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

[Tarx]

I really would like too see tinker class in future . It will be awesome to dps with turets and cannons and tanking with metal walls .

[Ielenia]

Well the concept of the DK was the undead, and they based the class on the Lich King (Arthas) who was the master of the undead in WC3. So incorporating all aspects into a single (hero) class made sense.

How did it make sense to add the powers that, in WC3, belonged to a demon?

[Ragb]

Well since we are at it, The timewalker (Timekeeper) should be a healer/dps class, manipulating time to tear appart enemies or heal allies.

[Teriz]

How did it make sense to add the powers that, in WC3, belonged to a demon?

Probably because DKs were modeled after the Lich king, and so they were given all the powers of the Scourge, including attributes of these guys:

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/San%27layn

[Ielenia]

Probably because DKs were modeled after the Lich king, and so they were given all the powers of the Scourge, including attributes of these guys:

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/San%27layn

The San'layn didn't exist in Warcraft 3. And again, the DK was given the powers of a demon unit. It makes no sense to give it to him, considering the dk has no power over demons.

It just goes to reinforce the fact that the death knights have never used frost or unholy back in WC3. It was pushing a bit adding the crypt lord's abilities, but the demon one made no sense.

[Teriz]

The San'layn didn't exist in Warcraft 3. And again, the DK was given the powers of a demon unit. It makes no sense to give it to him, considering the dk has no power over demons.

It just goes to reinforce the fact that the death knights have never used frost or unholy back in WC3. It was pushing a bit adding the crypt lord's abilities, but the demon one made no sense.

Well it makes perfect sense to me. I'm sorry it doesn't make any sense to you.

[Ielenia]

Well it makes perfect sense to me. I'm sorry it doesn't make any sense to you.

I'm not surprised it does, considering some of your past arguments...

[Thimagryn]

Blizzard folded the various WC3 UD units and heroes into the DK class. That included some units and heroes that had Frost and Blood abilities.

That explains why the DK class ended up with Frost and Blood capabilities.

They folded units into the Warlock too, namely every demonic spell you can think of. There was still room for a Demon Hunter given that things were shifted around.

Necromancers have plenty to draw from that aren't purely Frost and Blood too, like an entire Poison theme that's left untapped, as well as Bone themes, Golems, Spiders and more.

DK wouldn't use Poison themes, summon golems or deal with spiders at all. DK's specs are tied to the 3 wings in ICC. You can think of the Necromancer as having his inspired by Naxxramas, utilizing Plagues, Arachnids and Constructs. It would make sense since Naxx is headed by Kel'thuzad, the greatest Necromancer next to the Lich King.

[Ielenia]

They folded units into the Warlock too, namely every demonic spell you can think of. There was still room for a Demon Hunter given that things were shifted around.

Necromancers have plenty to draw from that aren't purely Frost and Blood too, like an entire Poison theme that's left untapped, as well as Bone themes, Golems, Spiders and more.

DK wouldn't use Poison themes, summon golems or deal with spiders at all.

Exactly. Necromancers could even use blood too, for ranged spellcasting or healing, and it wouldn't interfere with the dk blood spec.

[Directionalk9]

I’m prepared for the hate train on this, and maybe this should be a seperate thread idea.

What about classes that aren’t new classes, but mirror classes?(I believe that’s the term I’m looking for)
A class that is mechanically the same as a preexisting one, by stats, rotation, and numbers, but spell names, spell effects, even the animations would be different.

The idea first struck me when people started asking for Night Elf Paladins because of one NPC at Legion’s launch, I’m aware of the ghost one later on. At first I didn’t like the idea because people are still being belligerent about Sunwalkers. However, I’ve changed my thinking. Night elf paladin’s could still be paladin’s but instead of a holy, golden effect to all their spells, they’d be silvery and lunar-esque to match their moon worshipping culture. Same could be done for Sunwalkers, rename some spells, and give the effects an orange-ish, fiery sun look.
Then we could get something like a Dark Templar, Void effect Paladins.

I realize not every class has that opportunity but some do. And it could go a long way to help build racial identity and let players stand out from each other a bit more.

Also this could help for a compromise on the ongoing Necromancer back and forth. They could be a mirror of the Warlock, no more Fel, fire and demons, but blood-bolts, corpse and various undead.
Druids also have some wiggle room here. Fire druids come to mind first, Kul’Tiras has death druids.

It’s just a thought to add class diversity without adding new classes.

