Another Class idea: Tinkerer

[Teriz]

It hasn't. Blizzard has simply put forth the idea of more cosmetic customization, which, again, would require a character's back to be unobstructed.

Wouldn't the Hunter's quiver customization obstruct the character's back?

[Deleted]

Charm works on the living as much as the dead.

No shit

Life Drain is not on the DK

No shit, I had a Waerlock ya know. Death Siphon is an analog. Doing damage while siphoning health. Think about it.

Black Arrow is not on the DK, nor is there any analog to it. Army of the Dead is quite a different spell, based on Reanimate Dead

Did i say there was? I said that black arrow is a curse on an arrow, so if the dk had the banshee power he could curse his arrows too. Reanimate dead, Army of death, dark ranger curse, they all rise the same kind of dead warrior with the same power source. Same spell, cast differently.

The point is you miss my point. I didn't say we play a lich or any stuff. I said the DK are empowered by those creatures, and therefore can also be empowered by banshees. The DK then would be a DeathMarksman, using banshee powers to curse his arrows and do stuffs (that DK can already do) the unit "Dark Ranger" in wc3 could do.

While it won't allow to play Dark Ranger per se, we still can play a character with the same flavor. A deathKnight trained by Dark Rangers (for horde) or banshee. It's solid, lore wise.
There is still other potential class more appealing which can be made of more than one units from wc3 :
-tinkerer+alchemist+mortar : technology class
-Shadow Hunter+Warden+Blademaster+Wardancer : peace keeper with supernatural power who, from the shadows, hunt down evil (traitors and demon for warden; undead for shadow hunters; demons for blade masters; and war & Sha for war dancer)
The Dark ranger, if a class would only cover the dark ranger which will have similar power to DK (since both have banshee powers). Less interesting.
On the other hand, tinkerer give something new and unique, while the second give a hero to nightelfs, trolls, orcs, draeneis, pandaren and even other races who would be taught who would be different version who share the same gameplay (like paladins and sun walkers), but it would be warden for NE, shadow hunter for trolls, BM for orcs and draeneis, Wardancer for Pandaren and whatever (paragon, peacekeeper, blade artist etc) for other races

inb4 ferk yer har don't want er gimmerk clers

[Ielenia]

Wouldn't the Hunter's quiver customization obstruct the character's back?

It'd be a vanity object. The character's back should be left unobstructed exactly for the vanity customization objects, like the quiver, or a barrel of beer, or a flamethrower, like the one you use on the Brackenspore fight and at Everbloom Wilds.

[Teriz]

It'd be a vanity object.

But again, wouldn't the quiver obstruct the back, causing exactly what you said Blizzard wouldn't do?

The character's back should be left unobstructed exactly for the vanity customization objects, like the quiver, or a barrel of beer, or a flamethrower, like the one you use on the Brackenspore fight and at Everbloom Wilds.

Except every character's vanity object isn't going to be on the back.

[Thimagryn]

While it won't allow to play Dark Ranger per se, we still can play a character with the same flavor. A deathKnight trained by Dark Rangers (for horde) or banshee. It's solid, lore wise.

With that being said, a Hunter with Engineering would be playing a character with the same flavour as a Tinker. It's also solid, lore wise.

But that's not actually playing a Tinker, is it?

The point is, we don't have a proper analog to place Dark Rangers any more than we do a place to put Priestess of the Moon, Shadow Hunters or any Heroes that have one or more abilities used by any other Playable class. You can only use headcanon to pretend you're playing as a Priestess of the Moon when you play your Balance Druid/Priest/Hunter. You can only use headcanon to pretend you're playing as a Shadow Hunter when you play your Troll Shaman/Shadow Priest. You're not actually playing either of those Heroes. When you play a Brewmaster Monk, you're literally playing a Brewmaster, because that is what they are.

All we know is we have a 12th class that is likely to wear Mail, and will possibly use Ranged weaponry. Tinkers are highly valued in this respect, though they still make little sense using bows over guns for any reason. Rangers, however, also fit this criteria. We also have more precedent for Rangers from Warcraft 3, considering the Sea Witch, Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon are all different archetypes from the WoW Hunter; despite the Hunter's ability to use enchanted shots. It literally goes both ways with what is possible with a 12th class that is not immediately predictable.

It's also possible that any of these concepts could comprise only 1/3rd of a new class, just like how the Brewmaster inhabits only one aspect of the new Monk class, which focuses on elements the original Brewmaster did not (Mistweaving, Celestial Animals, Chi). This is my reasoning for using examples like the Sea Lord or the Mystic, which could bring in the Sea Witch as one spec out of an entire new class, one that would be based on a broader archetype and theme. Mystics would use Astrology and Tarot; Sea Lords would be more of a supernatural Pirate class who are masters of the seas (think Davy Jones).

Tinkers may seem to be the most accessible concept, but that doesn't discount any other possible concept we have not yet seen. We wouldn't have a Monk without Pandaria to explain half the stuff that grounds them thematically to Warcraft. With an anticipated Azshara or Legion expansion coming, we could be getting any number of concepts that fill that 12th class concept. Even Dragonsworn would be a fitting mail class that could potentially use guns and bows; and a couple Warrior/Mage abilities themed on Dragons doesn't really stop that.

[Teriz]

With that being said, a Hunter with Engineering would be playing a character with the same flavour as a Tinker. It's also solid, lore wise.

But that's not actually playing a Tinker, is it?

This;


Isn't the same flavor as this;



Regardless of profession choice.

[Ielenia]

But again, wouldn't the quiver obstruct the back, causing exactly what you said Blizzard wouldn't do?

It'd be a vanity object. Why should it not be on the back when vanity objects are supposed to go on the back?

Except every character's vanity object isn't going to be on the back.

