Necromancer vs Tinker: Which class would be better for the game?

[Cyero]

When dh came out they said they overlapped too much with rogue but that turned out fine, I don't see why they can't do the same with necromancer and dk

THey are worried that Necromancer is basically just Warlock except they use Necromantic magic instead of Fel magic, and the fact that "why do we want necromancers? we already have Death Knights"

I really would want a necromancer class since Necromancer is what is to death knight as what a Priest is to Paladins.

If blizzard can somehow integrate Paladins and Priest fine then they will have an opportunity to include necromancers.

Maybe in the 2nd lich expansion when the current lich king figured out that Necromancers are more powerful than Death Knights.

I mean I mean I hope to Arceus that If they do that I hope they make a new class/hero class. Since it would be a missed opportunity.

[HordeFanboy]

Pandaren bard would be the best

[Teriz]

Let me simplify for you Teriz.


The idea in discussion is that a NEW character CAN BE INTRODUCED to the story, A BARD, which will be developed in a expansion or two and IN THE FUTURE bring the class to the game.

Its that clear enough or i need to draw?

Let us know when that happens.

Until then......

[Darktbs]

Let us know when that happens.

Until then......

We will continue to speculate new classes like we do every time.

[Ielenia]

A mech boosting into a target and causing damage makes more sense than an ability that causes a guardian druid to explode.

So does a bear charging into a target and causing damage. Why are you trying to equate two different abilities?

I don't believe Blizzard would have any problem balancing it.

And what if said balancing means 'ok, this ability is too OP considering the class' kit, so we're not adding it'?

The problem with Bards is that there's no legitimate NPC or lore character to base them on.

Assuming that's true (it's not, but let's assume it is), what's the problem? Technically speaking, if they don't have a current NPC to base the class on, wouldn't that give them more freedom to design the class?

Also the only Bard "spellsong" showed up in Cataclysm, and was merely a combination of 2 Priest abilities.

Other than all the other spellsong abilities, right? And listen, again, assuming that's true (it's not, but let's assume it is), what is the problem? Are you saying Blizzard is incapable of creating more spellsong abilities to fill up the bard toolkit?

Nah, just pointing out that a worthless Engineering device doesn't make up for the lack of a tech class in WoW.

So you're admitting you're moving the goalposts since you're going beyond the original question asked.

You said that it was just as useful as Rogues sprint. Clearly with its huge amount of drawbacks, it's simply not as useful as a class abilty.

And it is. I can't think of a single person that wouldn't enjoy a speed boost during leveling, or when soloing old raids and dungeons for transmog, especially on instances where mounting up is not allowed.

Again, it would fall under a convention of gameplay. No different than a Hunter carrying millions of Grenades, Ammo, and traps, or a Monk carrying limitless Kegs and bottles.

It falls under the category of "suspension of disbelief". Look it up. You can assume the Hunter and Monk stockpile their ammo and kegs. But giant, technological advanced mechs that cost an arm and a leg to get all the parts and it takes a significant amount of time to assemble? That going beyond what 'suspension of disbelief' normally allows.

This is merely another example of your double standard regarding Tinkers.

You're not even trying, are you?

[Teriz]

So does a bear charging into a target and causing damage. Why are you trying to equate two different abilities?

You were the one equating an exploding Bear to a mech boost.

And what if said balancing means 'ok, this ability is too OP considering the class' kit, so we're not adding it'?

We'll let Blizzard be the judge of that.

Assuming that's true (it's not, but let's assume it is), what's the problem? Technically speaking, if they don't have a current NPC to base the class on, wouldn't that give them more freedom to design the class?

Other than all the other spellsong abilities, right? And listen, again, assuming that's true (it's not, but let's assume it is), what is the problem? Are you saying Blizzard is incapable of creating more spellsong abilities to fill up the bard toolkit?

I'm saying that if the only example of viable spellsongs we have are Priest spells, why wouldn't Blizzard simply give MORE spellsongs to the Priest class? It isn't like "Hymns" are out of place within the lore of the Priest class.

So you're admitting you're moving the goalposts since you're going beyond the original question asked.

No goalpost moved at all. If your argument is that engineering covers a player's desire to pilot a mech, and that device in question is considered worthless and unplayable by everyone who has attempted to use it, then your argument falls flat.

And it is. I can't think of a single person that wouldn't enjoy a speed boost during leveling, or when soloing old raids and dungeons for transmog, especially on instances where mounting up is not allowed.

Except your original argument was that it was as good/useful as a class ability. It isn't as good/useful as a class ability.

