Making room for the Necromancer class

[Thimagryn]

If you wanna be Necromancer, equip cloth on your DK and go RP in duskwood.
For the rest of us, we are more than happy with 3 dark, edgy classes and we understand that adding 4th, similar one is not a good thing from the design point of view.

'Rest of us'? I don't even want a Necromancer class and I'm not more than happy with 3 dark, edgy classes. I think adding a 4th is a good thing, given how popular they are and how successful each expansion presenting them has been received.

Do you want more happy sunshine classes like the Monk?

[Kiradyn]

You mean like Warlocks, rogues and Priests had all of the Dh spells?

Despite Warlocks having Meta, they never played like a Demon Hunter. The DK actually plays like a (heavily armored) Necromancer. Those classes also lost those DH abilities (except for Rogue). You think Blizzard is going to remove Death and Decay or Raise Dead from Death Knights?

Both Aff Warlocks and S.Priets have Shadow damage dots but they play and feel very different from one another.

Because those entire classes are different from each other.

Pointing out the Irony that this spells from the Dk are "not ok" but when comes to Hunters is "ok".

Because none of the Tinker's abilities exist in he Hunter class. Necromancer and Lich abilities actually exist within the DK class.

[Wildberry]

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.

Is Putricide a typical necromancer? No, but we know from his voice files that he works heavily with plague, which is the poster-child for Necromantic magic in Warcraft. Alchemists, Apothecaries and Mad Scientists have always been on the fringe of the Scourge's Necromancy, which is why I'm a proponent of Necromancers. Neither Death Knights nor Warlocks can really get into poison gas, slime, caustic sprays, necrobiotic fungi, etc. in the way that Necromancers could. Do I see it defining the class as a whole? Not necessarily, but I see it forming a very strong identity for a single spec. There's quite a bit to pull from as well, Plague/Construct Quarters of Naxxramas, the Plaguelands, Plague wing of ICC, etc.

Sure you can argue that Putricide et al. aren't typical Necromancers, but that's nothing that hasn't been done before. AMS, for example, was incorporated in DKs, yet they're not Banshees.

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

It's very clear where the argument was going.

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.

Cauldrons don't work because of Soulwells? Like I've said before, I'm not interested in other RPGs, they're not WoW and have no bearing on this discussion. As far as the functionality of cauldrons go, why would we be pulling buffs from them? How does that really get into the spirit of plague cauldrons? The overwhelming majority of the time we've seen plague cauldrons, they're offensively used to spread disease and death. Suggesting that Necromancers don't work because Cauldrons can't buff is a bit silly, considering there's very little inspiration canonically for such cauldrons to produce buffs beneficial for, say, a Paladin.

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?

Who needs skeletal archers when you have skeletal mages? That said, I'm more focused on mechanical differentiation, which is why I've continuously pointed out the temporary and expendable nature of Necromancer minions. That's why we should create an entirely new class.

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.

You do realize a number of tinker spells could be given to Survival given their use of grenades, traps, etc. right? Regardless, this isn't an argument.

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

No, are you simple? I didn't argue that at all. Let me quote myself again:

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

Do I really have to point out that (X=Abilities gained) and (Y=Abilities Taken)? With regard to Death Knights, they've lose more abilities than they've gained, therefore Y>X. So let's set base DKs in their WotLK iteration as 1. We have 1+X-Y. When Y>X we see a net loss. Which is what I'm arguing.

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

Do you really not see how this is a bullshit argument? It's un-falsifiable nonsense. An appeal to some unknown unkown that will somehow render the Necromancer class irrelevant.

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.

It's still not an argument. For the record, giving Aff cauldrons would be a huge shakeup mechanically.

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

This is false. Canonically, Necromantic magic is a school equal in footing to Shadow, Holy, Arcane, Fel, etc. Chronicle straightened this entire thing out. Why are people still saying false things about magical schools?

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.

