Tinker Discussion Thread

[Teriz]

Engineers are tinkers in the lore

What Engineers?

[Talen]

Wrong. The Battle.Net Warcraft 3 website simply lists all the units present in the game, campaign and multiplayer.

Its a canonical website.

I'm not 'picking and choosing'. It's the fact. The Website shows every single unit available in every single mode. Even non-canon units like the Tinker, Alchemist, Pit Lord, Sea Witch and others.

And those units are canon. They exist.

Why do you think otherwise? You are dismissing information from a canonical Blizzard website maintained and written by Blizzard and whose canonical status has not ever been questioned or denied. Their canonicity is no that they took part in the campaign...it's that they EXIST.

Except no NPC in Azeroth says, 'tinker from the game Warcraft 3.'

No NPC needs to.

Tinker in WoW means simply another name to call an engineer. That is all.

When you can prove that there is no other meaning for the word in Azeroth, then and only then can you make that claim. Until then, your opinion is wrong. You can't prove that a Tinker is synomynous with engineer. You can only present your opinion that it is.

And because that is simply your opinion, that leaves it very open for Blizzard to add the Tinker as a combat unit simply called a Tinker, with limited engineering knowhow.

Stop trolling. The Battle.Net website of Warcraft 3 is the website about the game Warcraft 3. Not a website for its stories. Go on, try to find the game's campaigns on that website.

Its a website that presents information about the world of warcraft. It's a website maintained by Blizzard, detialing information written by Blizzard about the game and gameworld.

You are going to need far more than a "Ielenia doesn't like that info" excuse to render it non-canon.

The web pages and info are canon. The Encyclopedia is canon. The comics and manga are canon. The games are canon. The nocels are canon.

If you want to declare that unit as non-canon, give us a quote from Blizzard telling us that the web site is no longer canon. But Blizzard stated long ago that all the information they presneted is canon unless noted otherwise. They have decanonised the RPG...but they have NOT decanonised these web pages.

The Tinker did not appear in the campaign. But its existence IS canonical, simply virtue of the fact it appears in the game as a world unit and also because it has a write up on an offical Blizzard webpage.

There is no denying that. I know you are going to try but for this argument to be taken seriously, we need something more than "You don't like it" as a reason. You can't decanonise a unit. Blizzrad can. You cannot.

So...if Blizzard has decanonised the unit....give us your proof.

Of course, you do realise that I could accept your argument and that still wouldn't change a thing? Blizzard can easily use the Tinker as inspiration regardless of its canonicity, to the point of adding it in as a ful unit.

A soldier is part of a team. Other members of the team repair the tank, and the military builds/commissions the tanks. The soldier doesn't own the tank. Your analogy is flawed.

Why? Because it demolishes yoru argument? Why can the Tinker not also be part of a team? A team whose members repiars the equipment? Part of a military who builds and commissions it? Why does he have to own it?

Because you say so?

Learn to read. I just said without knowing engineering, and owning that HT/CP thingie, a tinker is nothing.

Yes. And you are wrong. A Tinker implemented as a combat unit, a pilot, would not need to know Engineering at all. He'd just need to know how to use his tools. Just like every other class in game. A Tinker implemented as an Engineer would simply, be exploring different facets of technology and Engineering other than that of the profession. He'd be a specialist, or an engineer with a pet project of his own tools and devices to the point where he won't, perhaps even cannot, cross the Engineering profession.

In short, your definition of Tinker is unnecessarily strict to the point you are blind to any other possibilities.

Sounds like someone never heard of Naxxramas...

And we didn't have DKs. We had Warlock-Warrior hybrids. OK - we had the WC2 DKs. Blizzard added what they could with the tools they had and it wans't unitl they made DKs player units that they were able to really expand the class and concepts into something more. Kinda like where tech is today. Blizzard does what it can with the tools and abilities it has added, but a player class would allow for a great deal more expansion of the theme.

