The Bard will be the next class in WoW. Here's why...

[Thimagryn]

I'm trying to understand how we need a DH class when the only thing required to make Warlocks into DHs is

Why do we need any new class? We don't. But every new class we get is a 'nice to have' that opens up gameplay, in whatever design or direction Blizzard happens to choose. The game wouldn't have suffered from lack of Monk class.

[bison91]

...and the winner is... Demon hunterrrrrrr!!!!

[Teriz]

Why do we need any new class? We don't.

Well, we could use a technology class because Gnomes and Goblins don't seem to really fit in the game world, or the existing classes. Also there's no class representation for the vast amount of technology in the game world. Finally, there are potential players who would enjoy to play a technology class, since its something different than existing WoW classes.

But every new class we get is a 'nice to have' that opens up gameplay, in whatever design or direction Blizzard happens to choose.

And the DH offers no new gameplay opportunities. You either melee like a Rogue, cast spells like a Warlock, or you do both like a Death Knight/Enhancement Shaman.

[bison91]

monk is an adventure class for me...we could have been doing well without him...but its nice to have a panda + class that fits..unlike DK's for we cant live without them now...and so..must be DH"s

[Thimagryn]

Well, we could use a technology class because Gnomes and Goblins don't seem to really fit in the game world, or the existing classes. Also there's no class representation for the vast amount of technology in the game world. Finally, there are potential players who would enjoy to play a technology class, since its something different than existing WoW classes.

Technology isn't a requisite though. Gnomes and Goblins don't fit in the game world because people aren't accepting of the races, not because the game is lacking a representative class. They have their own profession and even then people don't associate Engineering so strongly with the actual Gnome and Goblin races. You can't really avoid Humans and Blood Elves being the most popular chosen races, and that's probably going to be what comprises the majority of Tinker players. Just take a look at the Monks. Besides Pandarens, the next most popular races are Human and Blood Elf.

http://www.worldofwargraphs.com/stat...0-0-0-0-0.html

And since Humans and Blood Elves are likely going to comprise the majority of any new class, it gives equal footing for any class concept, whether it be Bard, Tinker, Dragonsworn or Demon Hunter.

And the DH offers no new gameplay opportunities. You either melee like a Rogue, cast spells like a Warlock, or you do both like a Death Knight/Enhancement Shaman.

It offers whatever gameplay Blizzard designs it for. One could argue Death Knights offer nothing Paladins and Warriors already bring. Monks don't offer anything new that Shamans, Frost DKs and Rogues don't already have.

We don't need any new class. And if you're talking about unique gameplay, the Bard concept is probably the one that has potential of offering the most unique type.

[Teriz]

Technology isn't a requisite though. Gnomes and Goblins don't fit in the game world because people aren't accepting of the races, not because the game is lacking a representative class. They have their own profession and even then people don't associate Engineering so strongly with the actual Gnome and Goblin races. You can't really avoid Humans and Blood Elves being the most popular chosen races, and that's probably going to be what comprises the majority of Tinker players. Just take a look at the Monks. Besides Pandarens, the next most popular races are Human and Blood Elf.

Only because new players gravitate to races that most resemble themselves.

Also Engineering isn't a class. A profession doesn't have the same impact that a class does.

And since Humans and Blood Elves are likely going to comprise the majority of any new class, it gives equal footing for any class concept, whether it be Bard, Tinker, Dragonsworn or Demon Hunter.

One of the most popular classes in the game is Druids. Druids can't be humans or blood elves. So there goes that theory.

It offers whatever gameplay Blizzard designs it for. One could argue Death Knights offer nothing Paladins and Warriors already bring. Monks don't offer anything new that Shamans, Frost DKs and Rogues don't already have.

Death Knights offer the ability to use Necromancy. Monks offer the ability to use martial arts. No other class offers that.

We don't need any new class. And if you're talking about unique gameplay, the Bard concept is probably the one that has potential of offering the most unique type.

Not really. The Bard's claim to fame is that its a support class. Shaman were WoW's support class until that niche was removed from the game. A totem pulsing an increased armor buff is not much different than an armor buff coming from a Bard playing a flute.

