Possible future hero classes.

[Theoris]

I discounted Necromancer since Kel'Thuzad is dead and I can't think of any other big name nercomancers.

There's no guarantee that he's dead, though. The Cult of the Damned are still active, and Kel'thuzad's phylactery is missing (not to mention Blizzard loves to bring characters back from the dead, and Kel'thuzad would actually have a reason). I think we'll see him again at some point in the future.

That being said, I'd like to see necromancers added. We already have classes redundant to each other, so might as well bring in the ranged equivalent to death knights. Worst case, Unholy and Demonology gets an overhaul (again) that renders both specs either stupidly overpowered or unplayable for a while.

[Teriz]

Have you just refused to play Demon Hunter this expansion? That's precisely what DH Meta does. Chaos Strike becomes Annihilation, Blade Dance becomes Death Sweep, etc.

Which are both melee range. I'm talking about ranged abilities (20-40 yds).

It was better at summoning Demons than, say, Affliction or Destro; however, the spec's focus on Demons was completely eclipsed by the aspect of turning into a Demon, both mechanically and thematically. You yourself have just admitted that Metamorphosis was the "key" portion of the spec.

With regard to that being an excuse, I'm actually going to have to disagree. Yes, Demon Hunters had some impact on the state of modern Demonology, but such a schizophrenic spec was unlikely to survive both ability-pruning and the class fantasy push. Survival Hunters and Combat Rogues were largely demolished. I'm still not happy with some of the DK changes, etc.

The spec was doing just fine. Blizzard purposely neutered the spec in 6.2 to force people not to play it. Before that happened, Demonology was one of the most popular Warlock specs, and placed well in raids.

Leotheras summoned "inner Demons," a mechanic which alludes to him going insane and losing control to his own inner Demon. Are you actually going to be so dishonest as to try and push that off as summoning a Demon?

With regard to Demon Hunters that don't summon Demons in any way, shape, or form (Because I'm generous enough to just give you Illidan's shadow demons):
-WCIII Demon Hunter
-Illidan (HotS)
-Alandien
-Netharel
-Theras
-Feronas Sindweller
-Altruis the Sufferer
-Telarius Voidstrider
-Varedis Felsoul

All it requires is one or two examples of Demon Hunters summoning demons for it to be a viable class trait. Why did you ignore the Demon Hunter that had three felhounds as pets?

Again, why do we need it? I didn't roll a Demon Hunter to play a ranged class. I'd assume most others didn't. Like I said, imagine the complaints if Havoc were second fiddle in parses to the hypothetical ranged spec. The post you linked to doesn't make a compelling case at all, it's just a short statement that smacks of "I want this."

"Why do we need it" isn't the point of bringing this up. The point is that Blizzard refused to give DHs demonic pets or a ranged spec because of Warlocks, despite Warlocks retaining none of the ranged abilities within Metamorphosis. In other words, Blizzard doesn't want two classes sharing abilities or themes.

Two classes utilizing Necromancy would be such an example.

Who said Bone Shield is a must-have for Necromancers? Surely the class can exist without a single defensive mechanic, especially since (nowadays) sacrificing one's minions is completely untapped.

It's not just a single defensive mechanic, it's the entire theme behind the mechanic. I mean, now you can't give Necromancers "Bone Armor" because its too similar to Bone shield. You can't give Necromancers "Bone Flurry" because its too similar to Bonestorm.

"Every DK spec utilizes diseases in some fashion?" Really? Perhaps if we were talking about WotLK-era Death Knights, you'd have a point, but we're very far away from that design-wise right now. Blood has a single disease, as does Frost. Unholy has two. Most of the DoTs and diseases have been completely removed from the class, and gone for years.

But again, the DK class utilizes diseases in a variety of forms. If you plan on giving Necromancers diseases, then you're going to have to remove them completely from the DK class. That's going to force an entire class redesign, since every DK spec uses diseases, and diseases are a core aspect of the class.

