Theres only one possible class left they can add to the game

[Rhamses]

I'm not against necromancer but the issue doesn't sorely lie with a conflict with DKs but also other void based casters such as warlocks and Spriests, given history with blizzard, they will only compromise if there is just 1 conflicting class ( which they will end up removing abilities from said class to give to the other ) ... like warlocks

I think we all can agree that a Necromancer class would trigger ability removals in other classes.

Probably worse than what we saw when the Demon Hunter was brought in.

- - - Updated - - -

That's true. All current classes in World of Warcraft have appeared in the Wacraft III campaigns. That's a fact. But here's the kicker: that does not mean future classes have to.

Pretty sure that @Teriz said "most likely to", not have to.

[Ielenia]

Pretty sure that @Teriz said "most likely to", not have to.

Except that at no point whatsoever Teriz ever conceded to the idea that Blizzard could create a WoW class not based on a WC3 unit.

[Darktbs]

And the classes are based on their WC3 incarnations, not their other incarnations.

Where did the Dk and the Paladin came from in Wc2?There is nothing in Wc1

Where did the Dh, Shaman, Rogue came from Wc3?There is nothing in wc2.

You are missing the point.

Because an expansion class requires a heavy lore requirement, since they have to revolve around the expansion they're introduced in. For example, one of the major things that trips up the Bard concept is there's no logical expansion concept where that they could fit into.

Oh and what kind of expansion would your precious Tinker fits?We already went to space, Azshara and N'zoth will be deal with this expansion so no underwater,Underground?Why, after the last old god is that there is no thread that required us to go underground.

Yet here you are wanting that class, why should be a problem for bards to ask for it as well?

I do believe the point is that all of the expansion classes matching WC3 heroes is quite a bit more than coincidence.

They were popular.You are confusing being popular with a requiriment.
These classes are fan favorits from Wc3 that why they were implemented.Not because some dumb imaginary requirement.

Well then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If the next class isn't based on a WC3 hero, I suppose you'll be right.

However we both know that it's going to be.

Yes the Necromancer.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we all can agree that a Necromancer class would trigger ability removals in other classes.

Probably worse than what we saw when the Demon Hunter was brought in.

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty sure that @Teriz said "most likely to", not have to.

No, every time he brings Wc3 he brings as a requirement, if a class wasn't in wc3 it cannot exist.

Also, its really tiring of you.

You always come to a thread, say the same thing about Necromancers, post a few more things and then vanish, despite this being debunked several times.

[Rhamses]

Except that at no point whatsoever Teriz ever conceded to the idea that Blizzard could create a WoW class not based on a WC3 unit.

Well if he believes that he's wrong. However I agree with him that the next class is likely to be based on a WC3 hero.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, its really tiring of you.

You always come to a thread, say the same thing about Necromancers, post a few more things and then vanish, despite this being debunked several times.

What was debunked? Sorry, this thread moves so quickly that I was mainly skimming through.

[Ielenia]

Well if he believes that he's wrong. However I agree with him that the next class is likely to be based on a WC3 hero.

Perhaps. It is, indeed, likely, that the next class may be based off a WC3 unit. However, lately, Blizzard have been doing a lot of things that we assumed would be 'unlikely' to happen, like having a class restricted to just two races, or a class with less than three specs. So, there's hope.

[wholol]

Guys , Instead of arguing using technical logic how about we argue with base logic ?

So far every class in the game has an indisputable uniqueness that NO OTHER class possesses, for example :

-Warlocks can summon and control demons, no other class can.
-Deathknights can summon and control the undead, no other class can.
-Druids can shapeshift permanently into different forms, no other class can.
-Demon hunters can BECOME demons temporarily no other class can ( RIP locks ).
-Etc.
-Forget the lore.

I would ask of you all to use your logic and give at least one LOGICAL unique theme that necromancers would have that NO OTHER class does.
If at least one exists that isn't shared by any other then necromancer can be a viable class concept.

And that's all there is to it.

[Deleted]

What about a "buffing" class? A "Bard" or something.
A supporter, buffing intellect, the only class with bloodlust.
Not sure about how to level a support-only class though :/

[Deleted]

Guys , Instead of arguing using technical logic how about we argue with base logic ?

So far every class in the game has an indisputable uniqueness that NO OTHER class possesses, for example :

-Warlocks can summon and control demons, no other class can.
-Deathknights can summon and control the undead, no other class can.
-Druids can shapeshift permanently into different forms, no other class can.
-Demon hunters can BECOME demons temporarily no other class can ( RIP locks ).
-Etc.
-Forget the lore.

