Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Teriz]

In terms of the actual MMO class archetype an engineer could feasibly fill, Shaman have already taken it. This has been covered oh so many times before, but:

- temporary constructs that assist allies and harm foes (totems)
- ranged attacks (Lightning etc)
- temporary construct pets (Elementals)
- Damage or support roles (Resto vs DPS specs)

No, Shaman have not taken it. Shaman are elemental spell-casters, not technology-based fighters. Of all the arguments against the Tinker class, this one is by far the dumbest.

Whatever way you try and swing it, a tinker/engineer class would need to use some if not all of these traits to be more than just a mage in mail. You can see the blatant similarities between the engineer archetype and the WoW shaman just by looking at what other MMO's have dreamt up for their token engineer class. Just look at GW2, WAR, SWTOR and more. It's all temporary turrets and support buffs, combined with ranged damage.

Temporary constructs are not the sole domain of the Shaman class. Hunters do it. Monks do it. Warlocks do it. Even Warriors do it. Why is it all the sudden a problem to have another class building a temporary construct? There's also plenty of other classes who perform ranged damage and buffs. Again, why is there suddenly a massive overlap if another class comes in who performs ranged damage and buffs?

Blizz aren't going to just reskin an existing class,

They don't need to reskin an existing class.

when a profession like Engineering already exists in game to get the aesthetic flavour that this suggestion is basically all about.

Except Engineering doesn't provide that aesthetic flavor, because it's a profession.

Also, OP could have benefited from checking if this topic had already been addressed before needlessly restarting it. Again.

You could have benefited from checking some facts about the Tinker before posting this nonsense.

[Hatecore]

No, but Gazlowe as a Tinker is cannon to lore since Blizzard made him a Tinker in their game. Blizzard makes the rules, not Wowwiki.

Blizzards own lore refers to him as a engineer, HOTS is not Cannon to Wow lore

As soon as the players demanded the Tinker placed into WC3 it became cannon.

He was not in any campaigns so no not cannon

Which is like saying Vial of the Sands, Noggenfogger Elixir, Frenzyheart Brew, Super Simian Sphere, Magic Eater, Hook of the Master Angler and Orb of the Blackwhelp is the same as Druid shapeshifting, or that those items replace the Druid class.

Apples to Oranges. All the things that make a tinker ie tech is rolled in to engineering.

- - - Updated - - -

Good lord this topic is going to go on for longer than time itself.. i mean seriously every dang day i log on mmochampion i see this in the feed.

Because Teriz wont let it die.

- - - Updated - - -

So what?

A Tinker class would not be an Engineer unless the player also took the profession. He would simply be someone proficient in the use of the tools and abilities of the Tinker class. Nothing more.

EJL

So lore wise they are the same thing and Tinker will never be added in game because it is a Engineer.

Want to be a tinker? pick up Engineering

[Ielenia]

Except their design spaces are very different. You're simply focussing on the few areas of overlap. You're ignoring major differences in theme, concepts, abilities, gameplay, looks and so on to make that statement.
Paladins embody the themes of Justice, Judgement, Vengeance, Retribution. Priests do not. They share a school of magic, a bit of lore tied into the paladin origins and the healing role. And nothing else. They share neither looks, nor theme, nor concepts, nor abilities.
Demon Hunters embody the concepts of Power from Demons, the theme of Demons, the use of Demon Magics and Abilities. All aspects shared by Warlocks...who also share looks and lore, abilities and gameplay. They differ in that one is melee and one is ranged.
You are trying to create a similarity where none exists.

If you're seeing so little in the Demon Hunter class and lore, I stand by what I said earlier: you don't want to see more or you (un)consciously ignore certain parts of the Demon Hunter lore because you're already convinced yourself Demon Hunters cannot happen. Priests and Paladins are more alike to Warlocks and Demon Hunters than you think.

- - - Updated - - -

No, Shaman have not taken it. Shaman are elemental spell-casters, not technology-based fighters. Of all the arguments against the Tinker class, this one is by far the dumbest.

But your tinker idea does exactly what a shaman does, only with a different skin. That'd be the only real difference.

Temporary constructs are not the sole domain of the Shaman class. Hunters do it. Monks do it. Warlocks do it. Even Warriors do it. Why is it all the sudden a problem to have another class building a temporary construct? There's also plenty of other classes who perform ranged damage and buffs. Again, why is there suddenly a massive overlap if another class comes in who performs ranged damage and buffs?

