisons which are crafted.
Spells without schools fall under the "physical" damage category. Why warrior and hunter and rogue spells are without a proper school. Druid "transformation into beast form" cards also fall under that. Stuff that summons minions is also school-less most of the time.
Hunter, warrior, rogue and feral druid are physical types in WoW. Rogues have some shadow stuff, other druid specs are more magic focused with nature and arcane, but warrior and hunter are very simply your average human.
Now i agree hunter should have more spells considered Nature, and there should be a definitive "Physical" type too. The reason they gave was that physical isn't really magic, it's just an ability, and it would take away from the "spell school fantasy".
Hunters should have spell schools like nature since they also went to Scholomance to learn magic.
How is a class like Hunter not given any Nature spells?
Because hunters don’t use nature magic. Look at the nature spells of druid: it’s magic drawn from nature. Hunters use abilities and lean on other, more traditional types of magic (Arcane Shot, Explosive and Freezing Trap).
Serpent Bloom could be considered poison-ish, but it’s just the single plant and not more complex like rogue poisons which are crafted.
That’s not true. Look at Jewel of N’Zoth. It uses dark magic to resummon deathratrle minions. Hunter traps are infused with magic (explosive and freezing), and wound prey shows a Tauren using some magic potion to do damage to the enemy. These are are spell schools.
By the way, Corrosive Breath, Toxic Arrow, Cobra Shot, Lesser Spellstone, and Infest are all Nature Spells, so don’t give me that “Hunters don’t use Nature Spells” nonsense.
How is a class like Hunter not given any Nature spells?
Because hunters don’t use nature magic. Look at the nature spells of druid: it’s magic drawn from nature. Hunters use abilities and lean on other, more traditional types of magic (Arcane Shot, Explosive and Freezing Trap).
Serpent Bloom could be considered poison-ish, but it’s just the single plant and not more complex like rogue poisons which are crafted.
Nah, Hunters are just Rangers by a different name...they are half druid, half warrior. Like everyone knows Warlocks are supposed to be Necromancers, Priests are Clerics, etc. Blizzard ripped all their ideas off other games and stuff.
That way we'd have more ways to have spell synergies.
So far the whole thing is failing imo because the synergies in question are terrible.
Yeah, of course, Anacondra can be nuts, and Cariel and Anointed Knight are great, but that's the end of it.
The rest of the spell synergy things can't work because there are too few spells (let alone good spells) they can rely upon, and even if there were enough you'd rather run something else than those terrible synergy cards.
In duels spell synergies work fine because you can rely on multiple copies of competent spells and you may have a very solid effect to combine them with, like the shadow types or the discovers with holy and arcane spells.
How is a class like Hunter not given any Nature spells? Seems to be in lock-step w/ it's "class identity" or general theme for the class. Both, Druid and Hunter would seem to be a natural "nature" class. If nothing else, Serepentbloom could/should be a Nature spell - the zero mana give a beast poison card. Then there could be some synergy w/ Toad of the Wilds (2 mana, 2/2 taunts that grants 2 health if holding a Nature spell) so those of us who like Hunter but refuse to play Meta could have another route to go...just an example. It seems like Blizzard consistently doesn't follow through with things they start in prior expansions. No new Nature spells in the mini-set as an example...and somehow from the previous expansion Rogue has Nature spells which are the weapon poisons. Meanwhile, Serpentbloom gives actual "poison" and is a picture of a little frog sitting on a plant leaf within a flower...IN NATURE!!!
I suggest you learn a thing or two about the lore and mechanics of magic schools in World of Warcraft, it will answer all your questions and clear your confusion.
Serpentbloom is just a snake in a flower, it's a simple beast. In hearthstone, it's a spell card, so it can't have the beast tag, but it is not an actual in-lore spell, like I said it's just a beast, so no nature tag.
Rogue poisons are actual nature magic in WoW, this is why they have the nature tag.
