Which class should be next?

[Thimagryn]

And I'm pretty sure I even said in that thread that it is highly unlikely that they would ever implement a Necromancy class into WoW. I still stand by that opinion. However, Blizzard could introduce a Necromancer class into game, and make the game far worse than it currently is.

They couldn't do any worse than whatever happened when they added the Monk to the game. Even if it had good gameplay and a brand new unexplored theme, no one really wanted or asked for it. I'd say the Necromancer is more akin to Demon Hunters and Tinkers where you'd at least have players interested in playing, which should be the goal of adding any new class to the game.

[Yamuri]

How about the grunt and peasant class?

[Wildberry]

Ah, we'll be taking from the Warlock class as well. Interesting.

It's already been done once :^)

Too bad half of that is already incorporated into the DK class.

Death Knights have plague cauldrons, blights (caustic liquids), flasks of corrosive chemicals, etc?

It isn't called "Death Magic" it's called "Shadow Magic" and Death Knights, Warlocks, Priests, and Demon Hunters all use it.

No it's actually called "Necromantic Magic" and falls under the realm of Death. This bit right here is indicative of the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. If I'm being extraordinarily generous, I'd grant that you're probably just (clumsily) alluding to the Ask CDev answer from the Cataclysm era (Granted, it still would have been wrong on account of the Omnibus texts). Unfortunately for you, we have the Chronicle out now. "Fel," "Death," and "Shadow" are all three separate and distinct cosmic forces, with different schools of magic being drawn from each.

Uh, you saying that a DK doesn't adequately fit your view of what a Necromancer should be is definitely your opinion. It is a fact that DKs use Necromancy, and that Blizzard is pulling from Necromancers in the DK class design.

Nope, sorry. In another display of your astounding lack of intellectual dishonesty, you're attempting to put words in my mouth. My own thoughts and feelings on the matter are largely irrelevant to the point I'm making. Compare the modern iteration of DKs with various Scourge NPCs. There's plenty of room, both thematically and mechanically, in the gap between the two for an entirely new class. I actually like DKs as they are right now, but they objectively fall short in exploring some of these themes in a manner that other classes/specs do with their respective themes.

And hey, it is also a fact that Blizzard pulled from Demon Hunter in later iterations of Demonology Spec design. Didn't seem to stop them from rolling out Demon Hunters and postponing Tinkers for the foreseeable future, right?

Either way, I do want to break here and just toss this out: Thus far, your posts and arguments have been ridiculous. I've had to use the term "intellectual dishonesty" so much that it feels cliché already. You've used the phrase "Ghouls, geists and abominations" to make false implications (You also "padded" with Death & Decay and Defile), suggested that Corpse Explosion, Gargoyle, etc. are "ranged abilities," brought up Control Undead in a post-WotLK world, etc. Now you're blatantly misconstruing points to a ridiculous proportion.

Look, I get being passionate about a subject, that's pretty neat. Arguing in bad faith with false implications, misrepresentations, etc. isn't constructive, though. It's tedious having to attempt to reframe and retread because another poster is feigning a room-temperature IQ to peddle some half-baked point.

With that said, make sure your next response isn't a blatant shitpost. I'm tired of dignifying nonsense with responses.

It doesn't matter how Survival feels about their redesign, the point is that there are plenty of Warlock players bitter about losing the old demonology spec. If Blizzard implements a Necromancer at the expense of the DK class, that feeling of bitterness would be even more widespread because the DK=Necromancer relationship is leagues closer than the Warlock=DH relationship.

The Survival debacle becomes relevant when you propose redesigning Unholy, which you have. Considering that's gone over worse than Demonology/Demon Hunters, and yielded far less reward, it's worth acknowledging the Hunter community's reaction and the pros and cons of the situation as a whole.

