Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Teriz]

I voted 0%.
I just dont see the playable aspect of a 'tinker'. Considering the definition of what a tinker is... It's a fixer upper. Meaning something was broken or already created. Engineering is the aspect of creating, so would tinkers just fix engineers creations? Only way this would be viable is if the tinker had the engineering profession or was an engineer himself.
So what does a Tinker tink for this to work? Please help me understand.
It would be cool if they tinkered the armor or weapons of players, creating a new role "support" but doubt they would implement something like this.

The tech class wouldn't even need to be called "Tinker". Tinker is just there as a generic name because of the hero from WC3.

Artificer, Gearmaster, Inventor, Siegecrafter, Mekgineer, Technician, or Mechanic works just the same.

[hrugner]

We all know, it's all about the artificer.

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/e...s_epg_0525.jpg
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/b...6607337672.jpg

too big, I'll try to resize them

[Talen]

The tech class wouldn't even need to be called "Tinker". Tinker is just there as a generic name because of the hero from WC3.

Artificer, Gearmaster, Inventor, Siegecrafter, Mekgineer, Technician, or Mechanic works just the same.

The trouble is....Tinker sees to be the best name there is. However...its also likely to give a fairly misleading idea of what the lass actually is. It isn't an inventor or creator. That's the Engineering prof and the name Tinker just invites comparison.

Meanwhile, a class name such as Commando or Operative might be more descriptive of the classes role, ability and feel but it also doesn't have a tech vibe.

EJL

[stuartj1992]

By the power of Grayskull we do not need a new class. It's already bad enough trying to balance the ones we already have without adding in new ones.

[Talen]

By the power of Grayskull we do not need a new class. It's already bad enough trying to balance the ones we already have without adding in new ones.

We didn't need Monks or Death Knights either.

There's a benefit and desire in adding new classes that goes beyond need however. New looks, new concepts, the ability to play an avatar that you really like...

Overall, I'd agree we're just about at the end of adding new classes. The point of DR has been reached. I think there is room for maybe one more baseline class to be added but I honestly don't see more. I'd anticipate further work would be via Advanced classes of some sort, or new specs rather than classes

EJL

[hrugner]

We didn't need Monks or Death Knights either.

There's a benefit and desire in adding new classes that goes beyond need however. New looks, new concepts, the ability to play an avatar that you really like...

Overall, I'd agree we're just about at the end of adding new classes. The point of DR has been reached. I think there is room for maybe one more baseline class to be added but I honestly don't see more. I'd anticipate further work would be via Advanced classes of some sort, or new specs rather than classes

EJL

I feel like there's a spot open for a class that builds resources at range and expends them in melee. It's been awhile since I went through all the specs, but I think this play style is still missing.

That would work for most class types though, so it could just as well be added as a fourth spec to hunter, ranger, paladin and others as it could be the basis for a new class..

[Rhamses]

I voted 0%.
I just dont see the playable aspect of a 'tinker'. Considering the definition of what a tinker is... It's a fixer upper. Meaning something was broken or already created. Engineering is the aspect of creating, so would tinkers just fix engineers creations? Only way this would be viable is if the tinker had the engineering profession or was an engineer himself.
So what does a Tinker tink for this to work? Please help me understand.
It would be cool if they tinkered the armor or weapons of players, creating a new role "support" but doubt they would implement something like this.

The playable aspect comes from Warcraft characters literally being called Tinkers, and the hero unit's abilities from Warcraft 3. The Tinker has a precedent in the Warcraft universe, and with the HotS abilities Blizzard has shown a very unique ability set. Unlike some others, I want the Tinker class to be a direct translation of the Warcraft hero, just like the Monk and the Death Knight were.

[Thimagryn]

Why would this be an issue? No one complains about Enchanting sharing a thematic overlap with Mages.
EJL

Because it's not a matter of whether it is an issue or not. Teriz specifically said Engineering does not have the same theme that a Tech class would. It's bullshit because they do share that theme.

If someone said Enchanting doesn't use a theme of Magic, wouldn't you call someone out for saying that?