And again, this idea that Blizzard won't let two classes "summon undead" is completely ridiculous. You're acting as if both classes would summon ghouls and interact with them in the same manner. We have two classes that utilize elementals (Mages, and Shaman), we have multiple classes that use the Holy Light, two classes that focus on direct fire damage, a handful of bleed classes, etc.

Yes, but Shaman don't use Water Elementals, and Elementals for Shaman are guardians while Water Elementals for Mages are minions. It's also well established that different elementals have different elemental properties, so the Water Elemental works well with the Mage Frost spec, since it uses frost abilities, and the other elementals work well with Shaman since Shaman use the other elements.

DKs can summon undead minions. Necromancers can summon undead minions. DKs have multiple spells that use necrotic energy and Necromancers are going to be using necrotic energy. In other words, DKs and Necromancers both being able to summon undead minions is akin to Shaman and Mages both being able to summon a Water elemental.

A single ability? This is literally the equivalent of saying Tinkers are a no-go because of Survival Hunter's use of grenades, bombs, explosives and flares.

Now who's being dishonest? There are multiple abilities and talents tied to that singular disease. Blood Plague is a pretty crucial part of Blood's DPS. Removing means you need to redesign the spec. You can play SV Hunter and never toss a grenade. Good luck playing Blood effectively without using Blood Plague and its corresponding passives, abilities and talents.

Again, this is pure speculation on your end that Army and Bone Shield would be utilized by Necromancer. They aren't must-haves for a Necromancer class. There are plenty of other ways, that fit within the Necromancer fantasy, to defend oneself. Additionally, army is a fire and forget pet spell, I'm not sure Necromancer proponents have such a thing in mind.

So you're saying that a Necromancer class wouldn't have an ability where they summon a mass army of undead minions? You're saying that a Necromancer class wouldn't have an ability where they increase their armor and durability with bone?

We have multiple pet classes, multiple elemental classes, etc. Thematic overlaps aren't minded when there's a stark mechanical difference. DKs barely interact with their summoned minions nowadays, the majority of DK diseases have been stripped away, etc.

Except there won't be a stark mechanical difference. A Necromancer kind of has to be a summoner caster (Warlock) that spreads diseases (DKs) more than likely in the form of DoTs (Warlocks, SPriests) and summons undead minions (DKs). Again, we're talking about a company that removed an entire specialization from Warlocks because they didn't want two classes that had the ability to transform into a demon. You honestly believe they're going to allow two classes that can summon undead pets, control the undead, spread diseases, and use bone armor/weaponry?

I don't know how you're struggling to miss this blatantly obvious point, but thematic overlaps aren't the problem. You're just reading an imaginary problem into a completely unrelated complaint. There's too much mechanical homogenization, resource-sharing, pruning of niche/utility abilities that differentiate specs, etc.

There's a vast difference between a concept have a small thematic overlap, and a class concept that can be resolved by simply making a spec within an existing class ranged (and it's halfway to that point as it is).

The community doesn't though. You and the five other Tinker partisans want it. Hardly anyone else stipulates physical damage. Again, mechanical differentiation solves the issue.

I'm pretty sure if we conducted a poll on which people would prefer: A new caster ranged, or a new physical ranged, the latter would win out by quite a large margin. Keep in mind, we have several caster classes and specs. We only have one physical ranged class, and two physical ranged specs.

In end, there's no argument which concept is more original and unique (and thus better for the game), and it isn't the Necromancer.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no guarantee that he's dead, though. The Cult of the Damned are still active, and Kel'thuzad's phylactery is missing (not to mention Blizzard loves to bring characters back from the dead, and Kel'thuzad would actually have a reason). I think we'll see him again at some point in the future.

That being said, I'd like to see necromancers added. We already have classes redundant to each other, so might as well bring in the ranged equivalent to death knights. Worst case, Unholy and Demonology gets an overhaul (again) that renders both specs either stupidly overpowered or unplayable for a while.

You're going to have to overhaul the entire DK class because Necromancers also utilize diseases, necrotic energy attacks, and bone-based abilities, which are spread throughout the DK class.

[agentsi]

monks ? 10chars

chen stormstout was huge in WC3, they had pandaria already slated years before its release.

try again.