Because the shaman, unlike your other examples, are built around dropping temporary constructs, for protection, damage, healing and buffs. Your tinker? Same thing.

They don't need to reskin an existing class.

For your idea? They would have to reskin the shaman.

You could have benefited from checking some facts about the Tinker before posting this nonsense.

I love how you dismiss everything against tinkers as simple 'nonsense' and call detractors 'trolls'... I wish I had this level of detachment from reality. It'd make my life much easier.

[hrugner]

If you're seeing so little in the Demon Hunter class and lore, I stand by what I said earlier: you don't want to see more or you (un)consciously ignore certain parts of the Demon Hunter lore because you're already convinced yourself Demon Hunters cannot happen. Priests and Paladins are more alike to Warlocks and Demon Hunters than you think.

- - - Updated - - -


But your tinker idea does exactly what a shaman does, only with a different skin. That'd be the only real difference.
Because the shaman, unlike your other examples, are built around dropping temporary constructs, for protection, damage, healing and buffs. Your tinker? Same thing.
For your idea? They would have to reskin the shaman.
I love how you dismiss everything against tinkers as simple 'nonsense' and call detractors 'trolls'... I wish I had this level of detachment from reality. It'd make my life much easier.

The reskinned shaman thing would be a pretty good move in my opinion. Change some elementals, use some existing widgets in place of totems, no problem. I'd like an option for a tech skinned hunter as well, with an option on tech skinned druid.

Regarding that last bit, a complete inability to understand or tolerate the perspective of others broaches the problem of a lack of "theory of mind", and commonly leads to a diagnosis of autism. Theory of mind is the first social hurdle that children cross which can easily be measured. Provided you had attentive parents and lived in any country that accepted autism you'd find yourself facing more hurdles through autism therapy than you would remove through not having to see social differences.

[Drilnos]

In terms of the actual MMO class archetype an engineer could feasibly fill, Shaman have already taken it. This has been covered oh so many times before, but:

- temporary constructs that assist allies and harm foes (totems)
- ranged attacks (Lightning etc)
- temporary construct pets (Elementals)
- Damage or support roles (Resto vs DPS specs)

Whatever way you try and swing it, a tinker/engineer class would need to use some if not all of these traits to be more than just a mage in mail. You can see the blatant similarities between the engineer archetype and the WoW shaman just by looking at what other MMO's have dreamt up for their token engineer class. Just look at GW2, WAR, SWTOR and more. It's all temporary turrets and support buffs, combined with ranged damage.

Blizz aren't going to just reskin an existing class, when a profession like Engineering already exists in game to get the aesthetic flavour that this suggestion is basically all about. Also, OP could have benefited from checking if this topic had already been addressed before needlessly restarting it. Again.

Never seen someone claim shamans take up the entire tinker design space before, actually. But a couple counterpoints are in order.

"temporary constructs that assist allies and harm foes"
- Lots of classes have these. Hunters have traps, warlocks have their gates and stones.
- Specifically regarding turrets, there are a lot of things shaman totems do not do, such as repeatedly spawn minions, deal physical damage and so forth, which are still open to use by another class. Not just tinkers; any other class. This is ignoring the rigid ruleset that totems adhere to, being 100% immobile and having miniscule health.

"ranged attacks"
- Wowee, that one's broad.
- Specifically in regards to lightning, a few things. First, shamans shoot lightning by waving their hands around, not by firing a weapon. Second, there are varieties of lightning attacks they are not capable of. Piercing, forked, cone, crawling, and so forth. Druids also use lightning as well, so it's not like it's one class's sole domain already.
- Lightning is not the only type of ranged attack tinkers could possibly have. The others are physical (guns, sawblades and other projectiles), fire (disintegrator beams, bombs and rockets) and poison (chemical sprays/pools). There exist machines in the game and the lore which attack with frost and arcane as well.

"temporary construct pets"
- Shaman pets are not constructs. As Initiate Goldmine demonstrated in Deepholm, lorewise the shaman makes a pact with a specific elemental which gets summoned repeatedly. Priests do make their own shadowfiends and such. But then we're getting into the fact that classes which do not have any sort of temporary or permanent pet are rare. Shaman elementals are in fact nearly identical to warlock doomguards and infernals in terms of mechanics, differing only in durations and cooldowns.
- And tinker pets, for that matter, do not have to be temporary. They could fill the unfilled niche of having multiple different permanent pets summoned at one time, for just one example.

