New Class Prediction: Necromancer

[bufferunderrun]

Have you tryed Demolock?

Its EXACTLY what you describe, they are just demons.

My whole point was... If you try so fcking hard, it also have to make sense. You can't fit a Necromancer, into a pirate themed expansion either. And there are so much that overlaps.

Otherwise join my thread, where we can talk about the new class: THE NINJA.

no they are not demo lock is exactly the opposite of a necro, the only permanent pet is the guard and the other last what 10sec? The necro should be the exact opposite the pet he summon should last until they die.
As to what fit i'm a bit skeptical about stravagant classes, the necro is a classic in the fantasy game.

- - - Updated - - -

You're completely overlooking the Alchemist/Professor Putricide Angle, you're completely discounting healing, etc. I'd recommend looking at the Google Doc Hitei linked for a fleshed out look at what a Necromancer could hypothetically be.

i'm not disregarding it, i simply think that when talking about a necro the pets is a fundamental trait of it that wherever spec we are talking about it cannot be dismissed, without it is like talking about a warrior without weapons.

[ReleaseDay]

I'd like it. There is a major difference between Necromancer and wlocks & dks. Just look at D2.

[Deleted]

The unholy spec is a goddamn necromancer, how can you not see this?

It raises, empowers and controls the dead for gods sake! What more do you want? A cauldron instead of a sword?

[bufferunderrun]

The unholy spec is a goddamn necromancer, how can you not see this?

It raises, empowers and controls the dead for gods sake! What more do you want? A cauldron instead of a sword?

look at the necro from d2 that is what the majority of necro fans want and that is completely different from a dk

[Steampunkette]

The unholy spec is a goddamn necromancer, how can you not see this?

It raises, empowers and controls the dead for gods sake! What more do you want? A cauldron instead of a sword?

A ranged cloth wearing caster type that throws out AoE control effects, summons undead, raises allies into undeath, and uses spirits and ghosts to do battle alongside their skeletons... probably while holding a scythe or staff.

[Thimagryn]

Warlocks are OFFICALLY the Necromancers(im not even mentioning the UH DK with thier overlapping abilities).

No they aren't. By that reasoning, Warlocks are OFFICIALLY Demon Hunters because they use fel against fel and can also hunt Demons, all while having metamorphosis. We know that isn't official, and what you're presenting doesn't show that Warlocks are Necromancers. It's just your interpretation of facts, just like someone could interpret a Paladin as a subset of a Priest or Warrior class if all the information they had was based on Warcraft RTS lore. If Warlocks aren't clearly labelled as Necromancers, then it's not official. What you've presented is a case to call them UNOFFICIAL necromancers.

All that needs to exist is a set of mechanics and some supporting themes and lore in order to have Necros playable. Seriously, if Blizzard could add Demon Hunters in a game where we already have agile melee and fel-using spellcasters, then anything else is possible. It's only a matter of whether Blizzard wants it to happen.

You don't need to make wild claims like 'Warlocks are OFFICIALLY the Necromancers' to make a point. I agree that the Warlock covers much of the design space that a Necromancer would (in theory) have, but that doesn't make Warlocks an exclusive dark caster/summoner that officially stands in for all Necromancers. As far as I'm concerned, I think there's no need for a Necro. That doesn't mean an excuse like 'there's no space for them' or 'they make no sense' is a good reason. Blizzard doesn't follow those standards, they constantly redefine them.

[Enkrypt]

I mean, you could just glance through the last page or two before you post.

That's all fine and dandy, but I'm still not sold on it. Still sounds TOO MUCH like a Warlock and DK, combined and/or cherry-picked. There's nothing truly original left for a "Warcraft Necromancer". I get you guys are trying to legitimatize the how and the why but with Diablo 3 just getting a Necromancer, I feel like it would fee one of two ways:

1. Like they took yet another class/system from Diablo

OR

2. A completely unoriginal class, that has almost exact gameplay and abilities as two existing classes (because let's face it, a Necromancer is going to summon undead things, empower them, buff themselves, explode corpses, and defile things. sound familiar?)

People say, well, "Demon Hunters/Warlocks" and, well, derp, "Rogues/Demon Hunters" and, um, "Priest/Paladins!" Well, we already have Warlocks/Death Knights if we're going to play that game. You can keep stretching your (thin) idea, though, if it entertains you.

If Blizzcon announces the Necromancer class for WoW, I will come back here and eat crow. But I'm 99% sure that's not going to happen, for a boat-load of reasons. And no one in this thread has "debunked" the nay-sayers. You've just provided clever excuses, no reason.

