Possible future hero classes.

[Deleted]

The Demon Hunter having only two specs opens up a lot of possibilities. So it would totally be possible to let Maiev train a new corps of Wardens and send them to support the Alliance in their war. But to me Wardens are a unit of the the Night Elfs, and so would belong to the Alliance. Sure, it would not be a problem to let the Wardens also join the Horde but that would feel wrong.
So Warden has ties to WC3, has iconic leaders, has a special look to it and is a special unit, stronger than a normal unit (soldier > navy seal) Could have a tank and a melee spec. There you go, new hero class.
And some people already know what I am going to write, but anyways: same goes for the Blademaster, and my problem of giving Blademaster to the Alliance or finding a fitting mirror class for Alliance is solved.
Blademaster has ties to wC3, has iconic leaders, has a special look to it an is a special unit, could have a tank and a melee spec.
So Blademaster goes to Orcs, I think they are pretty well represented with the Horde, and Warden goes to Night Elves who are also pretty well represented (based on my point of view, not numbers or statistics)

A problem I have with a concept idea some are throwing aroung is the "They need to fit to the expansion" point. Yes, that was the case for all classes that would have been added. But, that would limit us in the possibilities. If there would be a Naga Empire expansion, what could we get? Tinkerer? Not impossible, but does not fit directly to the Nagas, Sea Witch? Please no, no playble Naga Race, no Sea Witch as a Hero Class (still possible, but please no) Maybe a Shadow Hunter, Voodoo Priest since there is a chance we get to see Zandalar and a whole troll patch.

Back to Wardens and Blademasters (and even Dark Rangers, Tinkerers) AFTER Legion, Maiev, Samuro (who shows up again, or Mankrik, Lantresor) Sylvanas or Gelbin want to create or train a new special force to tackle the new threats or possible returns of big threats (Legion gone? come on people, they will show up again at one point) So they pick the best of the best (us lorewise) and train us (becoming the new hero class, that is lore wise, game wise we just roll a new hero class) So we can start like DH in a scenario letting us train, and maybe solve a bigger problem forshadowing the new problem (after finighsing the first part, a starting area, they could be send scouting the southern seas, there may be an attack at a harbour or coast town and we find out that the Nagas are coming (if there will be a South Seas Naga expansion) and all those classes would have a good base to be started at 110. And that is just what I could come up with while digging in my nose.

There is no way we are going back a situation where one faction has a different class to the other, balance wise it is a total nightmare, especially as the classes you suggest Warden/Blademaster strike me as very different from a fighting style perspective.

[Polybius]

Too many dark classes. Would rather see a new concept and then new shadow-themed classes.

[Directionalk9]

Too many dark classes. Would rather see a new concept and then new shadow-themed classes.

Like say a cowboy?

[Teriz]

This from the guy who thinks Necromancers can't exist because there's a class that already raises the dead and has diseases? In addition to there already being an archer class, there are already two strongly shadow-themed specs in the game. Your standards are all over the place.

There's only one ability where the Dark Ranger raises corpses, and its already in the game on another class. The problem with the Necromancer is that its entire theme rests on raising corpses and spreading plagues/poison/curses/whatever. The Dark Ranger's theme is more based on general Shadow magic with an archery and Apothecary angle. We can't deny that a Dark Ranger would easily fill in the need for another physical ranged class that wears mail and uses the Hunter's weaponry.

Also Death Knights are Necromancers, but Death Knights are definitely not Dark Rangers.

- - - Updated - - -

Too many dark classes. Would rather see a new concept and then new shadow-themed classes.

There's always the Tinker class. However, yeah it kind of sucks that the major hero class candidates tend to be dark edgy classes.

[Hitei]

There's only one ability where the Dark Ranger raises corpses, and its already in the game on another class. The problem with the Necromancer is that its entire theme rests on raising corpses and spreading plagues/poison/curses/whatever. The Dark Ranger's theme is more based on general Shadow magic with an archery and Apothecary angle. Death Knights are Necromancers, but Death Knights are definitely not Dark Rangers.

You completely missed the point of that post, which was not that Dark Rangers overlap with Undead.

It was that there are already two specs in the game, one caster, one melee who are built around using general shadow magic. Ergo, Dark Ranger is to Subtlety and Shadow Priest what Necromancer is to DKs. Something that uses the same magic type (shadow/shadow; death&disease/death&disease) in a different combat style (archery/caster/assassin; caster/knight).

