New Class Prediction: Necromancer

[Hitei]

I'm just curious: What iconic WC3 ability could the Necromancer class use? The DK has all of the ones from the necromancy units.

Raise Dead (Autocast)
Raises 2 Skeletons from a target corpse.
Duration 40 sec.
Cooldown 8 sec.

Skeletal Mastery
Causes one of the two skeletons created by Raise Dead to be a Skeletal Mage.

Cripple (with alternate name, see Death Coil and Mortal Coil)
Reduces movement speed by 75%, attack rate by 50%, and damage by 50% of target enemy unit.

Carrion Beetles
The Crypt Lord progenerates 1 Carrion Beetle from a target corpse to attack the Crypt Lord's enemies. Beetles are permanent but only 5 can be controlled at a time.

Essence of Blight
Restores 10 hit points to nearby friendly units.

Spirit Touch
Restores 3 mana to nearby friendly units.

Disease Cloud Aura
Gives Abominations a Disease Cloud aura that deals 1 damage per second for 120 seconds. Meat Wagons will cause Disease Clouds wherever they attack that deal 1 damage per second for 120 seconds to nearby enemy units. Undead are immune to Disease Cloud.

[Enkrypt]

Snark aside, are you finally admitting that neither Frost nor Blood have Necromancy at their core?

Except, they do have Necromancy in their kit. You can argue semantics with this "at their core" bullcrap until you're blue in the face, but they have Necromantic abilities at their core even if you want to pretend they don't. I guess Berry's never been battle-rezzed by a Frost DK, or never been witness to Sindragosa, or never seen a Blood DK's bone shield and blood magic that heals. It's almost as if Berry has no idea what he's talking about, right? Hmm, interesting.

Prop up a paper-thin argument around fungi and mushrooms, cause that feels SO NECROMANTIC and this is what you get, I guess. An argument that completely ignores the actual Necromancy going on with a DK. Instead, he proposes a true Necromancer would use fungus, poisons, and mushrooms, guys. Which version of Necromancer do you want to play? I'll go with DK, because it's the true Necromancer. Not some far-flung Elder Scrolls version of a Necromancer that doesn't even exist in this setting.

[Rhamses]

Raise Dead (Autocast)
Raises 2 Skeletons from a target corpse.
Duration 40 sec.
Cooldown 8 sec.

Doesn't Unholy already do that with All Will Serve?

Skeletal Mastery
Causes one of the two skeletons created by Raise Dead to be a Skeletal Mage.

Passives aren't Iconic.

Cripple (with alternate name, see Death Coil and Mortal Coil)
Reduces movement speed by 75%, attack rate by 50%, and damage by 50% of target enemy unit.

So we're stealing from Warlocks now? For shame!

[Enkrypt]

Raise Dead (Autocast)
Raises 2 Skeletons from a target corpse.
Duration 40 sec.
Cooldown 8 sec.

Skeletal Mastery
Causes one of the two skeletons created by Raise Dead to be a Skeletal Mage.

Cripple (with alternate name, see Death Coil and Mortal Coil)
Reduces movement speed by 75%, attack rate by 50%, and damage by 50% of target enemy unit.

Kinda sounds a lot like a Death Knight. Hmm. That's weird, because... wait... nevermind.

[Wildberry]

You seem to miss the point that DKs can use Frost because of their ties to Lichs. Lichs are necromancers, and Death and Decay comes from the Lich hero of WC3. The entire point of the Lich is someone who can combine Necromancy with Frost magic. So yes, I would say that a Frost spec that can't use frost spells would be a very big problem. You don't get the DK frost spec without the Lich.

Death and Decay isn't a Frost ability. Frost spells aren't inherently tied to Necromancy, as you admit by referencing the fact that Liches use both. Additionally, we don't actually have any Lich abilities now.

And if Blizzard deems it necessary they can revert it back to its original incarnation.

They can, are they likely to though? We have no indication to suggest that.

Oh, I never said that Blizzard couldn't add the Necromancer class into the game. *I* said that in order to do so, they would have to gut Unholy DKs and unravel large portions of the Blood and Frost specs. To believe otherwise is foolhardy. If you're fine with DKs getting shafted worse than Warlocks did in Legion, and Warlocks getting pushed further down the path towards irrelevancy, just say so.

Let's look at Blood and Frost first. What about those two specs changes if they add a Necromancer class? What do I have to give up as a Frost DK? How does Blood get unraveled?

With regard to Unholy, it's theoretically possible to construct a Necromancer class that steals a few PvP talents from Unholy. Summoning isn't much of a problem considering we can reasonably assume those ideas to be benched, at the very least, after Artifacts are no longer relevant. You're simply refusing to admit that this is the case.

How does a Necromancer push Warlocks "further down the path towards irrelevancy?"

See above.

The above does nothing to refute that.

[Hitei]

Doesn't Unholy already do that with All Will Serve?

Passives aren't Iconic.

So we're stealing from Warlocks now? For shame!

No, not at all. Unholy summons two permanent pets once. It doesn't summon a pair of minions every eight seconds.

Skeletal mages are Iconic.

There are plenty of slows in the game. I think warlocks can manage with theirs having a different name.

Carrion Beetles
The Crypt Lord progenerates 1 Carrion Beetle from a target corpse to attack the Crypt Lord's enemies. Beetles are permanent but only 5 can be controlled at a time.

Essence of Blight
Restores 10 hit points to nearby friendly units.

Spirit Touch
Restores 3 mana to nearby friendly units.

Disease Cloud Aura
Gives Abominations a Disease Cloud aura that deals 1 damage per second for 120 seconds. Meat Wagons will cause Disease Clouds wherever they attack that deal 1 damage per second for 120 seconds to nearby enemy units. Undead are immune to Disease Cloud.

