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

[username993720]

I just really can't see dark ranger being a class in WoW. There isn't a whole lot about them that separates them from hunters. Black Arrow was for a long time a hunter spell. I have no idea why they removed it. But when it comes to dark rangers, they are mostly just edgy hunters. From a lore standpoint, Sylvanas is unique with her abilities. Dark Rangers aren't banshees like Sylvanas. It would be incredibly redundant to add them as a class.

Casting spells, that's what.

And Demon Hunters are just edgy Rogues.

That's why i suggested it would be a specialization, alongside Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch, not a class.

Dark Rangers use necromancy. so, Banshees', Ghouls' or whatever undead creatures' abilities there are, would not be out of the realm of possibility:

Forsaken Undead use Cannibalize as a racial yet, they are neither Ghouls nor Abominations.

Warlocks use Curses yet, they are not Banshees.

Death Knights use Anti-Magic Shell yet, they are not Banshees.

Death Knights use Death and Decay yet, they are not Liches.

Death Knights use Vampiric Aura yet, they are not Dreadlords.

[Kralljin]

I'd say it's rather childish to assume that the tinker is what the community wants, don't you think?

I'd stop arguing with people that madly believe everybody and their mother wants Tinker because to them, anybody who disagrees is actually just in the minority.

Quite frankly, i was rather neutral towards Tinker, but all those "Tinker next class confirmed"; "Here's why Tinker will be the next class"; "Mechagon => Tinker Confirmed?!"; Threads made me dislike the concept as a whole, because the most vocal people supporting it are just straight annoying.

[username993720]

The vampire-like venthyr’s in Revendreth seem like a pretty cool idea.

They are a race, not a class. and they will be playable.

Thumb up for effort, though.

[Teriz]

Everything, because it surely is not facts.

The Necromancer being folded into the Death Knight class by Blizzard is a fact.

Shadowlands being an expansion about the realm of death is a fact.

Blizzard stating that no class concept fit the theme of Shadowlands is a fact.

Blizzard having a history of creating melee Necromancers as heroes is a fact.

The Tinker having the same pedigree as other previous WoW class inclusions is a fact.

Professions and classes being fundamentally different than each other is a fact.

Did I miss anything?

[ymirsson]

The Necromancer being folded into the Death Knight class by Blizzard is a fact.

Shadowlands being an expansion about the realm of death is a fact.

Blizzard stating that no class concept fit the theme of Shadowlands is a fact.

Blizzard having a history of creating melee Necromancers as heroes is a fact.

The Tinker having the same pedigree as other previous WoW class inclusions is a fact.

Professions and classes being fundamentally different than each other is a fact.

Did I miss anything?

I would love to deconstruct your delusions, but you aint listening anyway.

[TheRevenantHero]

Casting spells, that's what.

And Demon Hunters are just edgy Rogues.

That's why i suggested it would be a specialization, alongside Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch, not a class.

Dark Rangers use necromancy. so, Banshees', Ghouls' or whatever undead creatures' abilities there are, would not be out of the realm of possibility:

Forsaken Undead use Cannibalize as a racial yet, they are neither Ghouls nor Abominations.

Warlocks use Curses yet, they are not Banshees.

Death Knights use Anti-Magic Shell yet, they are not Banshees.

Death Knights use Death and Decay yet, they are not Liches.

Death Knights use Vampiric Aura yet, they are not Dreadlords.

Which means we have absolutely no need for dark rangers to be playable.

- - - Updated - - -

The Necromancer being folded into the Death Knight class by Blizzard is a fact.

Shadowlands being an expansion about the realm of death is a fact.

Blizzard stating that no class concept fit the theme of Shadowlands is a fact.

Blizzard having a history of creating melee Necromancers as heroes is a fact.

The Tinker having the same pedigree as other previous WoW class inclusions is a fact.

Professions and classes being fundamentally different than each other is a fact.

Did I miss anything?

One person saying a comment about Necromancers being "folded into DK" does not make it a fact. Who even said that anyway? Because I feel like they're one of the people that no longer works at Blizzard.

