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

[Katchii]

I just want to play as a Ranger, which is the most logical thing to play as in a fantasy genre game but still never seems to be present. A mix of old school Survival hunter (but without pet) and Rogue. Don't care if Ranger would be a new class mixing Warrior, Rogue and Hunter or if they just add a 4th talent tree to rogues or something.

Just give me a stealthy, ranged, dexterity based character to play.

1000% agreed.

I love the stealthy Ranger archetype.

[Teriz]

It's not a love to hate thing, I personally just flat out don't like short races, mainly because of their animations being so...I don't know, unnatural? exaggerated? they just look weird to me and I can't enjoy playing as one.

Therefore any class that's inherently tied to them, will be a class I won't play most likely. Blizzard knows this, I highly doubt they'd tie a class directly to two of the least played races in the game. Demon hunter was different because it's tied directly to two of the most played races in the game.

Couple that with their being very little lore supporting restricting it specifically to those two races. Just because the predominant "Tinkers" are a Goblin and a Gnome doesn't mean only those races can be one. Same as why Pandaren aren't the only Monks. If the lore supports their being Monks of nearly every playable race the day the class is introduced, because the knowledge and skills can be taught, the same logic can be applied to Tinkers.

The Tinker concept is already tied to the Goblins and Gnomes, so there's no escaping that. If you dislike Goblins and Gnomes, why would you play a class based on Goblin and Gnome technology?

Also Goblins and Gnomes are the least played races in the game because no class lines up with their racial themes and lore. They are literally showcased as two races full of mad scientists and inventors, and there is NO class that utilizes that theme at all. If you want to play as a Warrior, why would you roll a Gnome? If you want to play as a Hunter, why would you roll a Goblin? There are other races that simply fit those classes better, and they have the lore characters to back that up. The two prominent lore characters among the Goblin and Gnome races are both Tinkers and again there is no Tinker class, so why are we surprised that many players don't want to play as a Gnome or Goblin?

- - - Updated - - -

I just want to play as a Ranger, which is the most logical thing to play as in a fantasy genre game but still never seems to be present. A mix of old school Survival hunter (but without pet) and Rogue. Don't care if Ranger would be a new class mixing Warrior, Rogue and Hunter or if they just add a 4th talent tree to rogues or something.

Just give me a stealthy, ranged, dexterity based character to play.

Uh, Marksmanship Hunter has no pet, and it has Camouflage. What's the problem?

[Djanco]

whatever was the newest class in diablo

[Katchii]

The Tinker concept is already tied to the Goblins and Gnomes, so there's no escaping that. If you dislike Goblins and Gnomes, why would you play a class based on Goblin and Gnome technology?

The Monk concept is already tied to the Pandaren, so there's no escaping that. If you dislike Pandaren, why would you play a class based on Pandaren philosophy and themes?

Once again you're showcasing how you can twist and bend logic, lore or whatever else you deem necessary to confirm your bias, but no one else can.

By the way you're still on ignore, I just had to answer this one because it was so easy.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, Marksmanship Hunter has no pet, and it has Camouflage. What's the problem?

Objectively false. They can have pets. The spec is designed to not use them, and should not use them for best DPS due to the Lone Wolf passive, but they absolutely still can tame and use pets.

[Teriz]

Oh, so now it's an arrow imbued with power. why would a hunter shoot an arrow imbued with a Banshee power? anything Banshee, you said, was unique to the Banshee and should remain part of the Banshee.

The Hunter class shoots arrows imbued with Frost/Nature power, Arcane Power, Poison, and in the past has shot arrows with Shadow and Fire magic. Wailing Arrow is merely an arrow that has a silencing effect, and Hunters have had arrows that silence targets as well.

Monks could have been established without teaching other races.

But they weren't, so it's a moot point to make.

And what Banshee abilities would those be? if Wailing Arrow is just an arrow imbued with magic, then Banshee's Curse is just a Warlock curse, Haunting Wave is just the Priest's Shadowy Apparitions, Posession is just the Priest's Mind Control and Banshee scream is just the Priest's Psychic Scream.

