The 12th class will be the last class in WoW.

[Totle]

So it'd be a mail user that heals/tanks/does damage.
The real niche that's missing is another ranged weapon user.
Perhaps a character that uses potions/chemicals/bombs/guns/bows.

Immediate thought is whenever you saw Hawkeye with his trick arrows that magically fire a net over an enemy.
Tanking not by absorbing damage, but by a mix of kiting, slowing, disorienting. Essentially, you tank by inflicting status rather than getting hit.
You could tank by shooting a bola at their feet, throwing an ice grenade, a smoke grenade, a flashbang - the premise being to a) hinder their movements and b) incapacitate them long enough for your team to take them out.

Damage by using throwing bombs, shooting guns and bows.

Heals through alchemy, can also provide support buffs.

[fixx]

The Tinker is your class and defines what you can do in combat. The Engineer is a profession, a job, a hobby that defines what you can craft for money and can't be used in combat.

Sorry but you just failed the assignment by using too many game mechanics terms... A person who has never played warcraft would ask "why the guy whose PROFESSION is building guns and explosives wouldn't be able to use those in combat? That's dumb game." That is the point where the theme of tinker fails and falls flat on it's face.

Teriz ties himself into knots and over complicates things when he tries to explain stuff.

No, he just uses faulty logic on purpose to obfuscate the truth and that is not an accident but 100% deliberate. And the truth is that the tinker idea is leaking more than sieve and there are no answers to the really hard questions like the one in first paragraph of this post.

[Thimagryn]

Tech is special because it is one of the few concepts available that offer the game such benefits, that bring such freedom to the designers. Bards, as a class concept, is another...but is probably less likely give the Bard stereotype is essentially the Rogue. There really aren't that many more.

Saying the Bard 'Stereotype' is essentially a Rogue has no bearing on anything. Death Knight's archetype is a Plated Melee Fighter, which is in direct relation to Warriors and Paladins. Monks are Dual Wield Hybrid/DPS, who are in the same archetype as Shamans and Rogues.

Bards have the potential to be Phys Ranged DPS, Caster DPS, Melee DPS and Healers. It's even possible to make them a Tank class given that the Warsong Clan is all Warriors. The class can be whatever Blizzard wants to define them as. And Bards in typical RPGs have never been associated with Thieves. They aren't a subclass, they are a class within themselves.

[Talen]

Sorry but you just failed the assignment by using too many game mechanics terms... A person who has never played warcraft would ask "why the guy whose PROFESSION is building guns and explosives wouldn't be able to use those in combat? That's dumb game." That is the point where the theme of tinker fails and falls flat on it's face.

I think most players fall into the category they always have - that of knowing the difference between creating a device and being able to use it, of being able to make something doesn't mean you can use it.

In essence...a Blacksmith is the one who makes the sword, whilst a warrior is the one who wields it. A truth that exists in real life for millennia and gaming for decades is one we can probably count most players to accept without even thinking about it....just as they always have.

Bards have the potential to be Phys Ranged DPS, Caster DPS, Melee DPS and Healers. It's even possible to make them a Tank class given that the Warsong Clan is all Warriors. The class can be whatever Blizzard wants to define them as. And Bards in typical RPGs have never been associated with Thieves. They aren't a subclass, they are a class within themselves.

Yes...but the stereotype comes into play when it comes to player expectations. Blizzard can and does work around such issues and stereotypes...but they also pander to them. The typical fantasy bard is a roguish character, and is the type of character most associated with the Bard trope. Does Blizzard have to adhere to such stereotypes? No. But like any good designer, they'd pay attention to them. That expectation in and of itself creates constraints and baggage designers have to contend with. Otherwise...why not a Bard who knows no music?

EJL

[Ielenia]

...being able to make something doesn't mean you can use it.

Sorry, man, but, that, right there, proves how you really don't know what you're talking about. How, in lore, world-building, would I not be able to use something I created? How can you explain something like that without game mechanics?

