If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Teriz]

You're acting like you don't know the difference between lore and game mechanics. Also, it's not a "physical spell". There is no such thing as a "physical spell".

We’re talking about gameplay, not lore.

However with that said, where in lore does is state that atonement is a holy spell?

And that is objectively false, as I've demonstrated several times over. No gameplay or mechanics that you claim is "exclusive to the mechanical theme" is actually exclusive to it, as I've given several examples of how those exact same mechanics and gameplay could be given to other themes.

Mechanics that Blizzard would never apply because they wouldn’t make sense with any other existing class. Again, technology as a theme lends itself to gameplay mechanics and options not available to other classes because no other class uses that theme.

Re-read what I wrote. I never said Slate is a necromancer. I said he is teaching necromancers.

Okay, do you have any examples of these Necromancers using poison?

Those abilities I listed prove that Blizzard is not afraid to look into non-Warcraft-related games to look for inspiration.

Taking a couple of abilities and moving them over to WoW is not the same as basing an entire class or spec on a Diablo class and abilities.

And considering necromancers are unlikely to be liches, saying Kel'Thuzad lost access to those abilities when he turned into a Lich is not exactly relevant. Also, you have no proof that he lost access to those abilities, and simply opted to favor frost and necromantic spells.

Feel free to find any iteration of Kel’thuzad in Necromancer or Lich form using fire or arcane spells.

Yes. Because you just said that, if the priest class did not exist, all we had to do to make it different from the paladin class was to "link it to something else that isn't linked to the paladin class". And I've done that already, over and over, by linking necromancers to something else that isn't linked to the paladin's class, i.e., fulfilling your criteria, and you still continue to say 'nuh-uh'.

Uh no. I said that we could easily tie Priests to the old Gods and say we have a class based on the tug of war between worshipping the light or worshipping the darkness. Within that theme you have holy spec, shadow spec, and a grey spec. That’s exactly what we ended up with for priests, and it’s totally different than the Paladin class.

You have yet to provide anything fundamentally different between a Necromancer and a Death Knight, since a DK can use every school of magic proposed for your Necromancer.

Give examples.

I already have.

Didn't stop Blizzard from letting paladins heal with holy magic despite priests already being able to heal with holy magic. Didn't stop Blizzard from letting monks heal with water magic despite shamans already being able to heal with water magic. Didn't stop Blizzard from letting warlocks have a fire spec despite mages already having a fire spec.

And you still don’t get it. There’s nothing wrong with specs within classes sharing themes and magic schools. The problem is when an entire class has the exact same themes and magic school as another class. Consider that most Necromancer advocates want a Blood/Frost/Unholy spec configuration for a Necromancer class. Sound familiar? It should.

Not to mention that the death knight spec is a tank spec while a necromancer would have a healing spec for blood. Your argument is like saying that paladins cannot have a holy tank spec because priests have a holy healing spec. Or vice-versa.

Again, Priests utilize an entire school of magic that Paladins don’t use. Your comparison here is bogus.

[Katchii]

Again, Shadow magic in WoW has demonstrated in multiple cases to be different mechanically than Holy magic. Yes, Blizzard designers designed it that way, but that really isn't the point. Moving it to the point of this topic; Since a Tinker class would be using the technology theme, that opens up mechanics and gameplay options simply not open to other classes, since no other class utilizes that theme.

That's the point.

First ,stop being so condescending. Acting like you have some kind intellectual high ground in this conversation is absolutely absurd.

The bolded is ENTIRELY the point. That the mechanics have to be designed, period. They do not come inherently because they are of a certain theme. The theme opens up possible mechanics that can be used, which is where you're going, and I agree with that, but the abilities do not have those mechanics simply because they have that theme.

Theme =/= mechanics

Theme can inspire what kinds of mechanics that can be there, but theme, by itself does not create a mechanic.

[pewpmeiser]

Not a Tinker, that's for sure.

[Ielenia]

We’re talking about gameplay, not lore.

However with that said, where in lore does is state that atonement is a holy spell?

Really? You're asking me to show in the lore where an ability whose name implies salvation, and working penitence because of something you did wrong... is a holy spell?

Mechanics that Blizzard would never apply because they wouldn’t make sense with any other existing class.

So you're saying that it doesn't make sense for a balance druid to summon a big flower that constantly releases spores that drift toward a nearby target, and explode on contact, i.e., the "pocket factory" mechanic?