Now you're getting it.

Of course you won't go through the entire block of text. it is just easier to say that i'm wrong. First of all, shadow is not 50%, it's one spec out of three (33%). second of all, since it used to be extremely similar to affliction warlocks, it should have been (according to your logic) just one spec. back in the early days of the priest design, discipline used to be a melee attacker. Shield-using Paladins could have been merged with protection Warriors (because of their similarities, according to your logic). Now, we are left with Holy paladin and discipline/Holy priest. the two of them use holy healing spells and protective spells. too much overlapping (again according to your logic). let's just merge the two into 1 holy class and get rid of the unnecessary division.

Yeah, you seem to be missing the fact that there are shadow abilities within Discipline as well. Also Warriors don't use magic, so no they couldn't just merge with Warriors.

Oh, so you were against Demon Hunters as well?

Always have been.

So does a few 'representative' abilities do not fill the gameplay of class/spec. I could just tell you to combine it with a Hunter class or a Warrior, to supplement the engineering profession and determine that it fulfills the Tinker role perfectly. you can do all that while having the engineering profession. just take a class, and another profession, like Alchemy, and you have everything you wished for. I could easily say that the Hunter already fills the niche of a Tinker, with its explosive abilities, like Wildfire Bomb, High-explosive Trap and Explosive Shot. would that satisfy you?

Explosive Shot and Wildfire Bomb are not in the same spec within the Hunter class. Also there is a VAST difference between profession items and class abilities. So much so that it is laughable to say that what a profession does is enough to substitute for a class. If you attempted to DPS with Engineering items, your group or raid would boot you and probably ban you.

No, it isn't redundant. you just can't grasp that others have desires as well. it's called egocentrism. I could easily say that the Brewmaster is redundant as well. A martial artist using alcohol? is this a joke? and it still made it into the game.

Magic and Physical ranged is redundant because they're meant to do the same thing; Fight at ranged. There's no reason to have a bow user also casting bolts of frost magic. It would make far more sense to just have the bow user shoot arrows imbued with frost magic, which is what the Hunter class already does.

You wanna know how it should have been?
is that distinct enough for you?

Class specs tend to not be separated based on individual lore characters.

- - - Updated - - -

The Monk concept is already tied to the Pandaren, so there's no escaping that. If you dislike Pandaren, why would you play a class based on Pandaren philosophy and themes?

No, the Monk concept was never tied just to Pandaren. There was no Monk hero in WC3, and we had multiple Monk NPCs in WoW before MoP who were not Pandaren.

The Tinker on the other hand is completely tied to Goblins in WC3 and branched out to Gnomes in WoW. It is a class concept based entirely on Goblin and Gnome technology. Unlike Pandaren martial arts, you really can't just slap Gnome and Goblin tech onto every race and have it make sense in the lore of the game.

Objectively false. They can have pets. The spec is designed to not use them, and should not use them for best DPS due to the Lone Wolf passive, but they absolutely still can tame and use pets.

Uh, how is it objectively false when you just admitted that the spec is designed NOT to use pets? Doesn't that mean that you CAN play a Marksmanship Hunter without a pet active?

[Katchii]

Class specs tend to not be separated based on individual lore characters.

Source.

Because, based on the Legion Rogue Class Hall Campaign which also happens to be when they did a bit of a Rogue spec overhaul, they have three different lore characters representing each of the specs.

Same with Shaman, and I'm sure others but those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. But I CBA to look. One example is enough to prove your argument as inaccurate.

[Ielenia]

Where did anyone say that there was a "guarantee" that the ability would be ported over 1:1?

You are, when you say that "this is how it works in WC3, therefore it's how it'll work in WoW". You even go as far as to say that the "factory" will be an actual physical object to block players.

The reason I claim that he has Lich powers is because he clearly has Lich powers.

Powers that he has absolutely never demonstrated to have before the class became playable. Fancy that.