I would ask of you all to use your logic and give at least one LOGICAL unique theme that necromancers would have that NO OTHER class does.
If at least one exists that isn't shared by any other then necromancer can be a viable class concept.

And that's all there is to it.

If I were to defend the necromancer concept I'd say that a necromancer is to a death knight as a priest is to a paladin.

So while paladins are - lore wise - priest with armor who fights like a warrior supported by light, the same correlation could be made between magic casters who raise undead and use some type of unholy mage and their armored warrior "evolution".

What's the uniqueness priest have that paladin does not?

[Rhamses]

Perhaps. It is, indeed, likely, that the next class may be based off a WC3 unit. However, lately, Blizzard have been doing a lot of things that we assumed would be 'unlikely' to happen, like having a class restricted to just two races, or a class with less than three specs. So, there's hope.

I don't think that specific class features are as easy to predict as where the inspiration for the next class is likely to come from.

[Teriz]

Where did the Dk and the Paladin came from in Wc2?There is nothing in Wc1

Where did the Dh, Shaman, Rogue came from Wc3?There is nothing in wc2.

What are you talking about?

Oh and what kind of expansion would your precious Tinker fits?

World of Warcraft: The Undermine

Yet here you are wanting that class, why should be a problem for bards to ask for it as well?

Because the Tinker has the exact same credentials as the previous class inclusions.

They were popular.You are confusing being popular with a requiriment.
These classes are fan favorits from Wc3 that why they were implemented.Not because some dumb imaginary requirement.

Those two attributes aren't exclusive. Those concepts are fan favorites because they're from WC3.

The Tinker is another fan favorite. Imagine that.

es the Necromancer.

You misspelled Death Knight.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys , Instead of arguing using technical logic how about we argue with base logic ?

So far every class in the game has an indisputable uniqueness that NO OTHER class possesses, for example :

-Warlocks can summon and control demons, no other class can.
-Deathknights can summon and control the undead, no other class can.
-Druids can shapeshift permanently into different forms, no other class can.
-Demon hunters can BECOME demons temporarily no other class can ( RIP locks ).
-Etc.
-Forget the lore.

I would ask of you all to use your logic and give at least one LOGICAL unique theme that necromancers would have that NO OTHER class does.
If at least one exists that isn't shared by any other then necromancer can be a viable class concept.

And that's all there is to it.

There is none, which is why many predict that a Necromancer inclusion would require the removal of multiple Death Knight abilities. It may even require the changing of an entire spec.

That massive downside wouldn't occur with a Tinker class inclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

If I were to defend the necromancer concept I'd say that a necromancer is to a death knight as a priest is to a paladin.

So while paladins are - lore wise - priest with armor who fights like a warrior supported by light, the same correlation could be made between magic casters who raise undead and use some type of unholy mage and their armored warrior "evolution".

What's the uniqueness priest have that paladin does not?

The ability to use Shadow magic. Priests have multiple Shadow abilities in all of their specs, and an entire spec dedicated to it.

Paladins don't use Shadow magic at all.

[tangers58]

The only WC3 heroes left that don't have class equivalents and open abilities are the Tinker and the Alchemist heroes. I mean NO classes possess any of their abilities. Necromancers/Lichs on the other hand have their entire kits controlled by existing classes.

I think its pretty clear where we're heading next class-wise.

That said, I would love to see a Dragon Knight class in the same vein as Alexstraeza(sp?) and Chromie in HotS.

Thats what they said about Demon Hunters lol

[Darktbs]

What are you talking about?

Classes can be created regardless of the previous game.Get...over...wc3.

Because the Tinker has the exact same credentials as the previous class inclusions.

Its melee?Blood elfs and Nights elfs can play it?It has a tank spec?It can't have any Range spec.Also you need to have a Dual wield spec and use those weapons, you can't just equipe it and be done with it.Also you need to based it around a relevant and important lore figure .

Those two attributes aren't exclusive. Those concepts are fan favorites because they're from WC3.

You cleary don't understand, there is a huge fucking difference between being REQUIRED and being a FAN FAVORITE

When you put a requirement everything that you create must follow that rule:Everything must make sense in the Warcraft universe.

A Fan favorite is something that people want, people want Dh because they are cool and Illidan.People want Dk because they are cool and Arthas.


But this is not a requirement is just a indicator to what people want.