I don't remember Blizzard EVER stating that no class concept fit the theme of Shadowlands. Citation needed.

The tinker simply being a title given to some engineers is a fact.

Classes being different to professions can be a fact but your concept of tinker is literally just engineer with spells instead of on use items.

- - - Updated - - -

They are a race, not a class. and they will be playable.

Thumb up for effort, though.

There is no guarantee they will be playable so that is pure conjecture. And I really hope they never become a playable race.

[Teriz]

And neither was "death knight" before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion.

True, it was a hero concept.

Riftblade isn't that either.

We don't for sure, yes. But judging by what we see of the Riftrunners, it's likely to be a void-based class with a ranged spellcasting spec, and a melee class dealing both void and physical damage.

It's likely to be nothing more than Void Elf variations of existing classes.

The same could be said about the tinker being a "racial divider within classes" for the gnomes, goblins and mechagnomes.

Not likely, since like the Death Knight, Brewmaster, and Demon Hunter before it, the Tinker is a hero concept from WC3.

No, they don't. You said, yourself, that warriors don't cast magic. You can't have it both ways, Teriz. By that exact same reason I can say that warriors and hunters don't possess tech abilities, but gnome/goblins/mechagnome warrior/hunters do, therefore we don't need a tinker class. Hell, hunters can even have robot pets.

I said Warriors in general. You do know that every race can be a Warrior right? Simply because Void Elf Warriors can use Void magic via their racial doesn't change that general fact. There are exceptions to every rule after all.

Further, having "tech abilities" isn't the only requirement for a Tinker class. A Tinker class sort of needs the abilities of the Tinker hero, as all previous classes of the WC3 hero concepts did.

And every goblin and mechagnome possess tech powers. Did you forget goblins have Rocket Jump and Rocket Barrage? Worse yet, all of the mechagnome's race are tech-based: Combat Analysis, Hyper Organic Light Originator, Mastercraft Emergency Failsafe and Skeleton Pinkie.

Irrelevant, see above.

Irrelevant. Because it has not been proven that we must have a WC3 unit to create class from. You're basically saying that Blizzard lacks even the most basic creativity to create new classes and must always take something that already exists in previous games.

No, I'm simply saying that the Tinker is from the same pedigree as every other WoW class inclusion (i.e. the WC3 hero), and if the rules applied to those hero concepts, there's no reason to not believe they wouldn't apply to the Tinker (and Goblin Alchemist) as well.

"I found that thingy down in Azsuna, just lying on the beach. I'm sure with a little tinkering, an engineer like you could probably get it up and running in no time."

Yes, during an Engineering quest line given by the profession, you're likely to get something like that. Let me know when Anduin, Jaina, Thrall, or some other lore figure calls you by your profession.

So you mean that both are engineers. Because, as I pointed out numerous times already, no one-- you, especially-- have never shown any difference in the lore between 'tinker' and 'engineer', which supports the idea that both are nothing but synonymous for one-another.

Again, in lore, there are Tinker heroes and there is a standard engineering profession. That difference should be no different than a Warrior hero and a Guard outside the gates of Stormwind.

Typical. Always nothing but excuses when faced with a demand for evidence. Looking for evidence for your claims is not my job, Teriz. It's yours.

Like I said, I've discussed those differences multiple times, and sometimes even within this thread. I see no need to repeat myself.

That's not a strawman. That's literally your logic. People point at the Riftrunners as evidence for a void-based class, but you refute that by just saying "play a void elf <whatever class> and you have your void class".

People are free to believe whatever they wish, I'm just pointing out that these Riftrunners don't share the pedigree of previous WoW class inclusions, and (save for one of them) are loaded with existing class abilities. Even the abilities that don't exist in current classes could easily fit in the existing class lineup.

It makes no sense to you because you have an erroneous views of how classes work. Classes aren't about one singular theme. Classes are a mixture of several themes, which is what makes them unique. And it doesn't change the fact that priests and paladins have a "one hundred percent" overlap with the Holy theme.