It says that it's acid. I don't recall any Rogue or Hunter poison abilities being called acid. Further, Acid also does nature damage.

Is it time to propose an Acid Necromancer spec?

You do know poisons can be acidic, right?

LoL! That art came out in back in 2006. Hence the copyright.

No. No, it did not. Because that art coming out in 2006 would mean that the artist was leaking stuff about the expansion before it was even announced. You trademark your intellectual property so it doesn't get stolen. It has nothing to do with 'releasing to the public'.

[Teriz]

Source.

Because, based on the Legion Rogue Class Hall Campaign which also happens to be when they did a bit of a Rogue spec overhaul, they have three different lore characters representing each of the specs.

Same with Shaman, and I'm sure others but those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. But I CBA to look. One example is enough to prove your argument as inaccurate.

He's talking about basing specs on WC3 heroes who have no lore connecting them.

The Rogue class is largely based on standard RPG Rogue tropes and a few heroes like the Warden and Blademaster.

Shaman however is a perfectly fine example to disprove this notion of specs being aligned with lore characters. For starters, Farseer (Thrall) abilities were Feral Spirit (Enhance), Chain Lighting (Elemental), Farsight (Enhancement), and Earthquake (Elemental).

Orc Shaman: Lighting Shield (Enhance), Purge (Elemental), Bloodlust (Enhancement)

Shadow Hunter: Healing Wave (Restoration), Searing Totem (Elemental), Hex (Enhancement)

Source WC3 and WoW.

And so forth. The lore figures were never spec-based. Their abilities were dispersed throughout the entire class.

- - - Updated - - -

Powers that he has absolutely never demonstrated to have before the class became playable. Fancy that.

Because you couldn't play as the Lich King.

You do know poisons can be acidic, right?

Cool. Show me some poisons that are described as "acid" in WoW. Shouldn't be too difficult right?

Like I said, I look forward to your treatment of a Necromancer Acid spec.

No. No, it did not. Because that art coming out in 2006 would mean that the artist was leaking stuff about the expansion before it was even announced. You trademark your intellectual property so it doesn't get stolen. It has nothing to do with 'releasing to the public'.

They already had a copyright on the Lich King from WC3, so there was no danger of it getting stolen in 2006. Again, it says copyright 2006 because this picture was published by Blizzard in 2006. Two years before WotLK was released.

[Ielenia]

i am pretty sure Warcraft realms data is not accurate. the last time i used it some of my characters didnt show up.

demon hunters went to Night elves and Blood elves because it made sense. Illidan only trained those 2 races but they Illidari if they wanted could train more.

Warcraft Realms is not the most accurate when you're looking for exact numbers. But it does give us a very good picture of overall population by percentages. And as far as tinkers go, lore-wise, it doesn't make sense for only gnomes and goblins (and mechagnomes) to be tinkers, considering engineering has been taught to all races since the game's inception, and even Teriz' claim that vulpera should be tinkers too proves that, considering that vulpera has basically as much technology inclination as the tauren, I'd wager.

[Sagenod]

Welcome to "Who's Class Idea is it Anyway?" where everything's made up and the points don't matter!

Nobody's ideas for a new class should be "attacked" right? Conversely, don't expect that nobody will criticize your idea that doesn't even make sense. Sorry, friends, but things like Rangers, Sea Witches and Priestesses of the Moon are redundant. The Hunter, Shaman and Priest respectively fill those archetypes to Blizzard's satisfaction.

There is no need for an entirely new class (except for Bards, come at me). Class skins are better options, they will allow the fulfillment of most fantasies without creating "class bloat," something that many people already believe is plaguing the game. That idea is nothing new, of course, as there are class skin threads to begin with. But this thread has sparked the same old tired argument of which class would be best to add and people will never agree.

Some quick and obvious Class Skin ideas:

Tinker - Hunter. They can tame mech-beasts already, with a proper class skin they could "hack" all sorts of mechs. The various nature and beast themed abilities can be replaced with technologically-oriented variants.

