Another Class idea: Tinkerer

[Thimagryn]

Then define both in lore, separately, clear enough to warrant them not being the same thing. 'One is a class, other a profession' is not a lore distinction. That's a game distinction.

Tinker is not defined at all because it doesn't exist as a profession or class. There are no mechanics behind it, so it remains undefined. It would be like if I asked you to define what a 'Monk' is before we actually got the class. Would we be talking about Scarlet Monastery Monks? Auchenai Crypt Monks? Shaolin Monks? The context is different in each, and none would relate to the class we actually have. There was no lore telling us that the Brewmaster Hero would have anything to do with being a Monk.

Now that we have the class, we can easily define a Windwalker, Mistweaver and Brewmaster equally as different aspects of an overall Monk class. Mistweavers don't drink alcholic beverages or fight with martial arts, but they're classed under the same umbrella as their Brewmaster brethren all the same. This is what their lore encompasses.

Tinkers have no definition as a class. You can't argue against them any more than you could argue for them. They don't exist yet. That is why I am saying it's arbitrary to define them by any current standards.

We know what Engineers are, we know what Engineers can do. There is no information for a Tinker class, so how can you say Engineers do it all when there's nothing to compare? Arguing Tinker lore before it's made would be like arguing for-or-against the Monk before their lore was made. You'd be making false assumptions based on the only relevant information available - Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypt monks.

Demolishing a building and building the explosives are two completely separate crafts. Everyone can 'demolish buildings'. Everyone. Anyone.

Everyone and Anyone can use Magic (Enchanting) but this does not make them Mages (Magic User Specializing Frost, Fire and Arcane). Anyone can use Technology (Engineering) but this does not make them "Tinkers" (Technologists Specializing in Demolitions, Tech-based Combat Weaponry, etc). Thematic and mechanic overlap does not conflict with lore whatsoever.

[Drilnos]

OP is going to take a lot of flak from people who consider it their agenda to push another class first, and a couple who still manage to operate under the delusion that Warcraft is a bog standard fantasy universe where the technology can be safely ignored as unserious. This is indeed not a new idea. But to paraphrase a James Bond film, sometimes the old ideas are the best ideas. Tinkers keep popping up because they are a basic and obvious omission, and they scratch an itch that engineering simply does not, will not and cannot.

Only possible new class that holds interest for me. Been waiting a long time for it. I may have to wait an equally long time to come. But I am prepared to do that. This class would be worth it.

[fixx]

Tracking is all you've got. Hunters tame and hunt beasts. They don't hunt everything. They can track humanoids. If they actually hunt humanoids because of that, that would make them assassins.

Nope. You're looking things way too narrow-minded while trying to excuse some purely semantic bullshit.

In WoW, he is clearly a Shadow Hunter,

Some bosses have unique abilities in combat. As long as What shadow hunters can or can't do is officially specced out you cant say for sure he is one.

just as Tyrande is a Priestess of the Moon and neither a Druid nor a Priest in the conventional sense.

Tyrande has zero priest abilities when you fight it as a boss in Darnassus. As I said, bosses have unique abilities and defy any shitty logic of trying to write them up for any class that might have existed in Warcraft 1-3.

[Deleted]

I did. You dismissed them all for being 'fancy names'. Every where in the game you see evidence of the two being synonyms.

It should be easy to point out more examples then. If the only Tinkers would be goblin and gnome engineers, then having some spell named after tinkers in the engineering profession doesn't prove that engineer and tinker are synonyms.

See? This is what you need to show evidence for, since there's nothing evident in-game to support that.

You mean like Tinker Town? Like High Tinker Mekkatorque? Like Gnomes saying "I just love to tinker"? Like the fact that Tinker is common for goblin and gnome engineers, but not for all races?

edit: I searched for the word tinker on wowhead and I quickly found a dwarf and a legion fel tinkerer, so clearly it isn't 100% exclusive to gnomes and goblins, but almost everything in this game about tinkers is related to goblins and gnomes and that's clearly a sign that not every engineer could be called a tinker. There is something about it that is clearly gnomish and goblinish in nature. Even the Dwarf NPC could've used gnomish tinkering.

