Possible future hero classes.

[Thimagryn]

Actually if you want to be honest about it, the defining trait of Death Knights is death, not necromancy, per se. Death, and its aspects. Frost, for example, has nothing necromantic about it. Blood? Blood is more like a vampire than necromancer, in and of itself, too.

Frost and Blood are a part of Necromancy. Just look at Diablo 3's Necromancer and tell me those aren't part of his necromancy theme. Tell me the Lich isn't about Necromancy, considering two of his main spells are Frost Nova and Frost Armor. You can't honestly vouch for a Necromancer class while also denouncing the Death Knight for being different. The DK's spells are based around Necromancy, and your assertion of 'Death' as their theme is about as flimsy as saying Warlocks are all about Demons while Demon Hunters are all about Fel. Both themes are intertwined and aren't mutually exclusive as you are presenting it as.

A Necromancer class that doesn't use any Blood or Frost themes would be so niche that it might as well become a DK, Warlock or Priest Spec rather than a class.

[Ielenia]

Frost and Blood are a part of Necromancy.

You could make a case for blood, but we already have 'blood magic' in WoW, so it's its own thing. Frost? Not really

Tell me the Lich isn't about Necromancy, considering two of his main spells are Frost Nova and Frost Armor.

The process of creating a lich involves necromancy, yes, but the lich himself is not necessarily a necromancer. I'm not sure if WoW has a different definition and origin for them, but the general Lich fantasy is that they're powerful mages that bind their soul to a phylactery. Yes, that process is necromancy, but the mage themselves don't have to be necromancers to do it.

A Necromancer class that doesn't use any Blood or Frost themes would be so niche that it might as well become a DK, Warlock or Priest Spec rather than a class.

Luckily there are other things we could add to it, right? And since you mention the D3 Necro, I will point you at the D2 Necro, and his poison spec.

[Darktbs]

You tie them in both ideas to the Ebon Blade, but you want them to be a class of their own? I got you right? I like the idea. Could be cool, maybe even use ICC as a base of operation (but that would be a bit to much). Reading your idea, and liking it, I still would prefer the Necromancer be a 4th spec. And since you put them so close to the Ebon Blade why not let them take the teachers and use them to geht this new way of power for themselves? But still, like your idea, but have a different preference.

I really like the idea of class interaction, just like in the Paladin and Priest Class order hall campaign or Hunters asking for the Warlock champion for Help.It makes things feel more alive and connected, shure they can go on and offer their help to fight the Old gods to Khadgar and he accept, but this was already used with the Demon Hunter where he ask for their help.

[Thimagryn]

The process of creating a lich involves necromancy, yes, but the lich himself is not necessarily a necromancer. I'm not sure if WoW has a different definition and origin for them, but the general Lich fantasy is that they're powerful mages that bind their soul to a phylactery. Yes, that process is necromancy, but the mage themselves don't have to be necromancers to do it.

In Warcraft, the Lich is the epitome of a Necromancer. It's what most-to-every Necromancer aspire to become, and this is aparant in both the lore of Kel'thuzad in Warcraft 3 and most, if not all, of the Lich's we've seen in WoW. If the Lich will little influence in this class, we might as well not have an undead-based spellcaster at all since you're intentionally ignoring a huge source of lore and inspiration. The Warcraft 3 compendium even blatantly states Now, Liches wield frost magic along with their own considerable necromantic spells

It's like trying to design the Druid but use no elements from the Keeper of the Grove. You could do it but why would you want a Druid that couldn't use entangling roots, tranquility or summon treants? That takes away a lot of the Druid's flavour and core fantasy.

Why wouldn't a Necromancer have powerful frost spells at their disposal when that's a major aspect of the Scourge influences and a core part of the collective Undead identity in the Warcraft universe. That's like saying Warlocks wouldn't use Fire or Shadow and only stick with summoning Demons; why would anyone want to design a Warlock that is so niche?

[Hitei]

In Warcraft, the Lich is the epitome of a Necromancer. It's what most-to-every Necromancer aspire to become, and this is aparant in both the lore of Kel'thuzad in Warcraft 3 and most, if not all, of the Lich's we've seen in WoW. If the Lich will little influence in this class, we might as well not have an undead-based spellcaster at all since you're intentionally ignoring a huge source of lore and inspiration.