Nah, they're a singular theme. Priests for example are merely devoted believers of faith, and that's a singular theme. It just so happens that there are Gods of the Light and Gods of the Void, so obviously you're going to have Priests that follow the light, and Priests that follow the Void.

And once again, the Priests and Paladin overlap is a spec based, not class based. I'm always amazed that you can't seem to recognize that difference.

No, it doesn't. Because otherwise this also makes for a druid/hunter expansion because of Ardenweald. Anyways, the necromancer concept is not about the afterlife, which is what this expansion is about. "Death" is nothing but the process to reaching the Shadowlands, not the expansion concept itself. The necromancer concept is about undeath. Even the death knights have been sidelined in this expansion, relegated to basically being portal-makers back to Azeroth, and minor exposition here and there. We don't see anyone in any of the Shadowlands zones outside of Ouribos and the Maw.

Now who's making excuses?

- - - Updated - - -

One person saying a comment about Necromancers being "folded into DK" does not make it a fact. Who even said that anyway? Because I feel like they're one of the people that no longer works at Blizzard.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120217.../episode7.html

At the 2:11 mark. Both Kaplan and Brack still work at Blizzard.

I don't remember Blizzard EVER stating that no class concept fit the theme of Shadowlands. Citation needed.

https://www.polygon.com/interviews/2...ll-human-dwarf

7th paragraph.

The tinker simply being a title given to some engineers is a fact.

All the actual facts counter that point, one of those facts are listed below.

Classes being different to professions can be a fact but your concept of tinker is literally just engineer with spells instead of on use items.

My concept of the Tinker comes from the Blizzard Tinker hero, which is lore-based and has the same pedigree as all previous WoW expansion classes.

[Ielenia]

The Tinker having the same pedigree as other previous WoW class inclusions is a fact.

No, that's an opinion, because this "pedigree" you speak of is nothing but your own construct. I'll repeat something I've said to you already in the past: Blizzard has never disclosed their class design process, nor have they ever disclosed any requirements that are needed for a concept to be made into a class.

So whatever "requirements" or "pedigree" you claim exist, exist only in your head.

[Teriz]

No, that's an opinion, because this "pedigree" you speak of is nothing but your own construct. I'll repeat something I've said to you already in the past: Blizzard has never disclosed their class design process, nor have they ever disclosed any requirements that are needed for a concept to be made into a class.

So whatever "requirements" or "pedigree" you claim exist, exist only in your head.

Uh, it's a fact until Blizzard brings out a class that doesn't have that background.

The same background btw, that the Tinker (and Goblin Alchemist) has.

[Ielenia]

True, it was a hero concept.

Riftblade isn't that either.

As I said above: any requirements or pedigree you claim are necessary for a concept to be made into a class exist nowhere except in your head.

It's likely to be nothing more than Void Elf variations of existing classes.

Just like a tinker is nothing more than mechagnome variation of existing classes. Fancy that.

Not likely, since like the Death Knight, Brewmaster, and Demon Hunter before it, the Tinker is a hero concept from WC3.

Same as all of the above.

I said Warriors in general. You do know that every race can be a Warrior right? Simply because Void Elf Warriors can use Void magic via their racial doesn't change that general fact.

And warriors in general don't use technology. But you do know that every race can be a warrior, right? Simply because mechagnome warriors can use technology via their racials doesn't change that general fact.

Further, having "tech abilities" isn't the only requirement for a Tinker class. A Tinker class sort of needs the abilities of the Tinker hero, as all previous classes of the WC3 hero concepts did.

Same as all of the above. Any requirements or pedigree you claim are necessary for a concept to be made into a class exist nowhere except in your head.

No, I'm simply saying that the Tinker is from the same pedigree as every other WoW class inclusion (i.e. the WC3 hero), and if the rules applied to those hero concepts, there's no reason to not believe they wouldn't apply to the Tinker (and Goblin Alchemist) as well.

Same as all of the above. Any requirements or pedigree you claim are necessary for a concept to be made into a class exist nowhere except in your head.

Yes, during an Engineering quest line given by the profession, you're likely to get something like that.

