Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[ymirsson]

There are no abilities in engineering.

And you can't craft any of the Tinker's abilities in engineering either.

Uh oh, i have to pull the semantics card here, sweetheart.


Also, your admiration for Mekkatorque and other engineers starts to border on the creepy side of things.

[WintersLegion]

I think Tinker is an awful name for a class, personally. There's weird overlap with Engineering. I'm all for a tech based class, but if it's tied to Goblins / Gnomes, I just don't see people wanting to play it.

Personally I think TechnoMages sound cooler and have a better concept as they combine magic and technology.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Techno_mag...t%20of%20runes).

[Teriz]

I've seen plenty of concept-builds for Necromancers that would require no changes from either Unholy DK or Afflication Warlock. Sure, they'll share some base concepts, just like Warlocks and DK's already share disease-based debuffs, but nothing that requires the DK or Warlock to lose anything of note. Summoning, too, can be handled differently from either the DK or the Warlock, although again both the DK and Warlock already share in the idea of a summonable/controllable minion-type pet. The Necromancer would probably lean more toward the Warlock model in its pet-centric type spec, but that's okay, as the Necromancer and their part would probably have a different synergy and ability layout. Personally, I like the concept-builds that use pets as disease vectors - involving mutation and maturing a potent short-CD type disease outbreak a la the Lich King's Necrotic Plague.

But you agree that they would lose something correct? Blizzard has shown in the past that they don't want two classes sharing core themes with one another. Which is part of the reason Warlocks lost Metamorphosis to Demon Hunters, and Death Coil got changed multiple times.

Also I've seen quite a few Necromancer concepts. The issue is that Blizzard put the Necromancer into the Death Knight class. In order to make a viable Necromancer, you'd have to take those aspects out. Also part of the reason we have a Warlock today is because Blizzard didn't want to make a Necromancer class, so obviously some aspects of the Warlock class would need to be changed as well, particularly curses, which were the territory of Necromancers before WoW.

In the end, I simply don't see a scenario where a Necromancer class doesn't enter the game and forces dramatic changes to the established classes. Which probably explains why Blizzard didn't introduce a Necromancer class in an expansion about death. Instead they reiterated that WoW's "death class" is the Death Knight.

Engineering would need to remain an across-the-board profession, though; if you interlace it too much with the Tinker then that's a turn off to non-Tinker classes and runs the chance of making Engineering obligatory (which it probably shouldn't be). The same here is true with Mechagnomes as a race - they can't be made obligatory to the Tinker class, so you need to avoid too much interlacing. Races and Professions both need to stand apart from any given class. Personally, I don't think this an issue at all for Engineering and the general concept of the Tinker, but that all depends on the specific concept you're employing.

I don't see why either would interlace with a class because neither (race or profession) are in competition with a class. I could see engineering being seen as the default choice for Tinker players who want complete technology overload for their character, but I don't necessarily see that as an issue. I think Mechagnomes don't really have a choice due to the nature of their race, but again, I don't see that as a negative either. Essentially you're enhancing both engineering and mechagnomes, not hurting them. In the case of Mechagnomes, they could really use the push. They're an interesting race with cool racials that really don't fit in a game that is offering nothing but medieval classes.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh oh, i have to pull the semantics card here, sweetheart.

That word... I don't think you know what it means.

Also, your admiration for Mekkatorque and other engineers starts to border on the creepy side of things.

I mention Mekkatorque to give you a reference point. The other reference point is the Tinker hero from WC3 who is associated with Gazlowe.

[ymirsson]

That word... I don't think you know what it means.

I know you don't know what it means, so what am i supposed to think about that?

[Aucald]

But you agree that they would lose something correct? Blizzard has shown in the past that they don't want two classes sharing core themes with one another. Which is part of the reason Warlocks lost Metamorphosis to Demon Hunters, and Death Coil got changed multiple times.

Also I've seen quite a few Necromancer concepts. The issue is that Blizzard put the Necromancer into the Death Knight class. In order to make a viable Necromancer, you'd have to take those aspects out. Also part of the reason we have a Warlock today is because Blizzard didn't want to make a Necromancer class, so obviously some aspects of the Warlock class would need to be changed as well, particularly curses, which were the territory of Necromancers before WoW.