Because Teriz claims he is different from every other class, in this case, having a team of engineers following him around to repair and improve his stuff.

A Tinker would be different from every other class. Just as every other class is different from all others. And if warriors can have a team of blacksmiths following him around to repair and improve his gear, why are tinkers so different?

Had an idea, maybe something one could ponder as people are hell bent that Engineering in-game + Balance + not obvious enough lore = No Tinker.

The Engineering profession is not a barrier to a Tinker class.
There is no Balance issue save whether Blizzard could balance 37 classes/specs.
The Tinker lore would be developed and epxanded as part of its amalgamation into the game and woudl depend on the story Blizzrad went with.

What about buffing Engineering so it actually has a real use in raid Again?

Not likely. It caused enough issues in the past.

Personally....I could see Engineering removed, and its various Trinkets and items parcelled out to other appropriate professions. Engineering would then be retuned as an ability in the USE of technology. The Tinker class could then get the crafting aspect - minus anything useful - as a class perk. That however is very unlikely to occur. Nor indeed, need it.

What is not a serious argument is pretending that there is a lore issue between the Engineering profession and a technology class, yet can name no negative consequence from that supposed lore issue.

That's because there isn't any.

There is an obvious thematic overlap between Engineering and Tinkerism. The problems is that this isn't comparing like for like. The fact is, one is a class and the rother a profession. Both fill different roles in game, serve different purposes, have differnt aims. There is no problem with having both in game.

The Demon Hunters are easy to implement from a purely lore perspective. They already exist in the world and they already have a defined role to play. However, from a purely gameplay perspective, they are quite hard to implement due to their gameplay and some abilities being absorbed by other classes

No. The gameplay and abilities here are largely irrelevant. The reason they are impossible to implement is that their design space overlaps heavily those of existing classes and these isn't any way to fix that without changing what the DH is and retconning the lore we have.

Whereas the Tinkers are quite hard to implement from a purely lore perspective.

Hardly. New Xpac, new class...Tinker. Developed by the Gnomes to retake Gnomeregan and aid in the containment of the Forsaken the new technology was swiftly stolen, copied and adapted by the Goblins.

All the lore you need. There are dozens of othere stories that could be used.

The technology theme and concept are already taken by the engineering profession

And that stops a tech based class...how? It doesn't. Because engineering is a profession, the overlap you claim as so important...is meaningless.

No, they are not canon.

You have yet to show that a unit which appeared in the game, and has a write up on an official website is non-canon.

There were many opportunities

There were none. Why? Because doing so would require Blizzard to actually develop the pack. Could they do it? Sure. Could they JUSTIFY it? Given on how tight they are wrt art assets? Probably not. Shoudl Blizzrad develop a Tinker class...thn such effort would be easily justifiable. The ability to justify adding such items to the game would be one of the benefits of a tech class.

And Rexxar is represented purely as a Beastmaster, yet shares odd similarities to Hunters

Funny that. You'd almost thinK Beastmasters were a Hunter spec.

No, it's not. Just because the Tinker shows in the Battle.Net website for the game Warcraft 3 doesn't mean it is canon. It never showed up anywhere in the Warcraft universe. They are not canon.

And yet you still have nothing to show this is the case other than your word that a unit which appeared in a Blizzard game and has a write up by Blizzard on a Blizzard website where the info is canonical is non-canon.

When you get Blizzard to state publicly that its non-canon. You'll have a case. Until then, you have an opinion which is wrong.

1. It's not canon within the Warcraft universe. Stop using lack of evidence as evidence itself

He isn't. He's using the fact it a: appeared in a Blizzard game and b: has a Blizzrad write up ona Blizzrad web poage.

You? You're the one expressing the opinion that it's non-canon. He has proof...you do not.

EJL

[Teriz]

If they didn't bring such a technological thing in so far, it's highly unlikely they ever will.

That's an assumption. They brought the Sky Golem into the game just this past year. The Iron Horde tech is just coming into the game now. They're probably waiting until the Tinker class is introduced, and then you'll see plenty of NPCs with a claw pack.

