Discussion: What IF no new classes were ever added, but specs instead?

[Rhamses]

A pity you didn't read the "Plenty of ways" and instead focus on those.Also is laughable that you tried to hard to prove in another thread that Engineering is nothing like Tinker yet you label Chains of Ice as the same thing as the Hots spell and Frost Blast as the same as the other ones.

Really original from you.

You're complaining about originality when you're pining for a class that would snatch abilities away from existing classes on a level even worse than what happened with the DH?

C'mon man.

[Darktbs]

You're complaining about originality when you're pining for a class that would snatch abilities away from existing classes on a level even worse than what happened with the DH?

C'mon man.

Yet you proven me right on the fact that people only see what already exists.

Have you given thought that maybe they would come up with something new and original for the Necromancer?

No, you went straight to the Hots Hero class like it would make a difference or it is the class itself.

[Rhamses]

Yet you proven me right on the fact that people only see what already exists.

Have you given thought that maybe they would come up with something new and original for the Necromancer?

No, you went straight to the Hots Hero class like it would make a difference or it is the class itself.

They wouldn't do that though, because part of the appeal of "new" classes has always been the nostalgia factor from previous games. Demon Hunters for example were going to be as close to their WC3 and HotS variations as possible because that's what people know. Hence why the class only had two specs and didn't have a bow/crossbow ranged spec; That isn't the DH that people know and love and want to be. They want the Warglaives. They want the tattoos. They want the blindfold. They want Metamorphosis. People could predict what the DH class would be like before they even brought the class to the game.

Any Necromancer class is going to be tit-for-tat what we've already seen in WC3, WoW, and HotS. We might see some general deviation in the class to facilitate multiple specs, but the core is going to be from the source material, just like every expansion class before it.

Which is why its pretty easy to predict that such a class inclusion would snatch abilities from existing classes.

[Darktbs]

They wouldn't do that though, because part of the appeal of "new" classes has always been the nostalgia factor from previous games. Demon Hunters for example were going to be as close to their WC3 and HotS variations as possible because that's what people know. Hence why the class only had two specs and didn't have a bow/crossbow ranged spec; That isn't the DH that people know and love and want to be. They want the Warglaives. They want the tattoos. They want the blindfold. They want Metamorphosis. People could predict what the DH class would be like before they even brought the class to the game.

Any Necromancer class is going to be tit-for-tat what we've already seen in WC3, WoW, and HotS. We might see some general deviation in the class to facilitate multiple specs, but the core is going to be from the source material, just like every expansion class before it.

Which is why its pretty easy to predict that such a class inclusion would snatch abilities from existing classes.

Yet your argumment falls flat on its face when you see Mistweaver, Frost/Blood and Vengeance Dh.

Which distance itself from the original designs, even if they are supposed added by other sources within the Warcraft3 gameplay, they aren't part of the original class.

People asked for Dks but did not asked for a Frost Warrior or a Vampiric Knight nor did anyone thought of a healer that used mystical Mists to heal let alone being part of a Monk class and who knows how many thought about a Dh wielding Tonfa styled-blades while transfoming into the Hulk.

[Airwaves]

Battlemage Tank for Mage, And Earthwarden tank for shammy please.

[Rhamses]

Yet your argumment falls flat on its face when you see Mistweaver, Frost/Blood and Vengeance Dh.

Which distance itself from the original designs, even if they are supposed added by other sources within the Warcraft3 gameplay, they aren't part of the original class.

People asked for Dks but did not asked for a Frost Warrior or a Vampiric Knight nor did anyone thought of a healer that used mystical Mists to heal let alone being part of a Monk class and who knows how many thought about a Dh wielding Tonfa styled-blades while transfoming into the Hulk.

Like I said, some general deviation to facilitate spec differences. However, within those deviations, aspects of the core concept remained: Mistweaver Monks still made brews, and the DH tank spec still had metamorphosis, twin blades, and the blindfold.

If you want a necromancer class fine, but you should accept the fact that in order to bring it into the game your going to be taking numerous abilities from existing classes. Pretending that Blizzard is going to come up with some new far out design to avoid overlap is wishful thinking at best and dishonesty at worst.

[Darktbs]

Like I said, some general deviation to facilitate spec differences. However, within those deviations, aspects of the core concept remained: Mistweaver Monks still made brews, and the DH tank spec still had metamorphosis, twin blades, and the blindfold.

If you want a necromancer class fine, but you should accept the fact that in order to bring it into the game your going to be taking numerous abilities from existing classes. Pretending that Blizzard is going to come up with some new far out design to avoid overlap is wishful thinking at best and dishonesty at worst.

Depends of the concept.

You're saying "they will be taking" is a assumption at best.Because, again, you're saying that the only abilities a Necromancer could have are those that exist in current classes.

May i ask what kinda of spell they would steal from Dks if they were to be a plague-spreader with a gun like suggested before.And what stops them from creating a altertnative to it?

What stops the Necromancer of having a mummy style transfomation that the Dks would lose?

And also, i would drop that, "Accept the fact" its a assumption of your part and if its a fact then its also a fact that the Tinker wouldn't exist because engineers.