[fixx]

You mean like Tinker Town? Like High Tinker Mekkatorque? Like Gnomes saying "I just love to tinker"? Like the fact that Tinker is common for goblin and gnome engineers, but not for all races?

edit: I searched for the word tinker on wowhead and I quickly found a dwarf and a legion fel tinkerer, so clearly it isn't 100% exclusive to gnomes and goblins, but almost everything in this game about tinkers is related to goblins and gnomes and that's clearly a sign that not every engineer could be called a tinker. There is something about it that is clearly gnomish and goblinish in nature. Even the Dwarf NPC could've used gnomish tinkering.

You should be searching dictionaries instead of WoWhead if you're arguing with semantics. In the real world "tinker" is unskilled repairer of items that professional blacksmiths have made.

Drawing that into Azeroth most likely both blacksmiths and engineers have called some unskilled or low skilled people tinkers as a derogative term just like in real world. Gnome engineer calling goblin engineer tinker for being unskilled hack and vice versa, until it turns into more synonymous word with the professions and loses its original meaning.

[Deleted]

You should be searching dictionaries instead of WoWhead if you're arguing with semantics. In the real world "tinker" is unskilled repairer of items that professional blacksmiths have made.

Drawing that into Azeroth most likely both blacksmiths and engineers have called some unskilled or low skilled people tinkers as a derogative term just like in real world. Gnome engineer calling goblin engineer tinker for being unskilled hack and vice versa, until it turns into more synonymous word with the professions and loses its original meaning.

If we're arguing semantics, then I would say an engineer creates and a tinker invents. But I didn't argue semantics, I was trying to see what races usually are Tinkers, and in WoW that's gnomes, goblins, apparently some dwarves and gan'args.

[Nnyco]

one would think someone on mmo-c has more creativity, but appartenly nope, still just demon hunters and tinkers everywhere

[Deleted]

one would think someone on mmo-c has more creativity, but appartenly nope, still just demon hunters and tinkers everywhere

People just love to tinker.

[Ielenia]

Tinker is not defined at all because it doesn't exist as a profession or class. There are no mechanics behind it, so it remains undefined. It would be like if I asked you to define what a 'Monk' is before we actually got the class. Would we be talking about Scarlet Monastery Monks? Auchenai Crypt Monks? Shaolin Monks? The context is different in each, and none would relate to the class we actually have. There was no lore telling us that the Brewmaster Hero would have anything to do with being a Monk.

'Tinkers', in name, exist in WoW. There are a lot of 'Tinker'-named or -titled characters. And as for Monks, one can see the boundaries of the class' theme, even before MoP, without much problem. Why? Because 'monks' are well-defined in other games, and therefore could be visualized in WoW. Death Knights, same thing. Their theme and concept could easily be defined before Wrath came along. Necromancers? Another class idea that could easily be conceptualized and defined, pre-Wrath, but now the DK got most of the necromancer concept in itself.

Now that we have the class, we can easily define a Windwalker, Mistweaver and Brewmaster equally as different aspects of an overall Monk class. Mistweavers don't drink alcholic beverages or fight with martial arts, but they're classed under the same umbrella as their Brewmaster brethren all the same. This is what their lore encompasses.

Mistweavers fight with martial arts. It's through martial arts training that they gain mastery over the magical mists. And again, I'm not asking you to tell me what specs a tinker could be or not. I'm asking you to differentiate it from the engineer in the lore. That simple. Can you define the Tinker in a way that cannot be applied to the engineer just as well?

Tinkers have no definition as a class. You can't argue against them any more than you could argue for them. They don't exist yet. That is why I am saying it's arbitrary to define them by any current standards.

Good. Because I'm not asking you to define Tinkers as a class. I'm not talking game terms here, I'm asking in lore terms. I'm asking you to define the tinker in lore terms.

