Which class should be next?

[Ielenia]

What makes Necromancer a Hero class? If anything, they'd be a regular class since they're based on the Necromancer units of Warcraft 3.

On the same token, I doubt that's even a criteria.

[Teriz]

I wouldn't be so sure when two of those four "diverse specs" are literal copy-paste of the warrior and rogue gameplays, down to having the same resources (rage, and combo points).

Which was the point of the class: To offer varied playstyles under one class. Despite utilizing Warrior and Rogue playstyles, the Druid class's unique theme allows Guardian and Feral druids to still feel very different than their warrior and Rogue counterparts.

When the only argument you can offer for Necromancer is that the DK doesn't have enough minions or bone abilities, you have a pretty weak argument for a class.

And?

And that's what happens when you run out of design space.

[agentsi]

Oh, come on. Necromancers are all over the place in WoW.
And are you really saying Goblin and Gnomes having their unique class focused on gadgets makes no sense?
You already have Demon Hunters only available to Night Elf and Blood Elf.

I honestly think Necromancer and Tinker are the only Classes ever worth adding to WoW.

All the remaining "Hero Classes" no longer make sense being added as Classes.
Some of them would make more sense unlocked as "Hero Specs".
Hero Classes worth becoming a Hero Spec:
Blademaster (Rogue, Warrior) - Self-explanatory
Witch Doctor (Priest, Shaman) - Self-explanatory
Shadow Hunter (Shaman, Hunter) - Nature & Shadow
Other concepts probably not worth an entire class, but might work as a new Spec:
Bard (Hunter) - Discipline-style Healer/Support+Ranged DPS Hybrid

I agree with your assestment on the hero classes, but I honestly don't feel necro or tinker make any sense, imho. I would bet Blademaster would be the next class as they've already mentioned it before. A leather wearing stealth class with a giant 2-hand blade, with images, etc. I think it sounds more fun than Demon Hunter.

[Thimagryn]

On the same token, I doubt that's even a criteria.

Why wouldn't it be?

[Teriz]

I don't see an tinker specific heroes in lore, everyone can be a tinker in a way via engineering.

http://www.wowhead.com/npc=90716/gelbin-mekkatorque
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=95664/gazlowes-shredder
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=108308/marins-shredder
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=35649/trade-prince-gallywix
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=42839/razlo-crushcog
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=71504/siegecrafter-blackfuse
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=113621/endgineer-omegaplugg
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=17796/mekgineer-steamrigger

[Seezer]

So we got Demon Hunters, and it turned out to be another leather melee class. After DKs, Monks, and DHs (and Survival changing to melee) people are clamoring for a new ranged class. Others say that the class should be mail, since only Shaman and Hunters can use the armor type.

So, the question is what class should be next? Here are the three leading candidates:

Tinker: Gnome and Goblins using machinery and advanced technology to fight enemies.

Necromancer: Sinister spell-casters that use the dead to defeat their foes.

Bard: Talented musician who uses the power of song and music to buff up their allies.


Which one do you think will be the next class?

If anything, Bard. Everything else is an extension of what we already have. Necromancer is covered by DK's and warlocks. Tinkerer, engineering. And just isn't strong enough to stand on it's own as a class. I think they went too far by putting demon hunters in the game. They couldn't even come up with a 3rd spec for it. Ideas for classes are just running out. I would rather them focus on the classes we already have and fix those.

[Ielenia]

Which was the point of the class: To offer varied playstyles under one class. Despite utilizing Warrior and Rogue playstyles, the Druid class's unique theme allows Guardian and Feral druids to still feel very different than their warrior and Rogue counterparts.

So it's ok to literally copy-paste gameplay from other classes as long as we apply a different coat of paint to the abilities?

And that's what happens when you run out of design space.

And I've noticed you coincidentally avoided having to address the next two segments which dealt about you and your opinions being stated as fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Why wouldn't it be?

Why would it?

On the flipside, according to you, since, according to Teriz, monks are derived from the WC3 hero unit Pandaren Brewmaster, why isn't the monk a hero class as well?