"Buts its a profession not a class"You do realize that this arguments works more agaisn't then in favor of the class.

Professions have no race limitation, every characters created before and after can learned it.Its not required for anything and not the best or worst in anything along side the amount of different things you can create.

[Rhamses]

Depends of the concept.

You're saying "they will be taking" is a assumption at best.Because, again, you're saying that the only abilities a Necromancer could have are those that exist in current classes.

May i ask what kinda of spell they would steal from Dks if they were to be a plague-spreader with a gun like suggested before.And what stops them from creating a altertnative to it?

What stops the Necromancer of having a mummy style transfomation that the Dks would lose?

Plague spreaders with guns aren't Necromancers. You're looking at two main archetypes for a WoW Necromancer class: The Necromancer unit from WC3, and the Lich/Kel'thuzad. A plague spreader with a gun (aka a mad scientist) really doesn't gel with a spell-caster with a staff. At best, you're looking at a caster that spreads disease via spells, and that collides with both the DK's disease abilities and the Warlock spreading afflictions.

We should also acknowledge that the very fact that we have to go to Mad scientists or some "mummy transformation" garbage is because the existing classes take so much of the Necromancer concept.

And also, i would drop that, "Accept the fact" its a assumption of your part and if its a fact then its also a fact that the Tinker wouldn't exist because engineers.

"Buts its a profession not a class"You do realize that this arguments works more agaisn't then in favor of the class.

Professions have no race limitation, every characters created before and after can learned it.Its not required for anything and not the best or worst in anything along side the amount of different things you can create.

And professions have nothing to do with classes. Engineers lost zero grenades and bombs because Hunters got Dragonfire grenades and Sticky Bombs. Alchemy lost zero potions because Monks and Rogues got potions. Do you know why? Because a Tinkerer tanking in a dungeon has zero to do with an engineer collecting screws to make goggles. A Rogue handing out Crimson Vials before a boss fight has nothing to do with an Alchemist collecting herbs in the forest. There's not even any overlapping abilities between what we've seen out of both Tinkerer heroes and the Engineering profession.

Two classes having Metamorphosis? That's a problem. Two classes being able to summon/raise/control undead minions and pets? That's a problem. Blizzard has demonstrated that its a problem multiple times.

[Darktbs]

Plague spreaders with guns aren't Necromancers. You're looking at two main archetypes for a WoW Necromancer class: The Necromancer unit from WC3, and the Lich/Kel'thuzad. A plague spreader with a gun (aka a mad scientist) really doesn't gel with a spell-caster with a staff. At best, you're looking at a caster that spreads disease via spells, and that collides with both the DK's disease abilities and the Warlock spreading afflictions.

We should also acknowledge that the very fact that we have to go to Mad scientists or some "mummy transformation" garbage is because the existing classes take so much of the Necromancer concept.

Fun for you to say this right after you say this

"Like I said, some general deviation to facilitate spec differences. However, within those deviations, aspects of the core concept remained: Mistweaver Monks still made brews, and the DH tank spec still had metamorphosis, twin blades, and the blindfold."

I can go on, but your own argumment makes you wrong.Because this things retain the theme of Necromancy(irrelevant if you like it or not)but offer something that Dks don't do.Not only mentioning that many of the Monk spells were added because of lore added in Pandaria,things made from scratch the Celestial, the statues, chi, Jade beams and many more.

You and many more speak of things that wouldn't happen but are basic things when design characters, classes and such.

You meantion that a Meta was removed for Dh to be introduced.But at the same time Death coil wasn't removed but rather renamed to MOrtal coil and Death coil was given to the Dks and no one was hurt.

Army of the Dead wont be removed, Raise dead can easily be renamed and remain the same thing, same for D&D.

You have one example where a spell was supossely removed for the introduction of the class.While i not only have the example that a spell can be renamed for the sake of preservation, i can show spells that exist since the begining that do the same thing but have different names, Flash heal and Flash of Light or Corruption and Agony and Shadow word:Pain.

[SealMemeSix]

I thought you were gonna suggest things like a caster spec for DKs, spellblade spec for mages, etc. Then I read this convoluted bullshit and gained further insight on the failings of the education system. Jesus Christ this post was dumb.

[Starry Sidekick]

I am so confused right now :/.

[Rhamses]

Fun for you to say this right after you say this

"Like I said, some general deviation to facilitate spec differences. However, within those deviations, aspects of the core concept remained: Mistweaver Monks still made brews, and the DH tank spec still had metamorphosis, twin blades, and the blindfold."

I can go on, but your own argumment makes you wrong.Because this things retain the theme of Necromancy(irrelevant if you like it or not)but offer something that Dks don't do.Not only mentioning that many of the Monk spells were added because of lore added in Pandaria,things made from scratch the Celestial, the statues, chi, Jade beams and many more.

You and many more speak of things that wouldn't happen but are basic things when design characters, classes and such.

You meantion that a Meta was removed for Dh to be introduced.But at the same time Death coil wasn't removed but rather renamed to MOrtal coil and Death coil was given to the Dks and no one was hurt.

Army of the Dead wont be removed, Raise dead can easily be renamed and remain the same thing, same for D&D.

