Theres only one possible class left they can add to the game

[Ielenia]

No the issue with Tinkers is that their supporters are annoying AF, pretending that Tinker is the only choice for new class and being physically unable to formulate proper arguments. Exhibit A: Teriz

The issue with Teriz is that he is very dishonest in his arguments. I mean, look at how he responded to your question, about coming up with a tinker concept without using guns and bombs. He simply "weaseled" his way around the idea by still making a class idea using guns and bombs, but claiming they're not using in-game items from their in-game backpacks, which, in this case, would be an in-game gun item and an in-game bomb item.

[Teriz]

The issue with Teriz is that he is very dishonest in his arguments. I mean, look at how he responded to your question, about coming up with a tinker concept without using guns and bombs. He simply "weaseled" his way around the idea by still making a class idea using guns and bombs, but claiming they're not using in-game items from their in-game backpacks, which, in this case, would be an in-game gun item and an in-game bomb item.

Just FYI, Balagar not understanding what I (or the original poster he was responding to) was talking about isn't dishonesty. The OP was correct in that the original and the HotS Tinker hero never used guns. Both Tinkers were melee heroes who utilized ranged abilities. Thus, it's highly unlikely that you'd see a class based on the Tinker shooting guns or bows like Hunters do.

Saying that a MM Hunter covers everything a Tinker could do is a pretty laughable argument.

[Najja]

You also have the major issue of "leveling up" because it's a tool, it's already Max level.

You lack imagination my friend. How would a tool level up? By its creator getting more creative and having new ideas, then modifying the it to then have more power, better armor, new weapons.

[Ielenia]

Just FYI, Balagar not understanding what I (or the original poster he was responding to) was talking about isn't dishonesty. The OP was correct in that the original and the HotS Tinker hero never used guns. Both Tinkers were melee heroes who utilized ranged abilities. Thus, it's highly unlikely that you'd see a class based on the Tinker shooting guns or bows like Hunters do.

If it's a mechanical device that shoots bullets, it's a gun, regardless if it's attached to a bigger machine, or in the hands of a person. The "using a bomb" term does not change if it's being lobbed by a machine or by a person. "Using a gun" also doesn't change if you're doing it by left-clicking an icon on your character's spellbook or right-clicking an icon on your in-game backpack.

Saying that a MM Hunter covers everything a Tinker could do is a pretty laughable argument.

As laughable as saying the pre-Legion warlock covered everything about the demon hunter, right?

[Teriz]

My sentiments exactly. There is no need at all to base classes around an almost 20 year old game from a different gaming genre.

As long as the servers are live and development is active the only barrier to new classes is lack of imagination.

2 things:

Every expansion class has its roots in that 20 year old game from a different genre.

Death Knights: http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml
Monks: http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml
Demon Hunter: http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml

It stands to reason that the next class would follow suit.

Secondly, classes are tied to expansions, so any class entering the game would need to have a decent amount of lore history in WoW in order to make sense. The WC3 heroes have that background, so it makes sense for Blizzard to pull from that well.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's a mechanical device that shoots bullets, it's a gun, regardless if it's attached to a bigger machine, or in the hands of a person.

So are you saying there's no difference between a Hunter shooting a musket, and a pilot firing his mech's weapons?

It also should be noted that Hunters do not have the Machine Gun ability.

The "using a bomb" term does not change if it's being lobbed by a machine or by a person. "Using a gun" also doesn't change if you're doing it by left-clicking an icon on your character's spellbook or right-clicking an icon on your in-game backpack.

MM Hunters have no bomb abilities. That's strictly a Survival talent. Now if you wish to say that they can do it via Engineering, well a Tinker wouldn't interfere with that at all, since abilities are different than items.

As laughable as saying the pre-Legion warlock covered everything about the demon hunter, right?

Not that laughable considering that a Warlock spec needed to be changed to allow Demon Hunters into the game.

Which Hunter spec would need to be changed to allow Tinkers into the game? I'm genuinely curious.