Regardless, as far as class relationships go, there are a number of routes available. Unholy is trying to deliver on a handful of themes at this point, and is objectively restrained from going too far down one route or another. Necromancers could simply trim the edges of Unholy, cleanly separate themes between specs, and work in elements from the WotLK-era Scourge that were either utilized but scrapped by DKs, or never touched at all by DKs (And there's quite a bit to draw from on that front). Throw in the much more important mechanical differences and there's an actual class that wouldn't be denounced as whimsical by Blizzard.

I wasn't aware that Rogues performed martial arts and drinking their own poisons. I also didn't realize they had a Healing and a Tanking spec....

I wasn't aware we were actually factoring nuance in now.

And I'm pretty sure I even said in that thread that it is highly unlikely that they would ever implement a Necromancy class into WoW. I still stand by that opinion. However, Blizzard could introduce a Necromancer class into game, and make the game far worse than it currently is

.

In that thread, you acknowledged that DKs:Necromancers/Paladins:Priests. You also stated that there was quite a bit of room for necromancers. You acknowledged that Range v. Melee was an argument. You even pointed out that there were significant differences between the two. Truthfully, I like that Teriz quite a bit better. In fairness, though, you also stated that you personally felt the "death" theme was covered, and thought a mechanical theme was coming next. Either way, you had a poll asking whether or not it was different enough. Necromancer passed that test.

There's actually quite a bit of room for Necromancers in the WoW universe. They just have to be implemented properly.

I completely disagree. Death Knights are melee. Necromancers are Spellcasters. Death Knights only use unholy magic in one of their specs. Necromancers use unholy magic throughout the entire class. Death Knights summon one or two minions total. Necromancers can summon multiple minions at one time.

In the case of my class idea, DKs and Necromancers are very different from each other.

My main point is that there are some significant differences between DKs and Necromancers as presented in this thread and in general. In short, Necros are to DKs what Priest are to Paladins.

[Teriz]

It's already been done once :^)

Yeah, nothing beats pillaging the Warlock class for class ideas right?

Death Knights have plague cauldrons, blights (caustic liquids), flasks of corrosive chemicals, etc?

Wouldn't Plague cauldrons be used to spread plagues? Also Blight has more definitions than simply a caustic liquid, it can also be related to diseases.

No it's actually called "Necromantic Magic" and falls under the realm of Death. This bit right here is indicative of the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. If I'm being extraordinarily generous, I'd grant that you're probably just (clumsily) alluding to the Ask CDev answer from the Cataclysm era (Granted, it still would have been wrong on account of the Omnibus texts). Unfortunately for you, we have the Chronicle out now. "Fel," "Death," and "Shadow" are all three separate and distinct cosmic forces, with different schools of magic being drawn from each.

In WoW it all falls under the label Shadow magic. Sorry.

Nope, sorry. In another display of your astounding lack of intellectual dishonesty, you're attempting to put words in my mouth. My own thoughts and feelings on the matter are largely irrelevant to the point I'm making. Compare the modern iteration of DKs with various Scourge NPCs. There's plenty of room, both thematically and mechanically, in the gap between the two for an entirely new class. I actually like DKs as they are right now, but they objectively fall short in exploring some of these themes in a manner that other classes/specs do with their respective themes.

And hey, it is also a fact that Blizzard pulled from Demon Hunter in later iterations of Demonology Spec design. Didn't seem to stop them from rolling out Demon Hunters and postponing Tinkers for the foreseeable future, right?

Either way, I do want to break here and just toss this out: Thus far, your posts and arguments have been ridiculous. I've had to use the term "intellectual dishonesty" so much that it feels cliché already. You've used the phrase "Ghouls, geists and abominations" to make false implications (You also "padded" with Death & Decay and Defile), suggested that Corpse Explosion, Gargoyle, etc. are "ranged abilities," brought up Control Undead in a post-WotLK world, etc. Now you're blatantly misconstruing points to a ridiculous proportion.

Look, I get being passionate about a subject, that's pretty neat. Arguing in bad faith with false implications, misrepresentations, etc. isn't constructive, though. It's tedious having to attempt to reframe and retread because another poster is feigning a room-temperature IQ to peddle some half-baked point.