[Steampunkette]

None of the naysayers have added anything but "I don't want it and we've got DK's so why bother?!"

And no one expects Necromancers this expansion, Enkrypt. We're looking at 9.0 or 10.0 as a possible expansion with Necros. This expansion should see a new race, if anything.

[Enkrypt]

None of the naysayers have added anything but "I don't want it and we've got DK's so why bother?!"

And no one expects Necromancers this expansion, Enkrypt. We're looking at 9.0 or 10.0 as a possible expansion with Necros. This expansion should see a new race, if anything.

I've added more than "I don't want it and we've got DKs so why bother?!" For one it would be a cheap rip on the recently added Diablo class, and two, there's no "spot" for it in the class line-up. Thirdly, I never said I didn't want it.

Please, tell me what a Necromancer's gameplay would be like that would warrant an ENTIRELY new class to play so similarly to two existing ones? That's like coming out with a class called the Shapeshifter and pretending that's not a Druid. What abilities would they have to prune from DK AND Warlock to make Necromancer believable?

I'd like to hear what you believe is the novelty and how will it be revolutionary to the two classes we currently have that have necromantic abilities. Because I just see a bunch of posts of people explaining their different versions of Necromancers.

[Steampunkette]

Well let's see... firstly we'd have to address the Pet Elephant in the room. There's 4 major components to this.

1) Constant pets are the things that Warlocks, DKs, and BM hunters do.
2) Warlocks summon temporary pets, constantly. So do BM hunters in specific talent modes.
3) BM hunters get to have 2 constant pets while they're wielding the gun.
4) DKs get Army of the Dead as a big Schmozz of corpses.

But there's a big glaring number 5 people don't really talk about.

5) The Devs want to limit the quantity and duration of pets because of Battlegrounds and Raids being overloaded with pets causing server latency managing the additional AIs, particularly in the sense that a new class would likely draw a much larger group of players to try it out in BGs than a single spec of Warlock.

Can you imagine an Alterac with, like, 20 different Necromancers chased by 10 skeletons each?

So the first thing we need to do is get rid of the idea that Necromancers will have a ton of pets at all times, or summon short-duration pets as part of their attacking cycle as if they're Warlocks.

Instead, we need to look at Animation-Pets.

Instead of actual multiple AIs tagging along, have one or two constant pets that follow the Necromancer around like a Skeletal warrior and a ghost. Only attach the ghost to the PC in the same way as, say, the Warlock Skull pet is tied to the PC. Or the summoned Owl from the Nelfcouncil Trinket functions. Or the Wisp from an Arcane Mage. Not an actual separate entity in the world, but an animation.

When the "Pseudopet", as I'll refer to it from now on, attacks or is commanded to engage, it can function like the skull or like the wisp. Aquick burst of action at the target area in the form of a spellcast that -appears- to be a full act on it's part. When it's time to summon a skeletal army or whatever, cover the battlefield in charging Pseudopets like it's a Beastmaster's Stampede. Have a ground targeted damage patch where Pseudopet zombies climb out of the ground and swing randomly around the area dealing pulsing damage over time.

Without ever summoning a single -actual- pet to do the fighting. No AI present, no individualized control bar to manage. Just the appearance of pets.

Take it a step further, want Skeletal archers to bombard a targeted area? The Necro does the channel to force them out of the ground as an animation around the caster and arrows rain down in the targeted area, or around the targeted enemy, Volley style.

Through such pets you could have a "Corpsemeister spec that deals a shocking quantity of Physical damage alongside their shadow-blasts or anything else.

[GrinnersGrin]

Allow me to be the first to say "Mazeltov!"

Just in case...

and a possible future shabot shalom to you :^)

[Enkrypt]

Well let's see... firstly we'd have to address the Pet Elephant in the room. There's 4 major components to this.

1) Constant pets are the things that Warlocks, DKs, and BM hunters do.
2) Warlocks summon temporary pets, constantly. So do BM hunters in specific talent modes.
3) BM hunters get to have 2 constant pets while they're wielding the gun.
4) DKs get Army of the Dead as a big Schmozz of corpses.

But there's a big glaring number 5 people don't really talk about.

5) The Devs want to limit the quantity and duration of pets because of Battlegrounds and Raids being overloaded with pets causing server latency managing the additional AIs, particularly in the sense that a new class would likely draw a much larger group of players to try it out in BGs than a single spec of Warlock.