We know what Engineers are, we know what Engineers can do. There is no information for a Tinker class, so how can you say Engineers do it all when there's nothing to compare? Arguing Tinker lore before it's made would be like arguing for-or-against the Monk before their lore was made. You'd be making false assumptions based on the only relevant information available - Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypt monks.

We have tinker characters in the game doing all the things engineers do, and engineers in the game doing all the things tinkers do. The game gives you information about the tinkers that we know today. And as for your comparison with monks, it would not be smart at all to base monk ideas (pre-MoP) solely on the SM and AC monks, without taking in consideration the monk classes that exist in other game as potential ideas. The Monk class is something I've been asking for since Wrath went live, and my idea was pretty close to what we have today: tank, healer and dps, staff-wielding and dual-wielding one-handed weapons. My only prediction that didn't come trough was me thinking they'd use cloth. And before you ask: no, I didn't make any prediciton about individual abilities.

Everyone and Anyone can use Magic (Enchanting) but this does not make them Mages (Magic User Specializing Frost, Fire and Arcane).

Apples and oranges. Writing and drawing. Knowing one does not make you proficient on the other. Enchanting is a whole different school than what the combat mages use.

Anyone can use Technology (Engineering) but this does not make them "Tinkers" (Technologists Specializing in Demolitions, Tech-based Combat Weaponry, etc).

Yes, it does. Because all engineers 'tinker'. It has been proven already. As for the 'demolitions, weaponry, etc', that's... every engineer ever.

Thematic and mechanic overlap does not conflict with lore whatsoever.

Can you explain that? Because I've been asking that for a long time. Also, I love how you claim, here, that 'thematic overlap does not conflict with lore whatsoever', when in the same post you write this:

Tinker is not defined at all because it doesn't exist as a profession or class. There are no mechanics behind it, so it remains undefined.

So how can you claim that they 'do not overlap' while at the same time claiming they're not defined?

[Thimagryn]

Tyrande has zero priest abilities when you fight it as a boss in Darnassus. As I said, bosses have unique abilities and defy any shitty logic of trying to write them up for any class that might have existed in Warcraft 1-3.

Where is the logic in separating them from what they have always been recognized as? You're making the assumption that somehow Tyrande is no longer a Priestess of the Moon. There is less logic in trying to tie them into WoW's playable class list. Case in point, what are Wardens? Warrior/Rogue/Hunters? No. They're Wardens.

[Ielenia]

Where is the logic in separating them from what they have always been recognized as? You're making the assumption that somehow Tyrande is no longer a Priestess of the Moon. There is less logic in trying to tie them into WoW's playable class list. Case in point, what are Wardens? Warrior/Rogue/Hunters? No. They're Wardens.

Wardens are rogues. And Fixx has a point. Boss-level characters like faction leaders can, and often have abilities outside the normal repertoire of the class they 'are'.

[Thimagryn]

'Tinkers', in name, exist in WoW. There are a lot of 'Tinker'-named or -titled characters. And as for Monks, one can see the boundaries of the class' theme, even before MoP, without much problem. Why? Because 'monks' are well-defined in other games, and therefore could be visualized in WoW. Death Knights, same thing. Their theme and concept could easily be defined before Wrath came along. Necromancers? Another class idea that could easily be conceptualized and defined, pre-Wrath, but now the DK got most of the necromancer concept in itself.

It doesn't matter what Tinkers exist right now, as I've already explained that with a Monk. There are existing Monks in Warcraft before the Monk class - Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypts ones. You can see that we got a completely new and separate definition of 'Monk' with the playable class. A new class doesn't exactly change any of the old, any more than Mistweavers and Brewmasters affect the outlook of the Monks in Scarlet Monastery. It is not necessary to correlate High Tinker Mekkatorque to a Tinker class. It's clear enough that one is a title, the other is a class.