Necromancer - Warlock. Demons are replaced with undead, Fire and Fel replaced with Frost, Shadow and Death (which happens to often look fairly similar to Fel, funny) as needed.

Priestess of the Moon - Priest. Besides the aesthetic change of Holy becoming Lunar, in this example mechanical changes would also take place. Priests can use bows and the following spells will be replaced:
- Shadow Word: Pain becomes Searing Arrows, which functions essentially the same as in WC3. While active, auto-shots do additional Radiant damage at the cost of mana. Ideally the damage and cost comes to be roughly equal to that of Shadow Word: Pain.
- Mind Vision becomes Scout. You can freely switch between control of your character and the summoned Owl Scout, which is perhaps akin to Eye of Kilrogg.

Trueshot Aura and Starfall exist already in Hunter and Druid, respectively. Priestess of the Moon could fit for those classes as well. The Priestess of the Moon are an organization and so they would have members with different strengths and weaknesses. Thus a Priestess of the Moon class skin could be applied to multiple classes, perhaps all of them, even. After all you can essentially make this work just by adding lunar magic effects to spells and abilities. Therefore, the aforementioned Priest spell changes for the Priestess of the Moon skin would be nice, but they aren't necessary.

Using the Priestess of the Moon as an example, many if not all of the missing class fantasies in World of Warcraft can be fulfilled by aesthetic changes and rare mechanical changes.

[Ielenia]

Because you couldn't play as the Lich King.

Irrelevant. The Lich King existed since Warcraft 3, and has never depicted using frost powers. But, if you think that argument is valid, then CONGRATULATIONS, you just completely destroyed your own "show me necromancers using poison" argument because now I can just say "well, we can't play as necromancers yet".

Cool. Show me some poisons that are described as "acid" in WoW. Shouldn't be too difficult right?

Not hard at all. I found two, at first glance:
• Poison Bomb Talent
Requires Rogue (Assassination)
Requires level 50
Envenom and Rupture have a 4% chance per combo point spent to smash a vial of poison at the target's location, creating a pool of acidic death that deals [(11% of Attack power) * 4] Nature damage over 2 sec to all enemies within it.
• Acidic Poison
40 yd range
0.8 sec cast 2.4 sec cooldown
Inflicts Nature damage to an enemy.

They already had a copyright on the Lich King from WC3, so there was no danger of it getting stolen in 2006.

Art. Teriz. It doesn't matter if Blizzard owns the right for the Lich King, the artist still needs to trademark his art to prevent it from being stolen.

Again, it says copyright 2006 because this picture was published by Blizzard in 2006. Two years before WotLK was released.

It was not published. The Wrath of the Lich King expansion was announced in 2007. Which means there was no Wrath art or anything being published by Blizzard before then.

Also, since you condescendingly demean my necromancer concept by accusing it of using the Diablo necromancer as an ability... look what I found:

As for "ripping off" The bone and poison tree from Diablo 2's Necromancer, guilty as charged. It wouldn't be the first time Blizzard used a Diablo class to inspire a Warcraft class.

From your thread.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the Monk concept was never tied just to Pandaren.

Really? Despite the fact that, in lore, the class originated in Pandaria, has 90% of its iconography being pandaren-related, and 90+% of monk trainers being pandaren... doesn't mean the concept was never tied just to the pandaren?

There was no Monk hero in WC3,

And now you do a U-turn because you loved to point at the Brewmaster WC3 unit and say that was a monk hero.

and we had multiple Monk NPCs in WoW before MoP who were not Pandaren.

And none of them even comes close to what the actual monk class was.

[Imperator4321]

Priestess of the Moon - Priest. Besides the aesthetic change of Holy becoming Lunar, in this example mechanical changes would also take place. Priests can use bows and the following spells will be replaced:
- Shadow Word: Pain becomes Searing Arrows, which functions essentially the same as in WC3. While active, auto-shots do additional Radiant damage at the cost of mana. Ideally the damage and cost comes to be roughly equal to that of Shadow Word: Pain.
- Mind Vision becomes Scout. You can freely switch between control of your character and the summoned Owl Scout, which is perhaps akin to Eye of Kilrogg.