You asked for an instance of our characters being called by their profession, and I've provided that. Now you're moving the goalposts by wanting specific NPCs to refer to your character by your profession. Admit defeat, Teriz. Stop trying to save face by throwing your credibility in the mud.

Again, in lore, there are Tinker heroes and there is a standard engineering profession. That difference should be no different than a Warrior hero and a Guard outside the gates of Stormwind.

Again, absolutely no evidence, other than assertions. You know what's the difference between a warrior hero and a Stormwind guard? None. Both have the same training.

Like I said, I've discussed those differences multiple times, and sometimes even within this thread. I see no need to repeat myself.

Like I said, when faced with the demand for evidence of your claims, you start throwing excuses. If they are in this thread, you know where they are then it shouldn't be too much work to quote yourself or link to that particular post. Where is your evidence, Teriz?

People are free to believe whatever they wish, I'm just pointing out that these Riftrunners don't share the pedigree of previous WoW class inclusions, and (save for one of them) are loaded with existing class abilities. Even the abilities that don't exist in current classes could easily fit in the existing class lineup.

Same as all of the above. Any requirements or pedigree you claim are necessary for a concept to be made into a class exist nowhere except in your head.

Nah, they're a singular theme. Priests for example are merely devoted believers of faith, and that's a singular theme.

Two things:
• One: no, they're not. Priests have, for example, a spellcaster theme, a "devoted believer of faith" theme, and a mindflayer theme, among others.
• Two: Paladins are also "devoted believers of faith". Congratulations, you sank your own argument.

And once again, the Priests and Paladin overlap is a spec based, not class based. I'm always amazed that you can't seem to recognize that difference.

It is class- and lore-based. Paladins are literally priests who took up martial lessons.

Now who's making excuses?

Explaining basic concepts is not "making up excuses".

https://web.archive.org/web/20120217.../episode7.html

At the 2:11 mark. Both Kaplan and Brack still work at Blizzard.

Says nothing of the sort. They mentioned some things about the necromancer they put in the death knight, but not that they folded the entire concept into the death knight class.

All the actual facts counter that point, one of those facts are listed below.

What facts? There is no facts that counters the idea that tinker is just a synonym for the engineer, and we have a mountain of evidence that the two might just be synonyms.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, it's a fact until Blizzard brings out a class that doesn't have that background.

The same background btw, that the Tinker (and Goblin Alchemist) has.

That's not how fact works, Teriz.

Facts don't exist because they are not disproven. Facts exist because can be proven. Until they're proven, they're just simple assertions, hypotheses.

In other words, if you want to claim that as a fact, you have to prove they are a fact. And showing a tendency does not prove a fact. That's like me throwing a six-sided dice three times, getting odd numbers every time, and saying "it's a fact that six-sided dice can only give odd numbers."

Or, in a more "close to home" comparison: it's like saying "it's a fact that Blizzard releases a new playable class every two expansions".

[Traveler Voltin]

can we please move on from the tinker talk?

i am going to try again to change the subject.

What expansion theme would a ranger fit?

What expansion theme would a bard fit?

a class needs to fit the expansion theme as well. you can make a suggestion all day but if you really want it then you need to also explain what kind of expansion theme it would fit into.

[Teriz]

As I said above: any requirements or pedigree you claim are necessary for a concept to be made into a class exist nowhere except in your head.

You're free to ignore the background of previous WoW classes if you want. That doesn't change the facts.

Just like a tinker is nothing more than mechagnome variation of existing classes. Fancy that.

I'm struggling to find any existing class that contains Tinker abilities. Could you point me in a direction?

And warriors in general don't use technology. But you do know that every race can be a warrior, right? Simply because mechagnome warriors can use technology via their racials doesn't change that general fact.

So what is your point exactly?

You asked for an instance of our characters being called by their profession, and I've provided that. Now you're moving the goalposts by wanting specific NPCs to refer to your character by your profession. Admit defeat, Teriz. Stop trying to save face by throwing your credibility in the mud.

If you want to believe that a quest in engineering proves that the Champion of Azeroth is an engineer, that's your business.

