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

[Azerox]

Necromancer - healer.

[Teriz]

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

Then where are the Tinker abilities within the engineering profession?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Uh no. If they don't share the name, or the mechanics, they're not the same. Hell, the engineering stuff isn't even abilities, they're items. Items and abilities are also two very different things.

As for the name, we don't even know if the class would be called "Tinker". We could very well have a situation like we had with the Monk class where the Tinker is merely one of the specs of the new technology class. What we do know is that the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist remain the only hero units from WC3 whose abilities have never been assigned to any classes.

[ymirsson]

Then where are the Tinker abilities within the engineering profession?

Normally i'd ask if that is a serious question.
But since i am talking to you, what about grenades, bombs, rockets, gadgets, mechano chicken, mech suits, wormhole generators?
Those are not things tinkers would do? Apart from the pocket factory you like to ramble on about?

[TheRevenantHero]

Then where are the Tinker abilities within the engineering profession?

- - - Updated - - -



Uh no. If they don't share the name, or the mechanics, they're not the same. Hell, the engineering stuff isn't even abilities, they're items. Items and abilities are also two very different things.

As for the name, we don't even know if the class would be called "Tinker". We could very well have a situation like we had with the Monk class where the Tinker is merely one of the specs of the new technology class. What we do know is that the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist remain the only hero units from WC3 whose abilities have never been assigned to any classes.

They share mechanics, they just don't share name. I've given examples in the past and you disregarded it on name ALONE. And stop treating gameplay as lore. They're NOT. From a lore point, they are 100% the same. But you won't accept that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

And those two will remain unused because the majority of the playerbase don't like goblins and gnomes. Blizzard would be shooting themselves in the foot financially.

- - - Updated - - -

Normally i'd ask if that is a serious question.
But since i am talking to you, what about grenades, bombs, rockets, gadgets, mechano chicken, mech suits, wormhole generators?
Those are not things tinkers would do? Apart from the pocket factory you like to ramble on about?

Pocket Factory is literally the only ability not represented in engineering. But Teriz refuses to admit it.

[Teriz]

Normally i'd ask if that is a serious question.
But since i am talking to you, what about grenades, bombs, rockets, gadgets, mechano chicken, mech suits, wormhole generators?
Those are not things tinkers would do? Apart from the pocket factory you like to ramble on about?

Nope. Tinker's have specific abilities that have specific mechanics, as all classes do. Unless you honestly believe that Smoke Bomb and Wildfire Bomb are the same thing, or that the Rogue ability Kick is the same thing as the Monk ability Blackout Kick.

It also doesn't help that you're talking about items, and not abilities.

[ymirsson]

Nope. Tinker's have specific abilities that have specific mechanics, as all classes do. Unless you honestly believe that Smoke Bomb and Wildfire Bomb are the same thing, or that the Rogue ability Kick is the same thing as the Monk ability Blackout Kick.

It also doesn't help that you're talking about items, and not abilities.

Nobody cares about your tinker hero fetish

[Teriz]

They share mechanics, they just don't share name. I've given examples in the past and you disregarded it on name ALONE. And stop treating gameplay as lore. They're NOT. From a lore point, they are 100% the same. But you won't accept that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Yeah, none of your examples showcased similar mechanics. It's rather sad that you feel the need to lie about it in order to prove a nonexistent point.

Further, no one is talking about gameplay. In lore there is a Tinker hero with attributes and abilities not found in the engineering profession. That is fact.

And those two will remain unused because the majority of the playerbase don't like goblins and gnomes. Blizzard would be shooting themselves in the foot financially.

Thank you for giving your opinion. Fortunately you don't speak for Blizzard.

[Ielenia]

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

I'm not ignoring them. It's just that their background is meaningless because it hasn't been shown to be relevant. You simply got a correlation here. And, as anyone who doesn't have an agenda and wants to be honest would agree: correlation does not imply causation.

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

And many of the Riftrunners abilities do not exist in the present classes. The fact you had to change many of them to fit in the present classes says a lot, too.

So what is your point exactly?

The point, which you're trying to ignore, is that saying "void elf warriors is your void class" is the exact same thing as saying "mechagnome hunters is your tinker class'.