Again, technology as a theme lends itself to gameplay mechanics and options not available to other classes because no other class uses that theme.

I'll repeat: and that is objectively false, as I've demonstrated several times over. No gameplay or mechanics that you claim is "exclusive to the mechanical theme" is actually exclusive to it, as I've given several examples of how those exact same mechanics and gameplay could be given to other themes.

Okay, do you have any examples of these Necromancers using poison?

That's irrelevant, because we didn't have any examples of monks healing with mists before MoP. We didn't have any examples of death knights using frost abilities before Wrath of the Lich King. We have enough of an association to give a poison spec to necromancers thanks to a necromancer school teaching alchemy to aspiring necromancers.

Taking a couple of abilities and moving them over to WoW is not the same as basing an entire class or spec on a Diablo class and abilities.

It's more than just "a couple". I just picked two to use as examples. It's way more than just two.

Feel free to find any iteration of Kel’thuzad in Necromancer or Lich form using fire or arcane spells.

Really? We know for a fact that Kel'Thuzad was a mage of the Kirin Tor while he was studying necromancy. And we know mages can use fire, frost and arcane spells. You're asking me to prove a mage can use fire or arcane spells?

Uh no. I said that we could easily tie Priests to the old Gods and say we have a class based on the tug of war between worshipping the light or worshipping the darkness. Within that theme you have holy spec, shadow spec, and a grey spec. That’s exactly what we ended up with for priests, and it’s totally different than the Paladin class.

You have yet to provide anything fundamentally different between a Necromancer and a Death Knight, since a DK can use every school of magic proposed for your Necromancer.

Really? Since when do death knights have a poison spec, since you decided to use the necromancer idea that *I* am proposing?

I already have.

Saying they exist is not the same as giving examples. Come on, give up those examples.

And you still don’t get it. There’s nothing wrong with specs within classes sharing themes and magic schools. The problem is when an entire class has the exact same themes and magic school as another class. Consider that most Necromancer advocates want a Blood/Frost/Unholy spec configuration for a Necromancer class. Sound familiar? It should.

One, I don't care what others are advocating for. I care for what I am advocating for. And two, you'll have to prove that claim, that "most necromancer advocates want a blood/frost/unholy class".

Again, Priests utilize an entire school of magic that Paladins don’t use. Your comparison here is bogus.

You're moving the goalposts. This was your entire argument:

Except DKs already heal with Blood magic, and tanking with pets is a pretty dubious concept.

You didn't say anything about "entire school of magic that paladins don't use". You discarded his idea because "dks already heal with blood magic".

- - - Updated - - -

Theme can inspire what kinds of mechanics that can be there, but theme, by itself does not create a mechanic.

I'd go even further by saying that themes don't even guarantee any mechanic whatsoever, really.

[Katchii]

I'd go even further by saying that themes don't even guarantee any mechanic whatsoever, really.

Guarantee, no. Just saying that the theme easily lends itself to the creation of the mechanic.

[Teriz]

The bolded is ENTIRELY the point. That the mechanics have to be designed, period. They do not come inherently because they are of a certain theme. The theme opens up possible mechanics that can be used, which is where you're going, and I agree with that, but the abilities do not have those mechanics simply because they have that theme.

Theme =/= mechanics

Theme can inspire what kinds of mechanics that can be there, but theme, by itself does not create a mechanic.

So if we have a spec whose theme is gravity, you're saying the abilities won't be full of "pulling" mechanics? If we have a spec themed around Time, there is going to be no slow, haste, or rewinding abilities?

- - - Updated - - -

Really? You're asking me to show in the lore where an ability whose name implies salvation, and working penitence because of something you did wrong... is a holy spell?

So in other words nothing in lore states that that is a Holy spell, you're merely assuming it is.

Well, according to the game, Atonement isn't a Holy spell.

So you're saying that it doesn't make sense for a balance druid to summon a big flower that constantly releases spores that drift toward a nearby target, and explode on contact, i.e., the "pocket factory" mechanic?

No it doesn't. It also doesn't help that that idea sounds rather stupid.

I'll repeat: and that is objectively false, as I've demonstrated several times over. No gameplay or mechanics that you claim is "exclusive to the mechanical theme" is actually exclusive to it, as I've given several examples of how those exact same mechanics and gameplay could be given to other themes.