Again, absolutely no evidence, other than assertions. You know what's the difference between a warrior hero and a Stormwind guard? None. Both have the same training.

The Warrior being a hero, and the Guard not being one, with the hero having superhuman abilities. It's like comparing Captain America to an enlisted man in the Army.

Two things:
• One: no, they're not. Priests have, for example, a spellcaster theme, a "devoted believer of faith" theme, and a mindflayer theme, among others.
• Two: Paladins are also "devoted believers of faith". Congratulations, you sank your own argument.

Yes, for Paladins one faith, the Light. Priests can be of either faith. The point is that there are not multiple themes in any of these classes. There are multiple magic and ability schools, but those differing schools of magic and ability fit whatever the theme of the class is.

It is class- and lore-based. Paladins are literally priests who took up martial lessons.

More than likely Holy Priests who decided to be more martial. That doesn't change the fact that the Priest class and the Paladin class do not share the same class theme.

Explaining basic concepts is not "making up excuses".

Refusing to admit that an expansion revolving around the realm of death fits a Necromancer class perfectly and coming up with qualifiers that don't make sense is definitely making excuses.

Says nothing of the sort. They mentioned some things about the necromancer they put in the death knight, but not that they folded the entire concept into the death knight class.

Oh? What aspect of the Necromancer concept didn't make it into the DK class?

What facts? There is no facts that counters the idea that tinker is just a synonym for the engineer, and we have a mountain of evidence that the two might just be synonyms.

We can start with the fact that the Tinker is a hero in Warcraft lore. That alone places it in a different spot than typical engineer.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how fact works, Teriz.

Facts don't exist because they are not disproven. Facts exist because can be proven. Until they're proven, they're just simple assertions, hypotheses.

In other words, if you want to claim that as a fact, you have to prove they are a fact. And showing a tendency does not prove a fact. That's like me throwing a six-sided dice three times, getting odd numbers every time, and saying "it's a fact that six-sided dice can only give odd numbers."

Uh, okay. Every WoW expansion class is based on a WC3 hero concept, and every WoW expansion class was based on a major WoW lore figure. Every WoW class has abilities from WC3 heroes and units.

Those would facts that can be proven. Have fun trying to disprove them.

- - - Updated - - -

can we please move on from the tinker talk?

i am going to try again to change the subject.

What expansion theme would a ranger fit?

What expansion theme would a bard fit?

a class needs to fit the expansion theme as well. you can make a suggestion all day but if you really want it then you need to also explain what kind of expansion theme it would fit into.

I think the problem with that is Blizzard associated Bards with Rogues and Rangers with Hunters (both appear in the Rogue and Hunter class halls respectively), so it's unlikely that either would become a class.

BTW, Necromancers also appear in the Death Knight class hall. That's something to think about...

[Traveler Voltin]

You're free to ignore the background of previous WoW classes if you want. That doesn't change the facts.



I'm struggling to find any existing class that contains Tinker abilities. Could you point me in a direction?



So what is your point exactly?



If you want to believe that a quest in engineering proves that the Champion of Azeroth is an engineer, that's your business.



The Warrior being a hero, and the Guard not being one, with the hero having superhuman abilities. It's like comparing Captain America to an enlisted man in the Army.



Yes, for Paladins one faith, the Light. Priests can be of either faith. The point is that there are not multiple themes in any of these classes. There are multiple magic and ability schools, but those differing schools of magic and ability fit whatever the theme of the class is.



More than likely Holy Priests who decided to be more martial. That doesn't change the fact that the Priest class and the Paladin class do not share the same class theme.



Refusing to admit that an expansion revolving around the realm of death fits a Necromancer class perfectly and coming up with qualifiers that don't make sense is definitely making excuses.



Oh? What aspect of the Necromancer concept didn't make it into the DK class?



We can start with the fact that the Tinker is a hero in Warcraft lore. That alone places it in a different spot than typical engineer.

- - - Updated - - -



Uh, okay. Every WoW expansion class is based on a WC3 hero concept, and every WoW expansion class was based on a major WoW lore figure. Every WoW class has abilities from WC3 heroes and units.