In the end, I simply don't see a scenario where a Necromancer class doesn't enter the game and forces dramatic changes to the established classes. Which probably explains why Blizzard didn't introduce a Necromancer class in an expansion about death. Instead they reiterated that WoW's "death class" is the Death Knight.

Well, no, I basically said they needn't lose anything. Metamorphosis was a special case, in my view, in that it never thematically *belonged* to Warlocks to begin with and never made much sense. It was always the marquee ability of Demon Hunters (all the way back to the WC3 Hero), and was shoehorned roughly into the Warlock class in a way that never really made much sense (from changing a few signature abilities' look to giving the Warlock melee abilities that didn't fit with the class). Ditto with Death Coil as a first gen. DK ability from WC2. Mortal Coil replicates the ability seamlessly and better fits the Warlock class.

I'll agree that the DK class has absorbed some of the Necromancer concept, in the same way that the Warlock ate into the Demon Hunter's concept; but that doesn't require either class be harmed by ceding a bit of conceptual space to a possible Necromancer class. A Necromancer can easily share abilities with the Warlock or DK, requiring only some renaming here and there. Since the Necromancer itself has never actually been a fully-realized class before you've got a lot of conceptual wiggle room there, and you've got a lot of elements you can draw on as many of the concept templates have done without infringing on any existing classes. It's been done before.

As for Blizzard's announcement about the DK as the game's sole "death class," well I wouldn't put great stock on it. They made similar statements about the Warlock being the game's sole "demon class," but the Demon Hunter still came into being in Legion. Will there ever be a Necromancer class? Who can really say. There may never be a Tinker class either owing to a lack of suitable context in which to unveil it, sadly enough.

I don't see why either would interlace with a class because neither (race or profession) are in competition with a class. I could see engineering being seen as the default choice for Tinker players who want complete technology overload for their character, but I don't necessarily see that as an issue. I think Mechagnomes don't really have a choice due to the nature of their race, but again, I don't see that as a negative either. Essentially you're enhancing both engineering and mechagnomes, not hurting them. In the case of Mechagnomes, they could really use the push. They're an interesting race with cool racials that really don't fit in a game that is offering nothing but medieval classes.

There is no reason why this would have to be, but if you leverage too much of Engineering toward a presumptive Tinker class then you automatically make it less desirable to non-Tinkers by fiat. It shouldn't be obligatory for Tinkers to take Engineering as a profession, either - though conceptually I can definitely see the appeal (there's a pretty obvious thematic overlap there). The same is true for the Mechagnome Allied Race, you don't want to mechanically pigeonhole them into being Tinkers either. That being said, Mechagnomes are probably the thematically appropriate race for a Tinker class in the same way Pandaren are more or less iconic for the Monk class. I'd agree that a Tinker class is probably going to see a pretty significant bump in Mechagnome players. But I don't think Tinker needs to be limited to the small races either, although that depends on the concept in question in many cases.

[qwerty123456]

Shadow Priests already have mind/control possession. You don't roll a Necromancer to control people's minds, you roll a Necromancer to raise undead minions and corrupt people with disease/curses.

You know, pretty much exactly what a DK does.

The lore and the new gameplay opportunities available from a technology (Tinker) class is what I'm interested in.

Priests can temporarily mind control and I also said possession. DK's don't raise spirits a necromancer could. And theme does not = mechanics or are holy paladins and holy priests identical??? And I'm not asking whether a necromancer should be X or do y I'm asking if it had amazing game mechanics and tinkers played identical to druids just with tech abilities would you rather the tinker or the necromancer exist and which one would you play? Clearly you are lying about gameplay being more important than the lore to you which is why you are dancing around the question. And would you be ok with a tech base class instead of a tinker if it was lightforged, draenei, orc, and blood elf only?

[Teriz]

Well, no, I basically said they needn't lose anything. Metamorphosis was a special case, in my view, in that it never thematically *belonged* to Warlocks to begin with and never made much sense. It was always the marquee ability of Demon Hunters (all the way back to the WC3 Hero), and was shoehorned roughly into the Warlock class in a way that never really made much sense (from changing a few signature abilities' look to giving the Warlock melee abilities that didn't fit with the class). Ditto with Death Coil as a first gen. DK ability from WC2. Mortal Coil replicates the ability seamlessly and better fits the Warlock class.