[Thimagryn]

Yes...but the stereotype comes into play when it comes to player expectations. Blizzard can and does work around such issues and stereotypes...but they also pander to them. The typical fantasy bard is a roguish character, and is the type of character most associated with the Bard trope. Does Blizzard have to adhere to such stereotypes? No. But like any good designer, they'd pay attention to them. That expectation in and of itself creates constraints and baggage designers have to contend with. Otherwise...why not a Bard who knows no music?

They deal with that regardless. Every class they create has that same 'baggage', but they can twist anything and make it their own. Prior to the Priest class, how much of the archetype have you seen resort to Shadow magic in other RPGs? How many Druids did you see using Sun and Moon based magic? How many Monks use brewing and ale to help them fight?

Bard can be whatever Blizzard chooses it to be. Even if it were a support class, they could incorporate a mechanic where don't directly fight at all, and you're accompanied by followers who attack for you. If you want to take up a sword and shield and be more of an adventurer, you can do that. If you want to sit back and not fight at all and purely be support, that spec would have followers. They would be humanoid 'pets', and it could even be themed off of the Garrison followers.

Mechanics-wise, this is an extreme version of Beastmaster Hunters, removing the direct damage component completely and replacing it with abilities to support the followers. This type of 'Bard' wouldn't be roguelike at all. Thematically, it is a Bard archetype that revolves around supporting allies and playing music. Practically, the class could be more like a battle commander and field operative, using flutes, horns and drums to buff and rally your allies.

Conversely, it could be made into a direct damage role that buffs allies similar to Disc Priest and Fistweaver gameplay. You have special weapons magically modified to produce sound or music with different swings. Chain a set of attacks to produce a 'song', and your party gains a short term buff or healing. If it is a DPS buff, it would be tuned to be something like a 2-5% boost to the raid while you gain 2-3x the effects.

This is just one simple example of a niche that isn't present in game, using a theme that has not been utilized yet is ever-present in Warcraft. So really, when anyone says Tech is the only venue left untapped, I just don't see it.

[Poochy]

On the front page, it seems blizz uses tinkerer synonymously with someone who's of the engineering profession and "tinkers" with his gadgets and bombs and such.

Blizz is not limited to patterns or numbers. If they want another class, as long as it fits with the expac, they can.
Since this thread is basically about what a next class could be... My opinion is there is no "last class". Blizz will continue to change or add as they see fit. If they wanted to do bards, dark rangers, dragons, or whatever, they can. But tinkers are here, as engineers.

My thoughts on the next class is with all the hints and warnings since Cata, and especially with Illidan returning, my guess is demon hunter. Since Cata we've seen mentions of the burning legion supposed to come from Velen short story, blank scroll short story, wrathion, and now Ogrim Doomhammer. There was also the emperor shaohao videos that mentioned the BL and how it seemed like we were getting ready for the same threat now. There has been the Alleria and Turalyon tip, which has now been changed to still, as well as we were told they'd be coming a while ago at Cata and are still supposed to. We were told Illidan would be coming cup back at Cata and have had various tweets, some from metzen himself, saying that he is still out there, coming back. The warlock green fire quest especially hints at this, how the demons are still around on Outland. We had that dark embrace hint from the FoS in darkshore, as well as the demon hunter in felwood show he was good/fighting demons and how Illidan was not as bad as we thought. There was the quests where we resurrect a demon hunter.

We've also had repeated tweets, especially most recently by celestalon that tank specs will not be given to classes like warlocks (and I think he also said shaman).
With the data mined warglaive looking weapons (and the legendaries), I don't think there is any problem with adding warglaives (there doesn't need to be another category, just categorize them as swords or fist weapons).
Demon hunter race doesn't matter, as long as there is a demon hunter around to train trainees anyone can become a demon hunter. There are still night elf demon hunters aroundlike the one in felwood, the one in darkshore already seemed to be maybe training people or something, there's altruis. There's the chance of a seemingly dead demon hunter coming back as demon hunters just get sent to the twisting nether (the blasted lands one that we brought back to life and who then seemingly dies possessed by that demon) (leotheras the blind says he'll be back, and especially if his demon was in control at the time of his demise) (Illidan is classified as a demon in his character page on the WoW site, Blizz said he would return, many times) (there was that one demon hunter with the book of fel names in Shadowmoon valley) and others.