So, the class idendity is fine, don't use that as an excuse to buff non-meta cards because you refuse to play meta. If serpentbloom became meta you would stop playing it, don't pretend you care about class idendity when you don't know basic facts about said identity.
That way we'd have more ways to have spell synergies.
So far the whole thing is failing imo because the synergies in question are terrible.
Yeah, of course, Anacondra can be nuts, and Cariel and Anointed Knight are great, but that's the end of it.
The rest of the spell synergy things can't work because there are too few spells (let alone good spells) they can rely upon, and even if there were enough you'd rather run something else than those terrible synergy cards.
In duels spell synergies work fine because you can rely on multiple copies of competent spells and you may have a very solid effect to combine them with, like the shadow types or the discovers with holy and arcane spells.
That way we'd have more ways to have spell synergies.
So far the whole thing is failing imo because the synergies in question are terrible.
Yeah, of course, Anacondra can be nuts, and Cariel and Anointed Knight are great, but that's the end of it.
The rest of the spell synergy things can't work because there are too few spells (let alone good spells) they can rely upon, and even if there were enough you'd rather run something else than those terrible synergy cards.
In duels spell synergies work fine because you can rely on multiple copies of competent spells and you may have a very solid effect to combine them with, like the shadow types or the discovers with holy and arcane spells.
Every you said is true, for now. But it has been said about many things before. Hero power/Inspire mechanics, Discard warlock, Hand buffs, Resurrect priest...
Spell schools will get better and better over time, get more and more options and synergy to the point of critical mass, and sooner or later there will be entire spell school based decks that are very powerful and unique.
Blizzard clearly said they intend to support this mechanic in all expansions going forward, and it will slowly move from unplayable trash meme pack filler cards to legit archetypes that can compete in the most powerful format (Wild), like they did with discard lock and handbuffs.
I suggest you learn a thing or two about the lore and mechanics of magic schools in World of Warcraft, it will answer all your questions and clear your confusion.
Serpentbloom is just a snake in a flower, it's a simple beast. In hearthstone, it's a spell card, so it can't have the beast tag, but it is not an actual in-lore spell, like I said it's just a beast, so no nature tag.
Rogue poisons are actual nature magic in WoW, this is why they have the nature tag.
So, the class idendity is fine, don't use that as an excuse to buff non-meta cards because you refuse to play meta. If serpentbloom became meta you would stop playing it, don't pretend you care about class idendity when you don't know basic facts about said identity.
In what part of the lore was Valeera a pirate, aka Cap’n Valeera?
You’re awful judgmental in your reply and shouldn’t presume to know what people would or wouldn’t do. If you want to suggest I research the lore, fair enough. But leave out all the aspersions of whether or not I care about class identity or whether I’d play a card if it became meta. That takes you into the territory of not knowing what you’re talking about and makes you sound like a presumptuous douche.
To your point, I don’t know lore and I’ve since learned a bit from all the other replies to my original post. I’m a person that’s never played WOW but has played Hearthstone for years. Now I’m understanding that perhaps there was some logic to Blizzard not giving Hunter any Nature spells. Again, seems a bit off to me given what a Hunter “is” but it seems to have something to do w the WOW lore. Good enough for me.
In what part of the lore was Valeera a pirate, aka Cap’n Valeera?
In the part that is the Hearthstone lore. WoW lore is the base, then they add bits of hearthstone gimmickry here and there. Like Ragnaros, Lightlord who doesn't exist in WoW, but still follows the WoW rule of being an elemental.
But leave out all the aspersions of whether or not I care about class identity or whether I’d play a card if it became meta. That takes you into the territory of not knowing what you’re talking about and makes you sound like a presumptuous douche.
You know I'm right, all the people who "refuse to play meta" are the same, I've been there too. They wish their homebrew deck would have the power of a T1 refined deck, but never be played by anyone else so it doesn't become the meta. Unfortunately, card games don't work like that. I don't mean that in an offensive way, I just believe there is a flaw in your reasoning. If that makes me a douche then it's fine by me. I'm not native english and I don't even know what a douche is, in my language a douche is a shower, it can't hurt me.