I agree that class skins are the best solution majority of missing archetypes but giving bows to priests has issues since theres no intelligence granting bows so Bow using priests would be inferior to other priests in stats (not nessessarily a huge change but it would require intelligence stat be added to every bow in the game to facilitate the new weapon skill for priests)

Changing Shadow Word: Pain from a DoT you have maintain into a auto shot damage buff also has issues especially if they work out the same damage (which would also be difficult to obtain since they have seperate functionalities) since it could lead to bow priests becoming outright superior to non-bow using priests since it removes a global cooldown from rotation and also doesn't require maintenance for the same damage

[Teriz]

Irrelevant. The Lich King existed since Warcraft 3, and has never depicted using frost powers. But, if you think that argument is valid, then CONGRATULATIONS, you just completely destroyed your own "show me necromancers using poison" argument because now I can just say "well, we can't play as necromancers yet".

Except you can play as a Necromancer; You roll a Death Knight. They possess every known school of Necromancy in WoW.

Frost is one of those schools of Necromancy thanks to the Lich. So obviously the Death Knight class (being the Necromancer class in WoW) was going to get a frost spec based on the Lich.

Not hard at all. I found two, at first glance:
• Poison Bomb Talent
Requires Rogue (Assassination)
Requires level 50
Envenom and Rupture have a 4% chance per combo point spent to smash a vial of poison at the target's location, creating a pool of acidic death that deals [(11% of Attack power) * 4] Nature damage over 2 sec to all enemies within it.
• Acidic Poison
40 yd range
0.8 sec cast 2.4 sec cooldown
Inflicts Nature damage to an enemy.

Okay, I'll concede that point to you, despite the fact that those two abilities actually have the word "poison" in their name, while the Professor Slate ability does not.

Art. Teriz. It doesn't matter if Blizzard owns the right for the Lich King, the artist still needs to trademark his art to prevent it from being stolen.

It wasn't copyrighted by Wei, it was copyrighted by Blizzard.

It was not published. The Wrath of the Lich King expansion was announced in 2007. Which means there was no Wrath art or anything being published by Blizzard before then.

How do you know that was art for Wrath, and not simply a picture of the Lich King that Wei drew for Blizzard?

Also, since you condescendingly demean my necromancer concept by accusing it of using the Diablo necromancer as an ability... look what I found:

From your thread.

I'm happy to say that my class concepts have greatly improved since then.

[Clone]

Tinkerer, and dark ranger if they can somehow make it different from hunters.

[Ielenia]

Except you can play as a Necromancer; You roll a Death Knight. They possess every known school of Necromancy in WoW.

Except poison. But even if I conceded this "every school of necromancy" thing, that would still be an irrelevant argument. Because one can create a necromancer concept with "frost", "unholy" and "blood" that plays drastically different than a death knight. Just like you could make a melee class with "arcane", "fire" and "frost" specs and still play vastly different than a mage.

Frost is one of those schools of Necromancy thanks to the Lich. So obviously the Death Knight class (being the Necromancer class in WoW) was going to get a frost spec based on the Lich.

To say the death knight is the necromancer class in WoW is saying the warlock was the demon hunter class in WoW before Legion.

It wasn't copyrighted by Wei, it was copyrighted by Blizzard.

It doesn't change the point. The image still needs to be registered to avoid art theft.

How do you know that was art for Wrath, and not simply a picture of the Lich King that Wei drew for Blizzard?

Because:

Also, take your original image, zoom in on it, and read what's written on the bottom left corner of it:

It says "World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King", you dolt. That is not a pre-Wrath rendition of the Lich King.

I'm happy to say that my class concepts have greatly improved since then.

That's really up for debate.

[Teriz]

Tinkerer, and dark ranger if they can somehow make it different from hunters.