Kinda sounds a lot like a Death Knight. Hmm. That's weird, because... wait... nevermind.

It shouldn't since I've never seen DKs summoning pairs of skeletons and skeletal mages every 8 seconds such that they have a continual pack of dying and summoning undead fighting for them while they sit back and cast spells.

[Wildberry]

@Enkrypt I thought I was on your ignore list?

Except, they do have Necromancy in their kit. You can argue semantics with this "at their core" bullcrap until you're blue in the face, but they have Necromantic abilities at their core even if you want to pretend they.

If you bothered following the discussion (Oh, look at that, you're not actually reading the thread. Again!) you'd realize that Rhamses was the one who was pushing the "at their core" bit, not me. I'm simply responding to it.

"Muh:"

Brez - Does Frost's identity change if Brez is removed?
Sindragosa - Are we raising and/or controlling Sindragosa?
Bone Shield - Does a defensive effect now triggered by an unrelated ability somehow remove the possibility of offensive, direct bone-based abilities?
Healing Blood Magic - I'm not a big fan of Necromancers that heal, so that's my problem.

It's almost as if Berry has no idea what he's talking about, right?

You mean like that time you were under the impression I started the "core identity" bit?

Prop up a paper-thin argument around fungi and mushrooms, cause that feels SO NECROMANTIC and this is what you get, I guess. An argument that completely ignores the actual Necromancy going on with a DK. Instead, he proposes a true Necromancer would use fungus, poisons, and mushrooms, guys. Which version of Necromancer do you want to play? I'll go with DK, because it's the true Necromancer. Not some far-flung Elder Scrolls version of a Necromancer that doesn't even exist in this setting.

Yes, because that would obviously be the entirety of class. I love how you feel entitled to "proper responses" when this is your argumentative style. You do nothing but hop into discussions without proper discussions, and you refuse to acknowledge evidence. Obviously a Necromancer featuring a spec which deals with Fungi, plague cauldrons, gas and oozes is horribly far-fetched and has no precedent in WoW. It's some far-flung Elder Scrolls nonsense. Plaguelands, Loatheb, Plague Quarter, Professor Putricide? Never heard of them.

I'll tell you what Enkrypt. If you can manage a response to this post that's not intellectually dishonest, that's new, that doesn't feature you kneejerking or "miraculously misreading/misinterpreting" a section of this post, I'll actually dignify it with a proper post.

If you can't do that, well at that point it's you, not me.

- - - Updated - - -

So we're stealing from Warlocks now? For shame!

Wait so if Doomguards took that spell from Necromancers, does that make Doomguards Necromancers, or do we only do this ridiculous bit with Kel'thuzad and Frost DKs?

[Darktbs]

Yeah, the rational folks know that we won't be getting a Necromancer. For the very obvious reasons in gameplay, and the less obvious lore reasons.

But hey, watch the shit-show unfold. This thread is really heading somewhere important, I can feel it.

The same rational folks who said Dh couldn't exist...Yeah... i prefer to be delusional.

[Rhamses]

Death and Decay isn't a Frost ability.

In its original incarnation it required a Frost and an Unholy Rune to activate. Additionally, it comes from the Lich hero from WC3.

Frost spells aren't inherently tied to Necromancy, as you admit by referencing the fact that Liches use both. Additionally, we don't actually have any Lich abilities now.

No, but in this context it is tied to Necromancy. Which is why a Necromancy-based class (DKs) have a Frost spec.

Also DKs don't have Death and Decay?

They can, are they likely to though? We have no indication to suggest that.

So until it is removed completely, it would make sense to note that that old Necromancer ability is firmly within the DK class.

Let's look at Blood and Frost first. What about those two specs changes if they add a Necromancer class? What do I have to give up as a Frost DK? How does Blood get unraveled?

Blood Worms, Dancing Rune Weapon, Bone Shield, Blood Plague, Marrowrend, Blood Drinker, Bonestorm, Purgatory, Blood Mirror, Tombstone, Death's Caress, etc. And we haven't even gotten to Frost yet....

With regard to Unholy, it's theoretically possible to construct a Necromancer class that steals a few PvP talents from Unholy. Summoning isn't much of a problem considering we can reasonably assume those ideas to be benched, at the very least, after Artifacts are no longer relevant. You're simply refusing to admit that this is the case.

Again, two classes in WoW will never both be able to summon undead minions. Either DKs lose Necromancy completely, or you bring a Necromancer class into the game that can't summon the Undead or use Necromancy.

How does a Necromancer push Warlocks "further down the path towards irrelevancy?"

A shiny new dark summoner caster class that can summon more minions than Demonology Warlock, have more DoT variation than an Affliction Lock, and have the added bonus of possibly being a hybrid that can heal?

You seriously don't see a problem with that?

[Wildberry]

In its original incarnation it required a Frost and an Unholy Rune to activate. Additionally, it comes from the Lich hero from WC3.

Okay, what do either of those bits have to do with the fact that Frost does not currently use Death and Decay. It's not in our spell book.

No, but in this context it is tied to Necromancy. Which is why a Necromancy-based class (DKs) have a Frost spec.

So because Frost is arguably derived from the Frost damage side of a unit which also dabbled in Necromancy, we're automatically Necromancers and Necromancy is a core aspect of our spec? I mean, you're the one who was suggesting core identity here. How is Necromancy, which, if we use your line of thought, is tangentially related to Frost somehow a core part of Frost's identity? Doesn't the tangential relation itself cause that argument to implode?

Also DKs don't have Death and Decay?

Frost doesn't. Perhaps you should at least somewhat keep up with class changes before chiming in.

Blood Worms, Dancing Rune Weapon, Bone Shield, Blood Plague, Marrowrend, Blood Drinker, Bonestorm, Purgatory, Blood Mirror, Tombstone, Death's Caress, etc. And we haven't even gotten to Frost yet....

