New Class Prediction: Necromancer

[tru]

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?

Well nobody really plays Rogues or Monks anyway. Thats been a known thing for a good while that they have been two of the lowest played classes along with locks.
Mage tears fuel blizzard revenue, angry Warriors make them question themselves, and Paladin legitimate concerns are for comedy night.

They can strip and rework a class to rebuild something new as its obviously already been done between lock/dh/dk. And then you get outlaw... which is 90% combat abilities with some new icons and a couple actually new spells.

Im all for a new class...I honestly don't know what I would prefer. But IMO we need another range spec and another mail user would be nice.
But ya know im the guy if they would just give me WoD survival add kill shot and leave me alone id sub for the next 5 years.

[Wildberry]

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.

I did read that bit, which is why I tossed in the word current. You're arguing that a core part of Frost is Necromancy. Surely, if something is core, then it should persist through class changes. Arms, for example, is still fundamentally Arms at its core.

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

No, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Frost isn't a Necromantic spec because it's derived from Liches, and Liches use Frost and Necromantic magic, and Unholy has their Necromantic Spell (Additionally, the Unholy tree has historically buffed D&D). That's incredibly stupid. Frost got the Frost bit from Liches, Necromancy isn't a core part of the spec's identity, though.

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.

It might be, it might not be. It's far closer to Death Knight fantasy than Warcraft Necromancer fantasy.

Which Spriest spells are curses?

So the relevant bit from the OED:

Noun
1. A solemn utterance intended to invoke a supernatural power to inflict harm or punishment on someone or something.

Do Shadow Words not fall under this definition? If something can function identically to a Warlock curse, and be described entirely by the literal dictionary definition of a curse yet somehow not be a curse, then Necromancers should be an easy sell, we just need to rename things!

Making something bleed isn't a class-defining trait. Spreading diseases, curses, etc. is.

Why are bleeds completely different from curses? What separates them into two distinct categories?

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

So you feel like Blood is defined entirely by a passive effect from an active ability, and a talent? You feel like the concept and theme behind bone-based abilities is thoroughly explored by the passive effect and the talent?

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.

Are Necromancers going to be "Dark Casters infringing on Warlocks" or are they going to be in melee range stealing a talent from Blood DKs? (Wait, stealing things?! Necromancers are totally rogues too!) Can you make up your mind?

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

Could be, but it doesn't have to be. If Bone as a theme is limited, then there are plenty of other suitable alternatives.

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.

"At risk?" There was no at risk, I asked the following:

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?

You responded with:

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....

Now, not only did you pad your list (Marrowrend/Bone Shield, Blood Plague/Death's Caress), your logic is also pretty inconsistent (plague overlaps aren't possible, curse and bleed overlaps are). Now you've backpedaled to things that "might be at risk." You were claiming that:

they would have to gut Unholy DKs and unravel large portions of the Blood and Frost specs

And the minute the lightest amount of pressure is applied to this "sky is falling"-tier claim, you fall back to "at risk?" You sounded so sure earlier!

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

What because they do different things elsewhere? That's fantastic, so do DKs and Necros!

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 essentially, Monks being hybrids differentiated them from rogues in a positive way, but necromancers being hybrids is unfair to warlocks for completely arbitrary reasons? Got it. Necromancers have the potential to be different from Warlocks on multiple levels, you're just refusing to acknowledge that while claiming "they're both cloth-wearing dark summoners!" Which is laughable when similar comparisons could be drawn between: Monks/Rogues, Demon Hunters/Rogues. Or, on a spec level, a large chunk of them.

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.

Weren't you just claiming that mechanics don't matter and don't differentiate classes enough? Where's that logic now? Are you actually claiming that window dressing is what tips the scale?

[Mic_128]

So DK was released after the third expansion?

In my defense, I wrote that late at night. What I meant was third release. Vanilla, BC and then in the third, Wrath.

[primalmatter]

I like the flavor and concept of a necromancer class...

That being said warlocks and dks would need major reshuffling to make room for the class so it seems unlikely to appear sadly.

[Protean]

Cool opinion. Thanks for sharing.

But you didn't offer anything to counter what I've been saying. So you've got no ideas as to how they'd make it work, then? Just, "Oh, if they did it, I'd like it!!"

Well thanks for that.

I only had garbage to work with. You said undeath would have to be stripped from DK. I said they don't.

You didn't strip weapons from rogues and warriors just because DHs had to have access to weapons.

The way you speak about opinions and 'counters' tells me you aren't interested in discourse, just disagreement in which you can claim victor.

- - - Updated - - -

Soul Reaper and Soulbiter aren't soul magic?