The most notable Paladin currently, started out as a Priest, which is where Drilnos' argument completely fell apart.

So if KT is the "quintessential necromancer" because he's the master of the cult of the damned, what does that make the LK who is the god of the cult of the damned?

Does it matter? The Cult of the Damned is now acting independently of the Lich King and Scourge as a whole at the moment. To say that he's still being worshipped is a bit ridiculous.

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

So the key there is had. They don't any longer and we've seen no indication of that aspect returning. Furthermore, Dark Ritual could have easily restored, say, runic power.

FFS this conversation is beyond assinine. The Lich King and Death Knights are clearly necromancers. You'd have to be purposely obtuse or outright trolling to believe otherwise.

Turalyon, canonically, was a priest.


And now to move onto the post by @Bamboozler Can we take a minute to appreciate just how much of a salt mine you have to be to write this nonsense.

No, it's just that's the only argument that's needed for this insufferable topic.

Pack it up everyone. "Muh D2 Nostalgia" is the silver bullet to the Necromancer argument. Resident MMO-Champion intellectual Bamboozler says so!

You fancy yourself "creative" with a depth of imagination no one else on this forum has. That's the first lie you must tell yourself. You're probably the most passive-aggressive person on this website about this, too.

Actually in most Necro threads, I reference the Necromancer concepts pitched by other forum posters. There's a decent one in a Google Doc. @Hitei is a pretty imaginative Necromancer proponent, etc. So this myth that I consider myself "creative with a depth of imagination no one else on this forum has" is false.

Instead of supporting a viewpoint other than yours,

I want to take a break from constructive responses and highlight this bit. Who supports viewpoints that aren't their own? That's some top-tier intellect there that I just can't appreciate.

When dozens of people are offering counter-points and dealbreakers for your "muh broad fantasy" tirades, do you stop to think, maybe you're wrong? Probably not.

Nice implied appeal to majority there, buddy. Let's look at some of these counter-points and dealbreakers though. Drilnos was arguing that Kel'Thuzad was cannon fodder, and got himself tripped up when it was mentioned that Turalyon was a priest and the Cult of the Damned is now acting independently of the Lich King. He was so wrong, he rage quit the thread.

In the previous Necromancer thread, Rhamses was backed into a corner where he had to fall back on arguing "Monks being hybrids is good because it differentiates them from Rogues" and "Hypothetical Necromancer hybrids would be unfair to Warlocks." Not to mention the fact that he had to move from "X abilities will be taken for sure" to "X abilities will be at risk." I seem to recall him losing to the OED on definition of curses, and a pretty desperate attempt on his end to explain why Bleed overlaps are okay, but curse overlaps aren't.

Oh let's not forget that merry band of brainlets who have seriously argued that Unholy DKs are already a ranged class.

You know what though, I'm being unfair to the opposition. I'm glad I have a MENSA member here to hold me accountable. I simply can't account for the "D2 Nostalgia" argument.

The fact is Warlocks and Death Knights cover the Necromancer fantasy in roundabout ways. There is no mysterious "broad fantasy" you speak of. The broad fantasy of pet-summoning, disease-afflicting, blood-magic wielding, earth-defiling, skeleton/ghoul-armied, bone-clad "Necromancer" is covered by DKs and Warlocks

Minion Sacrifice is covered by a single Warlock Spell? Summoning is the same as reanimation? Disease overlaps aren't okay but bleeds are? Oh, and by the way, where's this "earth defiling" aspect? I seem to recall that getting scrapped in the Cata prepatch.

You could probably eek out one or two little exceptions (the laughable fungal mushrooms, for example), but quit lying to yourself, there's not enough meat on the bone to make an entire class behind it.

One of the end-game zones of Classic, and a quarter of the final raid are "laughable" now?

There's no room for Necromancer in Warcraft. And if you can't see that, then YOU have the deficiency. Honestly? Your argument is trash, too.

You're doing a very poor job of demonstrating that.