Blood Worms - Arguable, but because the rest of your list is piss poor, I'll grant it to you. V
DRW - In what world is a Necromancer going to use Dancing Rune Weapon? Are you actually serious right now? X
Blood Plague - Why is Blood giving up a debuff? What's your reasoning here? Because another class uses plagues that have the potential to be thematically and mechanically different, Blood must lose theirs? Also, I love you tried sneaking Death's Caress in. X
Bone Shield/Marrowrend - Listing these separately? Nice try, but it's not happening. There's no reason for Necromancers to steal Marrowrend. The existence of a Bone-based defensive triggered by a melee attack is not going to somehow exclude the possibility of a direct, bone-based offensives existing in a separate spec. If that were the cases, Mages, Paladins, Shaman, and Warlocks (Arguably more) would be in dire straits. X
Blood Drinker - As stated in a different post, I'm not a proponent of Blood-based Necromancer healing, but I'll grant this one to you anyway. V
Bonestorm - Why would Necromancers draw a melee attack from Lord Marrowgar? X
Blood Mirror - not a proponent of Blood-based Necromancer healing, but I'll grant this one to you anyway. V
Purgatory - Phylacteries are mechanically and thematically different enough to make this problem go away. X
Tombstone - If Necromancers utilize bone, it will be offensively not defensively. X

Would you like to try again with Frost, because that was pitiful. I love the fact that you actually tried to pad your list, too. God, that's embarrassing.

Again, two classes in WoW will never both be able to summon undead minions. Either DKs lose Necromancy completely, or you bring a Necromancer class into the game that can't summon the Undead or use Necromancy.

So you, for some arbitrary reason, don't believe that large mechanical differences are enough? Beyond that, why must DKs "lose Necromancy completely" but Necromancers either can't "use Necromancy" or "summon the Undead?"

A dark summoner caster class that can summon more minions than Demonology Warlock, have more DoT variation than an Affliction Lock, and have the added bonus of being a hybrid that can heal.

Perhaps they summon fewer, perhaps they interact with them differently. Same with DoTs and Aff. I mean, the sky didn't fall on Rogues after Monks, nor did it after Demon Hunters. While Necromancers can be hybrids, they don't have to be hybrids. Plus, some people prefer not having a tanking or healing spec. It makes it harder for their raid team to ask them to fulfill a role they don't enjoy.

Also people prefer to summon undead over demons.

[Citation Needed]

[Darktbs]

In its original incarnation it required a Frost and an Unholy Rune to activate. Additionally, it comes from the Lich hero from WC3.



No, but in this context it is tied to Necromancy. Which is why a Necromancy-based class (DKs) have a Frost spec.

Also DKs don't have Death and Decay?

He makes note that is the FROST spec, which we don't, we don't have ANYTHING from the hero Lich

[Thimagryn]

And what kind of magic would a Lich King grant a servant?

This is the dishonesty I was talking about.

How is it dishonest?

Mages and Shamans both use Elemental magic. You recognize that there is a whole branch of subsets within this broad definition. The same exists for Necromancy, there's no one way to summon the dead. We know of at least a half-dozen!

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with that argument is that those aspects isn't why people want the class. People want the Necromancers because they can raise and control the dead in a ranged format. People don't want to roll a Necromancer class in order to play around with necrotic fungus. They want a Necromancer in order to summon hordes of undead minions. Thus, the core of this argument is a simple one:

How adversely affected would the Death Knight and the Warlock class be from a Necromancer inclusion? I believe that ALL of the summoning undead and related abilities and diseases from the DK would have to be removed. If you're trying to argue that DKs or Warlocks wouldn't be effected from this inclusion, you're being dishonest.

It doesn't adversely affect them to the point where they can't or shouldn't be implemented, given that all class design is self sufficient and not interdependent on what any other class has. You can believe a Water Elemental is different because of Arcane magic, yet you can't accept any possibility of Necromancy that isn't tied to the singular method that Death Knights use to summon the dead. Again, you can't blame your ignorance on me being dishonest; you're simply ignoring the precedent that Blizzard has set themselves; that Necromancy is a large branch which Death Knights are only one part of. They are a slice out of the full cake that is Necromancy.

[

Mages don't use Wind or Earth Magic. Additionally, Mage Frost magic is different than the water magic that prevails the Shaman Restoration spec. Conversely, Shaman don't use Arcane magic.

And Death Knights don't source power from Dark Naaru or summon the dead via Alchemy. That is the same basic principle that pushes the Necromancer concept; that they are the ones who are willing to explore and master all types of death magic. We have this lore in the game, through Teron'gor, through Putricide and the Royal Apothecary, through the Cult of the Dead (ones who have separated themselves from the Lich King), and even through Kil'jaeden having created the Lich King himself.

It's extremely short-sighted to define the Death Knight under Necromancy while pretending the Demon Hunter and Warlock don't do the same with Fel magic. The differences are apparant because Demon Hunter lore is so vastly different from Warlocks. Necrolytes and War2 Death Knights have existed well before the existence of the Lich King, and are also a separate concept from to the Ebon Blade Death Knights. This is precedent that Necromancy is a far wider concept than you believe it to be.

A shiny new dark summoner caster class that can summon more minions

We have 3 leather-wearing dual wielding ninja-esque agile melee. Demon Hunters didn't make Monks or Rogues irrelevant. Necromancers won't make Warlocks irrelevant. Did everyone stop playing Rogues because of Demon Hunters?

[Rhamses]

Okay, what do either of those bits have to do with the fact that Frost does not currently use Death and Decay. It's not in our spell book.

Because those are the origins of the spell. Its current spec placement is pretty irrelevant.