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

This shows how dishonest you are in discussions. You literally asked for instances of your character being referred to by their profession, and now that you've been faced with one, you're doing your absolute best to "de-canonize" that instance. You even moved the goalposts by saying that none of the important NPCs (like Jaina) do not refer to your character by their profession.

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.

But both of them got the exact same training. Which is the whole point.

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.

Yes, there are, and I've proven that. To top of all of that, we have the rogue class, which is literally three themes together: the pirate, the assassin, and the thief.

More than likely Holy Priests who decided to be more martial.

There is no such thing as "holy priest". It's just priest. Unless you can find me an instance of a paladin being called "retribution paladin" or a demon hunter being called "havoc demon hunter" or a warrior being called "arms warrior" or a hunter being called "marksmanship hunter".

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.

The only thing I'm "refusing" is your misinterpretation of what the lore of the expansion is.

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

The "frail spellcaster" theme and the poison-wielding theme. Those are two off the top of my head.

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.

And that fact is meaningless, because, as I've pointed out numerous times, "exists in Warcraft 3" is a rule only in your head. We have countless examples of things that exist in WoW but did not exist in Warcraft 3. Monks, proto-dragons, Titan technology, the tol'vir race, the mogu race, etc.

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.

I don't have to disprove those facts, nor do I have to. Because those facts are irrelevant to your claim. All those facts do is establish a correlation, and anyone with a desire to be honest would tell you that correlation does not imply causation. Not to mention that claim is like saying that six-sided dice can only give odd numbers after you rolled them three times and three times you got odd numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Saying that bard is a crafting profession is like saying being an athlete is a crafting profession because you craft the training equipment. Or that being a drummer is a crafting profession because you craft the music instruments.

[Teriz]

I'm not ignoring them. It's just that their background is meaningless because it hasn't been shown to be relevant. You simply got a correlation here. And, as anyone who doesn't have an agenda and wants to be honest would agree: correlation does not imply causation.

Saying that the background of every WoW class is "meaningless" is ignoring that background. Also how has it not shown to be relevant when it's present in every single WoW class?

And many of the Riftrunners abilities do not exist in the present classes. The fact you had to change many of them to fit in the present classes says a lot, too.

No, only one of the three had a list of abilities not present in current classes, and none of those abilities would be out of place in existing classes.

The point, which you're trying to ignore, is that saying "void elf warriors is your void class" is the exact same thing as saying "mechagnome hunters is your tinker class'.

Which I never said. I said that a Riftblade is clearly a Void Elf version of the Warrior class. Also Shadow Priests exist.

This shows how dishonest you are in discussions. You literally asked for instances of your character being referred to by their profession, and now that you've been faced with one, you're doing your absolute best to "de-canonize" that instance. You even moved the goalposts by saying that none of the important NPCs (like Jaina) do not refer to your character by their profession.

Yes, instances of your character being referred to by your profession OUTSIDE of the profession. Anduin calls you a Shaman OUTSIDE of the Shaman class hall. Sylvanas calls you a Druid OUTSIDE of Moonglade. Why? Because your class is part of the hero's lore, the optional professions the player picks up are not.

But both of them got the exact same training. Which is the whole point.

You have a source for that assertion?

Yes, there are, and I've proven that. To top of all of that, we have the rogue class, which is literally three themes together: the pirate, the assassin, and the thief.

You do know that a Pirate can be an Assassin, a thief, and vice versa right?

There is no such thing as "holy priest". It's just priest. Unless you can find me an instance of a paladin being called "retribution paladin" or a demon hunter being called "havoc demon hunter" or a warrior being called "arms warrior" or a hunter being called "marksmanship hunter".

So a Priest that worships the Light, and a Priest that worships the Old Gods is the same in lore?

That's an interesting (and hilarious) take.

The only thing I'm "refusing" is your misinterpretation of what the lore of the expansion is.

Uh, I linked you to an article where Blizzard developers themselves said that Shadowlands was an expansion about death. You trying to attribute a nonexistent Necromancer class' themes to something beyond that is irrelevant.

The "frail spellcaster" theme and the poison-wielding theme. Those are two off the top of my head.