You use Demon Hunters to crutch your handicapped argument.

Demon Hunters are a crutch now? They're a perfectly valid theoretical test to run the anti-Necromancer arguments through, most of them don't survive. The implementation of Demon Hunters destroyed a good number of anti-Necromancer arguments.

That's not a precedent for your bad claim.

How is my claim bad? Which of my claims is bad? Please, be specific and demonstrate what you're talking about rather than mindlessly thrash about on your keyboard.

Unholy DK is one of the more favored specs in the game right now.

First of all, [Citation Needed]. Second of all, let's just grant that Unholy is "one of the more favored specs in the game right now" and that the community perceives it positively. How is that at all relevant here?

To say they aren't "capitalizing on anything" is your opinion, and not a factor in this argument.

Actually, it's not a matter of opinion to point out that, for example, a single passive PvP talent (which is underused), doesn't adequately explore the realm of animated oozes, and the mechanical opportunities presented.

And yes, when looking at potential Necromancer themes and mechanics, it is a factor to point out what is and isn't being adequately explored by existing classes. Especially, when there's plenty of thematic overlap within existing classes.

Besides, what does that even mean? It's a DPS class, and I'm sure it's capitalizing on that.

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out, and the fact that you think the role has any relevance to theme capitalization is a clear demonstration of that superior intellect of yours!

There are a number of "untouched Scourge" themes? Oh yeah? Where are they?

Just things that are currently unused, not even getting in to things that could survive a bit of overlap, or have a single spell in another class:
-Shades
-Poison
-Phylacteries/Self-reanimation
-Plagued Insects
-Fungi
-Necrotic Spores
-Posession
-Ground Blight/Desecration
-Acid
-Caustic Chemicals
-Gas
-Slime
-Arachnids/Nerubians
-Soulflame/Coldfire
-Bone Golems
-Animating Souls
-Wraiths
-Wights
-Plaguehounds
-Plague Cauldrons
-Healing through minion sacrifice
-Exploding Corpses (Cosmetics don't count)
-Shadow Fissures
-Necromantic Shapeshifting

Alternatively (to prove I care about the imagination of others ): Google Document Necromancer Pitch

And from @Hitei

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.

&

A Necromancer in Warcraft is not a knight.
A Necromancer is usually not undead, but can be (just as mages and warriors can be).
A Necromancer does not fight on the front lines.
A Necromancer does not wear heavy armor.
A Necromancer does not use a runeblade or runes, one of the single most iconic and core features of the Death Knight fantasy.
A Necromancer uses poisons and curses to great effect, summoning waves and eruptions and pools and novas.
A Necromancer has very little if any martial ability.
A Necromancer utilizes bone-based magic and summoning far more than Death Knights.
A Necromancer can use blood magic to empower and heal others rather than themself.
A Necromancer summons ghosts, wraiths, bone golems, specters, etc.
A Necromancer constantly summons an unceasing wave of low-health, temporary skeletal minions--this is the iconic ability of a Necromancer, which DKs do not have.
A Necromancer doesn't just attack the soul, they can rip it out to weaken enemies, call to the souls of the fallen to attack, harvest them to heal and empower, etc, etc.
A Necromancer is far more adept at weaving and using diseases to devastating effect.
A Necromancer can create Plague Cauldrons.
A Necromancer can become a Lich. Not use a simple spell named after them to counter feel, but become an actual, powerful skeletal magic user.
A Necromancer has an extremely iconic look, dress, and facial appearance, both for males and females. Which is nothing like what Death Knights look like.
A Necromancer without their magic and minions is a sitting duck.

Do you mean, like, summoning multiple ghouls? Or exploding them? Or empowering them?

Exploding them? Very interesting considering you're using a verb, which implies an active ability. Are you seriously trying to refer to the cosmetic corpse explosion?

Or what, that fungal mushroom bit you clung to in the last thread?

Lmao, what is this Enkrypt's main account or something? Why does something taken from a quarter of Classic's final raid and an endgame zone in Classic cause so much frustration?