It's like trying to design the Druid but use no elements from the Keeper of the Grove. You could do it but why would you want a Druid that couldn't use entangling roots, tranquility or summon treants? That takes away a lot of the Druid's flavour and core fantasy.

Why wouldn't a Necromancer have powerful frost spells at their disposal when that's a major aspect of the Scourge influences and a core part of the collective Undead identity in WoW. That's like saying Warlocks wouldn't use Fire or Shadow and only stick with summoning Demons; why would anyone want to design a Warlock that is so niche?

It's more like designing a warlock that doesn't use felfire. Which is exactly what warlocks were for a very long time.

[Jtree]

Actually it is in this case.

The defining trait of Warlocks is Curses and Summoning Demons. The defining trait of Demon Hunters is stealing power from demons and transforming into a demon.

The defining trait of both Death Knights and Necromancers is Necromancy.

Wow. Wish we could make you argue yourself, circa 2014. You would not have accepted this argument at all back then.

A wise man would learn from the mistakes of his past.

[Teriz]

Wow. Wish we could make you argue yourself, circa 2014. You would not have accepted this argument at all back then.

No, because at the time turning into demons was a trait belonging to Warlocks. That's no longer the case obviously.

A wise man would learn from the mistakes of his past.

I did. My mistake was believing that Blizzard wouldn't obliterate an existing class in order to shoehorn another class into the game. Since I now know that Blizzard is capable of that, I really hope they don't bring Necromancers into the game, because DKs and Warlocks would suffer from that inclusion.

[Directionalk9]

How about a different class, one that could easily exist without ANY complications, none what so ever, none means none. I'm talking about a two spec, opposite the DH, badass of cool-town. Range DPS and Healer, wears cloth, but robes, for robes do not exude the attitude nessacery to play such a glass. I know we all came to the same conclusion, the cowboy.

Healing spec - Sawbones or Field Medic
the healing abilities would be fast casts, low mana costs, but also lower-ish HP replenishing. Rest of the abilities augment the direct healing.
(Bedside manners) the closer you are to your targets the more you heal them, 0-10 yards 25% boost, 10-20 yards, 18%, etc.
(Military Medic) for X seconds your casts are even faster and increase healing done.
Most of the abilities would be syringe and potion throwing based

Gunslinger spec - you have two pistols resource is bullet rounds. You have 4-6 different bullet abilities, like runeforging you pull up a menu to combine any of the bullet shots, these use bullet rounds as resources
(Piercing shot) x damage decreases armor for x seconds
(Revolver shot) big damaging ability
(Ice Bullet Shot) something ice related
Etc
(Make em Dance) channeled ability repeatedly shoot at target, causes a slow debuff if fully channeled, must have full bullet rounds
(Re-load) refills bullet, uses energy/focus resource

Other abilities use energy or focus
(Lasso) target is now lasso'd, (Lasso) becomes (lasso Toss) if the target is away it pulls it towards you dealing small damage but now you can use (pistol Whip), if your Lasso'd target is within melee and our Lasso Toss them, they are thrown 20 yards away, small damage and you can well shoot em.
(Bottle throw) caster spell, uses E/F you finish a beer and throw it at the target, adds a bleed effect.
(Put out your cigarette) you throw a lit cigarette at the target doing, with a 50/50 chance of igniting them doing Dot fire damage for x seconds

Other Cowboy abilities
(Kettle o' Frank n Beans) place a small camp fire with a kettle of food, all party raid memebers can eat restoring 100% health over w0 seconds, less cumbersome Mage food
(Rugged Swagger) your party/raid either admires/jealous of you, they try hard to impress/show you up, increases crit for X% over X seconds
(Casual racism) increase damage to Tauren, Worgen, and Pandaren. Obviously not on pvp, or maybe only in pvp
(Pitch a tent) places a tent next to, giving you a rested zone, can access you shots menu, Gains access to any rested only things in game.
(Bandito) when enemy target is below 50% health you can steal from them, getting an item from their loot table, not usable on bosses.

Obviously needs some more work, but this is just a solid idea, probably without any criticism at all, ever.

