Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Hunter

101,382pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Patch 3.2 Edit

As on 3.2 traps last 30 seconds so I'm not sure you can still chain-trap effectively. It might still be possible but the section of use of traps in PvE needs to be updated (I'm not sure what with or I'd do it myself :)

Patch 2.3Edit

Since patch 2.3, the deadzone has been deleted, so that now the range is 5 - 35 (Up to 41 with talens). Seeing as the melee range is 5 yards, no more deadzone. Thundagard 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

what does this page have to do with warcraft I II or III units or classes?Edit

none of those games are so much as mentioned on this page so why is it classified as such? IconSmall Draenei FemaleRESKAR(Contr)

2.0.1 ChangesEdit

It looks like we need to make a lot of edits to this page for 2.0. There are changes to talents, ammo available, the RAP formula, the importance of int to MM builds, and several hundred other things.

Starting WeaponsEdit

The page says that Hunters start with axe prof. but my Night Elf started with daggers, bows, and unarmed only.

  • Trolls, Orcs, Tauren, and Dwarves start with axes. Only Night Elves start with daggers.

"Being Useful in Instances" LinkEdit

Link leading to blank forum on official site:

--Dracomage 16:35, 20 March 2006 (EST)

Author's noteEdit

Please try to keep this page relatively short; if a section grows rather long, please create a new page and link to it. The aim of this page is to create a quick overview of the Hunter class for new players, and provide links to more detailed information for more experianced players. --Goldark 05:20, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

Stats @ level 60?Edit

We have "starting stats" listed—how about the base stats at level 60? RobertM525 04:45, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

OMG HUNTER LOOT Edit

The section regarding the "OMG HUNTER LOOT" joke completely missed the point in my opinion of why the joke even exists. It's not because hunters can use so many items. It is mainly because only a selection of items from a given category are even remotely useful to a hunter even if they are usable by a hunter.

Take three weapons as an example:

http://www.thottbot.com/?i=22470 - Nice dps, and a decent proc. Not useful to a hunter. No hunter is going to desire to be in melee range long enough for this to proc. Any melee class however would probably gladly take this weapon as it's proc would directly benefit them.

http://www.thottbot.com/?i=53582 - Another example of a nice dps, nice stat weapon. The stats however are completely unsuited for a hunter in his typical role (ranged dps) whereas in the hands of a melee class the extra hp and armor (at least in the hands of a warrior or paladin and sometimes rogue) would be a much better fit.

http://www.thottbot.com/?i=37158 - This however is a perfect example of a typical "OMG HUNTER WEAPON" No proc to muddy the water, and very "hunter centric" stats on a dual wieldable weapon (26 agility is roughly 1/2% crit and 52 ranged attack power - arguably the hunters most important stat, not to mention they could both be enchanted for an additional 30 agility)

Clearly the Hatchet could be useful to other classes. No doubt about that. A hunter though, if he wants to make the most use out of his abilities must be very preferential in regards to what equipment he takes. It is a disservice to hunters in general to generalize "OMG HUNTER LOOT" as hunters just being plain greedy, when a better understanding of the equipment concerns that hunters regularly face would go a long way toward class understanding.

Note 26 Agility is no long 52 RAP but only 26 RAP.

--the preceding has been nothing more then my opinion, take it with however big a grain of salt you want--

One thing. I remember in an old guild(i dare not speak its name) where a Hunter(level 60) recently joined for raiding. He didnt have great gear from what i heard other that maybe 1 or 2 epics and a couple rares. So what i heard was that the GM found out he had a weapon that was so godly that any warrior/pally would die for it(GM was also a warrior if i recall). He was banned from the guild just for having it. I whispered him and he said that there hadnt been anyone there to claim it because someone had better ones. I have seen this a few times and i am only level 45. --User:Milcon

This post is linked to from the main article, and a user template. Does it need it's own page (cleaned up a bit of course)? It is not quite the same as Hunter weapon, perhaps Hunter loot, with a 'see also' to the former?--SWM2448 21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

