Previously unsectioned Edit

Did the writer of this page every actually play World of Warcraft?

Leveling speed has as much or more to do with the player's knowledge of quests and terrain than it does with class characteristics. If there were nothing to leveling but downtime, survivability and DPS (i.e. solo grinding to level) then priests, paladins, resto and balance druids, and warriors will be near the bottom of the list of leveling efficiency because of their slow killing speed, shaman and mages somewhere in the middle (decent kill speed but increased downtime), hunters, rogues, feral druids and warlocks near the top (good damage, highly survivable and nearly no downtime at all when played well). It also goes without saying that any poorly played/specced/equipped toon will level more slowly than a well-played one in a less efficient bracket.

It would be nice to spend some time actually playing the game before making such sweeping generalizations. --Ingolf

I happen to think the person who wrote all that did in fact not play the game ever. A lot of it looks really rookie-ish, like they assembled data and came up with this. It paints a really bad picture for someone who is just starting. Schmidt 03:31, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
The Difficulty of Classes section especially is a rather dubious collection of opinions. I mean, it gives the impression that Warriors level faster than any other class. Really? Cornprone 09:02, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
If you think the opinions are poorly supported, put something better. I agree that some of the rationales are weak... especially with slow leveling for mages... what a crock. If I have time I might update some of the info, but like I said at the beginning, since this is a wiki, change what you don't like! --Fandyllic 7:20 PM PDT 17 May 2006

No reason to have opinions of one person on this site. There are dozens and dozens of people who will argue against any, if not all of the opinions in the difficulty sections. If you censor or silence me again then it proves that this site supports opinions, not facts.

How many opinions would be justified? More than one? Zero? Here's my opinion (gasp!) on the matter – and maybe, just maybe, it's more than an opinion. If no one stated their opinion about anything, there would be no art, there would be no criticism of art, and whatever art was there would not improve. Copernicus would not have thought "You know, I have half a mind to think that the earth revolves around the sun!" I'd (to a large extent) say that an opinion is like a hypothesis. First you have an opinion (hypothesis). Then you run with it and see if your mind changes. That's pretty much how it goes either way.
Now, without a fair hypothesis (I can't speak for the other classes; the paladin section of the "difficulty" section is not well represented) there can't be much progress. For one thing, someone needs to initiate the argument, and someone else needs to reword or hash it out in a traditional argument form to hammer out a better representation of the topic at hand. If someone doesn't initiate it, no opinions will be presented, and a newbie will be lost as to which might fit him best. Schmidt 18:39, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

I don't even understand what it is that you're arguing becuase you worded it in such a confusing manner that all I pretty much got out of that was more of the self elitest nonsense that seems to be the primary problem with this site. Last I checked, Newbie is a derogatory term, and to put that most Paladins are newbies is nothing short of an insult to people who play the class. EZMode is also a very poor and ridiculous definition of the Paladin class. Instead of saying EZ Mode, you rephrase it into a way that makes a little bit of SENSE, such as stating that many players believe that the strategy of using devine shield is "unfair". But to use an ability that the class has should be defined as newb? Explain that to me, because I'm not really understanding how that fits. Instead of glorifying Warlocks, and completely ommiting Druids, how about we put factual statements about the classes, which is what is SUPPOSED to be done on a Wiki site. These aren't the World of Warcraft forums where you complain about "omg pallyz r newb and need nerfz", this is a site that could potentially give information which could sway a potential player on direction or another. -- Alburn

Oh and before you guys go ape and start accusing me of being ANOTHER NOOB PALADIN! my Main is a 60 Gnome Mage -- Alburn

Hey. I play a paladin, in case you didn't notice. (Maybe you did, maybe you didn't.) Maybe I don't play right, or have the perfect stats, but I have been accused of buying my character off of e-bay simply because I didn't know how much a particular gem cost. (I am unoffended by the term newbie when it is justly used, but I always despise the term noob.) *Whatever!* Anyways, basically I'm saying that until someone decides to enter something on the page, pretty much all you have is one postulation. The idea behind a wiki is not necessarily to put the most factual information there, since that's not always available. The idea is to put something there, and someone who feels differently can change the wording or the entire block of "information", not to just complain about it on the talk page. Obviously whoever wrote that either had a different frame of mind or was simply ignorant. Either way, feel free to change whatever is there that you don't agree with. It would be good to explain your change here, for instance:
"I thought it was unjust to say that Paladins are easy mode because there is so much expected of them that they need to know what their job is", etc. ... (Me, I went into a raid the other day and I had to keep buffing individuals with kings because all my Greater blessings were might and wisdom only. No more of that! Next time I do a raid it'll be lvl 60 so I get all the greater blessings.)
Reword as necessary. It's not that difficult, and there's little complaining to be done. I am not at all an elitist. (If you think I am, I will let you explain yourself, and ask for other testimony.) Factual statements are good where possible, but comparing classes is not really possible. Any "factual statements" such as numbers and what skills are – statements like that are trivial. You can only do so much with factual information when really what you want to know is if you would like a race or a class. What you really need is information from someone who has played that class.
That said, what we really need is for someone to reword that bottom section and summarize each class in a relevant way. I think I'll do that shortly. Schmidt 02:56, 4 June 2006 (EDT)