Yet we have multiple mechanics from the Tinker heroes in WC3 and HotS which are easily translatable to WoW and don't exist in any of the classes. Pocket Factory is one of those mechanics, Gazlowe's turret system in HotS would be another.

That's irrelevant, because we didn't have any examples of monks healing with mists before MoP. We didn't have any examples of death knights using frost abilities before Wrath of the Lich King. We have enough of an association to give a poison spec to necromancers thanks to a necromancer school teaching alchemy to aspiring necromancers.

Which isn't really the same comparison at all. You're looking for an opening in order to give Necromancers design space in the class lineup. Monks and Death Knights didn't need to look for design space openings because their space was wide open. We already have a Necromancer class in the game. Death Knights raise the dead, manipulate life, spread disease, utilize shadow magic, etc. They do everything the traditional Necromancer does. Death Knights even have the Necromancer's abilities from WC3 and a few of the Necromancer's abilities from Diablo. Monks got a mist-based healing spec because Blizzard felt that a Monk class should have a healing spec and wanted to create something that fits the theme of Pandaria. Death Knights got Frost magic because it coincided with the theme of Northrend, and the fact that Blizzard merged all necromancer concepts into the DK class (in this case the Lich).

What you're doing is grasping at proverbial straws.

It's more than just "a couple". I just picked two to use as examples. It's way more than just two.

The point still stands though. The idea that Blizzard would design an entire class or spec after Diablo is laughable.

Really? We know for a fact that Kel'Thuzad was a mage of the Kirin Tor while he was studying necromancy. And we know mages can use fire, frost and arcane spells. You're asking me to prove a mage can use fire or arcane spells?

And when he popped up in WC3 as a Necromancer he wasn't using any of those abilities, he was using Necromancy. In WoW Kel'thuzad in Lich form definitely doesn't use any fire or arcane abilities either. So in what iteration is a Necromancer using fire or arcane magic?

You're grasping at straws again.

Really? Since when do death knights have a poison spec, since you decided to use the necromancer idea that *I* am proposing?

Death Knights have access to a magic school called Plague, which is a combination of shadow and nature magic. Poison is also in the nature school of magic.

Saying they exist is not the same as giving examples. Come on, give up those examples.

Pocket Factory, Rock-It Turret, Grav-O-Bomb 3000, Mech piloting, etc.

One, I don't care what others are advocating for. I care for what I am advocating for. And two, you'll have to prove that claim, that "most necromancer advocates want a blood/frost/unholy class".

That's fine, but that is the most logical direction, since we have multiple Necromancers using blood, multiple Necromancers using Frost, and multiple Necromancers using Unholy.

You have yet to provide any examples of any Necromancers using poison.

You're moving the goalposts. This was your entire argument:

You didn't say anything about "entire school of magic that paladins don't use". You discarded his idea because "dks already heal with blood magic".

Which they do. So what's your issue?

[Katchii]

So if we have a spec whose theme is gravity, you're saying the abilities won't be full of "pulling" mechanics? If we have a spec themed around Time, there is going to be no slow, haste, or rewinding abilities?

No, I'm saying that simply because you call it a Gravity themed spell doesn't mean it's going to inherently, magically, automatically have a "pulling" mechanic. The designers have to put that mechanic there, deliberately. By picking the "Gravity" theme they open the door to the kinds of mechanics a Gravity spell would have. Simply coming up with the theme doesn't magically create the game play or mechanics.

It is possible to design a Gravity themed spell that has no "gravity" effect to it outside of the flavor text. Such as; channel the power of gravity to create a tiny singularity within the target to instantly deal X damage and an additional Y damage over time. The Singularity deals higher damage at first with the power of the singularity diminishing over time.

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. It also doesn't help that that idea sounds rather stupid.

Why doesn't it make sense? Because you say so?

[TheRevenantHero]

I really wish these threads would be more constructive instead of Teriz busting in like the Kool-Aid man with his nonsense about how only gnomes and goblins should be tinkers.

[Teriz]

No, I'm saying that simply because you call it a Gravity themed spell doesn't mean it's going to inherently, magically, automatically have a "pulling" mechanic. The designers have to put that mechanic there, deliberately. By picking the "Gravity" theme they open the door to the kinds of mechanics a Gravity spell would have. Simply coming up with the theme doesn't magically create the game play or mechanics.

