Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[Katchii]

Demon hunter is one of the least popular classes along with monks.

You're looking at the wrong part of the chart.

Distribution of classes at 120 shows DH at slightly above middle of the pack at 8.7%.

The global number really doesn't mean all that much as it probably shows classes that were made and never leveled, which isn't really a good representation of what classes are actually being played at end game.

[Ielenia]

They are not skilled enough to use the Mech. They cannot repair it, they cannot construct more weapons, etc.

Neither can warriors repair or create new weapons and armor... but it doesn't stop them from being warriors, you know?

[Pigglix]

in fact MM still dabs into magic, because the current lore of hunters are "wanna be" druids.

Aspect of cheeath, aspect of turtle, the healing ability that i'll never be able to type it, and so on. See? even if the spec tries to move away from the "nature/magic" things, it wont be possible because it's part of what the class is.

That's why i wish a ranged class that move away from that completly xD. Like the scoundrel/operative ranged from swtor, or the gunslinger from W*, or a fighter with the archery specialization from DnD 5th, the archer dude from avengers and so on.

[SoundOfGuns]

Tinkers would be the most plausible choice.

It's been the most widely discussed and anticipated class for the past 4+ years now. I think their kit would have been in development for quite some time.

The only thing unknown about it is how they are gonna be introduced into the expansions and what races available, otherwise everything else pretty much fits WoW in all other aspects. It would make sense for them to develop a class that has more open gameplay and contrast to the edge-dark we just got with the Demon Hunter.

That they have been anticipated doesn't mean much if anything. Vulpera became popular because it was pretty clear they would be an allied race and Mechagnomes in almost every vote made on the allied race question on mmochampion came out last as the least wished for species. Blizzard doesn't do things people want. Bliiza4d things it's decisions are flawless and that's that.

[Katchii]

I will never understand how some people think. For better or for worse

Tinkers just use technology. Iron Horde was built entirely using advanced technology, and most of them were Mag'har Orcs. It's really not that far fetched to think classes other than Gnomes, Goblins and Mechagnomes could be Tinkers.

Limiting the class (if it gets released) to those races would mean it would, by default (based on current race numbers) be the least played class in the game.

[Ielenia]

Except they're both Dark Rangers?

I don't disagree, but Sylvanas is more than just a Dark Ranger, she's also a Banshee and has apparently developed OP Death powers that can kill an Orc in one hit. So basing a class off of her wouldn't really be possible.

It would be like basing the Priest class off of Anduin.

If Dark Ranger was going to be based on an in-game character it SHOULD be Nathanos, as he's the more grounded option.

The death knight playable class was based off Arthas, and not Death Knight #047 from Naxxramas, or any of the Four Horsemen bosses, or even Baron Rivendare.
The demon hunter playable class was based off Illidan, and not Demon Hunter #19 from Outland, or Altruis, or even Leotheras the Blind.

So why would the dark ranger playable class, if implemented, be based off Nathanos and not Sylvanas?

[Cosmic Janitor]

Atm tinker seems to be the only real thing that is close of what i wish. So crossing my fingers for it.

I really love this statement. It embodies everything that is wrong with the tinker hype. Everyone thinks what they feel a tinker should be would end up as the actual class, here we have a specimen that declares there is no magic stuff in it - yet half the tinker units ingame are essentially part time elemental shamans shooting lighting and shit all over the place. On the other hand, hunters have like 1 or 2 somewhat magical themed abilities.

Then we have the crowd that think they will be the next gundam pilots, the next ones believe they are machinists from FFXIV, the next bunch think they will be jax, yet again another crowd here seems to think they are "combat alchemists" for some reason. The class could have 5 specs and half of you would still be miles off.

[Ielenia]

It'd be more like basing the Tinker class on Mekkatorque instead of Gazlowe, since Nathanos is also considered a Dark Ranger.

No. No one is asking for a class based off Nathanos because Nathanos is vastly inferior to Sylvanas in terms of power and concept.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is what I said you have to be part of something to be a traitor.

Missed that part. My bad.

[ReD-EyeD]

It's really not that far fetched to think classes other than Gnomes, Goblins and Mechagnomes could be Tinkers.

I haven't said a single thing against that. I questioned specifically maghars.

[Ielenia]

With absolutely no offense in this sentence but your Necromancer concept for WoW is utter poop.

What you clearly want is a D2/D3 Necromancer, in WoW, for whatever reason. And you tried to squeeze in a blood healing spec just for the sake of having a healing spec.

So... you had nothing to add, so you attacked my class concept that has nothing to do with this thread. Classy.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

So... you had nothing to add, so you attacked my class concept that has nothing to do with this thread. Classy.

Your class concept is almost a 1:1 copy from D2 and D3 Necromancer.

Dont talk about imagination when you have none yourself.

[Ielenia]

Your class concept is almost a 1:1 copy from D2 and D3 Necromancer.

Dont talk about imagination when you have none yourself.

Actually, I can. Because I do have imagination. You not liking what I created does not mean I don't have imagination. So what if I took some inspiration from the D2 necromancer? Is that some kind of capital crime, now? All you create needs to be 140% original? But that's all I'll say here, since it's off-topic. Feel free to continue to try to derail the thread. Your replies will be ignored if you do.