[Hitei]

I’m prepared for the hate train on this, and maybe this should be a seperate thread idea.

What about classes that aren’t new classes, but mirror classes?(I believe that’s the term I’m looking for)
A class that is mechanically the same as a preexisting one, by stats, rotation, and numbers, but spell names, spell effects, even the animations would be different.

The idea first struck me when people started asking for Night Elf Paladins because of one NPC at Legion’s launch, I’m aware of the ghost one later on. At first I didn’t like the idea because people are still being belligerent about Sunwalkers. However, I’ve changed my thinking. Night elf paladin’s could still be paladin’s but instead of a holy, golden effect to all their spells, they’d be silvery and lunar-esque to match their moon worshipping culture. Same could be done for Sunwalkers, rename some spells, and give the effects an orange-ish, fiery sun look.
Then we could get something like a Dark Templar, Void effect Paladins.

I realize not every class has that opportunity but some do. And it could go a long way to help build racial identity and let players stand out from each other a bit more.

Also this could help for a compromise on the ongoing Necromancer back and forth. They could be a mirror of the Warlock, no more Fel, fire and demons, but blood-bolts, corpse and various undead.
Druids also have some wiggle room here. Fire druids come to mind first, Kul’Tiras has death druids.

It’s just a thought to add class diversity without adding new classes.

For who though? The people that want those other classes aren't going to enjoy a painted on version of an existing class, and the people not interested in those classes aren't interested in them.

[Thimagryn]

I’m prepared for the hate train on this, and maybe this should be a seperate thread idea.

What about classes that aren’t new classes, but mirror classes?(I believe that’s the term I’m looking for)
A class that is mechanically the same as a preexisting one, by stats, rotation, and numbers, but spell names, spell effects, even the animations would be different.

Something like a subclass? I'd personally love the idea because I've always wanted to see certain race/class combinations properly explored. Tauren Warriors finally geting a chieftain look and wielding totems, Orc Warriors being actual Blademasters etc. I think it'd be great if each race got a set of racial class talents to pick from and they can choose to further push their class identity, so there could be some overlap in choice between certain race/class combos. The Chieftain would be unique to Hightmountain and Tauren Warriors, but those warriors can also choose to spec alternatively into another talent route, like a Blood Guard, and Highmountains can spec into Dragonsworn (along with a few key races).

In the end, I feel that since the Priest racials were removed way back when that Blizzard doesn't want to deal with all those combinations for the sake of balance.

[Directionalk9]

For who though? The people that want those other classes aren't going to enjoy a painted on version of an existing class, and the people not interested in those classes aren't interested in them.

I came at the idea from the points, 1 selfish, 1 as a point of compromise, and the other as a way to open up, class/race combos with stethching the lore.

I believe there is room for Necromancers, but I also can admit that the design space is more limiting. Just mirror a warlock.

Like with my paladin example, if Sunwalkers had originally been introduced that way, it’s possible they might not be the head-scratch they are for people.

Like I said, it was just a compromise I wanted to see if people deemed worthy, guess not.

[Hitei]

I came at the idea from the points, 1 selfish, 1 as a point of compromise, and the other as a way to open up, class/race combos with stethching the lore.

I believe there is room for Necromancers, but I also can admit that the design space is more limiting. Just mirror a warlock.

Like with my paladin example, if Sunwalkers had originally been introduced that way, it’s possible they might not be the head-scratch they are for people.

Like I said, it was just a compromise I wanted to see if people deemed worthy, guess not.

I think racial flavoring works fine, but I think using this to implement other classes would just cause a lot of problems and ill-will.

[PalliesThrowStuff]

To be fair, as I'm sure someone else has said somewhere along this thread...

We're much more likely to see expanded specs for each class rather than all new classes.

The introduction of Allied Races and their functionality isn't terribly different than how 'hero' classes work, you must progress to a certain point in the game to unlock features for a new 'spec', which might not even be the same class.

An example may be for 'Necromancer' to be an additional spec available to any Priest, Warlock, or Mage character, provided that it's on the same account as a Death Knight, and both characters have completed a certain class-specific quest chain to enable this function.

I can easily see a 'Tinkerer' being an additional spec available to any, let's say, Leather wearing class, which is unlocked for any character sharing an account with someone who's completed a specific engineering quest.

Alternately, there's combinations of roles and classes that can easily be filled out.

Runemasters as a new Shaman spec that focuses on tanking.
Gunslingers as a new Rogue spec that uses ranged attacks.

