Fourth specs instead of new classes? Where players draw the line on class identity

-Heako's pitch to Forever's developers on 29 October was simple. If you want horizontal classes, give every class a fourth spec instead of adding new classes. Their list proposes a fourth spec for each class, including a tank Shaman, a healer Mage called the Chronomender, a ranged Warrior throwing axes, and the Druid's Bear and Cat properly split into separate identities.

The replies argued about where a class ends. Eecka preferred new classes with identities of their own, and explained why. In Forever, they argued, speccing into a tree builds on a class's shared baseline kit, so a healer Mage or Rogue would mean giving those classes baseline healing too, and every class drifting toward a jack of all trades. "The limitations of what your class CANNOT do are just as important for the identity as the things they CAN do," they wrote. nocomments66 made a similar point. Retail can add specs because class kits shift with them, they argued, but Classic-style classes can't without something like Season of Discovery's runes.

Slo-- took a middle line. Some fourth specs, such as a tank Shaman or tank Warlock, make thematic sense to them, and, to an extent, so does a healer Mage, which they say has its place. But adding one to every class just to have it would, in their view, go too far from original Classic, and some of those new specs would erode the class fantasy people are nostalgic for.

These are players' ideas and arguments, and the thread doesn't settle what a horizontal approach should mean. The disagreement is the useful part: is a class defined by what it can learn, or by what it can't?