Hints at future class?

[lopus]

The real question is what races can be tinkers? is it just 2 races again ?( goblins and gnomes) maybe dwarfs and undead also ?

[Kiradyn]

The real question is what races can be tinkers? is it just 2 races again ?( goblins and gnomes) maybe dwarfs and undead also ?

Since DH can only be Blood Elf and Night Elf, making a class that can only be Gnomes and Goblins works.

Blizzard broke a lot of norms when they shoe-horned the DH into the game.

[Kolvarg]

Your third point isn't even true. There's battle mages (scarlet crusade), arch druids (emerald dream), someone mentioned wardens and spell breakers, and tons of other things from wc3 that could be used for a new type of class that isn't based on something we already have in the game that all classes can use (engineering).

Why is it not true?

Battle mages. What would they do so unique, that other classes don't do already. You already have lots of melee classes, including monk. You already have multiple caster classes, including mage and shaman. How is mixing different elements from already existing classes that original and new? What would the specs be? How would it be unique?

If I log on my mage and auto-attack things with my staff am I a battle mage? It's already doable in game, it would be just a normal mage with autoattacks dealing more damage and with cooldowns.

Arch druids. Isn't the literal meaning of arch druid just a more powerful than normal druid? What would they do differently than the already existing 4 druid specs?

Wardens. Not really a class, more than a position/job (basicly guard), but whatever. Which Horde races would be able to be Warden? How and why? "The Warden can cast Blink, Fan of Knives (point-blank Area of Effect), Shadow Strike, and can summon an Avatar of Vengeance that can resurrect dead units as Spirits of Vengeace." So, basicly a rogue with a special cooldown? What would make them so unique fantasy and mechanicly wise? What would the specs be?

Spell breakers. "units that excel at battling caster units". The balance of melee and ranged is already controversial and something that gets in the way of the fun in pvp for many people. How do you prupose they would be done in a way that is fun and valuable but not extremely annoying for casters (especially considering they've been trying to reduce on CC for a while now)? How would they be balanced for PvE, in a way that you don't "Need" to take a spellbreaker, but it's useful to take one? What would the specs be?

Pretty much all of the ideas going around, including those "tons of other things from wc3" ARE based on something we already have in the game, even if not all classes can use. Hell, with the ammount of toys we have in game now, I'd argue most things are already doable in some way by all classes, but whatever.



The only one that might actually be pretty unique and valid would be runemaster, but it very much depends on what exactly a runemaster would mean as it's a pretty broad idea.

If at least you were arguing for the inclusion of new specializations (some sort of melee hybrid for mages, or blademaster for warriors, or whatever) over the inclusion of a new class, I'd actually agree with you. But when talking just about classes, tinker is absolutely the most unique and different to all other classes, even if it shares the "fantasy" with an existant profession.

[LiiLoSNK]

Yeah, and the spells from the Demon Hunter hero were spread out among several classes before Legion. For some reason you keep forgetting this.



Again, feel free to point out the removed Survival Hunter and Rogue abilities from WoD that are currently within the DH class.

Don't worry, I'll wait.



Um, DHs didn't have Demonic leap in WC3, and the spell also wasn't called Immolation Aura in WC3. Warlocks had both spells in WoD and then they were removed and handed off to the DH class.

Seriously, it's not that hard man.



You're attempting to mix in-game lore with actual game development? You do realize that we live in the real world right? Please try to keep up with what we're talking about here. The actual spells were transplanted from one class to another at the expense of the older class to give the newer class some level of depth. That's unprecedented in the history of the game.


And for the THIRD time, please show us the removed abilities from other specs that are currently in the DH class.

So you're saying demon hunters were comprised purely off skills from other classes, even though they had the skills first in wc3? That makes total sense.

Why would they give demon hunters rogue/hunter abilities. My point is that there are other specs that got total reworks, yet you're crying about warlocks for some reason. You're saying that warlocks got gutted because they got a class change, when other classes got them as well. You're telling me to point out class changes from hunters/rogues when that is actually your job. The classes got changed, but according to you, only warlocks got changed because demon hunters needed the spells? What is this logic?

