A Simple Argument for the Tinker Class

[Selastan]

So the main reasoning behind not introducing the Tinker class is because it's roll is filled by the engineer profession, right? But in my opinion the two are not one in the same. Take Warriors, for instance. Warrior class fantasy is all about two things: Armor and Weapons. Yet the Warrior doesn't forge their armor and weapons, the Blacksmiths do. A warrior CAN be a blacksmith, but it isn't necessary. The engineers only supply the gear and tools tinkers use and modify, its up to the tinker to use those tools effectively in the heat of battle.

[WintersLegion]

Yes a Warrior doesn't necessarily make their own weapons and armor but their name also doesn't imply that they do either.

[shoc]

Simple workaround.

Rename the Engineering profession to Tinkering (it practically already is if you consider the 'enchants').

Presto, now they can add a class called Engineer.

[Larynx]

A simple argument against the tinker class: there's no reason to add them, and there never will be unless they make Goblins vs Gnomes a WoW expansion.

DKs - Added in the Lich King expansion
Monks - Added in the Pandaren expansion
DHs - Added in the Legion expansion

See a trend here? We're not going to get a random new class that has no thematic similarities with the expansion itself. Every class has had massive tie-ins with their contemporary expansion, how could they possibly do the same for "tinkers"?

[Averrix]

Why do people want a class like this so badly? You'll just be AN ENGINEER!

[Louz]

Scratch gnome and goblin warriors as they don't make sense anyway.

Make gnome/goblin mechawarrior aka tinker, same thing as warrior, only different names for spells.

Make them wear some powerarmor/exoskeleton that would work like worgen form - optional outside of combat, entering combat would enable it automatically.

Not like something like this is ever going to happen, it's more like "what things should ahve been like in the first place".

A simple argument against the tinker class: there's no reason to add them, and there never will be unless they make Goblins vs Gnomes a WoW expansion.

DKs - Added in the Lich King expansion
Monks - Added in the Pandaren expansion
DHs - Added in the Legion expansion

See a trend here? We're not going to get a random new class that has no thematic similarities with the expansion itself. Every class has had massive tie-ins with their contemporary expansion, how could they possibly do the same for "tinkers"?

They pulled pandaland out of their asses, inluding the whole monk theme.

The only monks present in the game up until pandaland were Scarlet monks - something completely different.

If they could pull that off, why not literally anything else?

[Larynx]

They pulled pandaland out of their asses, inluding the whole monk theme.

The only monks present in the game up until pandaland were Scarlet monks - something completely different.

If they could pull that off, why not literally anything else?

Because they're not going to design an expansion to meet a class concept. They're going to design the class around an already existing expansion concept, which for the foreseeable future will not be gnome or goblin-centric.

Pandaria worked because it was intentionally designed as a stark contrast to the Alliance-Horde hate, and in particular to Garrosh and Varian. We have the literal embodiments of this conflict in the form of the Sha, which were integral to the entire expansion's theme from beginning to end. From there, it's trivial to design a class like the monk for the expansion. Sure, they COULD somehow make a Gnome/Goblin tie-in to whatever story arc they're going for, and then add a Tinker class because it might fit the techno-theme... but that's just forcing the class on the game for the sake of having the class. Not even DHs were that ham-fisted; the conflict with the Legion has been brooding since TBC, and Legion is a direct continuation of story threads started way back in MoP, and if you want to stretch it a bit you could even say we had Demon Hunter class hints as early as Cata.

[Louz]

Because they're not going to design an expansion to meet a class concept. They're going to design the class around an already existing expansion concept, which for the foreseeable future will not be gnome or goblin-centric.

Pandaria worked because it was intentionally designed as a stark contrast to the Alliance-Horde hate, and in particular to Garrosh and Varian. We have the literal embodiments of this conflict in the form of the Sha, which were integral to the entire expansion's theme from beginning to end. From there, it's trivial to design a class like the monk for the expansion. Sure, they COULD somehow make a Gnome/Goblin tie-in to whatever story arc they're going for, and then add a Tinker class because it might fit the techno-theme... but that's just forcing the class on the game for the sake of having the class. Not even DHs were that ham-fisted; the conflict with the Legion has been brooding since TBC, and Legion is a direct continuation of story threads started way back in MoP, and if you want to stretch it a bit you could even say we had Demon Hunter class hints as early as Cata.

So... pandaland monks, pandas, sha, celestials, mogu and all that shit made sense because they made up a nice little story about it.

Riiiiiiight. And how is that different from literally anything else?

[Lanrefni]

If they add Tinkers,then they need to be a neutral race of mecha-gnomes,that way I don't have to play a goblin.

[Dracullus]

If Blizz want to add Tinker, they will just revamp what needs to be revamped. It's their game, Blizz can do what they want with classes and professions. Only problem is: which expansion theme would fit Tinker? I don't think they ever create Goblins & Gnomes expansion: consternation level would match Mist of Pandaria announcement ;P.