[Teriz]

You completely missed the point of that post, which was not that Dark Rangers overlap with Undead.

It was that there are already two specs in the game, one caster, one melee who are built around using general shadow magic. Ergo, Dark Ranger is to Subtlety and Shadow Priest what Necromancer is to DKs. Something that uses the same magic type (shadow/shadow; death&disease/death&disease) in a different combat style (archery/caster/assassin; caster/knight).

The difference though is that the DK can be considered a type of Necromancer. Shadow Priests and Rogues are not Dark Rangers. The Archer angle undeniably helps the Dark Ranger differentiate itself from Rogues and Priests, and the shadow angle helps differentiate it from the Hunter class.

The only issue I really see with the Dark Ranger is that there's a seemingly over abundance of dark classes.

[Hitei]

The difference though is that the DK can be considered a type of Necromancer. Shadow Priests and Rogues are not Dark Rangers. The Archer angle undeniably helps the Dark Ranger differentiate itself from Rogues and Priests, and the shadow angle helps differentiate it from the Hunter class.

The only issue I really see with the Dark Ranger is that there's a seemingly over abundance of dark classes.

Dark Rangers can definitely be considered a type of rogue, if we are talking about the generic sense of "rogue" and not the class "rogue".
Just like Death Knights can definitely be considered a type of necromancer, if we are talking about the generic sense of "necromancer" and not the class "necromancer".

You can't pick and choose. Either we are speaking generically (i.e. anyone who raises the dead falls under the archetype of "necromancer") in which case Dark Ranger clearly falls under the umbrella of archetype of rogue (i.e. anyone who is agile, shady and uses less than pleasant means of getting things done). Or we are speaking specifically where "rogue" means lightly armored agile fighter class focusing on stealth and using mainly daggers or dual light weapons, and "necromancer" means cloth wearing dedicated caster class focusing on using death magic, raising skeletons and spreading disease, in which case, sure, Dark Rangers are not rogues and Death Knights are not Necromancers.

Either thematic similarity is a problem, as you have been claiming for at least a dozen pages now. Or it isn't.

[Teriz]

Dark Rangers can definitely be considered a type of rogue, if we are talking about the generic sense of "rogue" and not the class "rogue".
Just like Death Knights can definitely be considered a type of necromancer, if we are talking about the generic sense of "necromancer" and not the class "necromancer".
You can't pick and choose. Either we are speaking generically (i.e. anyone who raises the dead falls under the archetype of "necromancer") in which case Dark Ranger clearly falls under the umbrella of archetype of rogue (i.e. anyone who is agile, shady and uses less than pleasant means of getting things done).

Wouldn't that mean that Demon Hunters are a type of Rogue as well?

Or we are speaking specifically where "rogue" means lightly armored agile fighter class focusing on stealth and using mainly daggers or dual light weapons, and "necromancer" means cloth wearing dedicated caster class focusing on using death magic, raising skeletons and spreading disease, in which case, sure, Dark Rangers are not rogues and Death Knights are not Necromancers.

Either thematic similarity is a problem, as you have been claiming for at least a dozen pages now. Or it isn't.

Except in Warcraft, Necromancy includes blood and frost, of which the DK also have specializations in, thus with the Necromancer we have the problem of class and theme. In what way is a Death Knight not a Necromancer? The Blood spec controls bones and drains blood from enemies. The Frost spec raises undead dragons to breath shadow frost on targets.

You'd be hard-pressed to transform a Rogue or a Shadow Priest into a Dark Ranger on multiple levels. We're talking about a class that has a pirate spec! Dark Rangers don't have anything to do with pirates.

[Ielenia]

We killed Illidan and all of his followers.

Headcanon stated as fact.

Where's the pre-legion lore stating that there were more hiding out somewhere?

It's not specified anywhere. It's left open, vague, so Blizzard could use it if they so desired. And remember: even if a NPC says "we killed them all", even that can be explained away as "they didn't know", since, when your DH returns to the Black Temple, all we see are Wardens. No Naaru, no Aldor/Scryer soldiers, nothing but Wardens, so they could've kept the secret from the rest of the races.

And yet we used that information to defeat the Illidari. Must not have been that outdated.