I say complete lack of differentiation in theme and in concept and he gives me gameplay differentiation.

Which is exactly what I did. One is a hero who goes out into the world and fights with technology. The other is a craftsman who makes tech-based items and trinkets. One is a hero, the other is a craftsman. Its that simple.

Besides, you have yet to show that gameplay and mechanics isn't the only differentiation that matters.

[Thimagryn]

Stopping here. You clearly don't know how class speculation works. Speculation is speculation, no one is saying "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A CLASS THAT WILL BE MADE IN THE FUTURE" because that'd be fucking stupid and easily proven wrong.

Yet you're saying 'This is absolutely a class that will never be made in the future' which is the same sort of speculation. Yes, it is unlikely that we would ever get a Necromancer because we already have a Death Knight, but it's still not proof that it would never happen. As unlikely as it is, there is always possibility.

To say a Tinker can NEVER happen is equally as bad as saying a Tinker IS DEFINITELY going to happen. There is more than enough design space for a Tinker class. I have made several points proving why it is MORE likely than other WC3 heroes becoming classes. Your only point is "BUT BUT BLIZZ HASN'T DONE IT YET SO IT WON'T HAPPEN." Which is redundant and you should really stop repeating it because it really makes you lose any sort of credibility in your statements.

There is design space for ANY class concept given that there is gameplay available to justify it. There is no 'Tinker' gameplay. It is only a theme for which any type of class can be made and be called a Tinker. We could have a melee-focused Tinker, or a Bot-summoning Tinker, or a Healing-centric Tinker. And when you consider those possibilities, we could have a Bard or a Murloc Hunter that does those exact same roles. Every class has their own unique justification and warrant to be made. There's really nothing special about a Tech-based concept.

I'm pro Tech-based class. I never said Tinker would never happen, so don't put that on me. I'm arguing that you're saying a Tinker has more justification than anything else, which is only opinion-based and not on fact. Like you said, it's pure speculation.

Death Knights have a theme of Undeath, not Frost. Hell, Mages don't even have the theme of Frost, they're Arcane. Hunters theme is Beast Mastery, Druids is Nature, Shamans is Elements, Paladins is Embodiment of Faith, Priest is Balance of Faith.

Shadow Hunters have theme of Voodoo, Timewalkers are based on weaving and watching Time, and Bards have Music. They're just as warranted as a Tech-based class in their own right. There exists overlap between these concepts and the existing ones, as there are between the existing classes between themselves.

Again, there is nothing pointing at 'Tech based class' as being any more likely to happen than any other concept. GC simply said a Steampunk class is possible, which isn't to say it's any more possible than any other class concept.

[Teriz]

Again, there is nothing pointing at 'Tech based class' as being any more likely to happen than any other concept. GC simply said a Steampunk class is possible, which isn't to say it's any more possible than any other class concept.

Except a tech class fitting the armor type (mail), and class type (tank/heal/dps) that is still open in the game. Not to mention the last two WC3 heroes being technology based, 2 races that are heavily technology-based, and there being tons of technology NPCs and raid bosses, yet no class to absorb their abilities.

[Thimagryn]

Which is again, meaningless.

Mail can be worn by any new class. The current ones who wear mail are Shamans and Hunters, archetypes typically known to wear Leather. Monks wear Leather, who typically are known to wear cloth or be unarmored. Mail is purely gameplay, and could be applied to Timewalkers, Dragonsworn, Bards, Spellbreakers or any other class concept. There are numerous themes unused in Warcraft aside from Tech. This doesn't discredit a Tech-based race, but it places them on the same level.

And finally, Warcraft 3 is not a basis for WoW any more than a starting point. We got Rogues from a Bandit NPC.

[Hatecore]

What Engineers?

Every tinker in the lore is a Engineer.