Only those two? I thought we were talking about Necromancers, not Venomancers.

And that fact is meaningless....

It's only "meaningless" because it blows your argument apart.

Since every class in WoW has a basis in WC3, and the vast majority of WoW classes (I think it's 10 out of 12) are directly based on WC3 heroes, wouldn't it make sense to point out that the last 2 WC3 heroes (the Tinker and Alchemist) have a very high chance of becoming part of a future class since every other WC3 hero has had their abilities placed in the class lineup in one form or another? It's also sort of interesting that not only is the entire kit of both the Tinker and Alchemist hero is nonexistent in the class (or profession) lineup, and that they are both Goblin based, and share a similar theme.

The simple truth of all of this is that you would have no issue with these facts if they supported a class concept you liked.

[username993720]

Yes, which is why I mentioned them by their race and said it would be a cool idea, meaning a class based on their race.

You've got the Blood Death Knight.

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

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

How did you get to this conclusion? Because there are other classes to use Necromancy or Archery? we already have 2 Fel and demonically-associated classes (Demon Hunters and Warlocks), 2 Holy users (Paladins and Priests), 2 Frost specialization (Death Knights and Mages), 2 Fire-themed specializations (Mages and Warlocks), 2 Shadowy-themed specializations (Priests and Rogues), 2 heavy-armored shield wielding classes (Warriors and Paladins), 2 Stealthy, energy and combat points users (Rogues and Druids), 2 elemental summoning classes (Shamans and Mages), 2 rage tanking specializations (Warriors and Druids) and 2 shadow DoT-based specializations (Priests and Warlocks). Paladins in lore are, literally, Priests who were trained in the art of war. meaning, they are a Priest and a Warrior mix. like a Dark Ranger would combine archery and necromancy.

Except the fact that they are already set to be allied races. They have a male and a female model, up-to-date animations and textures and some customization options. Through Shadowlands, we are helping their covenant to organize a rebellion against Denathrius, just like we helped allied races that became playable during BFA. if you don't see all those signs, you are blind. and why won't you want to play as a Vampire? we already have Werewolves. they would fit perfectly with the Blood Death Knight. FYI, the other covenant races will be playable as well (Kyrians, Sylvar and Gladiators). they didn't set the 4 of them for nothing. The only problem would be with Venthyr going out into the sun (which, they will probably fix for gameplay reasons, like forsaken using the light).

What expansion theme would a ranger fit?

Probably an elven-themed expansion, as it is what they have in common. why would elves pose a threat? that's a good question. we already had Nagas and Dark Rangers as antagonists. We're only left with the Night elven Priestess of the Moon. as of BFA, and Shadowlands, hints are being dropped about how dark and dangerous Tyrande became since she turned into a Night Warrior - implying a possible, future, fall to darkness (along with others who have taken the ritual). that's all i can come up with, as of right now.

what would a bard profession do?

Buff other players.
Collect soundtracks you can play.
Craft instruments as weapon transmogs.

Nobody cares about your tinker hero fetish

Not true. i care.
I just don't like him shitting on other potential classes.

[TheRevenantHero]

Yeah, none of your examples showcased similar mechanics. It's rather sad that you feel the need to lie about it in order to prove a nonexistent point.

Further, no one is talking about gameplay. In lore there is a Tinker hero with attributes and abilities not found in the engineering profession. That is fact.



Thank you for giving your opinion. Fortunately you don't speak for Blizzard.

I didn't lie about shit. The only one who is a liar is you. Other people called you out on refusing to accept that I was right.

And it's the only opinion that makes sense. Yours absolutely don't make any sense.

- - - Updated - - -

You've got the Blood Death Knight.



How did you get to this conclusion? Because there are other classes to use Necromancy or Archery? we already have 2 Fel and demonically-associated classes (Demon Hunters and Warlocks), 2 Holy users (Paladins and Priests), 2 Frost specialization (Death Knights and Mages), 2 Fire-themed specializations (Mages and Warlocks), 2 Shadowy-themed specializations (Priests and Rogues), 2 heavy-armored shield wielding classes (Warriors and Paladins), 2 Stealthy, energy and combat points users (Rogues and Druids), 2 elemental summoning classes (Shamans and Mages), 2 rage tanking specializations (Warriors and Druids) and 2 shadow DoT-based specializations (Priests and Warlocks).