The information was outdated, as when we got to the Black Temple we saw throngs of BEs being trained in the Demon Hunter way.

I never made that argument. I said Illidan's DHs were wiped out, because the lore states that only a couple of DHs survived the training process.

Where is the lore that stated each and every Illidari demon hunter was killed? I played throughout BC and don't recall ever seeing anything of the sort saying we "wiped out all Illidari DHs".

Where were the DH vendors prior to Legion? I don't recall any.

I thought your argument was about tinker, there?

[TriHard]

Tinker or not, I don't think we'll see a new class for 8.0 as they've never done a back to back class in the past, but if they want the subs to rise and not drop, I think they have no choice at this point.


I have a feeling they're going to put all their focus on putting in as much fan service content as possible into their expansions in order to get the sub flow going again, Legion was good but it wasn't good enough to keep the subs and it's been on a steady decline as proven by the realm populations.

[Hitei]

Wouldn't that mean that Demon Hunters are a type of Rogue as well?

Yes, if you want to look at things in terms of generic terms like "rogue" and "necromancer" instead of the actual class terms.

Except in Warcraft, Necromancy includes blood and frost, of which the DK also have specializations in, thus with the Necromancer we have the problem of class and theme. In what way is a Death Knight not a Necromancer? The Blood spec controls bones and drains blood from enemies. The Frost spec raises undead dragons to breath shadow frost on targets.

It's really simple. Necromancers (the class, as seen in Wc3 and numerous NPCs in wow) are not knights. They have never been knights and will never be knights, and they do not walk around slashing at people with runeblades in plate armor. Much like Rogues (the class) are not archers, they have never been an archer class, will never (in the foreseeable future) be an archer class, and they do not go around shooting bows at people and keeping their distance.

Yet Death Knights are (in the general sense of the word) Necromancers, and Dark Rangers are (in the general sense of the word) rogues.

You'd be hard-pressed to transform a Rogue or a Shadow Priest into a Dark Ranger on multiple levels. We're talking about a class that has a pirate spec! Dark Rangers don't have anything to do with pirates.

Step one, take the dagger away from Sub rogues and give them a bow.

There is no second step, because you now already have something extremely close to a Dark Ranger, so we have "a problem of both class and theme". Yet as you pointed out they can very easily exist beside each other, despite the primary difference just being one of range. There is a key difference in them being entirely different character combat styles (dagger wielding assassin vs archer) both using the exact same theme and power type. Much like you have two entirely different character combat styles (a caster vs a knight) both using the exact same theme and power type.

[In Ogres We Trust]

Spellbreaker and Tinker.

[Polybius]

Like say a cowboy?

Timewalker, tinker, anima shaper, a whole bunch of others mentioned before like the bard or rune-something.

I just don't see Dark Ranger becoming a thing, I'd like to see someone come up with unique abilities (or concept thread, like someone did with Timewalker, or Teriz' tinker thread) that could fit the class, and not something pulled from Diablo or HotS. Not convinced with Blademasters either.

And now that you mention cowboy, a class with a lasso or whip would be awesome. Army of Light with lightwhips please!

[Kiradyn]

Tinker is really the only class concept left that doesn't outright steal from existing classes.

Dark Ranger: steals from Hunters and Rogues
Necromancers: steals from DKs and Warlocks
Tinker: steals from ???

[zlygork]

Tinker is really the only class concept left that doesn't outright steal from existing classes.

Dark Ranger: steals from Hunters and Rogues
Necromancers: steals from DKs and Warlocks
Tinker: steals from ???

"Engineer" according to some (Playing devil's advocate)
Because we all know you'll stop midway through your raid run to craft 5 minutes CD bombs with mats in order to attack

[Rhamses]

"Engineer" according to some (Playing devil's advocate)
Because we all know you'll stop midway through your raid run to craft 5 minutes CD bombs with mats in order to attack

To be fair though, @Kiradyn did say "classes".

I do agree with your post though, its pretty dumb to even consider comparing crafting items to class abilities.

[Darktbs]

Except in Warcraft, Necromancy includes blood and frost, of which the DK also have specializations in, thus with the Necromancer we have the problem of class and theme. In what way is a Death Knight not a Necromancer? The Blood spec controls bones and drains blood from enemies. The Frost spec raises undead dragons to breath shadow frost on targets.