- - - Updated - - -

Except a tech class fitting the armor type (mail), and class type (tank/heal/dps) that is still open in the game. Not to mention the last two WC3 heroes being technology based, 2 races that are heavily technology-based, and there being tons of technology NPCs and raid bosses, yet no class to absorb their abilities.

I do not recall where engineers or tinkers wearing mail or tanking and healing

[Teriz]

Which is again, meaningless.

Mail can be worn by any new class. The current ones who wear mail are Shamans and Hunters, archetypes typically known to wear Leather. Monks wear Leather, who typically are known to wear cloth or be unarmored. Mail is purely gameplay, and could be applied to Timewalkers, Dragonsworn, Bards, Spellbreakers or any other class concept. There are numerous themes unused in Warcraft aside from Tech. This doesn't discredit a Tech-based race, but it places them on the same level.

All of those concepts overlap with existing classes. Mage's manipulation of time magic makes Timewalkers redundant. Dragonsworn is a faction, not a class concept due to several factors (e main one being that any class can be Dragonsworn). Bards have no basis in the Warcraft universe, and even GC said that they're too soft for WoW. Spellbreaker theme overlaps with Warriors and Mages. Not to mention that Blizzard eradicated their main gameplay mechanic.

The existing classes truly do cover many angles. The only major angle they don't cover is technology.

And finally, Warcraft 3 is not a basis for WoW any more than a starting point. We got Rogues from a Bandit NPC.

With abilities taken from several WC3 hero units.

Blizzard wanted the basic four classes in the game for WoW: Warrior, Rogue, Priest, and Mage. All four were combinations of several WC3 units and heroes.

- - - Updated - - -

Every tinker in the lore is a Engineer.

Which doesn't make every engineer a Tinker.

[Ielenia]

Its a canonical website.

Wrong. It's a website about the game Warcraft 3. Or are you going to tell me the 'Ladders', 'Tournaments', 'Cheats' and 'Custom Maps' are canon too? There is not a single shred of story from the campaigns in the website, just unit/buildings information and stats.

No NPC needs to.

They have to if you want to imply any sort of lore difference between tinkers and engineers. They are the exact same thing. Even the engineer profession have a whole section of their profession window that says 'tinkering'.

Its a website that presents information about the world of warcraft.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is zero information about the 'world of Warcraft' in there. You find unit and buiding stats and flavor text, you find ladders and tournaments, you fing cheats and extra maps for the game. There is zero information about the game world's lore. Assuming it's a 'canonical website' when there's zero lore information is wrong.

It's a website with information about the game, not the game's lore.

Why? Because it demolishes yoru argument?

No, because it simply is flawed. Every hero in Azeroth goes around alone, picking up temporary companions for particular quests. The military which you compare the tinker to is a team.

Yes. And you are wrong. A Tinker implemented as a combat unit, a pilot, would not need to know Engineering at all.

Mages know magic, they don't cast their spells from scrolls and other magical staves crafted by others. Hunters know how to tame beasts, they don't use beasts tamed by others. Paladins and priests know holy magic, they don't cast them from scrolls or magical items crafted by others. If a 'tinker' class is about technology, then it knows technology. It knows engineering.

And we didn't have Ds. We had Warlock-Warrior hybrids.

They were Death Knights.

[quote]A Tinker would be different from every other class. Justa s every other class is different from all others. And if warriors can have a team of blacksmiths following him around to repair and improve his gear, why are tinkers so different?[/qupte]
Warriors do not have a team of blacksmiths following them around, so your question fails.

The Engineering profession is not a barrier to a Tinker class.

Yes, it is. It is the whole concept of the Tinker class.

No. The gameplay and abilities here are largely irrelevant. The reason they are impossible to implement is that their design space overlaps heavily those of existing classes and these isn't any way to fix that without changing what the DH is and retconning the lore we have.

... In other words, gameplay is an issue for Demon Hunter implementation. Thanks for trying to disagree with me but in the end agree with me.