- - - Updated - - -

And Pandaren will never be in the game, Demon Hunters are impossible, etc etc.

I never said any of those things, and neither did most of the community. AFter Death Knights, people knew Demon Hunters were coming at some point.

There is a better chance of a blademaster type class coming(They've mentioned it before, leather wearing 2 handed dps class? sounds dope ) , than a tinker. Only this weird, cult like following, is even remotely interested in tinkers as a class, no one I know personally who plays wow, has any interest in it.

[Rhamses]

chen stormstout was huge in WC3, they had pandaria already slated years before its release.

try again.

- - - Updated - - -



I never said any of those things, and neither did most of the community. AFter Death Knights, people knew Demon Hunters were coming at some point.

There is a better chance of a blademaster type class coming(They've mentioned it before, leather wearing 2 handed dps class? sounds dope ) , than a tinker. Only this weird, cult like following, is even remotely interested in tinkers as a class, no one I know personally who plays wow, has any interest in it.

People would riot if we get another melee class that resembles another class in the game. Demon Hunters really pushed people to their limit IMO.

I think a Dark Ranger with a playstyle similar to Sylvannas HotS would be a great hero class.

[Wildberry]

Which are both melee range. I'm talking about ranged abilities (20-40 yds).

Yes melee abilities are transformed to other melee abilities. Just to get this on record, you're suggesting range differentiation is significant?

The spec was doing just fine. Blizzard purposely neutered the spec in 6.2 to force people not to play it. Before that happened, Demonology was one of the most popular Warlock specs, and placed well in raids.

As were Survival, Combat, etc. They still got gutted and redesigned too. Are you ignoring that to push the "All Warlock class changes are DH's fault!"-agenda?

All it requires is one or two examples of Demon Hunters summoning demons for it to be a viable class trait. Why did you ignore the Demon Hunter that had three felhounds as pets?

I didn't, Loramus is the sole example of a Demon Hunter that does precisely what you say. You're twisting Illidan, but I'm just granting it to focus on the extraordinarily dishonest (or ignorant, one can never tell) interpretation of Leotheras. Summoning Demons simply isn't core Demon Hunter fantasy.

"Why do we need it" isn't the point of bringing this up. The point is that Blizzard refused to give DHs demonic pets or a ranged spec because of Warlocks, despite Warlocks retaining none of the ranged abilities within Metamorphosis. In other words, Blizzard doesn't want two classes sharing abilities or themes.

Two classes utilizing Necromancy would be such an example.

[Citation Needed]

It's not just a single defensive mechanic, it's the entire theme behind the mechanic. I mean, now you can't give Necromancers "Bone Armor" because its too similar to Bone shield. You can't give Necromancers "Bone Flurry" because its too similar to Bonestorm.

Okay, so no Bone defensive abilities, and no bone-based AoE. That's easy enough what with minion sacrifices and corpse explosion. Are you going to suggest that Bone Shield and Bonestorm (which deviates from pre-Legion blood fantasy anyhow) excludes Necromancers from, say, Bone Spear or "Teeth?"

But again, the DK class utilizes diseases in a variety of forms. If you plan on giving Necromancers diseases, then you're going to have to remove them completely from the DK class. That's going to force an entire class redesign, since every DK spec uses diseases, and diseases are a core aspect of the class.

Death Knight disease usage has been completely gutted. You're blind if you don't see that. And again, nothing about DKs having a handful of diseases would exclude Necromancer from focusing on them. Diseases, like bleeds, are broad enough to be utilized by more than a single class.

Yes, but Shaman don't use Water Elementals, and Elementals for Shaman are guardians while Water Elementals for Mages are minions. It's also well established that different elementals have different elemental properties, so the Water Elemental works well with the Mage Frost spec, since it uses frost abilities, and the other elementals work well with Shaman since Shaman use the other elements.

So now you're justifying elementals with magical school differentiation, but feel there's too many "Dark casters?" This is what I mean by intellectually dishonest. You have no set of coherent standards, you just mix and match to suit whatever's convenient for you at the time.