It falls under the category of "suspension of disbelief". Look it up. You can assume the Hunter and Monk stockpile their ammo and kegs. But giant, technological advanced mechs that cost an arm and a leg to get all the parts and it takes a significant amount of time to assemble? That going beyond what 'suspension of disbelief' normally allows.

Except we don't know how much they cost, and we don't know how much time they take to assemble. Neither of those aspects would matter anyway, because no one would care (except probably you).

[Ielenia]

You were the one equating an exploding Bear to a mech boost.

I was not.

I'm saying that if the only example of viable spellsongs we have are Priest spells, why wouldn't Blizzard simply give MORE spellsongs to the Priest class? It isn't like "Hymns" are out of place within the lore of the Priest class.

The first boss in Halls of Origination has a spellsong ability that is not based on any Priest spells. And let me remind you: very few abilities in this game, class-wise, are unique. Most are "combinations of others". I mean, the druid's 'Regrowth' spell is nothing more than the priest's 'flash heal' and 'renew' put together, so that ability should not exist, right?

No goalpost moved at all.

The question was asked, and it was answered in according to the question made. Any other conditions to the answer added after the fact are goalpost moving. The question was: "engineering doesn't allow you to fight in a mech", to which the answer is "yes, it does". You then began moving the goal posts.

Except your original argument was that it was as good/useful as a class ability. It isn't as good/useful as a class ability.

I can see you read the entire argument, then? Surely, since it's not as useful as the class ability, then that means no one would use it to speed up their movement while leveling, or while doing transmog runs, right? No engineer ever uses rocket boost because it shares cooldown with potions, right?

Except we don't know how much they cost, and we don't know how much time they take to assemble. Neither of those aspects would matter anyway, because no one would care (except probably you).

Oh, please, don't try to play innocent. While we don't know how much they cost, you can't possibly claim they cost just as much as hunter ammo or monk beer kegs. That'd be dishonest of you. (which wouldn't be a surprise, honestly)

[Teriz]

I was not.

Yes you did.

But anyway....

The first boss in Halls of Origination has a spellsong ability that is not based on any Priest spells. And let me remind you: very few abilities in this game, class-wise, are unique. Most are "combinations of others". I mean, the druid's 'Regrowth' spell is nothing more than the priest's 'flash heal' and 'renew' put together, so that ability should not exist, right?

So you think an ability called Reverberating Hymn that is a Holy-based spell, and a Hymn wouldn't fit perfectly within the Priest class which has a history of hymn spells?

The question was asked, and it was answered in according to the question made. Any other conditions to the answer added after the fact are goalpost moving. The question was: "engineering doesn't allow you to fight in a mech", to which the answer is "yes, it does". You then began moving the goal posts.

Considering that the device in question is all but unplayable, then the answer to the question would be a resounding "no".

I can see you read the entire argument, then? Surely, since it's not as useful as the class ability, then that means no one would use it to speed up their movement while leveling, or while doing transmog runs, right? No engineer ever uses rocket boost because it shares cooldown with potions, right?

No one would use it over their movement-enhancing class ability.

Oh, please, don't try to play innocent. While we don't know how much they cost, you can't possibly claim they cost just as much as hunter ammo or monk beer kegs. That'd be dishonest of you. (which wouldn't be a surprise, honestly)

Again, I think all of that is irrelevant. If the ability is fun and engaging players won't care if it doesn't follow the rules of physics. I mean, I have yet to see anyone question why a Monk can carry thousands of kegs to bust over the heads of enemies.

[The Man in Room V]

So you think an ability called Reverberating Hymn that is a Holy-based spell, and a Hymn wouldn't fit perfectly within the Priest class which has a history of hymn spells?

To be honest, all of the new class ideas should really be new spec ideas. After Legion's "tech-nifying" of the hunter class, Tinkers should be a new spec for hunters. Necromancers should be warlocks or priests. Bards feel like a type of rogue and Blademasters fit the monk perfectly.

They should just stop adding new classes and start adding new specs. And no, they don't need to make one for every class at once. Feature like 3 per expansion.

[Thimagryn]

To be honest, all of the new class ideas should really be new spec ideas. After Legion's "tech-nifying" of the hunter class, Tinkers should be a new spec for hunters. Necromancers should be warlocks or priests. Bards feel like a type of rogue and Blademasters fit the monk perfectly.

They should just stop adding new classes and start adding new specs. And no, they don't need to make one for every class at once. Feature like 3 per expansion.

Might as well be 'Allied Classes' :P

[Ielenia]

Yes you did.

Then show it. My posts are here in this thread.

So you think an ability called Reverberating Hymn that is a Holy-based spell, and a Hymn wouldn't fit perfectly within the Priest class which has a history of hymn spells?