You can have two summoner classes, i.e. Death Knight & Warlock. Thanks for pointing that out. Can't have three, though.

So, why would you be able to have two and not three? It's funny that you're pretending I have bad arguments, when you make baseless assertions like this. I mean, how many agile, dual-wielding melee do we have?

So let's lay Wildberry and this argument to rest, because every person that has played WoW since WotLK knows there's already a Necromancer in World of Warcraft, you just refuse to accept that's all you'll ever get. Like a big ol' baby, just unsatisfied to the point where you cry at everyone who wants to take your bottle.

I've played since Classic, actually. This is pathetic, you can't even score points with offhand remarks.

I remember when people actually provided examples instead of just claiming they exist... somewhere... out there... in la-la land.

I have throughout the thread actually. I just don't like spoonfeeding bellends who like to come into the thread without reading anything and knee jerk.

And unless you can point out why all these people seem to think DK/Warlock already fill the Necromancer, and why they are ALL WRONG and you're right, think carefully before you respond with the same, dead material you keep bringing to discussion.

Again, nice implied appeal to majority. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

I'm kind of sad you edited your post to be more catty instead of outright rude. I had initially hoped to end it by quoting your last bit, "sit down boy" or something or another, when I had first skimmed it. Sadly, I suppose I'll have to settle for:

...stfd.

[Kiradyn]

Do you want more happy sunshine classes like the Monk?

That would be nice.

[Wildberry]

We already got added 2 really edgy classes. Why do you feel like we need a third one?

If you wanna be Necromancer, equip cloth on your DK and go RP in duskwood.
For the rest of us, we are more than happy with 3 dark, edgy classes and we understand that adding 4th, similar one is not a good thing from the design point of view.

We already had you make one awful post centered around "muh edgy." Why do you feel we needed a second?

[Darktbs]

Despite Warlocks having Meta, they never played like a Demon Hunter. The DK actually plays like a (heavily armored) Necromancer. Those classes also lost those DH abilities (except for Rogue). You think Blizzard is going to remove Death and Decay or Raise Dead from Death Knights?

And why you assume that Necromancers would play the same as Dk?Your only thing to go for is the idea they have similar spells.

Also, you know that there is a spell in the Dk that can take D&D place, Defile, replace D&D with Defile but maintain what the spell do, remake Death and Decay to be a channel like the original spell.

boom, gameplay wise, everything stayed the same.

Because those entire classes are different from each other.

And you are assuming that wouldn't be the case for Dks and Necros why????

Because none of the Tinker's abilities exist in he Hunter class. Necromancer and Lich abilities actually exist within the DK class.

Despite the Hunter having several mechanical and explosive spells and talents.Also, you said yourself, the Dk have 2 spells from the Wc3 necromancer., so everything else is Dk stuff.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

"Back to its roots"

Demonology has about your demon pets since day one. There was not a single offensive spell in the demonology tree.

[Kiradyn]

And why you assume that Necromancers would play the same as Dk?Your only thing to go for is the idea they have similar spells.

If they're not playing like DKs, then they're going to wind up playing like Warlocks. We have melee necromancers in WoW because the Warlock class has the concept of a dark summoner covered.

Also, you know that there is a spell in the Dk that can take D&D place, Defile, replace D&D with Defile but maintain what the spell do, remake Death and Decay to be a channel like the original spell.

boom, gameplay wise, everything stayed the same.

And you're assuming that Death Knight players (and the WoW community in general) would be perfectly fine with DKs losing a spell they've had since WotLK to a new class?

And you are assuming that wouldn't be the case for Dks and Necros why????

Because the Necromancer concept was used to create the DK class.

Despite the Hunter having several mechanical and explosive spells and talents.

None of them coming from the Tinker hero from WC3 or HotS.

Also, you said yourself, the Dk have 2 spells from the Wc3 necromancer., so everything else is Dk stuff.