So because Frost is arguably derived from the Frost damage side of a unit which also dabbled in Necromancy, we're automatically Necromancers and Necromancy is a core aspect of our spec? I mean, you're the one who was suggesting core identity here. How is Necromancy, which, if we use your line of thought, is tangentially related to Frost somehow a core part of Frost's identity? Doesn't the tangential relation itself cause that argument to implode?

Again, the basis of the Frost spec is combining Frost magic with Necromancy. Older abilities/talents like Icy Talons/Frost Fever, Glacier Rot, Lichborne, etc. exemplified that connection.

Frost doesn't.

Yet the DK class does.

Blood Worms - Arguable, but because the rest of your list is piss poor, I'll grant it to you. V
DRW - In what world is a Necromancer going to use Dancing Rune Weapon? Are you actually serious right now? X

What's the different between this ability and something like Spectral Sythe? Necromancers are known to utilize ghost-based weaponry.

Blood Plague - Why is Blood giving up a debuff? What's your reasoning here? Because another class uses plagues that have the potential to be thematically and mechanically different, Blood must lose theirs? Also, I love you tried sneaking Death's Caress in. X

Because two classes wouldn't be allowed to both have spreadable diseases.

Bone Shield/Marrowrend - Listing these separately? Nice try, but it's not happening. There's no reason for Necromancers to steal Marrowrend. The existence of a Bone-based defensive triggered by a melee attack is not going to somehow exclude the possibility of a direct, bone-based offensives existing in a separate spec. If that were the cases, Mages, Paladins, Shaman, and Warlocks (Arguably more) would be in dire straits. X

Bone abilities are staples of the Necromancer class. It's highly doubtful that Blizzard would allow two classes to utilize bone abilities.

Bonestorm - Why would Necromancers draw a melee attack from Lord Marrowgar? X

I suppose you haven't been paying attention. There are Necromancer proponents who want the ability to actually summon something akin to Lord Marrowgar. Thus, it stands to reason that they would want his ability as well.

Purgatory - Phylacteries are mechanically and thematically different enough to make this problem go away. X

Uh, no its not. It's the same principle just applied a bit differently.

Tombstone - If Necromancers utilize bone, it will be offensively not defensively. X

So you're saying that a Necromancer would have zero bone-based defensive abilities? That's laughable. Even Mages had defensive abilities within their specializations.

We can add Wraithwalk to this as well.

I'll start adding Frost when we finish with Blood.

So you, for some arbitrary reason, don't believe that large mechanical differences are enough? Beyond that, why must DKs "lose Necromancy completely" but Necromancers either can't "use Necromancy" or "summon the Undead?"

Because summoning the undead is Necromancy. Just like two classes can't summon demons, two classes aren't going to be able to summon undead minions.

Perhaps they summon fewer, perhaps they interact with them differently. Same with DoTs and Aff. I mean, the sky didn't fall on Rogues after Monks, nor did it after Demon Hunters. While Necromancers can be hybrids, they don't have to be hybrids. Plus, some people prefer not having a tanking or healing spec. It makes it harder for their raid team to ask them to fulfill a role they don't enjoy.

The sky didn't fall on Rogues with Monks because Monks served a very different purpose than Rogues, and didn't actively compete with them on every level. Monks could also tank and heal, and simply wasn't very strong in PvP. The two classes were also extremely different thematically. Warlocks and Necromancers on the other hand fill the same niche, and would attract the same audience. The fact that they are a dark, summoning caster that can utilize DoTs doesn't help either.

As for DHs, we'd have to be ignorant to believe that Demon Hunters didn't have a profound impact on the Warlock class.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it dishonest?

Mages and Shamans both use Elemental magic. You recognize that there is a whole branch of subsets within this broad definition. The same exists for Necromancy, there's no one way to summon the dead. We know of at least a half-dozen!

It's dishonest because you keep bringing up the argument above knowing full well what happened with Warlocks and Demon Hunters. Blizzard's track record on this is pretty clear. Why would a Necromancer and DK situation be any different?

It doesn't adversely affect them to the point where they can't or shouldn't be implemented, given that all class design is self sufficient and not interdependent on what any other class has. You can believe a Water Elemental is different because of Arcane magic, yet you can't accept any possibility of Necromancy that isn't tied to the singular method that Death Knights use to summon the dead. Again, you can't blame your ignorance on me being dishonest; you're simply ignoring the precedent that Blizzard has set themselves; that Necromancy is a large branch which Death Knights are only one part of. They are a slice out of the full cake that is Necromancy.

Hilarious. I'm not ignoring precedent, I'm pointing out precedent to you to show you why this class is very unlikely to enter the game, and if it did enter the game it would seriously damage existing classes. I mean, there's a reason Shaman have never gotten Water Elementals and Mages have never gotten Fire Elementals. There's also a reason Demon Hunters only got two specs, and Warlocks didn't get to keep Meta, despite it being way different than the DH class version.

We have 3 leather-wearing dual wielding ninja-esque agile melee. Demon Hunters didn't make Monks or Rogues irrelevant. Necromancers won't make Warlocks irrelevant. Did everyone stop playing Rogues because of Demon Hunters?

Demon Hunters fill a niche that Monks and Rogues don't fill. However, Necromancers fill the exact same niche as Warlocks. Keep in mind, I didn't say that Necros would make Warlocks completely irrelevant, but you're being dishonest if you're saying that a new class that fills the exact same niche as Warlocks wouldn't push them further down in popularity.

[Thimagryn]

It's dishonest because you keep bringing up the argument above knowing full well what happened with Warlocks and Demon Hunters. Blizzard's track record on this is pretty clear. Do you believe that a Necromancer and DK situation would be somehow different?