I personally think they will first introduce Necromancer with Scourge 2.0 expansion. Tinker may come with expansion focused around Titans and awakening of Azeroth. So like 8 years from now ;P.

[Aeula]

It's a gnome-centric class. The last thing this game needs is focus on a race that is more of a joke than Pandaren ever were.

If tinkers were a thing they'd be played less than monk.

[Deleted]

Scratch gnome and goblin warriors as they don't make sense anyway.

Make gnome/goblin mechawarrior aka tinker, same thing as warrior, only different names for spells.

Make them wear some powerarmor/exoskeleton that would work like worgen form - optional outside of combat, entering combat would enable it automatically.

Not like something like this is ever going to happen, it's more like "what things should ahve been like in the first place".

Not too bad at all, come to think of it. I can already hear the wailing of all early-BC-era belf paladins who fapped to the whole Evil Blood Knight shtick but never even saw renamed abilities to better reflect their theme of sucking power out of a dying Naaru.

They pulled pandaland out of their asses, inluding the whole monk theme.

I never realized WC3 was Their Ass. Thanks for letting me know.

The only monks present in the game up until pandaland were Scarlet monks - something completely different.

I do recall a questline involving the legacy left in Kalimdor by certain Chen Stormstout, a Pandaren brewmaster. I also, even more clearly, recall playing that very same Chen back in WC3. That game would have me believe Chen was a keystone figure during Founding of Durotar. I see your opinion differs. Well.

If they could pull that off, why not literally anything else?

I surely do hope Legion marks a bit of a slowdown point in that regard. All of us who doubted legitimacy of Pandaria got soon woken up with Timey Wimey Alternatey Draenor. It's a tricky thing it is, judging various stuff thrown at us by Blizzard on grounds of precedent. After all, Pandaren monk is WC3 legacy - added as an easter egg but later made into a founding father of the new Horde. Pandaria itself was added as a huge retcon (I do love that Azeroth globe in Ulduar with no Pandaria on it) but it would actually be a wonderful thing,,, if not for the feckin' Slooow Dooooown Omnomnom pandas.

[Shammyrock]

As others have said the problem with Tinkers is Blizz will want to tie it into a Goblin/Gnome theme. I suspect the Pandaren theme suited a market Blizz was trying to expand into, there's no real interest in Goblin/Gnome content anywhere.

[Stockers]

If tinkers were a thing they'd be played less than monk.

Nah man, people on this forum circlejerk over tinkers about the same as demon hunters.

[Deleted]

Not too bad at all, come to think of it. I can already hear the wailing of all early-BC-era belf paladins who fapped to the whole Evil Blood Knight shtick but never even saw renamed abilities to better reflect their theme of sucking power out of a dying Naaru.

I never realized WC3 was Their Ass. Thanks for letting me know.

I do recall a questline involving the legacy left in Kalimdor by certain Chen Stormstout, a Pandaren brewmaster. I also, even more clearly, recall playing that very same Chen back in WC3. That game would have me believe Chen was a keystone figure during Founding of Durotar. I see your opinion differs. Well.

I surely do hope Legion marks a bit of a slowdown point in that regard. All of us who doubted legitimacy of Pandaria got soon woken up with Timey Wimey Alternatey Draenor. It's a tricky thing it is, judging various stuff thrown at us by Blizzard on grounds of precedent. After all, Pandaren monk is WC3 legacy - added as an easter egg but later made into a founding father of the new Horde. Pandaria itself was added as a huge retcon (I do love that Azeroth globe in Ulduar with no Pandaria on it) but it would actually be a wonderful thing,,, if not for the feckin' Slooow Dooooown Omnomnom pandas.

Still, building an entire expansion on the base of a former easter egg is a special kind of stupid, imo.

[Tome]

Tinkering, engineering is such an open part of both the factions it doesn't need a expansion themed around them.

It's so easy to make up a story for a class like this.

"As the combined force of Azeroth put their eyes on Argus to fight the Legion, the machines and weapons of war has been researched and upgraded upon to stand a chance against the massive forces of the Legion. These tinkers brings a massive arsenal of ranged, explosive weapons and other machinery."

Easy as fuck. People make Tinker and Engineer sound as special as Demon Hunters and Death Knights. They are not.

Death Knights and Demon Hunters are created in special circumstances.

Monk is not a hero class, they are as simple as an Engineer/Tinker would be.

[Deleted]

Still, building an entire expansion on the base of a former easter egg is a special kind of stupid, imo.

Not entirely. Just pandas really. The Mogu, the insects, the Another Taurens etc were not too bad at all and a lot more connected to former WoW stuff.

[Deleted]

The main reasoning behind not introducing the Tinker class is that there are already too many classes they can't get right.

[Shammyrock]

Blizz introducing another non hero class is a stretch to me given they'd have to go back and rework then legacy legion mechanics.

[Deleted]

A simple argument against the tinker class:
They have issues balancing the specs they have, why would adding a new class very few people want when it just makes things harder for everyone?