With that said, make sure your next response isn't a blatant shitpost. I'm tired of dignifying nonsense with responses.

You do understand that via an artifact trait and/or Army of the Dead you can summon additional ghouls while your abomination is active right?

The Survival debacle becomes relevant when you propose redesigning Unholy, which you have. Considering that's gone over worse than Demonology/Demon Hunters, and yielded far less reward, it's worth acknowledging the Hunter community's reaction and the pros and cons of the situation as a whole.

Just because survival dropped the ball doesn't mean that UH going ranged would.

Regardless, as far as class relationships go, there are a number of routes available. Unholy is trying to deliver on a handful of themes at this point, and is objectively restrained from going too far down one route or another. Necromancers could simply trim the edges of Unholy, cleanly separate themes between specs, and work in elements from the WotLK-era Scourge that were either utilized but scrapped by DKs, or never touched at all by DKs (And there's quite a bit to draw from on that front). Throw in the much more important mechanical differences and there's an actual class that wouldn't be denounced as whimsical by Blizzard.

Well we should keep in mind that the entire DK class possesses the Necromancer theme, not just Unholy. You would have to strip far more from the DK than simply parts of the Unholy spec.

I wasn't aware we were actually factoring nuance in now.

The fact that Monks can also be healers and tanks further separates them from being similar to Rogues, despite a slight resource and primary stat similarity.

In that thread, you acknowledged that DKs:Necromancers/Paladins:Priests. You also stated that there was quite a bit of room for necromancers. You acknowledged that Range v. Melee was an argument. You even pointed out that there were significant differences between the two. Truthfully, I like that Teriz quite a bit better. In fairness, though, you also stated that you personally felt the "death" theme was covered, and thought a mechanical theme was coming next. Either way, you had a poll asking whether or not it was different enough. Necromancer passed that test.

Yes, and the introduction of Demon Hunters changed that opinion. Demon Hunters have made the game redundant and hastened the feeling of homogenized specs. It also severely damaged the Warlock class, and caused quite a few people to quit the game. After DHs were introduced, I became a pretty staunch proponent of making any new classes to WoW as different as possible from existing classes. I vehemently oppose stripping abilities and themes from existing classes because they should go to the "more cool" class concept. There's plenty of different and interesting classes out there without people clamoring for more of the same.

[Wildberry]

Yeah, nothing beats pillaging the Warlock class for class ideas right?

We really don't have to pillage anything from Warlocks. We have already have minor overlap on Elementals, Life Energy, Spirit energy, etc. Curses aren't narrow enough to be covered by Affliction. With regard to rituals, it's a very broad spectrum. Even NPC Shaman were conducting rituals at one point.

Wouldn't Plague cauldrons be used to spread plagues? Also Blight has more definitions than simply a caustic liquid, it can also be related to diseases

They would, but the addition of the cauldron differentiates it both thematically and mechanically. With regard to blight, let's be honest, post-WotLK it's been used colloquially to refer to caustic chemicals (Forsaken Blight, etc.) Really though, the entire idea of an Apothecary, a la Putricide et al. could easily be worked in. Then there are things like fungal growths and spores thanks to Loatheb, etc.

In WoW it all falls under the label Shadow magic. Sorry.

Are you actually going to pretend here that damage calculators for magic-types (Which are not nearly as relevant as they used to be) trump lore in a discussion that, thus far, has been largely centered around themes and mechanics?

You do understand that via an artifact trait and/or Army of the Dead you can summon additional ghouls while your abomination is active right?

Yeah, see considering you already threw those on in addition to the "and," you don't have that as an out. Sorry.

you can summon multiple ghouls via Apocalypse while your Ghoul, Giest, and Abomination are active.

You can summon ghouls, giests, abominations, zombies, a skeletal archer, a gargoyle, and an army of ghouls.

Just because survival dropped the ball doesn't mean that UH going ranged would.

Alternatively, just because you feel Blizzard handled Demon Hunters poorly doesn't mean they'd do the same for Necromancers.