Why does it have to be different? What relevance does it have to whether or not the class will be a valid addition to WoW? Again, you speak of this as though it's a definitive that Warlocks were all furious that Demon Hunters were added and that this is something that must be avoided in the future. This is coming from you, not Blizzard acknowledging any mistake. AFAIK, Demon Hunters are a success and Warlock players being butthurt aren't even a thing. I fully know that this malady exists solely for you and a small subset of players of whom the decision for a new class does not concern.

I don't like Tinkers because of many reasons. Many people who think Engineering gets affected agree. Doesn't mean Tinkers should not be added as a class, does it? Do you think Blizzard will obey Engineer fans who don't see the point of a Tinker?

Hilarious. I'm not ignoring precedent, I'm pointing out precedent to you to show you why this class is very unlikely to enter the game, and if it did enter the game it would seriously damage existing classes. I mean, there's a reason Shaman have never gotten Water Elementals and Mages have never gotten Fire Elementals.

Yes. That would be because Warcraft RTS had Conjurors and Archmages summon Water Elementals well before they came up with the concept of Shamans using all the elements and communing with elemental spirits. It's a literal throwback to the original games and what we've seen Mages do. When an RTS fan plays a Mage, they EXPECT to summon a Water Elemental, despite all the lore telling us that Shamans should be the only ones doing this.

What do you think happens when the same fans want to see a Necromancer? Are you telling me a Warlock or an armored Death Knight is the same thing? Are you telling me there is no room for them because some other class does things similarly? Again, we have DH, Monks and Rogues all sharing the same design space. Those who have argued that there is no design space left for a ninja-esque melee were all proven wrong at Legion's announcement.

Demon Hunters fill a niche that Monks and Rogues don't fill. However, Necromancers fill the exact same niche as Warlocks. Keep in mind, I didn't say that Necros would make Warlocks completely irrelevant, but you're being dishonest if you're saying that a new class that fills the exact same niche as Warlocks wouldn't push them further down in popularity.

... What is dishonest is that you are attributing Warlock popularity solely on what other classes are present in the game. If Blizzard one day decided to fudge the numbers and make locks OP, then that number will go up immediately. Balance changes have far more affect on popularity and numbers than what other classes exist.

If people aren't playing Locks right now, then they can blame Demon Hunters all they want; but the real reason they aren't being played should be attributed to their lackluster performance and ill-received spec changes.

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20748965254

Just look at this post for example. Show me how many times 'Demon Hunter' comes up in this as being a reason to stop playing a Warlock. To address your original point, what is clear is that Blizzard fucked up the Warlock's performance in raids. The Demon Hunter affecting the Warlock popularity is muddled by the fact the Warlock has received terrible performance in general. Do you disagree?

[Wildberry]

Because those are the origins of the spell. Its current spec placement is pretty irrelevant.

So Frost is derived from Liches (Which doesn't make it a Necromantic Spec), because Unholy and Blood have Death and Decay? Lolwut?

Again, the basis of the Frost spec is combining Frost magic with Necromancy. Older abilities/talents like Icy Talons/Frost Fever, Glacier Rot, Lichborne, etc. exemplified that connection.

Nothing about current Icy Talons suggests Necromantic origins. Glacier Rot was removed, so it's obviously not "core," Lichborne has never been integral to the spec. That leaves you with (arguably) Frost Fever. You're arguing that Frost Fever makes Frost a spec based in Necromancy now. Just take a moment to appreciate that this is where you are right now.

Yet the DK class does.

Which is entirely irrelevant to Frost, considering Frost being derived from Liches is supposed to somehow cement its Necromancy.

What's the different between this ability and something like Spectral Sythe? Necromancers are known to utilize ghost-based weaponry.

Necromancers can utilize ghost-based weaponry. The Diablo ones do, I believe; however, the "Animated Rune Weapons" we've seen in Warcraft were in the Military Quarter of Naxxramas. The wing that was filled with Death Knight mobs, that served as an inspiration for the Death Knight class.

Because two classes wouldn't be allowed to both have spreadable diseases.

Just like two classes can't have spreadable curses? Oh wait, Afflocks and Spriests. Two classes with bleeds? Oh wait, there's Rogues, Warriors and Druids. Do I need to go on?

Bone abilities are staples of the Necromancer class. It's highly doubtful that Blizzard would allow two classes to utilize bone abilities.

Marrowrend is a staple of the Necromancer class? Since when?

I suppose you haven't been paying attention. There are Necromancer proponents who want the ability to actually summon something akin to Lord Marrowgar. Thus, it stands to reason that they would want his ability as well.

Have they actually asked for Bonestorm? No, they haven't. Bonestorm would require a melee weapon, which is one of the many things that differentiates DKs and Necros. Let's say hypothetically though, that they were able to animate a Bone Construct like Marrowgar, would there be a problem with having that cast Bonestorm? Obviously not, because Felguards can cast Bladesto... I mean Felstorm which has identical effects, animations and regulations to the Warrior Bladestorm.

Uh, no its not. It's the same principle just applied a bit differently.

Being kept, for a short window, in a state of limbo is the exact same as resurrecting from an item which can be carried or placed? If anything, it's much closer to Ankh than Purgatory.

So you're saying that a Necromancer would have zero bone-based defensive abilities? That's laughable. Even Mages had defensive abilities within their specializations.

They could. They could also use a handful of other concepts for defensives. Potions (Putricide), Skin hardening (Gargoyles), etc.

We can add Wraithwalk to this as well.

I forgot Wraithwalk was extraordinarily popular with the DK community. Either way, Necromancers must sprint and there's no other way they could do it!

I'll start adding Frost when we finish with Blood.

I'd suggest you make the move quick, because you're getting blown out right now.

Because summoning the undead is Necromancy. Just like two classes can't summon demons, two classes aren't going to be able to summon undead minions.