I think Tinker would be far more capable of being a different type of physical ranged class.

I definitely think physical ranged is what the next class should be. The Hunter class needs competition for ranged weapons, and engineering gun crafting could use a new customer base.

[Katchii]

No, the Monk concept was never tied just to Pandaren.

The Monk class as it was implemented is inherently, directly tied to Pandaren and Pandaren culture.

There was no Monk hero in WC3

You're dirty, terrible liar.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pandaren_B...(Warcraft_III)

and we had multiple Monk NPCs in WoW before MoP who were not Pandaren.

Which monks are you referring to?

If it's the ones in Scarlet Monastery....you do understand there is a very profound difference between strictly religious monks and monks that practice martial arts, right? Don't conflate the two. The same way you insist on not conflating Engineering with Tinkers.

If you're going to bring up Brother Korloff specifically, he wasn't introduced until MoP.

You're fucking delusional, arguing in horribly bad faith and being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Uh, how is it objectively false when you just admitted that the spec is designed NOT to use pets? Doesn't that mean that you CAN play a Marksmanship Hunter without a pet active?

Because you stated:

Uh, Marksmanship Hunter has no pet,

That's not true. There is a difference between CHOOSING to not use a pet, and not being able to at all.

[Teriz]

Except poison. But even if I conceded this "every school of necromancy" thing, that would still be an irrelevant argument. Because one can create a necromancer concept with "frost", "unholy" and "blood" that plays drastically different than a death knight. Just like you could make a melee class with "arcane", "fire" and "frost" specs and still play vastly different than a mage.

You seriously don’t see a problem with a Necromancer class having the same schools as the DK class?

To say the death knight is the necromancer class in WoW is saying the warlock was the demon hunter class in WoW before Legion.

The difference is that Blizzard said they folded the Necromancer concept into the DK class.

It doesn't change the point. The image still needs to be registered to avoid art theft.

By Wei, not by Blizzard.

Because:
That's really up for debate.

I’m talking about Wei’s image, not that one.

- - - Updated - - -

The Monk class as it was implemented is inherently, directly tied to Pandaren and Pandaren culture.

And as I said before, we had multiple monks from multiple races before MoP.

You're dirty, terrible liar.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pandaren_B...(Warcraft_III)

To be fair, that’s a Brewmaster, not a Monk.

Which monks are you referring to?

If it's the ones in Scarlet Monastery....you do understand there is a very profound difference between strictly religious monks and monks that practice martial arts, right? Don't conflate the two. The same way you insist on not conflating Engineering with Tinkers.

If you're going to bring up Brother Korloff specifically, he wasn't introduced until MoP.

You're fucking delusional, arguing in horribly bad faith and being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

There were Blood Elf, Undead, Draenei, and Gnome Monks before MoP.

Because you stated:

That's not true. There is a difference between CHOOSING to not use a pet, and not being able to at all.

Ah semantics. Gotcha.

[Traveler Voltin]

brewmaster wasnt really a monk/monk spec until MoP

[username993720]

that is a different game set in a different universe. so why are you even bringing him up?

Because he's, clearly, inspired by a Dwarf and he's clearly an Engineer.

They could draw inspiration from him for a 3rd, dwarven-inspired, Tinker spec.

"Tinkers are most commonly found among the dwarves, gnomes, and goblins as they produce rifles, zeppelins, and other technological innovations currently found on Azeroth. With their general disinterest in technology, night elves, orcs and tauren are the least likely to be tinkers."

The Hunter class shoots arrows imbued with Frost/Nature power, Arcane Power, Poison, and in the past has shot arrows with Shadow and Fire magic. Wailing Arrow is merely an arrow that has a silencing effect, and Hunters have had arrows that silence targets as well.

But they weren't, so it's a moot point to make.

Now you're getting it.

Yeah, you seem to be missing the fact that there are shadow abilities within Discipline as well. Also Warriors don't use magic, so no they couldn't just merge with Warriors.

Always have been.