The problem is that the DK hero itself was also a type of necromancer. Its ultimate was Animate Dead and its abilities would fit right in with any Necromancer concept.

[Deleted]

Do you want more happy sunshine classes like the Monk?

Seeing as Monk is my favourite class, yes. Preferably something silly and light like a Tinker.

[Darktbs]

If they're not playing like DKs, then they're going to wind up playing like Warlocks. We have melee necromancers in WoW because the Warlock class has the concept of a dark summoner covered.

So let me ask, if tomorrow Blizzard annouces a Necromancer, that can turn into a Lich and pull Chains like Kel'thuzad out of his ass and/or summons a freaking Crypitc Lord and Nerubians to fight for him.

Would they really play the same as Dk and Warlock?

And you're assuming that Death Knight players (and the WoW community in general) would be perfectly fine with DKs losing a spell they've had since WotLK to a new class?

You can assume a class will work exactly the same but i can't assume what the community will or will not accept?now thats Rich.

Because the Necromancer concept was used to create the DK class.

And over the years changed drastically of what they said in the original post.

None of them coming from the Tinker hero from WC3 or HotS.

Funny you say that but right after

The problem is that the DK hero itself was also a type of necromancer. Its ultimate was Animate Dead and its abilities would fit right in with any Necromancer concept.

The same could be said about the Hunters abilities.

[xero5141]

The necromancer class - if it ever comes - will surely consist on summoning armies of dead against your enemy.

Of course we already have Demonology class as the "summon" spec and we already have Unholy DK as the "army of the dead" spec.

These specs should be revamped.

- Demonology will go back to its roots and consists of the warlock doing demonic spells.

- The Unholy Death Knight will also go to its roots in WCIII and consist of a DoT melee spec that spreads illnesses. No more raising the dead, that will be left to the Necromancer as it has always been.

The obvious specs of the necromancer are:

- The "summon" spec where you keep summoning an army of dead to attack the enemy, just like Demonology is actually.

-The plague spec where you kill your enemies with plagues. I know it already overlaps the DK but so does destruction and fire mage, or frost mage and DK. The difference is always that one is a caster and the other is a melee spec. This also happens with Demonology and Demon Hunters. Again, in one you are commanding the power, in other you are the power.

I would go as far as giving the necromancer a third spec, a healing spec based on Blood.

You want to move two classes in different directions to make room for a class that does things that classes already do?

[Deleted]

I don't think it'd be good to add Necromancer as a class. However it could become a 4th spec for Death Knights, since it fits their class fantasy. Perhaps a ranged DPS spec for them? Warlocks could also get the spec, but they primarily deal with demons, not the undead... so it would make more sense to give it to Death Knights. Just my opinion at least.

[Rhamses]

Is Putricide a typical necromancer? No, but we know from his voice files that he works heavily with plague, which is the poster-child for Necromantic magic in Warcraft. Alchemists, Apothecaries and Mad Scientists have always been on the fringe of the Scourge's Necromancy, which is why I'm a proponent of Necromancers. Neither Death Knights nor Warlocks can really get into poison gas, slime, caustic sprays, necrobiotic fungi, etc. in the way that Necromancers could. Do I see it defining the class as a whole? Not necessarily, but I see it forming a very strong identity for a single spec. There's quite a bit to pull from as well, Plague/Construct Quarters of Naxxramas, the Plaguelands, Plague wing of ICC, etc.

Sure you can argue that Putricide et al. aren't typical Necromancers, but that's nothing that hasn't been done before. AMS, for example, was incorporated in DKs, yet they're not Banshees.

Uh, Putricide isn't a necromancer. He's a mad scientist more in line with alchemy/chemistry. He's using science and technology, not Necromancy.

If we look at the WC3 heroes and units, He's way closer to the Goblin Alchemist than any of the UD heroes and units, and in turn, closer to the Tinker hero than any other concept.