Well we should keep in mind that the entire DK class possesses the Necromancer theme, not just Unholy. You would have to strip far more from the DK than simply parts of the Unholy spec.

I'll just grant you blood on account of the two (?) bone spells they have, and completely ignore the range of bone abilities we could have, or the fact that Bone and blood are different. Really I've never found that interpretation of Necromancers particularly compelling. That said, how is Frost necromantic in the slightest now? We're focused exclusively on ice and fast attacks. Surely you're not going to pretend that Sindy's Fury compensates for the fact that Raise Dead and Army were both stripped, right?

The fact that Monks can also be healers and tanks further separates them from being similar to Rogues, despite a slight resource and primary stat similarity

To continue on with crude simplifications of classes that ignore nuance to further contextualize things: An avoidance tank with combo points? Already fulfilled by Prot & Feral/Guardian. A healer that heals while dealing damage? Hello Disc.

Yes, and the introduction of Demon Hunters changed that opinion. Demon Hunters have made the game redundant and hastened the feeling of homogenized specs. It also severely damaged the Warlock class, and caused quite a few people to quit the game. After DHs were introduced, I became a pretty staunch proponent of making any new classes to WoW as different as possible from existing classes. I vehemently oppose stripping abilities and themes from existing classes because they should go to the "more cool" class concept. There's plenty of different and interesting classes out there without people clamoring for more of the same.

How have Demon Hunters made the game redundant and hastened the feeling of homogenized specs? The culprits for those changes are "Bring the player not the class," ability-pruning and resource homogenization. I've seen the gripe a lot, and sympathize with it quite a bit; however, I genuinely don't think I've seen people complain about different classes encroaching on one another thematically until a single Warlock spec lost a few things.

With regard to the damage done to the Warlock class, post-Legion launch, the majority of Warlock complaints that I've seen have been focused on a melee-heavy PvP meta, tuning, etc. There are Warlocks who don't like new Demonology, and for them that's awful; however, it would seem like there are many more players enjoying Demon Hunters. It's not the entirety of the class that's suffering, just a faction of a single spec.

[Lex Icon]

i don't think tinker or bard would fit in the game as playable classes.. same as i don't think monk and pandaren should be playable.
it's fine to have npc's as it but they should not be playable.. and necromancer really is covered already. you people are just salty because they are melee/mid range depending on how you spec it rather than ranged.

[PewPewGG]

I want a Shadow Hunter or Witch Doctor styled class. But if I had to pick one that would be Bard. I loved my bard in RIFT :'(

[Deleted]

I would like a Banshee class or another Irish mythic class.

[Teriz]

We really don't have to pillage anything from Warlocks. We have already have minor overlap on Elementals, Life Energy, Spirit energy, etc. Curses aren't narrow enough to be covered by Affliction. With regard to rituals, it's a very broad spectrum. Even NPC Shaman were conducting rituals at one point.

Here's the problem though; When you give curses to another class, you're just making them another shadowy DoT class which makes people immediately think they're playing a Warlock clone.

Look at DK diseases; Thematically they were different than Warlock curses, but gameplay-wise they were the exact same thing, which led people to immediately compare the two classes, even though they were very different thematically.

In this case, we're not even changing the theme, we're literally lifting from DKs and Warlocks and giving another class curses and diseases. How does that look on the gameplay level? Exactly like Affliction Warlock right now.

They would, but the addition of the cauldron differentiates it both thematically and mechanically. With regard to blight, let's be honest, post-WotLK it's been used colloquially to refer to caustic chemicals (Forsaken Blight, etc.) Really though, the entire idea of an Apothecary, a la Putricide et al. could easily be worked in. Then there are things like fungal growths and spores thanks to Loatheb, etc.

Before we go into the other stuff, please explain how a cauldron would work. If its just a way to spread DoTs, that's not changing the gameplay much.

Are you actually going to pretend here that damage calculators for magic-types (Which are not nearly as relevant as they used to be) trump lore in a discussion that, thus far, has been largely centered around themes and mechanics?

