Which class should be next?

[Ielenia]

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.

So it's ok for a class to blatantly rip-off another class, as long as the 'rip-off' stays in just one spec?

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.

When will priests start getting Tyrande's abilities? Also, Arthas is not really too different from the player DK. Whereas Illidan is different because he consumed so much fel energy he was permanently changed into a half-demon form, going above and beyond the power a normal DH has.

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

Mine is just as simple. Maybe even simpler. AGain, you're making assumptions, but you keep stating them as facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to be disrespectful Teriz but you seems to be on a crusade to destoy any ideas that is not a Tinker.

He's already confessed to having a goblin/gnome agenda, and considering neither of the other class options (bard and necromancer) fit the gnome and goblin races, of course he's going to do his best to shoot them down, even if it means the use of double-standards and dishonesty.

[Teriz]

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.

I'm not talking about Illidan before the well of eternity, I'm talking about Illidan during Black Temple; The time period where our DHs were being trained by Illidan himself.

As stated before, Death Knights get abilities from Arthas consistently; Soul Reaper and Breath of Sindrosa are such examples. DHs can't get Illidan abilities because of the Warlock class. It's quite simple.

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.

Well we can't add much because Warlocks have that covered. Again, that's what happens when your design space is limited.

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

Well yeah, but Elemental and Enhancement Shaman are the same class. You're essentially saying that Elemental and Enhancement Shaman should be different classes because ones melee and the other is ranged. That's a pretty terrible idea wouldn't you agree?

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.

Well here's the difference; Engineering is a profession, not a class. Let's say you go lazy level design and make a Tinker class that uses ranged weaponry, and copies many of Engineering's weapons and devices and you make 3 specs out of it. Even if you do that, you're not effecting Engineering because the goal of a profession isn't the same as a class. Profession engineers gather MATS to build items for selling. A class utilizing Engineering would be using abilities to perform a role. A DPS Tinker using bombs in no way effects a profession Engineer building bombs.

However, bringing in a Necromancer means that now you have two classes doing pretty much the same thing. Given Blizzard's treatment of Warlocks and Demon Hunters, it's highly doubtful that Blizzard would allow that to happen. So three options are open; 1. Don't bring in the class that copies the existing class. 2. Allow two classes to have similar abilities. 3. Gut the existing class in favor of the new class.

Now, unlike metamorphosis which was a DH ability originally, stripping DKs of signature abilities like Bone Shield, Raise Dead, Death and Decay, and Army of the Dead would piss off quite a lot of players.

I personally don't believe that options 2 and 3 are on the table, but that's just me.

[Ielenia]

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.

Nothing about the Demon Hunter also necessitates the 'Hero Class' brand, other than the fact playable DHs are veteran DHs who were imprisoned, and not simply new recruits. Remember, we're that elite strike team Illidan sent to retrieve a felstone from a demon-infested world, just as the Black Temple was being attacked. But if, instead, we were new recruits, we'd start from level 1, still learning to how to wield glaives, then finally absorbing powers from demons to become full-fledged demon hunters.

What makes a Necromancer a Hero class?

Lore. Lore is what dictates if a class is a hero class or normal class. Every class in has lore potential to be a hero class. You believe necromancers currently have lore to be hero classes? Well, you are probably correct in that assessment, but what stops Blizzard from creating lore for that?

[Teriz]

So it's ok for a class to blatantly rip-off another class, as long as the 'rip-off' stays in just one spec?

Druids are hardly "ripping off" the Rogue or Warrior class.

When will priests start getting Tyrande's abilities? Also, Arthas is not really too different from the player DK.

Tyrande tends to have a combination of Druid abilities and Hunter abilities. :shrug:

Whereas Illidan is different because he consumed so much fel energy he was permanently changed into a half-demon form, going above and beyond the power a normal DH has.

You mean like Vengeance spec which turns into a half demon for extended periods of time?

Why can't DHs get a spec where they transform into a demon for extended periods of time and perform ranged attacks like Flame Crash, Agonizing Flames, Curse of Flames or Parasitic Shadowfiend?

You can't say that that doesn't fit the DH concept. DHs should by proxy be able to do anything that Illidan could do.

