Pet base dmg - type according to "weapon"

[Worba]

This is in re: pets whose natural attacks/defenses became rather... underrepresented in 4.0; e.g. scorpids now have no poison effects, spirit beasts lost spirit strike, wasp sting is now a stun w/ 45 sec cd (that one I can actually live with I guess), etc.

My suggestion:

1) Condense bite/claw/smack into one ability Pet Attack (why have redundant abilties when PCs already have a generic auto attack - plus, bite/claw/smack doesn't always describe the pet's method of fighting very well?)

2) Add a new passive bonus ability to certain pets that converts some or all of the damage from their Pet Attack into nature (scorpids, possibly also snakes and wasps), arcane (spirit beasts), fire (core hounds), etc.

Thoughts?

[Sarayana]

I like the idea of our pets not just doing physical damage. I don't think we need to condense the focus dump attacks into one for that to work, all we'd need would be a passive skill for the families in question.

[Worba]

I like the idea of our pets not just doing physical damage. I don't think we need to condense the focus dump attacks into one for that to work, all we'd need would be a passive skill for the families in question.

True. I was mainly going from the standpoint that claw/bite/smack is sometimes lacking as a description of how a pet fights, outside of its special ability.

[WildcatTM]

I would be down for something like that. Or maybe a mechanic similar to a Death's Knight Scourge Strike.

[Lisaara]

I like this but problem is, by doing that, we may end up having the 'this pet is better than this one' scenario again and I really dont want that.

[Worba]

I like this but problem is, by doing that, we may end up having the 'this pet is better than this one' scenario again and I really dont want that.

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly how that would break down - was hoping someone more mathematically inclined than myself (which is probably an easy 95% of the human species) would chime in on this point - anyone know if enough mobs are "armor intensive" enough that spell dmg pets would end up with a clear advantage?

[The Insect Man]

I like this but problem is, by doing that, we may end up having the 'this pet is better than this one' scenario again and I really dont want that.

This.

Unless all pets had an elemental component to damage, so that any family advantage would be extremely situational (as most mobs don't tend to have big resistances/immunities like they did in the old Molten Core days) - and it's hard to see how the more mundane pets like bears, cats etc. could justify it.

[Mania]

I am entirely in favor of combining the basic attacks. (Two less skills in the database - yay!)

[Lisaara]

I like this but problem is, by doing that, we may end up having the 'this pet is better than this one' scenario again and I really dont want that.

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly how that would break down - was hoping someone more mathematically inclined than myself (which is probably an easy 95% of the human species) would chime in on this point - anyone know if enough mobs are "armor intensive" enough that spell dmg pets would end up with a clear advantage?

Math isnt my forte either. So we're in the same boat. XD

[Saturo]

*Has math-skills*

Yeah, spell damage pets would be much more effective. To make it more normalized, the attack would probably have to do overall less damage than the one that is mitigated by the mob's armor. Suffice to say, a spell damage pet would be better than a physical-only one, except on VERY rare occasions, such as mobs that have high resistances or complete immunities. Or Death Knights.

[Worba]

Yeah, spell damage pets would be much more effective. To make it more normalized, the attack would probably have to do overall less damage than the one that is mitigated by the mob's armor.

Makes sense; so the passive would read something like "Scorpid's basic attack does only 75% dmg but half of this is nature damage" (feel free to insert whatever percentages you like, I'm just proposing the basic model).