Explosive Shot and Wildfire Bomb are not in the same spec within the Hunter class. Also there is a VAST difference between profession items and class abilities. So much so that it is laughable to say that what a profession does is enough to substitute for a class. If you attempted to DPS with Engineering items, your group or raid would boot you and probably ban you.

Magic and Physical ranged is redundant because they're meant to do the same thing; Fight at ranged. There's no reason to have a bow user also casting bolts of frost magic. It would make far more sense to just have the bow user shoot arrows imbued with frost magic, which is what the Hunter class already does.

Class specs tend to not be separated based on individual lore characters.

Chimaera shot is based on the two-headed Chimaera beast. that's why it is split between Frost and Nature damage. the Beastmaster mimics animals and Survival description was animal-venom user. Arcane Shot is an exception, and is probably based on the Ranger. Serpent sting meshes with Survival using animal venom. Dark Arrow is a Dark Ranger ability. and the fire damage is Explosives and or Exotic munition (Searing arrows) of the Priestess of the Moon. So, no. Throwing together a mishmash of abilities from different classes into one spec does not pass as being one of them. Hunter abilities that are magical should only be venom-based, animal-based, wilds-based, explosives-based or trap-based. not Necromancy-based, not Lunar-based nor Sea-based.

You're the biggest demagogue i've ever seen. when i say it, i'm wrong. when you say it, you're right. You were adamant against Dark Rangers using Banshee abilities, but now it is fine that a hunter will have a Banshee-based shot, a Warlock having a Banshee-based curse and a Priest having Banshee like scream, apparitions and mind control?

You seem to be forgetting that the Discipline mostly uses shadow abilities from the shadow spec, and that its description does not mention shadow. It doesn't matter if warriors use magic or not. you like to underestimate the importance of classes. so, glyphs will be used to give them holy appearances and we'll get rid of the Paladin class.

Thank goodness Blizzard doesn't follow your advices. we wouldn't have Demon Hunters, Death Knight or Monk classes. and you would probably replace all classes with the Tinker.

I don't care if they are in the same spec or not. just switch specs all the time. that should do it. Of course there is a vast difference between a profession and a class. But, i'm gonna disregard your claim and say deal with it. also, it's not about DPS meters. it's about the fantasy and theme. and in that department, you are covered because i said so.

It's also redundant to have Balance Druid, Mages, Priests, Shamans and Warlocks. they are meant to do the same thing: fight at ranged. You keep forgetting about Life Drain, Charm, Banshee's Curse, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Mind Control, Possession, Starfall, Light of Elune, Lunar Flare, Shadowstalk, Elune's chosen, Forked Lightning, Mana Shield and Tornado. it's not just about arrows with magical effects on them. There's no reason to have a weapon user like the enhancement shaman also casting Lightning Bolt, or a weapon wielding paladin also casting Holy Shock. See? your logic is flawed.

Yes it is. Frost Death Knight being based on Arthas/Lich King. Havoc Demon Hunter being based on Illidan. Restoration Druid being based on Malfurion/Cenarius. Fire mages being based on Kael'thas. Frost mages being based on the Antonidas/Jaina. Brewmaster Monk being based on Chen Stormstout. Holy Paladins being based on Uther. Enhancement Shamans being based on Thrall/Drek'thar/Rehgar. Besides, i've mentioned them as examples, due to them having characters in Heroes of the Storm, that Blizzard can draw upon.

If you want to play as a Hunter, why would you roll a Goblin? There are other races that simply fit those classes better, and they have the lore characters to back that up.

Because the Hunter has explosives, that's why. Although, i would admit, they are lacking in that department and i would like to see more explosive-based abilities, like the Sapper has and like Junkrat uses.

Who are you to decide which are better for the Hunter class? and who, exactly, are better suited to be hunters, if i may ask?

Welcome to "Who's Class Idea is it Anyway?" where everything's made up and the points don't matter!