And that stops a tech based class...how? It doesn't. Because engineering is a profession, the overlap you claim as so important...is meaningless.

For someone who cares little for lore and concept, maybe.

You have yet to show that a unit which appeared in the game, and has a write up on an official website is non-canon.

I don't have to. There is not a single appearance of the Tinker in the WC3 story campaigns, or the bonus campaign, and not even a single bit of Tinker stuff in WoW other than the engineer profession and its 'tinker' subsection. There is no 'pocket factories' and no 'claw/tank combo pack' at all in WoW. Not even in Kezan, which was the capital of the goblin race.

There were none. Why? Because doing so would require Blizzard to actually develop the pack. Could they do it? Sure. Could they JUSTIFY it? Given on how tight they are wrt art assets? Probably not. Shoudl Blizzrad develop a Tinker class...thn such effort would be easily justifiable.

Wrong. Every time goblin technology was brought to focus during quests from level 1 to 90 was an opportunity to showcase the 'claw/tank combo pack' on NPCs. Every. Single. Time. It's not hard to design a crude-ish claw-pack for NPCs to use, since metallic/robotic textures were already in the game. Not hard at all.

And yet you still have nothing to show this is the case other than your word that a unit which appeared in a Blizzard game and has a write up by Blizzard on a Blizzard website where the info is canonical is non-canon.
When you get Blizzard to state publicly that its non-canon. You'll have a case. Until then, you have an opinion which is wrong.

I've shown you a distinct lack of claw-packs or mentions thereof throughout WC3 campaigns and WoW levels 1 through 90. You don't need more evidence than that.

He isn't. He's using the fact it a: appeared in a Blizzard game and b: has a Blizzrad write up ona Blizzrad web poage.

Saying Gazlowe is a tinker because his spoof in HotS is a tinker is using HotS as a canon source.

You? You're the one expressing the opinion that it's non-canon. He has proof...you do not.

Again. HotS is not canon and is proof of nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

That's an assumption. They brought the Sky Golem into the game just this past year. The Iron Horde tech is just coming into the game now. They're probably waiting until the Tinker class is introduced, and then you'll see plenty of NPCs with a claw pack.

Which again doesn't make sense since such an item would be a great boon for construction and destruction for the goblins. Not a single NPC has that pack, and retroactive introducing it as if almost every goblin had one to work with is too big of a retcon to be done.

Which is exactly what I did.

Yes, exactly what you did. You presented gameplay when I asked lore and concept. And again, you're avoiding the question: what stops a tinker from selling the stuff he creates to improve his income, and the engineer from using his inventions against his foes?

- - - Updated - - -

Except a tech class fitting the armor type (mail), and class type (tank/heal/dps) that is still open in the game.

That, right there, is simply speculation, fanfiction on your part. You say the tinker class would wear mail and be tank, heal and dps simply because you want it to be like that. That is just your idea, not facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Which doesn't make every engineer a Tinker.

The 'tinker' subsection of the engineer profession pane disagrees with you.

[Thimagryn]

All of those concepts overlap with existing classes. Mage's manipulation of time magic makes Timewalkers redundant. Dragonsworn is a faction, not a class concept due to several factors (e main one being that any class can be Dragonsworn). Bards have no basis in the Warcraft universe, and even GC said that they're too soft for WoW. Spellbreaker theme overlaps with Warriors and Mages. Not to mention that Blizzard eradicated their main gameplay mechanic.

Which is all fine for your opinion. But really there isn't anything that makes any of what you said true. Time is still as strong a theme on its own, outside of how Mages manipulate it. How do Mages manipulate time? Using Magic. That being said, there are many methods of Time manipulation that aren't tied to the use of Arcane magic, such as the powers of the Dragon Aspects or the Anomoly that pulled Brox, Rhonin and Krassus into the War of the Ancients.

Dragonsworn aren't any more a 'Faction' than Knights of the Ebon Blade and all of the Death Knights. Easily discredited there.