This is purely a formatting suggestion - I think the box with the links to class lore, gear, talents, etc. should be moved down the page so it's not the first thing someone sees when they visit this page. For a new person, it might be confusing, and an intro paragraph would, IMO, be more helpful.Lijakaca 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Major change Edit

I removed the whole "difficulty" section as useless. I added a lot under paladin and moved them to melee. They're support, but they are 100% melee. It sounds like "Support" would have been better named "Hybrid", but I don't think that's useful, although there might be other opinions out there. Schmidt 03:31, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Great now this has turned into an article which focuses primarily on Paladins and falls short of identifying the other classes in the same way. I did my part, and now I really dont give a damn anymore because it seems like any contribution that have any effort put into them are ignored. Add to the fact that there seems no way to agree on how to split up the page and it makes reading and editing this page completely pointless. Alburn 00:40, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

I added so much to paladins just because I thought it was relevant and because that's the only class I know very well. Whoever else wants to add to other classes is free to do so. Schmidt 06:34, 2 July 2006 (EDT)


Rewrote the Shaman section to attempt to maintain a neutral point of view, and to reflect the shaman community's recent angst over their level 60 raid game. Oryx 10:02, 31 June 2006 (PDT)


Quote: 'Like many ranged classes, Cloth armor makes survivability of a Priest significantly lower, thus making it necessary to "Protect the Priest".' This is claptrap, as a Priest with Inner Fire and sometimes Shadowform has the defence of a mail-wearer...

Quote: 'In Shadow Form, some players believe that Priests can cause damage that rivals many of the ranged classes, but it is still a general consensus that Priests should be healers in any situation except when they are solo.' Same story... Shadowpriests have one of the highest Burst DPSes in the game. A Shadowpriest does far more damage than, for instance, a Hunter. I edited both of these phrases.

There's a HUGE debate over Shadow Priest validity on the Priest Forums every day, as well as the Priest page. Don't take that debate here. This page is intended to give new players the chance to read a small introduction about what they should expect playing the class. The one word that new players should know about Priests is: Healing. It's our job in instances, because we're the best at it. I only grouped with another healing class a few times while levelling up. I played Shadow because I'm not a masochist, but I knew that when I went to an instance, my job would be to heal, whether or not I wanted to. Not telling new players that they'll be expected to heal is doing them a grave disservice. Priests ARE the go-to healers. Anybody who rolls a Priests should either expect to be in the extreme minority (to the point where other players mock you or refuse to group with you), or be expected to heal.

If there's a huge debate, wouldn't the sentence 'General consensus' be innaccurate? With Vampiric Touch, Vampiric Embrace, not to mention the damage applied, SP's have gained raid utility. With that, it seems odd that such biased statements as those the OP brought to 'light' (ironically) would be acceptable. Razzik 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Druid - master of one, not none Edit

Not to restart an old arguement.... but this really should be "Jack of all trades, master of one" as Druids are quite good at any area that they are geared/talented for. However as you cannot change gear mid fight and respending talent points costs gold and a trip to the Druid trainer, filling too many different roles at once is difficult to say the least. I have been trying to find a good "luke-warm" or "tri-spec" way to allow me to fulfill multiple roles as needed but the need for change of equipped armor stats makes this nearly impossible to stay effective in anything let alone two or more at once. This is especially true for roles that are vastly different such as healing and feral.

Incubi, Lvl 60 Tauren Druid; Realm: Laughing Skull (US)(PVP); Guild: Testament

Sam Weber (talkcontr) made that change, now. I moved the motivation to here.   --Mikk (T) 07:05, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