[Inukashi]

If we just go through the Units of wc3 there is so much they could do

Necromancer, Banshee, Dread Lord, Bloodmage, Spellbreaker, Mortar, Blademaster, Headhunter, Warden, Priests of the Moon, Huntress, (Sea) Witch, Dark Ranger (since they poped Surv from Hunter), Firelord and finally Alchemist/Tinker

I didn't take all, just the ones I could instantly think of a Class with at least 3 Specs without destroying another spec. You could eas take 1-2 spells from another class and create a new one. Look at death coil and demon form. They were warlock abilities once.
You could also throw 2-3 units together and create something new like Banshee and Necromancer.

[LanToaster]

There are two types of "power level". Lore and gameplay. "Power level" is something that does exist in the lore. Tirion is arguably as powerful as the Lich King (I'd argue he's not). Old golds are more powerful than brown orc supremacists. A night elf Warden is more powerful than a city guard. Etc. That exists.

Now, "power level" in gameplay is a different beast altogether. It is what allows us to kill a world-breaking power-mad dragon as easily today as we killed critters at level 1. It also explains why professions are not as effective as classes.

The issue comes when someone uses gameplay "power level" as lore "power level", like saying how "tinker bombs would be more effective than engineer bombs", or that "tinkers won't need to harvest resources to build their stuff". Things like that.

But we didn´t talk about that at all. ... but ahh, Now I get what you are getting at.
Thats actually a relativly good point, against a TinkerClass.
But this can be cauntered by the fact, that NonEngineers cant use most of the Engineering stuff. So, with the same Mindset on can assume you need to be a Tinker this "good" (In that case the Level would indicate his Ability to Use his Creations) to use whatever gadgets/contraptions they use.

For Casters its also the Ability how good they are at wielding their Magic. If one puts his mind to it, someone can probably explain the reason why my Dwarf Paladin cant use Mekkatorques awesome Battlesuit

And what if the original methods they had still work just as well for the "threats/objectives they currently have"? You're assuming change for change's sake. At no point we ever saw anything about either the priest or paladin order changing their training methods, nor have we seen anything that would require a change in their teaching methods.

Lets see, I would argue,you fight Deamons a bit different than Orcs, and undead alot different than Deamons or Orcs.

If you take a look at the timetable:
The Silver Hand was created to protect against the Orcs.
Later came the Undead. Paladins learned how to deal with the Undead.
-> Creation of the Asbringer, Paladins have/had exorcism and were suited to fight undead. (I dont recall any Priest ever having any skill that would work especially well against Undead) That means: At least Paladins adapted themselves to fight the Undead.

That in Essence should tell you that the first created order of Paladins changed. If we stay a bit more, in game perspective, in Cataclysm Exorcism was tweaked to also affect elementals. (Could be just for gameplay reasons) But this can also suggest that their Training changed, because their Skills changed.

That's a false equivalence. As far as I can tell, paladins (at least the Azerothian paladins, except Tauren) are priests who use their priest skills combined with martial training (and warriors who use their martial trained combined with priest training). Shamans are not like that.

But again: Paladins (in WoW) never had similar skills to Priests. The only thing they share: They can heal, but so can Druids, Schamans and even to a certain Extend Warlocks. And the source of their Power.

You also dont know, if the priest training the First Paladins had, has actually any relevance to the stuff they learn as Paladin.

First: Priests are more Defensive with their usage of the Light. The only offensive Spells I recall are: Holy Fire (If I translate that Correctly), and Smite.
Paladins dont have that. The Ashbringer for example was the only thing bringing a fire Aspect to the table. It feels like the Priests use more the light more Delicate. While Paladins use raw force. Two opposite ways of Utilizing the Light.

And again: Tell me one skill, or thing that Priests and Paladins do the same. (Similar Skill Name, Skill effect, Description) (Except "Neutral Skills" like: "Heal" or "Heals a target")

*heavy sigh* When I said "priests in plate" I was just making a 'tongue-in-cheek' over-simplification. You're taking that way too seriously.

No you clearly stated:

It's called a "paladin". Literally. Paladins are literally priests in plate.

This is the thing I disagree on.

