Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[yeast]

Except we received Brewmasters (well, Monks) before we saw that Lore. Now we've seen and experienced that lore. And there wasn't any lore connecting Brewmasters to a Monk class before it happened. I don't see why that couldn't be the same with Lorewalkers and a Bard class.

There's obviously nothing explicitly preventing Blizzard from doing such a thing, but I do see two major problems with adding Lorewalkers as a specialization for bards.

First, Lorewalkers seem to be pretty heavily established as non-combatants. Lorewalker Cho, the most prominent Lorewalker, doesn't aid us in combat whatsoever, despite being present in a bunch of raids and quests. It's entirely possible to change their image by focusing on their desire to explore and unearth secrets, but that simultaneously ruins part of their original appeal as a group and distances them from the aspects that make them fit with the bard class.

My other point kind of stems from this. What makes bard the most suitable class for a Lorewalker spec? Personally, I think they'd fit much better in an explorer-type class. As it stands now, the elements of Lorewalkers that would be more likely to fit in any given storyline and give them more of a reason to engage in dangerous situations, are ones that would also make them gravitate towards the explorers in the Explorer's League and Reliquary. As a bonus, explorers are pretty much a staple of WoW's identity at this point, whereas bards would just dilute it.

That said, I'm not super keen on a playable Lorewalker spec or an explorer class, but they do seem like better options. Bonus points if it encourages Blizzard to do something with archaeology, even if it is just giving it a merciful death.

[Teriz]

I was just wondering since you previously seemed against a Dark Ranger class. Does that mean you support a Dark Ranger that iterated on Sylvanas' current abilities, since she seems to be getting some new tricks from whomever she's serving now?

It wouldn't be my preference for a future class, but it would be better than a Necromancer class. As always, the issue with Dark Rangers are three-fold:

1. Sylvanas doesn't produce dark rangers like herself.

2. Sylvanas was the main character in BFA, and a class based on her in the next expansion would mean that she takes center stage yet again.

3. Dark Rangers seem to be undead only, and forsaken only.

None of those are impossible barriers to overcome. It would just be strange to see Blizzard bypass the lore barriers they created to make a Sylvanas style Dark Ranger into the game.

The alternative would be a standard Dark Ranger, and that's just a Hunter firing shadow arrows. While boring, it's still better than a Necromancer.

[Dragtox]

The HotS abilities are canon. Please keep up.

Murky Confirmed canon class the ability is in the game
we murk we die we murk again!

[tyrlaan]

Going by Teriz's logic this seems plausible.

Not just plausible. I mean, we've had Murky quests literally IN WOW now for 2 expansions. We already have a 4 button rotation in game! Coupled with HotS, this is a slam dunk.

We can expect this in 9.0! All alternative ideas are ridiculous!

[Teriz]

Murky Confirmed canon class the ability is in the game
we murk we die we murk again!

This is why it's canon;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=134998/gazlowe
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=130871/skaggit#abilities

I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

[Dragtox]

This is why it's canon;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=134998/gazlowe
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=130871/skaggit#abilities

I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

murloc class its canon deal with it

[Kagdar]

This is why it's canon;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=130871/skaggit#abilities

I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Mogu Rune of Power, Shadowy Decoy Disengage, Vanish.... What is he? a rogue? a DK/Runemaster? or a Hunter with shadow abilities?

[Teriz]

Mogu Rune of Power, Shadowy Decoy Disengage, Vanish.... What is he? a rogue? a DK/Runemaster? or a Hunter with shadow abilities?

Those are merely placeholder abilities. No different than when Death Knights had Warrior and Warlock abilities alongside Necromancer abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

murloc class its canon deal with it

Murloc is a race, not a class.

[Dragtox]

Those are merely placeholder abilities. No different than when Death Knights had Warrior and Warlock abilities alongside Necromancer abilities.

- - - Updated - - -



Murloc is a race, not a class.

its both not everyone can be both

[Kagdar]

Those are merely placeholder abilities. No different than when Death Knights had Warrior and Warlock abilities alongside Necromancer abilities.

But he does use those abilities, so in a way his class does have a way of vanishing/stealthing even if they wouls call it something else than Vanish.
And Shadowy Decoy Disengage is not a placeholder because it doesn't exist anywhere else. It's a generic name because the player is not really supposed to know the name of that ability. But it's still a disengage like ability, so a hunter. And it's shadowy so it's a shadow ability, so Tinkers use shadow abilities?.

Or just the simpler explanation is that he is a Goblin rogue that has engineering as a profession.

[Teriz]

But he does use those abilities, so in a way his class does have a way of vanishing/stealthing even if they wouls call it something else than Vanish.
And Shadowy Decoy Disengage is not a placeholder because it doesn't exist anywhere else. It's a generic name because the player is not really supposed to know the name of that ability. But it's still a disengage like ability, so a hunter. And it's shadowy so it's a shadow ability, so Tinkers use shadow abilities?.

Or just the simpler explanation is that he is a Goblin rogue that has engineering as a profession.

Just like Baron Rivendare had Shadow Bolt, Mortal Blow and Cleave, yet Death Knights have none of those abilities.

Again, just placeholder abilities.