"Damage or support roles"
- Any new class is going to have some combination of these. Monks and DKs both had these. It's a class selling point, not a detriment.

So in summation, you're arguing against adding any new class at all. Indeed any new class is going to have similarities to existing classes by dint of existing within the same system and utilizing some similar mechanics. This does not mean a new class would be incapable of bringing anything new to the table. This is WoW. It's not GW2, WAR, SWTOR or anything else, and Blizzard can make an engineer class however they please without resorting to mimicking another game. And that's just purely mechanics-wise. Visually a tinker would look nothing like a shaman, or any other existing class. Which is another selling point.

And engineering gives next to no aesthetic flavor outside of a precious few items which generally are either not seen used in combat or share graphics with some class' magical abilities.

[Talen]

Warlocks are scholars, magi who either wanted access to more power or decided to similarly to demon hunters to learn to fight fire with fire.

I think you just made my case for me.

There are different paladins and different priests, and there are different warlocks and different demon hunters. There is not one over riding theme for each.

Justice for Paladins. Martial Arts for Monks. The Elements for Shaman. Pacts with the devil for both Warlocks and Demon Hunters.

But you seem blind to the WC3 hero unit's role as the antihero martyr so bent on revenge and destroying his enemies they cut out their own eyes and sell their soul to do it.

No. I just don't see how that prevents them from being implemented in game as Warlocks. You said yourself here that Warlocks also can "fight fire with fire" and choose to embrace the dark powers to do so. All you are doing is making the argument that a melee spec deserves to be kept separate from a caster spec regardless of the underlying theme....that ENH Shamans and Balance druids shouldn't exist.

So lore wise they are the same thing and Tinker will never be added in game because it is a Engineer.

Tinkers, as in the WC3 hero class are not engineers.

They are a combat unit who makes use of technical artifacts and relies heavily upon the use of the Hammer Tank backpack just as other units rely upon magic or the sword or the bow.

THAT Tinker is very separate from the skilled engineer aka Tinker. Yes...it is a bit confusing that they have the same name.

If you're seeing so little in the Demon Hunter class and lore

I see that one is melee and the other ranged. I see that the differences in lore, such as they are, arise mainly from the isolation of the DHs and that even then, their lore shares a lot of similarities...the Burning Legion, Demons, Sargeras...even Illidan.

I see that BOTH get their power by making pacts and agreements and the use of Dark Powers. I see that BOTH have good and bad, that both fight fire with fire. I see that BOTH make use of Demon Magics. I see that BOTH share abilities and skills. I see that BOTH work with Demons. I look at the Warlocks and I see iconic Demon Hunter looks and spells. I look at the Demon Hunter and I see them using Warlocks abilities.

And so on. Everywhere I look...I see overlap and more overlap in the design space. If you want to argue that the specifics are different - sure. Do so. But it on the order of the DHs have a secret ritualistic group called the Order of X while the Warlocks have a secret ritualistic group called the Order of Y.

When a class has such a heavy degree of overlap in the design space, when it overlaps so entirely with that of an existing class, it becomes non viable.

I stand by what I said earlier: you don't want to see more or you (un)consciously ignore certain parts of the Demon Hunter lore because you're already convinced yourself Demon Hunters cannot happen.

No. I don't ignore it. What I look for are differences to see if a Warlock Demon Hunter link is impossible. There are none. There are differences. Of course there are. But there are differences in the general lore behind Fury Warriors and Arms.

If you want Demon Hunters to happen...as a standalone class..then they need to be a standalone class. They need to be unique, to bring something to the game. They need to add something, to have an identity separate from that of the existing classes and do so without taking anything from them.

So - how do you turn a class whose basic lore has them making a pact with the dark powers to give them power and mastery and magic allowing them to pursue their own agenda for good or ill and make them different from another class whose basic lore has them making a pact with the dark powers to give them power and mastery and magic allowing them to pursue their own agenda for good or ill?

Is geographical area big enough? DHs are native to Kalimdor and so much of their specific story is different.
Is the melee and caster divide big enough? If so, then other classes are in trouble.
Can you rework the design space so that the Demon link is kept but there is still space? No...because then you still have the Demon link.
Can you remove the Demon Link and overlap which causes the issues? No...because then you don't have a Demon Hunter.