[Darktbs]

Well...i said once i would like to see something completly new and unexpected.

Guess i just found it.

[Gyrotex]

My 2 cents on all this because why not:

1. There won't be a new class in 8.0, but certainly will be in 9.0

2. Whenever the next new class is introduced, it will be:

- A Healer, first and foremost;

- A DPS, and most definitely ranged (because we are over-saturated with melee right now);

- Very likely a class with 2 specs only (like DH), because much easier to develop, test, and balance overall.

P.S. To all those who say we have too many classes and races and all that :

Blizzard doesn't care about what you (and I) think.

They care about making sure their product (WoW) stays appealing enough to both long-term players and fresh blood.

You can't stay even-steven appealing by continuing to offer only good old stuff.

Plain and simple reason why they WILL continue adding stuff like classes and races.

Just not frequently, as it's been so far.

[Deleted]

I recall a nearly exact argument made against Demon Hunters, about Warlocks having Metamorphosis and Immolation, Rogues having Evasion and Priests having (had) Mana Burn. And considering we do have Demon Hunters today, it's been shown that this is not the best argument to make.

It doesn't matter a tiniest little bit. Why do you even bother to respond on what you think is the topic when doesn't? The 'wrong' question was about Necromancer being perfectly OK as Unholy death knight since Diablo necros run around in bone-themed suits that he randomly assigned to heavy armour category. The sudden jump to WC3 is not an answer to anything or a point for anything

- - - Updated - - -

The only way I could see them doing that is by making the DK able to transform into an undead monster, and giving all the summoning abilities to the Necromancer. Unfortunately, you still have the problem of massive overlap with Warlocks on a conceptual level, and pissed off Death Knights who lose iconic abilities they've had for over a decade.

The only way I could see them doing tinker is by making them craft their tools before hand (you know, like, actual tinkers do) and then use them up in combat, which is what engineers already do, so there's a problem of massive overlap with existing profession on a conceptual level and pissed off Engineers who lose not only grenades but also kites, speed belts and all.
Yeah.
I have to say playing it your way is completely futile and akin to masterbation, but at least it's a sort of fun.
Oh and btw Diablo necromancers don't need to transform into undead monsters so by your own logic there's absolutely no need for death knights to do that either, whatever the future necromancer turns out to be.

[Bas Prime]

it will be:
- A Healer, first and foremost;
- A DPS, and most definitely ranged (because we are over-saturated with melee right now);

P.S. To all those who say we have too many classes and races and all that :

Blizzard doesn't care about what you (and I) think.

Range Specs 11
Melee Specs 13
Tanks 6
Healers 6
I just see the melees up front with two specs, hardly "over-saturated" number wise. If players tend to play more of the melee classes, why add a range if the community seems to not like them.
I absolutely agree on the two specs for one new class. It helps a lot not to have to come up with three, makes it a lot easier.

If you fill a raid with classes, and raid is the only place you have to consider (besides rated bg) you can go the route of looking for just the specs (or classes) that you want. The higher the difficulty the stronger the demonad for certain specs is (the ones doing apeshit dmg, heal or tank the best atm) In lower difficulties, where most of the community resides (i think) guilds form a raid and look what they got. Maybe they start to recruit when something important is missing (healer, tank, bloodlust class) but will there be every class represented? maybe, but probably not. You may have two Retribution Pals, maybe two Rogues, maybe two Demon Hunters. Chances are there are classes twice and some are not represented. So in my opinion it comes down to the person. You have no Retribution Paladin in your guild, meaning in your raid? So? no problem. Three WArriors? Not a problem.
In my opinion, it is unessential how many melees are in the game. The raids will pick their fair share of them. You can throw 5 more melee specs into the game, and there would not be a problem. Essential is, that there is no class that has a uber ability, and that is just the classes that have Bloodlust like abilities. And even those are not needed in a normal group.

- - - Updated - - -

The only way I could see them doing tinker is by making them craft their tools before hand (you know, like, actual tinkers do) and then use them up in combat, which is what engineers already do, so there's a problem of massive overlap with existing profession on a conceptual level and pissed off Engineers who lose not only grenades but also kites, speed belts and all.