--I edited the bottom of this article because it was wrong beyond sadness. Only daggers and pole arms are good for hunters? What about all the good axes and swords for hunters? Bone slicing hatchets? Legacy? The Twin Blades of Hakkari? And the following sentence, "you'll be more popular if you just don't roll on weapons" is particularly vile. I think I'll come back later and write more about the impact of slow weapons for raptor strike, and the effects of dual wielding with mana oils, but I couldn't let that paragraph stand. --User:Kloro

That is fine. Does it make the joke wrong?--SWM2448 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
People don't realise part of the whole "Melee Weapon" business. While it's true that Hunters probably won't ever ATTACK with a melee weapon, they do still USE them; being able to effectively use a weapon means that there is some part of it (stat bonuses, procs, base damage, etc.) that that character gets a big boost out of. In my opinion, nearly anything that a melee class could use is something that a Hunter could use; anything with a stat bonus that a Hunter could use could be considered a "Hunter Weapon," particularly Agility, Stamina, and attack power. Agility weapons that are 2-handed are practically made for Hunters; Rogues can't use them, and Warriors/Paladins most likely want Stamina and Strength over Agility.
The idea that Hunters "should only use Daggers or Polearms" is completely untrue; Daggers with bonuses that Hunters need are almost always considered "Rogue Daggers" (meaning Rogues will bitch about Hunters trying to "Ninja their gear"), and finding a good Polearm is hard PERIOD (let alone finding one that has Hunter-friendly stats). Felindre
I know- there's all sorts of weapons but none of them were designed specifically for one class (with the exeption of the runeblade, kinda). My hunter uses a two-handed sword because I love the damage and I looted a nice one. There may be more helpful or useful armor and weapons, but there isn't any that's custom made except for custom made things (and if that made sense, I'm impressed). Deiena (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ranged weaponsEdit

In the same section it mentions that hunters have competition for the ranged weapons. I'm not to sure here, but unless there's another hunter in the group, I've had no contest for a ranged weapon I can use. If you aren't a hunter, and you use a ranged weapon, then it's for pulling, which is a rather negligible part of the damage. I think it would be considered quite rude for anyone to need a high dps bow when they are not a hunter and there is a hunter in the group.

Pretty much same situation as with hunter's melee here. Some tanks may want the weapon for agility and stamina stats, completely ignoring its damage. Yes, of course if your group have hunter and he needs it, it is a common sense to leave it to him. But otherwise nothing stops other classes to loot the weapon for stats. --Rowaasr13 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes Due:Edit

to "Things Hunters Should Remember"
I'm currently reworking the organization of that section, it's scattered and disjointed at the moment. I have written a great deal on the "OMG, Hunter Loot!" situation; it would be useful to have discussion about Loot, Equipment, Ammunition Types and Usage, and Threat Management under a separate Hunter Tactics page.
to "Level by Level Hunter Enhancements"
This could use it's own page, maybe under the [Category:Ability|Ability] category, that way it can be cross linked to all the individual skills as a primary index.
-Mind 21:21, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Removed section "Level by Level Hunter Enhancements"Edit

I would suggest to remove the section: Level by Level Hunter Enhancements It's not really that informative and can also be seen better at the ablities subpage.

Edit: After receiving no objections I decided to go ahead and remove that section, because it isn't really that informative and clutters the page. The section is preserved here below.

==Level by Level Hunter Enhancements==

Level 1
Survival:
-Raptor Strike (rank 1)

Level 2
Survival:
-Track Beasts

Level 4
Beast Mastery:
-Aspect of the Monkey
Marksmanship:
-Serpent Sting (rank 1)

Level 6
Marksmanship
-Arcane Shot (rank 1)
-Hunters Mark (rank 1)

Level 8
Marksmanship
-Concussive Shot
Survival
-Raptor Strike (rank 2)

Level 10
Marksmanship
-Serpent Sting (rank 2)
Survival
-Track Humanoids
Beast Mastery
-Aspect of the Hawk (rank 1)

Level 12
Marksmanship
-Arcane Shot (rank 2)
-Distracting Shot
Survival
-Wing Clip (rank 1)
Beast Mastery
-Mend Pet (rank 1)

Level 14
Marksmanship
-none
Survival
-none
Beast Mastery
-Eagle Eye
-Eyes of the Beast
-Scare Beast (rank 1)