Spells? Maybe WC3 can act like a start, but it doesn't restrict them to what they can or can't do. Just look at monks, there was no real windwalker (although fighting with his fists could count, it's not the same as the spec in game) or mistweaver (no in WC3 whatsoever). DKs didn't even really have a blood or frost spec, it was mostly unholy and raising the dead or healing the dead. As GC said before he left, they have more creative freedom with new classes than if they just did a new spec, the sky's the limit. If something feels right to them, they'll do it. Hey, they could even do a healing spec if they knew how they wanted to do it (though doubtful they'd do it, a non-Light/evil-ish healing class sounds interesting). Tank and dps spec seem more than possible anyways. And the class doesn't have to be a hybrid with all 3 specs to happen either. Again, blizz isn't limited to patterns. They make what they like and that's it, they aren't obligated to follow some set of rules.

Armor? As long as it's not plate, they can do what they want. There's plenty of lore/background to make the class, a starting zone, and such. They existed back in WC3 and many people would be interested in them being a real class, especially with that old WoW ad making it seem like they were intended, I think it was alpha or something before vanilla - with the demon hunter in Zul'Gurub with some other classes.

Either way, they'd fit a BL expac, which seems to be coming. Blizz said this expac leads into the next, and they're already working on it. Especially with BL characters like Alleria and Turalyon coming back and everyone hinting at BL coming. Especially a good time with Illidan returning.
People talk about a new ranged class when there are already hunters. There are paladins and priests. Same for DHs, they can happen. WC3 isn't everything, just look at DHs or monks. It's always good to have something new in the game, not just "rehashes". 4th specs won't happen, blizz probably doesn't agree with some doomsayers saying all class are the same and need changed (somewhat maybe, but not to the degree some think), there is no limit to the number of classes or races they can put in game (people thought things would end at 100, that there would be 2 expacs of 5 levels, and we're also getting the WoW version of player housing something not many thought would happen, even blizz. There are no limits)

[Talen]

They deal with that regardless. Every class they create has that same 'baggage', but they can twist anything and make it their own.

Only to one degree of another.

The "tinker" name, for example conjures images of a tech based class for example. But the main central theme of these are "Tech" and there isn't really a single overarching stereotype as to lore, type of combat ability, style , looks, trope or anything. The stereotype is still there...but its stereotyping the class concept rather than gameplay, lore, style of characterisation or anything else. The stereotype overlaps the fixed class concept.

Bards? Bards thanks to D&D and several other games by and large have a stereotype that defines it a bit more. This is a stronger intrusion into areas such as style and characterisation. A Bard isn't just dealing with the them of sound or music; a Bard as a class is a rogue, The stereotype intrudes upon aspects of the class other than the concept, because it comes with baggage from other games and because various games and MMOs tend to use the bard as the same type of character, this trope exists.

Not that Blizzard can't work around it....but its still baggage. It's a still a constraint. The Tinker concept, while used elsewhere, is far less uniform, its more varied. Players expect a Bard to be a Rogue type character...but they simply expect a Tinker to be a tech user.

Prior to the Priest class, how much of the archetype have you seen resort to Shadow magic in other RPGs? How many Druids did you see using Sun and Moon based magic? How many Monks use brewing and ale to help them fight?

Players expect Priest to be healers and to get their power from prayers and their gods and faith because that si the trope and standard in games of all sorts from pen and pare RPGs to MMOs. They do.
Players expect Druids to be shapeshifters because that is the standard trope for Druids. WoW is no different.
Players expect Monks to be Martial Artists. And in WoW, they are.
They expect Paladins to be Warriors of virtue, warriors to be whirling dervishes of death, DKs to be dark knights, rogues to be swift, stealthy assassins and Amges to be casters. And they are.

Players would expect Tinkers to be Tech based....because that is the trope for Tinkers. And, in WoW, they are.
Players would expect Bard to be rogues who play music....because that is the trope for Bards.

Player expectations and what they want from a class are important considerations. Blizzard can put its own style, design with its own take on the core concepts and basic tropes. But any good designers will look at those tropes and leverage them. And they'd also take note of the constraints such tropes impose on design. A Bard, for example, might end up wearing Mail instead of Leather....but he'd never be designed as a Bard without Music.