Death Knight is the same thing. The old definition of the Death Knight is specific to being a Champion of the Scourge. The Playable Class is not the same as any NPC that came before them. Sure the NPCs share the same titles and are derived from the same source, but we're given a clear lore explanation for why we have playable Death Knights. We play as champions of the Ebon Blade. We're not playing Scourge characters, we're playing a Death Knight that has its own definition.

Mistweavers fight with martial arts. It's through martial arts training that they gain mastery over the magical mists. And again, I'm not asking you to tell me what specs a tinker could be or not. I'm asking you to differentiate it from the engineer in the lore. That simple. Can you define the Tinker in a way that cannot be applied to the engineer just as well?

You said so yourself earlier. There's a difference between building explosives and destroying buildings. Extrapolate that and you get the same results here. The key lore difference comes from understanding the difference between a Profession and a Class; not trying to separate one Theme from another Theme. By all means, Paladins and Priests share the same theme already. We've had this discussion before. What Holy magic does a Paladin bring that a Priest couldn't? Nothing. Paladins don't exist to provide a Holy theme. That's not the point of a class.

Paladins exist to provide a specific discipline of Holy magic. They use it in a way that is different from Priests. So Engineers and Tinkers (Tech-based Class) can use the same technology. The difference in lore would be that Tinkers use it with a specific discipline in mind. Engineers are generalists, Tinkers are specialists. What more do you need than that?

Anyone can learn First Aid, but this does not make them Surgeons. What you're trying to do is lump them all into First Aid and say 'why do we need Surgery when First Aid does everything?'. In WoW lore, Engineering Profession does not make you a Demolitions Expert. A Tech-based class would be someone who specializes in using technology to combat situations. Engineers can use tech in combat, but they don't specialize it; the most you can do is throw some bombs on cooldown and use a trinket every 2 minutes. That's not a specialization, not a class.

- - - Updated - - -

Wardens are rogues. And Fixx has a point. Boss-level characters like faction leaders can, and often have abilities outside the normal repertoire of the class they 'are'.

Wardens are Wardens. The same is if you said Chen was a Warrior because Monks weren't a playable class, or Arthas is a Warrior because Death Knights weren't a playable class. What happens when Blizzard decides to make Wardens the next playable class? The assumption that Wardens are Rogues is wrong from the start.

It needs to be recognized that not all NPCs in WoW are defined by the 11 playable classes. Saying Wardens are Rogues is purely anecdotal.

[Teebu]

If you're gonna force every single Tinkerer to be an engineer, at least have the decency to introduce a third primary profession. Locking something others can choose is always a bad idea. Always.

If your class idea doesn't work without a forced profession, it is in the games current state, terrible. Add an extra "profession" like poisons or Runeforging instead. Similar to Enigineering? Sure, but not the same. Runeforging isn't the same as enchanting even if it almost is just that, free weapon enchants.

[Ielenia]

It doesn't matter what Tinkers exist right now, as I've already explained that with a Monk. There are existing Monks in Warcraft before the Monk class - Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypts ones. You can see that we got a completely new and separate definition of 'Monk' with the playable class. A new class doesn't exactly change any of the old, any more than Mistweavers and Brewmasters affect the outlook of the Monks in Scarlet Monastery. It is not necessary to correlate High Tinker Mekkatorque to a Tinker class. It's clear enough that one is a title, the other is a class.

Death Knight is the same thing. The old definition of the Death Knight is specific to being a Champion of the Scourge. The Playable Class is not the same as any NPC that came before them. Sure the NPCs share the same titles and are derived from the same source, but we're given a clear lore explanation for why we have playable Death Knights. We play as champions of the Ebon Blade. We're not playing Scourge characters, we're playing a Death Knight that has its own definition.

If you asked anyone prior to MoP's announcement how they think a monk class would be, everyone familiar with the idea would say: bare-handed, staff-wielding, dual-wielding, light armor, agility-based. If you asked anyone how a Death Knight class would be, they'd say: plate-wearing, mastery over undead, shadow user, two-handed weapon user. None of the above fully describe any class in the game, prior to Wrath. Now, ask anyone to define what a tinker is? And everything you get won't be any different than the engineer.