The point extends further when he defends and tries to justify what he said by avoiding it and use strawman arguments to divert attention from a clear fallacy.

[Ielenia]

Here's the basis of my issue with tinkers:

If a tinker is simply 'someone who uses tech', but does not create them, said tinker is nothing but a common person nothing special about it.
If a tinker is someone who crafts gadgets to use, said tinker theme clashes too much with the engineering theme.

And people say tinkers exist in Warcraft 3. But the problem with that is: the 'tinker' only exists in multiplayer matches. It never shows in the Campaign maps, or in the 'special campaign' for WC3 where we follow Rexxar's story. So arguing he's canon because he shows only on the multiplayer aspect of the game, which has no bearing or effect on the story campaigns, is not a fair assessment. If something does not show in the story campaigns, it cannot be considered canon.

[Teriz]

Here's the basis of my issue with tinkers:

If a tinker is simply 'someone who uses tech', but does not create them, said tinker is nothing but a common person nothing special about it.
If a tinker is someone who crafts gadgets to use, said tinker theme clashes too much with the engineering theme.

When you say "engineering theme" are you talking about the profession, or lore? The two are not the same thing. If you're talking about the lore, a class can't clash with it, because lore isn't a gameplay mechanic. Additionally, the lore supports the notion that there are advanced "engineers" who are on the level of mages, warriors, and paladins. If you're talking about the profession, the class still wouldn't clash with it because a class and a profession don't perform the same function in the game.

And people say tinkers exist in Warcraft 3. But the problem with that is: the 'tinker' only exists in multiplayer matches. It never shows in the Campaign maps, or in the 'special campaign' for WC3 where we follow Rexxar's story. So arguing he's canon because he shows only on the multiplayer aspect of the game, which has no bearing or effect on the story campaigns, is not a fair assessment. If something does not show in the story campaigns, it cannot be considered canon.

Here's the problem with that; The Goblin Tinker hero was the final hero to be added to WC3. It was added after the campaigns were complete, which is why you never see a Tinker hero in the game. However, Blizzard made Gazlowe a Goblin Tinker at a later point, and he appears as a Tinker in HotS.

Furthermore, Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker hero, and he has had an effect on the general story of World of Warcraft.

[Talen]

Because it's not a matter of whether it is an issue or not. Teriz specifically said Engineering does not have the same theme that a Tech class would. It's bullshit because they do share that theme.

Of course they have the same "theme" as it were. Technology. One is simply a profession. The other would be a class.

Assuming that you can develop a unique identity around that class - and in this case, I see no reason why not - there's no reason not to use it as a class archetype.

The fact the engineering exists wouldn't affect that at all, any more than Enchanting prevented Mages being introduced.

I still have a problem with the Tinker name (it conjures up a very different image as a tech creator and not user, and there are the obvious links t Engineering) and I'm somewhat less than fond of the giant wavy arm look Teriz likes so much but a tech class should be no issue.

But yeah - Engineering does have the same basic theme as tech based class would. If I thought it would work, I'd even suggest getting rid of the profession (in favor of woodworking perhaps?), dividing out the gear to other profs as necessary and then giving the remainder to the tech class as a class perk.

EJL

[Rhamses]

Here's the basis of my issue with tinkers:

If a tinker is simply 'someone who uses tech', but does not create them, said tinker is nothing but a common person nothing special about it.
If a tinker is someone who crafts gadgets to use, said tinker theme clashes too much with the engineering theme.

Didn't you agree with me that the engineering profession and engineering lore aren't one in the same?

How could a class focused around technology clash with engineering lore?

[Ielenia]

When you say "engineering theme" are you talking about the profession, or lore? The two are not the same thing. If you're talking about the lore, a class can't clash with it, because lore isn't a gameplay mechanic. Additionally, the lore supports the notion that there are advanced "engineers" who are on the level of mages, warriors, and paladins. If you're talking about the profession, the class still wouldn't clash with it because a class and a profession don't perform the same function in the game.