Can you imagine an Alterac with, like, 20 different Necromancers chased by 10 skeletons each?

So the first thing we need to do is get rid of the idea that Necromancers will have a ton of pets at all times, or summon short-duration pets as part of their attacking cycle as if they're Warlocks.

Instead, we need to look at Animation-Pets.

Instead of actual multiple AIs tagging along, have one or two constant pets that follow the Necromancer around like a Skeletal warrior and a ghost. Only attach the ghost to the PC in the same way as, say, the Warlock Skull pet is tied to the PC. Or the summoned Owl from the Nelfcouncil Trinket functions. Or the Wisp from an Arcane Mage. Not an actual separate entity in the world, but an animation.

When the "Pseudopet", as I'll refer to it from now on, attacks or is commanded to engage, it can function like the skull or like the wisp. Aquick burst of action at the target area in the form of a spellcast that -appears- to be a full act on it's part. When it's time to summon a skeletal army or whatever, cover the battlefield in charging Pseudopets like it's a Beastmaster's Stampede. Have a ground targeted damage patch where Pseudopet zombies climb out of the ground and swing randomly around the area dealing pulsing damage over time.

Without ever summoning a single -actual- pet to do the fighting. No AI present, no individualized control bar to manage. Just the appearance of pets.

Take it a step further, want Skeletal archers to bombard a targeted area? The Necro does the channel to force them out of the ground as an animation around the caster and arrows rain down in the targeted area, or around the targeted enemy, Volley style.

Through such pets you could have a "Corpsemeister spec that deals a shocking quantity of Physical damage alongside their shadow-blasts or anything else.

So, to sum it up, you'd like the function of pets to be animated instead of AI? That sounds even more like the Diablo Necromancer. To be fair, the Diablo Necromancer isn't bad, it's just... Diablo, and some of these people wanting the Necromancer class are CLEARLY Diablo fans, which leads me to believe that's the only reason they want the class in the game. Same with the "Dark Ranger" lot. Most of the abilities you describe just aren't fun. You have a class that can have a pet, and you can actually control that pet and do things with it. On the other hand, you have a class to has this "pseudo-pet" that... you can't control, and it's really just an ability disguised as a pet.

So instead of casting a Frostbolt, the Necromancer will summon a skeletal mage to do it for him? That's the allure and novelty? You basically described the old Desecrate ability with the "AoE" portions you described.

My thing is, when they add a class, it's usually original and has a good logic or rationale behind it. In other words, they usually fill a void that the other classes don't. Necromancer doesn't have those qualities, and furthermore, we already have two classes that can do 80% of what a Necromancer would do. So instead of filling a void, it's downright superfluous. The whole animated pets thing would grow old in the course of a week because it sounds like it has no depth and also a watered down version of Demonology Warlocks, except Scourgey instead of Demony.

Discussion is fun and cool, but I'm pretty sure we won't see a Necromancer in World of Warcraft.

[Steampunkette]

I still think they should have an undead pet that follows them around like so many other classes have a pet. But I think the rest can be handled through animations rather than full-on AI pets.

And then pseudo-pet spells to avoid AI glut and being too much like the Demolock. But, again, this is me talking about -mechanical- changes to pets.

There's also diseases and locking people in bone cages or resurrecting allies as powerful zombies which get bonuses but crumble back into death after 45 seconds or whatever other things could/should/would be added.

And yeah. Some of the people in the thread want Diablo Necromancers. It's not that surprising since Diablo Necros were created by Blizzard who created Warcraft Necros and had a lot of the same thought processes going into their creation 'cause Necromancer is a specific caster concept in fantasy gaming that doesn't run around in platemail with a big ass sword and a bunch of ghouls once every 10 minutes...

[Enkrypt]

I still think they should have an undead pet that follows them around like so many other classes have a pet. But I think the rest can be handled through animations rather than full-on AI pets.

And then pseudo-pet spells to avoid AI glut and being too much like the Demolock. But, again, this is me talking about -mechanical- changes to pets.

There's also diseases and locking people in bone cages or resurrecting allies as powerful zombies which get bonuses but crumble back into death after 45 seconds or whatever other things could/should/would be added.

And yeah. Some of the people in the thread want Diablo Necromancers. It's not that surprising since Diablo Necros were created by Blizzard who created Warcraft Necros and had a lot of the same thought processes going into their creation 'cause Necromancer is a specific caster concept in fantasy gaming that doesn't run around in platemail with a big ass sword and a bunch of ghouls once every 10 minutes...