Those would facts that can be proven. Have fun trying to disprove them.

- - - Updated - - -




I think the problem with that is Blizzard associated Bards with Rogues and Rangers with Hunters (both appear in the Rogue and Hunter class halls respectively), so it's unlikely that either would become a class.

BTW, Necromancers also appear in the Death Knight class hall. That's something to think about...

that not what i want to talk about.

i want to see people try to justify and fit their classes into WoW by putting them together with expansion theme.
i am tired of the circle jerk around the tinkers. the conversation need to change.

[Teriz]

that not what i want to talk about.

i want to see people try to justify and fit their classes into WoW by putting them together with expansion theme.
i am tired of the circle jerk around the tinkers. the conversation need to change.

I agree. We were talking about Necromancers and what expansion could they possibly fit in given Blizzard's comments and Shadowlands' theme, but the Necromancer fans got mad and started attacking the Tinker concept, so round and round we go again.

To your question, I really don't see any expansion that could work with a Bard concept, mainly because there aren't any Bard lore characters to speak of. I do think that Bards would make a fine future WoW profession though.

[Traveler Voltin]

I agree. We were talking about Necromancers and what expansion could they possibly fit in given Blizzard's comments and Shadowlands' theme, but the Necromancer fans got mad and started attacking the Tinker concept, so round and round we go again.

To your question, I really don't see any expansion that could work with a Bard concept, mainly because there aren't any Bard lore characters to speak of. I do think that Bards would make a fine future WoW profession though.

what would a bard profession do?

[TheRevenantHero]

True, it was a hero concept.

Riftblade isn't that either.




It's likely to be nothing more than Void Elf variations of existing classes.




Not likely, since like the Death Knight, Brewmaster, and Demon Hunter before it, the Tinker is a hero concept from WC3.



I said Warriors in general. You do know that every race can be a Warrior right? Simply because Void Elf Warriors can use Void magic via their racial doesn't change that general fact. There are exceptions to every rule after all.

Further, having "tech abilities" isn't the only requirement for a Tinker class. A Tinker class sort of needs the abilities of the Tinker hero, as all previous classes of the WC3 hero concepts did.



Irrelevant, see above.




No, I'm simply saying that the Tinker is from the same pedigree as every other WoW class inclusion (i.e. the WC3 hero), and if the rules applied to those hero concepts, there's no reason to not believe they wouldn't apply to the Tinker (and Goblin Alchemist) as well.



Yes, during an Engineering quest line given by the profession, you're likely to get something like that. Let me know when Anduin, Jaina, Thrall, or some other lore figure calls you by your profession.




Again, in lore, there are Tinker heroes and there is a standard engineering profession. That difference should be no different than a Warrior hero and a Guard outside the gates of Stormwind.




Like I said, I've discussed those differences multiple times, and sometimes even within this thread. I see no need to repeat myself.




People are free to believe whatever they wish, I'm just pointing out that these Riftrunners don't share the pedigree of previous WoW class inclusions, and (save for one of them) are loaded with existing class abilities. Even the abilities that don't exist in current classes could easily fit in the existing class lineup.



Nah, they're a singular theme. Priests for example are merely devoted believers of faith, and that's a singular theme. It just so happens that there are Gods of the Light and Gods of the Void, so obviously you're going to have Priests that follow the light, and Priests that follow the Void.

And once again, the Priests and Paladin overlap is a spec based, not class based. I'm always amazed that you can't seem to recognize that difference.



Now who's making excuses?

- - - Updated - - -



https://web.archive.org/web/20120217.../episode7.html

At the 2:11 mark. Both Kaplan and Brack still work at Blizzard.



https://www.polygon.com/interviews/2...ll-human-dwarf

7th paragraph.



All the actual facts counter that point, one of those facts are listed below.



My concept of the Tinker comes from the Blizzard Tinker hero, which is lore-based and has the same pedigree as all previous WoW expansion classes.