I disagree, you could take a look at Gazlowe in Heroes of the Storm. Sure, you have to adjust this template for WoW, but there are some good ideas to start with. Also, I can not take the point about Engeneer is a Tinkerer serious. Sorry, the profession wont be destroyed by a Tinker. I dont think so, I am sure, Blizz would have a loot of stuff that is steam punky enough without taking it away from engeneering.

[Deleted]

No, because at the time turning into demons was a trait belonging to Warlocks. That's no longer the case obviously.



I did. My mistake was believing that Blizzard wouldn't obliterate an existing class in order to shoehorn another class into the game. Since I now know that Blizzard is capable of that, I really hope they don't bring Necromancers into the game, because DKs and Warlocks would suffer from that inclusion.

I totally fail to see how Warlock wuold suffer....o yeah because of DoTs..... like we don't have already a lot of class that play DoT and are totally different one each other...(hint: Shadow Priest). Oh all of this because you think a Necromancer MUST have dots, when it's not set in stone to be honest.

And about DK, i don't really want to repeat myself.

And yes i like obliterating class if what comes after i way better, both gameplay and class fantasy (if you like it or not, that's personal taste ofc). Now demonology warlock finally feels like a demonologist, not a weird transformer thing. Imagine a BM hunter that cuold transform into an animal, totally nosense.

If i USE and CONTROL something (pets or demon), i don't have to transform into that thing. Now, if i FIGHT against something, well you can apply the rule "fight fire with fire", just like DH do.

That said, i am ok with Necromancers, but i wuold also be ok with a simple rework of Unholy DK and turn them into a proper spec, even caster (we already have plate caster class, even if healer).

[Deleted]

Range Specs 11
Melee Specs 13
Tanks 6
Healers 6
I just see the melees up front with two specs, hardly "over-saturated" number wise. If players tend to play more of the melee classes, why add a range if the community seems to not like them.
I absolutely agree on the two specs for one new class. It helps a lot not to have to come up with three, makes it a lot easier.

If you fill a raid with classes, and raid is the only place you have to consider (besides rated bg) you can go the route of looking for just the specs (or classes) that you want. The higher the difficulty the stronger the demonad for certain specs is (the ones doing apeshit dmg, heal or tank the best atm) In lower difficulties, where most of the community resides (i think) guilds form a raid and look what they got. Maybe they start to recruit when something important is missing (healer, tank, bloodlust class) but will there be every class represented? maybe, but probably not. You may have two Retribution Pals, maybe two Rogues, maybe two Demon Hunters. Chances are there are classes twice and some are not represented. So in my opinion it comes down to the person. You have no Retribution Paladin in your guild, meaning in your raid? So? no problem. Three WArriors? Not a problem.
In my opinion, it is unessential how many melees are in the game. The raids will pick their fair share of them. You can throw 5 more melee specs into the game, and there would not be a problem. Essential is, that there is no class that has a uber ability, and that is just the classes that have Bloodlust like abilities. And even those are not needed in a normal group.

- - - Updated - - -


I disagree, you could take a look at Gazlowe in Heroes of the Storm. Sure, you have to adjust this template for WoW, but there are some good ideas to start with. Also, I can not take the point about Engeneer is a Tinkerer serious. Sorry, the profession wont be destroyed by a Tinker. I dont think so, I am sure, Blizz would have a loot of stuff that is steam punky enough without taking it away from engeneering.

You are disagreeing with me showing Teriz the level of ridiculousness in his "arguments" against necromancer, including the idea to have DK turn into an undead monster as the only fashion we could make way for clothie ranged necromancer? OK.

[Bas Prime]

You are disagreeing with me showing Teriz the level of ridiculousness in his "arguments" against necromancer, including the idea to have DK turn into an undead monster as the only fashion we could make way for clothie ranged necromancer? OK.

I am having trouble to understand what you are saying. I disagreed that a Tinkerer would be the same as the engineer profession in wow. And I was having doubt about the profession beeing destroyed if a Tinkerer would beceome a playable class in WoW. Also I disagreed on the overlap that would happen. In what way did I comment on Teriz post, and his idea in that quote? I'm a bit puzzled to be honest.
But if you want to know what I think would be the best way to bring a Necromancer to the game? I would give it to the Death Knight as a 4th spec. I would keep Plate as armor type, yet I could see them beeing mostly a range class. But I have not made myself familiar with the Necromancer good enough, so that may narrow my point of view.