Learn the fucking difference.

You misspelled Death Knight.

I think you need glasses my friend.

There is none, which is why many predict that a Necromancer inclusion would require the removal of multiple Death Knight abilities. It may even require the changing of an entire spec.

That massive downside wouldn't occur with a Tinker class inclusion.

Teriz, if Blizzard really cared about anything you claim with so much passion.

Wouldn't me logical to think that Tinkers would've been realease long ?
Yet here we are, with you bitching about the class.

The ability to use Shadow magic. Priests have multiple Shadow abilities in all of their specs, and an entire spec dedicated to it.

Paladins don't use Shadow magic at all.

And here we are again with you ignoring the possibility of original concepts entering other classes.Im noticing a pattern

[Ielenia]

I don't think that specific class features are as easy to predict as where the inspiration for the next class is likely to come from.

Not saying they are, but like I said, seeing Blizzard break the mold on many things other people took as "law" gives hope we'll see a class outside of Wacraft 3.

- - - Updated - - -

The ability to use Shadow magic. Priests have multiple Shadow abilities in all of their specs, and an entire spec dedicated to it.

Paladins don't use Shadow magic at all.

So... give necromancers something else Death Knights don't use? A magical poison spec, maybe? The "issue" you just pointed out is not hard at all to figure out, dude.

[Teriz]

Classes can be created regardless of the previous game.Get...over...wc3.

Nah, I rather like that the expansion classes are so heavily influenced by WC3. I loved that game, and I would like Blizzard to pull more heroes from that game.

Considering the type of class requests we're seeing on the forum, it would appear that many posters feel the same way.

Its melee?Blood elfs and Nights elfs can play it?It has a tank spec?It can't have any Range spec.Also you need to have a Dual wield spec and use those weapons, you can't just equipe it and be done with it.Also you need to based it around a relevant and important lore figure .

LoL! You don't need any of those things except the important lore figure. In that regard I have a feeling that Blizzard will simply make Gazlowe the Tinker lore figure, since they already did so in HotS, and have made him more Tinker-like as WoW has progressed.

You cleary don't understand, there is a huge fucking difference between being REQUIRED and being a FAN FAVORITE

When you put a requirement everything that you create must follow that rule:Everything must make sense in the Warcraft universe.

A Fan favorite is something that people want, people want Dh because they are cool and Illidan.People want Dk because they are cool and Arthas.

But this is not a requirement is just a indicator to what people want.

Learn the fucking difference.

Well since this makes you so upset, I'll retract what I said earlier, and say that heroes from WC3 have a higher chance of being made into WoW expansion classes than non-WC3 fantasy classes.

Does that make you feel better?

Teriz, if Blizzard really cared about anything you claim with so much passion.

Wouldn't me logical to think that Tinkers would've been realease long ?
Yet here we are, with you bitching about the class.

Demon Hunters were far more popular than Tinkers (arguably the most popular hero in WC3), and we didn't get them until 12 years after WoW's release.

And here we are again with you ignoring the possibility of original concepts entering other classes.Im noticing a pattern

The poster asked what made the Priest different than the Paladin. I was simply answering his question.

P.S. You enjoyed that Undermine post didn't you. Kudos to @Rhamses for that one.

- - - Updated - - -

So... give necromancers something else Death Knights don't use? A magical poison spec, maybe? The "issue" you just pointed out is not hard at all to figure out, dude.

Have Necromancers ever used poison in Warcraft?

[Ielenia]

Have Necromancers ever used poison in Warcraft?

Death Knights never used blood or frost magic in Warcraft either, but here we are.

Regardless, Blizzard doesn't have to adhere strictly to what has already happened in Warcraft.

[Teriz]

Death Knights never used blood or frost magic in Warcraft either, but here we are.

Regardless, Blizzard doesn't have to adhere strictly to what has already happened in Warcraft.

Blizzard folded the various WC3 UD units and heroes into the DK class. That included some units and heroes that had Frost and Blood abilities.

That explains why the DK class ended up with Frost and Blood capabilities.

[Darktbs]

LoL! You don't need any of those things except the important lore figure. In that regard I have a feeling that Blizzard will simply make Gazlowe the Tinker lore figure, since they already did so in HotS, and have made him more Tinker-like as WoW has progressed.

They are as important as being a Wc3 unit.

Also, Gazlower is really not important, not in the levle of Arthas, Illidan and hell even Chen.