You have one example where a spell was supossely removed for the introduction of the class.While i not only have the example that a spell can be renamed for the sake of preservation, i can show spells that exist since the begining that do the same thing but have different names, Flash heal and Flash of Light or Corruption and Agony and Shadow word:Pain.

You're comparing spells that had nothing to do with each other beyond names to a concept. Metamorphosis is a concept that makes Demon Hunter unique. Raising/summoning/controlling the dead is also a concept that makes necromancers unique. Just like Metamorphosis, Blizzard isn't going to let two concepts exist between two classes.

Your other problem is that so much of the Lich and necromancer are already absorbed into existing classes. Blizzard used those concepts to create the DK class in the first place. You're simply not going to be able to separate the necromancer concept from the DK class.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word on this. You simply don't get it, and I'm not going to derail this thread to explain it to you.

[Deleted]

No, I want gnome shaman, paladin n dr00d.

[Zerzuru]

Ever heard of those guys?
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Scarlet_Monk

Huh?! I suppose I was wrong this time.
I remember their revamped conterparts from mist but I have no memories of them before that, like they were erased from my mind. But still, I didnt play during vanilla so I think I met them just few times while leveling.

[FAILoZOFF]

Whole idea is just stupid AF. Classes are divided by certain aesthetics and the moment you want to handle Frost DK theme to the shaman simply because... reasons, is the point you could pretty much make one class with 36 specs and it wouldn't even matter at that point.

"The first spec, Windwalker, i would hand over to the priest. Since Vanilla there were NPCs who were technically priests, but yet also monks. and i think it blends thematically."
think again
just because they are called "monks" doesn't make them the same thing, WoW priest class has nothing to do with martial arts

[Darktbs]

You're comparing spells that had nothing to do with each other beyond names to a concept. Metamorphosis is a concept that makes Demon Hunter unique. Raising/summoning/controlling the dead is also a concept that makes necromancers unique. Just like Metamorphosis, Blizzard isn't going to let two concepts exist between two classes.

Your other problem is that so much of the Lich and necromancer are already absorbed into existing classes. Blizzard used those concepts to create the DK class in the first place. You're simply not going to be able to separate the necromancer concept from the DK class.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word on this. You simply don't get it, and I'm not going to derail this thread to explain it to you.

You just showed you don't know the difference between a concept and a spell.

Seriously, you Tinker's fans make me sick.

You stretch out for other games and ideologies(Hots and it existed in Wc3)as some kind of proof that Tinkers can/will happen yet when others do stretch for new ideas and concepts you guys shut down because its "exist in another class" as it was some kind of argument and protect yourselfs in that stupid weak shield that is "Profession is not a class".

I liked the Tinker idea originally, i really did, but people like you and made me HATE the idea because you guys seem to believe that Tinker is the only true thing, when the Tinker itself is already a flawed concept in its itself.

[Enrif]

Whole idea is just stupid AF. Classes are divided by certain aesthetics and the moment you want to handle Frost DK theme to the shaman simply because... reasons, is the point you could pretty much make one class with 36 specs and it wouldn't even matter at that point.

"The first spec, Windwalker, i would hand over to the priest. Since Vanilla there were NPCs who were technically priests, but yet also monks. and i think it blends thematically."
think again
just because they are called "monks" doesn't make them the same thing, WoW priest class has nothing to do with martial arts

Warcraft Novel: Night of the Dragon
It features a Priestess who is doing some very "monk" stuff. That book released 2008, 4 years before MoP.

[Kiradyn]

You just showed you don't know the difference between a concept and a spell.

Seriously, you Tinker's fans make me sick.

You stretch out for other games and ideologies(Hots and it existed in Wc3)as some kind of proof that Tinkers can/will happen yet when others do stretch for new ideas and concepts you guys shut down because its "exist in another class" as it was some kind of argument and protect yourselfs in that stupid weak shield that is "Profession is not a class".

I liked the Tinker idea originally, i really did, but people like you and made me HATE the idea because you guys seem to believe that Tinker is the only true thing, when the Tinker itself is already a flawed concept in its itself.

As a Warlock player, I sort of agree with Rhamses here. People don't want another class coming into the game and stealing abilities the way DHs did in Legion.

Based purely on Kel'thuzad's abilities from HotS, Rhamses is right: All of his abilities can currently be found within the DK and Mage class, you can't really deny that. On the other hand, Gazlowe's abilities don't exist in any existing class, which sort of means that if they implemented a Tinker class, no existing classes would be effected, and it would be a fairly fresh addition to the class lineup.

I'd prefer that to a proposed necromancer or Lich class that would just rob existing classes of their identity.

[Camthur]

It's already hard enough for them to balance specs that are kinda similar to each other. Throw in specs that are completely different and you're just asking for blizz to screw up and disappoint one spec user or another. (which already happens enough as it is)

[Lulbalance]

It's already hard enough for them to balance specs that are kinda similar to each other. Throw in specs that are completely different and you're just asking for blizz to screw up and disappoint one spec user or another. (which already happens enough as it is)

I was thinking the same. There are already specs falling to the wayside.