Yea demon hunters didn't have leap. 1 spell what a massive theft from warlocks? Oh and immolation aura had a different name? Are you really reaching that hard? lol

For the 3rd time, I'm the one saying many classes had spec reworks, but you're the one crying about how warlocks got ruined because they had to give demon hunters the spells that they originally stole from wc3 demon hunters?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it not true?

Battle mages. What would they do so unique, that other classes don't do already. You already have lots of melee classes, including monk. You already have multiple caster classes, including mage and shaman. How is mixing different elements from already existing classes that original and new? What would the specs be? How would it be unique?

If I log on my mage and auto-attack things with my staff am I a battle mage? It's already doable in game, it would be just a normal mage with autoattacks dealing more damage and with cooldowns.

Arch druids. Isn't the literal meaning of arch druid just a more powerful than normal druid? What would they do differently than the already existing 4 druid specs?

Wardens. Not really a class, more than a position/job (basicly guard), but whatever. Which Horde races would be able to be Warden? How and why? "The Warden can cast Blink, Fan of Knives (point-blank Area of Effect), Shadow Strike, and can summon an Avatar of Vengeance that can resurrect dead units as Spirits of Vengeace." So, basicly a rogue with a special cooldown? What would make them so unique fantasy and mechanicly wise? What would the specs be?

Spell breakers. "units that excel at battling caster units". The balance of melee and ranged is already controversial and something that gets in the way of the fun in pvp for many people. How do you prupose they would be done in a way that is fun and valuable but not extremely annoying for casters (especially considering they've been trying to reduce on CC for a while now)? How would they be balanced for PvE, in a way that you don't "Need" to take a spellbreaker, but it's useful to take one? What would the specs be?

Pretty much all of the ideas going around, including those "tons of other things from wc3" ARE based on something we already have in the game, even if not all classes can use. Hell, with the ammount of toys we have in game now, I'd argue most things are already doable in some way by all classes, but whatever.

The only one that might actually be pretty unique and valid would be runemaster, but it very much depends on what exactly a runemaster would mean as it's a pretty broad idea.

How about you convince me why tinkers would be anything more than a glorified engineer. This isn't the battlemage thread, so it's not my job to come up with every little spec, spell, talent point for them. It is on you to say why tinkers would be unique or fun.

[Kiradyn]

So you're saying demon hunters were comprised purely off skills from other classes, even though they had the skills first in wc3? That makes total sense.

No, I'm saying that Blizzard gutted Demonology and took the guts to the Demon Hunter class.

Everyone knows this.

Why would they give demon hunters rogue/hunter abilities. My point is that there are other specs that got total reworks, yet you're crying about warlocks for some reason. You're saying that warlocks got gutted because they got a class change, when other classes got them as well. You're telling me to point out class changes from hunters/rogues when that is actually your job. The classes got changed, but according to you, only warlocks got changed because demon hunters needed the spells? What is this logic?

For the FOURTH time, please give us examples of removed WoD abilities from non-Warlock specs that are currently within the new DH class.

Logic dictates that since Demonology Warlocks is the only spec that falls under this designation, then clearly the REASON Demonology got reworked was to make way for the DH class. Why? Because removed WoD Demonology abilities are currently within the DH class, and Demonology is the ONLY spec that falls into this designation.

Not to mention that there's only 2 DH specs.

Yea demon hunters didn't have leap. 1 spell what a massive theft from warlocks? Oh and immolation aura had a different name? Are you really reaching that hard? lol

For the 3rd time, I'm the one saying many classes had spec reworks, but you're the one crying about how warlocks got ruined because they had to give demon hunters the spells that they originally stole from wc3 demon hunters?

Again, WC3 and WoW are completely different games. Warlocks didn't "steal" metamorphosis from a non-existent class. However, DHs did steal Metamorphosis and other abilities from Demonology Warlocks in order to make the class complete.

In the end, all of this further invalidates your stance on Engineering vs Tinkers. If Blizzard is willing to gut a class to make DHs, there's little reason not to gut Engineering to make way for Tinkers. Your argument is further shattered because Survival Hunters already have Grenades and Mechanical Pets, a staple of the Engineering profession.