In what part of the lore was Valeera a pirate, aka Cap’n Valeera?
In the part that is the Hearthstone lore. WoW lore is the base, then they add bits of hearthstone gimmickry here and there. Like Ragnaros, Lightlord who doesn't exist in WoW, but still follows the WoW rule of being an elemental.
But leave out all the aspersions of whether or not I care about class identity or whether I’d play a card if it became meta. That takes you into the territory of not knowing what you’re talking about and makes you sound like a presumptuous douche.
You know I'm right, all the people who "refuse to play meta" are the same, I've been there too. They wish their homebrew deck would have the power of a T1 refined deck, but never be played by anyone else so it doesn't become the meta. Unfortunately, card games don't work like that. I don't mean that in an offensive way, I just believe there is a flaw in your reasoning. If that makes me a douche then it's fine by me. I'm not native english and I don't even know what a douche is, in my language a douche is a shower, it can't hurt me.
Thanks for making my point. Hearthstone doesn't follow lock-step with WOW lore...it's closely aligned but it also has it's own form of gimmickry here and there. One could then make the point (like I tried to above) that giving Hunter some Nature spells might be a reasonable way to go - given that it's a hero type which would seem to be in touch w/ nature.
As for the remainder of your reply, I generally think that people like you who are prone to marginalizing or summarizing entire groups of people with statements that include "all you people who (insert label here) are the same" live with your heads up your own asses. Again, if you thought there was flaw in my reasoning, fair enough...could have simply said that without all the other BS you included to make yourself sound like the grand arbiter of things.
That way we'd have more ways to have spell synergies.
So far the whole thing is failing imo because the synergies in question are terrible.
Yeah, of course, Anacondra can be nuts, and Cariel and Anointed Knight are great, but that's the end of it.
The rest of the spell synergy things can't work because there are too few spells (let alone good spells) they can rely upon, and even if there were enough you'd rather run something else than those terrible synergy cards.
In duels spell synergies work fine because you can rely on multiple copies of competent spells and you may have a very solid effect to combine them with, like the shadow types or the discovers with holy and arcane spells.
That way we'd have more ways to have spell synergies.
So far the whole thing is failing imo because the synergies in question are terrible.
Yeah, of course, Anacondra can be nuts, and Cariel and Anointed Knight are great, but that's the end of it.
The rest of the spell synergy things can't work because there are too few spells (let alone good spells) they can rely upon, and even if there were enough you'd rather run something else than those terrible synergy cards.
In duels spell synergies work fine because you can rely on multiple copies of competent spells and you may have a very solid effect to combine them with, like the shadow types or the discovers with holy and arcane spells.
Every you said is true, for now. But it has been said about many things before. Hero power/Inspire mechanics, Discard warlock, Hand buffs, Resurrect priest...
Spell schools will get better and better over time, get more and more options and synergy to the point of critical mass, and sooner or later there will be entire spell school based decks that are very powerful and unique.
Blizzard clearly said they intend to support this mechanic in all expansions going forward, and it will slowly move from unplayable trash meme pack filler cards to legit archetypes that can compete in the most powerful format (Wild), like they did with discard lock and handbuffs.
Well, good to know they intend in keeping the work on this... it's just I'd rather have something better to start working with. I already have seen a lot of decks I wanted to work that never came to be (beast druid am I right?)
Spells without schools fall under the "physical" damage category. Why warrior and hunter and rogue spells are without a proper school. Druid "transformation into beast form" cards also fall under that. Stuff that summons minions is also school-less most of the time.
Hunter, warrior, rogue and feral druid are physical types in WoW. Rogues have some shadow stuff, other druid specs are more magic focused with nature and arcane, but warrior and hunter are very simply your average human.