We should also remember that Illidan's disciples could also perform ranged attacks.

[Thimagryn]

Nothing about the Demon Hunter also necessitates the 'Hero Class' brand

Ritual blindfolding, their sacrifice, and everything they do to obtain their power necessitates it. Even their backstory involves fighting each other to the death during training to reach their positions. Even as a lore fanatic, you understand that.

What you're arguing here is out of pure sake of arguing. We both know you're only arguing for the sake of being 'factually correct' when we both know that none of these systems are defined by facts. Blizzard can literally make anything happen and we both know that.

But it doesn't mean a Necromancer will be a Hero class either.

- - - Updated - - -

Lore. Lore is what dictates if a class is a hero class or normal class. Every class in has lore potential to be a hero class. You believe necromancers currently have lore to be hero classes? Well, you are probably correct in that assessment, but what stops Blizzard from creating lore for that?

Lore already created that. It's called the Lich. I pointed it out and you ignored it.

If a Necromancer is a Hero class and a Paladin and Shaman are not, then Blizzard has a problem with keeping consistency with what they are deciding to call a Hero class. That is a certain possibility, but it's so incredibly unlikely that it's not even worth discussing. This is a Necromancer we are talking about, whose archetype, AND lore, is parallel to that of a Mage or Shaman.

But if you want to be factually correct about lore, Blizzard could make a Hero Janitor class too. What's your point? What stops Blizzard from creating lore for that? Nothing. I never ruled out the possibility of Necromancers being a Hero class if Blizzard added lore for that. I posed a question why that would happen, and said "If anything, they'd be a regular class since they're based on the Necromancer units of Warcraft 3." I didn't ask about possibility, I asked about reason for why Blizzard would make them a Hero class.

Unless you have a reason WHY they would do that, then I've said nothing that conflicts with your idea of lore.

[Darktbs]

Lore already created that. It's called the Lich. I pointed it out and you ignored it.

A Druid Hero class would essentially be the Arch Druid, or to an extension, a Keeper of the Grove. We have lore for that too. Is there anything else you need clarified?

Keeper of the Grove =/= Druid.

Kepper is a race, Druid is a class.

While the majority pratice druidism, a Druid hero class would not be him since its a race not a class.

[Rhamses]

It's not about something being "beloved" it's about wanting something different than what we currently have instead of rehashing crap because it sounds cool.

Can't say I disagree with that. The fact that so many people want Necromancer is pretty depressing when you consider how homogenized the game is already.

At least the Tinker would be something different.

[Dakara]

Based on WCIII units, I'm keen to see the Spell Breaker as a PC in WOW. But, as Blizzard has demonstrated (and said outright iirc), all new classes/races are tailored to fit the expansion which introduces them.

I suspect we're going to a Foresaken themed expansion in the near future, which could *possibly* lend itself to the Necromancer but (IMHO) it's too similar to the DK and thus we'd be in for a repeat of what Demon Hunters did to Demo Locks.

[Ielenia]

Druids are hardly "ripping off" the Rogue or Warrior class.

I wouldn't call the entirety of the combo point/stealth/dot gameplay "hardly".

Tyrande tends to have a combination of Druid abilities and Hunter abilities. :shrug:

Yet she is considered a priest, and is a secondary priest portrait for Hearthstone.

You mean like Vengeance spec which turns into a half demon for extended periods of time?

Call me when playable DHs have permanent demonic forms, and we'll talk.

[Mythabay]

I think that a Necromancer is not so good, it is about the same as a warlock.. just the dead and not demons.

[Ielenia]

Ritual blindfolding, their sacrifice, and everything they do to obtain their power necessitates it. Even their backstory involves fighting each other to the death during training to reach their positions. Even as a lore fanatic, you understand that.

What about warlocks? We start the game already knowing how to summon one minion and one spell. Where's the training for summoning that minion and knowing the first spell? No class, other than warriors (and possibly rogues) start where they should: knowing nothing. All classes, again, save warriors, already start the game knowing the basics of their path. So why couldn't Demon Hunters, for example, instead of being Illidan's elite, actually be new demon hunters in training, having just sacrificed their eyes, and slowly, with time, (i.e. leveling) learn how to better control their power, as well as increasing it? I mean, like the monk, every ten or fifteen levels they're summoned back to their "lair" to absorb more demonic power? That's something that could have happened, and DHs could then start at level one, and it's still something Blizzard can use if they decide to expand the DH class to more races.