You said so yourself earlier. There's a difference between building explosives and destroying buildings. Extrapolate that and you get the same results here. The key lore difference comes from understanding the difference between a Profession and a Class; not trying to separate one Theme from another Theme. By all means, Paladins and Priests share the same theme already. We've had this discussion before. What Holy magic does a Paladin bring that a Priest couldn't? Nothing. Paladins don't exist to provide a Holy theme. That's not the point of a class.
Paladins exist to provide a specific discipline of Holy magic. They use it in a way that is different from Priests. So Engineers and Tinkers (Tech-based Class) can use the same technology. The difference in lore would be that Tinkers use it with a specific discipline in mind. Engineers are generalists, Tinkers are specialists. What more do you need than that?

So you're advocating a "Tinker who can't tinker" class? If you remove the 'tinker' from the class, you get basically every class ever with access to engineering. Then you mention 'a new discipline'? Can you even conceptualize this new 'discipline', considering Engineers can basically build everything technology that exists under the sun?

Anyone can learn First Aid, but this does not make them Surgeons. What you're trying to do is lump them all into First Aid and say 'why do we need Surgery when First Aid does everything?'. In WoW lore, Engineering Profession does not make you a Demolitions Expert. A Tech-based class would be someone who specializes in using technology to combat situations. Engineers can use tech in combat, but they don't specialize it; the most you can do is throw some bombs on cooldown and use a trinket every 2 minutes. That's not a specialization, not a class.

The bolded part you just defined player engineers. You are a specialized engineer already. Stop using game terminologies.

Wardens are Wardens. The same is if you said Chen was a Warrior because Monks weren't a playable class, or Arthas is a Warrior because Death Knights weren't a playable class. What happens when Blizzard decides to make Wardens the next playable class? The assumption that Wardens are Rogues is wrong from the start.

Hmm... no. Wardens are rogues. A Night Elf only company of rogues. The assumption is not wrong because Wardens and Rogues share all their abilities. Fan of Knives, stealth, Shadow Step, etc. As for your 'Chen is a warrior' comparison is false because, before the implementation of monks in MoP, Chen was not implemented in the game aside from some references. Same thing with Arthas, though we knew he was a 'Death Knight'. DKs existed in WC3, and were already defined. Pre-Wrath people could think it'd be a Paladin's 4th spec, or something like that, since some consider it an anti-Paladin.

It needs to be recognized that not all NPCs in WoW are defined by the 11 playable classes. Saying Wardens are Rogues is purely anecdotal.

While that is true, but when some NPCs display all the abilities of a player class, and nothing outside the boundaries of a player class, then that NPC belongs to that player class, don't you think?

[fixx]

Where is the logic in separating them from what they have always been recognized as?

Their abilitites. If a priest don't do priestly things maybe it just has the title of a priest because of politics? Maybe nelfs have a tradition that only a priest can be the leader of the nation and the most capable person (Tyrande) was wrong class to start with so they gave her just a honorary title?

Plenty of real life examples in honorary doctorate titles as well as with so-called priests who are more interested in little kids than vow of celibacy.

It needs to be recognized that not all NPCs in WoW are defined by the 11 playable classes.

By the very same logic you also need to be recognize that not all NPCs in WoW are defined by 15-20 year old RTS games either. WoW is not Warcraft 4, it's just loosely based on the Warcraft 1-3 backstory (and getting retconned all the time).

[Thimagryn]

If you asked anyone prior to MoP's announcement how they think a monk class would be, everyone familiar with the idea would say: bare-handed, staff-wielding, dual-wielding, light armor, agility-based. If you asked anyone how a Death Knight class would be, they'd say: plate-wearing, mastery over undead, shadow user, two-handed weapon user. None of the above fully describe any class in the game, prior to Wrath. Now, ask anyone to define what a tinker is? And everything you get won't be any different than the engineer.