Huh. Well, by your logic, then, this little class here called the paladin shouldn't exist because he's a Holy-based class with spells that would fit perfectly in the priest class. See how your argument makes no sense?

Considering that the device in question is all but unplayable, then the answer to the question would be a resounding "no".

Then that would be a lie. And the answer is still 'yes'.

No one would use it over their movement-enhancing class ability.

... Who said anything about replacing their own speed boost abilities? They could be easily be used in conjunction.

Again, I think all of that is irrelevant.

And that's why your arguments make no sense. You've shown that you don't care for any logic or common sense when it comes to your class idea.

[Directionalk9]

They should just stop adding new classes and start adding new specs. And no, they don't need to make one for every class at once. Feature like 3 per expansion.

Three specs, or just one class.

[Ellerain]

Needs 'neither' option but its hard to expect an actual thinking from a tinkerfag.

infracted

[Cyero]

Needs 'neither' option but its hard to expect an actual thinking from a tinkerfag.

Lol it's hard to take you seriously when you act like a jackass, I can understand you not liking having a unique Class that's the Tinker Class but at least don't be so rude.

[Leviatharan]

If I were to pick the next class to exist in WoW...

... either Dragonsworn, or Bard.

Dragonsworn as a concept are versatile. We've got a shortage of ranged DPS after Legion, and only one of the three classes added since Vanilla is able to heal.
A hero class of characters who take on aspects of dragons in order to fight could potentially fill any role - Red and Black dragons can tank; Green, Bronze and Red dragons can heal; Blue, Bronze and Black dragons can DPS. While having five specs for a single class is way too much, I could see it having 2-3 specs and a stance system. You've got options for summoning hordes of whelps or calling in a drake reinforcement, transforming into a drakonid, growing scales, breath attacks, blessings from the dragon Aspects, cooldowns that change with your color alignment...
Plus lorewise, with the fall of dragons being documented so well in Azsuna/Val'sharah, and the resurgence of the Old Gods who constantly work to corrupt them, they'd be more desperate than ever to take on mortal servants to tend to them and keep them safe.
(Sure they're only canon to the tabletop that Blizz disowned, but considering how long they've been picking and choosing lore, absolutely nothing says they can't bring it back.)

Meanwhile, Bards... would require rewriting the system a fair bit first. One of the devs mentioned months back they would strongly consider breaking the Holy Trinity (Tank/Healer/DPS) by making a new spec type that was just dedicated to buffing and debuffing, which would pretty much have to be a requirement to bring Bards up since I don't really see them as a highly versatile class otherwise. I could see maybe a mail or leather support class with De/Buffer and (channeled) Healer specs, maybe a single DPS spec if the devs could nail down their aesthetic (maybe some kind of delicate fencer? Or hell, just sonically blasting enemies from their guitars).

[Echoherb]

Tinker. We definitely don't need anymore dark and edgy classes.

[Teriz]

Then show it. My posts are here in this thread.

Go back and read them yourself, it's in there.

Huh. Well, by your logic, then, this little class here called the paladin shouldn't exist because he's a Holy-based class with spells that would fit perfectly in the priest class. See how your argument makes no sense?

Actually your argument makes no sense. Several of the Paladin's spells are armor and weapon-centric. Priests don't wear heavy armor, equip shields, or 2H weapons (beyond staffs). Avenger's Shield, Shield of Righteousness, Crusader Strike, Templar's Verdict, Blade of Justice, etc. all require weapons or a shield.

You said that a Bard class would be a class based around Spellsongs, and you used Hymns as an example of such abilities correct? To make matters worse, the spell you used as an example was Holy-based. Priests have a history of utilizing hymns, and those hymns were holy-based spells. Why would Blizzard create an entire new classed based on Holy-based Hymns when they could simply expand the concept into the class where it already exists?

Then that would be a lie. And the answer is still 'yes'.

I have yet to see a single review of that device where it says its playable. You have one?

... Who said anything about replacing their own speed boost abilities? They could be easily be used in conjunction.

You said its just as useful as a class ability. That means that there's no difference between that device and the class ability.

And that's why your arguments make no sense. You've shown that you don't care for any logic or common sense when it comes to your class idea.

And you've shown nothing but a double standard when it comes to the Tinker class concept.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, all of the new class ideas should really be new spec ideas. After Legion's "tech-nifying" of the hunter class, Tinkers should be a new spec for hunters. Necromancers should be warlocks or priests. Bards feel like a type of rogue and Blademasters fit the monk perfectly.

They should just stop adding new classes and start adding new specs. And no, they don't need to make one for every class at once. Feature like 3 per expansion.

Yeah, no. The Tinker class doesn't fit in the Hunter class. Also a spec doesn't really cover all the attributes of the class effectively.