You started: All Paladins are Priests (or were Priests), because the first Paladins were Priests.
From that you go to: All Paladins receive Priest training.

But you have no basis to back that up. You have still two distinctive different classes, with two different skillsets. (Not even sharing a single unique skill)
with two completely different Goals/Purposes. (I dont know what the overall job description of a Priest looks like, but its not: "We are made to cleanse the land of Undead and Deamons and Injustice" like what basically every Paladin is supposed to do).

Its like saying: Because I´m a Chef, and in my Training to be a Chef I learn stuff that people from the Restaurant/Hotel Service learn. I was or am also a Service Guy. Which I´m not.

[Ielenia]

But we didn´t talk about that at all. ... but ahh, Now I get what you are getting at.
Thats actually a relativly good point, against a TinkerClass.
But this can be cauntered by the fact, that NonEngineers cant use most of the Engineering stuff. So, with the same Mindset on can assume you need to be a Tinker this "good" (In that case the Level would indicate his Ability to Use his Creations) to use whatever gadgets/contraptions they use.

For Casters its also the Ability how good they are at wielding their Magic. If one puts his mind to it, someone can probably explain the reason why my Dwarf Paladin cant use Mekkatorques awesome Battlesuit

Yeah, but here's the thing: as an engineer, I can already build mechs that can fly, mechs that can fire cannons, lob bombs and and even heal others. Engineers can also create wormholes, seemingly sentient robots (jeeves and blingtron), etc. And that's just what the player is allowed to do, not counting what NPCs do. How much more "good" an engineer would have to be, to be a tinker, in this case?

And again: Tell me one skill, or thing that Priests and Paladins do the same. (Similar Skill Name, Skill effect, Description) (Except "Neutral Skills" like: "Heal" or "Heals a target")

I don't think asking for "similar names" is a fair request, considering that the only time two abilities had the same name in the game (as far as I recall), Blizzard was quick to fix that (Death Coil/Mortal Coil). Besides, the way I see paladins and priests' training is how engineers are, today. They all have the same basic training, but, later on, a mechanical engineer and a chemical engineer would differ in their training.

No you clearly stated:

Ok. Fine. I worded it badly, ok? I suppose I should have added a smiley face, but the intention, from the get-go, was to make a tongue-in-cheek comment.

[Mic_128]

Soo, as you have your sources, did he recieve "Priest" Training. Or did the Archbishop just teach him to wield the Light.

Unknown on the specifics. The archbishop approached Lothar with the idea he had to train some priests into a new brotherhood called 'Paladins' explaining that he would find a way to have them mix the Light of his handpicked priests with martial prowess. Lothar thought it was a good idea and suggested Gavinrad as he was a fine warrior and also a strong believer of the Light.

After that their training happens off-screen and the next chapter they have their army.

[Ielenia]

2 things:

Every expansion class has its roots in that 20 year old game from a different genre.

Death Knights: http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml
Monks: http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml
Demon Hunter: http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml

It stands to reason that the next class would follow suit.

Perhaps. But it's not a mandatory requirement. Blizzard could very well pull a class idea from outside all of their current franchises.

Secondly, classes are tied to expansions, so any class entering the game would need to have a decent amount of lore history in WoW in order to make sense. The WC3 heroes have that background, so it makes sense for Blizzard to pull from that well.

No, you're wrong, there. Classes so far were tied to expansions, but, as far as I know, that's not a mandatory requirement. Again, Blizzard could very well add a class to an expansion that doesn't really ties in with the expansion's theme or story.

So are you saying there's no difference between a Hunter shooting a musket, and a pilot firing his mech's weapons?

Before I answer: are we talking gameplay, or lore, here?

It also should be noted that Hunters do not have the Machine Gun ability.

It should also be noted that's a completely irrelevant statement. Also, hunters have the 'Barrage' ability, which, for all intents and purposes, is a "machine gun spray" ability. Also, MMs have 'Marked Shot', which also technically could be considered a 'machine gun' ability if you have more than one mob tagged with Hunter's Mark.