The possibilities and permutations are endless. Anyone who says otherwise is a short sighted simpleton who has deluded themselves into believing that this is THEIR game to design, and not Blizzard's.

Just my personal opinion, and I can't realistically predict anything here... but there's a lot of precedent for an engineering based class to exist in this game. I could theorize until I'm blue in the face, but it's certainly one option on an enormous list, and I'd sure think it was interesting to finally kick around in the game the way Mekkatorque does.

[Directionalk9]

I’m not against the idea of specs that unlock and share amongst a few classes. It an out of the box idea, which I like. But man I can’t even predict some of the issues that could come with it as well.

[wholol]

Exactly. Necromancers could even use blood too, for ranged spellcasting or healing, and it wouldn't interfere with the dk blood spec.

It's like you guys don't even read the posts besides the ones you are quoted in, as I've stated above and in the page before it's not about creating differing spell schools that no one currently has but more about creating a unique theme that no other class has, basics of class design.

[Challenge]

To be fair, as I'm sure someone else has said somewhere along this thread...

We're much more likely to see expanded specs for each class rather than all new classes.

The introduction of Allied Races and their functionality isn't terribly different than how 'hero' classes work, you must progress to a certain point in the game to unlock features for a new 'spec', which might not even be the same class.

An example may be for 'Necromancer' to be an additional spec available to any Priest, Warlock, or Mage character, provided that it's on the same account as a Death Knight, and both characters have completed a certain class-specific quest chain to enable this function.

I can easily see a 'Tinkerer' being an additional spec available to any, let's say, Leather wearing class, which is unlocked for any character sharing an account with someone who's completed a specific engineering quest.

Alternately, there's combinations of roles and classes that can easily be filled out.

Runemasters as a new Shaman spec that focuses on tanking.
Gunslingers as a new Rogue spec that uses ranged attacks.

And to the last stupid suggestion of "blizzard should just add 4th specs (5th for druids) to every class". It will never happen. Blizzard already said during legion development that they wished back in time they didnt add 3rd specs for certain classes (aka Rogue/Hunter). Not to mention the time it takes to develop 12 new specs to be unique, interesting rotationally, doesnt infringe on existing classes, makes sense and is functionally balanced and then maintain the balance on TWELVE MORE SPECS? Thats basically 4 classes with 3 new specs for a single expansion, or 6 classes if they only can make 2 specs like the demon hunter. Are you people actually insane?

Gunslinger theme is already covered by outlaw rogue. We dont need another one that is slightly different but ultimately the same like the dumb ass necormancer concept.

Runemasters are not shamans, and would never be a "subspec" by them.

Tbh you're idea of having 1 subspec/theme added to many existing classes (priest,warlock,mage/tinker to leather users) is even dumber than the standard necromancer/bard advocates in this very thread. Why the hell would i want a left field tinker spec for my druid when i can just have the class itself?

Doesnt even make sense lorewise. You arnt even making a new class out of existing, unused classes like darkranger x necromancer. You're just polluting the current classes we already have with this.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like you guys don't even read the posts besides the ones you are quoted in, as I've stated above and in the page before it's not about creating differing spell schools that no one currently has but more about creating a unique theme that no other class has, basics of class design.

Nah man, a dark blood and bone themed spellcaster with emphasis on healing is vastly different than a dark blood and bone themed melee with emphasis on healing.

[wholol]

Nah man, a dark blood and bone themed spellcaster with emphasis on healing is vastly different than a dark blood and bone themed melee with emphasis on healing.

xD

/10chars.

[Ielenia]

It's like you guys don't even read the posts besides the ones you are quoted in, as I've stated above and in the page before it's not about creating differing spell schools that no one currently has but more about creating a unique theme that no other class has, basics of class design.

Except I did exactly what you claim I don't do? I quoted Thym's post, who wasn't quoting me.

Nah man, a dark blood and bone themed spellcaster with emphasis on healing is vastly different than a dark blood and bone themed melee with emphasis on healing.

Yeah, because a light-themed spellcaster with emphasis on healing is vastly different from a light-themed melee with emphasis on healing! In case it's too complex for you to understand, I was talking about holy priests and protection paladins, there. Oh, and wait! A frost-based spellcaster with emphasis on slowing opponents is also vastly from a frost-based melee with emphasis on slowing down opponents, right? Talking about frost mages and frost dks, there.

Are you even trying?