DKs can summon undead minions. Necromancers can summon undead minions. DKs have multiple spells that use necrotic energy and Necromancers are going to be using necrotic energy. In other words, DKs and Necromancers both being able to summon undead minions is akin to Shaman and Mages both being able to summon a Water elemental.

So we're differentiating between magical schools, but not types of undead? Wonderful, just wonderful. Hey don't Shamans of all stripes have a handful of Frost based abilities, by the way? Mages kind of seem redundant

Now who's being dishonest? There are multiple abilities and talents tied to that singular disease. Blood Plague is a pretty crucial part of Blood's DPS. Removing means you need to redesign the spec. You can play SV Hunter and never toss a grenade. Good luck playing Blood effectively without using Blood Plague and its corresponding passives, abilities and talents.

I'm not being dishonest, I'm simply demonstrating that your schizophrenic standards can be used to pick apart your beloved Tinker class.

Blood Death Knights have a single disease. No baseline abilities that interact with the disease. A passive that allows striking effected targets to proc an unrelated ability. Zero Talents that modify or interact with the ability, and zero PvP talents to do that.

Sorry, there's plenty of room for more diseases.

Additionally, Blood's role is Tanking not DPS. Survival's is. While the grenade is a suboptimal talent at the moment, should it pull ahead, a Survival Hunter would be using it when possible, they already use explosives as an integral part of their rotation.

So you're saying that a Necromancer class wouldn't have an ability where they summon a mass army of undead minions? You're saying that a Necromancer class wouldn't have an ability where they increase their armor and durability with bone?

Who needs a fire and forget spell to summon a handful of ghouls with no ability to interact with them whatsoever, when you can actually just summon things back to back and interact with them as a core portion of your rotation? "Animate Dead"/Army of the Dead has always been a Death Knight thing.

And who needs the ability to increase their armor with bone when they can, say, heal from sacrificing minions?

Except there won't be a stark mechanical difference. A Necromancer kind of has to be a summoner caster (Warlock) that spreads diseases (DKs) more than likely in the form of DoTs (Warlocks, SPriests) and summons undead minions (DKs). Again, we're talking about a company that removed an entire specialization from Warlocks because they didn't want two classes that had the ability to transform into a demon. You honestly believe they're going to allow two classes that can summon undead pets, control the undead, spread diseases, and use bone armor/weaponry?

See, this is the problem with you. You refuse to entertain the possibilities of mechanical differentiation, claim to know what rules, if any, that Blizzard follows to create new classes, you flop back and forth between magic schools mattering and not mattering, attempt to disingenuously pad lists, etc.

Necromancers can utilize their minions in ways warlocks can't. Comparing DK diseases to hypothetical Necromancers is like suggesting that Rogues and Feral Druids can't exist because Warriors already have rend, etc.

The exact same arguments your using against Necromancer, you used against DH. Where exactly did that get you? Unlike Demon Hunters, Necromancers have far more room for growth and differentiation, DHs were cemented before they were considered for a class.

There's a vast difference between a concept have a small thematic overlap, and a class concept that can be resolved by simply making a spec within an existing class ranged (and it's halfway to that point as it is).

Oh look, you're mixing and matching when optimal playstyle matters. Are you going to suggest that Unholy still has Blood Boil, that DnD and Defile count separately as ranged abilities, etc?

The fact that you're still under the impression that Unholy can be made ranged, and it'll be a Necromancer suggests you've been more focused on pushing an agenda than actually reading what I (and other Necromancer proponents) have to say.

Were Unholy to be redesigned to be a ranged class, we still don't have Necromancers. Unholy tries to focus on reanimation and diseases at once, and fails at both. Unholy hasn't been a proper disease spec since the Cataclysm pre-patch hit.

I'm pretty sure if we conducted a poll on which people would prefer: A new caster ranged, or a new physical ranged, the latter would win out by quite a large margin. Keep in mind, we have several caster classes and specs. We only have one physical ranged class, and two physical ranged specs

[Citation Needed]

In end, there's no argument which concept is more original and unique (and thus better for the game), and it isn't the Necromancer.