As I said, Bard is one of the strongest class concepts there are remaining that Blizzard could add. There is no classs absed upon sound or music. The music focus can be used to justify additional animations, graphics, lore, mechanics. We've has music and sound play some part in the game already...from Klaxxi Sonic magic to Russel Bower/Forresten/Jongleur to Atramedes. But it does have that baggage Tinkers don't have....that the Bard stereotype is fairly well known. It's a small constraint, but it is still a constraint.

EJL

[Thimagryn]

The "tinker" name, for example conjures images of a tech based class for example. But the main central theme of these are "Tech" and there isn't really a single overarching stereotype as to lore, type of combat ability, style , looks, trope or anything. The stereotype is still there...but its stereotyping the class concept rather than gameplay, lore, style of characterisation or anything else. The stereotype overlaps the fixed class concept.

Bards? Bards thanks to D&D and several other games by and large have a stereotype that defines it a bit more.

Tinker was presented in Warcraft as a goblin with very eccentric forms of combat and design. The Tinker's image is already defined from Warcraft 3 and Heroes of the Storm. That's way more baggage than a Bard Class that has not yet existed, and loosely present in the game through characters like the Warsong clan and the Elves for their fondness of song and music (Alleria's Flute).

If we got a new tech class, it would be more appropriate. But it would likely be as far removed from the Tinker concept to no longer be inspired by the Warcraft 3 Tinker at all, barring a couple spells for flavour. I could see elements of the class being retained, but not the identity of the class itself. And that's the difference between your argument and Teriz's, which I have much more contention with.

[Teriz]

Sorry, man, but, that, right there, proves how you really don't know what you're talking about. How, in lore, world-building, would I not be able to use something I created? How can you explain something like that without game mechanics?

In the real world, sword smiths weren't master swordsman. Smith and Wesson weren't amazing sharpshooters. Medieval armor-smiths weren't knights. The guys who designed and built the 777 jumbo jets aren't the pilots who fly them.

If that's the case in the real world. Why would that be the case in WoW?

[Deleted]

i think we will see at least 2-3 new classes, we still need new ranged-bow/gun class and demon hunter. I don't believe blizzard will not take a chance at making a retribution story for illidan. This would drove subs to the roof, everyone who ever played Warcraft 3 love illidan. Simply love him

I'm his big fan, and i don't know a single person who would not want to see him back. And best chance to get people in is illidan + demon hunter. It is almost as good as Lich King + Death Knights. but if you sprinkle it with Illidan is good... and we Kight Kil'Jaeden... damn dude this is a strong mix.

[Deleted]

I always loved the concept of a Shockadin! i really think it would be good to bring in a class that uses Int mail but most of all Int Plate, that would be a great idea! Not a big fan of the 'Tinker ' or 'Demon Hunter' concept- its just not original enough!

[fixx]

In the real world, sword smiths weren't master swordsman. Smith and Wesson weren't amazing sharpshooters. Medieval armor-smiths weren't knights. The guys who designed and built the 777 jumbo jets aren't the pilots who fly them.

If that's the case in the real world. Why would that be the case in WoW?

Because in real world all of the above-mentioned crafters were and are competent at using the technology they are making. Being a master is not required, but you cant create and further develop something unless you know whole lot more than just basic principles of using said item.

Those strawman arguments still dont work no matter how hard you try btw, and only make you seem more foolish every time.

[Teriz]

Because in real world all of the above-mentioned crafters were and are competent at using the technology they are making. Being a master is not required, but you cant create and further develop something unless you know whole lot more than just basic principles of using said item.

Those strawman arguments still dont work no matter how hard you try btw, and only make you seem more foolish every time.

Really? Masamune was a great swordsmith, but there's no record of him being a great swordsman.

Sort of like a Druid engineer. You won't be using those guns you're crafting.

[Mirishka]

Why? Here's a couple of reasons;

1. Armor. Add one more class that wears mail armor, and every armor type can be used by three classes. With the new WoD armor changes, this has become even more apparent.

2. No more Heroes. WoW classes are derived from WC3 heroes and units. There's only a couple left that haven't been utilized by existing classes, and those remaining heroes and units all share a similar theme.