[Kiradyn]

So let me ask, if tomorrow Blizzard annouces a Necromancer, that can turn into a Lich and pull Chains like Kel'thuzad out of his ass and/or summons a freaking Crypitc Lord and Nerubians to fight for him.

Would they really play the same as Dk and Warlock?

Based purely on that description I would have to say a Warlock with a mix of Frost Mage.

Again, such a scenario would only exacerbate the problem of classes feeling too similar to each other because people will just say that the class is simply a mix of Frost mages and Demo Warlocks.

You can assume a class will work exactly the same but i can't assume what the community will or will not accept?now thats Rich.

I'm saying that the community wouldn't accept it. Players of one class don't like their long-standing abilities going to other classes. Especially when that class is new.

And over the years changed drastically of what they said in the original post.

Last I checked the DK is still raising and controlling the undead. That trait is the hallmark of the Necromancer concept.

Funny you say that but right after


The same could be said about the Hunters abilities.

Which Hunter abilities are you talking about specifically?

[phealin]

Or a simpler sollution.
Revamp Unholy to be like it is now but be a ranged spec that spreads plagues and diseases at range while also raising waves of undead soldiers.

All they'd have to do to make it happen is keep Unholy as it is now but add a 40yard range on all their attacks and we have a Necromancer.

[Darktbs]

Based purely on that description I would have to say a Warlock with a mix of Frost Mage.

Again, such a scenario would only exacerbate the problem of classes feeling too similar to each other because people will just say that the class is simply a mix of Frost mages and Demo Warlocks.

.How exactly?People can say that about any class how is that relevant?

Also.

Bonespeaker
-Ranged DPS
-”Petless” pet class, no permanent or pet-bar controlled pet.
Basic mechanics
Unceasing Call (passive): Your damaging abilities have a 15% chance to summon a skeleton to attack your current target. After 4 attacks the skeleton dies, leaving behind a pile of bones.

Bone Spear: 1.5s cast, Hurls a jagged spear of bone at your current target. When Bone Spear crits, it forms a pile of bones.

Decrepit Claws: 10s CD, 2 piles of bone, Summons a massive bone claw from the ground, striking your current target for heavy damage.

Marrow Eruption: 15s CD, 3 piles of bone, causes an eruption of barbed, bone spikes from the ground at the target location, damaging enemies and leaving applying a short bleed effect.

Bone Golem: 30s CD, converges all nearby piles of bone into a bone constructs, 1 per 4 piles. The constructs attack for 10 seconds before collapsing into dust.
Additional Spell Examples
Bone Wraith: 3 minute CD, calls forth a large bone wraith to attack nearby targets with its cleaving axe for 25 seconds.

Corpse Explosion: Detonates any piles of bone in the targeted area, peppering nearby enemies with splinters of bone for heavy damage.

Bone Wall: summons a wall of hardened bone. This wall acts as a physical barrier that prevents line of sight for non-player enemies.

Embrace Lichdom: 5 minute CD, 30 seconds, causes all of your and your minion’s attacks to summon a shadowfrost shard that hits for 20% of the damage from the attack that triggered it.
Example Talents
Bloodletting: Increases the damage and duration of your marrow eruption’s bleed by 100%

Cold efficiency: Your bone constructs now only take 3 piles of bone to form, instead of 4.

Echoes of the North: Every fourth skeleton summoned by Unceasing Call is instead a Vrykul skeleton, dealing more damage and leaving 2 piles of bone when expended instead of 1.

Carrion Harbinger: 25s CD, A pair of skeletal wings sprout from your back, hurling you forward 30 yards.

Dead wastes: Your piles of bone seap decay and corruption, damaging nearby enemies

No Rest: Corpse explosion has a 50% chance to reanimate each affected pile of bones, rather than consuming it.

Ashes to Ashes: Your bone constructs and bone wraiths are now empowered, molten versions of their regular forms.