Priests and Paladins are more alike to Warlocks and Demon Hunters than you think.

The fact that they are in game, and each has a distinct separate identity with different class themes, class concepts, abilities, looks, gameplay, and so on tends to suggest they aren't.

EJL

[Luko]

Good lord this topic is going to go on for longer than time itself.. i mean seriously every dang day i log on mmochampion i see this in the feed.

I'm not complaining. I don't agree with most of the points presented in here but you have to admit, it's one of the more productive and constructive threads on site right now in an otherwise harsh sea of "WTF BLIZZ PROMISED AMG"

[Ielenia]

I see that one is melee and the other ranged. I see that the differences in lore, such as they are, arise mainly from the isolation of the DHs and that even then, their lore shares a lot of similarities...the Burning Legion, Demons, Sargeras...even Illidan.
I see that BOTH get their power by making pacts and agreements and the use of Dark Powers. I see that BOTH have good and bad, that both fight fire with fire. I see that BOTH make use of Demon Magics. I see that BOTH share abilities and skills. I see that BOTH work with Demons. I look at the Warlocks and I see iconic Demon Hunter looks and spells. I look at the Demon Hunter and I see them using Warlocks abilities.
And so on. Everywhere I look...I see overlap and more overlap in the design space. If you want to argue that the specifics are different - sure. Do so. But it on the order of the DHs have a secret ritualistic group called the Order of X while the Warlocks have a secret ritualistic group called the Order of Y.
When a class has such a heavy degree of overlap in the design space, when it overlaps so entirely with that of an existing class, it becomes non viable.

If those is the only things you see, then I am right. You've convinced yourself that Demon Hunters cannot exist that you are unwilling to see anything in any other light than your own.

The fact that they are in game, and each has a distinct separate identity with different class themes, class concepts, abilities, looks, gameplay, and so on tends to suggest they aren't.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Again, you are just unwilling to see the whole picture by any different light than your own.

[Teriz]

But your tinker idea does exactly what a shaman does, only with a different skin. That'd be the only real difference.

Actually it doesn't. The Shaman is an Elemental-based spellcaster that casts spells based around the four elements. They use totems (also from the four elements) to assist them in battle. Their abilities include Lightning Bolt, Chain lightning, Lava Burst, Earth/Flame/Frost Shock, Windfury Weapon, Hex, and Fire Elemental Totem.

A Tinker is a technology based physical fighter that uses a combination of explosives, lasers, and robots. They use a variety of machines and mechanical devices including a mechanical suit on their back that acts as a weapon platform and a defensive weapon. Their abilities include Pocket Factory, Cluster Rockets, Xplodium Charge, Deth Lazor, Robo-Goblin, Rock-it! Turret, and Salvage.

Not even close to the same thing.

Because the shaman, unlike your other examples, are built around dropping temporary constructs, for protection, damage, healing and buffs. Your tinker? Same thing.

So are Monks, Hunters, and several other classes. Dropping a construct doesn't make two classes similar. Especially when the Shaman class is based around Totems, where a Tinker class would be based around the Hammer Tank.

For your idea? They would have to reskin the shaman.

Which just goes to show that you know nothing about my idea.

I love how you dismiss everything against tinkers as simple 'nonsense' and call detractors 'trolls'....

Saying that a Tinker is simply a reskin of the Shaman is nonsense. I refuse to believe that anyone is that clueless about general class design.

- - - Updated - - -

Apples to Oranges. All the things that make a tinker ie tech is rolled in to engineering.

Where's the Hammer Tank, Pocket Factory, Cluster Rockets, Lasers, Robo Goblin, Gravo-Bomb 3000, etc?

[Ielenia]

Actually it doesn't. The Shaman is an Elemental-based spellcaster that casts spells based around the four elements. They use totems (also from the four elements) to assist them in battle. Their abilities include Lightning Bolt, Chain lightning, Lava Burst, Earth/Flame/Frost Shock, Windfury Weapon, Hex, and Fire Elemental Totem.
A Tinker is a technology based physical fighter that uses a combination of explosives, lasers, and robots. They use a variety of machines and mechanical devices including a mechanical suit on their back that acts as a weapon platform and a defensive weapon. Their abilities include Pocket Factory, Cluster Rockets, Xplodium Charge, Deth Lazor, Robo-Goblin, Rock-it! Turret, and Salvage.
Not even close to the same thing.

