Making room for the Necromancer class

[Darktbs]

Warlocks do this already.

No they don't.The closest thing is Soul stone and thats stretching to find something.

That isn't a Necromancer. That's more in line with a Tinker/Alchemist

Neither Frost magic was a thing for Dks but we know how that turn out.

DKs cover one portion of it, Frost Mages cover the other portion of it.

No, Frost Dks DO NOT, incorporate the Lich.Anyone with half a brain can see how close they are to the Frost Wyrm.

Multiple classes already explore this concept.

Wat?No one is using the fucking concept, where did you get this?

We could, but why wouldn't we use our energies to simply make DKs and Warlocks better and more interesting classes instead of trying to squeeze a Necromancer into the game?

For the same reason Dks, Monks and Dhs were introduced, flavor, choice, inovation, class fantasy, represatation, theme of the expansion, fanservice.

Classes right now don't have as many spells as they once had, no, if we were to "fit' a lich design to the Dk, it would be half-assed.

Uh, my point was that we have Lichs teaching DKs Lich-based Necromancy, thus kind of proving the point that DKs incorporate the Lich concept into its general design.

Despite Frost Dk being more warrior like, not using many summoning spells except for one special thing, that is a ...Frost wyrm...yet most of the concept of the Frost Dk being of a Melee fighter, WHICH IS NOT WHAT A LICH IS ABOUT.

That's about as dumb a question as asking what class infuses multiple types of Shadow magic. You do understand that Necromancy is a school within Shadow magic right?

So you aknowledge your question was dumb?

Also, Fel magic is also Shadow magic, what is the point of your standment?

[Wildberry]

That isn't a Necromancer. That's more in line with a Tinker/Alchemist

Considering you were arguing that Chains of Ice was a Necromantic spell, you don't get to claim this. The scourge has a number of individuals within its ranks that raise the dead through tangible, alchemical plagues (Putricide), and utilize caustic sprays, chemical gasses, slime and the like. Considering the "Plague of Undeath," which these characters and their practices are associated with, it the crown jewel of Necromancy in Warcraft, it's not a stretch to suggest Necromancers could incorporate an element like this into a single spec of theirs.

That's about as dumb a question as asking what class infuses multiple types of Shadow magic. You do understand that Necromancy is a school within Shadow magic right?

False. Chronicle clearly separates Shadow (Void) magic from Fel and Necromantic magic.

[batesjc77]

The next "hero" class coming will be the touchy-feely hipster. with new and improved rainbow hug touch.

[Rhamses]

So if we're getting into that level of specificity with Druids and Rogues, then differentiations between Necromancer and Warlock are easy. After all, Warlocks have nothing to do with the plague/apothecary/alchemist-themes seen in characters like Putricide, right?

Yeah, but Pultricide isn't a necromancer. Pultricide is a mad-scientist more in line with Alchemy than Necromancy. He has more in common with the Alchemist hero from WC3 than the Necromancer or Lich heroes from WC3.

If you're advocating for a mad-scientist/apothecary/chemist class, I'd be all for it.

No, it's just really interesting that you'd bring up pet abilities, with the implication that if a pet does X, a PC cannot do X.

Actually I never said that. I simply said that Cripple is a Doomguard spell utilized by the Warlock class.

Has anyone ever advocated for Cauldrons to simply be a tangible item that PCs draw buffs from?

No, but drawing buffs/items for your party IS a function of cauldrons in many RPGs. You could certainly make a cauldron ability that spreads plague, but wouldn't it be awesome to have an entire sub-theme of cauldrons that could do a myriad of things? The fact that your pet necromancer concept can't produce cauldrons that give their party buffs or items is simply another demonstration of the problem with developing classes that already have a lot of overlap with existing classes.

So even stretching to cosmetic glyphs like you have, you're still missing the part regarding skeletal mages. Additionally, the "permanent" bit is key there. The Necromancer's skeletons are temporary and expendable.

So we should create an entirely new class simply because DKs can't produce skeletal mages and temporary skeletal minions? So does this mean that your Necromancers can't raise skeletal archers or skeletal warriors because DKs can?