Two classes can summon elementals, though. But let me guess, that doesn't count because [arbitrary meaningless reason goes here]?

The sky didn't fall on Rogues with Monks because Monks served a very different purpose than Rogues, and didn't actively compete with them on every level. Monks could also tank and heal, and simply wasn't very strong in PvP.

Before you edited your previous post, you suggested that Necromancers having a healing spec would hurt warlocks. Why is that the case for the Necromancer/Warlock question, but Monks being hybrids is a positive distinction between them and rogues on the other hand? It's almost like you're an intellectually dishonest person that doesn't care for logical consistency at all.

The two classes were also extremely different thematically. Warlocks and Necromancers on the other hand fill the same niche, and would attract the same audience. The fact that they are a dark, summoning caster that can utilize DoTs doesn't help either.

So "agile melee that builds combos" only applies to either monk or rogue? When you frame things in such simplistic terms, you can make nearly any class intrude on another's space.

[Rhamses]

Why does it have to be different? What relevance does it have to whether or not the class will be a valid addition to WoW? Again, you speak of this as though it's a definitive that Warlocks were all furious that Demon Hunters were added and that this is something that must be avoided in the future. This is coming from you, not Blizzard acknowledging any mistake. AFAIK, Demon Hunters are a success and Warlock players being butthurt aren't even a thing. I fully know that this malady exists solely for you and a small subset of players of whom the decision for a new class does not concern.

I never said that they feel that its a mistake, nor was I talking about the feelings of Warlock players. What I said was that based on precedent Blizzard doesn't allow two classes to share core class concepts. My issue with you is that you continuously play dumb as if you don't know that this precedent exists, or that the DH inclusion somehow proves your point when in fact it counters it completely.

I don't like Tinkers because of many reasons. Many people who think Engineering gets affected agree. Doesn't mean Tinkers should not be added as a class, does it? Do you think Blizzard will obey Engineer fans who don't see the point of a Tinker?

Again, I never said that the Necromancer being brought into the game was impossible. What I said was that Necromancer proponents need to be honest about the effect that such an inclusion would have on existing classes and stop arguing that their ridiculous concepts somehow make a Necromancer fundamentally different than a DK. Pretending that a Necromancer class can be brought into the game and not adversely effect the DK class is utter nonsense.

Of course there are, yet you're cherry picking what you feel is acceptable and what is not as though you personally define what a Death Knight and Necromancer will be. You don't set those standards, so it's absolutely valid for me to point this out to you. Because honestly, what happens *if* a Necro gets added to the game is not my concern. It's ultimately Blizzard's concern, and that of the collective fanbase. 'What happens to Warlock players??!' is a non-issue.

Um no, I'm pointing out to you what Blizzard has done in similar circumstances in the past. I'm not cherry picking anything. If you like, I'll be more than happy to show you more such examples throughout the class lineup.

So tell me exactly what a Necromancer does. Please tell me what abilities they use. What are their specs? What are their talents? Which races can be Necromancers?

And yet again you demonstrate how much you miss the point. It doesn't matter how many ways you try to twist this the result is always the same: Necromancers use Necromancy and Necromancy revolves around raising and controlling undead minions. It doesn't matter how you try to argue HOW it could be done, the only thing that matters is that people are advocating for a class that essentially does the exact same thing as an existing class.

Let's (again) go back to the Warlock and Demon Hunter examples: Warlock Metamorphosis was mechanically different than what Demon Hunter Metamorphosis turned out to be. However, that didn't matter and it was removed anyway. Why? Because despite the gameplay differences the core issue remained: You had two classes who could turn into demons. Blizzard wouldn't allow Demon Hunters to get a third spec that focused on ranged demonic magic. Why? Because it was too similar to the core concept of Warlocks. I seriously doubt that a ranged DH would play anything like a Warlock, but again how it plays doesn't matter, all that matters is that Blizzard clearly has an issue with two classes sharing core concepts.

You can't answer any of these because of your bias that a Necromancer can be nothing more than a reskinned Warlock. This is your baggage, not mine. Here's a hint- People aren't asking for Necromancers because they want a reskinned Warlock. Blizzard isn't stupid enough to give players a reskinned Warlock any more than they would have made Demon Hunters a reskinned Rogue. You already know this, so why are you making arguments as though this is the only viable outcome? You're making the exact same arguments against DH that people had before they were added to the game.

:sigh: I never said that Necromancers were reskinned Warlocks. I said that Necromancers fill the exact same niche as Warlocks: i.e. Summoning, Dark/evil caster, DoT-based, etc. Reading is fundamental.

[Thimagryn]

I never said that they feel that its a mistake, nor was I talking about the feelings of Warlock players. What I said was that based on precedent Blizzard doesn't allow two classes to share core class concepts. My issue with you is that you continuously play dumb as if you don't know that this precedent exists, or that the DH inclusion somehow proves your point when in fact it counters it completely.

Core class concept of a Demon Hunter means different things to different people. Talen once argued that their core concept is Fel magic, and Warlocks already embody that. You are using the same aggregious overexaggeration for Death Knights and Necromancy, despite all the non-Necromantic elements they also embody and the fact that their power over the undead extends from a singular source of power rather than a broad range.

This is a clear response to your issues. Do you think I acting dumb because I don't agree with you that Death Knights do everything a Necromancer would do?

What I said was that Necromancer proponents need to be honest about the effect that such an inclusion would have on existing classes and stop arguing that their ridiculous concepts somehow make a Necromancer fundamentally different than a DK. Pretending that a Necromancer class can be brought into the game and not adversely effect the DK class is utter nonsense.

Yes, but if I bring in a question of how much it will negatively impact the DK, you wouldn't be able to answer the question either. Where does this line of argument leave us? Should I agree with you because you believe harder than I do?

