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

[Vx-Odessa-xV]

Well, all in all, i hope you all could enjoy my little write-up there of the class concept, its specs and all that. Know its not a new idea by any small scope of the mind, but I hope my twist on things atleast could be of some entertainment for you guys.

[TheRevenantHero]

what tech does nightborne have?

Draenei focus on magic and light.

Sin'dorei tech is magic golems/blood golems.

Mag'har use blackfuse goblin tech.

forsaken tech is bioweapons.


Goblins and Gnomes are the only 2 races who society is based on tech.

Did you just not quest through Suramar? Have you not seen the incredibly advanced tech the draenei use such as literal spaceships and anti-aircraft cannons? Have you not seen the manaforges in Netherstorm that the sin'dorei invented and built? Mag'har initially based things off Blackfuse tech but eventually started creating their own stuff. Forsaken have created intricate devices and machines for things like blight delivery.

It doesn't matter what their entire society is based off of. The fact that other races are capable of it is what matters. You gonna say that tauren paladins don't actually exist since there's no tauren paladin npcs? lol

- - - Updated - - -

Well, all in all, i hope you all could enjoy my little write-up there of the class concept, its specs and all that. Know its not a new idea by any small scope of the mind, but I hope my twist on things atleast could be of some entertainment for you guys.

I think it looks great but I'm waiting for Teriz to say nothing but negative things about it purely because you said other races can be tinkers.

[Traveler Voltin]

All i saw in Suramar was portal networks and a lot of magic manipulating things.

Draenei got space ships from Naaru.

you mean the manaforges Kael built with his evil blood elves that i am pretty sure none of the horde ones know how to make.

[Vx-Odessa-xV]

I think it looks great but I'm waiting for Teriz to say nothing but negative things about it purely because you said other races can be tinkers.

Well thank you. Happy to see you enjoyed the concept and what little bit of fleshing-out i gave it, both in operation and little “personal tweaks” they could wrangle for themselves.

[Triceron]

Based on what WoW character exactly? There is literally no character like that in WoW.

The other Windrunner sisters can be examples.

Heck, this could go full on 'Dark' Ranger if we use Tyrande Night Warrior and Alleria's Void mastery to compliment the Dark Ranger kit.

There's a difference. There was a clear difference between a Demon Hunter and Hunters on a superficial level. In this case, Blizzard already considers the Hunter a Ranger, and you really haven't produced a good reason why we need another one.

The difference didn't seem clear to you back before Demon Hunters were not yet playable. You seemed to argue that Warlocks already having Metamorphosis was already what Blizzard considered to be a Demon Hunter.

It doesn't matter what Blizzard considers now, because what exists now is not what will be later on.

There is no clearly defined "Ranger" class, and every definition you're pulling is on the same level as arguing Demon Hunters and Hunters are the same thing because they use the same word. It's an argument you made before and an argument you're using again now, it's semantics.

They didn't say they weren't ready. They said that none of their future class concept fits the theme of an expansion revolving around Sylvanas, the Lich King, and death. You can play obtuse all you want, but it's rather obvious what happened there.

They didn't say that either. Sylvanas wasn't mentioned. They didn't say anything about future class concepts fitting. They simply said nothing jumped out at them when they considered Shadowlands' design and that they wanted to focus on World building and character customization (Specifically mentioned WoD) instead.

I mean, literally read the article again. All you're doing is paraphrasing badly and using the parts you paraphrased wrong to support your argument. They never said it is the *only* way to add a class, they didn't say Sylvanas was the theme of Shadowlands, they never said future possibilities of Dark Ranger or Necromancer would be impossible. Everything you're gleaning here is pure speculation on your part, and twisting Blizzard's statements to confirm your own bias.

Saying it doesn't only revolve around Sylvanas doesn't change the fact that it revolves around Sylvanas. If Dark Rangers don't fit the theme of an expansion that revolves around Sylvanas, what expansion theme would they fit in? Come on Triceron, this isn't hard.

What would Dark Rangers do in this expansion? I mean honestly, what role would they play? You're playing through Shadowlands content, aren't you? Where do they fit in the overall story?

Simplest answer - they don't. You're right, it wasn't a hard answer at all.