Bards having no basis in WoW is simply due to its current 'soft' identity. If you can argue that Tinkers can be anything but 'whimsical', then you can make the case for a Bard that is anything but 'soft'.

And finally even Spellbreakers are a viable theme, as there is no anti-magic themes in player classes outside of Counterspell and Anti-magic Shield/Zone. The fact that the Manaburn mechanic was removed does nothing to shy from a theme that hasn't actually been utilized. Those were spells being removed due to gameplay mechanics, just as Thorns and Auras were removed from Druids and Paladins. Spellbreakers would still be thematic to WoW, and has not been yet explored for a class. As a theme, it is just as viable as a Tech class. And guess what? They can wear mail, attack with physically ranged weaponry and potentially Tank/DPS/Heal just as well as a Tinker, without being whimsical.

[Bryntrollian]

Wow won't have another class, Path of the Titan will be revisited once again.

[Ielenia]

Wow won't have another class, Path of the Titan will be revisited once again.

I think it would be interesting (and a lot of damn work, design- and concept-wise) if WoW had 'advanced' classes. Kind of like in Ragnarok Online, where if you were an Acolyte you could later choose to be a Priest or a Monk, or if you were a Merchant you could later be a Blacksmith or an Alchemist, etc. Something to further the character progression. Not saying it's viable, but it's something I find interesting.

[Drilnos]

Which is all fine for your opinion. But really there isn't anything that makes any of what you said true. Time is still as strong a theme on its own, outside of how Mages manipulate it. How do Mages manipulate time? Using Magic. That being said, there are many methods of Time manipulation that aren't tied to the use of Arcane magic, such as the powers of the Dragon Aspects or the Anomoly that pulled Brox, Rhonin and Krassus into the War of the Ancients.

Dragonsworn aren't any more a 'Faction' than Knights of the Ebon Blade and all of the Death Knights. Easily discredited there.

Bards having no basis in WoW is simply due to its current 'soft' identity. If you can argue that Tinkers can be anything but 'whimsical', then you can make the case for a Bard that is anything but 'soft'.

And finally even Spellbreakers are a viable theme, as there is no anti-magic themes in player classes outside of Counterspell and Anti-magic Shield/Zone. The fact that the Manaburn mechanic was removed does nothing to shy from a theme that hasn't actually been utilized. Those were spells being removed due to gameplay mechanics, just as Thorns and Auras were removed from Druids and Paladins. Spellbreakers would still be thematic to WoW, and has not been yet explored for a class. As a theme, it is just as viable as a Tech class. And guess what? They can wear mail, attack with physically ranged weaponry and potentially Tank/DPS/Heal just as well as a Tinker, without being whimsical.

Time magic, dragon magic, sound magic, anti-magic. It's all dividing up a great huge plot of land into ever smaller chunks. 11 classes and 14 professions call the fantasy side of Warcraft home, and while there is still plenty of open ground there, its borders are squiggly and hotly contested. Whereas across the river sits the portion of Warcraft which is science fiction, which is occupied by one profession which has gone a bit insane from the loneliness. Blizzard can carve out territory for a new class from wherever it likes, and whatever it does it will most likely be a good class. But with tech they have the opportunity to do something new. Not just a new sort of magic, or just a new way to hold a weapon or some cross between two or three extant classes. Something genuinely new, as new as the original nine classes were in 2004, and yet as simple and familiar as all nine of them are now.

[Teriz]

Which is all fine for your opinion. But really there isn't anything that makes any of what you said true. Time is still as strong a theme on its own, outside of how Mages manipulate it. How do Mages manipulate time? Using Magic.

That's right. Time is a division of Arcane magic, and because of that, Mages have several time based abilities including Slow, Time Warp, Temporal Shield, Alter Time, and Teleport. Frankly, that covers the bases for Time magic. What's left?

That being said, there are many methods of Time manipulation that aren't tied to the use of Arcane magic, such as the powers of the Dragon Aspects or the Anomoly that pulled Brox, Rhonin and Krassus into the War of the Ancients.