[agentsi]

http://www.wowhead.com/npc=90716/gelbin-mekkatorque
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=95664/gazlowes-shredder
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=108308/marins-shredder
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=35649/trade-prince-gallywix
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=42839/razlo-crushcog
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=71504/siegecrafter-blackfuse
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=113621/endgineer-omegaplugg
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=17796/mekgineer-steamrigger

None of them have tinker specific skills, it's all in their mech. They're basically just a person inside a robot, anyone can jump in those, just like anyone can be an engineer in the game. Are you going to change skills everytime you change your mech? It just doesn't make sense. How do you flesh our 2-3 specs, for a class like that? I personally don't see the attraction to it.

[Teriz]

So it's ok to literally copy-paste gameplay from other classes as long as we apply a different coat of paint to the abilities?

I would hardly call it a copy-paste or a coat of paint job. From the beginning there were attributes that Feral druids had that Warriors and Rogues didn't have by virtue of their theme, and those attributes intensified as the game progressed. For example, both Guardian and Feral Druids have access to the spells found in Restoration and Balance. Feral Druids have higher base run speeds than Rogues and can track humanoids, which makes sense because they're cats.

And I've noticed you coincidentally avoided having to address the next two segments which dealt about you and your opinions being stated as fact.

I felt that my response took care of those last two segments. It's quite clear why Blizzard couldn't take the Demon Hunter further in either direction, and had to aim for a fairly narrow path. That is to the overall detriment of the class itself, and a Necromancer class wouldn't fare much better.

- - - Updated - - -

None of them have tinker specific skills, it's all in their mech.

Which is exactly what the Tinker hero from WC3 (and HotS) was: A Goblin using a mech to fight with.

They're basically just a person inside a robot, anyone can jump in those, just like anyone can be an engineer in the game.

Which is why in Azeroth we only see Goblins and Gnomes piloting those mechs? Additionally, Mekkatorque and Blackfuse built their mechs themselves, indicating a fairly high level of engineering know-how not present in the profession.

Are you going to change skills everytime you change your mech? It just doesn't make sense. How do you flesh our 2-3 specs, for a class like that? I personally don't see the attraction to it.

Simple; Tanking is a Gnome/Goblin inside a mech utilizing melee abilities. DPS is a Goblin/Gnome inside a mech utilizing a combination of melee and ranged attacks. DPS 2 is a Goblin/Gnome utilizing a turret system and zoning set ups with the mech being a cooldown. Healing is a Goblin/Gnome using healing beams and chemicals and using various devices that heal, and possibly having a mech for a cooldown.

[Kagdar]

I felt that my response took care of those last two segments. It's quite clear why Blizzard couldn't take the Demon Hunter further in either direction, and had to aim for a fairly narrow path. That is to the overall detriment of the class itself, and a Necromancer class wouldn't fare much better.

DH didn't get a 3rd spec because the lore behind DH is a glaive wielding agile fighter that use demon abilities/spells to kill other demons. Try as you want, they are a melee only class. Putting a range spec would not make any sense for a DH. And putting a 2nd melee dps spec would just mean you take abilities and split them into 2 specs that do the exact same thing.

Rogues had the same problems for years, they were playing almost exactly the same in the 3 specs.

Necromancer is in essence really different than a DK. DK use melee weapons and heavy armor. Necromancer cast spells. Sure DK's got bone shield, do they have bone spears? bone walls? There's plenty of bone spells that can be created that aren't use by DK. Just like they can invent countless of blood spells or summoning spells that aren't use by DK.

Frost DK and frost mages both use frost spells. DK are melee though, while mages are range. They came up with lots of different spells and made a clear disparity between both specs.

Necromancers could even integrate shadow and or arcane spells if they wanted and it would still fit the class. Combine shadow/arcane/bone/blood/summon/frost/curses, you already have something that no other class currently can combine.

If they feel like it they can add anything they want. Stop saying "x class will never happen because..." If they have a cool idea they will put it in. And they will modify anything that currently exist to make that new idea possible.

[Ielenia]

I would hardly call it a copy-paste or a coat of paint job.

What's the difference between the rage mechanic of the warrior and the bear druid? What's the difference between the energy/combo-points/stealth mechanic of the rogue and the cat druid? None.

