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

[wholol]

Except I did exactly what you claim I don't do? I quoted Thym's post, who wasn't quoting me.


Yeah, because a light-themed spellcaster with emphasis on healing is vastly different from a light-themed melee with emphasis on healing! In case it's too complex for you to understand, I was talking about holy priests and protection paladins, there. Oh, and wait! A frost-based spellcaster with emphasis on slowing opponents is also vastly from a frost-based melee with emphasis on slowing down opponents, right? Talking about frost mages and frost dks, there.

Are you even trying?

What's the point of telling me you quoted someone else, you are still arguing about themes without answering my original question, what is unique to the necromancer concept that no other class has ?

I'm not talking about which spell school they belong to or what armor they wear, these are secondary concerns when designing classes, there always needs to be a base to start with that separates this class from others and gives it a unique touch.

If you just answer this without using trivial spell schools as your base logic then necromancer is a viable concept. Simple as that.

[Illidari]

I like the idea, but because of Teriz, not as much as i used to.

Yeah, I think Teriz' argumentation style can put some people off.

[Elestia]

No one wants the tinkerer though.

[Illidari]

No one wants the tinkerer though.

I don't agree with that. Those class threads on the front page (Only two Mail classes, Possible Future classes) are mostly advocating for a Tinkerer class.

This thread was started by a poster who wants a Tinkerer class.

[Darktbs]

What's the point of telling me you quoted someone else, you are still arguing about themes without answering my original question, what is unique to the necromancer concept that no other class has ?

I'm not talking about which spell school they belong to or what armor they wear, these are secondary concerns when designing classes, there always needs to be a base to start with that separates this class from others and gives it a unique touch.

If you just answer this without using trivial spell schools as your base logic then necromancer is a viable concept. Simple as that.

The idea that Necromancers aren't tied to a specific concept, Dks are knights that use rune weapons, ride Deathchargers and so on and is tided to the scourge and the scourge alone.

A Necromancer at his basic is a spellcaster that uses Death magic, the most populars are scourge but you have the Trolls, Hellheim, shadowlands, orcs and draeneis but you also can drawn inpiration for our world like ancient egypt, european , Japanese and Native american culture or popular medias like
the grim reaper, mad scentists, vampires, zombie apocalypse and so on.

There is no basic concept because everything Death related is a necromancer concept while the Dk for example, has to stay on the idea that he is a Scourge knight of death.Even in Warcraft world you can escape the typical Scourge Necromancer.

[wholol]

The idea that Necromancers aren't tied to a specific concept, Dks are knights that use rune weapons, ride Deathchargers and so on and is tided to the scourge and the scourge alone.

A Necromancer at his basic is a spellcaster that uses Death magic, the most populars are scourge but you have the Trolls, Hellheim, shadowlands, orcs and draeneis but you also can drawn inpiration for our world like ancient egypt, european , Japanese and Native american culture or popular medias like
the grim reaper, mad scentists, vampires, zombie apocalypse and so on.

There is no basic concept because everything Death related is a necromancer concept while the Dk for example, has to stay on the idea that he is a Scourge knight of death.Even in Warcraft world you can escape the typical Scourge Necromancer.

But the concept itself needs to be fundamentally different from another class, not talking about lore here.
If deathknights are the staple for everything undead, necro's would intrude on that staple.

They would either have to remove the whole summon and control undead from DKs and give it to necros for it to be a viable concept, but then DKs would need something new as their staple or necro's would have to based around not summoning and control the dead ( which is not necromancy at all tbh ).

[Darktbs]

But the concept itself needs to be fundamentally different from another class, not talking about lore here.
If deathknights are the staple for everything undead, necro's would intrude on that staple.

They would either have to remove the whole summon and control undead from DKs and give it to necros for it to be a viable concept, but then DKs would need something new as their staple or necro's would have to based around not summoning and control the dead ( which is not necromancy at all tbh ).

I give a quick explanation then go on with my point.When we bring paladins and priests as a example we mention that these are classes with similar bases that is the holy light but take the thematic and concept very differently.You can have two classes with the base, being Necromantic magic or the summon of the undead but approach this base differently.

Dks aren't stapble for everything that is undead, their thematic locks them to certain things and going far from it means they are going away from what a Dk is.Necromancer on the other hand do not have this, since they can have mutiple different thematics.

For example Dks Uh spec is focused around spreading plagues and summoning undead while a Necromancer can be around creating mummies and energizing until them are unleashing while also enchating them with cursed marks.This are two different ideas but they also fall under the Necromancy since they use Death magic.And this is just a example .

Unless you want to translate everything from the Uh to the Necromancer, then yeah, you would need to remove stuff, but thats not what people are asking or at least im not asking for this.

[guisadop]

I want a plate-wearing mage.

[Teriz]

But the concept itself needs to be fundamentally different from another class, not talking about lore here.
If deathknights are the staple for everything undead, necro's would intrude on that staple.

They would either have to remove the whole summon and control undead from DKs and give it to necros for it to be a viable concept, but then DKs would need something new as their staple or necro's would have to based around not summoning and control the dead ( which is not necromancy at all tbh ).