MM Hunters have no bomb abilities.

If so, then what are the "bursting shot", "explosive trap" and "explosive shot" abilities, if not explosives (a.k.a. bombs)?

Not that laughable considering that a Warlock spec needed to be changed to allow Demon Hunters into the game.

Jury's still waiting on your evidence on that one. Remember: correlation does not imply causation. Also, if tinkers are added, and the hunter class has to be severely modified "to allow it", would you eat your words?

Which Hunter spec would need to be changed to allow Tinkers into the game? I'm genuinely curious.

I imagine all the bombs, grenades and otherwise tech-related skills would have to be removed, if we're going with your idea that two classes cannot have similarities in a handful of skills at all.

[Teriz]

If we just go through the Units of wc3 there is so much they could do

Necromancer Banshee, Dread Lord, Bloodmage, Spellbreaker, Mortar, Blademaster, Headhunter, Warden, Priests of the Moon, Huntress, (Sea) Witch, Dark Ranger (since they poped Surv from Hunter), Firelord and finally Alchemist/Tinker

Eh, not really.

Necromancer: Abilities went to Death Knights
Banshee: Abilities went to Priests, DKs, and Warlocks
Dread Lord: Vampiric aura went to DKs and inspired Blood spec. Infernal went to Warlocks. Warlocks used to have Sleep and Carrion Swarm.
Blood Mage: Abilities split between Warlocks and Mages.
Spellbreaker: Abilities went to Mage
Mortar: Hunters took Flare
Blademaster: Abilities split between Mage and Warrior
Headhunter: No abilities to take
Warden: Abilities split between Mage and Rogue
Priestess of the moon: Abilities split between Hunters and Druids
Huntress: Glaive toss went to Hunters, then they lost it and it went to Demon Hunters (typical).
Sea Witch: Abilities split between Shaman and Mage
Dark Ranger: Abilities split between Warlocks and Hunters
Firelord: Essentially a Fire Elemental for Shaman. Good luck turning Ragnaros into a class.

Tinker and Alchemist are the only two heroes where no classes share their abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps. But it's not a mandatory requirement. Blizzard could very well pull a class idea from outside all of their current franchises.

No, you're wrong, there. Classes so far were tied to expansions, but, as far as I know, that's not a mandatory requirement. Again, Blizzard could very well add a class to an expansion that doesn't really ties in with the expansion's theme or story.

Which is why I said "It stands to reason". In other words, Blizzard could change their stripes, but given their track record, it's highly unlikely.

Before I answer: are we talking gameplay, or lore, here?

Balagar was talking gameplay.

It should also be noted that's a completely irrelevant statement. Also, hunters have the 'Barrage' ability, which, for all intents and purposes, is a "machine gun spray" ability. Also, MMs have 'Marked Shot', which also technically could be considered a 'machine gun' ability if you have more than one mob tagged with Hunter's Mark.

Both of which require a ranged weapon. A character piloting a machine wouldn't need that.

If so, then what are the "bursting shot", "explosive trap" and "explosive shot" abilities, if not explosives (a.k.a. bombs)?

Bursting shot: Fires an explosion of bolts at all enemies in front of you, knocking them back, disorienting them for 4 sec, and dealing 40% Physical damage

Explosive Trap: Hurls a fire trap to the target location that explodes when an enemy approaches, causing (420% of Attack power) Fire damage and burning all enemies within 8 yards for (420% of Attack power) additional Fire damage over 10 sec. Trap will exist for 1 min.

Explosive Shot: Fires a slow-moving munition directly forward. Activating this ability a second time detonates the Shot, dealing up to (1000% of Attack power) Fire damage to all enemies within 8 yds, damage based on proximity.

So one fires a bunch of bolts at enemies, the other is a trap which is more of a land mine, and the other is a rocket.

Jury's still waiting on your evidence on that one. Remember: correlation does not imply causation. Also, if tinkers are added, and the hunter class has to be severely modified "to allow it", would you eat your words?

Nope, because there's no scenario where Hunters would need to be severely modified.