[Katchii]

The death knight playable class was based off Arthas, and not Death Knight #047 from Naxxramas, or any of the Four Horsemen bosses, or even Baron Rivendare.

The demon hunter playable class was based off Illidan, and not Demon Hunter #19 from Outland, or Altruis, or even Leotheras the Blind.

So why would the dark ranger playable class, if implemented, be based off Nathanos and not Sylvanas?

I never said they wouldn't or shouldn't be based on Sylvanas I only said that Nathanos would be the more grounded option because Sylvanas is far more than just a Dark Ranger, she's a Banshee pumped full of OP Death Magic at this point.

When I said it wouldn't be possible, I meant that the class couldn't be based on the Banshee and Death Magic stuff she has because Dark Ranger don't have those powers...as highlighted by the fact that Nathanos doesn't have them.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't said a single thing against that. I questioned specifically maghars.

...Aren't Mag'har Orcs a different race than Gnomes, Goblins and Mechagnomes?

[ReD-EyeD]

...Aren't Mag'har Orcs a different race than Gnomes, Goblins and Mechagnomes?

"Other than" races doesn't equal to "all races".

[tyrlaan]

Bard would make a great secondary profession. Playing music is not a great theme for a class (especially in a game that did away with any kind of support-style classes over a decade ago), but it would be fantastic to have for playing music in the open world!

Why do people think the only thing a bard does is play music?

I submit the following:

Dammit, look what you all made me do lol

Bard Class Concept

Base Mechanics
Races allowed: all (I've yet to see a race in wow that doesn't have some sort of performer, tale teller, historian, entertainer, etc)
Armor: Mail
Weapons: all 1-hand weapons, bows/crossbows/guns, shields
Additional Notes:

• Bard abilities that are magical in nature are Arcane
• Bard is often considered a jack of all trades. As such they should either have several talent options that allow them to dip into their other specs or baseline abilities that get set to specific off spec abilities when you learn them (based on current active spec), but with a cooldown or some other small limitation

Specializations
Skald/Battle Chanter
Role: Melee or Ranged DPS
Concept: Improve combat prowess of self and others through war chants, rallying cries, etc.
Abilities can include:

• Bonuses to specific weapon groups (allowing to specialize in ranged or melee)
• Offensive buffs to any secondary stat (but only one can be active at a time)
• Apply passive physical damage buff (raw damage or maybe crit boost) to targets
• Utility buffs that can improve resistance to certain effects (stuns, fears, etc.) or break snares/roots
• Curse removal
• Grant short burst of speed

Harrier
Role: Melee DPS
Concept: Improve combat prowess of self and others by wearing down opponents with a series of frustrating attacks, mockery, etc.
Abilities can include:

• Improved ability with melee weapons at the expense of losing bows/crossbows/guns
• Improved ability with shield and defenses, enough to serve as a secondary tank for a very short period of time
• Taunts" which are ranged abilities that could do things like impose a miss chance on enemy's attacks, interrupt casting, increase cast time, literally perform a Taunt in game mechanic terms, etc
• Foils; melee attacks that carry debuffs, such as slow, armor penalty, root, disarm, stun, maybe a fear

Inspiration
Role: Healer
Concept: Restore and boost allies with song, stirring orations, etc
Abilities can include:

• Healing, of course, which carries with it a minor short term buff
• Fear immunity
• Ability to remove spell effects
• Defensive buffs such as stamina, armor, spell resistance
• Restore resource (mana, energy, focus)
• Reduce cooldowns

[Katchii]

"Other than" races doesn't equal to "all races".

But they are another race...that was the context of that statement and the entire purpose behind why I wrote it.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

No reason? Necromancers want to say hello.

I mean, if we want to go by the past class logic, so far we only got WC3 heroes as Classes.

Looks real... DARK for you doesnt it then?

[Mellrod]

I will never understand how some people think. For better or for worse

I explained my thought process. If tinker is a class that encompasses using/creating inventions and technology esp for use in battle, then the playable Mag'har allied race, originally being the Iron Horde that came from WoD Draenor, would be an easy fit. Specifically the AU Blackrock Clan. While crude and somewhat primitive they expanded upon what were originally goblin designs to create all manner of war machine, siege engine, battleship, etc etc. They industrialized Gorgrond with a railroad, they had an entire factory dedicated to the creation and processing of materials needed for their inventions. I guess the name "tinker" doesn't really scream Orc, but when you look at what's actually been explored in the lore and in the game, working with and creating machinery is a big enough part of their identity that I say it isn't a stretch for a concept like the Tinker. They definitely have the capacity for it.

[Kumorii]

I mean, if we want to go by the past class logic, so far we only got WC3 heroes as Classes.

Looks real... DARK for you doesnt it then?

Priest is a class not derived from a wc3 hero afaik.

Before you say priestess of the moon, the only connection is the name. Her skills is of a hunter/druid combo.

[roninwookie]

No reason? Necromancers want to say hello.

Were there Necromancers in WC3? I know there were death knights and warlocks.