Well since this makes you so upset, I'll retract what I said earlier, and say that heroes from WC3 have a higher chance of being made into WoW expansion classes than non-WC3 fantasy classes.

Does that make you feel better?

If i or anyone come up with a interesting idea for a class/spec and you don't come up with "It didn't happen in Wc3" Then yea, i will be fucking happy.

Demon Hunters were far more popular than Tinkers (arguably the most popular hero in WC3), and we didn't get them until 12 years after WoW's release.

So you agree that popularity beats your logic, so if the Necromancer would to be more popular then the Tinker there is no point in discussing if blizz will or not do .

And instead focus on what the classes can do.

P.S. You enjoyed that Undermine post didn't you. Kudos to @Rhamses for that one.

Not really, im not a fan of Underground things, Dwarven and Titans maybe but thats about it.

Im a fan of underwater things, reminds me of the Leviathan attack on the movie atlantis.

Have Necromancers ever used poison in Warcraft?

Dks didn't use ice and blood, but were added to them.Added by the units of the Wc3 or not, this concept didn't belonged to the Dk, yet were added anyway.

Why can't this happen to the Necromancer?Add a Mad doctor spec, mix how our world culture deal with the dead and add to the spec, there are so many things that fit the class that could make more then 3 specs.

[wholol]

If I were to defend the necromancer concept I'd say that a necromancer is to a death knight as a priest is to a paladin.

So while paladins are - lore wise - priest with armor who fights like a warrior supported by light, the same correlation could be made between magic casters who raise undead and use some type of unholy mage and their armored warrior "evolution".

What's the uniqueness priest have that paladin does not?

-Priest play on the spectrum of good and evil, light and dark, sanity vs insanity and the balance of both. no other class does.

-Paladins are unique in the concept of auras, blessings and the self-sacrifice theme, regardless of specs, they were previously designed around being the support class ( so they are the prime contenders of any bard class design ) and although some of their kit is no longer as visible as it was back in vanilla ( mainly due to class homogenization) ,yet most of their toolkit is primed on beneficial buffs and auras, no other class currently does.

The biggest flaw in your argument from what I can see is that you are trying to establish class uniqueness based on role or spell school category, it matters little that there is no undead summoning caster archetype or that priest and paladins have similarities in terms of schools used or what lore wrote, since again, lore has been proven to be less solid as we once thought it was.

You could make up as many spells and/or differing schools and playstyles as you please, but in the end if you don't have a base unique concept that separates said class from other classes then blizzard will NEVER go through with it, believe me.

Edit: it has nothing to do with popularity of champions or units in previous warcraft games or spell schools or whatever else people are coming up with above, seems most people don't even read posts other than the ones they aren't directly quoted in ( as shown above to the people completely ignoring our argument even if these few posts already answer their own arguments).

[Ielenia]

Blizzard folded the various WC3 UD units and heroes into the DK class. That included some units and heroes that had Frost and Blood abilities.

That explains why the DK class ended up with Frost and Blood capabilities.

That's besides the point. You asked "have necromances ever used poison in Warcraft?" to which I pointed out that prior to their implementation, death knights have never used blood or frost powers, but they still got those powers when implemented as a class.

Also, "folding other units together into one" makes your original question completely moot.

[Teriz]

They are as important as being a Wc3 unit.

No they aren't. You're just being facetious.

Also, Gazlower is really not important, not in the levle of Arthas, Illidan and hell even Chen.

He helped found Ogrimmar. I would agree that he's not as major as Illidan and Arthas (which is why their classes were hero classes), but he's definitely a bigger lore figure than Chen, he was barely around in his own expansion.

So you agree that popularity beats your logic, so if the Necromancer would to be more popular then the Tinker there is no point in discussing if blizz will or not do..

Well... no. Demon Hunters were definitely more popular than Brewmasters/Monks, but still came in after they did. That leads me to believe that it isn't based on popularity, but what expansion theme they're working on.

Not really, im not a fan of Underground things, Dwarven and Titans maybe but thats about it.

Im a fan of underwater things, reminds me of the Leviathan attack on the movie atlantis.

Well you'll be happy to know that portions of Undermine are reportedly also beneath the water.

Dks didn't use ice and blood, but were added to them.Added by the units of the Wc3 or not, this concept didn't belonged to the Dk, yet were added anyway.

Well the concept of the DK was the undead, and they based the class on the Lich King (Arthas) who was the master of the undead in WC3. So incorporating all aspects into a single (hero) class made sense.