Except the fact that they are already set to be allied races. They have a male and a female model, up-to-date animations and textures and some customization options. Through Shadowlands, we are helping their covenant to organize a rebellion against Denathrius, just like we helped allied races that became playable during BFA. if you don't see all those signs, you are blind. and why won't you want to play as a Vampire? we already have Werewolves. they would fit perfectly with the Blood Death Knight. FYI, the other covenant races will be playable as well (Kyrians, Sylvar and Gladiators). they didn't set the 4 of them for nothing. The only problem would be with Venthyr going out into the sun (which, they will probably fix for gameplay reasons, like forsaken using the light).



Probably an elven-themed expansion, as it is what they have in common. why would elves pose a threat? that's a good question. we already had Nagas and Dark Rangers as antagonists. We're only left with the Night elven Priestess of the Moon. as of BFA, and Shadowlands, hints are being dropped about how dark and dangerous Tyrande became since she turned into a Night Warrior - implying a possible, future, fall to darkness (along with other of her kind). that's all i can come up with, as of right now.



Buff other players.
Collect soundtracks you can play.
Craft instruments as weapon transmogs.



Not true. i care.
I just don't like him shitting on other potential classes.

Dark rangers don't use necromancy in lore. Only Sylvanas does because she is a unique case. Dark rangers use shadow magic.

They most certainly are not "set up to be allied race". That's 100% conjecture. Just because they have male and female models means NOTHING. There's male and female Withered. There's male and female Fal'dorei. There's male and female Naga. Need I really go on? And I play on roleplay servers. Worgen are absolute trash and I don't need more cringe turning the community into more of a dumpster fire.

[Teriz]

I didn't lie about shit. The only one who is a liar is you. Other people called you out on refusing to accept that I was right.

And it's the only opinion that makes sense. Yours absolutely don't make any sense.

The idea that an item is the same as an ability is an idiotic argument. I think you should let it go.

So you honestly believe that Blizzard hates Goblins and Gnomes like you do?

[username993720]

Dark rangers don't use necromancy in lore. Only Sylvanas does because she is a unique case. Dark rangers use shadow magic.

They most certainly are not "set up to be allied race". That's 100% conjecture. Just because they have male and female models means NOTHING. There's male and female Withered. There's male and female Fal'dorei. There's male and female Naga. Need I really go on? And I play on roleplay servers. Worgen are absolute trash and I don't need more cringe turning the community into more of a dumpster fire.

Skill(s): Archery, Necromancy.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Dark_ranger

Black Arrow
Adds extra damage to attacks.
Units killed while under the effect of Black Arrow will turn into Dark Minions.
Dark Minions: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Dark_Minion

Life Drain
Absorbs the life essence of a target enemy unit by taking hit points from it every second and giving them to the Dark Ranger.

Warlocks could leech life energy and power their own magical abilities. it is one of the necromantic abilities warlocks share with necromancers.

You can't just call it shadow magic. Shadow magic is either necromancy, demonic or void. and it's not the other two.

There aren't male and female Withered. You're probably talking about Nightfallen. and, by the way, we did get Nightborne. Saying we would get Nightfallen or Fal'dorei is like saying we would get Ash Ghoul or Gargoyle (which, have male and female) instead of Venthyr. it's not a mere male and female case. they also have to be on a playable model standard - which, means that they can't have six legs or be in a bad health condition. they would have to be able to wear gear, be 2-legged, have face animations and possess a high fidelity rig structure and textures. Nagas have armor issues, are missing legs, can't ride mounts and are not as animated as a playable model would be. your problems with roleplaying is of no concern to the major player population.

[ymirsson]

I'd be ok with Venthyr, as long as they can become tinkers.

[username993720]

Eh, not really. Venthyr’s seem to be more of a spell-casting race, not melee. While DK’s have the whole undead thing, I’d really like to see vampires, as mentioned before.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of Revendreth, how cool would their gargoyles be as a melee race/class!? That would be really neat, imo

Sire Denathrius' animated blade, Remornia, and Prince Renathal's animated blade, Vorpalia are, literally, the Blood Death Knight ability "Dancing Rune Weapon".