You'd be hard-pressed to transform a Rogue or a Shadow Priest into a Dark Ranger on multiple levels. We're talking about a class that has a pirate spec! Dark Rangers don't have anything to do with pirates.

Its falls down how you generalize a theme.

If you call a Priest someone that "Wields the Light", then Paladins, Priests, Shadow Priests and a Death Knight are Priests.

If you call a Mage someone that uses magic, then welll...everything is a Mage.

If you call a Necromancer a "Summoner of the Undead."Then Dks, Necromancers, Warlocks, Priests, Paladins are Necromancers.

If you call a Rogue "Stealthy figther", then Rogues, Dark Rangers, Hunters can be considered Rogues.

Now, when you specify, then you start seeing the classes separetly, Dks are Undead warriors that wield necrotic powers in a mix of Magic and Mellee combat spells.Mages are masters of Arcane,Frost and/or Fire, Dark rangers are users of Shadow magic while being stealthy and so on.

[Teriz]

Step one, take the dagger away from Sub rogues and give them a bow.

There is no second step, because you now already have something extremely close to a Dark Ranger, so we have "a problem of both class and theme". Yet as you pointed out they can very easily exist beside each other, despite the primary difference just being one of range. There is a key difference in them being entirely different character combat styles (dagger wielding assassin vs archer) both using the exact same theme and power type. Much like you have two entirely different character combat styles (a caster vs a knight) both using the exact same theme and power type.

/snip

Okay then, so Dark Rangers are in the same position as Necromancers in terms of thematic overlap. Whatever.

I suppose that only leaves Tinkers as the class free of any existing class entanglements.

- - - Updated - - -

Tinker is really the only class concept left that doesn't outright steal from existing classes.

Dark Ranger: steals from Hunters and Rogues
Necromancers: steals from DKs and Warlocks
Tinker: steals from ???

Pretty much.

[Hitei]

Okay then, so Dark Rangers are in the same position as Necromancers in terms of thematic overlap. Whatever.

And the same position as Frost DKs and Mages, Paladins and Priesst, Destro and Fire, and so on. Which was my point from the very start, the same point that you yourself realized when you saw that Dark Ranger was entirely viable one page ago:

What matters is the ability to create a unique playstyle and feel for a class, not the fact that the class shares similar damage or magic types, something that not only exists in the game, but is fairly common among the classes.

Yes, Tinker has a fairly unique flavor to it, but the thematic/school similarity other potential classes have with existing classes is not even remotely an argument against them. Tinker is no more viable a potential class because it lacks thematic overlap, because that overlap isn't, in any way, preventative of new classes existing--as clearly evidenced by the existence of multiple classes having that overlap.

I.e. Tinker, Necromancer, Bard, and Dark Ranger are all equally likely to exist when it comes to thematic space.

Which isn't to say there aren't other variables, like Tinker and Necromancer somewhat asking for an expansion that relates to their class, where Bard and Dark Ranger can fit in any expansion. Or Dark Ranger facing some difficulties in mechanical similarity to the existing archer class. Or Tinker, Necromancer and Dark Ranger having more existing material to draw from than Bard (the flip side of which is that Bard is the most refreshing and unique). Or Necromancer and Dark ranger not being super well suited for mail armor, when a third mail class would be a good idea. Or Necromancer not using ranged weapons, when another class that uses ranged weapons might be a good idea. Or like Tinker conflicting with the profession that already has body-mounted guns, summonable turrets, bombs and mechanical gadgets aplenty.

But all of these variables are fairly minor. None of them puts any potential class very far ahead of the others, and realistically they are all quite viable as options for a next class.

[Bas Prime]

There is no way we are going back a situation where one faction has a different class to the other, balance wise it is a total nightmare, especially as the classes you suggest Warden/Blademaster strike me as very different from a fighting style perspective.

and of course we should not. Since Blizz remembers Shaman and Paladin back in Classic the solution to the problem is fairly easy imo. You just give both classes the same utility and strong cooldowns. Just as an example, both get Bloodlust, both get something like Darkness or commanding shout. So the one faction could not be stronger on a boss because of a judgement spell or because of the hands/blessings. Same goes for totems (or back then bloodlust)
And you are right that BM and Warden have different play styles. But that wont be a problem imo. I dont see an ability of the Blademaster that would be that strong to give a remarcable advantage.