Seriously, it's not that hard friend.

[Aerisot]

Naga is 100% next, After will kill Azshara, they will need to go somewhere, might as well make is a hero race.

[Kolvarg]

How about you convince me why tinkers would be anything more than a glorified engineer. This isn't the battlemage thread, so it's not my job to come up with every little spec, spell, talent point for them. It is on you to say why tinkers would be unique or fun.

Sure it isn't, but if you want to argue that Battlemage as a class is more unique than Tinker, you probably want to. Unless, of course, you can't, because it's a bland unoriginal concept that doesn't bring anything new to the game that isn't already done by other classes for the most part.

It's impossible to convince you tinkers would be more than a glorified engineer because you fail to understand that engineer is not a class.
An engineer isn't a tinker, much like a peon/lumberjack isn't a fury warrior, or a player with first aid or alchemy isn't a healer. Engineer provides a set of tech-related craftable items, only very few of them actually having any (almost inconsequential) use in battle. It doens't provide an array of tech-related spells and abilities that are usable and competitive in battle.

Engineer may allow you to shoot rockets and build mechanical stuff, but it doesn't allow you to actively use it as a viable way to battle enemies. Much like first aid may allow you to craft items that heal, but doesn't really allow you to actively use them as a viable way to heal yourself or other players consistently.

The fact that the Engineering profession shares a lot of the "fantasy" with the Tinker class is meaningless, because you pretty much don't use the stuff you craft with Engineering for combat at all. You really don't have to go far - Go to a dungeon, raid or just do some quests with a Rogue Engineer, or a Mage Engineer, or whatever class you want. Then go play a game of HotS and play as Gazlowe, and then explain to me how exactly are they the same?


You can call them glorified (aka actually useful for combat) engineer all you want, the point isn't really that they aren't. The point is they'd still be more unique as a new class than any other idea you (or anyone else I've seen) mentioned.

[LiiLoSNK]

No, I'm saying that Blizzard gutted Demonology and took the guts to the Demon Hunter class.

Everyone knows this.




For the FOURTH time, please give us examples of removed WoD abilities from non-Warlock specs that are currently within the new DH class.

Logic dictates that since Demonology Warlocks is the only spec that falls under this designation, then clearly the REASON Demonology got reworked was to make way for the DH class. Why? Because removed WoD Demonology abilities are currently within the DH class.

Not to mention that there's only 2 DH specs.



Again, WC3 and WoW are completely different games. Warlocks didn't "steal" metamorphosis from a non-existent class. However, DHs did steal Metamorphosis and other abilities from Demonology Warlocks in order to make the class complete.

In the end, all of this further invalidates your stance on Engineering vs Tinkers. If Blizzard is willing to gut a class to make DHs, there's little reason not to gut Engineering to make way for Tinkers. Your argument is further shattered because Survival Hunters already have Grenades and Mechanical Pets, a staple of the Engineering profession.

Seriously, it's not that hard friend.

They didn't gut Demonology. They changed it. Just like they didn't gut the other new specs. If they "gutted" demonology, it would be the only spec that they changed. You're right. This isn't hard to understand, yet you somehow are failing to get it.

You're asking me to give you examples of classes that have spells they lost that went to demon hunters. How many of those classes had stolen spells from demon hunters? Oh, only warlock?

Logic dictates that since other classes got complete spec reworks, claiming that demonology was only reworked to make for demon hunters is absurd. They changed the spec to be more about controlling demons rather than becoming one.

You're just upset that a game based off the warcraft series is actually being accurate to its lore and you for some wild reason consider that "gutting" a class (Hilarious how you say the entire class got ruined due to changes made to 1 spec).

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it isn't, but if you want to argue that Battlemage as a class is more unique than Tinker, you probably want to. Unless, of course, you can't, because it's a bland unoriginal concept that doesn't bring anything new to the game that isn't already done by other classes for the most part.

It's impossible to convince you tinkers would be more than a glorified engineer because you fail to understand that engineer is not a class. An engineer isn't a tinker, much like a peon/lumberjack isn't a fury warrior.