I'm saying that the community wouldn't accept it. Players of one class don't like their long-standing abilities going to other classes. Especially when that class is new

.
And im saying blizzard WON'T do the class play or feel the same.Dh are like Rogues or Warlocks despite the Community spiting the same god damn thing for years?

Last I checked the DK is still raising and controlling the undead. That trait is the hallmark of the Necromancer concept.

Give me a second to search for the post, im pretty shure i saved it somewhere.

Which Hunter abilities are you talking about specifically?

Good, so you don't even know what im talking about, CLASSIC.

Steel trap,
Sticky Bomb
Dragonsfire grenade
Explosive Shot
Bursting shot.

- - - Updated - - -

Or a simpler sollution.
Revamp Unholy to be like it is now but be a ranged spec that spreads plagues and diseases at range while also raising waves of undead soldiers.

All they'd have to do to make it happen is keep Unholy as it is now but add a 40yard range on all their attacks and we have a Necromancer.

See this sword, yea this pretty Runeblade, Dks use to smack and cut people with it, not sit in the back lines waving it in the air.

Runeblades, a key factor of the Dk uniqueness.

Runeblades, slay a life, raise a Ghoul

NAXtm

[Jtree]

Not really. If you watch the video the existing classes are combos of multiple WC3 units and heroes. The DK is a combination of Death Knight, Necromancer, Lich, Dreadlord, and other UD units.

If you watch the video start to finish, you'll hear that class designs came from lots of things. They outright say the also looked to general fantasy RPG archetypes, and even other games, especially Rogues, Warriors, and Priests. There is no WCIII class that is the specific root for warriors; rage was inspired by fighting games!

(Also, druids were cut entirely during development, then added back in. WTF? I can't even imagine WoW without druids.)

Interesting video over all, for a look back at early development philosophy, and how small BlizzCon used to be.

[Kiradyn]

.How exactly?People can say that about any class how is that relevant?

How? Because you're combining the summoning and shadow aspects of a Warlock and the Frost spells of a Mage. That combo worked for DKs because they're heavily armored and have a strong melee component. That combo isn't going to work for a caster class that is going to compete side by side with Warlocks and Mages.

Also.

Would any of those abilities not fit perfectly fine in the existing DK class?

And im saying blizzard WON'T do the class play or feel the same.Dh are like Rogues or Warlocks despite the Community spiting the same god damn thing for years?

The class can play completely different from the existing class. MY point is that players don't like losing abilities to other classes. DK players wouldn't be happy about losing D&D to a new necromancer class.

Good, so you don't even know what im talking about, CLASSIC.

Steel trap,
Sticky Bomb
Dragonsfire grenade
Explosive Shot
Bursting shot.

Yeah, Tinkers don't use grenades or traps. Neither Tinker heroes use guns either, so none of those abilities really apply to the Tinker.

[phealin]

See this sword, yea this pretty Runeblade, Dks use to smack and cut people with it, not sit in the back lines waving it in the air.

Runeblades, a key factor of the Dk uniqueness.

Runeblades, slay a life, raise a Ghoul

NAXtm

Well yes, but then again Mages wield swords as well and Warlocks and Priests wields daggers and scythes and they don't smack, stab or slice people with them soooo I wouldn't take that as an argument against making Unholy a ranged spec. It's already partially done with Clawing Shadows, may as well make tjat a talent where all their abilities get a 40 yard range so those who wants to play ranged can do that and if you prefer to play melee you just take one of the other options.

[Kiradyn]

If you watch the video start to finish, you'll hear that class designs came from lots of things. They outright say the also looked to general fantasy RPG archetypes, and even other games, especially Rogues, Warriors, and Priests. There is no WCIII class that is the specific root for warriors; rage was inspired by fighting games!

Yeah I'm really surprised they said that. Mountain King (Thunderclap, Bash), Blademaster (Bladestorm), Tauren Chieftain (Shockwave), Knights, Grunts, and Footman all had abilities that were funneled into the Warrior class.