Actually, it's the same thing, game-mechanic-wise. Just replace the game's 'skin'. Trade the 'elements' skin for 'tech' skin.

So are Monks, Hunters, and several other classes.

Wrong. No other class is built around dropping 'constructs' like the shaman is. Shamans have constructs for basically everything. It's their 'thing'. No other class is like that.

Saying that a Tinker is simply a reskin of the Shaman is nonsense. I refuse to believe that anyone is that clueless about general class design.

You must have a hard time looking at the mirror, then.

[Teriz]

Actually, it's the same thing, game-mechanic-wise. Just replace the game's 'skin'. Trade the 'elements' skin for 'tech' skin.

How is it the same thing when the Tinker isn't a Spell-caster, cooldowns aren't based around totems, Tinkers don't have elemental-based weapon imbues, Shaman lack the Tinker ability set, Shaman aren't physical ranged, and the entire Tinker ability set is mechanical whereas the Shaman is elemental?

Wrong. No other class is built around dropping 'constructs' like the shaman is.

And neither are Tinkers.

[Drilnos]

I'm glad the thread has finally started being about Tinkers again, for what it's worth. But arguing that the class's mechanics would be too similar to an existing class is just plain silly. The only way Tinkers, or any new class, would have mechanics identical to an existing class is if all of the creative people in the class design department just dropped dead all at once, and the only way a person can argue that point and believe it is if he was born unencumbered by the slightest shred of an imagination.

Now, they could indeed "reskin" a shaman and make him summon robots instead of elementals and fire his spells out of a gun. But stopping there is just being lazy. They could, in fact, "reskin" every class into some variety of Tinker. Even monks. And if and when they come up with a new class which is not a tech class, you can bet your ass it will be possible to make it into a tech class purely by changing its aesthetics. Doesn't matter what it is, or could be.

[Ielenia]

How is it the same thing when the Tinker isn't a Spell-caster, cooldowns aren't based around totems, Tinkers don't have elemental-based weapon imbues, Shaman lack the Tinker ability set, Shaman aren't physical ranged, and the entire Tinker ability set is mechanical whereas the Shaman is elemental?

... you completely ignored the very sentence you quoted?

Bah, who am I kidding, of course you did. It's what you do.

And neither are Tinkers.

Yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not? You're starting to contradict yourself, here.

[GLorym]

I dunno about tinkers as a class, but they need to make thinkers a work position for sure.

[Thimagryn]

Paladins and Priests? Different themes, different concepts. Different looks. They don't share abilities and even the overlap in lore and gameplay is minimal.

So why can't you parallel this same train of thought to the Demon Hunter? I don't understand why you equate the Demon Hunter so heavily with Demons when they do not need to. You said it yourself, Demon Hunters do not need to summon Demons. They don't need to go down that Warlock path, it is purely optional even though it is represented by others.

A Demon Hunter also has other themes and motivations to gain their powers. They have different backstory considering what we know of the Writings of the Dark Embrace, which Warlocks do not even know about. The only thing shared are a couple abilities that Warlocks were inspired by and took into their own class.

You are saying two classes which have different design spaces equate to two classes which have a heavy overlap, where the design space of each is shared with the other.

Yet your entire argument of 'Design Space' is vague and generalized. Paladins fight for Justice. So does that mean no other person can fight for Justice? How is this theme comparable to 'Demons' which are not an ideal, but a tangible source? A Warlock doesn't fight for 'Demons'. Justice is a motivation, just as Power-hunger would be for Warlocks and Greed would be for Rogues (Thievery). Vengeance is also not Justice, and your assertion that they are the same thing is saying the Shadow and the Light are the same.

The latest attempt here by Thimagryn has him drop the looks, the lore, the name, the abilities, the theme, the concepts in order to bring in his "Slayer" concept.

What I am doing is paralleling the Monk and Brewmaster's design. If you can not accept this Demon Hunter concept, then you should not accept the Brewmaster for the very same reasons. Brewmasters don't even have SEF, their ultimate ability. Brewmasters never used Martial Arts, Chi, Mistweaving or Celestial Animal stances. They are a different class, yet they are completely representable as Brewmasters by retaining only TWO abilities - Breath of Fire and 'Dizzying Haze', a renamed ability.