Now, you're just making up classes.

[Teriz]

Sire Denathrius' animated blade, Remornia, and Prince Renathal's animated blade, Vorpalia are, literally, the Blood Death Knight ability "Dancing Rune Weapon".

Now, you're just making up classes.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they're designed after Blood DKs, even down to their drinking of "blood".

Like if you're worried about them being brutes, make a skinny blood or Void elf DK and you won't be big and stocky at all. You'll be essentially a vampire knight.

[Shedaar]

I really hope you trolling now, since it was THE Teriz who comes to any thread and says "You have your Necromancer already, just put robe and stave on DK and done ; You have your dark ranger already, you remember how hunter was having DARK ARROW ability" and while people reply to him like "You have tinker already in game , just use engineering as hunter" and then Teriz goes all REEEEEEEEEEEE.

I chuckled so hard xDDDDD
I agree 100%

[Ethas]

Why more classes would be bad? They are cheap copies of each other now so clearly there is almost 0 concerns about balance.

Anything but Tinker. Tinker is a boring non-fantasy concept that should stay in background forever.

[Ielenia]

Saying that the background of every WoW class is "meaningless" is ignoring that background. Also how has it not shown to be relevant when it's present in every single WoW class?

It's not shown to be relevant because you haven't shown any evidence that this is nothing more than a correlation, a coincidence. It doesn't matter that all 3 classes so far had varying degrees of inspiration from Warcraft 3. It could also simply be a coincidence. To prove that WC3 is a mandatory requirement for class design... you need Blizzard saying so.

Until then, all you have is correlation. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, only one of the three had a list of abilities not present in current classes, and none of those abilities would be out of place in existing classes.

All three of them have lists of abilities not present in current classes. And no arcane or void ability would be "at home" in the warrior class. No void abilities would be "at home" in the mage class, either.

Which I never said. I said that a Riftblade is clearly a Void Elf version of the Warrior class. Also Shadow Priests exist.

No, the Riftblade is clearly a class of its own, because warriors don't have arcane and void abilities. Also: "warlocks exist" did not preclude demon hunters. "Priests exist" did not preclude paladins. Etc, etc.

Yes, instances of your character being referred to by your profession OUTSIDE of the profession. Anduin calls you a Shaman OUTSIDE of the Shaman class hall. Sylvanas calls you a Druid OUTSIDE of Moonglade. Why? Because your class is part of the hero's lore, the optional professions the player picks up are not.

In other words: you're moving goalposts, because you're now adding caveats that did not exist before.

You have a source for that assertion?

Alright. That is mostly an assertion considering we see guards training in Theramore, and it doesn't look any different than what a warrior does to train.

You do know that a Pirate can be an Assassin, a thief, and vice versa right?

They're still three separate themes.

So a Priest that worships the Light, and a Priest that worships the Old Gods is the same in lore?

That's an interesting (and hilarious) take.

Different types of priests, but priests nonetheless. Again: find me instances of your character being called by your spec (and I'll even add your own caveats) by important NPCs like Anduin, Sylvanas, Thrall, etc.

Uh, I linked you to an article where Blizzard developers themselves said that Shadowlands was an expansion about death. You trying to attribute a nonexistent Necromancer class' themes to something beyond that is irrelevant.

And anyone can read that and understand that this is an expansion about the afterlife, not undeath. Meaning necromancy classes do not fit.

Only those two? I thought we were talking about Necromancers, not Venomancers.

Your attempt at mockery only reflects poorly on you.

It's only "meaningless" because it blows your argument apart.

No, it doesn't. Like I wrote in the beginning of this post: you repeatedly failed to prove that what you have here is nothing but correlation, a coincidence.

[Teriz]

Why more classes would be bad? They are cheap copies of each other now so clearly there is almost 0 concerns about balance.

Anything but Tinker. Tinker is a boring non-fantasy concept that should stay in background forever.

The Tinker class is the one concept that wouldn't be a cheap copy of other classes, yet you find it a "boring non-fantasy concept" that shouldn't be implemented.

Yeah, that makes sense....