Any ability for a hypothetical new class could be dismissed this way. It's not an argument.

If the ability could easily fit into an existing class, then it certainly is an argument. I seriously doubt (for example) that you would see Dark Ritual pop up in the Mage, Druid, or Paladin classes. However, it makes perfect sense in the DK, Warlock class and the Shadow Priest spec.

No, you were just able to:
-Reanimate yourself
-Desecrate ground
-Sacrifice Minions to Heal
-Summon plagued insects
-Detonate corpses for damage
etc.

Assuming Y>X (and this is true, in the case of Death Knights), 1+X-Y is a net loss.

So you're arguing that DKs have seen zero improvements or buffs since that time?

No, and this isn't an argument. You can dismiss any hypothetical pitch by saying "You don't know what Blizzard plans to do with A, B & C next expansion!" It's un-falsifiable nonsense, and a garbage argument. You're basically claiming an unknown unknown will somehow render Necromancers useless, which is extraordinarily stupid.

When the hypothetical pitch is based around a minor omission such an argument can certainly be made. For example, who's to say that in the next expansion DKs won't be able to summon Skeletal mages, or that Blizzard will make their skeletal minions temporary? I can't make that same argument for any other class because no other class has that theme, but Death Knights DO have that theme. You're here arguing that we have design space because an existing class doesn't do a particular thing that it is perfectly capable of doing if the designers deem it necessary.

Beyond that, we've heard from Blizzard that they don't want any drastic spec changes in BfA. Taking that, in conjunction with what was available on the Blizzcon floor (The only change being Death's Advance [presumably replacing Wraith Walk]), and their track record, it's not too much to make an educated guess.

Here's the thing though; Giving Unholy DKs the ability to summon skeletal mages or returning Death and Decay and Lichborne to Frost wouldn't be a major spec change. Affliction Warlocks the ability to summon a cauldron that spreads DoTs, or giving Assassination Rogues Poison Nova as a 110 talent wouldn't be major spec changes either.

- - - Updated - - -

No they don't.The closest thing is Soul stone and thats stretching to find something.

Drain Life, Drain Soul, Siphon Life, Healthstone, Soul Shards, Soul Stone, Life Funnel, Life Tap, etc.

Neither Frost magic was a thing for Dks but we know how that turn out.

Frost magic was pushed on the DK because of the Lich concept. You know, because the DK was designed to be a armored Necromancer.

No, Frost Dks DO NOT, incorporate the Lich.Anyone with half a brain can see how close they are to the Frost Wyrm.

Then why do they have the ultimate Lich ability, and incorporate a combination of Frost and Necromancer ability (just like Lichs)?

You do understand that their creator is the Lich King right?

Wat?No one is using the fucking concept, where did you get this?

Shadowlands is based on the concept of the spirit world. Shamans, Priests, DKs, Warlocks, and other classes pull plenty of concepts from there.

For the same reason Dks, Monks and Dhs were introduced, flavor, choice, inovation, class fantasy, represatation, theme of the expansion, fanservice.

Yeah, except all of those classes you mentioned are extremely different from each other. Necromancers are pretty much synonymous with DKs thematically, and are functionally similar to Warlocks.

Classes right now don't have as many spells as they once had, no, if we were to "fit' a lich design to the Dk, it would be half-assed.

Uh, the Lich's design is already within the DK class. Which is why DKs have a Frost spec in the first place.

Despite Frost Dk being more warrior like, not using many summoning spells except for one special thing, that is a ...Frost wyrm...yet most of the concept of the Frost Dk being of a Melee fighter, WHICH IS NOT WHAT A LICH IS ABOUT.

You do know that the Frost spec still utilizes ranged Frost spells and spreads diseases and shadow magic right? That's not even to mention the fact that they can summon an undead dragon to fight for them.

Last I checked, Warriors can't do that.

Also, Fel magic is also Shadow magic, what is the point of your standment?

Shadow magic is broad. Holy magic is broad. Necromancy is not.