No, I'm literally looking at the spell school that stuff like Death Coil, Clawing Shadows, Shadow Infusion, Soul Reaper, etc. fall under, and its all Shadow.

Yeah, see considering you already threw those on in addition to the "and," you don't have that as an out. Sorry.

Again, you can summon ghouls while a Giest or Abomination is active. You can also summon a skeleton archer while all that is active as well.

Alternatively, just because you feel Blizzard handled Demon Hunters poorly doesn't mean they'd do the same for Necromancers.

I don't see how they could avoid it. Blizzard seems intent on making sure that abilities are exclusive within classes. For example, Warlocks didn't even get their own version of Metamorphosis, Blizzard simply took it ALL away. What's worse, they didn't even bring the Warlock version over to Demon Hunters when the DH class badly needed a 3rd spec and the game needed another ranged spec. That's how dogmatic they are about making sure classes are different from each other.

You're advocating for a class that is actually taking concepts from other classes.

I'll just grant you blood on account of the two (?) bone spells they have, and completely ignore the range of bone abilities we could have, or the fact that Bone and blood are different. Really I've never found that interpretation of Necromancers particularly compelling. That said, how is Frost necromantic in the slightest now? We're focused exclusively on ice and fast attacks. Surely you're not going to pretend that Sindy's Fury compensates for the fact that Raise Dead and Army were both stripped, right?

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about how the class is currently, I'm talking about the general class theme since it was introduced since Blizzard changes the class from expansion to expansion, and they are known to bring back abilities that were previously stripped.

Anyway, the Frost DK tree originated from the WC3 Lich hero, which is a variety of Warcraft Necromancer.

To continue on with crude simplifications of classes that ignore nuance to further contextualize things: An avoidance tank with combo points? Already fulfilled by Prot & Feral/Guardian. A healer that heals while dealing damage? Hello Disc.

Monk tanks weren't based mainly on avoidance, they were mainly based on Stagger, which converted damage into a DoT that you had to remove via Purifying Brew. Additionally, Healing Monks were melee-based, not spell-based like Healing Disc, which forced them to have a far higher level of mobility. So while Disc priests were sitting back casting spells, Mistweavers were moving throughout the battlefield, kicking and punching, along with performing AoE heals with their statue. In short, the Monk style of gameplay was very active and mobile, which played well with their Martial Arts theme.

An attribute that was eventually given to Demon Hunters because.... Well you know.

Ah how I miss MoP......

How have Demon Hunters made the game redundant and hastened the feeling of homogenized specs? The culprits for those changes are "Bring the player not the class," ability-pruning and resource homogenization. I've seen the gripe a lot, and sympathize with it quite a bit; however, I genuinely don't think I've seen people complain about different classes encroaching on one another thematically until a single Warlock spec lost a few things.

See above. It also didn't help that DHs were only two specs, agility-based melee, dual-wielding, and have the same general mechanics as Enhancement Shaman.

But at least they're cool-looking right?

With regard to the damage done to the Warlock class, post-Legion launch, the majority of Warlock complaints that I've seen have been focused on a melee-heavy PvP meta, tuning, etc. There are Warlocks who don't like new Demonology, and for them that's awful; however, it would seem like there are many more players enjoying Demon Hunters. It's not the entirety of the class that's suffering, just a faction of a single spec.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. There's been quite a few complaints about the Havoc spec's gameplay being terrible. While it does well on meters, people say that its simply not fun to play and is fairly shallow. That would appear to be a consequence of trying to find multiple ways to do the same thing. In this case, that thing is agility-based or Dual-wielding melee. Fury, Enhancement, Windwalker, Survival, Assassination, Subtly, Outlaw, and Frost all need to be balanced and made fun to play. Throw Havoc in the mix, and something's got to give.

[BedlamBros]

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.

I think there's space for Necros and Tinkers.

I do agree that they probably went a little too far with DHs. Two specs really make the class feel incomplete.

[Wildberry]

Here's the problem though; When you give curses to another class, you're just making them another shadowy DoT class which makes people immediately think they're playing a Warlock clone.