Level 16
Marksmanship
-none
Survival
-Immolation Trap (rank 1)
-Mongoose Bite (rank 1)
-Raptor Strike (rank 3)
Beast Mastery
-none

Level 18
Marksmanship
-Multi-Shot (rank 1)
-Serpent Sting (rank 3)
Survival
-Track Undead
Beast Mastery
-Aspect of the Hawk (rank 2)
-Mend Pet (rank 2)

Disputing current formulas for hunters Edit

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ABOVE IS CORRECT CAN ANY ONE CONFIRM THIS:

My char in the armoury: http://armory.worldofwarcraft.com/?#character-sheet.xml?r=Proudmoore&n=Courtjesteri

ok My hunter has at lvl 70 1401 RAP and 17.56% Crit in the armoury and according to the above formula it should equal:

1401 / 14 == 100.071 RANGED DPS - ---- Fair enough that is accurate according to the tool tip (100DPS)

My AGI = 370

According to the above formula it should increast mt AP by 370. The tool tip in the armoury / char screen says I get a 360 AP from this amount of agility

THIS EQUALS : 360 / 370 = 0.9729 AP Per point or agility or 1.027 AGI is needed Per AP

and lastly you are supposed to be getting 0.025% Crit PER POINT OF AGILITY My + CRIT raiting == 107 at 70 this == 4.85% Crit Chance

I have Lethal Shots so that accounts for another 5% Ranged Crit so 9.85% in total for + items or skills Which leaves 7.72% Crit Chance from Agility. If you look at the tool tip this is indeed correct.

However 7.72 / 370 = 0.0286% or 47.92 AGI per 1% to Crit

If I Was following the above formula I should have :

370 / 40 = 9.25% Crit Chance.

Has the game mechanics recentl been changed or has every where I read have these numbers and formulas wrong or is it that my maths is incorrect. I ahve looked at several other hunter in the armoury and the numbers are the same / very similar for all of them.

--Courtjesteri

The agi and stats that a hunter has when born/leveled up are fucked, they have been for a long, long, long, long time. If you take all of your gear off and do the calculations, you'll be pleasently pissed off.

--Ithar 05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Agility -> Attack Power difference is accounted for by the formula, which you would have noticed had you taken the time to look it up:

AP = AGI - 10

--Moblinman 07:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Patch 2.x notes Edit

Quite of few of the notes that relate to changes in patch 2.0 are now irrelevant and should probably be reworked under a "Classic" heading of some kind. This could also incorporate a list of changes made to the class in general. It would keep the rest of the page's information relevant to the present hunter while still being informative about past implementations of the class.

Cleanup needed Edit

Offending sections:

  • Ranged Fighting/Stings/Shots: Needs reworking into a single section, since stings and shots ARE ranged fighting.
  • Abilities section in general: If we wanted a list of all the abilities that a hunter could do, we could go to the hunter abilities page. This isn't it.
  • Attributes section: Has nothing about attributes.
  • Armor sets: Doesn't belong here, already has a link in the table at the top of the page.

Pzychotix 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I find the ranged fighting and stings, shots sections to be fine. Putting them together would clutter the paragraph with too much info together. Also the armor sets are very handy links that are used frequently, the link you refer to at the top, does not hold the amount of info this section gives. So I wouldn't remove these sections.
Dyna18 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this today, Stings and Shots are subsections under Ranged Fighting, so I think that's good. Although, I think something more general and succinct than an ability list would be better. I renamed Attributes to Gear since that's what it's about. -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just going to dig right in here and move these to the page ABOUT hunter abilities: Hunter_abilities. There's no reason that we need entire lists of abilities on the Hunter page. An overview is what should be here, not every single move in the game. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

base stats Edit

Lvl 70 stats per race:

Race		Str	Agi	Sta	Int	Spr	HP	Mana
Orc		67	150	110	78	86	3488	3253
Troll		65	153	109	73	84	3488	3253
Tauren		69	148	110	76	85	3662	3253
Blood Elf	61	156	106	85	82	3488	3253

Night Elf	61	156	107	77	83	3488	3253
Dwarf		66	147	111	76	82	3488	3253
Draenei		65	150	107	82	85	3488	3253