But if the only difference between a DK and a Necro is the armor and weapon... like... what?

I played a Necromancer in Diablo 2 as pretty much a main character. When I say that the DK was born, and HEAVILY influenced by the original Diablo Necromancer, I'm speaking from experience. The Bone Armor, the army of skeletons, the blood plagues, the gargoyle, the corpse explosion, resurrection of players/npcs... I just can't see how people are like, "DKs are NOT NECROMANCERS!!"... but they are, and it's clear that Blizzard made this rather obvious. Sure the plate armor and weapon is different, but that's pretty much the only difference. I'm aware that DKs have lost a lot of their original spells and abilities since their launch, and they resemble the Necro less and less, but man, some people are acting like there's a HUGE difference and there really isn't. So small a difference, in fact, that I firmly believe there's no place for innovation when it comes to an actual Necromancer class.

Anyway, I'm done beating this dead horse. Later!

[Rhamses]

It doesn't though, and you're somewhat proving my point.

The differences between those classes/specs comes down to a handful of spells.
Frost elementals would not be out of place on a Frost DK, at all. Water elementals feel tangential even to Frost Mages--the entire rest of the spec is about frost and snow and cold, why are they summoning water elementals instead of ice ones--but whatever. Shadow Priests use Shadow Magic. Regular priests use almost none (in lore they use pretty much zero). A Holy priest in Legion has no offensive shadow spells (just Mind Control). A Disc priest has one shadow spell unless they take the more thematically appropriate Purge the Wicked, in which case they too have none.

It would because DKs get their Frost Spec from the WC3 Lich. No Lich has ever been capable of producing a Water Elemental in WC3 or WoW. It would appear to be out of the range of their abilities which tend to focus on blending Necromancy and Frost magic.

Discipline Priests have multiple Shadow abilities (Shadow Mend, Psychic Scream, Shadowfiend, etc), and that's before we even get into talents. The lore behind Disc Priest is balancing light and shadow. Shadow magic is completely absent from the Paladin class.

This is what I am talking about. There are a couple spells here and there that separate these things thematically. Now let's look at Necromancers and Death Knights:

Necromancers use poison magic. Death Knights do not.

Immediately that is enough considering the above examples. A couple poison spells or a plague/poison spec is immediately enough of a difference to make Necromacners to Death Knights what Priests are to Paladins.

Except that DKs can also use Plagues, and the reason Blizzard avoided giving DKs poison abilities is because they were too close (mechanically) to diseases. In the end, ranged poison would be just another DoT that spreads from target to target like DK diseases, or stays on one target until purposely spread like Warlock afflictions. So while you say "Hey, Necros are using poison!" The average player playing the game will quickly notice that these "new abilities" feel exactly like a Warlock or a DKs abilities, adding to the feeling that this "new class" is merely a rehash of an existing class (which it essentially would be).

But let's continue:

Necromancers summon bone golems, bone wraiths, ghosts, spirits and spectres. Death Knights cannot.
Necromancers can properly heal allies. Death Knights cannot.
Necromancers can curse enemies. Death Knights cannot.
Necromancers can pull a fragment of a person's soul out of their body and cause it to attack or consume it to heal. Death Knights Cannot.
Necromancers can summon plague cauldrons. Death Knights cannot.
Necromancers can become Liches. Death Knights cannot.
Necromancers can chain summon skeletons. Death Knights cannot.

So let me make sure I understand this; We should create another Necromantic class because Death Knights can't chain summon Skeletons, or create Plague Cauldrons? Meanwhile the PURPOSE behind those abilities are already covered by a DK; They can already summon skeletal minions, and they can unleash plagues. Additionally, nothing stops Blizzard from simply allowing DKs to chain summon skeletons, or pull a fragment out of a person soul to attack/consume/heal.

[3DTyrant]

If they were going to further explore death magic further why do it based on stealing stuff from DKs instead of using the soulbinding lore already available that trolls, mogu, and draenei have?

Also, void and arcane are also as limited as death is currently in terms of playable classes.

Didn't the Gen 1 DKs do that? Use the souls of Orcish warlocks and stick them into fallen Human bodies?

[Steampunkette]

It would because DKs get their Frost Spec from the WC3 Lich. No Lich has ever been capable of producing a Water Elemental in WC3 or WoW. It would appear to be out of the range of their abilities which tend to focus on blending Necromancy and Frost magic.