What? Portals? Mages can create portals. Mages can even create portals that others can step through. They can even send themselves back into time via Alter Time.

Dragonsworn aren't any more a 'Faction' than Knights of the Ebon Blade and all of the Death Knights. Easily discredited there.

They're just sworn to the Dragonflight as opposed to the faction war. Dragonsworn is not a class in of itself, its a faction like the Horde or the Alliance. Knights of the Ebon Blade are a faction of Death Knights. Death Knights are a class in of themselves.

Bards having no basis in WoW is simply due to its current 'soft' identity. If you can argue that Tinkers can be anything but 'whimsical', then you can make the case for a Bard that is anything but 'soft'.

No, it has no basis in Warcraft. It has nothing to do with lore really, because Blizzard could always write a bard into the game. The problem is that there's no history of a Bard hero unit or unit period. With Tinkers we have the history of the Goblin Tinker hero from WC3, and several technology-based bosses and NPCs to anchor the theme to. There's nothing like that for Bards.

And finally even Spellbreakers are a viable theme, as there is no anti-magic themes in player classes outside of Counterspell and Anti-magic Shield/Zone. The fact that the Manaburn mechanic was removed does nothing to shy from a theme that hasn't actually been utilized. Those were spells being removed due to gameplay mechanics, just as Thorns and Auras were removed from Druids and Paladins. Spellbreakers would still be thematic to WoW, and has not been yet explored for a class. As a theme, it is just as viable as a Tech class. And guess what? They can wear mail, attack with physically ranged weaponry and potentially Tank/DPS/Heal just as well as a Tinker, without being whimsical.

But what happens when you're not fighting a magic-based opponent?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, exactly what you did. You presented gameplay when I asked lore and concept.

You asked for theme and concept.

And again, you're avoiding the question: what stops a tinker from selling the stuff he creates to improve his income, and the engineer from using his inventions against his foes?

Because a hero would rather use his skills to save the world than for personal gain.

The crafter isn't a combatant, they're a craftsman.

Game mechanics back this version lore, not your version of lore.

That, right there, is simply speculation, fanfiction on your part. You say the tinker class would wear mail and be tank, heal and dps simply because you want it to be like that. That is just your idea, not facts.

The tinker class fits mail armor just fine. Additionally the archetype permits tanking and healing roles.

[Ielenia]

time based abilities including Slow, Time Warp, Temporal Shield, Alter Time, and Teleport.

To be fair, Teleport isn't 'time magic'. At best, it's 'space magic', relocating the mage to a different spot in space.

No, it has no basis in Warcraft. It has nothing to do with lore really, because Blizzard could always write a bard into the game. The problem is that there's no history of a Bard hero unit or unit period.

Monks also had zero history until MoP came along.

With Tinkers we have the history of the Goblin Tinker hero from WC3

Which is a grand total of zero.

You asked for theme and concept.

Yes, and all you gave me was gameplay. What stops a tinker from selling his creations to improve his income, and an engineer from using his inventions against his foes, in lore?

Because a hero would rather use his skills to save the world than for personal gain.

Hello? You can play as goblins, which are practically greed incarnate. They don't care about 'saving the world', they care about their pockets. And if they're going to save the world, you bet they won't do it with empty pockets.

The tinker class fits mail armor just fine. Additionally the archetype permits tanking and healing roles.

Also fits cloth just fine too, considering the WC3 Tinker you base your class idea from, has Intellect as its main stat. And like I said, saying the tinker will tank, heal and dps are pure speculation.

[Thimagryn]

That's right. Time is a division of Arcane magic, and because of that, Mages have several time based abilities including Slow, Time Warp, Temporal Shield, Alter Time, and Teleport. Frankly, that covers the bases for Time magic. What's left?