I felt that my response took care of those last two segments. It's quite clear why Blizzard couldn't take the Demon Hunter further in either direction, and had to aim for a fairly narrow path.

No, it didn't. You stated a claim, and I challenged that claim. At no point Blizzard ever said "if we did this, we would step on warlock toes" or "if we did that, we would step on rogue's toes." The only thing they mention was they, at one point, thought about a healing spec for the DH, but dropped the idea as it didn't fit the class.

I'm still waiting on your quotes to back up your statements. Otherwise, all you got are guesswork based on nothing but your own opinion.

Additionally, Mekkatorque and Blackfuse built their mechs themselves,

Did they? I don't think I ever saw or heard anything about that mech being built by Mekkatorque himself. I mean, I don't doubt he could, but to state as a fact that he did? I'll have to see some proof of that.

[Thimagryn]

Why would it?

Because it makes no sense to make Necromancers a Hero class when there's nothing that has painted them as a Hero class, even examples from Warcraft 3. The Hero class version of a necromantic spellcaster is the Lich.

Look back at Wrath development and see what makes a Hero class different from a regular one. It's pretty clear what is involved when you apply this back to the background of a Death Knight or a Demon Hunter.

There's nothing inherrently special required to become a Necromancer or Monk. These classes, like the other classes in the game, are based around training and experience to master their class. A DH or DK has special requirements in order to become what they are; either having been raised and gifted with unholy powers or performing dark rituals and such to obtain the fel powers of a demon itself. Necromancers share similar backgrounds to other casters like Mages, Shamans, Warlocks and Priests. The only difference is the type of magic they use, and many Necromancers in lore were former Mages and Shamans. Kel'thuzad was a mage who used Necromancy, Ner'zhul was a Shaman who used Necromancy. That's what the class is about. The Hero Class version already exists and it's called the Lich, which both aforementioned characters also became and have special lore backstories worthy of a Hero class. But we're not talking about a Lich, we're talking about a Necromancer.

There's no real reason why Necromancers would get that kind of treatment anyways, any more than a Tinker or Bard should be considered a Hero class. And no, this isn't an 'absolute'. It's common sense.

A Hero class would likely be reserved for those who have special backgrounds that go beyond training and mastering a certain discipline. Dragonsworn would be a good example, because they would be champions bestowed with powers from the Aspects.

[Teriz]

DH didn't get a 3rd spec because the lore behind DH is a glaive wielding agile fighter that use demon abilities/spells to kill other demons. Try as you want, they are a melee only class. Putting a range spec would not make any sense for a DH. And putting a 2nd melee dps spec would just mean you take abilities and split them into 2 specs that do the exact same thing.

Well keep in mind, Illidan had a variety of ranged spells, and there was a few DHs who had Demonic pets. Again, we couldn't delve too far into those concepts because it slams right into the Warlock class.

Necromancer is in essence really different than a DK. DK use melee weapons and heavy armor. Necromancer cast spells. Sure DK's got bone shield, do they have bone spears? bone walls? There's plenty of bone spells that can be created that aren't use by DK. Just like they can invent countless of blood spells or summoning spells that aren't use by DK.

Frost DK and frost mages both use frost spells. DK are melee though, while mages are range. They came up with lots of different spells and made a clear disparity between both specs.

That's quite a superficial comparison, and it really doesn't show just how similar the concepts are to each other. DKs have a large amount of ranged abilities, and they can cast a lot of spells instantly. Howling Blast, Death and Decay, Death Coil, Outbreak, Raise Dead, Death Grip, Defile, etc. are all ranged abilities. DKs are essentially Battle Mages in that they can cast spells and perform melee at the same time.

It's silly to say that we need an entire new class because DKs don't have as many bone spells as you would like them to have. Blizzard could simply give DKs the bone spells that you feel that they're missing because those spells fit perfectly fine in the DK's theme which includes Necromancy.

If they feel like it they can add anything they want. Stop saying "x class will never happen because..." If they have a cool idea they will put it in. And they will modify anything that currently exist to make that new idea possible.