Yes, and they were more original and unique than Monks and Demon Hunters. Look at where we're at now. I think the real question is, which class isn't "too whimsical?"

Either way, look, this discussion is turning out to be the same as the last. You're using blatantly obvious intellectually dishonest standards, arguments, etc. If you're next post has the same sort of nonsense, I'm done. I'm not going to spend ages pointing out dishonest trick after dishonest trick, only for you to abandon the thread like the last Necromancer discussion we had.

[Hitei]

I'd be cool with Tinker, Bard or Necromancer.

I really hope they never do Dark Ranger though. Talk about a class with almost zero space to exist.

[Jetstream]

I never said any of those things, and neither did most of the community. AFter Death Knights, people knew Demon Hunters were coming at some point.

There is a better chance of a blademaster type class coming(They've mentioned it before, leather wearing 2 handed dps class? sounds dope ) , than a tinker. Only this weird, cult like following, is even remotely interested in tinkers as a class, no one I know personally who plays wow, has any interest in it.

"Neither did most of the community," "no one I know personally."

So basically your entire argument is that your anecdotal evidence is better than mine.

[agentsi]

"Neither did most of the community," "no one I know personally."

So basically your entire argument is that your anecdotal evidence is better than mine.

Blizzard has mentioned in the past after Death Knight was released, that other hero classes were looked at, one of them was a Blademaster. So, no. It's based on things Blizzard has said.

[Teriz]

Yes melee abilities are transformed to other melee abilities. Just to get this on record, you're suggesting range differentiation is significant?

Just so we're clear; I brought up Warlock metamorphosis to showcase how Blizzard isn't tolerant of classes sharing abilities or themes. Blizzard could have transferred Lock metamorphosis over to DHs with little problem, since Illidan and other DHs have ranged abilities. It would provide a 3rd spec that quite a few DH players desire, and a new ranged spec that quite a few players desire.

As were Survival, Combat, etc. They still got gutted and redesigned too. Are you ignoring that to push the "All Warlock class changes are DH's fault!"-agenda?

They were gutted for different reasons though. The entire Hunter and Rogue classes were redesigned because the specs felt too similar to each other. Demonology was removed because of Demon Hunters.

I didn't, Loramus is the sole example of a Demon Hunter that does precisely what you say. You're twisting Illidan, but I'm just granting it to focus on the extraordinarily dishonest (or ignorant, one can never tell) interpretation of Leotheras. Summoning Demons simply isn't core Demon Hunter fantasy.

Illidan's ability is called "summon Shadow Demon". Here is the description of Summon Shadow Demon:

Summon Shadow Demons
1.3 sec cast
Summons a Shadow Demon. The Shadow Demon will stun a target, then pursue it until death.

Certainly sounds like a Demon Hunter with the ability to summon a demon doesn't it?http://www.wowhead.com/spell=41117/s...ns#used-by-npc

Okay, so no Bone defensive abilities, and no bone-based AoE. That's easy enough what with minion sacrifices and corpse explosion. Are you going to suggest that Bone Shield and Bonestorm (which deviates from pre-Legion blood fantasy anyhow) excludes Necromancers from, say, Bone Spear or "Teeth?"

Yes, since Bonestorm is an example of Bones being used as ranged weapons. Additionally, DKs have Corpse Explosion too.

Death Knight disease usage has been completely gutted. You're blind if you don't see that. And again, nothing about DKs having a handful of diseases would exclude Necromancer from focusing on them. Diseases, like bleeds, are broad enough to be utilized by more than a single class.

Blood Plague is a core part of Blood's rotation and has multiple corresponding abilities. Virulent Plague is a core part of UH's rotation and also has multiple corresponding abilities. Whether completely gutted or not, diseases continue to play a major role in DK gameplay. The very fact that diseases are a major part of 2/3 DK specs would exclude Necromancers from being able to focus on them, or have them at all.

So now you're justifying elementals with magical school differentiation, but feel there's too many "Dark casters?" This is what I mean by intellectually dishonest. You have no set of coherent standards, you just mix and match to suit whatever's convenient for you at the time.