Even as a glorified (aka actually useful for combat) engineer, they'd be more unique as a new class than any other idea you've mentioned, that's the point.

The fact that the Engineering profession shares a lot of the "fantasy" with the Tinker class is meaningless, because you pretty much don't use the stuff you craft with Engineering for crafting at all. You really don't have to go far - Go to a dungeon, raid or just do some quests with a Rogue Engineer, or a Mage Engineer, or whatever class you want. Then go play a game of HotS and play as Gazlowe, and then explain to me how exactly are they the same?

We don't have plate wearing elementalists in the game, but we already have mechs, rockets, lazers, traps, gliders that every single class in the game can use. That's why it'd be more new than having a tinker. You've posted literally nothing in your post about how they would be more unique besides just saying "they'd be more unique".

Post actual spells and situations if they're that more reasonable than any of the classes i named off the top of my head.

I'd figure with the billion threads about tinkers (apparently) made, someone would have actual ideas on how the class would work, rather than just saying "they're unique" and posting zero proof.

Darktbs is the only person in the thread doing that job. You've done nothing to strengthen the tinker cause in any way.

[Hellfury]

They gutted Demo, they ripped the core of Demonlogy. The in and out of Metamorphosis to do damage

The reason they nerfed Demo to the ground on HFC was so make demonlogy less apealing so when DHs came it didnt hurt as much lol

[LiiLoSNK]

They gutted Demo, they ripped the core of Demonlogy. The in and out of Metamorphosis to do damage

The reason they nerfed Demo to the ground on HFC was so make demonlogy less apealing so when DHs came it didnt hurt as much lol

So they gutted survival because the core of it had to do with being ranged and they gutted combat because now you have to press slightly more than 3 buttons? And they gutted shadowpriest because they took away mana. And they gutted shamans because they have less totems. And they gutted paladins by removing holy power.

Sounds like the whole game got gutted and it's all specifically because of demon hunters.

With all this gutting going around, I still don't understand why it's only locks crying.

[Kiradyn]

They didn't gut Demonology. They changed it. Just like they didn't gut the other new specs. If they "gutted" demonology, it would be the only spec that they changed. You're right. This isn't hard to understand, yet you somehow are failing to get it.

Um no, the proof that Warlocks were gutted was that one of their specs was transplanted to another class. That indicates that if DHs weren't introduced, Demo wouldn't have gotten gutted.

You're asking me to give you examples of classes that have spells they lost that went to demon hunters. How many of those classes had stolen spells from demon hunters? Oh, only warlock?

Logic dictates that since other classes got complete spec reworks, claiming that demonology was only reworked to make for demon hunters is absurd. They changed the spec to be more about controlling demons rather than becoming one.

How is it absurd if Demo is the only spec that had its abilities moved to the new hero class?

You're just upset that a game based off the warcraft series is actually being accurate to its lore and you for some wild reason consider that "gutting" a class (Hilarious how you say the entire class got ruined due to changes made to 1 spec.

Im a little peeved that the DH class isn't very original and Blizzard couldn't even be bothered to give it a third spec. The class is the epitome of lazy design, and is a pretty major disappointment.

- - - Updated - - -

So they gutted survival because the core of it had to do with being ranged and they gutted combat because now you have to press slightly more than 3 buttons? And they gutted shadowpriest because they took away mana. And they gutted shamans because they have less totems. And they gutted paladins by removing holy power.

Sounds like the whole game got gutted and it's all specifically because of demon hunters.

With all this gutting going around, I still don't understand why it's only locks crying.

Because locks are the only ones who see their removed abilities within another class.

[Queen of Hamsters]

They said that they considered making the gathering professions secondary. What I'd do is make engineering a secondary profession too. Move the gun making to blacksmithing and the helmets to the proper crafting professions (BS, LW and Tailoring), requiring reagents that need a high level of engineering to craft and requiring a high level of engineering to use. Then make a tinker class. It should definitely have a mecha-using tank spec (Steamwarrior, using steam and pyrite-powered mechas to tank) and a range dps spec (guns and turrets, maybe crossbows too). I am not sure about an extra healing spec though. And tbh I am not excited about yet another tank but Tinker without a goblin/gnome in a mech is pointless and it's better being a tank than yet another melee dps.