I never said "X class will never happen because...." I'm simply pointing out that you're advocating for a class that for all intents and purposes is already in the game.

[Spl4sh3r]

I feel like they should stop adding new classes all the time. They should be more rare. The more they add the more players will QQ about imbalance between the classes. They also need to make Pure DPS into Hybrids by adding a fourth spec or making one of the existing one into support spec.

[Teriz]

What's the difference between the rage mechanic of the warrior and the bear druid? What's the difference between the energy/combo-points/stealth mechanic of the rogue and the cat druid? None.

Resources aren't the only things that define a class.

See Monks and Rogues with Energy, or every spell caster in the game and Mana.

No, it didn't. You stated a claim, and I challenged that claim. At no point Blizzard ever said "if we did this, we would step on warlock toes" or "if we did that, we would step on rogue's toes." The only thing they mention was they, at one point, thought about a healing spec for the DH, but dropped the idea as it didn't fit the class.

Yeah, because they couldn't do a demonic ranged spec because we already have a class that uses demonic spells at range. This despite the fact that Illidan had numerous ranged spells, and that there's examples of DHs in lore who have demonic pets. So what else was on the table?

Nada.

Did they? I don't think I ever saw or heard anything about that mech being built by Mekkatorque himself. I mean, I don't doubt he could, but to state as a fact that he did? I'll have to see some proof of that.

Common sense is your friend.

[Ielenia]

Because it makes no sense to make Necromancers a Hero class when there's nothing that has painted them as a Hero class, even examples from Warcraft 3. The Hero class version of a necromantic spellcaster is the Lich.

Look back at Wrath development and see what makes a Hero class different from a regular one. It's pretty clear what is involved when you apply this back to the background of a Death Knight or a Demon Hunter.

The logic doesn't follow. Again, if it our current two hero classes are hero classes because they were based on WC3 hero units, then why is the monk not a hero class as well? Conversely, the playable Death Knight is not the WC3 death knight, so, again, the logic doesn't follow. Blizzard could have easily made DKs non-hero classes by simply raising random dead people as DKs, instead of picking fallen heroes. What makes Blizzard decide if a given class is going to be implemented as 'hero' or not is the lore they create, not if they were based on WC3 hero units or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Resources aren't the only things that define a class.

See Monks and Rogues with Energy, or every spell caster in the game and Mana.

Except it's not just resources. For feral druids and rogues, it's all the mechanics: stealth, combo points, finishers, bleeds (for druids) and poisons (for rogues), etc...

Yeah, because they couldn't do a demonic ranged spec because we already have a class that uses demonic spells at range. This despite the fact that Illidan had numerous ranged spells, and that there's examples of DHs in lore who have demonic pets. So what else was on the table?

Nada.

Again, I see only guesswork. Unless you got quotes from Blizzard, you lost.

Common sense is your friend.

"Common sense" doesn't really apply here. It only works for probabilities, not when you're trying to establish facts. You stated a fact, and I questioned your fact. That mech, for example, could easily be something that is passed from king to king of Ironforge, like a crown is passed from king to king in usual medieval fantasy.

[Kagdar]

Well keep in mind, Illidan had a variety of ranged spells, and there was a few DHs who had Demonic pets. Again, we couldn't delve too far into those concepts because it slams right into the Warlock class.

No DH aren't a range class, we can't have a range demonic spec because DH are essentially a melee spec that use spells to help them. Sure Illidan use spells, he was a mage! yet he fight with his glaives most of the time. Anyway it doesn't mean much because the class is DH not Illidan. And some DH having a pet with them doesn't mean much, what would you add apart from a pet for the DH class that would make it different than what we currently have? not much. they could easily add a talent of ability that summon demonic pet, wouldn't change the class, DH aren't BM/Surv hunters.

That's quite a superficial comparison, and it really doesn't show just how similar the concepts are to each other. DKs have a large amount of ranged abilities, and they can cast a lot of spells instantly. Howling Blast, Death and Decay, Death Coil, Outbreak, Raise Dead, Death Grip, Defile, etc. are all ranged abilities. DKs are essentially Battle Mages in that they can cast spells and perform melee at the same time.