[Kagdar]

I'm not talking about Illidan before the well of eternity, I'm talking about Illidan during Black Temple; The time period where our DHs were being trained by Illidan himself.

Illidan was still a mage before, he has a vast experience with manipulating the arcane and other school of magic. So it makes sense that he use more spells than we as a player can use. Illidan became a DH and trained himself to use glaives. He then started training recruit in the art of that new idea he had of a Demon Hunter. So DH trained as that new class mold. They trained to use glaives, use limited demonic abilities etc.

As stated before, Death Knights get abilities from Arthas consistently; Soul Reaper and Breath of Sindrosa are such examples. DHs can't get Illidan abilities because of the Warlock class. It's quite simple.

Well we can't add much because Warlocks have that covered. Again, that's what happens when your design space is limited.

Arthas had Frostmourne with the soul of Ner'zhul into it. We has players don't have access to that much power so we can never be as powerful as Arthas was. The DK class use some limited spells that are similar to what Necromancers use. Still Necromancers could easily have way more powerful spells in their arsenal while ditching the melee part of the DK arsenal. It can make a totally different class than DK are. So what if it's similar? some people what to play a Necro because in their mind it's not the same as a DK is.

Well yeah, but Elemental and Enhancement Shaman are the same class. You're essentially saying that Elemental and Enhancement Shaman should be different classes because ones melee and the other is ranged. That's a pretty terrible idea wouldn't you agree?

Sure they are the same class. But a Necro and a DK are different in more than just the kind of spells they use. It's like saying a Ret paly is the same as a Holy priest would be it it had a dps holy spec.
If Elem and Enh are so similar, why didn't they make them into only 1 spec like you keep saying DH and Warlocks are? Why did they create a DH class with so many different spells and abilities if they could just had made Demo lock? Because in Blizzard mind DH and Warlocks are 2 different classes. So if they ever create Necro it means they view them as a totally different class then DK are. And seeing all the Necromancers that are in the game and none of them are called DK and no DK in the game are called Necromancers it's pretty easy to tell that in Blizz mind they are 2 different things.

Well here's the difference; Engineering is a profession, not a class. Let's say you go lazy level design and make a Tinker class that uses ranged weaponry, and copies many of Engineering's weapons and devices and you make 3 specs out of it. Even if you do that, you're not effecting Engineering because the goal of a profession isn't the same as a class. Profession engineers gather MATS to build items for selling. A class utilizing Engineering would be using abilities to perform a role. A DPS Tinker using bombs in no way effects a profession Engineer building bombs.

The role of the Engineer profession is 2 things at the same time and 1 of them is to "toys" to use in combat. It might not be balanced correctly but the idea is there. Just like a Tinker class would be : bring tech "toys" into combat be it with Mech (that is already available to Engineers) or rockets/bombs (that are again already available with Engineering) So they could easily expand the Engineer profession like they want.
Or create a Tinker class that already use stuff currently available to other class/profession. They can do anything they want just like they can make Necro if they want.

The limits are only their imagination, imagination that you lack when you think about other stuff than Tinker. some players want Necro and they think of ideas to make them unique instead of focusing of the things that make them similar. Just like you are focusing of stuff about Tinker that are different than Engineers.

[Thimagryn]

What about warlocks? We start the game already knowing how to summon one minion and one spell. Where's the training for summoning that minion and knowing the first spell? No class, other than warriors (and possibly rogues) start where they should: knowing nothing. All classes, again, save warriors, already start the game knowing the basics of their path.

What makes Necromancers a Hero class? I will extend that here with Warlocks. What makes Warlocks a Hero class? If you have a direct and irrefutable answer for that, then you can make a point of it. Otherwise, you're posing the exact same question that I did.

