OctoWow - Forums

Is there a reason we don’t have this yet?
I think this was originally an oversight on the last turtlewow patch.
However the result is quite imbalanced at the moment.
Most regular pvpers agree in the current state a BM pet in a battleground is essentially a raid boss that can kill multiple enemy players on its own with ease

Just commenting to say this should be considered a bug, not a feature that needs to be nerfed. This needs to be on their radar now, not in a "class balance" patch, but a bug fixing one.

Why only for hunter pets? Let’s do the same for warlock pets. In general, NO ONE attacks a hunter’s pets in BGs for the following reasons: the time spent killing them doesn’t compensate for the time spent resurrecting and healing after death, and secondly, hunter pets are very strong — they have resistances and armor, and AoE damage dealt to them is reduced by a factor of five. When a red, blood‑soaked hyena charges at the speed of a mount into a crowd of enemies, everyone simply scatters in different directions, leaving the ally alone in a 1‑on‑1 fight with this unkillable monster.

If you apply dampening to the damage done by the pets, you should also apply dampening to the received damage. Cause I've seen multiple times shamans killing my pet in 2 casts.

Drakereinz wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 6:49 am Just commenting to say this should be considered a bug, not a feature that needs to be nerfed. This needs to be on their radar now, not in a "class balance" patch, but a bug fixing one.

Are you sure? Are hunter pets really OP in PvP (not taking class balance into account)? Since hunter pets don't scale like gear do to the player. It might be preferable, and even intentional, that they're not affected by Dampening?

I'm just thinking out loud here. Since you made a quite bald claim.

Berdal wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 7:28 am

Drakereinz wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 6:49 am Just commenting to say this should be considered a bug, not a feature that needs to be nerfed. This needs to be on their radar now, not in a "class balance" patch, but a bug fixing one.

Are you sure? Are hunter pets really OP in PvP (not taking class balance into account)? Since hunter pets don't scale like gear do to the player. It might be preferable, and even intentional, that they're not affected by Dampening?

I'm just thinking out loud here. Since you made a quite bald claim.

You are misinformed, hunter pets DO scale with gear thanks to a couple BM talents

Duraluminium wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 7:25 am If you apply dampening to the damage done by the pets, you should also apply dampening to the received damage. Cause I've seen multiple times shamans killing my pet in 2 casts.

The same thing happens to most players too lol
I don’t think that’s a symptom of having no dampening

Duraluminium wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 7:25 am If you apply dampening to the damage done by the pets, you should also apply dampening to the received damage. Cause I've seen multiple times shamans killing my pet in 2 casts.

Screens pls, proofs.
Average hunter pet has ~4k hp, shaman can cast crits for ~1.3k with decent gear.
Not counting rng for resist, pet can be killed with 4 casts - 5sec cd on shock and casting lb/chains 2s/1.5sec so to cast 4 spells with pushback you need more than 10 seconds.
That's also with rng for crits - let's assume well geared sham has 25-30%crit. Taking into account crit chance pet can be killed within 15-25sec. In this timestamp its more likely you will cc the shaman or just kill him with freaking pet burst - or rather force shaman to heal himself.
Killing hunter pet with 2 or even 3 casts is fairytale.
In general pets with resist and avoidance (sic!) are hard to kill things.
And they're hitting like a truck since 1.18.1 came out. Turtle team just havent got a chance to balance BM hunters.

Ps: now i know from where your cries come from - as hunter you will never have even fights with tanks, no matter if its sham or war/pal/druid.

Ok after some testing I can confirm, hunter pets are not affected by dampening both ways, both damage dealt and received.
This was definitively unintentional and meant to be fixed by Twow