It's silly to say that we need an entire new class because DKs don't have as many bone spells as you would like them to have. Blizzard could simply give DKs the bone spells that you feel that they're missing because those spells fit perfectly fine in the DK's theme which includes Necromancy.

DKs are a melee spec in the core of their being, they cast spells sure but it will never be their primary mean of combat. It's like the difference between an enh and an ele shaman. If you tell me they are the same you clearly need to look at the difference between a melee focus and a range focus philosophy

I never said "X class will never happen because...." I'm simply pointing out that you're advocating for a class that for all intents and purposes is already in the game.

Not to be disrespectful Teriz but you seems to be on a crusade to destoy any ideas that is not a Tinker. So for the sake of it since you are just blinded by your own ideas i'll say this : Tinker can never happen because we already have all the exact same things currently in game that you've been advocating for them. See? i can use you own thinking against you too because you don't seam to be able put the same principles you put into destroying necro/bard that you put into crusading for Tinkers.

BTW i'm all for Tinker, i think it's a great idea of a class, and i think Necro and Bard are great ideas too.

[Teriz]

Except it's not just resources. For feral druids and rogues, it's all the mechanics: stealth, combo points, finishers, bleeds (for druids) and poisons (for rogues), etc...

And you seem to be ignoring the differences, such as the ability to switch play styles on the fly, the various additions to the spec to make it more "druid-like", etc.

Again, that was the purpose behind the class; To allow you to experience a variety of play styles under one class, and they use shapeshifting as the reason you're capable of those varied play styles. Blizzard took extra steps over the years and made those specs more and more different than the Warrior and Rogue classes.

I'm not seeing the issue here.

Again, I see only guesswork. Unless you got quotes from Blizzard, you lost.

Illidan had a vast assortment of ranged spells and Demon Hunters don't. That's not guesswork.

Death Knights get Arthas' abilities on a fairly consistent basis. Why don't DHs?

We know the answer.

"Common sense" doesn't really apply here. It only works for probabilities, not when you're trying to establish facts. You stated a fact, and I questioned your fact. That mech, for example, could easily be something that is passed from king to king of Ironforge, like a crown is passed from king to king in usual medieval fantasy.

Or it could be the simplest explanation, since it's been established that Mekkatorque is a robotic genius.

[Thimagryn]

The logic doesn't follow. Again, if it our current two hero classes are hero classes because they were based on WC3 hero units, then why is the monk not a hero class as well? Conversely, the playable Death Knight is not the WC3 death knight, so, again, the logic doesn't follow. Blizzard could have easily made DKs non-hero classes by simply raising random dead people as DKs, instead of picking fallen heroes. What makes Blizzard decide if a given class is going to be implemented as 'hero' or not is the lore they create, not if they were based on WC3 hero units or not.

The logic does follow. I pointed out a case where we clearly have a (potential) WoW class that would be based on a Necromancer unit from Warcraft 3.

Everything else you pointed out in terms of WC3 Heroes has no relevance to what I said about the Necromancer; I didn't make any comment about basing WoW Hero classes on WC3 Heroes at all. I said Necromancer is based on a unit and that it would be a regular class. Nothing about the Necromancer necessitates it being a Hero class any more than a Paladin or Monk, classes who also obtain their abilities through diligent training and drawing from their own rituals/faith/form of magic.

What makes a Necromancer a Hero class? Especially given everything we know about them in previous games, including lore, gameplay and archetype? Like I said, the class is based on the unit. Given the option, we wouldn't have a Witchdoctor or Sorceress Hero class either.

And while you only talk about the Death Knight as it exists in lore, the Hero class we have playable is based on the Warcraft 3 Death Knight archetype, drawing influence well beyond the lore. To ignore this is a failure to understand what makes and separates a Hero class from the rest. This is why I used the example of Dragonsworn being a suitable Hero class, despite not ever existing in Warcraft 3. It's an example that is based on themes and archetypes we are familiar with in Warcraft that fit the criteria of a group of individuals bestowed with power beyond mere mortal means.

[TnTizz]

heres a pic of a bard in game, in legion, in rogue class order hall.
http://imgur.com/jKzrn9W