It's probably what they'll do, make Engineering secondary for fun and toys and mounts, if Tinker becomes a class.

It really is time that they add something else than melee dps with every new class, so Tinker would fit the bill perfectly... I'd love the Juggernaut tank suggested earlier in the thread, + a healer (mad surgeon like also suggested earlier) and a ranged dps as specs for it.

[Kolvarg]

We don't have plate wearing elementalists in the game, but we already have mechs, rockets, lazers, traps, gliders that every single class in the game can use. That's why it'd be more new than having a tinker. You've posted literally nothing in your post about how they would be more unique besides just saying "they'd be more unique".

We also don't have wereunicorns that defeat enemies with the power of love and friendship, doesn't mean they should be added.

We may already have mechs, rockets, lazers, traps, gliders (much like we already have plate armor and elementalists), but we can't actually use those things as our main way to combat enemies in a viable way. How is plate-wearing shamans more original than combat-useful engineers?

If you can find an Egineering profession item that allows me to battle enemies like this any tiem I want it, feel free to link it:


I didn't just say "they'd be more unique", I gave a very specific example that you can easily look up if you wanted to: HotS Gazlowe.

Even without the Gazlowe example, the fact that it's more unique is pretty obvious because you absolutely have no existing class or specialization in the game that uses primarily mechanical gadgets as a way to battle, while things like "plate elementalist" or "battle mage" are just mix-ups of thins already done by other classes in one way or another.

The only thing that comes remotely close are hunters, now probably only Marksmanship, but the closeness only goes as far as what, the ability to use guns and exploding shot?

I'm not claiming to be a class designer expert, I'm not able to flesh out class from scratch like that. But you don't really need to do that because the simple overall concept of using mechs, exo-skeletons, explosives, lasers and other sorts of mechanical gadgets as the primary way to engage in battle is absolutely not done by any other class.

It's a fairly broad idea that can be designed in different ways (Can easily do at least a tank or melee dps with mech/exo-skeleton, ranged with throable explosives and guns, healer with healing beams or healing packs/kits, or potion throwing, or using gadgets to protect/reduce damage taken by allies, can even mix up a bit with alchemy-like abilities, if they want to go that way), all of them revolving around the use of technology and practical knowledge to accomplish a specific goal or empower a way of doing things. But all of those ideas, while some already "done" with engineering, aren't really done by any current class or specialization, while all other class ideas I've seen already have many of their core elements already done in some way by other classes.


Tinker doesn't need to be truly fleshed out to be unique, because the simple idea of it is unique compared to all other classes.
A battlemage or plate-wearing elementalist is not unique, because it's just a mix-up of broad ideas that are already done by other classes. It could only become unique if it was fleshed out in a way that plays fairly different than other classes and brings new things to the table.

[LiiLoSNK]

Um no, the proof that Warlocks were gutted was that one of their specs was transplanted to another class. That indicates that if DHs weren't introduced, Demo wouldn't have gotten gutted.



How is it absurd if Demo is the only spec that had its abilities moved to the new hero class?



Im a little peeved that the DH class isn't very original and Blizzard couldn't even be bothered to give it a third spec. The class is the epitome of lazy design, and is a pretty major disappointment.

- - - Updated - - -




Because locks are the only ones who see their removed abilities within another class.

Their removed abilities came directly from demon hunters.

Other classes got "gutted" without having similar hero classes implemented. That indicates that they were focusing on changing specs, regardless of demon hunters or not. They made the demonology warlock sort of similar to witch doctors from diablo 3. Who's to say that it wasn't their intention to eventually do that anyways? Demonology doesn't directly mean "Turn into a demon and use demon hunter spells".

Demonology is the study of demons, so it's clearly still a sensible route to test out by making the class more related to summoning different demons.

Just because the spells they took from demon hunters by becoming a demon themselves were taken away, doesn't mean the entire class is "gutted".