I think this is a really good point that needs to be stressed. It is HIGHLY doubtful that Blizzard would allow two different classes to summon undead minions. Additionally, people would expect a Necromancer class to excel at summoning, so the earlier suggestion that they could just summon spiders or something is pure silliness. People are going to expect a Necromancer class to summon a menagerie of undead minions much like the UH spec currently does.

The simple reality here is that you're not getting a Necromancer class unless the DK class gets necromancy removed from its class. For the sake of argument, that could mean that only UH gets redone, but whereas the Warlock community largely accepted Blizzard's argument that the Warlock class was never meant to encompass demonic transformation, good luck convincing DK players that their class was never meant to do Necromancy, because the hero and lore character the class is largely based on had Necromantic abilities.

It should also be stated that the Tinker class has no such issues. You can bring that class into the game, and no class is effected, no theme is rehashed, and class diversity is enhanced.

It will be interesting to see what decision Blizzard makes.

[Darktbs]

The simple reality here is that you're not getting a Necromancer class unless the DK class gets necromancy removed from its class. For the sake of argument, that could mean that only UH gets redone, but whereas the Warlock community largely accepted Blizzard's argument that the Warlock class was never meant to encompass demonic transformation, good luck convincing DK players that their class was never meant to do Necromancy, because the hero and lore character the class is largely based on had Necromantic abilities.

Thats not really an argumment, this expansion we just got told that we are supposed to be "the slow inevitable death" to justify our lack of movement, despite every incarnation of the Dk raiding a DeathCharge to battle and having Unholy Aura a movement speed increase buff.

If they want to do that, they will and the Dk class will accept it, like it or not.

I personally don't like this new thematic since i would really like the Paladin spell(which were always slow)that they summon a horse in battle.

[Ielenia]

But the concept itself needs to be fundamentally different from another class, not talking about lore here.
If deathknights are the staple for everything undead, necro's would intrude on that staple.

You're kind of contradicting yourself, there. You're asking to talk not about lore, but then your next sentence immediately goes against what you originally said, mentioning lore.

"Lore" is basically the skin you're going to put on the mechanics. If you're not talking about lore, then you're talking about gameplay, and I imagine a ranged character would inherently play differently than a melee character.

Lore-wise, sharing a theme is not really an issue. We have priests and paladins, frost mages and frost dks. Fire mages and destruction warlocks.

They would either have to remove the whole summon and control undead from DKs and give it to necros for it to be a viable concept, but then DKs would need something new as their staple or necro's would have to based around not summoning and control the dead ( which is not necromancy at all tbh ).

One idea I have is to make Unholy be the master of plague and disease. Kind of like a 'melee DoT' class, but not quite. They can still summon an undead minion, but it wouldn't be the focus on the spec. I mean, we have shamans and their fire/earth/air elementals... but mages summon water elementals.

[Teriz]

Thats not really an argumment, this expansion we just got told that we are supposed to be "the slow inevitable death" to justify our lack of movement, despite every incarnation of the Dk raiding a DeathCharge to battle and having Unholy Aura a movement speed increase buff.

If they want to do that, they will and the Dk class will accept it, like it or not.

I personally don't like this new thematic since i would really like the Paladin spell(which were always slow)that they summon a horse in battle.

I don't see what any of that has to do with what I said. Blizzard telling you that you're supposed to be a slower class is quite a bit different than your class getting stripped of one of its core designs.

Anyway, terms of DK movement, Blizzard is already looking to fix that;

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20759151391

Look at all those happy DK players.

[Darktbs]

I don't see what any of that has to do with what I said. Blizzard telling you that you're supposed to be a slower class is quite a bit different than your class getting stripped of one of its core designs.

Anyway, terms of DK movement, Blizzard is already looking to fix that;

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20759151391

Look at all those happy DK players.

Except being fast is a core thing from the Dks, thats why they are called Knights, a type of warrior that is generaly seen riding horses, thats why that they in wc2, wc3 and early wow they are seen riding horses, one of the first quest of the Dk is you getting your deathcharge, the Four Horsemen back then and now and considering that Paladins got a spell that allows then to ride Horses in combat, i can assume, by your logic of couse, that the concept went to another class.

Also, you would be fucking happy getting a new movement spell that isn't Wraith can't jump walk.

[Teriz]

Except being fast is a core thing from the Dks, thats why they are called Knights, a type of warrior that is generaly seen riding horses, thats why that they in wc2, wc3 and early wow they are seen riding horses, one of the first quest of the Dk is you getting your deathcharge, the Four Horsemen back then and now and considering that Paladins got a spell that allows then to ride Horses in combat, i can assume, by your logic of couse, that the concept went to another class.

Also, you would be fucking happy getting a new movement spell that isn't Wraith can't jump walk.

Actually I'm with you: DKs should have gotten Divine Steed (obviously renamed to match the DK theme). Don't know what happened with that one.