Uh, of course a designer has to put that mechanic there. A designer also decides on what the theme is going to be in the first place.

It is possible to design a Gravity themed spell that has no "gravity" effect to it outside of the flavor text.

One spell, sure. An entire spec filled with Gravity themed spells? Not likely.

Why doesn't it make sense? Because you say so?

A spec that shoots beams of nature and arcane magic to the point where it's affectionately called "laser chicken", suddenly gets an ability where it drops a flower that spits out "spores"....

The ironic thing is that isn't even the same mechanic as pocket factory.

- - - Updated - - -

I really wish these threads would be more constructive instead of Teriz busting in like the Kool-Aid man with his nonsense about how only gnomes and goblins should be tinkers.

Where did I say only Gnomes or Goblins should be Tinkers?

I've said multiple times that Vulpera and Mechagnomes should be Tinkers too.

[TheRevenantHero]

Uh, of course a designer has to put that mechanic there. A designer also decides on what the theme is going to be in the first place.



One spell, sure. An entire spec filled with Gravity themed spells? Not likely.




A spec that shoots beams of nature and arcane magic to the point where it's affectionately called "laser chicken", suddenly gets an ability where it drops a flower that spits out "spores"....

The ironic thing is that isn't even the same mechanic as pocket factory.

- - - Updated - - -



Where did I say only Gnomes or Goblins should be Tinkers?

I've said multiple times that Vulpera and Mechagnomes should be Tinkers too.

There is absolutely no logic to limiting it to just the little races. Literally none especially since plenty of other races have shown capability at doing everything tinkers do. Vulpera are a primitive race akin to trolls so saying they should be tinkers is literally just you grasping at straws to push for the unpopular small races to get a class. Sorry, dude, but limiting it to those races won't make those races popular. It's more likely to piss off the majority of the player base because they don't want to play those races for a reason.

[Katchii]

Uh, of course a designer has to put that mechanic there. A designer also decides on what the theme is going to be in the first place.

One spell, sure. An entire spec filled with Gravity themed spells? Not likely.

So you acknowledge that by simply having a theme, it doesn't automatically create the mechanic and that those mechanics are applied afterwards. Thanks.

A spec that shoots beams of nature and arcane magic to the point where it's affectionately called "laser chicken", suddenly gets an ability where it drops a flower that spits out "spores"....

The ironic thing is that isn't even the same mechanic as pocket factory.

So, a spell/ ability based around using nature magic to grow a flower that generates damaging spores would be entirely out of place on a class based extensively around nature magic, steeped in lore around healing, cultivating and protecting nature....which includes flowers that generate dangerous spores? Of which we've seen MANY times throughout WoW?

Also, what is the difference between this Druid inspired mechanic and Pocket Factory?

[Teriz]

There is absolutely no logic to limiting it to just the little races. Literally none especially since plenty of other races have shown capability at doing everything tinkers do. Vulpera are a primitive race akin to trolls so saying they should be tinkers is literally just you grasping at straws to push for the unpopular small races to get a class. Sorry, dude, but limiting it to those races won't make those races popular. It's more likely to piss off the majority of the player base because they don't want to play those races for a reason.

The logic being that since the smaller races lack physical strength, they make up for it in brain power, and thus use technology to even the odds.

- - - Updated - - -

So you acknowledge that by simply having a theme, it doesn't automatically create the mechanic and that those mechanics are applied afterwards. Thanks.

When have I said differently?

So, a spell/ ability based around using nature magic to grow a flower that generates damaging spores would be entirely out of place on a class based extensively around nature magic, steeped in lore around healing, cultivating and protecting nature....which includes flowers that generate dangerous spores? Of which we've seen MANY times throughout WoW?

Yes, because such a spec really doesn't exist in the Druid class. Balance is based more around the Sun and the Moon. Feral and Guardian revolve more around their animal forms. The only spec where that really fits is Restoration, since Restoration is full of healing spells based around plants and flowers. However, Restoration is a healing spec, not a damage spec.

Also, what is the difference between this Druid inspired mechanic and Pocket Factory?

A building versus a Flower, which provides a barrier. Robots as opposed to spores which attack with weapons before they explode. Also the robots don't "drift" around, they actually chase after the target.