Being a class alone is different from an Engineer. Does an Engineer kill bosses with their technology? Can they set up turrets in a proper rotation? If you're talking about lore, then Engineers are generalists that do not specialize in combat. That is the reason why it is a profession. The difference would be a new Tech-based class would be Specialized for Combat; just as Mages aren't just 'Enchanters'. Engineering doesn't cover the specialized use of technology for combat.

So you're advocating a "Tinker who can't tinker" class? If you remove the 'tinker' from the class, you get basically every class ever with access to engineering. Then you mention 'a new discipline'? Can you even conceptualize this new 'discipline', considering Engineers can basically build everything technology that exists under the sun?

There is no definition of a Tinker Class. You're basically making a proxy argument against a class that does not exist. The same thing goes if we said Demon Hunters can't exist because they're Warlocks. You can't say a Demon Hunter is a Warlock because that's not what they are. You can't say a Tech-based Class is an Engineer either.

The bolded part you just defined player engineers. You are a specialized engineer already. Stop using game terminologies.

Engineers have their own specializations, but they are not combat savvy; otherwise they would be a class not a profession. That is truly the crux of the argument here. Profession =/= class, and if you're trying to use Lore to explain this, then it's obvious that the difference is generalist vs specialist, since that's what Professions are compared to Classes. You aren't a Mage for learning to use magic through Enchanting.

- - - Updated - - -

Their abilitites. If a priest don't do priestly things maybe it just has the title of a priest because of politics? Maybe nelfs have a tradition that only a priest can be the leader of the nation and the most capable person (Tyrande) was wrong class to start with so they gave her just a honorary title?

Plenty of real life examples in honorary doctorate titles as well as with so-called priests who are more interested in little kids than vow of celibacy.

So where is your evidence that Vol'jin is a Warrior outside of anecdotes? He's been referred to as a Shadow Hunter and nothing has changed in this respect. Now he has an added title of Warchief, but it has not changed the fact that he is a Shadow Hunter. Same applies to Tyrande being a Priestess of the Moon.

Sure this could all be honorary, but this doesn't mean you can assign arbitrary classes to them because you see fit.

By the very same logic you also need to be recognize that not all NPCs in WoW are defined by 15-20 year old RTS games either. WoW is not Warcraft 4, it's just loosely based on the Warcraft 1-3 backstory (and getting retconned all the time).

Anything tying them to gameplay standards is anecdotal at best. Illidan isn't a Warlock just because he uses demonic magic.

[Ielenia]

Being a class alone is different from an Engineer.

You just keep running back to game terms, saying 'one is a class, the other is a profession'. Stop it. Stop it, and just address the main issue that I've given you: define them as separate entities in lore.

Does an Engineer kill bosses with their technology?

Yes.

Can they set up turrets in a proper rotation?

Who said tinkers can drop turrets?

If you're talking about lore, then Engineers are generalists that do not specialize in combat. That is the reason why it is a profession.

Again you use game terms. Engineers being 'generalists' would work if it wasn't the fact that many of their gadgets and tinkering weren't combat-oriented. The Engineer can tinker its own gear for combat, that makes them combat-oriented.

There is no definition of a Tinker Class. You're basically making a proxy argument against a class that does not exist. The same thing goes if we said Demon Hunters can't exist because they're Warlocks. You can't say a Demon Hunter is a Warlock because that's not what they are.

Tinkers have a definition. The name itself imposes a basic definition. And that basic definition clashes with engineering because both definitions are one and the same. And if you're claiming tinkers do not build machines, that means they do not tinker, which means they're not tinkers. It's like saying a class without access to magic is a mage.

You can't say a Tech-based Class is an Engineer either.

Yes, I can. Because their lore definition, insofar, are one and the same.