[wholol]

You're kind of contradicting yourself, there. You're asking to talk not about lore, but then your next sentence immediately goes against what you originally said, mentioning lore.

"Lore" is basically the skin you're going to put on the mechanics. If you're not talking about lore, then you're talking about gameplay, and I imagine a ranged character would inherently play differently than a melee character.

Lore-wise, sharing a theme is not really an issue. We have priests and paladins, frost mages and frost dks. Fire mages and destruction warlocks.

You only think I'm contradicting myself because you believe lore and unique concepts are one and the same.

For example : Death knights have several things lore wise that could've been used to create a unique concept for them, blizzard chose the current one.
If you look back to wotlk when DKs were released their staple wasn't fixed and they were kinda in limbo, blizzard was unsure whether to go with the unholy aura theme , the control the undead theme or the Rune blade theme.

They ended up scraping the unholy aura theme for the one we have today. As such many of their talents and spells were shifted around and/or removed to fix this, such a bone shield being moved from unholy to blood and such, this is why I say spells and schools are secondary to class design, because they only come after the unique class design is made.

Fun fact: blizzard was debating whether to release the necromancer back in wotlk instead of DK but felt necromancer invaded too much into the affliction warlock playstyle as a dark caster who could summon and control pets while afflicting enemies with curses and such, that is why necromancers were never implemented and deathknights which had a unique flavor were placed into the game.

[Darktbs]

Fun fact: blizzard was debating whether to release the necromancer back in wotlk instead of DK but felt necromancer invaded too much into the affliction warlock playstyle as a dark caster who could summon and control pets while afflicting enemies with curses and such, that is why necromancers were never implemented and deathknights which had a unique flavor were placed into the game.

Citation needed?

[wholol]

Citation needed?

I can't find the link anywhere tbh, I don't know where I read it but it's very old, it was probably in the old wow forums that have now been shafted and are probably lost in the dark web somewhere, on the bright side though, I did find a link with someone stating the same thing years ago so at least it proves I'm not making this up.

Here's the link : https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/9751685236, the 3rd comment says it.

Edit: it does not mean blizzard will 100% not make necromancers, given what happened with demon hunters but at least demon hunters only had to deal with warlocks' meta because it was a core concept for DHs.

I bet if DKs were relieved of their necromancy then necromancers could make an appearance.

[Darktbs]

I can't find the link anywhere tbh, I don't know where I read it but it's very old, it was probably in the old wow forums that have now been shafted and are probably lost in the dark web somewhere, on the bright side though, I did find a link with someone stating the same thing years ago so at least it proves I'm not making this up.

Here's the link : https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/9751685236, the 3rd comment says it.

Uhm...its compares to the Dk not the Affliction warlock and the original quote mention that they inted for a caster that spread dieases, that was the part that went to the Dk.

[wholol]

Uhm...its compares to the Dk not the Affliction warlock and the original quote mention that they inted for a caster that spread dieases, that was the part that went to the Dk.

"They did once, it was in the pick list for wrath classes, they decided in the end to go with death knight and fold some of the necromancer skills into death knights."
The guy who wrote this didn't mention everything that was written and why.

I don't remember 100% of what was said but what stayed clear in my mind ( mainly cause I played warlock at the time) was the reference to locks.

Anyways we're drifting off topic here, it matters little since a lot of things have changed in game( new classes etc), still need a unique concept for necromancers to work and the biggest conflict to that concept is deathknights because we know that blizzard gave part of their core concepts to DKs instead,not even gonna mention warlocks.

If you take away the ability to raise and control the undead from necros then you might as well name them something else.

[Ielenia]

You only think I'm contradicting myself because you believe lore and unique concepts are one and the same.

For example : Death knights have several things lore wise that could've been used to create a unique concept for them, blizzard chose the current one.
If you look back to wotlk when DKs were released their staple wasn't fixed and they were kinda in limbo, blizzard was unsure whether to go with the unholy aura theme , the control the undead theme or the Rune blade theme.

They ended up scraping the unholy aura theme for the one we have today. As such many of their talents and spells were shifted around and/or removed to fix this, such a bone shield being moved from unholy to blood and such, this is why I say spells and schools are secondary to class design, because they only come after the unique class design is made.

As far as I can understand, there are two types of 'concepts' in class design: lore and gameplay. The gameplay dictates how the class will play out. Which kind of abilities would the class have, which passives, etc. The lore concept dictates the theme, name and graphic of said abilities (light, shadow, elemental, physical, etc) as well as the backstory for said class.

I'm not, however, talking about specific abilities. Single abilities can be shuffled around and even removed without altering the gameplay and theme of the class too much (if at all).

Fun fact: blizzard was debating whether to release the necromancer back in wotlk instead of DK but felt necromancer invaded too much into the affliction warlock playstyle as a dark caster who could summon and control pets while afflicting enemies with curses and such, that is why necromancers were never implemented and deathknights which had a unique flavor were placed into the game.

Well, today we have Beastmaster, which is 'Demonology' only with beasts instead of demons, is it not? Empowering beasts and summoning a bucket-load of beasts.