Except many vanity objects are on the back, and quest-related objects that are spawned on your character do spawn on your back.

[Thimagryn]

Put some engineering goggles on that Hunter. Now it would be.

[Teriz]

Put some engineering goggles on that Hunter. Now it would be.

And you can put Wizard robes and a stave on a warrior. Its not about the appearance, its about the abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

It'd be a vanity object. Why should it not be on the back when vanity objects are supposed to go on the back?

Because you said nothing can obstruct the character's back.

Except many vanity objects are on the back, and quest-related objects that are spawned on your character do spawn on your back.

So again, wouldn't the Hunter's relic obstruct the character's back?

[Thimagryn]

And you can put Wizard robes and a stave on a warrior. Its not about the appearance, its about the abilities.

You don't need abilities to bring flavour, and that's the context of what Alphalion was saying. You don't need abilities to pretend your Death Knight is a Dark Ranger if all you're focused on is the 'Necromancy' theme being the tying factor. If Technology is this theme, then we have that with any class who takes Engineering as a profession. Flavour is flavour; regardless of abilities.

As I even said above, it doesn't mean you're playing a Dark Ranger. It doesn't mean you're playing a Tinker. It's a moot argument.

[Ielenia]

Because you said nothing can obstruct the character's back.

Because we have the weapons and vanity objects that go on the back. Read what I post in their entirety, please.

So again, wouldn't the Hunter's relic obstruct the character's back?

Vanity objects replace each other.

[Teriz]

You don't need abilities to bring flavour, and that's the context of what Alphalion was saying. You don't need abilities to pretend your Death Knight is a Dark Ranger if all you're focused on is the 'Necromancy' theme being the tying factor.

If Technology is this theme, then we have that with any class who takes Engineering as a profession. Flavour is flavour; regardless of abilities.

Which is like saying you get the flavor of a Mage by having Enchanting as a Warrior. Absolute nonsense. What makes the Mage a Mage is its abilities. That's its flavor. Not crafting magic themed items.

As I even said above, it doesn't mean you're playing a Dark Ranger. It doesn't mean you're playing a Tinker. It's a moot argument.

The difference being that the Dark Ranger theme is handled by Death Knights. The only difference being the weapon being equipped. You simply can't say the same thing about any class and the Tinker.

- - - Updated - - -

Because we have the weapons and vanity objects that go on the back. Read what I post in their entirety, please.

Wouldn't Vanity items obstruct weapons?

Vanity objects replace each other.

That's not what I asked.

[Thimagryn]

Which is like saying you get the flavor of a Mage by having Enchanting as a Warrior. Absolute nonsense. What makes the Mage a Mage is its abilities. That's its flavor. Not crafting magic themed items.

Enchanting doesn't have a Magic theme, it has a specific Enchanting theme. You can't cast spells with Enchanting.

Engineering? It's everything Technology. You're making, using and applying Technology to every aspect of your character.

[Teriz]

Enchanting doesn't have a Magic theme, it has a specific Enchanting theme.

The very word "enchant" means magic. Enchanting is synonymous with the word.

You can't cast spells with Enchanting.

Except disenchant right? Placing magical properties on items isn't a magical theme? Interesting.

Engineering? It's everything Technology. You're making, using and applying Technology to every aspect of your character.

No you're not. You're simply crafting items, just like any crafting profession. The main difference with engineering is that you can make toys and novelties. However, those toys and novelties don't give you the flavor of a technology class.

[Ielenia]

The very word "enchant" means magic. Enchanting is synonymous with the word.

Enchanting, in wow, does not have a magic theme to it. So much so that not only everyone can learn it, but you also need special reagents to be able to create even the most basic enchants.

No you're not. You're simply crafting items, just like any crafting profession. The main difference with engineering is that you can make toys and novelties. However, those toys and novelties don't give you the flavor of a technology class.

Except you're using only game terms, of what the game allows for the players. In the lore, in the story, engineers build sky fortresses, siege tanks, city-connecting trams, etc.

[Thimagryn]

The very word "enchant" means magic. Enchanting is synonymous with the word.

So are you saying Enchanters are synonymous with Mages? You're defeating your own argument if you are.

[Teriz]

So are you saying Enchanters are synonymous with Mages? You're defeating your own argument if you are.

Look it up yourself. Enchanter is synonymous with magician, which is another word for Mage.

[Thimagryn]

Look it up yourself. Enchanter is synonymous with magician, which is another word for Mage.

Then you answered your own question. If your definition of Enchanter is synonymous with Magician, then a Warrior with Enchanting is a Magician Warrior. The flavour is right there in your own example.

That's not my definition, so I easily separate a Warrior with Enchanting from being anywhere similar to a Mage. Enchanting in my perspective deals specifically with Magical Items, not just magic alone.

[Teriz]

Then you answered your own question. If your definition of Enchanter is synonymous with Magician, then a Warrior with Enchanting is a Magician Warrior. The flavour is right there in your own example.

That's not my definition, so I easily separate a Warrior with Enchanting from being anywhere similar to a Mage. Enchanting in my perspective deals specifically with Magical Items, not just magic alone.

Of course the point being that Enchanting doesn't turn the Warrior into a "Batte Mage", just like Engineering doesn't turn a Hunter into a Tinker.

[Thimagryn]

Have you been ignoring my past posts?

With that being said, a Hunter with Engineering would be playing a character with the same flavour as a Tinker. It's also solid, lore wise.

But that's not actually playing a Tinker, is it?

As I even said above, it doesn't mean you're playing a Dark Ranger. It doesn't mean you're playing a Tinker. It's a moot argument.

Again, you're only supporting exactly what I've been saying. It's like as if you're picking parts of of my posts out of context and arguing only what you want to see