Nobody's ideas for a new class should be "attacked" right? Conversely, don't expect that nobody will criticize your idea that doesn't even make sense. Sorry, friends, but things like Rangers, Sea Witches and Priestesses of the Moon are redundant. The Hunter, Shaman and Priest respectively fill those archetypes to Blizzard's satisfaction.

There is no need for an entirely new class (except for Bards, come at me). Class skins are better options, they will allow the fulfillment of most fantasies without creating "class bloat," something that many people already believe is plaguing the game. That idea is nothing new, of course, as there are class skin threads to begin with. But this thread has sparked the same old tired argument of which class would be best to add and people will never agree.

Some quick and obvious Class Skin ideas:

Tinker - Hunter. They can tame mech-beasts already, with a proper class skin they could "hack" all sorts of mechs. The various nature and beast themed abilities can be replaced with technologically-oriented variants.

Necromancer - Warlock. Demons are replaced with undead, Fire and Fel replaced with Frost, Shadow and Death (which happens to often look fairly similar to Fel, funny) as needed.

Priestess of the Moon - Priest. Besides the aesthetic change of Holy becoming Lunar, in this example mechanical changes would also take place. Priests can use bows and the following spells will be replaced:
- Shadow Word: Pain becomes Searing Arrows, which functions essentially the same as in WC3. While active, auto-shots do additional Radiant damage at the cost of mana. Ideally the damage and cost comes to be roughly equal to that of Shadow Word: Pain.
- Mind Vision becomes Scout. You can freely switch between control of your character and the summoned Owl Scout, which is perhaps akin to Eye of Kilrogg.

Trueshot Aura and Starfall exist already in Hunter and Druid, respectively. Priestess of the Moon could fit for those classes as well. The Priestess of the Moon are an organization and so they would have members with different strengths and weaknesses. Thus a Priestess of the Moon class skin could be applied to multiple classes, perhaps all of them, even. After all you can essentially make this work just by adding lunar magic effects to spells and abilities. Therefore, the aforementioned Priest spell changes for the Priestess of the Moon skin would be nice, but they aren't necessary.

Using the Priestess of the Moon as an example, many if not all of the missing class fantasies in World of Warcraft can be fulfilled by aesthetic changes and rare mechanical changes.

I was about to say how i disagree with you. but, at least you propose solutions, rather than just say "never ever" and "be satisfied with what you got", like Teriz says.

I will, however, say i disagree with you because Priestess of the Moon, Dark Rangers and Sea Witches are not properly represented within those classes (giving just a few abilities, here and there, does not answer the fantasy). Same way as Shadow Hunters being misrepresented through the Shaman class, Blademasters through the Warrior class, Wardens though the Rogue class, Tinker through the Engineering profession and Alchemist through the Alchemist Profession. same way Warlocks didn't satisfy the fantasy of Demon Hunters with the Metamorphosis ability, or Death Knights with the Death Coil ability. same with rogues wielding fist weapons not answering the fantasy of a Monk.

The thing about Bards is: 1. They are not a Warcraft 3 hero unit (like Blizzard added up until now) and 2. using guitars and rock n' roll is out of the fantasy of WoW. Yet, if they were to use medieval instruments, and abilities similar to the sound elemental, Murmur, then i would accept them as either a profession, a spec or a class.

To be fair, that’s a Brewmaster, not a Monk.

Really? you dense mother****** -_-

Brewmaster: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Brewmaster

Pandaren Brewmaster: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pandaren_brewmaster

Learn the difference. one concocts alcoholic beverages, the other combines it with martial arts.

"During these dark times (slavery), many pandaren tried to lift the spirits of their beleaguered brothers and sisters. They were the storytellers, the brewmasters, and the healers who helped knit their oppressed society together in the midst of darkness".

"Because they had no weapons, they trained common people to fight with their unarmed fists and feet. They mastered the use of positive energy - or 'chi' - to empower themselves. These unarmed resistance fighters would become the first monks."

brewmaster wasnt really a monk/monk spec until MoP

No shit, Sherlock. The Monk class was not added until Mists of Pandaria.