I'm talking about the engineering 'job', from which the 'profession' is a part of. The 'clash' would come from the theme. It's for that reason we don't have a profession that heals wounds with holy magic (bandages are not magic. Priests rely on holy magic to heal, first-aid users rely on knowledge of bandages and their uses). While, thematically, both do the same thing, both approach it through different means. One uses holy magic, the other uses strips of cloth and ointments.

Engineers create and use technology they, or others, create. With the Tinker is the same thing. There is no 'different approach to the same theme' to make it avoid clashes.

Here's the problem with that; The Goblin Tinker hero was the final hero to be added to WC3. It was added after the campaigns were complete, which is why you never see a Tinker hero in the game. However, Blizzard made Gazlowe a Goblin Tinker at a later point, and he appears as a Tinker in HotS.

Furthermore, Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker hero, and he has had an effect on the general story of World of Warcraft.

Whether or not the Goblin Tinker hero was the last hero introduced to Warcraft 3, it still stands as a fact that he has no presence at all in the story campaigns. Which is why he shouldn't be considered canon to the Warcraft lore, simply because 'he was in Warcraft 3'. And your claim that 'Gelbin Mekkatorque' being a 'tinker' hero comes from WoWWiki, a source that, as you pointed out, is not reliable, when I used the same website against your claims before. You can't have it both ways.

[Drilnos]

I'm talking about the engineering 'job', from which the 'profession' is a part of. The 'clash' would come from the theme. It's for that reason we don't have a profession that heals wounds with holy magic (bandages are not magic. Priests rely on holy magic to heal, first-aid users rely on knowledge of bandages and their uses). While, thematically, both do the same thing, both approach it through different means. One uses holy magic, the other uses strips of cloth and ointments.

Engineers create and use technology they, or others, create. With the Tinker is the same thing. There is no 'different approach to the same theme' to make it avoid clashes.


Whether or not the Goblin Tinker hero was the last hero introduced to Warcraft 3, it still stands as a fact that he has no presence at all in the story campaigns. Which is why he shouldn't be considered canon to the Warcraft lore, simply because 'he was in Warcraft 3'. And your claim that 'Gelbin Mekkatorque' being a 'tinker' hero comes from WoWWiki, a source that, as you pointed out, is not reliable, when I used the same website against your claims before. You can't have it both ways.

Enchanting and tailoring both have a few spell procs categorized as Holy, some of which do, in fact, heal. Others do things like increase damage against undead, or boost healing power. Known properties of holy magic. Which is one of the reasons these professions are popular among priests. They make things priests can wear and they do things which would make a priest look more like a priest. The themes are complementary. It's only when you get two themes mixed together that have no business being mixed - like, say, a druid engineer - that you have an actual clash.

For the record, my main is a druid engineer, and is that way specifically because I wanted that clash.

Also, wowpedia lists Mekkatorque as a Tinker too. And wowpedia is the reliable one.

[Ielenia]

Enchanting and tailoring both have a few spell procs categorized as Holy, some of which do, in fact, heal. Others do things like increase damage against undead, or boost healing power. Known properties of holy magic. Which is one of the reasons these professions are popular among priests.

But that is not the entire theme of enchanting or tailoring. Enchanting is not about using holy magic to heal or damage undead. Tailoring is not all about holy spell procs or boosts to holy magic.

[Ciddy]

I like the idea of a Tinker class. A mail-wearing hybrid (ranged DPS, healer, or tank) that uses technology rather than any kind of physical strength would be a good fit. I still think Tinker is a whole lot more viable than Demon Hunter.

I don't really know how likely it is that Tinker will ever be implemented, but I think the idea is very cool and could definitely get behind it myself.

[Drilnos]

But that is not the entire theme of enchanting or tailoring. Enchanting is not about using holy magic to heal or damage undead. Tailoring is not all about holy spell procs or boosts to holy magic.

Irrelevant. Your statement was "we don't have a profession that heals wounds with holy magic." And we do. You're also presupposing that the "entire theme" of the priest class revolves around holy heals, apparently having forgotten that the shadow tree is a thing.