Engineers have their own specializations, but they are not combat savvy; otherwise they would be a class not a profession. That is truly the crux of the argument here. Profession =/= class

No, that is only the crux of your go-to argument, always using game terms when we're talking lore.

and if you're trying to use Lore to explain this, then it's obvious that the difference is generalist vs specialist, since that's what Professions are compared to Classes. You aren't a Mage for learning to use magic through Enchanting.

And the player engineers already are the 'combat-oriented' specialized engineers. As for the mage/enchanter comparison you like to use, it's also false.

[Thimagryn]

And the player engineers already are the 'combat-oriented' specialized engineers. As for the mage/enchanter comparison you like to use, it's also false.

They're combat-oriented generalists. Anyone can make and throw bombs. Specialists would be exclusive to a class. It's the same lore reason why a Priest is not a Paladin, there is exclusivity to Holy Magic Users who don Plate Armor. It's literally a lore reasoning FOR gameplay mechanics. What separates a Priest from a Paladin in lore if not for the applications for gameplay mechanics? Saying a Priest uses Shadow Magic is just as much a gameplay reasoning as it would be lore.

In lore, there is nothing a Priest can't do with Holy magic that a Paladin can. It's all under the domain of Holy magic. So what, in lore, defines a Priest from a Paladin, without using Gameplay terms? Shadow magic is gameplay. Armor is gameplay. Weaponry is gameplay. Being a "Holy Warrior" ties directly into gameplay just as well. We have more lore telling us Paladins and Priests are similar than we do telling us they're different. We recognize they are different because we know they specialize in different aspects of Holy Magic; not just because they use it.

What you're doing is generalizing all technology under the umbrella of Engineers, including all possible specializations of it. That would be like lumping every Holy magic user as a Priest, regardless of how they use it. Paladins aren't Priests just because they use Holy Magic, just as a Tech-based Class wouldn't be an Engineer despite using technology. The lore parallels apply.

[Augrelle]

Tinkerer
-uses guns, crossbows, and bows

Spec one: DPS - explosives expert
--a zoning class. Thier thing is area controll. They can effectively set up a small area in which you don't want to enter, or set up an area and force you to leave.
--Main feature: Bombs. Bombs are high damage area of effect attacks, that are instant cast but take 2-4 seconds to trigger (lowered by haste). when planted (or tossed), they will show the graphic similar to when a mage puts a bomb on some one with the count down.
---Acid bomb: a bomb that splashes acid on enemies when it explodes. Decreases their armor and has a small damage over time effect
--Mines: Similar to bombs but are like hunter's traps. They lay in wait untill some one gets close to trigger.
--Mastery: pocket factory - after tossing out enough bombs, mines, and missles, the tinker finally has enough parts to build a clockwerk goblin. The goblin will march towards the tinker's target and then explode.
a single Tinkerer can have up to 6 bombs/mines down at once. Some effect base bombs share cooldowns with each other. The tinkerer also has a "force dotonation" ability which causes all current explosives they have down to explode.
Spec two: Healing - Chemist
-- a basic healing class. Will focus a bit more on area healing.
---Healing Spray: Spray waves of healing chemicals in a cone shape infront of you.
---Chemical Rage (Class ability): increase speed by 50%
Spec Three: tank -Trinkets
-The tinkets spec gain a backpack in their cape slot (the cap is just hidden). From this backpack comes a wonderous amount of trinkets and items.
--Cluster rockets: Fire rockets from the backpack at target location. Farther away from the target, the more damage they do.
--Welding beam: Shoot a beam that connects three targets together. If they move more then 10 feet from another, the beam breaks and does extra damage.
--Robo-suit: The tinker dons a Robo-suit for x time, changing a few of his abilities while enhancing others.

[Tatzi]

My character can't make bombs.

But if I wanted him to, I'd have to have him stop making potions and go find an engineering trainer and then learn to make bombs. Or missiles. Or flamethrowers.

The problem is that, since there is no thematic difference between engineer and tinker, I cannot say that it is likely to come to pass because they are just too similar.

That said, I can assure that if Blizzard chooses to create a technology-based class, it will NOT be something even similar to engineering.