Time is utilized in Arcane magic, just as Beasts are utilized in Nature Magic. That has never stopped the Hunter from being themed heavily on Beasts, from having Aspects, Animal-based attacks and having a Beast pet. Time can be a strong theme, but it wouldn't be the only theme a Timewalker would have. No class in the game is centered on only one theme, they are all a mishmash of multiple themes surrounding a greater one.

Time is not a division of Arcane Magic any more than 'Shadow' is a division of Priest's Faith.

Any argument beyond that is conjecture.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it has no basis in Warcraft. It has nothing to do with lore really, because Blizzard could always write a bard into the game. The problem is that there's no history of a Bard hero unit or unit period. With Tinkers we have the history of the Goblin Tinker hero from WC3, and several technology-based bosses and NPCs to anchor the theme to. There's nothing like that for Bards.

So because it hasn't existed in WoW before, it can't exist? Pandaria never existed in WoW before MoP. Only mentioned and hinted and expected to be an April Fools. We're also going to alternate universes now with WoD. I think Blizzard can do whatever they want with their IP, and that includes creating new identities and lore for a Bard class if the so chose to.

ETC and the I am Murloc music video also proves you wrong.

But what happens when you're not fighting a magic-based opponent?

The same thing a Warrior would if they faced an opponent they can't disarm. Use their other abilities.

Anti-magic is a theme. It doesn't mean the mechanics must only work against magic. Demon Hunters in Warcraft 3 could mana burn every hero, even 'non-magical' ones like Blademasters and Tauren Chieftain. You're confusing theme and mechanics for the purpose of discrediting the theme. It's all 'Magic' when it comes down to it, so you can attack anything you like with whatever reason to explain it.

[Teriz]

To be fair, Teleport isn't 'time magic'. At best, it's 'space magic', relocating the mage to a different spot in space.

There's no such thing as space magic.

Monks also had zero history until MoP came along.

Except for the Monks of the scarlet crusade, a Monk boss you fought in a TBC raid, and the Draenei Monks in Outland.

Which is a grand total of zero.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml.

That's called history.

Yes, and all you gave me was gameplay.

Gameplay includes theme and concept.

Hello? You can play as goblins, which are practically greed incarnate. They don't care about 'saving the world', they care about their pockets. And if they're going to save the world, you bet they won't do it with empty pockets.

Your Goblin PC gave up their fortune in order to save their people.

So you're wrong again.

[Drilnos]

To be fair, Teleport isn't 'time magic'. At best, it's 'space magic', relocating the mage to a different spot in space.

Teleport is in the Transmutation school, which deals with spacetime. It's in there with Polymorph, Slow Fall and all of the time spells.

http://wowpedia.org/The_Schools_of_A..._Transmutation

[Ielenia]

There's no such thing as space magic.

The Teleport and Portal spells would like a word with you. Two spells that bend space.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml.
That's called history.

No, that is called "game unit's stats"

Gameplay includes theme and concept.

Nope. Gameplay is borh from theme is concept.

Your Goblin PC gave up their fortune in order to save their people.
So you're wrong again.

No, he gave up his fortune to same himself.

- - - Updated - - -

Teleport is in the Transmutation school, which deals with spacetime. It's in there with Polymorph, Slow Fall and all of the time spells.
http://wowpedia.org/The_Schools_of_A..._Transmutation

Just because they're in the same category (transmutation) doesn't mean those spells have the same 'type'. Lightning and Earth both belong to Nature magic, but they're not the same, are they?

[Stuffs]

I think it would be interesting (and a lot of damn work, design- and concept-wise) if WoW had 'advanced' classes. Kind of like in Ragnarok Online, where if you were an Acolyte you could later choose to be a Priest or a Monk, or if you were a Merchant you could later be a Blacksmith or an Alchemist, etc. Something to further the character progression. Not saying it's viable, but it's something I find interesting.

I could have seen that happening if we didnt have specs. In Aion, you chose your subclass-gladiator or Templar. Instead, we just spec arms or fury instead of gladiator, and prot for Templar.