So where would they fit? In an expansion where Dark Rangers would actually be relevant to the theme and content. Perhaps it will be what Shadowlands leads up to; similar to how WoD opened the doors to Legion.

The same way Monks fit into the story of MoP. They didn't. They were just added because of Chen Stormstout, and because their theme was related to Pandaria. Are you now going to argue that Dark Rangers don't fit the theme of Sylvanas, Shadowlands, and Death? Are you going to argue that Necromancers don't fit the theme of the Lich King, the Jailer of Death, the Afterlife, Death, Shadowlands, etc.?

This is getting silly.

The theme absolutely fits, but it's not something that jumped out at the Devs when they considered what key themes to explore in Shadowlands.

That is why we have Covenants instead of a Necromancer or Dark Ranger. We either get a class that explores only one aspect, or we get 4 Class Progression systems to explore instead. And with the art resources freed up from not designing a new class, they spent it on further opening character customizations.

This is literally the information we got directly from the devs.

Yet there's no 'closed doors' considering that the theme of Necromancy in general is something that *STILL* is not fully explored EVEN in Shadowlands. The story we're being told right now is almost an inverse of what we should be learning; Sylvanas wants to break the cycle rather than embrace it the way a Dark Ranger or Necromancer would. The entire expansion is about exploring a Shadowlands that is broken and functioning improperly; I'd think a Necromantic class would be best introduced after we get it functioning again. All the souls are going straight into the Maw; not very fruitful for a Necromantic class.

Same reason why we didn't have Highmountain and Nightborne Allied Races during Legion; it made more sense to add them after things in the Broken Isles settled down.

[Shadowferal]

S'funny how much shit used to be flung about because of the outer space\demon tech stuff in TBC that some players didn't feel that such fit with the game.

How times have changed.
I'll take Teriz's dragonsworn idea.

[TheRevenantHero]

All i saw in Suramar was portal networks and a lot of magic manipulating things.

Draenei got space ships from Naaru.

you mean the manaforges Kael built with his evil blood elves that i am pretty sure none of the horde ones know how to make.

First of all, not everything the draenei has was built by the Naaru. Are you just not aware of the existence of Grand Artificer Romuul? And when it comes to Nightborne, they literally built tech based teleportation networks and mana powered robots.

And it doesn't matter that it was done by "evil blood elves". The fact is blood elves created them and they still use the tech for things like the robot peacekeepers around Silvermoon.

[Teriz]

Except my point is that they have an inclination to tech. Saying that tinker is ONLY going to be based on gnome or goblin tech is conjecture. Furthermore, Blizzard can change EVERY race to be tinkers with the same stroke of a pen. If they can do it for vulpera, they can absolutely do it for every race.

Well both Tinker heroes revolve around Goblin tech, and based on previous expansion class inclusions, the new classes stick pretty closely to the theme of the source material (WC3), to the point where nearly all of their WC3 abilities are ported into WoW at nearly a 1:1 translation. BTW, this was reinforced with the Island Expedition teams which not only used Goblin tech again, but used Gazlowe's HotS abilities. So IF the Tinker class is implemented, there's a pretty high chance its going to be using Goblin tech as its base.

To your argument, Blizzard can make any race part of the Tinker class. My point is that regardless of race, every Tinker in WoW is going to be using Goblin/Gnome technology.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, all in all, i hope you all could enjoy my little write-up there of the class concept, its specs and all that. Know its not a new idea by any small scope of the mind, but I hope my twist on things atleast could be of some entertainment for you guys.

I enjoyed the read. Always interesting seeing someone else's take on the Tinker concept. Thanks for posting it. Please feel free to read my class write ups.

[TheRevenantHero]

Well both Tinker heroes revolve around Goblin tech, and based on previous expansion class inclusions, the new classes stick pretty closely to the theme of the source material (WC3), to the point where nearly all of their WC3 abilities are ported into WoW at nearly a 1:1 translation. BTW, this was reinforced with the Island Expedition teams which not only used Goblin tech again, but used Gazlowe's HotS abilities. So IF the Tinker class is implemented, there's a pretty high chance its going to be using Goblin tech as its base.