Also Bards don't really fit the game.

[Thimagryn]

Only because new players gravitate to races that most resemble themselves.

Not always. I don't have anything in common with a Worgen Death Knight, I just thought it was the easiest way to get a high level alt.

One of the most popular classes in the game is Druids. Druids can't be humans or blood elves. So there goes that theory.

Any class with Human and Blood Elf options, will have those two races among the top picked. I didn't say classes without Human/Blood Elf options would remain unpopular. Monks and Warlocks both have Human/BE options and are bottom of the barrel classes.

The "Tinker" concept wouldn't make Gnomes and Goblins more popular, because the problem has never been with the class but the races themselves.

Death Knights offer the ability to use Necromancy. Monks offer the ability to use martial arts. No other class offers that.

Which isn't gameplay. Death Knights don't raise corpses, they summon minions. Druids can summon treants, Warlocks have minions and pets just the same. Monks having Martial Arts isn't gameplay. It's just a different animation on top of your basic Melee DPS/Tanking/Healing gameplay.

That's why Bard would actually be something different, since a Support class could have completely new mechanics. The only issue is that they're not as interesting as other potential classes.

[Ielenia]

Chi allows you to use certain abilities, but having more Chi doesn't increase the power of the ability.

And something akin to that is being implemented in WoD for Monks.

Monks can also use 2H weapons. Monks don't use daggers while those are the main weapons of Rogues. Mistweavers are INT-Based, not agility based. Druids also wear leather, and they aren't "very, very similar" to Rogues (Feral Druids being the exception).

Small differences that further differentiate the monks from the rogues.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said no one has heard of them. Which is true. No one knows of those Demon Hunters, and now at least one of them is dead.

Yet those Demon Hunters became known around the community during Vanilla, when leveling players met them.

Yes! There is! He wasn't killed, and it turns out he's not Alliance! There is nothing suggesting he's not Alliance about him. He's a Night Elf.

The Horde NPC wanted to kill the Demon Hunter, but after figuring the Night Elf was not part of the Alliance, he decided not to kill it. Which, by logic, tells us that the only reason he had to kill the Night Elf was because he thought the NE belonged to the opposing faction. The fact he was a Demon Hunter had no bearing on the Horde NPC's decision.

And the hub won't exist if Demon Hunters don't become playable.

You never know the future. Maybe they do come to exist without DHs becoming playable. A Burning-Legion-centric expansion is coming, perfect time to raise Demon Hunter population/awareness.

[Teriz]

Not always.

No one said always.

The "Tinker" concept wouldn't make Gnomes and Goblins more popular, because the problem has never been with the class but the races themselves.

Actually it would, since it give a class to associate Gnomes and Goblins with, and it would be a class that better fits their race's themes. I know I would roll a Goblin or a Gnome because of a technology class. What stops me from rolling one now is that none of their class options really matches the culture of their race. It's pretty jarring to run around Tinkertown or Kezan as a Mage, Warrior or Warlock.

Which isn't gameplay.

Actually it is. Take Death Coil for example. DC heals undead minions, yet damages everything else. DKs can spec into Lichborne and make themselves undead as well, giving them resistance to charm, fear, and sleep effects, also Death Coil will heal you, just like other undead. That's gameplay based on the DK's undead thematic.

Death Knights don't raise corpses, they summon minions. Druids can summon treants, Warlocks have minions and pets just the same.

Its not the same. DKs minions are ghouls and skeletons. Treants are walking trees. Warlock minions are demons. All three are very different from each other and have different attributes.

Monks having Martial Arts isn't gameplay. It's just a different animation on top of your basic Melee DPS/Tanking/Healing gameplay.

Wrong. Monks fight with punches and kicks. They're the first class to have auto attacks that don't utilize their equipped weapons. They use chi to perform superhuman feats, and those feats are based around Eastern folklore and tradition, unlike other classes that utilize a more western tradition for spells and magic. They have excellent mobility, able to roll around, jump kick across the battlefield, and instantly teleport themselves DBZ style. Their tanking style plays like a DPS spec, because a martial artist is still a martial artist, even though they're tanking. Other classes become more like immovable walls with shields. A monk is pretty much a DPS class that now has a ridiculous amount of resistance and dodging ability.