But that's beside the point. If a profession and a class have the same theme, identical in every regard, it is literally impossible for them to clash. A theme cannot clash with itself. Death knight with blacksmithing? Not a clash. Death knight with herbalism? Clash. Why? Because blacksmithing has some themes in common with Death Knights and herbalism has no themes in common with Death Knights. One can easily picture a DK forging a runesword, but the image of a DK picking flowers is commonly used as a joke because it looks so ridiculous on its face. That's what a thematic clash is.

[Teriz]

I'm talking about the engineering 'job', from which the 'profession' is a part of.

There is no Engineering "job" because there is no Engineering class, and the profession isn't part of that "job" because it's a profession, not a class, and as a profession, it wouldn't be a requirement for that job. You don't need to be an Enchanter to be a Mage for example.

You also can't make a lore argument for this job either, because we don't know what an Engineering "job"would entail, nor do we know the details behind what Siegecrafters, Tinkers, etc. do. Clearly, the profession isn't imitating what the powerful NPCs are doing, so there is a lore basis to believe that there is a more powerful method of utilizing technology than what we as players have access to.

Whether or not the Goblin Tinker hero was the last hero introduced to Warcraft 3, it still stands as a fact that he has no presence at all in the story campaigns. Which is why he shouldn't be considered canon to the Warcraft lore, simply because 'he was in Warcraft 3'.

Gazlowe had a presence in the story. Blizzard made him a Tinker. It's a retcon, but it's Blizzard's game. Who are we to argue? Even if you dispute that, we still have Mekkatorque.

And your claim that 'Gelbin Mekkatorque' being a 'tinker' hero comes from WoWWiki, a source that, as you pointed out, is not reliable, when I used the same website against your claims before. You can't have it both ways.

Wowpedia is your friend.

[ShadowJester]

Wrongful comparison. Your Engineer/Tinker comparison is like saying the Moon and the Sun are the same because they both glow in the sky.

This is actually yours and everyone else's argument when you say engineering and tinker are the same. The "glow" is technology and eng is the moon and tinker is the sun. They are like you say not the same even though they both glow. The moon is to weak and cannot promote life the way the sun does. Engineering is weak and not provide true raid viability the way a tinker class could.

Since you think engineering is so similar, please go raid and only use engineering items the entire time and then tell us how you held up compares to real classes.

The difference is a tinker, if made a class, could damage more, tank better or heal more than any profession could, because classes are heavy hitters and professions are sidejobs.

Why have a holy or disc priest, or restore druids or shamans or holy pallys, we have first aid! No sane person queues as a healer because they have 600 first aid. Just like no one queues dps and uses their engineering bombs.

[Ielenia]

There is no Engineering "job" because there is no Engineering class, and the profession isn't part of that "job" because it's a profession, not a class, and as a profession, it wouldn't be a requirement for that job. You don't need to be an Enchanter to be a Mage for example.

No engineering job because there is no engineering class? That is one of the most absurd "logic" I've ever seen. Of course there is an engineering job! Or how else do you think all those marvelous technological wonders came to be? Divine will? Arcane mishap? Summoned from an elemental plane?

You also can't make a lore argument for this job either, because we don't know what an Engineering "job"would entail, nor do we know the details behind what Siegecrafters, Tinkers, etc. do. Clearly, the profession isn't imitating what the powerful NPCs are doing, so there is a lore basis to believe that there is a more powerful method of utilizing technology than what we as players have access to.

Erm, actually, we do know what an engineering job would entail: development and creation of technological items, be them just gadgets or vehicles.

Gazlowe had a presence in the story. Blizzard made him a Tinker. It's a retcon, but it's Blizzard's game. Who are we to argue? Even if you dispute that, we still have Mekkatorque.

Gazlowe showed up during WoW launch. Gazlowe is a rogue. It's in his past. And Mekkatorque is an engineer because he can create amazing technological feats of engineering. And it's not a retcon because Heroes of the Storm is not related in any in-game way to the universe of Warcraft.