[Ielenia]

But he does use those abilities, so in a way his class does have a way of vanishing/stealthing even if they wouls call it something else than Vanish.
And Shadowy Decoy Disengage is not a placeholder because it doesn't exist anywhere else. It's a generic name because the player is not really supposed to know the name of that ability. But it's still a disengage like ability, so a hunter. And it's shadowy so it's a shadow ability, so Tinkers use shadow abilities?.

Or just the simpler explanation is that he is a Goblin rogue that has engineering as a profession.

There's way too much logic here...

- - - Updated - - -

Just like Baron Rivendare had Shadow Bolt, Mortal Blow and Cleave, yet Death Knights have none of those abilities.

Again, just placeholder abilities.

You failed to explain the ability that is not a placeholder because it's found nowhere else in the game.

[Teriz]

You failed to explain the ability that is not a placeholder because it's found nowhere else in the game.

Because it's obviously a potential Tinker ability.

Jumping backwards and dropping a robotic decoy doesn't sound like a Tinker ability to you?

Whoops, nevermind, I forgot who I was responding to.

[Kagdar]

Because it's obviously a potential Tinker ability.

Jumping backwards and dropping a robotic decoy doesn't sound like a Tinker ability to you?

Whoops, nevermind, I forgot who I was responding to.

It's a shadowy decoy, it doesn't say a robotic one. Sounds like a rogue ability to me.

You only want it to be robotic because you think he is a Tinker.

Like i said the simpler explanation is that he is a Goblin rogue that has engineering as a profession.

He's a goblin, and we know goblins have a rocket jump ability, he can shoot a rocket just like the goblins' racial.
He can vanish so he's a rogue, his decoy is shadow so rogue again.

So again what 100% says he is a tinker and not a rogue? because everything point for him to be a rogue.

[Teriz]

It's a shadowy decoy, it doesn't say a robotic one. Sounds like a rogue ability to me.

You only want it to be robotic because you think he is a Tinker.

Like i said the simpler explanation is that he is a Goblin rogue that has engineering as a profession.

He's a goblin, and we know goblins have a rocket jump ability, he can shoot a rocket just like the goblins' racial.
He can vanish so he's a rogue, his decoy is shadow so rogue again.

So again what 100% says he is a tinker and not a rogue? because everything point for him to be a rogue.

Its physical, not shadow-based.

Also the decoy is mechanical.

[Kagdar]

Its physical, not shadow-based.

Also the decoy is mechanical.

The name says Shadowy Decoy.

The website state physical because it probably doesn't have any actual school so it says physical by default since it doesn't do any damage thus not having any impact on the player.

And it's not mechanical, it's probably a board with a spring to it. I didn't check in game but since every decoy in wow are the same wood board on a spring with a clown-like face i would assume it's the same. It's the official Decoy placeholder 3d art that Blizz use for every Decoy in game.

[Teriz]

The name says Shadowy Decoy.

The website state physical because it probably doesn't have any actual school so it says physical by default since it doesn't do any damage thus not having any impact on the player.

And it's not mechanical, it's probably a board with a spring to it. I didn't check in game but since every decoy in wow are the same wood board on a spring with a clown-like face i would assume it's the same. It's the official Decoy placeholder 3d art that Blizz use for every Decoy in game.

Bro, it literally says it's a mechanical, and it actually looks mechanical;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=134438/shadowy-decoy

Are you applying some-sort of weird headcanon to this?

[Ielenia]

Because it's obviously a potential Tinker ability.

Jumping backwards and dropping a robotic decoy doesn't sound like a Tinker ability to you?

Whoops, nevermind, I forgot who I was responding to.

Someone who sees your faulty logic and double-standards for what they are, yes. That's the one you've responded to.

"Mogu rune of power" is a tinker ability, then. So the tinkers are arcane casters, then. And based on the Mogu.

- - - Updated - - -

Bro, it literally says it's a mechanical, and it actually looks mechanical;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=134438/shadowy-decoy

Are you applying some-sort of weird headcanon to this?

"Mechanical", as in, the section it's sorted out in WoWHead. A section it shares with the likes of:
• Elegon (not a machine)
• Runic Ward (not a machine)
• Tinkmaster Overspark (a gnome)
• Head Machinist Sparkflux (a gnome)
• Aman (not a machine)
• Turnip Punching Bag (not a machine)
• Portal to Darnassus (not a machine)
• Effigy of Terok (not a machine)
• Magni Bronzebeard (not a machine)
• Etc...

The point is, using WoWHead's classification may not be the best argument to use.

[Teriz]

Someone who sees your faulty logic and double-standards for what they are, yes. That's the one you've responded to.

"Mogu rune of power" is a tinker ability, then. So the tinkers are arcane casters, then. And based on the Mogu.

Like I said, a placeholder. Just like the DK abilities.

"Mechanical", as in, the section it's sorted out in WoWHead. A section it shares with the likes of:
• Elegon (not a machine)
• Runic Ward (not a machine)
• Tinkmaster Overspark (a gnome)
• Head Machinist Sparkflux (a gnome)
• Aman (not a machine)
• Turnip Punching Bag (not a machine)
• Portal to Darnassus (not a machine)
• Effigy of Terok (not a machine)
• Magni Bronzebeard (not a machine)
• Etc...

The point is, using WoWHead's classification may not be the best argument to use.

When the device in question looks like this;



It's safe to say it's a mechanical.

[tyrlaan]

its both not everyone can be both

Or maybe we're going to get a murloc race with these abilities as racials... and they can be bards!