[Deleted]

Priests are baby Prophet Velens, and mages are baby Archmage Khadgars. The most powerful necromancer in the setting is the Lich King. He wears plate and has a runesword.

Nah, comeon. A necro class would use KT as its archetype. That is probably different enough. It's still unholy and frost, but it's not Arthas.

- - - Updated - - -

Shadow magic is broad. Holy magic is broad. Necromancy is not.

Necromancy (or Death) is as big as Shadow and Holy. It's one of the six cornerstones of the universe.

[bewbew]

10 pages later and people try to say with a straigth face that Liches, Necromancers and DKs weren't all incorporated in DKs because...they don't have Dark Ritual.

Dark Ritual was saccing an undead for mana. Death Pact was saccing an undead for health.

Death Knights had Death Pact. They don't need Dark Ritual because they don't bloody use mana.

Liches spells went to Frost Mages and DKs. Death Knight spells went to Death Knights and Warlocks. Necromancer spells went to Death Knights and Warlocks.

All these things are already covered in the game.

[Rhamses]

Nah, comeon. A necro class would use KT as its archetype. That is probably different enough. It's still unholy and frost, but it's not Arthas.

The problem with this is that KT is a Lich. Arthas is the Lich King, and was far more powerful than KT was. DKs already have the ultimate Lich ability: Death and Decay, among other abilities that Lichs could only dream of having.

So if we already have a class based on the king of Lichs, why the hell would we want a class based on regular Lichs?

@Drilnos is correct here. You have a class that can use ranged frost magic, spread diseases, and raise the undead, yet still stand on the front line of combat in full heavy armor swinging a sword. That's essentially a lich on steroids.

[Deleted]

So if we already have a class based on the king of Lichs, why the hell would we want a class based on regular Lichs?

Yeah no. The Lich king is a title. Arthas has nothing to do with Liches and only a little to do with necros. Kel'thuzad IS THE Necromancer of the WoW universe. And he was that before he turned into a lich.

[Rhamses]

Yeah no. The Lich king is a title. Arthas has nothing to do with Liches and only a little to do with necros. Kel'thuzad IS THE Necromancer of the WoW universe. And he was that before he turned into a lich.

Yeah, I think you need to read up;

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Lich_King
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Kel%27Thuzad

[GenericDragon]

Yeah, except all of those classes you mentioned are extremely different from each other. Necromancers are pretty much synonymous with DKs thematically, and are functionally similar to Warlocks.

Priests are pretty much synonymous with paladins thematically, yet we still have them. Necromancers being functionally similar to warlocks -- at least traditional necromancers -- is a problem, but not one that couldn't be overcome with a bit of creative thinking, I'm sure.

Let's also not overlook the fact that if Blizzard did ever make a necromancer class, it would undoubtedly cover more than "just" the fact that they raise the undead and are thematically similar to death knights. I could easily see there being at least three specializations for one, definitely two if they continue that route like they did with the demon hunter.

I might go throw together a mock up necromancer class if I get the inclination, for shits and giggles. Have to sit and think about how to make them different from warlocks mechanically though.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I think you need to read up;

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Lich_King
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Kel%27Thuzad

Oh god, wowwiki. Jesus. At least link Wowpedia. And where does it say that KT isn't a necro and Arthas is the bestest necro of them all. Is it the Character class tidbit under his picture?

[Rhamses]

Oh god, wowwiki. Jesus. At least link Wowpedia. And where does it say that KT isn't a necro and Arthas is the bestest necro of them all. Is it the Character class tidbit under his picture?

Where did I say that KT isn't a Necro? *I* said that the Lich King is a more powerful necromancer than KT. Since you know, the Lich King turned KT into a Lich in the first place, and that KT was a loyal servant of the Lich King.

Didn't you watch the opening cinematic to WotLK?

- - - Updated - - -

Priests are pretty much synonymous with paladins thematically, yet we still have them.

No they aren't. Priests use shadow magic for example, Paladins don't. In WoW, the priest is a class that balances holy and shadow magic, while the paladin is a class of holy champions.