I'll agree that the DK class has absorbed some of the Necromancer concept, in the same way that the Warlock ate into the Demon Hunter's concept; but that doesn't require either class be harmed by ceding a bit of conceptual space to a possible Necromancer class. A Necromancer can easily share abilities with the Warlock or DK, requiring only some renaming here and there. Since the Necromancer itself has never actually been a fully-realized class before you've got a lot of conceptual wiggle room there, and you've got a lot of elements you can draw on as many of the concept templates have done without infringing on any existing classes. It's been done before.

As for Blizzard's announcement about the DK as the game's sole "death class," well I wouldn't put great stock on it. They made similar statements about the Warlock being the game's sole "demon class," but the Demon Hunter still came into being in Legion. Will there ever be a Necromancer class? Who can really say. There may never be a Tinker class either owing to a lack of suitable context in which to unveil it, sadly enough.

So just to be sure, you believe that Blizzard would allow two different classes to summon a variety of undead minions?

There is no reason why this would have to be, but if you leverage too much of Engineering toward a presumptive Tinker class then you automatically make it less desirable to non-Tinkers by fiat. It shouldn't be obligatory for Tinkers to take Engineering as a profession, either - though conceptually I can definitely see the appeal (there's a pretty obvious thematic overlap there). The same is true for the Mechagnome Allied Race, you don't want to mechanically pigeonhole them into being Tinkers either. That being said, Mechagnomes are probably the thematically appropriate race for a Tinker class in the same way Pandaren are more or less iconic for the Monk class. I'd agree that a Tinker class is probably going to see a pretty significant bump in Mechagnome players. But I don't think Tinker needs to be limited to the small races either, although that depends on the concept in question in many cases.

Well Tinkers wouldn't HAVE to take engineering andMechagnome player wouldn't HAVE to be a Tinker. It's still completely optional regardless. My point is only that a Tinker class gives engineers more customers to sell to, and Mechagnomes a class that fits their racial themes.

- - - Updated - - -

Priests can temporarily mind control and I also said possession.

And how would this "possession" work exactly? Like Control Undead?

DK's don't raise spirits a necromancer could.

What "spirits" are you referring to? Spirits tend to be the realm of Shaman, and Souls tend to be the realm of Warlocks.

And theme does not = mechanics or are holy paladins and holy priests identical???

Specs =/= Classes.

And I'm not asking whether a necromancer should be X or do y I'm asking if it had amazing game mechanics and tinkers played identical to druids just with tech abilities would you rather the tinker or the necromancer exist and which one would you play? Clearly you are lying about gameplay being more important than the lore to you which is why you are dancing around the question. And would you be ok with a tech base class instead of a tinker if it was lightforged, draenei, orc, and blood elf only?

Here's the problem with your question; It would be impossible for them to play like Druids because the WC3, HotS, and WoW abilities point in a complete opposite direction of Druid gameplay. The only thing they may share is form changing via a toggle, but that might just be restricted to one Tinker spec.

[Nynax]

If I were to design a tinker class...

It would have ZERO direct damage abilities. NONE.

The entire gameplay loop would be about setting up little turrets, sending out little robots, and otherwise spending all your time running around "fixing" your shit. You'd be a healer that only heals your own minions...in melee range.

You'd be great at multi-target fights, pretty good at high movement fights, but precision positioning would be your bain (can't run around fixing your shit).

The only direct damage you get to do, is a big 5min CD that lets you hop in a Mecha-suit (like gallywix or mekkatorque have).

The big thing is you're a weak little tinker, not a big warrior or skilled mage. So you don't ever try to hit anything, just build or fix, build or fix. + rocket boots.

[Aucald]

So just to be sure, you believe that Blizzard would allow two different classes to summon a variety of undead minions?

