Possible future hero classes.

[Spiffums]

Shadow Mage.....takes half the spells that DHs have now and the rest of the spells that DHs didn't steal from Warlocks.

[Deleted]

WC3 has 4 Factions race and have several hero class: NE, Undead ,Horde and Alliance.

Alliance has Archmage, Mountain King, Paladin and Blood Mage.
Horde has Farseer, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster
Undead has: Dreadlord, Death Knight, Nerubian and Lich
NE has Keeper of the Grove, Warden, DH and Priestess.

So far 2 have been implemented and one is viable and would fit in the coming expansion: Shadow Hunters.

The story arc of Trolls fits the Great/Veiled Sea expansion.
The current leader of the Horde is an example of a Shadow Hunter: A Drow/Dark ranger spec and now Alleria embracing the Void also backs up this direction for Alliance.

Right now there was no envoy for the remaining troll civization under the horde but was left under the last will of Vol'jin to Sylvanas.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/u...owhunter.shtml

Shadow Hunter is more or less a troll shaman with a spear/daggers? combined with rogue. Which, I would furking love but for some reason we got enhancement shaman instead. Would LOVE to play something like what shadow hunter was in WC3.

No, Sylvanas is not WC3 shadow hunter, I believe :S

But it makes sense to check the old WC3 hero list.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get why some classes have went so far from their WC3 counterparts. I mean where's arms warrior's Blademaster stuff like Mirror Image :O Why did we get enhancement shaman and not shadow hunter?

Also, a lot of the WC3 heroes are a combination of several classes. Like Priestess of the Moon is basically balance+marksman. But balancing that in WoW would be a nightmare.

[Teriz]

And here we have it, the reachiest post ever, some of those have no relation to tinkers. Accept it dude, you are wrong.

The Tinker is based around technology and riding mecha, so yeah those examples definitely relate to the Tinker.

It's been that way since WC3.

[Ielenia]

The Tinker is based around technology

So are engineers.

and riding mecha,

Head-canon.

[Teriz]

So are engineers.


Head-canon.

Like I said, the idea of riding inside a mech has been with the concept since WC3, and it was continued in HotS. Here was Robot-Goblin in WC3:



And here is the original HotS version;



Another view of it;
http://media-storm.cursecdn.com/atta...35/unnamed.png

The level 20 Gazlowe talent is called "Mecha Lord".

So yeah, the concept of riding a mech is longstanding within the Tinker concept.

[Teriz]

You're reaching so far, you need to use a game that isn't canon

Except We're talking about concept, not canon.

[Teriz]

and you're basing your concepts (half of which make no sense) on a game that is not canon in the warcraft universe

The concept of a goblin or gnome piloting a mech in combat makes no sense to you? Seriously?

WC3 is canon to the WC universe, and the WC heroes in HotS are based on the Warcraft universe.

Additionally, abilities have been transferred from HotS to WoW, indicating that Blizzard can and does pull ideas from that game for WoW.

[zlygork]

and you're basing your concepts (half of which make no sense) on a game that is not canon in the warcraft universe

Tauren paladin/priests aren't canon
Night elven mages aren't canon
Death knights doing good aren't canon
Hell, Monks aren't exactly canon
Gilneans turned worgen aren't canon

All of the above have been just as valid as what you are saying now at some point. Concept>Canon in matters of possible future features in a story - the whole point of new features is establishing new canon

[Ielenia]

Like I said, the idea of riding inside a mech has been with the concept since WC3, and it was continued in HotS. Here was Robot-Goblin in WC3:

One: What happens in HotS is as relevant as the stock market balance is to decide which seat in the theater you'll be sitting. Two: the idea that a tech class would ride a mech is head-canon. Your head-canon.

- - - Updated - - -

Tauren paladin/priests aren't canon
Night elven mages aren't canon
Death knights doing good aren't canon
Hell, Monks aren't exactly canon
Gilneans turned worgen aren't canon

All of the above have been just as valid as what you are saying now at some point. Concept>Canon in matters of possible future features in a story - the whole point of new features is establishing new canon

I just wanted to point out that #2 has been canon since WoW vanilla: the night elves in Dire Maul were mages. Also, #4 is debatable, as there were monks in Burning Crusade, though admittedly their similarities stop at the name and staff-wielding.

[zlygork]

One: What happens in HotS is as relevant as the stock market balance is to decide which seat in the theater you'll be sitting. Two: the idea that a tech class would ride a mech is head-canon. Your head-canon.

- - - Updated - - -


I just wanted to point out that #2 has been canon since WoW vanilla: the night elves in Dire Maul were mages. Also, #4 is debatable, as there were monks in Burning Crusade, though admittedly their similarities stop at the name and staff-wielding.

Of course there were night elven mages, but no one would have imagined them becoming playable before cataclysm, because they were the nutty bad guys followers of azshara that were banned from kaldorei society. Their becoming playable established a new canon where they were now tolerated within darnassus.

[Teriz]

One: What happens in HotS is as relevant as the stock market balance is to decide which seat in the theater you'll be sitting. Two: the idea that a tech class would ride a mech is head-canon. Your head-canon.