[Deleted]

My 2 cents on all this because why not:

1. There won't be a new class in 8.0, but certainly will be in 9.0

2. Whenever the next new class is introduced, it will be:

- A Healer, first and foremost;

- A DPS, and most definitely ranged (because we are over-saturated with melee right now);

- Very likely a class with 2 specs only (like DH), because much easier to develop, test, and balance overall.

P.S. To all those who say we have too many classes and races and all that :

Blizzard doesn't care about what you (and I) think.

They care about making sure their product (WoW) stays appealing enough to both long-term players and fresh blood.

You can't stay even-steven appealing by continuing to offer only good old stuff.

Plain and simple reason why they WILL continue adding stuff like classes and races.

Just not frequently, as it's been so far.

My preference for a new class has, for sometime, been a sort of Dark Ranger / Priestess of Elune type thing. Along the lines of the way Sylnvanas and Tyrande play in HotS, with some fleshing out of course.

The issue is where do you put another bow wielding, likely mail wearing class when hunters exist but I think Legion has narrowed the class fantasy on each of the Hunter specs enough that it does leave room for a more magic based ranged weapon user.

Of course with Alleria's daliances with the Light/Void on the PTR it does add something to this idea.

[Deleted]

I am having trouble to understand what you are saying. I disagreed that a Tinkerer would be the same as the engineer profession in wow. And I was having doubt about the profession beeing destroyed if a Tinkerer would beceome a playable class in WoW. Also I disagreed on the overlap that would happen. In what way did I comment on Teriz post, and his idea in that quote? I'm a bit puzzled to be honest.
But if you want to know what I think would be the best way to bring a Necromancer to the game? I would give it to the Death Knight as a 4th spec. I would keep Plate as armor type, yet I could see them beeing mostly a range class. But I have not made myself familiar with the Necromancer good enough, so that may narrow my point of view.

My post you responded to merely mirrored the suggestion about making Death Knights a class defined by transforming into an undead monster. There was no new content there besides maybe extra lampooning of his ridiculous random shot. I do think that necromancer can very well be implemented as a clothie ranged caster class (although it's harder for me to say just how much I like the idea of a possible new ranged class just having to be a clothie caster), as the example of occultist concept shows quite clearly. It would feel completely different mechanically and familiar, but not the same, thematically.

[Deleted]

My 2 cents on all this because why not:

1. There won't be a new class in 8.0, but certainly will be in 9.0

2. Whenever the next new class is introduced, it will be:

- A Healer, first and foremost;

- A DPS, and most definitely ranged (because we are over-saturated with melee right now);

I believe this to be the case.
I expect 8.0 to be about empowering your specs further into something more freeable such a subclass but not as so. In some sort of trading the leveling experience with a series of custom skill/spells acquisition trials/quests.

For that 9.0 class i vote for Light Naztherim, they will most likely be filtered by the army of Light the whole expansion Lore wise and they would be perfect for ranged holy damage/heal.

[Deleted]

Do we really want more classes though?

I rather get a bunch of alternative-race options instead (High Elf / Broken Draenei / Nagrand Brown Orc / High mountain Tauren / more forsaken races etc.)

[Deleted]

If anything what is most saturated is tanking. I mean think of it like this (assuming that range heavy remains a good idea):
...
It is immediately evident that what we do not need more off is tanks. We need more healers and it would be ok to have more range dps. But more tank specs is a serious problem for representation.

Yeah sure, let's make the prospect of taking up tanking even less appealing than it is now. Let's make sure that you have to make a mutually exclusive choice: 1) trying out the new trendy class vs. 2) tanking. It makes perfect sense, the game has too many tanks by far. Every time you see what's happening in the LFG queues of any type, you can see a flood of superfluous tanks clamouring for a spot and the poor leaders (or the poor matchmaker) desperately struggling to find any heals and usually failing ever to find enough dpses for hours on end.
Yeah...