Um no, I'm pointing out to you what Blizzard has done in similar circumstances in the past. I'm not cherry picking anything. If you like, I'll be more than happy to show you more such examples throughout the class lineup.

Observational anecdotes don't support your claim. Again, I pointed out the huge flaw in your Warlock/DH argument with the very fact you've ignored every other factor involving Warlock popularity, including performance. You can't give me examples through a lineup when it proves nothing without all the other factors involved with class popularity and trends during each expansion tenure. For example, Warlocks saw a high spike in activity back in TBC when someone found out how to AoE solo farm elite slimes in SSC. You can't quantify that as a variable within the Warlock popularity scale.

And yet again you demonstrate how much you miss the point. It doesn't matter how many ways you try to twist this the result is always the same: Necromancers use Necromancy and Necromancy revolves around raising and controlling undead minions. It doesn't matter how you try to argue HOW it could be done, the only thing that matters is that people are advocating for a class that essentially does the exact same thing as an existing class.

Which is about as basic as saying Fire mages use Fire and Shamans and Warlocks should not advocate having it. It doesn't matter how you try to argue HOW it couldbe done, the only thing is that people are advocating for a class that essentially does the exact same thing as an existing class.

Do you see the irony of this now that we took Fire out of context of how different classes use it? If you can source Mages to using Arcane and Shamans using Elemental Spirit, then a Necromancer using all variables of undeath magic (Arcane, Spirit, Alchemical, Mogu Flesh-shaping, tapping into the Shadow Realm, etc) is absolutely plausible. There's no willful ignorance here.

:sigh: I never said that Necromancers were reskinned Warlocks. I said that Necromancers fill the exact same niche as Warlocks: i.e. Summoning, Dark/evil caster, DoT-based, etc. Reading is fundamental.

It's essentially the same thing. I don't see why you aren't already bitching about Shadow Priests, who also summon dark evil things, use DoTs etc. You're focusing on the Necromancer because you see no alternative to being a Warlock reskin, whereas you won't for the Priest because you already know of their other specs and abilities. That's the only difference.

[Darktbs]

I never said that they feel that its a mistake, nor was I talking about the feelings of Warlock players. What I said was that based on precedent Blizzard doesn't allow two classes to share core class concepts. My issue with you is that you continuously play dumb as if you don't know that this precedent exists, or that the DH inclusion somehow proves your point when in fact it counters it completely.

No, the Dh inclusion proves that Blizzard doesn't give a crap about class having one or two things similar because guess what, they introduced Demon Hunters.And in what world you came up with the idea that blizzard removed because they can't have similar spells.
1-Meta was a Dh spell originally.
2-Demo Warlocks were getting revamp (Just like Combat and Survival)

Where, Blizzard EVER said that classes can't have similarities?

Again, I never said that the Necromancer being brought into the game was impossible. What I said was that Necromancer proponents need to be honest about the effect that such an inclusion would have on existing classes and stop arguing that their ridiculous concepts somehow make a Necromancer fundamentally different than a DK. Pretending that a Necromancer class can be brought into the game and not adversely effect the DK class is utter nonsense.

You do realize that by creating and debating said "Ridiculous concepts" it how a class is made?People have a bunch of ideas and they try to make it work, adding and removing ideas.You basically saying, stop trying to create the class.

And no, its not nonsense, because we want to get the class we want and not hurt other classes in the process, we share(or try to share) ideas to make both classes unique.However every time there is a Necromancer thread is the same "Its the same as Dk""Its the same as Dk""Its the same as Dk""Its the same as Dk""Its the same as Dk""Its the same as Dk""Its the same as Dk"

And yet again you demonstrate how much you miss the point. It doesn't matter how many ways you try to twist this the result is always the same: Necromancers use Necromancy and Necromancy revolves around raising and controlling undead minions. It doesn't matter how you try to argue

HOW it could be done,

the only thing that matters is that people are advocating for a class that essentially does the exact same thing as an existing class.

It DOES matter, we are trying to create concepts for a class OF COURSE it matters we argue how this could be done, otherwise there would be no concept.
And the problem with" essentially does the exact", if you put like this, all casters do the same thing, all melee do the same thing, Tanks, Healers and so on, do the same thing.Fire mage and Warlocks do the same thing, Paladins and Priests do the same thing, aff warlocks do the same as S priests.
All this classes do essentialy the same thing but still feel unique.

Let's (again) go back to the Warlock and Demon Hunter examples: Warlock Metamorphosis was mechanically different than what Demon Hunter Metamorphosis turned out to be. However, that didn't matter and it was removed anyway. Why? Because despite the gameplay differences the core issue remained: You had two classes who could turn into demons.

[Citation needed], it was because they were getting a revamp because class fantasy.Believe what you will, that what blizzard said.

Blizzard wouldn't allow Demon Hunters to get a third spec that focused on ranged demonic magic. Why? Because it was too similar to the core concept of Warlocks. I seriously doubt that a ranged DH would play anything like a Warlock, but again how it plays doesn't matter, all that matters is that Blizzard clearly has an issue with two classes sharing core concepts.

Have you given thought that it was not that a Range dh didn't work but the concept they had looked to much like a Warlock?

:sigh: I never said that Necromancers were reskinned Warlocks. I said that Necromancers fill the exact same niche as Warlocks: i.e. Summoning, Dark/evil caster, DoT-based, etc. Reading is fundamental

.

So?Nobody complained when we got two mobile classes in a row.

Reading fundamental for you as well, people are discussing how this class can be unique, but YOU my friend, is the one that is making Necros a second Warlock in that sentence.For example, in another thread someone suggested a Plague necromancer that used Guns, there is only one class in this freaking game that uses Guns and its not Warlocks.

What about a Dark caster that can turn into a Lich act like Kel'thuzad?Can another class do that?