Sure, why not? So long as the summoned minions have a different functionality and different abilities, it'd be no different than a DK's summoned minion vs. a Warlock's summoned minion(s). A Necromancer would probably summon many different types of undead as opposed to a DK, for whom summoning is not a mainstay of their class identity. Incorporeal undead, undead drakes or dragons, undead giants, etc. etc. A DK can summon a Frostwrym to do a short CD attack, whereas a Necromancer might have a Frostwyrm as a more permanent minion, etc. etc. There's thematic overlap in place, but functionally 100% different.

Well Tinkers wouldn't HAVE to take engineering and Mechagnome player wouldn't HAVE to be a Tinker. It's still completely optional regardless. My point is only that a Tinker class gives engineers more customers to sell to, and Mechagnomes a class that fits their racial themes.

I'm more talking about the potential for overlap as opposed to enforcing it, for whatever reason. Blacksmithing might also be very important to Tinkers, given the necessity of complex metallurgy required in advanced technologies.

[Teriz]

Sure, why not? So long as the summoned minions have a different functionality and different abilities, it'd be no different than a DK's summoned minion vs. a Warlock's summoned minion(s). A Necromancer would probably summon many different types of undead as opposed to a DK, for whom summoning is not a mainstay of their class identity. Incorporeal undead, undead drakes or dragons, undead giants, etc. etc. A DK can summon a Frostwrym to do a short CD attack, whereas a Necromancer might have a Frostwyrm as a more permanent minion, etc. etc. There's thematic overlap in place, but functionally 100% different.

Okay, but what is the Necromancer offering that a DK couldn't do? Like why would we need a new class to simply have some tweaks to the existing DK pet system?

I'm more talking about the potential for overlap as opposed to enforcing it, for whatever reason. Blacksmithing might also be very important to Tinkers, given the necessity of complex metallurgy required in advanced technologies.

Well that's the thing; It's pretty much impossible for a profession to overlap with a class. The two have different purposes and don't compete with one another. In fact, since you can be a Tinker and an Engineer at the same time, it pretty much eliminates any chance for the class to take anything from the profession.

[qwerty123456]

So just to be sure, you believe that Blizzard would allow two different classes to summon a variety of undead minions?

Well Tinkers wouldn't HAVE to take engineering andMechagnome player wouldn't HAVE to be a Tinker. It's still completely optional regardless. My point is only that a Tinker class gives engineers more customers to sell to, and Mechagnomes a class that fits their racial themes.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would this "possession" work exactly? Like Control Undead?

What "spirits" are you referring to? Spirits tend to be the realm of Shaman, and Souls tend to be the realm of Warlocks.

Specs =/= Classes.

Here's the problem with your question; It would be impossible for them to play like Druids because the WC3, HotS, and WoW abilities point in a complete opposite direction of Druid gameplay. The only thing they may share is form changing via a toggle, but that might just be restricted to one Tinker spec.

Again I'm not creating a necromancer I'm asking if something you like to shit on as a class had unique mechanics and abilities while the tinker was dog shit terrible with rehashed abilities would you rather the necromancer or the tinker to exist and which would you play?

Possession could be like your characters spirit inhabiting an npc. Your physical body could them zombie walk behind as you now have access to that npc's abilites (think kinda like a hunter pets specs but your the hunter pet) You then need to be careful for your physical body as it can be damaged as well as watching your hosts health. Theres also a million other ways possession could work. But that isn't what I was asking you.

Specs dont equal classes but it clearly shows that the theme of a spec can still create multiple different specs with different class abilities and mechanics which you keep denying. A mage, hunter, lock all "summon" a pet and yet all three classes play differently its not just the "element" that makes different but their core mechanics that do,

Stop dancing around the question. Blizzard can do anything they want. If they wanted to just slap some tech abilities onto the druid class and give it to non druids as a tinker class they could. There doesn't "need" to be any specific tech skills for a tinker hell you keep claiming all these important engineers are tinkers and yet none use the iconic claw pack (the most identifiable thing about them) in WoW. Reskinning cat form as a tinker with his claw pack would be a thousand times more lore accurate then a tinker without one but builds robo goblins and has a single rocket skill.

Okay, but what is the Necromancer offering that a DK couldn't do? Like why would we need a new class to simply have some tweaks to the existing DK pet system?