Discipline Priests have multiple Shadow abilities (Shadow Mend, Psychic Scream, Shadowfiend, etc), and that's before we even get into talents. The lore behind Disc Priest is balancing light and shadow. Shadow magic is completely absent from the Paladin class.




Except that DKs can also use Plagues, and the reason Blizzard avoided giving DKs poison abilities is because they were too close (mechanically) to diseases. In the end, ranged poison would be just another DoT that spreads from target to target like DK diseases, or stays on one target until purposely spread like Warlock afflictions. So while you say "Hey, Necros are using poison!" The average player playing the game will quickly notice that these "new abilities" feel exactly like a Warlock or a DKs abilities, adding to the feeling that this "new class" is merely a rehash of an existing class (which it essentially would be).



So let me make sure I understand this; We should create another Necromantic class because Death Knights can't chain summon Skeletons, or create Plague Cauldrons? Meanwhile the PURPOSE behind those abilities are already covered by a DK; They can already summon skeletal minions, and they can unleash plagues. Additionally, nothing stops Blizzard from simply allowing DKs to chain summon skeletons, or pull a fragment out of a person soul to attack/consume/heal.

DoTs are DoTs. Spells are Spells.

Really, aren't Destruction Locks just Fire Mages with a reskinned Ice Mage's pet? *scoff*

If you break everything down to it's most basic components it's all the same. Damage and healing, hit points and time. Damage resistances and typing adds a little variety, but in the end it's all the same shit...

But I don't see anyone complaining that all the casters are really just reskins of the same 2 casters, one DPS and one Healer.

So long as they don't take way the things that make DKs and Warlocks special, who gives a fuck if they use already established mechanics and new mechanics to achieve the spec's goals? As long as DKs get to keep their ghouls and army of the dead, and warlocks keep their demons and dots, why the hell does it matter if Necromancers get things that are similar and things that are distinct?

I swear to Josh it feels like you guys are naysaying for the sake of naysaying... If the Devs, who are probably more creative than many of the posters in this thread, put together a Necromancer which didn't strip the style and power out of Warlocks and DKs would ya'll not play it out of principle? It's mind boggling.

[Thimagryn]

My thing is, when they add a class, it's usually original and has a good logic or rationale behind it. In other words, they usually fill a void that the other classes don't. Necromancer doesn't have those qualities, and furthermore, we already have two classes that can do 80% of what a Necromancer would do. So instead of filling a void, it's downright superfluous. The whole animated pets thing would grow old in the course of a week because it sounds like it has no depth and also a watered down version of Demonology Warlocks, except Scourgey instead of Demony.

I agree with most of what you say up until the bolded part. We don't know what a Necromancer's qualities are in the context of a playable class in WoW. All we can allude to are things we've seen in Warcraft, and to an extent Diablo; which is a gross approximation that does not reflect a realistic Playable Class. Then, that gross approximation is compared to a fully defined concept like the Warlock or (WoW) Death Knight, which of course will make it seem like there is no logic or rationale behind that concept. What you're arguing about is an unfinished concept that has none of the values we want out of a Playable class.

If we did the same thing with a Death Knight based on everything we knew about DK's prior to WoW, then all we would have is a Unholy Warrior; an Anti-Paladin. That concept alone is no different than taking a Paladin and reskinning their abilities. Consecration into DnD, Holy Shock into Death Coil. The same arguments can be made that there is no necessity for a spell-based Warrior when we already have one. But this only applies when we compare a Paladin to a gross approximation of a Death Knight that is based solely on Warcraft 2/3, which is completely removed from the Runes, Frost and Blood, Dual Wielding and Diseases that never existed in the core Death Knight concept. We don't play an Anti-Paladin or Undead Warrior; we play a Death Knight that has his own themes and mechanics. If we want to discuss a Necromancer, the first thing we should do is stop addressing it as a reskinned Warlock; just like if you were to discuss a Death Knight you wouldn't address it as a reskinned Paladin.

We know through all the classes they've made so far that they will take a base concept and run with it. Demon Hunters only had 4 basic moves in Warcraft 3, and the WoW playable class doesn't even source Warcraft 3's mechanics as the main source of gameplay. There is no Mana Burn, there is very little empahsis on immolating enemies, and Metamorphosis is not the same ranged auto-attack demon form. The WoW Demon Hunter has an emphasis on quick dashes and strikes, eye beams, and all sorts of other flashy moves; many derived from Heroes of the Storm or other games. The same applies to the Necromancer (or any Class Concept) given that Blizzard takes the concept and runs with it. There is room for Necromancers to summon spiders, or use ghostly spirits, or apply poisonous spells, or summon different types of skeleton warriors/mages/archers. There are all sorts of directions this could be taken that isn't already covered by what we already have in WoW, so there is no argument for a lack of room. There is only an argument for whether or not it is likely for Blizzard to use the concept.