1. Abilities and concepts have been brought over to WoW from HotS. So yeah, HotS is relevant to this discussion.

2. Yes, a tech class riding a mech is head-canon, unlike you i never said differently. What I'm saying is that there is a basis for a mecha-riding tech class in WoW. Especially with the numerous examples we've gotten since the end of MoP.

[Ielenia]

Of course there were night elven mages, but no one would have imagined them becoming playable before cataclysm, because they were the nutty bad guys followers of azshara that were banned from kaldorei society. Their becoming playable established a new canon where they were now tolerated within darnassus.

They weren't. They were just as much against Azshara as the rest of the Night Elves. The only difference is that they didn't blame arcane magic as 'dangerous and corrupting' and therefore refused to stop wielding it when the decree to ban arcane magic from the night elf society was made, so they were banished.

- - - Updated - - -

2. Yes, a tech class riding a mech is head-canon, unlike you i never said differently.

Well, with how you look down upon and demean head-canons, I imagined you'd prefer not to be hypocritical and stay away from making head-canons yourself.

[Teriz]

They weren't. They were just as much against Azshara as the rest of the Night Elves. The only difference is that they didn't blame arcane magic as 'dangerous and corrupting' and therefore refused to stop wielding it when the decree to ban arcane magic from the night elf society was made, so they were banished.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, with how you look down upon and demean head-canons, I imagined you'd prefer not to be hypocritical and stay away from making head-canons yourself.

I tend to look down on head-canon when certain posters use it for lore-based srguments, yes.

Proposing a class concept on the other hand requires quite a bit of head-canon.

[Uoyredrum]

I'd prefer they didn't add any more classes personally. That being said the next class, if they do add one, should be ranged. Dark Ranger would be dumb since we already have hunters, they're too similar. Necro would be redundant because of Death Knights. Tinker makes no sense because of engineering. I'd say something like a Chronomancer would make the most sense. I'd also like to see Shadow Hunters but considering half of their abilities went to shamans I don't think that'd make sense either.

[zlygork]

Do you know what canon means?

Do you feel smart asking questions like that without thinking about what the message was saying? All the things I listed could have indeed been accused of not being more than headcanon before they were introduced in their respective expansions.

[Kathranis]

Do you know what canon means?

He's absolutely correct, though. All of those arguments were used to discount the possibility of those things ever being playable in WoW.

People are small-minded when it comes to ideas. "High elves can't be playable because they're just blood elves with blue eyes," or, "Tinkers can't be a class because there's already an engineering profession." Those arguments are no different from, "Demon Hunters will never be playable because they're just Rogues with some Warlock abilities," or "Monks will never be in WoW because we've never seen them before."

People lack imagination. They look only at what's come before and ignore the possibilities of the future. And Blizzard follows the "rule of cool" at all times. If they have an idea for a class or a race or a zone that they think is cool, they'll figure out how to make it work with the lore, even if that means changing the lore or writing a new storyline. See: draenei, blood elf paladins, night elf mages, etc.

So, what if they give high elves a new model with a different build, different posture, different animation, and different hairstyles? What if they get really creative and come up with all sorts of new abilities and mechanics for Tinkers to use, just like they did for Monks and Demon Hunters? Those don't even require anything remotely resembling a stretch of imagination, yet people argue against them all the same.

If you want to think like Blizzard, don't dismiss an idea outright because it doesn't work within the established framework. Think instead about how you can bend or expand the framework to make the new idea work.


Not that I think Tinker would necessarily be a good choice for a hero class. That feels more suited to being a core class, like monks.

I suppose if they wanted them to be a hero class, the best option would be to focus on Undermine, and maybe a return to Mimiron's workshop in Ulduar. By tying the class into the Watchers and Titans they could elevate it to be more prominent in the current story. Work in some curse of flesh stuff, maybe make the machines a powerful tool to fight the Void because Mimiron has figured out how to prevent them from being corrupted by the void.

Hell, they could even introduce the class alongside playable ethereals, since they're super technologically advanced. And the Army of Light has "Lightforged Golem" mechs, too. Point is, there are plenty of ways to hook it in.


PS: In before "ethereals can never be playable because X" replies.

[zlygork]

Snip

But mah face customization!!!!

In all seriousness, I agree that tinker would feel better as a base class, it kind of adds to the whole fantasy of, you know, tinkering when your mec/exosuit/gadgetbarrelthing gets upgraded as you level. If it was some snappy hero class starting at around 110 (if they pop in next expansion), the progression would feel way too forced and like you already started with this godslaying golem thing that you bought on ikea for 9999999999$

[dev'olution]

The Bard.

C'mon, we know this has to happen.

[Teriz]

My point is tinkers have been asked for for years, it's not a new thing people are asking about, Blizz have never ever to my knowledge shown any interest in it,

Already shown to be a false statement.

I don't understand why people are so attached to a class that they have no idea how it would play - 12 classes, 36 specs is more than any MMO I know of - do we really need more?

There's plenty of ways it could play. The most popular variation currently is the Tinker riding in mechs like the hero unit from WC3. The class could be 4 specs, and have the physical ranged and healing specs that people want after the paltry DH's 2 melee specs.

[Ielenia]

Already shown to be a false statement.

Re-read what he wrote, and realize your mistake.