3. Lack of Design space. Existing classes are already showing some overlap. There simply isn't much design space left to derive a whole lot of new classes out of without things becoming redundant.

4. Class types. The game has roughly three class types, and it's entirely based on the roles a class can perform. There's pure DPS, or single role classes. There's hybrid, or two role classes. Finally there's true hybrids, or three role classes. Pure DPS and two-role hybrids have four classes each. Three-role hybrids only have three classes (Druids, Paladins, and Monks). If the next class is a three role hybrid, there's not much need to create another class.

5. The last open space. Okay, this may seem like a stretch, but if you check out the WoW official forums and check out the class forums, you notice that there's space for one more class. If you go over to Wowhead and check out the WoW talent trees, you'll also see that there seems to be only space for one more class. It would appear that adding that 12th class would bring balance to the world, as well as the class lineup.

Agree or Disagree? Let me know what you think.

Why people who have no involvement whatsoever with Blizzard (much less the development of WoW) feel the need to make these obnoxious "this is my opinion but I will present it as fact" topics, I'll never know.

[fixx]

Really? Masamune was a great swordsmith, but there's no record of him being a great swordsman.

Since you so much like linking random stuff, maybe you should also check out the difference between competent and master.

I know common sense isn't your forte with all the intentional logic fallacies, but try to get this through: You don't need to be a master swordsman to be able to use sword, but you need to be a competent swordsman to know if the sword you made is good or not.

[Geckomayhem]

When the game started, each faction had eight classes available to them. There was something neat about shaman being Horde only and paladins being Alliance only. Then, with Draenei and Blood Elves, suddenly both factions had all nine classes available to them. Next up, we got what they called a hero class, but it had requirements (at least one level 60 character) and it didn't start at level one - something that gave flexibility to the way they could do the Death Knight starting zone.

We had to wait a bit, but they did go and give us an eleventh class - no requirements, no special class-specific starting zone. But they fit the theme and Blizzard weighed up the issue of balance against the excitement, novelty and uniqueness of having another new class.

The question isn't whether having a twelfth class will bring obsessive-compulsive balance to the game; the biggest question is whether having another class introduced will make sense from both a lore and a logistical point if view.

My personal hope is for one more class - but it really would have to have a justifiable place in the game.

[Bryntrollian]

The 11th class will be the last class in WoW.

(Fixed)

The game doesn't need more classes; already a nightmare to balance as is.

[crakerjack]

Damn, I feel like i'm apart of a very select few who actually understand that WoW can't have anymore classes w/o completely ruining it. People are just being naive and not understanding that there just isn't any more room. The classes are already being homogenized which isn't a good thing and w/ each additional class added, there's less class diversity. People don't think it out thoroughly, they just think about how the class would benefit their playstyle and not how it would affect the game as a whole. Just because you can envision a class working well in PvE doesn't mean it automatically should be implemented, how would that class work in PvP? What comps could people create w/ this class that wouldn't be OP? Subjects like this take months if not years of planning and most of you unfortunately haven't spent more than hour or two figuring out how it would fit in. IMO, DK's shouldn't have been added to the game, so where do you think that puts me after they added ANOTHER class after that? Classes need to be unique, and just because your class might have one ability that's 100% unique doesn't mean your class is completely different. There should be more than a handful of abilities that each class has that another class doesn't, but that will never be the case anymore because there's just too many damn classes now. The game can be fine w/ how it is now, even though a bit of damage to diversity has already been done, but majority of you still want another class?!?! Do none of you even think about how it would affect the diversity of every class? I highly doubt most of you do.

[Teriz]

The question isn't whether having a twelfth class will bring obsessive-compulsive balance to the game; the biggest question is whether having another class introduced will make sense from both a lore and a logistical point if view.
.

Yes. A third mail-wearing class will balance out the loot tables. A fourth tri-role hybrid will help bring down queue times in LFR and LFD. A technology class will fill the rather large design hole that that theme has created with the gutting of engineering, and the ridiculous amounts of technology NPCs we've encountered in WoW.

Like I said before, you could literally create 2-3 tech classes using the NPC technology abilities alone.