All of that emerges from their Martial Arts theme, and makes them very different from existing classes.

That's why Bard would actually be something different, since a Support class could have completely new mechanics. The only issue is that they're not as interesting as other potential classes.

Again Shaman already did this. Its not new.

[Florena]

I'm trying to understand how we need a DH class when the only thing required to make Warlocks into DHs is;

1. A "stance" within one of the existing specs, or a 4th spec that allows Dual Wielding and melee combat.
2. Night Elves to be playable Warlocks.
3. A complete set of melee abilities to allow the warlock to function as an independent melee demon hunter spec and not just be a tacked on gimmick.

Those reasons do not justify the creation of an entirely new class. It'd be like saying that we need a Shadow Hunter class because Shaman can't use bows and guns.

Fixed that for you.

[Teriz]

And something akin to that is being implemented in WoD for Monks.

Yes, in a single talent ability. And even then, Chi explosion doesnt operate like a Rogue finishing move.

- - - Updated - - -

Fixed that for you.

Well what would consider a "complete" set? Enhancement Shaman have 2 melee abilities and they perform DW melee combat just fine.

Warlocks already have Demonic Slash.

[Wyrllish]

If they actually made a bard class I'd pretty easily start playing again.

[Florena]

Yes, in a single talent ability. And even then, Chi explosion doesnt operate like a Rogue finishing move.

- - - Updated - - -



Well what would consider a "complete" set? Enhancement Shaman have 2 melee abilities and they perform DW melee combat just fine.

Warlocks already have Demonic Slash.

Enough abilities that they have their own distinct rotation at least, and not just a warlock standing in melee with 1 or 2 tacked on abilities.

[Teriz]

Enough abilities that they have their own distinct rotation at least, and not just a warlock standing in melee with 1 or 2 tacked on abilities.

Easy to do if you take the existing Dark Apotheosis and Metamorphosis abilities and bring them over into the new spec.

[Thimagryn]

Actually it is. Take Death Coil for example. DC heals undead minions, yet damages everything else. DKs can spec into Lichborne and make themselves undead as well, giving them resistance to charm, fear, and sleep effects, also Death Coil will heal you, just like other undead. That's gameplay based on the DK's undead thematic.

Which would be no different than any class healing using offensive spells. Priests can do this. Being resistant to Charm, Fear and Sleep effects isn't anything but a gameplay mechanic that can be given to any class (given there is balance reason to). Being undead is very much a DK theme, but there is no unique gameplay that couldn't be compared or applied to any other class concept.

You could say we have no class that repairs mechanical minions but it's not a reason we need a new class. It's just a nice to have, like playing instruments or turning into a fire breathing dragon.

Wrong. Monks fight with punches and kicks. They're the first class to have auto attacks that don't utilize their equipped weapons.

And the game never suffered for the lack of a Monk class. We didn't need a class that punched and kicked. We didn't need a class that could heal through punches. We didn't need a class that used Eastern themes or Chi. The Monk is very much a nice to have.

If Death Knight was the first and only added class, I don't think anyone would be up in arms about it. It would seem a bit lacking in diversity, but look at the situation now regarding new classes - there's a sizable amount of vocal cry for no new classes for the sake of game balance.

You argue for the sake of Tinkers as if they are a puzzle piece that completes a big picture. The truth is there are no gaps that need to be filled. It's just a matter of what new concept that Blizzard wants to let us explore.

[Florena]

Easy to do if you take the existing Dark Apotheosis and Metamorphosis abilities and bring them over into the new spec.

They do that though and they have 9 other classes knocking at the door for THEIR fourth spec. Not to mention pissing off demo locks who like having those things and don't want to play melee. And the waste of giving them a forth DPS spec.