[TheRevenantHero]

The logic being that since the smaller races lack physical strength, they make up for it in brain power, and thus use technology to even the odds.

And that's an incredibly flawed way to look at it. Because if that was the case then why are all the small races capable of rolling warriors? Just admit already that you don't really have a good reason for restricting tinker. There are other races that absolutely could be tinkers and you disregard them every time. You just really like the unpopular races and think they should get the spotlight even if there's no solid reason for it.

[Teriz]

And that's an incredibly flawed way to look at it. Because if that was the case then why are all the small races capable of rolling warriors?

Gameplay. If you notice, there's no Gnome or Goblin warriors in lore.

Just admit already that you don't really have a good reason for restricting tinker. There are other races that absolutely could be tinkers and you disregard them every time. You just really like the unpopular races and think they should get the spotlight even if there's no solid reason for it.

See above.

[Golden Yak]

One of my favorite pics from WoW RPG was this one;

https://xpoff.com/attachments/image-jpeg.11625

Runemaster vs Tinker!

That's the one. Makes me want a Tauren Runemaster, every time. Friggin' epic.

And yes! Fight the Tinker! They're natural enemies!

[McNeil]

Tinker would have been ideal in BFA with all the goblin and gnome focus they have gotten (both Gallywix and Mekkatorque battle each other in their own mech suit aswell), and ofcourse uncovering Mechagon would provide a lot of new technology for tinkers to use.

Necromancers should have been a new class in Shadowlands imo. Its the perfect expansion for their introduction, have a return of the Cult of the Damned and have them gather death/dark powers from Maldraxxus and the Maw which gives them new abilities. The Cult of the Damned would become the new Ebon Blade/Illidari.

Otherwise I'd like to see a dark ranger which is a physical ranged DPS like a hunter, but rather than using arrows/traps/beasts it uses more manipulative powers, alongside raising skeletons and all sorts of dark magic that empowers their attacks. And ofcourse a melee spec like how Sylvanas fought Saurfang in the cinematic.

[TheRevenantHero]

Gameplay. If you notice, there's no Gnome or Goblin warriors in lore.



See above.

There's also no Forsaken warriors in lore. Does that mean they don't exist? Come on, dude. Your logic is exceptionally flawed. And once again, there's other races that are tinkers. Nightborne, draenei, orcs, and blood elves immediately come to mind. Though I know it's futile to say that because you will move the goalposts like you always do and come up with some insane reasoning for why those races shouldn't get tinker. But what it really boils down to is your bias for small races and you don't care if it will piss the majority of players off if the exceptionally unpopular races are the only ones that can roll a newly introduced class.

[Imperator4321]

The logic being that since the smaller races lack physical strength, they make up for it in brain power, and thus use technology to even the odds.

The Vulpera are characterized by being resourceful and clever but their "cleverness" is about surviving in harsh conditions not being technologically adept like gnomes, goblins and mechagnomes are defined by. Orcs have shown more inclination for technology with basically everything related to the AU blackrock and iron horde technology (even if they were introduced to it through the blackfuse company), the Draenei with their crystal powered technology.

[Monster Hunter]

Id like to see expansion of the current class's more than new ones,

[Teriz]

There's also no Forsaken warriors in lore. Does that mean they don't exist?

More than likely.

Come on, dude. Your logic is exceptionally flawed. And once again, there's other races that are tinkers. Nightborne, draenei, orcs, and blood elves immediately come to mind. Though I know it's futile to say that because you will move the goalposts like you always do and come up with some insane reasoning for why those races shouldn't get tinker. But what it really boils down to is your bias for small races and you don't care if it will piss the majority of players off if the exceptionally unpopular races are the only ones that can roll a newly introduced class.

Only Goblins and Gnomes have groups actually called Tinkers. None of those other races do.

- - - Updated - - -

The Vulpera are characterized by being resourceful and clever but their "cleverness" is about surviving in harsh conditions not being technologically adept like gnomes, goblins and mechagnomes are defined by. Orcs have shown more inclination for technology with basically everything related to the AU blackrock and iron horde technology (even if they were introduced to it through the blackfuse company), the Draenei with their crystal powered technology.

Iron Horde tech was Goblin tech (Blackfuse company) built by Orc blacksmiths, and it was mainly based around the Iron Star, a device invented by Helix Blackfuse, a Goblin inventor. The Orcs themselves didn't develop the tech.