Hidden Comments and Being Stubborn Edit

Mikk seems to be very adamant about leaving his hidden comments in the article. The least you could have done is leave in the correction for the capitalization of Shadowform.--Hobinheim 09:53, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Oops, my bad about the capitalization. And, yes, I _AM_ very stubborn about keeping comments like that in in places where people just edit stuff wildly without having the first clue what they're talking about; the third or fourth time I had to edit the fact that smite build priests outdps shadowform priests back in, I put that comment in. I haven't had to edit it back again.   --Mikk (T) 10:04, 29 October 2006 (EST)
It seems kind of... stupid. Not your intentions, but leaving hidden comments in an article. I've seen people do that on Wikipedia, it's juvenile. Beware. I might go crazy and just take them out, good reason or not.--Hobinheim 10:10, 29 October 2006 (EST)
I'm not really following here. Both wikipedia and wowwiki have comments here and there in articles where it's deserved. The intended usage for comments in wikitext is to alert editors (as opposed to viewers) that there's a reason for something looking the way it does, which I'm doing here. Or at least inviting commentary here on the talk page before just changing something. Granted, the BEST thing I could do is write up an article on the exact mechanics of why a smite build outdpses a shadow build and link to it, but until I get around to doing that, the comment seems like the next best thing to me.   --Mikk (T) 11:21, 29 October 2006 (EST)
Nobody cares if a Smite build out-DPSs a Shadow Build. That's an endgame discussion. The subtle nuances of the class shouldn't be shoved into a one paragraph summary intended for a new player. Move that to the Priest page if you want. I edited the Priest thing to make it actually resemble sorta what it's like to play a Priest (included a lot more emphasis on the healing role). Forbiddian 8:01 05 April 2007

Still one (Major) question is not being addressed Edit

While this WoWWiki is amazing, and this class section is generally pretty sweet, there is one "choosing a class" issue that I can't seem to find addressed anywhere:
  • I am pretty much a "newb" (highest lvl char is 21), but I am getting to a point where any decent quest ~ my level requires a group. I know this will only be more true at higher levels. The char I have is a rogue (I wanted to try rogue b/c normally they are quite lame, but they sounded really cool in WoW). I really like the character, but... No one wants to group with a rogue. So, the question is this: what is the "best class" (and possibly best talent chain) if you want to be most welcome in a group? I think I like all of the classes, but I don't like the hassle of trying to find a group willing to accept me. (Sometimes folks will, but often not.)
  • The biggest requests I see are often for "a tank" or "a healer". But since WoW is (thankfully) fairly different from std roleplaying games, I am not really sure what makes for the best of these at a higher level. So, the questions are these:
  • What is the class that will most often be sought out for a group? What is the best talent chain in the class, for focusing on helping groups? At what levels? (Presumably one class is best at really high levels, but another at moderate levels.)
  • What "roles" are most often sought out for a group? E.g., I said healer and tank above. Again, does this change at different levels?
  • And finally: are there ever non-combat roles that are needed in groups? (E.g., mages can do some teleport stuff, rogues can pick locks, etc.)

Thanks!Lazarillo 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Lazarillo

As to your first point, I would say that it really isn't that true until you get to 61+. Aside from that, people at your level really shouldn't care what they're wanting as group members, as long as they've got the basic classes of a group, such as Tank, DPS, Healer, and two alternates.
As to what makes the best tank, nothing tanks like a Warrior tanks, but the two hybrids, Paladins and Druids, also have astonishing capabilities, and with both, you can be a decent main healer or spectacular offhealer, depending on spec.
Best talent chains are the ones that get you to 70 quickly, regardless of who you have for a group. You should personally be able to adapt to whatever group comes along; if you happen to be a healer hybrid (even if not specced for it), pack 2 sets; one for healing and one for leveling.
Roles: As I said before, the basic group consists of an MT, a DPS, an MH, and two others. I personally have always preferred to have a Warrior for MT, myself as DPS (a Mage), a Priest for MH, a hybrid healer (usually a Paladin, to take over from the Warrior in-case) and a DPS or hybrid DPS (usually a Rogue, but Lock or Hunter worked for me when I could get them :). It just makes for the easiest groups that way. Does this change? No, not really. This setup gives one the most versatility.
Needed? Never. Occasionally helpful? Sure. The only super-useful non-combat role really is the picking lock thing. Groups will love a Mage for the conjured food and drink as well as the Teleport (40+), they'll love Druids for never being useless in a given situation (Druids are really good at just going... and going... like the Energizer Bunny), they'll love Locks for the Healthstones and Hunters for their pets. The list goes on and on. I hope all that answers your questions. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shamen Edit

LOL, I saw someone had said the plural to shaman is shamen. Good one. Maybe in a hyper-patriarchal country... It wouldn't be shamen, because that isn't fair to female shamans... ;-) --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr)1);40 AM PDT 2 Nov 2007

real-world archetypes Edit

Although the examples of Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles do provide some flavor to the page, I think they might be misleading (and are also somewhat Eurocentric for what is an ever-more worldwide game). Although undoubtedly there are some bases for comparison, I think a new player would get more out of a game-focused description, not to mention that for certain classes (i.e. Warlock) there aren't really many real-world/pop-culture comparisons that are readily available.