I'm justifying it because a Water Elemental is quite a bit different from an Earth, Fire, and Air elemental.

So we're differentiating between magical schools, but not types of undead? Wonderful, just wonderful. Hey don't Shamans of all stripes have a handful of Frost based abilities, by the way? Mages kind of seem redundant

Um, summoning and controlling the undead all falls under the same school of magic; Necromancy. Your Shaman example is silly, because we both know that a Necromancer is going to have way more than 2-3 Necromantic spells.

I'm not being dishonest, I'm simply demonstrating that your schizophrenic standards can be used to pick apart your beloved Tinker class.

You're comparing a talent in Survival to a core rotational ability in the Blood and UH DK specs, that's dishonest. Like I said, you can play survival hunter and never use Dragonfire Grenade. Good luck playing Blood or UH without ever using Blood or Virulent Plague.

Blood Death Knights have a single disease. No baseline abilities that interact with the disease. A passive that allows striking effected targets to proc an unrelated ability. Zero Talents that modify or interact with the ability, and zero PvP talents to do that.

Death's Caress and Blood Boil? I also think it's hilarious that you feel that Crimson Plague's ability to make Death and Decay free and resets its cooldown is some sort of tiny thing. That makes Blood Plague a major part of Blood's gameplay, because you want Crimson Plague to proc, and it procs BECAUSE of Blood Plague.

Sorry, there's plenty of room for more diseases.

Not really. Gameplay-wise, Diseases in WoW are simply a type of DoT spell that tend to be passively applied instead of directly applied. DK's use of diseases is perfectly fine. I don't see what a Necromancer could add to the disease concept that would make it different than what we're currently seeing from Death Knights.

Additionally, Blood's role is Tanking not DPS. Survival's is. While the grenade is a suboptimal talent at the moment, should it pull ahead, a Survival Hunter would be using it when possible, they already use explosives as an integral part of their rotation.

LoL! I never said that Blood's role was DPS, I said that Blood Plague is an important part of Blood's DPS. Just like Keg Smash is an important part of a Brewmaster's DPS. Tanks still deal damage you know.

Who needs a fire and forget spell to summon a handful of ghouls with no ability to interact with them whatsoever, when you can actually just summon things back to back and interact with them as a core portion of your rotation? "Animate Dead"/Army of the Dead has always been a Death Knight thing.

And who needs the ability to increase their armor with bone when they can, say, heal from sacrificing minions?

Well the level of interactivity isn't really the point. The point is that Blizzard isn't going to allow two classes to be able to summon a horde of undead minions, or being able to fortify themselves or their armor with bone. Both of those are pretty key aspects of the Necromancer fantasy, and both are firmly being utilized by DKs.

See, this is the problem with you. You refuse to entertain the possibilities of mechanical differentiation, claim to know what rules, if any, that Blizzard follows to create new classes, you flop back and forth between magic schools mattering and not mattering, attempt to disingenuously pad lists, etc.

Necromancers can utilize their minions in ways warlocks can't. Comparing DK diseases to hypothetical Necromancers is like suggesting that Rogues and Feral Druids can't exist because Warriors already have rend, etc.

The exact same arguments your using against Necromancer, you used against DH. Where exactly did that get you? Unlike Demon Hunters, Necromancers have far more room for growth and differentiation, DHs were cemented before they were considered for a class.

Yeah, I do believe my argument was that Demon Hunters cannot become a class as long as Warlocks have Metamorphosis. Look what happened; Blizzard completely erased Meta from Warlocks.

Necromancers actually have less room for growth because their core themes are all being used by Death Knights and Warlocks.

Oh look, you're mixing and matching when optimal playstyle matters. Are you going to suggest that Unholy still has Blood Boil, that DnD and Defile count separately as ranged abilities, etc?

The fact that you're still under the impression that Unholy can be made ranged, and it'll be a Necromancer suggests you've been more focused on pushing an agenda than actually reading what I (and other Necromancer proponents) have to say.

Were Unholy to be redesigned to be a ranged class, we still don't have Necromancers. Unholy tries to focus on reanimation and diseases at once, and fails at both. Unholy hasn't been a proper disease spec since the Cataclysm pre-patch hit.

Isn't a Necromancer merely a class that can raise and control the dead? How is that not exactly what the DK is/does?

Yes, and they were more original and unique than Monks and Demon Hunters. Look at where we're at now. I think the real question is, which class isn't "too whimsical?"

What is "whimsical" is a matter of opinion. It definitely isn't an opinion that in order to bring a Necromancer into the game, severe cuts would have to be made to existing classes.

Either way, look, this discussion is turning out to be the same as the last. You're using blatantly obvious intellectually dishonest standards, arguments, etc. If you're next post has the same sort of nonsense, I'm done. I'm not going to spend ages pointing out dishonest trick after dishonest trick, only for you to abandon the thread like the last Necromancer discussion we had.

Yeah, I abandoned that thread because your main argument for a Necromancer is that the DK isn't doing necromancy the way you would like it to. That's really not a good argument to advocate bringing a new class into the game. However, I do agree that this discussion is largely pointless. We'll see what Blizzard brings next. Hopefully for the game's sake, it isn't another class that blatantly rips concepts from existing classes.

[Wildmoon]

For all intents and purposes, Necromancer as a class is very much a part of DK except the apothecary aspect of it. Demon Hunter's core fantasy was a big part of Warlock but Demon Hunter was made into a new class because it was backed by its extreme popularity and the direction of the story at the time. I doubt that Necromancer has the same conditions for Blizzard to go out of their way to flesh it out.

[elaina]

I just don't see how they can tie them into an expansion and really give them a good foundation as a class without it seeming like it's wedged in there because they just want to make players happy and it's been a hot topic in the community for quite some time.

I'm not that excited by them (though would probably check it out). Last thing this game needs is a shit ton of pink haired gnomes named Dèévähh throwing their mechs into a sea of mobs and detonating the thing. #nerfthis ... Still, Watcher mentioned Tinkers by name during a recent interview so I feel like they may have already made Blizzard's short list and are basically inevitability.

A faction war centric expansion could do this (all the siegecrafting) as would a cataclysm level broad revamp / expansion of the main world. I don't see the former happening soon, and it'll be at least 2 expacs before we even possibly get a new class anyway. (I think no way blizzard breaks their every other expansion minimum for classes, plus we are overdue for new race(s) or some work therein)

[Miatog]

Kel'thuzad isn't permanently dead

Didn't we destroy his phylactery this time around?

[Jetstream]

Blizzard has mentioned in the past after Death Knight was released, that other hero classes were looked at, one of them was a Blademaster. So, no. It's based on things Blizzard has said.

I don't give a crap about Blade Master or Tinker or whatever. The point is that "blizz will never do x" is a stupid statement that we should stop saying because it has been wrong repeatedly.

[zlygork]

I'm not that excited by them (though would probably check it out). Last thing this game needs is a shit ton of pink haired gnomes named Dèévähh throwing their mechs into a sea of mobs and detonating the thing. #nerfthis ... Still, Watcher mentioned Tinkers by name during a recent interview so I feel like they may have already made Blizzard's short list and are basically inevitability.

A faction war centric expansion could do this (all the siegecrafting) as would a cataclysm level broad revamp / expansion of the main world. I don't see the former happening soon, and it'll be at least 2 expacs before we even possibly get a new class anyway. (I think no way blizzard breaks their every other expansion minimum for classes, plus we are overdue for new race(s) or some work therein)

I am in no way hopeful we are getting a class next xpac, but we have to consider that there might be a reason other than "laziness" and "class fantasy" for demon hunters being only 2 specs. Wanting to produce more, smaller classes could be one such reason.

[Protean]

Instead of new classes, I would like to see a rework of the role system.

Currently we have ranged, melee, tank and healer. I would like to see dps separated into long range, mid range and melee instead. Playing UH dk with clawing shadows was the best fun I had in a long time, and I think it should be expanded on, as well as given to other classes. It would give a bigger sense of spec-identity in classes that have two ranged specs, as well as open up for new ways to design boss fights.

And adding a new spec to some classes wouldn't hurt either. But not all at once, 2(ish) specs per expansion could be fine for me, as long as it fits the theme.

[elaina]

The Necromancer's redundancy with the Death Knight toolkit and class fantasy makes it as bone dry and unnecessary as a Northrend 2: Lich King Boogaloo expansion set. Unfortunately, this uninspired meme venture may be precisely why both ideas will (eventually) plague live servers in the same future expansion.

I don't entirely hate the idea but they better be sure to think it over really well, because the train wreck potential is real. Content should stand on its own two feet rather than sitting hoisted on the shoulders of fanbois.

- - - Updated - - -

I am in no way hopeful we are getting a class next xpac, but we have to consider that there might be a reason other than "laziness" and "class fantasy" for demon hunters being only 2 specs. Wanting to produce more, smaller classes could be one such reason.

I still don't think they take the notion of adding new classes very lightly. They won't want more bloat than necessary. If they are truly focusing on short bursts of inspiration then perhaps we will be more likely to see a spec added for one or two existing classes instead of new class itself. Although the lack of parity will annoy thousands of players whose mains aren't in the limelight for a new spec that expansion so who knows.

What we did learn is that they may never bother with 3 specs for hero classes again (too much work!) And I honestly think druid having four somehow (weirdly) played into their skimping on demon hunter getting more than 2.

[Rhamses]

For all intents and purposes, Necromancer as a class is very much a part of DK except the apothecary aspect of it. Demon Hunter's core fantasy was a big part of Warlock but Demon Hunter was made into a new class because it was backed by its extreme popularity and the direction of the story at the time. I doubt that Necromancer has the same conditions for Blizzard to go out of their way to flesh it out.

I don't think that people understand Death Knights represent the 3 major aspects of undead in Warcraft.

Blood= Vampirism (and undead creature that feeds on blood. Based on the Dreadlord Hero)
Frost= Lich (undead that uses frost magic. Based on the Lich hero)
Unholy= Necromancer (control of the undead and plagues. Based on the Death Knight hero)

I really don't see where you could pull a necromancer class from that without interfering heavily with the Death Knight class.

[Ielenia]

All it requires is one or two examples of Demon Hunters summoning demons for it to be a viable class trait. Why did you ignore the Demon Hunter that had three felhounds as pets?

Can you prove that said Demon Hunter summoned those demons... or could he have leaned a bit into the 'Hunter' part of its name and actually tamed the demonic beasts?

"Why do we need it" isn't the point of bringing this up. The point is that Blizzard refused to give DHs demonic pets or a ranged spec because of Warlocks, despite Warlocks retaining none of the ranged abilities within Metamorphosis. In other words, Blizzard doesn't want two classes sharing abilities or themes.

Two classes utilizing Necromancy would be such an example.

Holy priests and holy paladins would be another such example. Fire mages and destruction warlocks are another example.

[Rhamses]

Can you prove that said Demon Hunter summoned those demons... or could he have leaned a bit into the 'Hunter' part of its name and actually tamed the demonic beasts?

Illidan did summon Shadow demons during the fight in BT, so its not unheard of for a DH to be able to summon demons.

[Ielenia]

Illidan did summon Shadow demons during the fight in BT, so its not unheard of for a DH to be able to summon demons.

Illidan is not your average Demon Hunter. I'm not sure you noticed, but every single Demon Hunter you find, except for Illidan, still look like a normal night elf or blood elf, save for the blindfolds and tattoos. Illidan, on the other hand, has claws, hooved feet, wings, and shark-like teeth. And that's just on his base form. Because he absorbed all the corrupting power of the Skull of Gul'dan, which transformed him into what he is right now.

So it stands to reason that Illidan may have powers other demon hunters do not.

What you're saying is akin to saying that because old-god-empowered Garrosh could summon aberration minions, then the warrior class should be able to also summon those monsters.