Look at DK diseases; Thematically they were different than Warlock curses, but gameplay-wise they were the exact same thing, which led people to immediately compare the two classes, even though they were very different thematically.

In this case, we're not even changing the theme, we're literally lifting from DKs and Warlocks and giving another class curses and diseases. How does that look on the gameplay level? Exactly like Affliction Warlock right now.

Are we talking themes or mechanics here? Thematically, it seems like Blizzard tends to look at the overall package (ie, themes X, Y & Z) rather than individual themes( ie, classes A and B share theme X, therefore it can only go to one of them.)

Mechanically is where we can actually get a lot of differentiation. There are different things Debuffs can do (DoTs, proc summons, rotational interaction, etc.), which opens up quite a few doors.

Before we go into the other stuff, please explain how a cauldron would work. If its just a way to spread DoTs, that's not changing the gameplay much.

I've seen a number of theories pitched, but the concept I tend to like the most is the Plague Cauldron as a way to spread/amplify DoTs. Essentially allowing for a DoT class to, in certain circumstances, perform very well on large AoE (Most likely at the expense of ST).

No, I'm literally looking at the spell school that stuff like Death Coil, Clawing Shadows, Shadow Infusion, Soul Reaper, etc. fall under, and its all Shadow.

So regarding themes specifically we're supposed to look at Spell Schools, which are a clumsy and crude gameplay factor, and ignore Lore?

Again, you can summon ghouls while a Giest or Abomination is active. You can also summon a skeleton archer while all that is active as well.

Which I never took issue with. What I was pointing out is that the Ghoul, Geist & Abomination are all mutually exclusive. You can summon other ghouls, sure, but you had already tacked them on elsewhere, while counting the things Unholy can do, thus "padding" your list.

I don't see how they could avoid it. Blizzard seems intent on making sure that abilities are exclusive within classes. For example, Warlocks didn't even get their own version of Metamorphosis, Blizzard simply took it ALL away. What's worse, they didn't even bring the Warlock version over to Demon Hunters when the DH class badly needed a 3rd spec and the game needed another ranged spec. That's how dogmatic they are about making sure classes are different from each other.

Blizzard's primary argument regarding Demonology was that they wanted to take it back to its roots, and had felt that it had gone off track. Regarding the third Demon Hunter spec, why exactly do they badly need one? I'm sure you're well aware that the community would have thrown a fit had X-ranged spec put out better logs than Havoc. While Illidan as a raid boss had ranged abilities, the community has canonized him and Demon Hunters as being overwhelmingly melee (Due in part, to the fact that Illidan is using melee abilities for most of his time in WCIII, BT, and HotS).

Regardless, we do need another ranged. That's why I'm advocating for a three-spec Caster.

You're advocating for a class that is actually taking concepts from other classes.

I'm advocating for a class that can capitalize on concepts that singular specs are simply incapable of doing. Look at mages, they've a spec devoted to Arcane, a spec devoted to fire, and a spec devoted to Frost. The spec differentiation allows mages to fully utilize each theme. Now look at Unholy: they're caught between reanimation and diseases. Both concepts are extraordinarily broad and could easily carry multiple specs, but we have a single spec trying to explore both. Things are even worse now, since Blizzard forced Frost into full-time dual wielding (and are heavily playing up the icy element, at the expense of a hard hitting runeblade), that theme currently falls on Unholy on to deliver as well (See: A good chunk of the responses on the Official DK forums every time someone makes a thread about the possibility of 2h Frost's return).

A single spec, especially in the post-prune era, simply isn't going to be able to fully explore all of those concepts to their limit.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about how the class is currently, I'm talking about the general class theme since it was introduced since Blizzard changes the class from expansion to expansion, and they are known to bring back abilities that were previously stripped.

Anyway, the Frost DK tree originated from the WC3 Lich hero, which is a variety of Warcraft Necromancer.