I imagine all the bombs, grenades and otherwise tech-related skills would have to be removed, if we're going with your idea that two classes cannot have similarities in a handful of skills at all.

So two talents in the Survival tree?

Cool.

In all seriousness, neither of those talents would be touched since it's highly doubtful Tinkers would have either Dragonfire Grenade or Sticky Bomb.

[Ielenia]

Balagar was talking gameplay.

In that case, at face value, by themselves, there's no difference. On both situations we have unit A sending a projectile at unit B. Damage is irrelevant because damage always varies and scales for a variety of reasons.

Both of which require a ranged weapon. A character piloting a machine wouldn't need that.

He would need the machine to do that. It's the same thing.

Bursting shot: Fires an explosion of bolts at all enemies in front of you, knocking them back, disorienting them for 4 sec, and dealing 40% Physical damage

Explosive Trap: Hurls a fire trap to the target location that explodes when an enemy approaches, causing (420% of Attack power) Fire damage and burning all enemies within 8 yards for (420% of Attack power) additional Fire damage over 10 sec. Trap will exist for 1 min.

Explosive Shot: Fires a slow-moving munition directly forward. Activating this ability a second time detonates the Shot, dealing up to (1000% of Attack power) Fire damage to all enemies within 8 yds, damage based on proximity.

So one fires a bunch of bolts at enemies, the other is a trap which is more of a land mine, and the other is a rocket.

And... so what? Are you doing to claim those aren't explosives? That those aren't bombs?

Nope, because there's no scenario where Hunters would need to be severely modified.

Are you saying that, if tinkers are added and hunters do lose a lot of stuff that are then added to the tinker class, you're saying you'll still claim the hunter class didn't suffer with the addition of the tinker class?

So two talents in the Survival tree?

Cool.

In all seriousness, neither of those talents would be touched.

Wow. I gave you more than two examples, even ones outside the survival tree, and you just say 'two talents in the survival tree'. You're so dishonest. And as far as claiming "those talents would not be touched", guess what? You don't know that. They could very well be. There is precedent.

[Deleted]

Would like a shotgun class in wow tbh. Mid range ( 10-15y) who do less dmg at longer range.

[Swizzington]

I'd love to play a Bard-type character that fills the role of a dps, but only deals about 60% of the damage of a full dps. Instead, they would bring a whole host of buffs, increasing the team's damage, movespeed, contributing slightly to healing, perhaps. Stuff like that. A true support class that is not just a healer.

[Halwyn]

With the amount of techincal gadgets engineers currently have access to, it's hard to imagine coming up with ideas both fresh and numerous to make one spec, let alone multiple specs. And having half of your toolkit being represented by a profession(s. May throw alchemy here as well, since... chemicals?) is kinda insulting.

On top of getting a few abilities from Hunters, and as a Warlock main I'm still biased towards DH's for stripping a good spec of an interesting mechanic and turning it into the boring CD that doesn't really do anything other than slightly changing a few abilities.

Better leave the classes' numbers alone and implement new specs, God knows how many decent ideas circulate the community for those. Except for, again, DH's. Hard to come up with anything decent for those, since there was a "Fel Spellcaster" class for ages. Only other option is a Spellbreaker, but it'd make a better Warrior-oriented spec, imo.

[LanToaster]

Yeah, but here's the thing: as an engineer, I can already build mechs that can fly, mechs that can fire cannons, lob bombs and and even heal others. Engineers can also create wormholes, seemingly sentient robots (jeeves and blingtron), etc. And that's just what the player is allowed to do, not counting what NPCs do. How much more "good" an engineer would have to be, to be a tinker, in this case?

I´m not really arguing for "Hey Tinker Class", because my Opinion doesnt matter if it comes.

I was arguing, that there are NPCs who would fit that. Who are Primarily Tinkers/Engineers.
Because of that I have no Idea what I should say to that. ^^

I don't think asking for "similar names" is a fair request, considering that the only time two abilities had the same name in the game (as far as I recall), Blizzard was quick to fix that (Death Coil/Mortal Coil). Besides, the way I see paladins and priests' training is how engineers are, today. They all have the same basic training, but, later on, a mechanical engineer and a chemical engineer would differ in their training.