A Dark magic healer that deals damage to heal?

You make such case for a singles aspect of a possible necromancer that you completly reject any possible idea that could make the class unquie.

[Elestia]

If there's going to be a death / shadow spirit class, it's gonna be a shadow hunter.

As we all know, it'll be an old god expansion.

Big twist though: Vol'jiin isn't dead. He's been building up his shadow hunters in secret - away from the eyes of sylvannas, the army of the light, illidan and the horde/alliance.

Given the ally emphasis this expansion, it would stand to reason that the Horde would have a more mainstream story in the next. Also, given kul'tiras may be a base of operations for the alliance via the humans, the horde would have their base in zandalar via troll connections.

Shadow hunters would also almost certainly be mail wearers and fit in perfectly with the current mail armor sets for shaman and hunter, which draw some of their lore from the shadow hunter hero in WC3.

Also, as a side note, there has been an overwhelmingly strong absence of troll characters in legion. (Even the shaman orderhall has a whopping 1 troll npc.) I strongly suspect that something is happening.

They would almost certainly be ranged as well, which might bulk up the rationale behind blizz putting in a new melee class in legion - knowing a ranged would be the follow up. There's a plethora of lore in terms of the loa spirits, troll black magics, jungle medicine, shape shifting / partial shape shifting etc that can be explored.

While necromancer could come into the game at some point, I don't think this is the critical lore point that would introduce them. It undoubtedly favors a shadow hunter, or some form of mystic that would use mail armor. Even a mystic vrykul / ogre (were blizz to get ambitious) template would be more possible.

[Rhamses]

So Frost is derived from Liches (Which doesn't make it a Necromantic Spec), because Unholy and Blood have Death and Decay? Lolwut?

Nothing about current Icy Talons suggests Necromantic origins. Glacier Rot was removed, so it's obviously not "core," Lichborne has never been integral to the spec. That leaves you with (arguably) Frost Fever. You're arguing that Frost Fever makes Frost a spec based in Necromancy now. Just take a moment to appreciate that this is where you are right now.

If you took more time to read than type, you would have noticed that I said "older abilities" as in past abilities. It's also pretty silly to argue that the current iteration of Frost matters more than what the spec has been throughout its history, especially since the spec will obviously shift in future expansions.

Which is entirely irrelevant to Frost, considering Frost being derived from Liches is supposed to somehow cement its Necromancy.

Actually it is relevant to Frost since the spell comes from its roots, and it is housed in the same overall class.

Necromancers can utilize ghost-based weaponry. The Diablo ones do, I believe; however, the "Animated Rune Weapons" we've seen in Warcraft were in the Military Quarter of Naxxramas. The wing that was filled with Death Knight mobs, that served as an inspiration for the Death Knight class.

I do believe the point is that Dancing Rune Weapon is at risk for removal since ghost-based weaponry will no doubt be considered for a possible Necromancer class.

Just like two classes can't have spreadable curses? Oh wait, Afflocks and Spriests. Two classes with bleeds? Oh wait, there's Rogues, Warriors and Druids. Do I need to go on?

Which Spriest spells are curses? Making something bleed isn't a class-defining trait. Spreading diseases, curses, etc. is.

Marrowrend is a staple of the Necromancer class? Since when?

I was talking about Bone Shield and Bone-based abilities in general.

Have they actually asked for Bonestorm? No, they haven't. Bonestorm would require a melee weapon, which is one of the many things that differentiates DKs and Necros. Let's say hypothetically though, that they were able to animate a Bone Construct like Marrowgar, would there be a problem with having that cast Bonestorm? Obviously not, because Felguards can cast Bladesto... I mean Felstorm which has identical effects, animations and regulations to the Warrior Bladestorm.

As I said above, every bone-based ability would be up for possible removal. Bone-based abilities are a Necromancer staple, and Necromancers do use melee weapons, such as scythes.

Being kept, for a short window, in a state of limbo is the exact same as resurrecting from an item which can be carried or placed? If anything, it's much closer to Ankh than Purgatory.

Fair enough.

They could. They could also use a handful of other concepts for defensives. Potions (Putricide), Skin hardening (Gargoyles), etc.

Yeah, but wouldn't the most obvious choice be bone-based spells and abilities?

I forgot Wraithwalk was extraordinarily popular with the DK community. Either way, Necromancers must sprint and there's no other way they could do it!

I do believe the point of this exercise was pointing out which Blood/Frost DK abilities would be at risk for removal from the class due to them being Necromancer abilities.

I'd suggest you make the move quick, because you're getting blown out right now.

If you say so.

Two classes can summon elementals, though. But let me guess, that doesn't count because [arbitrary meaningless reason goes here]?

No. And the reason why should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Before you edited your previous post, you suggested that Necromancers having a healing spec would hurt warlocks. Why is that the case for the Necromancer/Warlock question, but Monks being hybrids is a positive distinction between them and rogues on the other hand? It's almost like you're an intellectually dishonest person that doesn't care for logical consistency at all.

As I said before, Necromancers fill the exact same niche as Warlocks do. Monks never filled the Rogue niche, and were different than Rogues on multiple levels. In the case of Monks, the spec difference actually helps make the Monks more different than Rogues. In the case of Necromancers and Warlocks who are highly similar on multiple levels, a healing spec because an advantage over the older class.

So "agile melee that builds combos" only applies to either monk or rogue? When you frame things in such simplistic terms, you can make nearly any class intrude on another's space.

While both classes were agile melee (the combo system was very different than the chi system, especially in MoP), Monks were no where close thematically to the Rogue class. Rogues are dark sinister, Monks are light-hearted and whimsical. Those differences made them appeal to much different audiences. A Necromancer would appeal to a similar audience as the Warlock.