How about we switch these out with some Warcraft-lore characters that exemplify the various classes? Uther for Paladins, Tyrande for Priests, Gul'din for Warlocks, etc.? Particularly since many new players have probably played some of the Warcraft series, or know someone who has.--Scrotch 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree those examples are misleading. VERY misleading indeed. Neverthesless, it is not easy to find warcraft characters to represent each class. For instance, Tyrande, although she is the Priestess of the Moon, is by no mean anything close to priests in WOW. (She is more like a hunter IMO.) I suggest we can simply remove all those silly examples. WakemanCK 05:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Removed. WakemanCK 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

class categories Edit

So, the more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that the categories that the classes are divided by (melee/ranged/support) are sort of misleading.

Although at first it seemed obvious to split Warriors and Rogues off from the rest as melee combat is different from ranged dps, but then I realized that Paladins, Shamans and Druids are pretty much melee until 70 except sometimes in groups. And that a lot of Priests (since Shadow is now very popular at 70 some will never have to go Disc or Holy) have more in common with Mages and Warlocks than they do with any Paladin. And honestly, playing a Rogue is very different from any other class, even a dps Warrior.

I guess you can blame Blizz for making (what used to be) offspecs viable.

So, I suggest reorganizing the page either by a) class name alphabetical order or b) grouping by cloth/leather/leather-then-plate/mail-then-plate wearers since the type of armor you wear has a lot more to do with how you play than if your 'typical spec' (whatever that means nowadays) is for melee dps, ranged dps, or healing. Or, for Warriors, tanking.

Oh and maybe we should put what races can be which class on the page. Just in case a potential new player comes to the game wanting to be a Tauren Priest or a Dwarf Mage or something. And I'm still surprised that Gnomes can be Warriors.--Scrotch 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to adding brief descriptions of each class toward the beginning of the page. Hopefully they provide concise explanations without getting into too many details, although they can probably be sliced down some more, and I'm not sure the info I provide in some cases is the more relevant thing that could be mentioned in a brief way.--Scrotch (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Class SummariesEdit

The basic class summaries at the top of the page are nearly as in-depth as the descriptions below. Maybe something like

  • Warrior - Pure melee class, does decent melee dps and is the best tank.
  • Rogue - Pure melee class, uses stealth does insane burst damage, excellent for PvP.
  • Paladin - Warrior/Priest type hybrid, can tank, heal or melee DPS.
  • Shaman - Warrior/Mage/Priest type hybrid, can melee DPS, spell DPS or heal.
  • Druid - Jack of all trades, uses different forms that work like other classes.
  • Hunter - Most common class, fastest to level, use ranged weapons and pets. DPS only.
  • Mage - Spell DPS only, arguably best damage in the game, fairly straight-forward.
  • Warlock - Spell DPS, use demon pets, masters of Damage over Time spells.
  • Priest - Best healers in the game, can heal or spell DPS as a Shadow priest.

Just my thoughts. Rustendancy (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, but there are a few very unneutral comments. You cannot just say that warriors are the best tanks and priests are the best healers. They have their own niches in which they perform better than others, but cannot be argued to be overall the best. Also, some might say that saying a class is aguably the best at a role is basically saying that it is, and saying that a class is excellent for a certain role may make some overestimate them for that role, and may make people overlook their other potential. Otherwise, it may be ok for a quick summary somewere, but it would require you not to use anything that is really too comparative, saying one class is better (or excellent) at something, unless you want a small horde complaining to defend their class's abilities. Sorry if this looks like a debate that shouldn't be on this talk page, but such things are such fallacies that really they should be cleared up, and i do feel that a shorter summary could just work. Warden Shadowsong (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you change 'best' to 'most versitile' then I think these would be much more NPOV. While the hybrid classes can mimic the roles of the dedicated classes, they tend to mimic the core functions and lack the versitility of those classes, but frequently can do part of the utility with a different twist. Also, a hybrid which is specced for a role will probably have more core utility in that role than a dedicated/core class which is specced for a different role. For example,

  • Druids can heal great, but their one group heal is on a long timer and is PBAoE type, whereas the holy priest has circle of healing which is ranged, instant, and has no cooldown.
    • The druid HoT spells in tree form give super mana efficiency.
  • Druids can tank, but warriors have more tricks up their sleeve to maintain and gain aggro and can parry.
    • Your druid tank will likely have more armor and cannot be polymorphed.
  • Druids can dps rogue style but have no Vanish.
    • Druids can track humanoid in cat form which is handy for scouting.
  • Druids can nuke in mage fashion but their one AoE damage spell has a 60 second cooldown and is channeled.
    • Druids can CC dragons and beasts, but humanoids are more common in instances.

This is only one example class and similar parallels could be made for any of the hybrids. --WoWWiki-Dga (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Knights Edit

Death Knights are linked in the table, but not mentioned on the page. I'd add it myself, but I suspect this requires a bit more than shoving in a new link. The Death Knight probably will be given a special place in this article. (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.