Now i agree hunter should have more spells considered Nature, and there should be a definitive "Physical" type too. The reason they gave was that physical isn't really magic, it's just an ability, and it would take away from the "spell school fantasy".
Great post
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How is a class like Hunter not given any Nature spells? Seems to be in lock-step w/ it's "class identity" or general theme for the class. Both, Druid and Hunter would seem to be a natural "nature" class. If nothing else, Serepentbloom could/should be a Nature spell - the zero mana give a beast poison card. Then there could be some synergy w/ Toad of the Wilds (2 mana, 2/2 taunts that grants 2 health if holding a Nature spell) so those of us who like Hunter but refuse to play Meta could have another route to go...just an example. It seems like Blizzard consistently doesn't follow through with things they start in prior expansions. No new Nature spells in the mini-set as an example...and somehow from the previous expansion Rogue has Nature spells which are the weapon poisons. Meanwhile, Serpentbloom gives actual "poison" and is a picture of a little frog sitting on a plant leaf within a flower...IN NATURE!!!
I believe that the whole spell school thing was a massive failure. Imagine how big the colection got to be, in order to give all classes solid interactions with their schools.
This is not a magic based game it's a board centered game, or at least it should be.
Also it drove me nuts when I tried to make a Guff Deck to see that there are still spells without a school. How does that make sence now?
Spells without schools fall under the "physical" damage category. Why warrior and hunter and rogue spells are without a proper school. Druid "transformation into beast form" cards also fall under that. Stuff that summons minions is also school-less most of the time.
Hunter, warrior, rogue and feral druid are physical types in WoW. Rogues have some shadow stuff, other druid specs are more magic focused with nature and arcane, but warrior and hunter are very simply your average human.
Now i agree hunter should have more spells considered Nature, and there should be a definitive "Physical" type too. The reason they gave was that physical isn't really magic, it's just an ability, and it would take away from the "spell school fantasy".
They could call physical based spells something different eg Kinetic. You could fit more spells into that category
Tbh Hunter could use nature. But IMO. Druid,shaman is a given then Rouge becouse they have poisens. Most off the Hunter spells that would go in that catagory could also go With an beast tag. Since that is almost all that intetaction they would have
Because hunters don’t use nature magic. Look at the nature spells of druid: it’s magic drawn from nature. Hunters use abilities and lean on other, more traditional types of magic (Arcane Shot, Explosive and Freezing Trap).
Serpent Bloom could be considered poison-ish, but it’s just the single plant and not more complex like rogue poisons which are crafted.
Hunters should have spell schools like nature since they also went to Scholomance to learn magic.
That’s not true. Look at Jewel of N’Zoth. It uses dark magic to resummon deathratrle minions. Hunter traps are infused with magic (explosive and freezing), and wound prey shows a Tauren using some magic potion to do damage to the enemy. These are are spell schools.
By the way, Corrosive Breath, Toxic Arrow, Cobra Shot, Lesser Spellstone, and Infest are all Nature Spells, so don’t give me that “Hunters don’t use Nature Spells” nonsense.
Nah, Hunters are just Rangers by a different name...they are half druid, half warrior. Like everyone knows Warlocks are supposed to be Necromancers, Priests are Clerics, etc. Blizzard ripped all their ideas off other games and stuff.
I'd rather call no school spells 'Abilities'
That's what they are, right?
That way we'd have more ways to have spell synergies.
So far the whole thing is failing imo because the synergies in question are terrible.
Yeah, of course, Anacondra can be nuts, and Cariel and Anointed Knight are great, but that's the end of it.
The rest of the spell synergy things can't work because there are too few spells (let alone good spells) they can rely upon, and even if there were enough you'd rather run something else than those terrible synergy cards.
In duels spell synergies work fine because you can rely on multiple copies of competent spells and you may have a very solid effect to combine them with, like the shadow types or the discovers with holy and arcane spells.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
They do they just dont have any in standard.
I suggest you learn a thing or two about the lore and mechanics of magic schools in World of Warcraft, it will answer all your questions and clear your confusion.