[Teriz]

They do that though and they have 9 other classes knocking at the door for THEIR fourth spec. Not to mention pissing off demo locks who like having those things and don't want to play melee. And the waste of giving them a forth DPS spec.

Not if you do it they way they're doing it with Prot Warriors, MW Monks, and Shadow Priests. Make this melee spec a sub spec of Demonology. To access it, you have to use the stance toggle. So those Demonology locks who want to keep being ranged, they can be ranged. Those locks who want to try melee can now do melee. No different than MWs and Prot Warriors.

Make it part of the spec, or a talent. That way its not a true 4th spec, merely another aspect of Demo gameplay.

[Thimagryn]

Not if you do it they way they're doing it with Prot Warriors, MW Monks, and Shadow Priests. Make this melee spec a sub spec of Demonology. To access it, you have to use the stance toggle. So those Demonology locks who want to keep being ranged, they can be ranged. Those locks who want to try melee can now do melee. No different than MWs and Prot Warriors.

You mean give them the very reason they separated Feral and Guardian Druid into two specs? Smart.

[Teriz]

Which would be no different than any class healing using offensive spells. Priests can do this. Being resistant to Charm, Fear and Sleep effects isn't anything but a gameplay mechanic that can be given to any class (given there is balance reason to). Being undead is very much a DK theme, but there is no unique gameplay that couldn't be compared or applied to any other class concept.

You mean like the immunity to fear, charm, or sleep effects, and being healed by shadow magic you just mentioned?

You could say we have no class that repairs mechanical minions but it's not a reason we need a new class. It's just a nice to have, like playing instruments or turning into a fire breathing dragon.

Clearly there are more reasons to implement a technology class than to just repair robots. I mentioned those reasons earlier.

And the game never suffered for the lack of a Monk class. We didn't need a class that punched and kicked. We didn't need a class that could heal through punches. We didn't need a class that used Eastern themes or Chi. The Monk is very much a nice to have.

So you jumped from Monks not offering anything new gameplay wise, to them not being a required class addition? Are you conceding that Monks DO offer a unique gameplay experience that the other 10 classes cant emulate?

If Death Knight was the first and only added class, I don't think anyone would be up in arms about it. It would seem a bit lacking in diversity, but look at the situation now regarding new classes - there's a sizable amount of vocal cry for no new classes for the sake of game balance.

A very vocal minority. There's also a very vocal minority that wants WoW to revert to TBC mode because they believe that the game changes since 2008 have ruined the game. Should we take their opinion seriously as well?

- - - Updated - - -

You mean give them the very reason they separated Feral and Guardian Druid into two specs? Smart.

Again, they're doing it for other classes in WoD. Why not Warlocks?

[Thimagryn]

So you jumped from Monks not offering anything new gameplay wise, to them not being a required class addition? Are you conceding that Monks DO offer a unique gameplay experience that the other 10 classes cant emulate?

No, I was making a point that we don't need any new classes at all. I was using your own examples of 'unique' gameplay, because I have to make things understandable to you. Just like I would have to use your definitions of Tinker and Engineer as separate entities when speaking to you, lest you come out of the woodwork to 'correct' me.

A very vocal minority. There's also a very vocal minority that wants WoW to revert to TBC mode because they believe that the game changes since 2008 have ruined the game. Should we take their opinion seriously as well?

It works both ways, doesn't it? There IS a 'vocal minority' that wants TBC servers back. If there were a functional way to incorporate it into WoW without splitting the community, then I'm sure they would consider it.

As for a new class, it fits in with their design goals of moving forward and expanding the World of Warcraft. It's almost inevitable that we would get one in the future, even if we don't need it to keep the game interesting. The point is we don't need a new Class any more than we need new Races, but we will still get it because that's what keeps people invested in the long run.

Again, they're doing it for other classes in WoD. Why not Warlocks?

Then why don't Warlocks have their melee spec yet? Like you said, they're already doing it for other classes in WoD, and for the past 10 years they've been folding Demon Hunter into Warlock; surely there must be a reason Warlocks are being omitted from this type of design. Maybe the answer is as simple as Warlocks should remain as Spellcasters.