Well that's the thing; It's pretty much impossible for a profession to overlap with a class. The two have different purposes and don't compete with one another. In fact, since you can be a Tinker and an Engineer at the same time, it pretty much eliminates any chance for the class to take anything from the profession.

Theme does not equal mechanics. How do you not understand that dude???

Hell you could have a class nearly identical to a DK theme wise even with the same named specs and yet play entirely differently.

[Aucald]

Okay, but what is the Necromancer offering that a DK couldn't do? Like why would we need a new class to simply have some tweaks to the existing DK pet system?

Ranged caster using Death-themed abilities, summoning undead minions, wielding unique Shadow/Death magics, etc. etc. A DK is all about being an unstopped engine of Death-fueled melee destruction, where as the Necromancer playstyle would be more strategic and rely on minion/spell/debuff synergies.

Well that's the thing; It's pretty much impossible for a profession to overlap with a class. The two have different purposes and don't compete with one another. In fact, since you can be a Tinker and an Engineer at the same time, it pretty much eliminates any chance for the class to take anything from the profession.

Not really, unfortunately. WoW has had a history with making certain professions more or less obligatory for certain classes, usually with the inclusion of passive bonuses that made them seem required to min/max performance. They've gotten away from this in recent times, thankfully. They'd just have to ensure the very close concepts of Engineering and the Tinker class don't bring about the same issues.

[Triceron]

I think the problem is backwards. It is clear players like new classes and a caster in the image of Kel'thuzad could be a fun class.

The problem is, what are we gonna do with Unholy DK? It will lose it's uniqueness. Do we remove? Do we change it to something else? What would that be? We cannot just drop unholy DK players like they are nothing.

You keep it just like Holy Paladin didn't remove Holy Priests and vice versa

A class plays differently from every other class. Even Feral Druid is practically carbon copy rogue, but its still very different in flavour and feel. No one would be up in arms over two specs having similar themes. Necromancer is ranged caster, DK is melee.

[arkanon]

If I were to design a tinker class...

It would have ZERO direct damage abilities. NONE.

The entire gameplay loop would be about setting up little turrets, sending out little robots, and otherwise spending all your time running around "fixing" your shit. You'd be a healer that only heals your own minions...in melee range.

You'd be great at multi-target fights, pretty good at high movement fights, but precision positioning would be your bain (can't run around fixing your shit).

The only direct damage you get to do, is a big 5min CD that lets you hop in a Mecha-suit (like gallywix or mekkatorque have).

The big thing is you're a weak little tinker, not a big warrior or skilled mage. So you don't ever try to hit anything, just build or fix, build or fix. + rocket boots.

This is a terrible idea, and something Blizzard have moved further and further away from for various very obvious reasons.

- If the turrets are all your damage, that removes most of the skill
- Micro management is not a popular playstyle at all
- The idea of static, placed turret flat-out wouldnt work in raids, dungeons, and especially pvp
- PvP in particular would be an absolute clusterfuck - turrets everywhere just blasting everyone even though the player was hiding in a corner somewhere accross the map.
- PvE would be a shambles - imagine a M+ where you have to keep stopping and waiting for the tinker to place turrets, dealing ZERO damage while moving to the next pack.
- Any boss with a phase transition or large room wouldnt work.

So although i appreciate the logic behind wanting this sort of playstyle, it would NEVER happen - it just doesnt work in any format.

[Teriz]

Possession could be like your characters spirit inhabiting an npc. Your physical body could them zombie walk behind as you now have access to that npc's abilites (think kinda like a hunter pets specs but your the hunter pet) You then need to be careful for your physical body as it can be damaged as well as watching your hosts health.

Yeah, that's exactly what Priest Mind Control does.

Specs dont equal classes but it clearly shows that the theme of a spec can still create multiple different specs with different class abilities and mechanics which you keep denying. A mage, hunter, lock all "summon" a pet and yet all three classes play differently its not just the "element" that makes different but their core mechanics that do,

A Mage summoning a Water Elemental in one spec is different than a Hunter summoning and taming a variety of pets (with their own set of attributes) in all of their specs. Obviously minions/pets is not the focus of one class, yet is a major element of another.