Thats why I added also: "Effect and Description" (Unique Description for example). Many Skills dont just say: "Does X amount of Shadow Damage".

For example: "Blessed Hammer: Throws a Blessed hammer, ...." Or: "Jugdment: Judges a target". I dont have a Priest right now with me. So I cant look up that. I would also count earlier Skills that have been Removed.

But my point is, due to how the skills work and or are portrayed is that they are entirely different.

But going back to the Training,
I would assume that most of the Priest training also isn´t combat oriented, but rather "Priestey" (*laugh*). As I see it, a Priest is more Religious, and most of the Priest training relates to their Faith.
While Paladins (Except Tauren, its specially stated that they follow the Faith) worship and serve the Light in its pure form, without religious interference.
(Which is why there are no NightElve Paladins, they dont actually use the light at all, afaik. It would be actually interesting to know how this works)

If we would agree that some Parts (In terms of Wielding the Light) of Paladin and Priest training are similar. It would be a very very minor detail

Ok. Fine. I worded it badly, ok? I suppose I should have added a smiley face, but the intention, from the get-go, was to make a tongue-in-cheek comment.

I forgive you

[Ielenia]

Would like a shotgun class in wow tbh. Mid range ( 10-15y) who do less dmg at longer range.

That would suck in fights where positioning is key, and since you're not melee, that means you get targeted by abilities that target ranged targets specifically, which means you could easily put the melee in danger. :/

[Teriz]

In that case, at face value, by themselves, there's no difference. On both situations we have unit A sending a projectile at unit B. Damage is irrelevant because damage always varies and scales for a variety of reasons.

If that's the case then Balagar should have no issue, since the same can be said for any ranged or melee ability and every class in the game.

And... so what? Are you doing to claim those aren't explosives? That those aren't bombs?

Just because its an explosive doesn't mean its a bomb. Bursting Shot and Explosive Trap are definitely not bombs.

Are you saying that, if tinkers are added and hunters do lose a lot of stuff that are then added to the tinker class, you're saying you'll still claim the hunter class didn't suffer with the addition of the tinker class?

Again, that wouldn't happen. None of the WC3 (or even HotS) Hero abilities exist in the Hunter class, so it is highly unlikely that Tinkers would take anything from the Hunter class.

Wow. I gave you more than two examples, even ones outside the survival tree, and you just say 'two talents in the survival tree'. You're so dishonest. And as far as claiming "those talents would not be touched", guess what? You don't know that. They could very well be. There is precedent.

I know that because the only way abilities (or specs) get changed around due to class implementation is if they share the same name and purpose. For example, Hunters lost Glaive Toss to Demon Hunters because it essentially did the exact same thing and there was no way to use a different name. Same thing with Metamorphosis. Warlocks also lost Death Coil to DKs because they shared a name and had some level of similarity (shadow magic+healing).

Tinkers don't use traps, so explosive trap is safe. Tinkers can use other grenades and bombs besides Dragon-fire based grenades and Sticky Bombs, so the Survival talents are fine. Firing bolts is heavily based on Bows and arrows, so Bursting Shot is safe. There's also plenty alternatives to explosive shot within the Tinker hero ability sets, so that one is safe too.

Hope that helps.

[Mic_128]

With the amount of techincal gadgets engineers currently have access to, it's hard to imagine coming up with ideas both fresh and numerous to make one spec, let alone multiple specs. And having half of your toolkit being represented by a profession(s. May throw alchemy here as well, since... chemicals?) is kinda insulting.

Alchemists create potions for consumption and trinkets for themselves. That's a bit different than throwing potions for various effects - Glue potions, poison clouds, sleep potions, acid, combustable potions, slippery oil.

And there's plenty of potential for Tinkers. Bandage guns, lasers, rocket and grenades of various elements and effects. Mechs, tanks, hover-bots, remote, proxy and timed mines. I could go on.

[Hastis]

there is a lot of more intresting class than tinker cuz we already have ennginer