They're also known to leave concepts, abilities and mechanics rotting on the floor while justifying it through "ability bloat," "Class fantasy," etc. Seems like a waste to let ideas, themes and mechanics go stale just because we're all waiting with baited breath for Blizzard to reintroduce them.

Regarding the WCIII Lich Hero, there's quite a bit that was taken from the base-WCIII unit. The one things DKs haven't taken is the ability to Sacrifice minions for Damage purposes, which was one of the core bits of the hero (DR'ing skeletons from the actual Necromancer to fuel more Frost Novas, etc.) I believe Death Pact, even, is gone from the class completely at this point. DKs at launch absolutely took a good bit from the WCIII Scourge Unit; however, some of the more interesting bits of that are either gone or underutilized. Regarding Liches in Lore, there's quite a bit that they can do that Death Knights can't (I've seen a few people pitch interesting phylactery mechanics for Necromancers that, at the very least, would make PvP interesting).

Monk tanks weren't based mainly on avoidance, they were mainly based on Stagger, which converted damage into a DoT that you had to remove via Purifying Brew. Additionally, Healing Monks were melee-based, not spell-based like Healing Disc, which forced them to have a far higher level of mobility. So while Disc priests were sitting back casting spells, Mistweavers were moving throughout the battlefield, kicking and punching, along with performing AoE heals with their statue. In short, the Monk style of gameplay was very active and mobile, which played well with their Martial Arts theme.

An attribute that was eventually given to Demon Hunters because.... Well you know.

I think you're missing the overall point here. It's very easy to use half-truths and gross oversimplifications without regard for what is/what could be, to suggest that Monks are redundant. Truthfully, it's possible to do that with most classes. If we relax criteria a bit, allow for bits of overlap, etc. we can get things like Monks (or Necromancers).

With regard to MW mobility & Fistweaving, it was a mistake on Blizzard's part. Such a playstyle for healers can easily coexist with Momentum. I find it odd that you're willing to differentiate Disc from MW, in part because of sub-role (melee v. ranged healer), but unwilling to do so, not only for the sub-role difference of DK/Necro, but the role difference between DH & MW.

See above. It also didn't help that DHs were only two specs, agility-based melee, dual-wielding, and have the same general mechanics as Enhancement Shaman.

But at least they're cool-looking right?

Having played both Enh and DH, I would say they're fairly different feeling classes. Either way, the biggest problem with homogenization has been pruning, resources, and their previous stance on class utility and niches. They're finally moving beyond that final bit; however, we're still bogged down with copy+pasted resource mechanics, and most specs (even the ones that play well) feel anemic in comparison to their former selves.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. There's been quite a few complaints about the Havoc spec's gameplay being terrible. While it does well on meters, people say that its simply not fun to play and is fairly shallow. That would appear to be a consequence of trying to find multiple ways to do the same thing. In this case, that thing is agility-based or Dual-wielding melee. Fury, Enhancement, Windwalker, Survival, Assassination, Subtly, Outlaw, and Frost all need to be balanced and made fun to play. Throw Havoc in the mix, and something's got to give.

I mained DH for the first half of Legion (Swapped back to DK thanks to legendary luck. Imagine that), consequently I spent a good deal of time lurking Havoc-specific subforums both here and elsewhere. With that said, while I have seen the complaints your alluding to, once they're actually contextualized, they diverge largely from the picture you're trying to paint.

While I had some gripes regarding momentum in PvP, I and many (Truthfully, I'd say most) others felt that it was unique and a breath of fresh air for DPS playstyles. The complaints regarding the shallowness of Havoc are lodged against both the classes rotation and Momentum falling behind. Since we've covered momentum already, let's focus on the rotation itself. It's not a problem of Fury, Enh, WW, Surv, Rogue, and Frost infringing too much. The problem is that Blizzard intentionally made the skill-ceiling on DH low to make it easy to get into. It was the wrong choice to make, but they wanted the absolute gutter-trash players who feel entitled to ruin this game, to be able to pick up DH. That's on them, and on those players, it has very little to do with too many other classes of a similar role/theme.