Stop dancing around the question. Blizzard can do anything they want. If they wanted to just slap some tech abilities onto the druid class and give it to non druids as a tinker class they could. There doesn't "need" to be any specific tech skills for a tinker hell you keep claiming all these important engineers are tinkers and yet none use the iconic claw pack (the most identifiable thing about them) in WoW. Reskinning cat form as a tinker with his claw pack would be a thousand times more lore accurate then a tinker without one but builds robo goblins and has a single rocket skill.

If you look at WoW's expansion classes, the follow the WC3 model rather closely. The Tinker (if added) would be an expansion class, so obviously it has a high chance of also following the WC3 model very closely. The claw pack not being in the game yet means little. Certain abilities/attributes of a future class not being present in WoW until the class enters the game is rather typical for WoW expansion classes.

Theme does not equal mechanics. How do you not understand that dude???

Theme does not equal mechanics, but obviously there are things that certain classes will do regardless of what game they appear in. Necromancers summoning undead minions is one of them.

As for your question; Even if the Necromancer somehow offered some super original gameplay, I'd still prefer a tech-themed class because we already have multiple shadow-based specs and classes in the game. We really don't need another.

- - - Updated - - -

Ranged caster using Death-themed abilities, summoning undead minions, wielding unique Shadow/Death magics, etc. etc. A DK is all about being an unstopped engine of Death-fueled melee destruction, where as the Necromancer playstyle would be more strategic and rely on minion/spell/debuff synergies.

But isn't that just a Warlock with undead minions instead of demons?

Not really, unfortunately. WoW has had a history with making certain professions more or less obligatory for certain classes, usually with the inclusion of passive bonuses that made them seem required to min/max performance. They've gotten away from this in recent times, thankfully. They'd just have to ensure the very close concepts of Engineering and the Tinker class don't bring about the same issues.

Yeah, I don't believe that would happen. Again, we're talking about cosmetic boosts, not boosts to your character's performance.

[Sencha]

Because some guys are hammering MMO-C with new topics about tinkerers, thinking the more posts there are the more it will happen.

[qwerty123456]

Yeah, that's exactly what Priest Mind Control does.



A Mage summoning a Water Elemental in one spec is different than a Hunter summoning and taming a variety of pets (with their own set of attributes) in all of their specs. Obviously minions/pets is not the focus of one class, yet is a major element of another.



If you look at WoW's expansion classes, the follow the WC3 model rather closely. The Tinker (if added) would be an expansion class, so obviously it has a high chance of also following the WC3 model very closely. The claw pack not being in the game yet means little. Certain abilities/attributes of a future class not being present in WoW until the class enters the game is rather typical for WoW expansion classes.




Theme does not equal mechanics, but obviously there are things that certain classes will do regardless of what game they appear in. Necromancers summoning undead minions is one of them.

That isn't remotely what priests mind control does and if you seriously think that then we don't need tinkers because all their abilities are damaging abilities or tanking abilities which other classes have.



Clearly you still don't understand mechanics vs theme. Let me give you another example:

Let's pretend that Kel'Thuzad saw death knights and was like hey I want my own. He isn't as powerful as the Lich King so his deathknights while using the same elements use different mechanics. He then calls these new death knights dark paladins as a fuck you to actual paladins. I'm going to keep all of these specs as melee just to show you how different something can play while still being identical thematically.

Frost spec - Since Kel'Thuzad was weaker these dark paladins needed to think outside the box to augment their abilities and by encasing themselves in ice they were able to boost their abilities to be comparable to a death knights. Frost now ends up being a tank aoe spec that is more static than most tank specs and uses a health buffer in ice armor.

Blood spec- Kel'Thuzad has been undead for so long he's forgotten what blood is like so these Dark Paladins must learn to manipulate the blood of their enemies and aren't a tank unlike a bood DK. This spec would be more like a rogue using 2 one hand swords/ axes to slice their enemies and drain their blood which they then use to empower themselves or weaken their enemies. These dark paladins store the blood of their enemies in blood globules surrounding them which they can then use to enhance thier abilites or take a fatal hit for them.