So why couldn't Demon Hunters, for example, instead of being Illidan's elite, actually be new demon hunters in training

Does any of this change the fact that they are still based on the archetype set by Warcraft 3? No. New lore didn't change the archetype that this class was based on. It's the same one, because that's the origin of its design as it appears in WoW.

What reason do we have to believe the Necromancer would be based on a completely new archetype that warrants being a Hero class? If you can't answer why, then you literally are saying the same thing I am, except without any basis of what we already know about Necromancers. All you're saying is Janitors can be Heroes too.

[Illidari]

Anyone who pretends that Demon Hunters don't need a third spec is lying to themselves. I love my DH, but man I'd love to have a ranged 3rd spec.

Anyway, I went with Bard. Necromancers are DKs, and Tinker sounds dumb.

[Ielenia]

What makes Necromancers a Hero class? I will extend that here with Warlocks. What makes Warlocks a Hero class?

What makes them? Nothing. What could make them? Lore.

Does any of this change the fact that they are still based on the archetype set by Warcraft 3? No.

I don't think I ever contested that, so I'm not sure what's your point here is.

What reason do we have to believe the Necromancer would be based on a completely new archetype that warrants being a Hero class?

Archetypes are not what warrant "hero class" status or not. It's the lore developed to bring said archetype to the game. I've already given lore ideas of how we could have level 1 DKs and DHs, for example.

[Thimagryn]

What makes them? Nothing. What could make them? Lore.

Why are you still replying to me with this? Nothing I said ever opposed that.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think I ever contested that, so I'm not sure what's your point here is.

My point is we know the Necromancer archetype. It's well defined in Warcraft, and based on everything we know about it, it doesn't really fit the criteria for what we also know as a Hero class. You had nothing more to offer here so honestly, why are you still replying to me about lore?

I never made any point about what MAKES a Hero class. I said based on the War3 unit that this class is ultimately based on, what is the reason it would be a Hero class? You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

[Kagdar]

My point is we know the Necromancer archetype. It's well defined in Warcraft, and based on everything we know about it, it doesn't really fit the criteria for what we also know as a Hero class. You had nothing more to offer here so honestly, why are you still replying to me about lore?

I never made any point about what MAKES a Hero class. I said based on the War3 unit that this class is ultimately based on, what is the reason it would be a Hero class? You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

And you forgot that Blizz have said in the past that a Hero Class in WoW is not the same as a Hero Class in WC3.

A Hero Class in wow is a class that they wanted to introduce via an already established story behind that character. That's it. So if they want to make Necro/Bard/Tinker a Hero class they can, they just have to create a story that makes them start at a level higher than lvl 1.

[bloodmoth13]

Death Knights are Necromancers. In fact, they're like super- Necromancers.

Bards have never been established in the Warcraft universe, and given Blizzard's stance on buff classes, I highly doubt you'd ever see one in WoW.

So yeah, Tinker all the way.

to be fair paladins are priests, like, super priests.

im not interested in necromancers though, way too much overlap with warlocks, death knights and shadow priests, we really dont need more frikkin shadow dps classes. id even prefer a bard which isnt established in lore at all but would atleast bring something unique (though this game isnt buff friendly).

My best bet would be tinker, there is a ton you could do with it, you could have an apothecary healing spec, mecha tank spec, ranged gun using turret spec, caster bomber dps spec, melee dps spec, could literally fill every role in the game very easily.

[VarsityAthlete]

to be fair paladins are priests, like, super priests.

im not interested in necromancers though, way too much overlap with warlocks, death knights and shadow priests, we really dont need more frikkin shadow dps classes. id even prefer a bard which isnt established in lore at all but would atleast bring something unique (though this game isnt buff friendly).

My best bet would be tinker, there is a ton you could do with it, you could have an apothecary healing spec, mecha tank spec, ranged gun using turret spec, caster bomber dps spec, melee dps spec, could literally fill every role in the game very easily.

All 3 choices are zzzzz. You faggots have zero imagination and then have the nerve to talk shit about anything.

[derpkitteh]

either tinker or necromancer.

i would personally prefer necromancer, but tinker's the most likely.

and no, necromancer isn't unholy dk. not anymore than priest is paladin, or warlock is demon hunter.