To your argument, Blizzard can make any race part of the Tinker class. My point is that regardless of race, every Tinker in WoW is going to be using Goblin/Gnome technology.

- - - Updated - - -



I enjoyed the read. Always interesting seeing someone else's take on the Tinker concept. Thanks for posting it. Please feel free to read my class write ups.

Right right. You use the Island Expedition example but omit two important details. On the Horde team, it was a goblin, a Forsaken, and an orc. But you refuse to acknowledge them as being tinkers despite the Forsaken even having a unique spell. Because then you'd have to admit that saying only the small races should be tinker is biased and not actually 100% fact.

[Triceron]

S'funny how much shit used to be flung about because of the outer space\demon tech stuff in TBC that some players didn't feel that such fit with the game.

How times have changed.

How has that changed? People still don't like the space crap from TBC, and have even vocalized it in Legion and beyond.

[Traveler Voltin]

First of all, not everything the draenei has was built by the Naaru. Are you just not aware of the existence of Grand Artificer Romuul? And when it comes to Nightborne, they literally built tech based teleportation networks and mana powered robots.

And it doesn't matter that it was done by "evil blood elves". The fact is blood elves created them and they still use the tech for things like the robot peacekeepers around Silvermoon.

Artificer(magic based tech) is not the same as science based tech like the goblin and gnome tinkers(and engineers.)
Tinkers would use the Goblin and Gnome tech. you know the actual tech races that have a society built around tech. not just races that use tech as a side thing.

[TheRevenantHero]

Artificer(magic based tech) is not the same as science based tech like the goblin and gnome tinkers(and engineers.)
Tinkers would use the Goblin and Gnome tech. you know the actual tech races that have a society built around tech. not just races that use tech as a side thing.

Artificer is quite literally just another name for tinker. Saying otherwise is illogically moving the goalposts. Nothing more.

[Teriz]

The other Windrunner sisters can be examples.

Based on what abilities?

Heck, this could go full on 'Dark' Ranger if we use Tyrande Night Warrior and Alleria's Void mastery to compliment the Dark Ranger kit.

Based on what I saw from the Nathanos cinematic, Tyrande's Night Warrior would be better served as a DH 3rd spec.

The difference didn't seem clear to you back before Demon Hunters were not yet playable. You seemed to argue that Warlocks already having Metamorphosis was already what Blizzard considered to be a Demon Hunter.

It was, which is why it had to be taken from Warlocks in order for Demon Hunters to be a class in the game.

It doesn't matter what Blizzard considers now, because what exists now is not what will be later on.

There is no clearly defined "Ranger" class, and every definition you're pulling is on the same level as arguing Demon Hunters and Hunters are the same thing because they use the same word. It's an argument you made before and an argument you're using again now, it's semantics.

What exactly is a "Ranger" in your view? Feel free to use traditional RPG tropes to make your case.

They didn't say that either. Sylvanas wasn't mentioned. They didn't say anything about future class concepts fitting. They simply said nothing jumped out at them when they considered Shadowlands' design and that they wanted to focus on World building and character customization (Specifically mentioned WoD) instead.

I mean, literally read the article again. All you're doing is paraphrasing badly and using the parts you paraphrased wrong to support your argument. They never said it is the *only* way to add a class, they didn't say Sylvanas was the theme of Shadowlands, they never said future possibilities of Dark Ranger or Necromancer would be impossible. Everything you're gleaning here is pure speculation on your part, and twisting Blizzard's statements to confirm your own bias.

So let me get this straight... You actually believe that Blizzard wants to bring in the Dark Ranger class, but couldn't bring them into the game because they didn't fit the theme of an expansion where the main character is the archetypal Dark Ranger hero, and involves the concept of death and the afterlife?

Please tell me you actually don't believe that.

What would Dark Rangers do in this expansion? I mean honestly, what role would they play? You're playing through Shadowlands content, aren't you? Where do they fit in the overall story?

Simplest answer - they don't. You're right, it wasn't a hard answer at all.

So where would they fit? In an expansion where Dark Rangers would actually be relevant to the theme and content. Perhaps it will be what Shadowlands leads up to; similar to how WoD opened the doors to Legion.