Unholy spec- Kel'Thuzad didn't want any competition in the necromancy department and so while the Unholy dark paladin can create a minion they can't summon a ton of undead. They use diseases to plague enemies enough to lop body parts off them which they then use to enhance their undead golem. This spec would then revolve around empowering your pet and gathering body parts from enemies.


See how a death knight clone could easily have much different class mechanics than a death knight? And a Necromancer is a ranged cloth user meaning the mechanics could be a thousand times more different than a death knight while still maintaining the same elemental themes.

[Melusine]

I really don't understand a community that hates variety so much. A technical based class with steampunk vibes is usually a staple in many fantasy games and its a clear missing component in WoW despite the myriad of technologies the world offers. Yet anytime someone suggests a desire for the class or even comes up with creative ways to implement it half the community it seems nearly has a stroke with the amount of rage they bring.
I mean in reality it doesn't have to be called tinkerer, but i do think the game would benefit from a class that embodies a mechanical steam punk type vibe.

I don't hate the idea. My Human female mage is a gnomish engineer. Whether my goggles match my outfit or not (I'm colorblind, so I'm not positive) I will never transmog them to anything else. She's also an alchemist that knows every formula currently in that game, and possibly a number of them that may no longer be in the game. yes, that includes the vial of the sands mount formula. If the game took on more steampunk sorts of themes, even if only for the transmogs, That would be an improvement. The game's rifles would be an excellent place to incorporate steampunk-esque stuff. In all seriousness, if I was to role play this mage out to what I envision her to be, it might be more like steampunk-style, except that her variety of engineering would incorporate magicks and alchemy, would create roflcopters that run off philosopher stones or ioun stones, double-barreled grenade launchers that drop arcane exploding munitions, or attempt to recreate and improve upon the legendary bow, Thor'idal, the Star's Fury, using thunder forging techniques, alchemy infusion and technology that replicates sparkle trailing arrows. But in reality, if I want all that, I would probably need to go pen and paper for that, because blizzard has a habit of staying on theme, no matter how stupid it might be.

But should there be a "tinkerer" class in the game? What exactly do you think this "tinkerer" should be? Isn't having engineering enough? I'd actually like to see Gnomish and Goblin engineering integrated, myself, but I have also argued for 3rd professions for 3 expacs now, and nothing on that, nor does it appear likely in the future. I think I would be the one suggesting 4th specs on existing classes before I would think adding a new one to the game would be a good move. I'm also the guy, though that thinks certain specs should be barred from certain races, like Holy priests should exclude undead and void elves, and in the same vein, shaodow spec should be barred from use by lightforged draeneis. I don't honestly think Fury or arms should be an option for goblins, gnomes, mechagnomes and vulpera due to their stature, but a 4th spec for single-minded fury to take its place would be, in my opinion, a good option. If you think that's limiting, can you at least understand why I say that? And what if, because of the unique nature of an undead, that they receive a bonus to shadow and discipline, since they are locked out of holy, or a 4th spec that deals in the inverse to shadow (light damage, the inquisitor spec), operates differently, and would serve as a dps spec for those locked out. Same with a gnome using single minded fury. Assume they get a dps bonus like increase attack speed, shorter cooldown refreshing durations and/or longer cooldown buff durations, meaning, they may not be able to be a fury warrior, but they are on average a better SMF than the other taller races of Azeroth.

I would go with any of that before going with an actual class that could be bolstered specifically by a profession. But let me throw you a bone. Let's assume Blizzard agree with you, about tinkerers and it also agrees with me about 3rd professions.... but some races have one of them by default and can't get rid of them. Example.... if you're goblin or a gnome, you're automatically an engineer, and you have 2 other slots to work with. Undead? You have alchemy by virtue of your race. Blood elf? You have the luxury of enchanting by virtue of race. Draenei? Jewelcrafting by default. Certain races would have 3 profession slots, like orcs, humans, kul-tirans, or any other race that doesn't show a racial for a profession (or in the case of the Kul-tiran, Jack of all trades). I'm sure you see where it's going. And since we already know blizzard doesn't want professions having any significant effect of the game via perks, like we had pre-WoD, I don't see how it could be a problem.

So, I'm going to read the comments and see if ideas spring up. It's kind of vague.

[Ielenia]

Which doesn't make you an engineer. It makes you a Warrior that uses gadgets every once in awhile.