I made the same parallels with the Demon Hunter. Give them back 'Mana Burn' as a direct damage spell themed to Anti-magic. Immolation returns with a slight renaming to 'Engulf', covering the player character in flames and burning all around them. Their look retains Blindfolds and Warglaives, and the armor they wear can be designed around a Demon Hunter theme considering the Slayer base class inhabits much of the same core pillars of design - Using anti-magic and slaying evil. Finally, Dark Embrace lets them take up a monstrous, form by unleashing their 'inner demon'. This ability would be MORE thematic to a Demon Hunter reaching their full potential rather than turning to 'Shadow Illidan'.

This retains the core identity of the Demon Hunter. Lore is the ONLY thing that changes, because it is directly paralleled to the Death Knight and Monk(Brewmaster). Death Knights are no longer Champions of the Scourge. Monks are not directly from Pandaria. Demon Hunters no longer make Pacts with Demons. Other than this, what is lacking in any of the Looks, Themes or Concept? There is nothing you have brought to attention that disputes any of this.

[hrugner]

I'm glad the thread has finally started being about Tinkers again, for what it's worth. But arguing that the class's mechanics would be too similar to an existing class is just plain silly. The only way Tinkers, or any new class, would have mechanics identical to an existing class is if all of the creative people in the class design department just dropped dead all at once, and the only way a person can argue that point and believe it is if he was born unencumbered by the slightest shred of an imagination.

Now, they could indeed "reskin" a shaman and make him summon robots instead of elementals and fire his spells out of a gun. But stopping there is just being lazy. They could, in fact, "reskin" every class into some variety of Tinker. Even monks. And if and when they come up with a new class which is not a tech class, you can bet your ass it will be possible to make it into a tech class purely by changing its aesthetics. Doesn't matter what it is, or could be.

This has more to do with the "tech class" concept being overly broad. We don't have a magic class or a physical class, we have several variations on that core concept based around focus or lore. That's why reskinning something to be tech is so effective. If you want a tech class that has a powerful robot - hunter, for turrets- shaman, for mech riding - druid. On top of that, you end up with several classes that would welcome a tech theme, that wouldn't get it if the tech theme was used to generate one single class.

You can't squander the tech theme on something as narrow as tinkers, and you can't make it as broad as "tech class" as both have their problems; and even then you don't want to make tech so common that the game gets filthy with it as there are still some people holding on to the swords and sorcery concept over the more accurate science fantasy genre WoW has been a part of since WC2.

Really, it's just a big pile of problems, and I don't think the solution will be appealing to everyone; particularly hardcore fans of the tinker theme.

[Thimagryn]

I think a Tech class would differ from Shamans by being able to deploy multiple Turrets instead of just one Totem that shoots. The Turrets could also be directly affected by certain spells or abilities, making them shoot faster, shoot different projectiles or focus a target that the player chooses. This would make them good Flag defenders in PVP, but the trade off would be their mobility.

[Ielenia]

I think a Tech class would differ from Shamans by being able to deploy multiple Turrets instead of just one Totem that shoots. The Turrets could also be directly affected by certain spells or abilities, making them shoot faster, shoot different projectiles or focus a target that the player chooses. This would make them good Flag defenders in PVP, but the trade off would be their mobility.

If a tech class could drop turrets, I think they'll follow the same model the shaman does: one turret of each type. Because it'd be too powerful in PvP to just litter the arena/bg with those turrets and having to force players deal with them one-on-one, since pets/totems are immune to AoE damage. Unless, of course, said turrets are NOT immune to AoE damage, which would make them underpowered in PvE where the majority of bosses have at least one form of AoE damage...

[hrugner]

With how many iterations totems have gone through and how many changes have gone into each of those overhauls, I don't think Blizzard is too pleased with their experience with that sort of mechanic.

If they did have a tech class with turrets, I'd prefer if a pet picked up the turrets and planted them when the hero stopped moving while allowing some limited power while the pet was transporting them.

[Teriz]

... you completely ignored the very sentence you quoted?

Bah, who am I kidding, of course you did. It's what you do.

Nope. A "tech skin" doesn't change the mechanical differences of both classes.

Yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not? You're starting to contradict yourself, here.

The class is based around the Hammer Tank, not turrets and pocket factory.

- - - Updated - - -

This has more to do with the "tech class" concept being overly broad. We don't have a magic class or a physical class, we have several variations on that core concept based around focus or lore.

That's what the profession is for.