Something that can extinguish a fire is not flame-based.

[Steampunkette]

I only had garbage to work with. You said undeath would have to be stripped from DK. I said they don't.

You didn't strip weapons from rogues and warriors just because DHs had to have access to weapons.

The way you speak about opinions and 'counters' tells me you aren't interested in discourse, just disagreement in which you can claim victor.

We have a winner.

They're not willing to even entertain the possibility that anything other than gutting could occur. Anything that isn't explicitly that is therefore wrong.

Once they set their feet on that point, once they make it a part of their personal character, any disagreement is stonewalled and presented as mental illness or deficiency. They're not going to listen to understand the points you're making, only listen to -respond- to them. There's no longer any point to continuing the discussion because the very idea they could be wrong would now compromise their sense of self.

[Konteil]

The bolded part is kinda... wrong. To add a class that summons undead minions and pets would most definitely mean stripping it from the DK. By definition? Not sure what you mean by that, but suggesting they'd add a class that did the same thing as another class without stripping abilities from the predecessor is exactly what they'd do. There's precedent for it with Warlocks and Demon Hunters. So yes, they'd have to get gutted.

Necromancer isn't all that distinct from Death Knight. Death Knight's summon the dead back to life to their bidding, including ghouls, gargoyles, and abominations. They use plagues and diseases to afflict their enemies. They use Blood Magic to heal and replenish themselves. They use Unholy Magic to cause decay and to defile the earth they walk on. If that doesn't sound like a Necromancer, I don't know what does. But of course you'll say, "B-b-but the rune weapon and armor make it not so!" Well, those are key differences, but I'm pretty sure that was done to find a way to fit Necromancers into the game without doing it as another cloth caster. In my opinion, the armor and weapon are flimsy excuses at best.

So on to Priest is toPaladin as Necromancer is to Death Knight rebuttal, which is the only good logic I've read yet. The trouble starts and stops with the Warlock class here. Despite being Scourge-based, gameplay-wise, a Necromancer could not be all that different from a Warlock. Replace the demons with undead scourge, and voila, the Necromancer class! Let me guess, they'd have a pet-heavy spec, a plague/poison-heavy spec, and... um... a frost spec, maybe?

Do you guys just not see how forced and desperate it sounds to make the argument for Necromancers work? It's like you are willingly ignoring how similar to existing classes it is.

not really. they can both work similar. its the differeance between a gravedigger and a necromancer. they can bith dig up dead shit but one dont even have to try hard.

[Wildberry]

I like the flavor and concept of a necromancer class...

That being said warlocks and dks would need major reshuffling to make room for the class so it seems unlikely to appear sadly.

Let's just take the "reshuffling" bit at face value for a moment and assume it's true (Despite the unique and distinct ideas presented in this thread, and that exist in-game). Why would this be unlikely? They were more than willing to completely demolish a spec to make room for Demon Hunters, after all. Plus, there is a demand for Necromancers, considering how many threads we've had about them.

[Protean]

WORDS WORDS EVERYWHERE.

Sounds to me like you can't tell WoW necromancers from Warcraft Necromancers from Diablo 2 Necromancers from Diablo 3 Necromancers from otherbullshitnecromancersinotherbullshitstories.

Or accept that other people see the distinction, and the possibility for a niché necromancer can fill without hurting other class identities.


All I have to say is Summon Blood Elemental. There, something unique that isn't related to any other class, while still having precedence in the games lore, or even overlaps with other Blizzard games.

[Wildberry]

Good. God forbid they add something as bland and boring as tinker. That would be the 4th class added since Vanilla that I wouldn't touch with a stick, let alone play.

Not going to lie, the possibility of cucking Tinker shills with a class that they think can't possibly exist in the game is the majority of the reason I want Necromancer.

[Illidari]

Good. God forbid they add something as bland and boring as tinker. That would be the 4th class added since Vanilla that I wouldn't touch with a stick, let alone play.

Different strokes I suppose. I find the concept of a mech class in WoW very cool and original.

It's also something that won't hamper the development of other classes (like the Necromancer).

[Wildberry]

It's also something that won't hamper the development of other classes (like the Necromancer).

There are a number of ideas listed in this thread, most of which are grounded in Warcraft Lore, which would result in a Necromancer that is unique and distinct from Warlocks and Death Knights. Plus, it's not like either class really needs room to grow, Blizzard has, for expansions now, been trimming them back. Truthfully there's enough that's been cut from Death Knights and Warlocks to support an entirely new class. It's not like we've seen any indication that they'd like to bring these things back, they've been going in the opposite direction on that note.