[Ielenia]

Go back and read them yourself, it's in there.

What's your problem with accusing people but refusing to show proof?

Actually your argument makes no sense. Several of the Paladin's spells are armor and weapon-centric. Priests don't wear heavy armor, equip shields, or 2H weapons (beyond staffs). Avenger's Shield, Shield of Righteousness, Crusader Strike, Templar's Verdict, Blade of Justice, etc. all require weapons or a shield.

You said that a Bard class would be a class based around Spellsongs, and you used Hymns as an example of such abilities correct (1)? To make matters worse, the spell you used as an example was Holy-based (2). Priests have a history of utilizing hymns, and those hymns were holy-based spells. Why would Blizzard create an entire new classed based on Holy-based Hymns when they could simply expand the concept into the class where it already exists?(3)

(1) So what if the spell I picked is a hymn? "Priests have a hymn spell" so what? It's just a name. Just like the word "heal" or "bolt" or "strike". Bard's spells don't even need to have the 'hymn' name.
(2) So what if the spell I picked is Holy-based? Priests and paladins share Holy. Warlocks and mages share fire. Mages and DKs share frost.
(3) Absolutely no one is asking for a class based on 'holy-based hymns'. This is just another strawman from you.

I have yet to see a single review of that device where it says its playable. You have one?

Why should I look for one if they have no bearing on the original question?

You said its just as useful as a class ability. That means that there's no difference between that device and the class ability.

Again, where did I say it would replace the class' own speed boost ability?

And you've shown nothing but a double standard when it comes to the Tinker class concept.

I'm questioning you know the meaning of 'double standard', and I doubt you'll be willing to back your claims, but I'll bite: where's the "double-standard"?

[Teriz]

What's your problem with accusing people but refusing to show proof?

No point in showing you proof when you'll just deny it,

(1) So what if the spell I picked is a hymn? "Priests have a hymn spell" so what? It's just a name. Just like the word "heal" or "bolt" or "strike". Bard's spells don't even need to have the 'hymn' name.
(2) So what if the spell I picked is Holy-based? Priests and paladins share Holy. Warlocks and mages share fire. Mages and DKs share frost.
(3) Absolutely no one is asking for a class based on 'holy-based hymns'. This is just another strawman from you.

You used a Holy Hymn spell as an example of a Bard spell song. Holy hymns are the domain of the Priest class. All I'm saying is why wouldn't a holy-based Hymn song not appear in the Priest class? Wouldn't a hymn logically go to the class that has had multiple holy-based hymn abilities?

Why should I look for one if they have no bearing on the original question?

Because you said that Reaves is playable whereas every review says that it is an unmitigated disaster.

Again, where did I say it would replace the class' own speed boost ability?

Post #642

I'm questioning you know the meaning of 'double standard', and I doubt you'll be willing to back your claims, but I'll bite: where's the "double-standard"?

Simple; Monks can have unlimited kegs and brews and can create brews from nothing, Hunters have unlimited ammo, grenades, traps, bombs, etc., and can put their pets in invisible stables where they can be called and dismissed at any time. All of that, no problem.

A Tinker being able to destroy a resummon a mech at will? That somehow breaks the physics of the game....

[Ielenia]

No point in showing you proof when you'll just deny it,

This is not you being smart, Teriz. This is you saying you have no proof whatsoever. When asked, yet you don't show any, it tells people all you got are empty claims and no substance.

You used a Holy Hymn spell as an example of a Bard spell song. Holy hymns are the domain of the Priest class.

"Holy is the domain of the priest class", false. Paladins exist. Spell types are shared among several classes. "Hymns are the domain of the priest class", false. Priests have one single hymn. If we go by that logic, "physical ranged" is the domain of the hunter class, then that means a tinker cannot exist.

Because you said that Reaves is playable whereas every review says that it is an unmitigated disaster.

"What every review says" is completely irrelevant to the question, and it's nothing but goalpost moving.

Post #642

I re-read post #642 and at no point I see anything remotely resembling "engineers replace their own class' speed boost ability with engineering's rocket boost." It would help if you pointed out what I said, exactly.

Simple; Monks can have unlimited kegs and brews and can create brews from nothing, Hunters have unlimited ammo, grenades, traps, bombs, etc., and can put their pets in invisible stables where they can be called and dismissed at any time. All of that, no problem.

A Tinker being able to destroy a resummon a mech at will? That somehow breaks the physics of the game....

No one is talking about "physics of the game". It's about "suspension of disbelief". Ammo, grenades, traps, and even beer kegs are minor, near inconsequential, when compared to giant, technologically advanced war mechs. Your insistence that a mech can be stockpiled as easily as ammo and kegs only hurts your arguments.