The Necromancer (player class) concept is not defined, and because it's not defined we can't make solid arguments against it. This would be like trying to argue that Death Knights can't use Frost spells because no DK ever used frost magic prior to WoW. All of those themes came from Wrath of the Lich King, whereas Frost magic was definitively the realm of Liches and Frost Mages; both caster types that had no thematic relation to the Unholy Champions. If the concept of a Death Knight could be molded from Liches, then it's perfectly plausible for a Necromancer to draw inspiration from other non-Necromantic sources, such as (for example) summoning Golems or using Poison spells.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that DKs can also use Plagues, and the reason Blizzard avoided giving DKs poison abilities is because they were too close (mechanically) to diseases. In the end, ranged poison would be just another DoT that spreads from target to target like DK diseases, or stays on one target until purposely spread like Warlock afflictions. So while you say "Hey, Necros are using poison!" The average player playing the game will quickly notice that these "new abilities" feel exactly like a Warlock or a DKs abilities, adding to the feeling that this "new class" is merely a rehash of an existing class (which it essentially would be).

The difference comes from game mechanics and application of abilities. No one bats an eye when they look at diseases, even though at the base level they are the exact same shadow-based DoTs that Shadow Priests and Warlocks already have. The difference comes from the theme and mechanics. This would be the exact same with Necromancers, who (if they used poison) would spread their DoT's in unique ways. The application could come from pools of poison they place on the ground, or from spiders they direct to attack in a certain path, or AoE from a lingering poison cloud. Hell, imagine summoning a bubbling slime that chases enemies until it bursts into a violent cloud of poison. That type of zone-based DoT gameplay would be different enough from the direct DoT gameplay of other classes, and fits appropriately to the use of Poison and a potential type of play for Necromancers. It would be a unique concept for PVP as well, especially if poisons had synergy effects (mind-numbing stacks, weakness effects) that promote skillful use and placement of poison pools/clouds. And this is just one example for how poison could work.

[Wyrt]

Didn't the Gen 1 DKs do that? Use the souls of Orcish warlocks and stick them into fallen Human bodies?

Kind of. I was thinking more of a benevolent take on death magic rather than the evil one we already have with DKs. Though I suppose that could be a tie in for orcs knowing how to do it.

[Enkrypt]

snip.

Thank you for your input.

I had not yet thought of it from that POV. I'm more of a "past predicts the future" kind of thinker in the sense that companies like Blizzard follow a business strategy that has worked for them before (the general pattern of class/race/content release). A lot of my nay-saying on this topic is derived from how they've released classes before. DK = Wrath, a Scourge expansion. Monks = martial artists, in an oriental-themed expansion focused on an oppressed race that fought back with their bare hands. Demon Hunters = Legion, pretty self-explanatory. On that note, it's very likely we have a Void/Shadow-themed expansion (of course, this is only a popular opinion among players). So if that were true, I can't see how they'd weave a Scourge-based summoner into it. Not saying it can't be done, it just feels like the shoe is the wrong size for a good fit, if we're speculating.

I agree that I have no clue how a Necromancer would actually play out in World of Warcraft. Given their recent affinity for homogenizing the games (Diablo and Warcraft), I wouldn't be surprised if they took it further. The only safe assumption is that it will summon or reincarnate dead things, because that's in the name. Lots of filling in the blanks here, and I liked your ideas about spiders/wraiths/ghosts, but I can't imagine a scenario where it feels new and fresh. It feels inevitable to me that it will feel as though it would borrow from existing classes, and possible negatively affect not only itself, but the other two classes it resembles (kinda how Warlocks complain DH took their Demon form). However, the more and more I discuss and think on this... a Shadow/Frost caster could be cool. It's growing on me and I'm starting to have ideas for abilities... meh.

Either way, good discussion. Thank you. I have yet to say this, but I personally think the Necromancer concept is really awesome. Just really pessimistic about how they'd add it without it feeling forced, overlapped, or unoriginal. I'm definitely Team Necro instead of Team Tinker. Ugh.