Again, please tell me how Monks, DKs, and Demon Hunters fit in the stories of their expansions. The expansion doesn't revolve around the new classes, they revolve around the archetypal heroes of that new class. You know, sort of how Shadowlands revolves around whatever Sylvanas, a Dark Ranger is currently doing.

The theme absolutely fits, but it's not something that jumped out at the Devs when they considered what key themes to explore in Shadowlands.

That is why we have Covenants instead of a Necromancer or Dark Ranger. We either get a class that explores only one aspect, or we get 4 Class Progression systems to explore instead. And with the art resources freed up from not designing a new class, they spent it on further opening character customizations.

Because they have no plan to ever release a Necromancer or Dark Ranger class.

Yet there's no 'closed doors' considering that the theme of Necromancy in general is something that *STILL* is not fully explored EVEN in Shadowlands. The story we're being told right now is almost an inverse of what we should be learning; Sylvanas wants to break the cycle rather than embrace it the way a Dark Ranger or Necromancer would. The entire expansion is about exploring a Shadowlands that is broken and functioning improperly; I'd think a Necromantic class would be best introduced after we get it functioning again.

Did you miss the part where Blizzard explicitly said that Necromancer was folded into the DK class, and that the Death Knight IS the death class of WoW?

- - - Updated - - -

Right right. You use the Island Expedition example but omit two important details. On the Horde team, it was a goblin, a Forsaken, and an orc. But you refuse to acknowledge them as being tinkers despite the Forsaken even having a unique spell. Because then you'd have to admit that saying only the small races should be tinker is biased and not actually 100% fact.

I don't remember the Orc, but whatever. If Blizzard wants to make Forsaken a Tinker race, I suppose they could. It would just be using Goblin tech, which I don't think a lot of people would like.

[cocomen2]

Artificer(magic based tech) is not the same as science based tech like the goblin and gnome tinkers(and engineers.)

Its just flavors and colors for new class animations, same can be said by :
"Zandalari and Kul Tiran druid magic is not the same as druid magic of Night Elfs".
(yet in the end they just gonna have other forms for druids , or other forms for tech based skills )

[Traveler Voltin]

Its just flavors and colors for new class animations, same can be said by Zandalari/Kul Tiran druid magic is not the same as druid magic of Night Elfs .

(yet in the end they just gonna have other forms for druids , or other forms for tech based skills )

so lets butcher tinker lore because everyone hates gnomes and goblins.
how about no. how about suck it up and let them have their class that makes sense for them.

[Teriz]

Its just flavors and colors for new class animations, same can be said by Zandalari/Kul Tiran druid magic is not the same as druid magic of Night Elfs .

(yet in the end they just gonna have other forms for druids , or other forms for tech based skills )

Uh, it goes beyond just robot models and mech forms.

Goblins and Gnomes have whacky tech like Elemntium Squirrel Bombs, Exploding Robot Sheep, and Guns that change you into a Robotic chicken. People will tolerate that with Goblins and Gnomes, but not with other races.

[TheRevenantHero]

so lets butcher tinker lore because everyone hates gnomes and goblins.
how about no. how about suck it up and let them have their class that makes sense for them.

Or how about you actually pay attention to lore and start accepting that gnomes and goblins aren't the ONLY technology inclined races.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, it goes beyond just robot models and mech forms.

Goblins and Gnomes have whacky tech like Elemntium Squirrel Bombs, Exploding Robot Sheep, and Guns that change you into a Robotic chicken. People will tolerate that with Goblins and Gnomes, but not with other races.

You can't say that with certainty. You don't speak for everyone. Speak for yourself.

[Vx-Odessa-xV]

I enjoyed the read. Always interesting seeing someone else's take on the Tinker concept. Thanks for posting it. Please feel free to read my class write ups.

I’ll do so now. Glad you enjoyed my little twist on things.

[Traveler Voltin]

no other races is as tech based as Goblin and Gnomes.

[TheRevenantHero]

no other races is as tech based as Goblin and Gnomes.

You saying this does nothing but show you haven't read all the lore or are deliberately disregarding other tech based races. Saying that goblins and gnomes are more tech based than draenei is positively laughable.