Ah yes. A polygon article. Because they've never lied before. Very good lmao. Even if it isn't bull shit, the wording of that seventh paragraph is just another way to say "We're fucking lazy." Because them saying that there is no class that jumps out when necromancer exists is simply them being dishonest. Also, I'm not downloading something on the off chance you might not be misinterpretting things being said.

And no. You have zero facts backing up that tinker is anything but a title. A big reason is that you have literally called the engineering NPCs not tinkers purely because they don't have the word "tinker" hovering above their names. They can do everything your concept of tinker does but you write them off because they're profession NPCs. But all that does is show you're wrong.

Tinker has been and still is just a title given to certain engineers. Nothing more. The lore states that pretty clearly since they are called tinkers and engineers interchangeably. But you disregard that fact because then you'd have to admit you're wrong.

[LemonDemonGirl]

That is the color death magic seems to have at the moment.

I was thinking that some of their spells would be purple like shadow magic, but I guess they use teal green too.

No other class' spells uses that color magic, so I think it would stand out really well compared to a DK and a Monk

- - - Updated - - -

The vampire-like venthyr’s in Revendreth seem like a pretty cool idea.

I think having them be a 'mini class' like the vampires are in ESO would work

[Teriz]

what would a bard profession do?

1. Craft/Make music/stories that can buff yourself or party members.
2. craft/make instruments that can be used as Trinkets, weapons, or armor
3. Explore the world and seek out rare/unique songs from various locations and musicians on Azeroth and beyond

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes. A polygon article. Because they've never lied before. Very good lmao. Even if it isn't bull shit, the wording of that seventh paragraph is just another way to say "We're fucking lazy." Because them saying that there is no class that jumps out when necromancer exists is simply them being dishonest....

Or it's them acknowledging that WoW already has a Necromancer class in Death Knights.

And no. You have zero facts backing up that tinker is anything but a title. A big reason is that you have literally called the engineering NPCs not tinkers purely because they don't have the word "tinker" hovering above their names. They can do everything your concept of tinker does but you write them off because they're profession NPCs. But all that does is show you're wrong.

Like I said, there are no Tinker abilities in the Engineering profession, so obviously you can't say that engineering (profession) is synonymous with the Tinker.

Tinker has been and still is just a title given to certain engineers. Nothing more. The lore states that pretty clearly since they are called tinkers and engineers interchangeably. But you disregard that fact because then you'd have to admit you're wrong.

I disregard that because again, the Tinker hero is a fact of WC lore, and none of the Tinker heroes abilities or attributes exist in the engineering profession. Further, Tinker-based lore characters who are heroes (i.e. Gazlowe and Mekkatorque) display a clear line of delineation between themselves and standard engineers.

[ymirsson]

Like I said, there are no Tinker abilities in the Engineering profession, so obviously you can't say that engineering (profession) is synonymous with the Tinker.

Thats like saying there are no necromancer abilities in the DK kit.
in other words, a lie.

[TheRevenantHero]

1. Craft/Make music/stories that can buff yourself or party members.
2. craft/make instruments that can be used as Trinkets, weapons, or armor
3. Explore the world and seek out rare/unique songs from various locations and musicians on Azeroth and beyond

- - - Updated - - -



Or it's them acknowledging that WoW already has a Necromancer class in Death Knights.



Like I said, there are no Tinker abilities in the Engineering profession, so obviously you can't say that engineering (profession) is synonymous with the Tinker.



I disregard that because again, the Tinker hero is a fact of WC lore, and none of the Tinker heroes abilities or attributes exist in the engineering profession. Further, Tinker-based lore characters who are heroes (i.e. Gazlowe and Mekkatorque) display a clear line of delineation between themselves and standard engineers.

Just because they don't have the exact same name doesn't mean they don't already exist. The only thing not represented by engineering gadgets is pocket factory. Can't really justify an entire class based on ONE spell. Tinker abilities absolutely exist in engineering items, they're just called something else. Disregarding it because they don't have the exact same name is just you moving the goalposts as usual. I have never ever seen a single person agree with you that engineering has none of the tinker abilities. Get over it, tinker is a title more than a class.