[Alcsaar]

Necromancer or bust

Edit: And no it isnt like warlock or deathknight. Its as much like those as monk is like rogue, or any number of other comparisons.

[LiiLoSNK]

We also don't have wereunicorns that defeat enemies with the power of love and friendship, doesn't mean they should be added.

We may already have mechs, rockets, lazers, traps, gliders (much like we already have plate armor and elementalists), but we can't actually use those things as our main way to combat enemies in a viable way. How is plate-wearing shamans more original than combat-useful engineers?

If you can find an Egineering profession item that allows me to battle enemies like this any tiem I want it, feel free to link it:


I didn't just say "they'd be more unique", I gave a very specific example that you can easily look up if you wanted to: HotS Gazlowe.

Even without the Gazlowe example, the fact that it's more unique is pretty obvious because you absolutely have no existing class or specialization in the game that uses primarily mechanical gadgets as a way to battle, while things like "plate elementalist" or "battle mage" are just mix-ups of thins already done by other classes in one way or another.

The only thing that comes remotely close are hunters, now probably only Marksmanship, but the closeness only goes as far as what, the ability to use guns and exploding shot?

I'm not claiming to be a class designer expert, I'm not able to flesh out class from scratch like that. But you don't really need to do that because the simple overall concept of using mechs, exo-skeletons, explosives, lasers and other sorts of mechanical gadgets as the primary way to engage in battle is absolutely not done by any other class.

It's a fairly broad idea that can be designed in different ways (Can easily do at least a tank or melee dps with mech/exo-skeleton, ranged with throable explosives and guns, healer with healing beams or healing packs/kits, or potion throwing, or using gadgets to protect/reduce damage taken by allies, can even mix up a bit with alchemy-like abilities, if they want to go that way), all of them revolving around the use of technology and practical knowledge to accomplish a specific goal or empower a way of doing things. But all of those ideas, while some already "done" with engineering, aren't really done by any current class or specialization, while all other class ideas I've seen already have many of their core elements already done in some way by other classes.


Tinker doesn't need to be truly fleshed out to be unique, because the simple idea of it is unique compared to all other classes.
A battlemage or plate-wearing elementalist is not unique, because it's just a mix-up of broad ideas that are already done by other classes. It could only become unique if it was fleshed out in a way that plays fairly different than other classes and brings new things to the table.

See this is what you aren't getting. You can't use plate armor and elemental spells as every single class. You can't do either at the same time on any class. You can use rockets, lazers, and zone mechs as every single class. That's quite a huge difference. Your 1 example of a hots character wasn't even good. It's just a guy that uses rockets and lazers. That's literally what engineers do.

All I'm reading is rockets/lazers and yet you complain about plate wearing elementalists, even though there isn't a class combo in the game that can do that? But rockets/lazers are very unique and original?

I don't get how something everyone can do is more unique then something no playable classes can do.

[muwatallis]

The only hint I see in the entire legion beta for a possible future class is Warden. They are just fucking cool. As much as the DH's.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Would be fun - but please don't start another "Tinkerer" or "Tinker" speculations thread after we just gained a class. Continue with these threads in about 3 years please, as is consistant with implementing the Deathknight and Monk (ofc it is 4 years but you can start discussing a year early)

Boo this man, booooo!

Crossing fingers for a tinkerer/artificer class hopefully before the end of legion.

Gotta have dreams.

[Hexxidecimal]

You realize that example makes zero sense, correct?

Demon hunter =/= Class that controls demons.
Engineer == profession that controls technology == Tinker

They didn't have to rework shit for the warlock in order to make Demon Hunters a possibility. They reworked many classes and warlocks just happen to be one of them.

The only way that Warlocks were affected by DHs is that they had meta taken away. With or without meta demo needed re-worked badly imo so I doubt that DHs had any other major affect other than that.

In other words I agree. I also agree with the tinkerer thought process.

[TheWorkingTitle]

Not at all. Tinker will never happen -- yes you can quote me on it. Engineering has already taken up all the design space, and they're not going to remove a profession just to make a class.