 - CJ talk / cont  13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

+spell damage? Edit

Do hunters get any use out of spell damage? I know the heal was nerfed... --Azaram 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No.   Zurr  TC 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuts. :p Thanks. --Azaram 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Back when the game first started Spell damaged increased Arcane Shot, Serpent Sting, and Mend Pet...but slowly each was removed from getting help by spelldamage...even though a hunter set, Striker's Garb from AQ still exists with +spell damage on it. User:Coobra/Sig3 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Researching what gems I want in my hunter's new breastplate, I came across " 55 Intellect = +1% Spell Critical Hit 55 Intellect = +1% Spell Critical Hit" in the attribute table here, for 60/70 hunter respectively. Is this a leftover from an older version?--Azaram 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I do believe it's a relic of old calculations, but Hunters have had one item that relied on our Spell Critical Hit rating: the Arcane Infused Gem. Rilgon <t|c> 08:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Why would a hunter need spell crits we don't use spells if you want to really excel as a hunter get agility, strength, and stamina (stamina so you can take a couple of hits from a warrior twink :] ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killermidget (talk · contr).
Did you really just say strength... for a hunter.... User:Coobra/Sig3 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
well when you have a crappy bow and do more damage with your melee then ya (idiots you can't get rid of them) Killermidget
The Stats of a Hunter affect the stats of the Hunter's pet; if you want your pet to have extremely high DPS, you want a high-damage pet (like a Cat, Raptor, or Ravager) and a good amount of Strength to beef up its AP. But Strength is really only useful for the pet; a Hunter that needs to use their melee weapons (and rely on high Strength) should start looking for a better ranged weapon. Felindre
Your pet gets bonus AP from your RAP, not AP. Strength on a hunter is usless for both the hunter and pet. --   22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

how do you make your own signature? Killermidget

Look to WoWWiki:Signature for help in that, and I'll kindly ask you to stop adding in dozens of dashes and/or equal signs, you don't need those when adding comments.User:Coobra/Sig3 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

k I didn't know about that Killermidget 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notices Edit

I think the Notices subsection should be moved to Hunter tactics, and replaced with the title "Tactics" followed by a brief list of key hunter tactics and a link to that page. Don't have the guts to do it myself, tho! Dwarfish 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As it has been close to a year since the suggestion was made, with no followup, I removed the move tag. There is already a hunter tactics page, which has very different content than what is in the notes section. While the notes section does have very general tactical hints such as "remember to bring ammo" and a few pointers on items such as kiting, the hunter tactics page goes into much more detail on these tactics. --Wige (Talk - Contribs) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ProblemReport copy Edit

Copied from Special:ProblemReports/10194

"Haste Rating needed for 1% Haste = 10.51" Haste Rating should be "Every 15.7 Points of Haste rating you will have 1% more Attack Speed at level 70." according to the http://www.wowwiki.com/Haste which seems accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.127.80 (talk · contr).

Automated transfer of Problem Report #13114 Edit

The following message was left by Anonymous via PR #13114 on 2008-08-21 13:45:42 UTC

the stats conversions are not accurate. 1 agi no longer equals 1 rap. This change was made by blizzard some time ago... VERY quietly.

Its not you, its me... Edit

I have a lv 80 hunter. (OMG! 3 years playing wow and finally my 1st level capped character!)
Every time i do those crappy UK HC's for the gun the DPS meter shows that everyone (Yea most likely the healer too) has A LOT better DPS than me. I'm not sure if it the reason is my crappy gear, (Most of it is best that you can buy with honor at 3.1.3), or that Hunters just suck at DPS or I cant play hunter. I had 5% from hit cap, if its the reason. Does any1 know what the problem is?

End-game expectations section outdated? Edit

I certainly feel like it is.. Any thoughts?