No, it makes me an engineer because my character created those items with their engineering skills.

It's no different than saying that Enchanting makes your a magician or spell caster. It doesn't, you're still a Warrior.

Apples an oranges. Enchanting is one of eight schools of magic. Engineering, however, is the "whole thing", since with it you build mechs, guns, bombs, missiles, robots, etc.

If you're building stuff that has a chance to misfire or becomes ineffective, I would say that's far below what you would see out of an engineer like Mekkatorque or Blackfuse.

"Goblins are known for their mechanical expertise and clever, though sometimes peculiar, inventions, and the Tinker is certainly no exception. With his Claw-Pack/Hammer-Tank combo, the Tinker's ingenuity is undeniable. Though his parts may sometimes fail and the occasional explosion does occur, the spirit and enthusiasm of this Hero are never diminished. There truly is more to the Goblin Tinker than meets the eye!"
Sounds like "misfires", "failures" and "explosions" is par for the course for the tinker, doesn't it?

But they're not engineers like the profession "engineers". That's the point.

Again: "profession" is just a game mechanic term. They are engineers. Remember: the "profession" engineer makes mechs, guns, bombs, missiles, robots, etc., all the stuff that tinkers supposedly make for their "abilities".

Blackfuse says hello.

I didn't know Gelbin's last name is Blackfuse, considering that's the character I explicitly named and focused on in my post.

Actually Mages ARE like Jaina. Priests ARE like Anduin and Velen. Hunters ARE like Rexxar. Warlocks ARE like Gul'dan. Do they have all of their abilities? No, but they have their attributes, and they have some of their abilities as well.

Really!? Then show me, as a mage, how can I:
• Make a freezing blast that knocks people away.
• Make a ship fly.
• Cast a Howling Wind to reduce the vision of enemies around me AND cast shards of ice at them that freezes enemies on contact.
• Summon 3 water elementals.

Show me, as a priest, how can I:
• Mass rez a whole lot of people, during combat.
• Wield a sword.
• Wear plate armor.
• Have visions of the future.

Show me, as a hunter, how can I:
• Dual-wield axes and fight in melee as a beastmaster.

Show me, as a warlock, how can I:
• Conjure a fel scythe.
• Conjure an Eye of Gul'Dan that deals damage.
• Shackle people using fel chains.

Because you can be a Nightborne Warlock and a Kul'Tiran Druid. Orc Paladin? Give it time.

Nightborne aren't night elves, and kul'tirans aren't humans. I specifically mentioned night elves and Stormwind humans. And this is not a strawman. It's a direct counter to your claim, because it seems gameplay is still restricted by lore.

You mean other than the fact that we have both Gnome and Goblin leaders fighting inside mechs,

The worgen leader fights unarmed. That is something no player worgen can do. The night elf leader is a priestess that fights with a bow. That is something no player night elf can do. The human leader is a priest who wears plate and wields a sword. That is something no player human can do. Etc, etc, etc.

It's never confirmed what it is. It could be magic, it could be tech. Given the nature of Hunters, I'm willing to bet its magic.

The name "munitions" pretty much confirms it's tech. And the hunter class has a lot of technology in its repertoire.

Anyway, the point still stands, Hunters use magical arrows, and the magical archer is the theme behind the PotM.

The hunter class is not a magic class. Not any more than the warrior class is.

Actually it does matter because the thematics are still in place. If you're playing WC3 and you want to be Like Tyrande with her bow and her magic arrows, the Hunter class is the perfect fit.

No, it's not, because Tyrande is a priestess in WoW, and is a priestess in every incarnation of the character outside canon media.

The Monk class contains the Brewmaster spec, and the entire class has multiple sub themes from the hero. How is that "barely related"?

Because, before MoP, the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster neutral hero unit was just tangentially related to the monk concept by way of both sharing a chinese inspiration. The WC3 unit is not a monk.

I find your denial to be sad.

I deny your story. Simple as that. You're asserting as fact something we have absolutely no way of knowing for sure.

[Kauko]

Because we are feed up with people trying to sold us the idea... how many more tinkerer posts will we get? If Blizz decides to make them, ok.