[Deleted]

Where did I say that KT isn't a Necro? *I* said that the Lich King is a more powerful necromancer than KT. Since you know, the Lich King turned KT into a Lich in the first place, and that KT was a loyal servant of the Lich King.

And Archimonde is a stonger warlock than Gul'dan. Gul'dan is still the lock archetype.

Oh and Kil'jeaden is a stronger necro than Arthas and KT combined.

Oh and Arthas turned KT into a lich. Or Archimonde. Or just the power of the sunwell. The lich king was a popsicle when that happened.

[GenericDragon]

No they aren't. Priests use shadow magic for example, Paladins don't. In WoW, the priest is a class that balances holy and shadow magic, while the paladin is a class of holy champions.

No, paladins don't use shadow magic. That doesn't mean that at first look that priests and paladins don't fill very similar thematic niches, when they do. Just like necromancers and death knights. One of the differences being I could see between necromancers and death knights being the use of soul-related magic, which death knights don't really use (ie priests shadow, paladins no shadow). Warlocks do, though, so it would have to be mechanically and aesthetically different from a warlock's soul-based magic, which I feel like would be a bigger hurdle than the similarities between necro and dk.

Edit: OT - I want to make it clear that I am neither for or against necromancers in the game currently. I just think they could be done without taking away from warlock and death knight themes.

[Rhamses]

/snip

Okay, yet the point remains: The Lich King is a more powerful necromancer than KT, so why would we create a class based on the weaker Necromancer?

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Even if they do add a new class it's at least 3 years away. Worry about something else.

[Deleted]

Okay, yet the point remains: The Lich King is a more powerful necromancer than KT, so why would we create a class based on the weaker Necromancer?

I tried to answer this 5 times, but all I could do is stare in disbelief.

Why would I use KT as the base of a necromancer class? Really? Is that a real question?

Well okay. Because KT is a necromancer. The Lich King has necromantic powers but is not a necromancer.

[Rhamses]

No, paladins don't use shadow magic. That doesn't mean that at first look that priests and paladins don't fill very similar thematic niches, when they do. Just like necromancers and death knights. One of the differences being I could see between necromancers and death knights being the use of soul-related magic, which death knights don't really use (ie priests shadow, paladins no shadow). Warlocks do, though, so it would have to be mechanically and aesthetically different from a warlock's soul-based magic, which I feel like would be a bigger hurdle than the similarities between necro and dk.

Edit: OT - I want to make it clear that I am neither for or against necromancers in the game currently. I just think they could be done without taking away from warlock and death knight themes.

On a very surface level people make the mistake of believing that Priests are simply caster version of the Paladin class without looking deeper into the classes themselves. Priests are worshippers of the light or of the darkness. Priests can choose to be pure light (holy), pure darkness (shadow), or a balanced version of both (Discipline). Paladins are really nothing like that thematically. Paladins are pure light users who can either choose to heal their allies (holy), protect their allies (protection) or smite their enemies (retribution). On a side note, I'm happy that Blizzard is finally pushing Shadow Priests towards the Old Gods. That link makes sense.

As for soul magic, you are correct that it isn't very prevalent in DKs, and the reason for that is (as you said) that it's very present in the Warlock class.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried to answer this 5 times, but all I could do is stare in disbelief.

Why would I use KT as the base of a necromancer class? Really? Is that a real question?

Well okay. Because KT is a necromancer. The Lich King has necromantic powers but is not a necromancer.

So why is the Lich King NOT a necromancer?

[Deleted]

So why is the Lich King NOT a necromancer?

Because the Lich King is the Lich King. He's a warrior/deathknight/necromancer/warlock/(shaman/paladin).

[Rhamses]

Because the Lich King is the Lich King. He's a warrior/deathknight/necromancer/warlock/(shaman/paladin).

So since Death Knights are based on the Lich King, what Shaman, Paladin, and Warlock abilities do they possess? They certainly have his Necromantic abilities, but where are these other abilities that you speak of?