Serpentbloom is just a snake in a flower, it's a simple beast. In hearthstone, it's a spell card, so it can't have the beast tag, but it is not an actual in-lore spell, like I said it's just a beast, so no nature tag.
Rogue poisons are actual nature magic in WoW, this is why they have the nature tag.
So, the class idendity is fine, don't use that as an excuse to buff non-meta cards because you refuse to play meta. If serpentbloom became meta you would stop playing it, don't pretend you care about class idendity when you don't know basic facts about said identity.
Every you said is true, for now. But it has been said about many things before. Hero power/Inspire mechanics, Discard warlock, Hand buffs, Resurrect priest...
Spell schools will get better and better over time, get more and more options and synergy to the point of critical mass, and sooner or later there will be entire spell school based decks that are very powerful and unique.
Blizzard clearly said they intend to support this mechanic in all expansions going forward, and it will slowly move from unplayable trash meme pack filler cards to legit archetypes that can compete in the most powerful format (Wild), like they did with discard lock and handbuffs.
I suggest you learn a thing or two about the lore and mechanics of magic schools in World of Warcraft, it will answer all your questions and clear your confusion.
Serpentbloom is just a snake in a flower, it's a simple beast. In hearthstone, it's a spell card, so it can't have the beast tag, but it is not an actual in-lore spell, like I said it's just a beast, so no nature tag.
Rogue poisons are actual nature magic in WoW, this is why they have the nature tag.
So, the class idendity is fine, don't use that as an excuse to buff non-meta cards because you refuse to play meta. If serpentbloom became meta you would stop playing it, don't pretend you care about class idendity when you don't know basic facts about said identity.
In what part of the lore was Valeera a pirate, aka Cap’n Valeera?
You’re awful judgmental in your reply and shouldn’t presume to know what people would or wouldn’t do. If you want to suggest I research the lore, fair enough. But leave out all the aspersions of whether or not I care about class identity or whether I’d play a card if it became meta. That takes you into the territory of not knowing what you’re talking about and makes you sound like a presumptuous douche.
To your point, I don’t know lore and I’ve since learned a bit from all the other replies to my original post. I’m a person that’s never played WOW but has played Hearthstone for years. Now I’m understanding that perhaps there was some logic to Blizzard not giving Hunter any Nature spells. Again, seems a bit off to me given what a Hunter “is” but it seems to have something to do w the WOW lore. Good enough for me.
In the part that is the Hearthstone lore. WoW lore is the base, then they add bits of hearthstone gimmickry here and there. Like Ragnaros, Lightlord who doesn't exist in WoW, but still follows the WoW rule of being an elemental.
You know I'm right, all the people who "refuse to play meta" are the same, I've been there too. They wish their homebrew deck would have the power of a T1 refined deck, but never be played by anyone else so it doesn't become the meta. Unfortunately, card games don't work like that. I don't mean that in an offensive way, I just believe there is a flaw in your reasoning. If that makes me a douche then it's fine by me. I'm not native english and I don't even know what a douche is, in my language a douche is a shower, it can't hurt me.
Thanks for making my point. Hearthstone doesn't follow lock-step with WOW lore...it's closely aligned but it also has it's own form of gimmickry here and there. One could then make the point (like I tried to above) that giving Hunter some Nature spells might be a reasonable way to go - given that it's a hero type which would seem to be in touch w/ nature.
As for the remainder of your reply, I generally think that people like you who are prone to marginalizing or summarizing entire groups of people with statements that include "all you people who (insert label here) are the same" live with your heads up your own asses. Again, if you thought there was flaw in my reasoning, fair enough...could have simply said that without all the other BS you included to make yourself sound like the grand arbiter of things.
We're done. Moving on...
Well, good to know they intend in keeping the work on this... it's just I'd rather have something better to start working with. I already have seen a lot of decks I wanted to work that never came to be (beast druid am I right?)
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
Great post