Edit: took the liberty to update the traps section, hope no one minds..Daginn (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rexxar Edit

Is not a Hunter, he is a Beastmaster, he should not be featured. Revrant (talk) 11:03, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Beastmasters are a type of hunter seen in WOW. As i said earlier there is no black and white with charactes and certain lore class since there is no profile such as "Name: Rexxar, Class:etc...". We use our own judgement for this list. Similarly to Rexxar the Windrunner sisters could be said to be Rangers not Hunters, but since unlike Paladins and Death Knights, where you either are or you aren't one, classes like rogue, warrior, and hunter are only identifiable in lore by certain characteristics. For Rexxar as a hunter that's an animal companion, a love of the wild, etc...things that are defing for Rexxar and Hunters. If we remove Rexxar, the entire list should be removed, and because weve decided to only list characters specificly classified as a Hunter with a capital H. But's that's changing the way we've done things and a whole different discussion for whether we should or should not do so. And i get the feeling the admins won't go for removing the section entirely.Warthok Talk Contribs 12:53, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
No, they are not, Rexxar is a black and white Beastmaster, if you're talking about Beast Mastery that's not just representative of Beastmasters, and Rexxar is a Beastmaster, a Beastmaster is a Nature Warrior, Rexxar exemplifies this. To suggest that everyone is generic enough to be included based on something as arbitrary as that would mean we should include Druids as well.
The bottom line is Rexxar isn't a Hunter, he's in the Beastmaster section, everything about him says Beastmaster, and Beastmasters themselves are not Hunters, but it could be argued they are ilk to some degree. As for the others, they are not Hunters either, there are notable Hunters other than prestige classes as seen here, the end of it is Hunters must be included, not Hunter-like classes, and if they must be included then the preface must be accepted differentiating "Hunter" from "hunter" and the letter's capitalization revoked. Revrant (talk) 00:49, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
"Beast Mastery that's not just representative of Beastmasters...a Beastmaster is a Nature Warrior". Hunters can just as easily be considered nature warriors. You seem to be making pretty definite unyielding claims that i've seen no evidence to suggest so. As i've said there is no such classification in lore as hunter. It's all about a character's attributes and Rexxar and Hunters share more attributes than they don't. Personaly if you want to go that route about specific titles i'm completely supportive, as long as were being fair across the board and removing everyone not specificly classified as a Hunter in the WoW sense. But before you go around deleting an entire section you may want to talk to an admin. If you don't however remove the rest, just try and delete Rexxar again, but have no problem with the rangers staying up there, then i'd say you have no leg to stand on and Rexxar has just as much a reason to be up there and must stay.Warthok Talk Contribs 02:37, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the literal class, Beastmasters are Warriors, they fight in melee, they literally call the wild to their aid as Druids do, and establish a rapport with many animals, it's all in the Beastmaster article. I realize they share attributes, but to say they are so similar so as to include them is rather ridiculous, I would not be against removing all non-Hunter characters, which would be Brann, the Windrunners, Rexxar, and possibly Shandris, but Sentinels are a little grey. I would also ask for the inclusion of Cairne, as he is identified as a Hunter explicitly in the RPG, and the same is true of Malorne. Revrant (talk) 02:54, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
"I realize they share attributes, but to say they are so similar so as to include them is rather ridiculous" If by ridiculous you mean completely logical than yes. It's clear we disagree there and i doubt were going to comprimise as there is no source we can just point to that will settle it, it's all a matter of perspective. Fortunetly if we go the route that is being discussed we can simply have Cairene, Malorne, and anyone else the rpg classiies as a hunter and be done with it. I wouldn't include the sentinels for the same reason as rexxar and the windrunners, it's all or nothing.Warthok Talk Contribs 12:34, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
It is clear, and the source is part of the Beastmaster article identifying him as a Warrior, however as for whether a Beastmaster is also a Hunter, there is indeed no source. It is done. Revrant (talk) 09:00, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Patch 4.0.0.1x Edit

Why is Blizzard making hunters pay for things that have been free since now? of course, I'm talking about spells like Tame beast, Dismiss Pet, Feed Pet and now hunters need to pay in order to simple get a action bar to control their pet. 6 silver and 12 copper is alot to pay for at level ten, but you also have to get enough for all the level ten hunter spells. I feel like Blizzard should reduce the price. Also, I'm not sure if this applies to Warlocks as well, but if not, why? Gorlack2231 (talk) 01:53, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

K... well this isn't the official WoW forums. And the counter argument is... you're spending less, overall, for spells/abilities now that you only buy the spell once and not several ranks. User:Coobra/Sig4 03:09, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki