Possible future hero classes.

[Deleted]

Timewalker/Keeper of Time. Put in an expasion about Infinite Dragonflight. Lots of attacks with sand and time. Have a healing tree that reverses time. Possible have them be or morph into Bronze Drakonids.

I've always like the idea of having a Hero Class that's actually a dragon with your race choice being the Mortal guise


Also pretty sure Monks weren't a hero class so people would have to lvl in the redone cataclysm zones

[Thimagryn]

Monk was based on this hero, but isn't a hero class.

Right, which is perfectly in line with what I said. Hero classes are based off of Warcraft 3 Heroes. Regular classes can be too, though they will be less likely to use the same title. The Paladin is the only regular class derived from a WC3 Hero without the Hero Class designation, and that was a choice made back in Vanilla. This is why we don't have a specific Brewmaster class in WoW, we have a regular 'Monk' class. By all means, Windwalker, Mistweaver could just as easily be 'Brewmaster' specs.

- - - Updated - - -

It does clear up some misunderstandings, but I still should point out that you, at best, have a correlation there, and as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. You cannot say that our current hero classes were made 'hero classes' exactly because they were inspired off Warcraft III heroes. Because, again, what you got, at best, is a correlation.

DUde, just stop. I told you already, you read into things wrong and took it completely out of context. I've said nothing that indicates that future cases are going to happen BASED on what I've said here. If you have factual proof that a zebra can grow from a Chicken Egg, then so be it. I literally shouldn't have to have 10+ replies on saying something as simple as 'Chickens come from Eggs'. I don't like to have my statements called 'Factually wrong' just because you happen to misunderstand a statement that was taken way out of context.

And no, I didn't say 'our current Hero classes were made 'Hero classes' exactly because they were inspired from Warcraft 3' so stop that bullshit. You think I'm that stupid that I don't recognize that regular Classes are ALSO inspired from Warcraft 3 Heroes? The original context of my statement was to support someone else's comment that "This is also why you keep seeing suggestions of Dark Rangers or Shadow Hunters as new hero classes."

Whatever bullshit 'causation' issues you have are completely unfounded.

[Better]

Right, which is perfectly in line with what I said. Hero classes are based off of Warcraft 3 Heroes. Regular classes can be too, though they will be less likely to use the same title. The Paladin is the only regular class derived from a WC3 Hero without the Hero Class designation, and that was a choice made back in Vanilla. This is why we don't have a specific Brewmaster class in WoW, we have a regular 'Monk' class. By all means, Windwalker, Mistweaver could just as easily be 'Brewmaster' specs.

I disagree, and think you read too much into the name. Hero class in WoW means ONLY that they start at a higher level. They are based on things in WC3, like literally everything else in WoW. Had monk been named Brewmaster, and still started at level 1, it would have still not been a hero class. The same reason Paladin, which as you said is based on the hero(s) in WC3, isn't a hero class.

[Thimagryn]

I disagree, and think you read too much into the name. Hero class in WoW means ONLY that they start at a higher level. They are based on things in WC3, like literally everything else in WoW. Had monk been named Brewmaster, and still started at level 1, it would have still not been a hero class. The same reason Paladin, which as you said is based on the hero(s) in WC3, isn't a hero class.

Monk isn't named Brewmaster. It's also not a Hero class. I don't see what that has to do with Hero classes in WoW when what you're pointing out isn't a Hero class.

The Paladin is the only one that is outside the norm, and that's because the concept of "Hero Class" wasn't even properly introduced to us until after the fact. If you think it's too much reading into a name, then why not use Brewmaster for the class name when it already existed? Why go with a generic 'Monk'? Why call it a Demon Hunter when it's so easily confused with the current Hunter? Why not Demon Slayer?

Names matter. It isn't just coincidence that Warcraft 3 Hero titles have mostly been avoided being designated as core classes. The one I see on the fence is a Tinker, which can exist as either a Hero class or a regular class. Others like Dark Ranger and Shadow Hunter would most likely be Hero class if implemented. If they were redesigned into a core class, we'd more likely see them exist as 'Ranger' or 'Shadowstalker' with Dark Ranger and Shadow Hunter specs.

[Better]

Monk isn't named Brewmaster. It's also not a Hero class. I don't see what that has to do with Hero classes in WoW when what you're pointing out isn't a Hero class.

The Paladin is the only one that is outside the norm, and that's because the concept of "Hero Class" wasn't even properly introduced to us until after the fact. If you think it's too much reading into a name, then why not use Brewmaster for the class name when it already existed? Why go with a generic 'Monk'? Why call it a Demon Hunter when it's so easily confused with the current Hunter? Why not Demon Slayer?

Names matter.

Brewmaster was a very good name for the way the tank spec played, and I assume they didn't want to have any IP problems by calling it "Drunken Boxer" or something similar. Demon Hunter, or Death Knight are much more broad names, much like monk. I think a lot of it was down to design space. The name Brewmaster comes with a requirement of having something to do with brew in all 3 specs, and IDK if Blizzard wanted to commit to something like that.

[Wildmoon]

I can see Tinker being a new class but not exactly a hero class. The background of the class is not specific enough to warrant a separate starting one. The class could be intregrated into the current starting zones just fine. The only problem is artifacts and class order halls which will prevent new classes to start pre-110.

[Thimagryn]

Brewmaster was a very good name for the way the tank spec played, and I assume they didn't want to have any IP problems by calling it "Drunken Boxer" or something similar. Demon Hunter, or Death Knight are much more broad names, much like monk. I think a lot of it was down to design space. The name Brewmaster comes with a requirement of having something to do with brew in all 3 specs, and IDK if Blizzard wanted to commit to something like that.

The way I see it, every specialization is a representation of a Warcraft 3 Hero. If we talk about a Beastmastery Hunter, they could effectively be a 'Beastmaster'. Other specs like Holy Priest or Restoration Shaman could be given more special names, but essentially their specialization is an analog to the Heroes from Warcraft 3.

Paladins, Death Knights and Demon Hunters IMO could exist as a spec off any other class.

[Directionalk9]

I can see Tinker being a new class but not exactly a hero class. The background of the class is not specific enough to warrant a separate starting one. The class could be intregrated into the current starting zones just fine. The only problem is artifacts and class order halls which will prevent new classes to start pre-110.

Can I paint you a picture on how amazing and crazy a tinker starting zone can be? I have ideas man, ideas.

[Ielenia]

DUde, just stop. I told you already, you read into things wrong and took it completely out of context. I've said nothing that indicates that future cases are going to happen BASED on what I've said here.

When someone pointed out that the list being posted was a WC3 hero list, not WoW list, you responded with:

Where do you think the concept of Hero classes come from?

How else can this be interpreted!? You succinctly expressed that you believed the concept of hero classes comes from WC3, which, like I said, at best, is a correlation.

[Deleted]

Necromancer will never be a class in game. Imagine 5 of them in raid where each of them has 5 skeletons and golem. That would be total clusterfuck and RIP for potato PCs.

Imagine bringing 20 demo locks to a raid that each spawn 15 imps+additional pets. These are temporary and unholy DKs summoning army of dead is also temporary but who says PC`s are blowing up when it happens? In any case, if necromancer were to come, Blizzard would still maintain balance and you wouldn't see class stacking to the point of bringing 10 necros to a raid or accidentally drop in AV with 40 necro`s on either side.

It wouldn't be as bad as you portray it to be.

[khazmodan]

i recommend a new hero class that would have to be birthed by a female and male in game with random attributes given to the new character and shared custody until the character hits max level at which time it would choose which account to stay with. Of course if the child is at brewfest you could buy a beer for it and get the new achievement "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".

[Teriz]

I've pretty implicitly avoided using the word "failure", excepting in the statistical sense. If you want to dabble in could-be's and maybe-so's, that's your choice; most people, however, like to deal in facts -- and it's absolutely a fact that Goblins and Gnomes are not well-represented among the playerbase.

I think we both agree that Goblin and Gnome numbers are low. The question is, should nothing be added to the game to attempt to boost their numbers?

If you're going to include things under 55, you're intentionally ignoring DK's from your metric (likewise for DH's if you include anything under 98). If you're alright with being statistically dishonest, by all means, continue this line of reasoning.

DKs are the second most played class in the US, and the fourth most played class in EU. DH is the least played class in both (That might be due to how they play).

You're right, the would rise. Yet, even if we assume Tinker to be as popular as Demon Hunters, the overall number of Gnomes/Goblins would have to quadruple just to reach parity with Monks (the current least-played class). It's simply not a good investment.

The current number of Goblin and Gnomes are inconsequential. If the class is cool and fun, non-Goblin/Gnome players will re-roll to play the new class.

An imagined barrier isn't a barrier, it's a delusion.

Delusion can also be a barrier.

To suggest the game hasn't seem overhauls on a class-by-class basis, that it has remained static from Cataclysm to Legion is simply your naivety showing through.

I never suggested that. What I said was that the DK nerf/buff cycle in WotLK was way different than the buff/nerf cycle for Monks in MoP. For example, Monks got a pretty hefty nerf in the first patch of MoP which hurt their populations. DKs on the other hand remained strong throughout WotLK and subsequent expansions.

When did I say anything of the sort? I only said they, Monks, don't stand out nearly as much as a quarter-man in a Jaeger-suit.

Actually they do. We see quarter-men in jaeger-suits constantly. Before MoP we never saw a Pandaren Monk in WoW outside of an annoying pet.

I like to think Blizzard doesn't need people to actually tell them what is interesting and what isn't, the same way I don't think George R. R. Martin needs to take his queue from the fans on where his story should go next; if they don't know their own work, inside and out, and what is or isn't going to play well based on the current norms, they deserve a flop.

Well then you're thinking wrong. Various elements of the game were added to WoW via fan/forum requests.

They're not unpopular because they're unplayable, they're unpopular because people don't seem to enjoy Gnomes or Goblins. That's a very important distinction that separates Demon Hunters and Tinkers.

Actually the mech concept and the Tinker concept itself is very popular. Supposedly even the Blizzard devs have acknowledged this. In the end can't base the potential popularity of a class based on the popularity of the races they can be. I mean, Monks can be ANY race, yet they're still not a very popular class.

You're right, there's no way of knowing -- but we can make educated guesses about what most probably won't happen.

The DK was far-and-away the most requested class in the early years of this game; yet, despite being almost exclusively built around the Humans/Dwarves of WCIII: Frozen Throne, it didn't really affect the number of people playing Humans or Dwarves at all in any noticeable away. As you could verify yourself, 16.5% of all U.S. characters are human, 16.6% of all U.S. Death Knights are human. As well, the addition of DH's didn't noticeably increase the number of people who play Blood Elves or Night Elves.

So the question I'd posit is, if the DK didn't increase the overall number of Humans/Dwarves to any noticeable degree and the DH didn't increase the overall number of Night Elves/Blood Elves to any noticeable degree, why is it that you think Tinker is going to somehow double, triple or even quadruple the Gnome/Goblin population which is what would need to happen for Tinkers to even reach parity with what is currently the least played class? Curious.

There's no way to answer that question without knowing what those populations would be like currently if the DK or the DH was never implemented into WoW in the first place. Do you have those numbers?

But we do know that that Goblins and Gnomes are the two least played races, excepting Pandaren, which ultimately means anything to do with them will have a smaller pool of fans to draw from -- or, to state that another way, there will be more people that are theoretically disinterested in Tinker than there would be who're disinterested in something as random as a "Pirate Class" or "Dragon Class" or "Bard Class".

Again, just because someone isn't playing a Goblin or Gnome currently doesn't mean that they wouldn't roll a Tinker class. Just because someone isn't currently playing a Goblin or Gnome means that they outright despise those races.

Ultimately, we disagree on whether or not statistics are relevant. You want to assume Blizzard doesn't care about making money and that they'd be more than happy to spend money on a class that is the most likely to net the lowest return; more power to you, others, many others it seems, disagree.

Many others? It appears to be just you. According to your own source, there are about 6 million Goblin and Gnome players. You don't think Blizzard makes money off of that?

[Thimagryn]

How else can this be interpreted!? You succinctly expressed that you believed the concept of hero classes comes from WC3, which, like I said, at best, is a correlation.

In context to someone saying that people are asking for Shadow Hunters and Dark Rangers, yes, the concept of those Heroes come from WC3.

You said I can't say it because it is a correlation at best, but being a correlation is THE reason I CAN say it. If it wasn't true, then I couldn't say it. Where do the melee-centric Death Knight and Demon Hunter concepts come from if not Warcraft 3?

I talked about where the concept CAME from, not where it will move going forward. Whether or not that is a correlation has nothing to do with where it CAME from. You seem to keep missing the context of the statement I made, as if I made a statement that Hero Classes could never grow or change beyond where it originated. You really need to start considering context.

Let's break this down again.

The concept of the Hero Class in WoW is derived from Warcraft 3 having Heroes.

1: Monks are a regular class and they were based on Brewmaster Hero!
- So what? Monks aren't a Hero class and the above statement doesn't apply to regular classes. It's about Hero classes being derived from Warcraft 3 Heroes, which is still true.

2: Other class ideas could become Hero Classes too! They don't have to be from Warcraft 3 Heroes!
- Yes, that is true. And the above statement is only about where the Hero Class concept came from, not where it moves forward.

3: You can't prove that statement is true!
- Then please show me how it is untrue, because other than strawman the hell out of this, you still don't have any plausible deniability for the Hero Class concept being derived from any other source, including being completely fabricated for WoW without external influence. You can't even plausibly explain how Warcraft 3 'Heroes' with the exact same name is mere coincidence and nothing beyond that. All you have in your argument is 'I see lack of proof therefore it must be untrue!'. That's not an argument, that's ignorance.

[Teriz]

There is 0 reason to lack a necromancer at this point in WoW's life

http://www.wowhead.com/death-knight

- - - Updated - - -

And shadow hunter cant, because shamans have hex according to you xD

I'm just saying that a Shadow Hunter is essentially a Troll Shaman at this point, because that's what it is in WC3. It's abilities were placed into the Shaman class, and Voodoo is an aspect of Shamanism.

Blizzard could change what a Shadow Hunter is, and make them into a WoW class. Honestly though, if a Shadow Hunter isn't a Troll Shaman, then what is it?

[Ielenia]

You said I can't say it because it is a correlation at best, but being a correlation is THE reason I CAN say it. If it wasn't true, then I couldn't say it. Where do the melee-centric Death Knight and Demon Hunter concepts come from if not Warcraft 3?

There is a small little logic 'rule' that goes more or less like this: "correlation does not imply causation". Just because you got two random sets of data, and they happen to more or less match, it does not mean that they really are linked together. What you got is, at best, a coincidence.

I talked about where the concept CAME from,

And I'm telling you, stating it as a fact is wrong, because, like I said, at best, you got a simple correlation, a coincidence.

1: Monks are a regular class and they were based on Brewmaster Hero!
- So what? Monks aren't a Hero class and the above statement doesn't apply to regular classes. It's about Hero classes being derived from Warcraft 3 Heroes, which is still true.

To say it's "true" implies causation, which you cannot prove exist, unless you get someone from Blizzard to spill the beans about it. Regardless, why aren't mages a hero class, then? After all: Jaina. Why aren't druids a hero class? After all: Malfurion.

3: You can't prove that statement is true!
- Then please show me how it is untrue,

"Correlation does not imply causation." And on top of that, it's up to you to prove it's true, and at best, what you get is 'coincidence'. Single coincidences by themselves do not prove a case. You need much more than one single coincidence to make your case.

[Directionalk9]

I'm just saying that a Shadow Hunter is essentially a Troll Shaman at this point, because that's what it is in WC3. It's abilities were placed into the Shaman class, and Voodoo is an aspect of Shamanism.

Blizzard could change what a Shadow Hunter is, and make them into a WoW class. Honestly though, if a Shadow Hunter isn't a Troll Shaman, then what is it?

I'm pretty sure Shadow Hunter commune with the loa and use shadow magic to fight, the Vol'jin book gives a pretty good showcase of how it works. I see very little Shamanism in a Shadow Hunter; more like shadow priest, rogue, and a dash of Hunter weapons.

[Teriz]

I'm pretty sure Shadow Hunter commune with the loa and use shadow magic to fight, the Vol'jin book gives a pretty good showcase of how it works. I see very little Shamanism in a Shadow Hunter; more like shadow priest, rogue, and a dash of Hunter weapons.

Well in terms of classes, most of their basis comes from WC3;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/u...owhunter.shtml

The majority of its abilities went to the Shaman class, and the Shaman class itself has voodoo themes. In order to create a new class around that concept, the concept itself needs to be almost completely reinvented, made different from the Shaman class, and somehow transferred to other races (since Shadow Hunters are pretty much troll-only).

[Champagne Supernova]

I would think a Runic Caster would be a good addition, Rune Magics is already among the horde and alliance according to More Magics and Mayhem Warcraft RPG book.

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Runemaster

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Inscriber

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_inscriber

Also being 10 Rune patterns which i suppose they can expand on in terms of abilities and talents.Those being:

Awareness family
Beast family
Flame pattern
Frost pattern
Healing family
Motion family
Restoration family
Shielding family
Stone pattern
Storm pattern
Striking family

I think a few tweaks here and there are needed but seems like it can fit in, it's up there for contention with Tinkers in my eyes. Plus Majority of Races can be them i guess.

[thebigman154]

anything that uses mail for the love of god

[Directionalk9]

Well in terms of classes, most of their basis comes from WC3;

The majority of its abilities went to the Shaman class, and the Shaman class itself has voodoo themes. In order to create a new class around that concept, the concept itself needs to be almost completely reinvented, made different from the Shaman class, and somehow transferred to other races (since Shadow Hunters are pretty much troll-only).

Sure their abilities may have gotten rolled into the shaman (crying shame, I suppose) but for the sake of fan-creating a new WoW class, non of their lore matches up at all. The real hurdle, like you pointed out is spreading it out from the Trolls.

Hell, I main a Shaman, as a representative (unofficial) you can have Hex back, and re-animate/re-name Healing Wave.