Is Blizzard using a "list" for future classes?

[Imperator4321]

Every WoW expansion eventually veers back into cosmic powers regardless of how grounded it appears. The most likely Tinker expansion revolves around Undermine. Undermine was originally conceived to be a continent in Vanilla WoW, but developers felt it would be too much work to put it into the game, so it was scrapped early in development. However, throughout the history of WoW it is brought up frequently in a variety of quests and NPCs who supposedly come from it.

You could have a WoW expansion start off in Undermine and over the course of the expansion other things pop up, such as "The War" the mysterious mechanical war taking place beneath the surface of Azeroth. You could also have a continuation of the Heart of Azeroth, since that's also underground. Within the Undermine lore itself there's the story of some sort of creature within Undermine that is believed to be an old God. Finally you always have the potential to encounter some sort of Titan facility beneath the surface of Azeroth. We could also slap on the retaking of Gnomeregan as a raid, bring in the expanded Gadgetzhan concept (first seen in Hearthstone, but there's no reason to not bring it into WoW), and maybe explore some nearby islands to Kezan like Tel'Abim.

Personally, I would like to see WoW deal with a mechanical threat like you see in popular science fiction. Terminator, Irobot, and Age of Ultron dealt with this concept, and it would be interesting to see WoW deal with it as well. Especially when you had glimpses of how destructive it could be with King Mechagon's device and MOTHER. You could tie the antagonist in the Blingtron war (IR-to) to this concept and make it a major antagonist.

In short, there's a lot you can do with an Undermine expansion, and still bring in the bigger cosmic threats.



Certainly, but the WC3 hero gave them a starting point to work off of. For example, look at how Brewing became a major aspect of each spec in MoP. Each spec had a system for brewing a unique potion that they could use in combat. In addition, multiple brew abilities and talents were given to the class. Not to mention the culture and style of the Pandaren race permeated the entire class. This gave the WoW Monk a very unique feel that a lot of people really enjoyed, and really made it feel different than a generic RPG Monk you see in other games.

Look at the situation with the Tinker; the class already has a good set of unique abilities and attributes. Not to mention that we even have a lore hero to focus the class around when it does enter the game. That solid foundation comes from using WC3 (and increasingly HotS) as the foundation for the classes.

Blizzard doesn't have to use WC3 as the foundation for their expansion classes, but I'm not seeing a reason they would deviate from doing it when it's been highly successful in the past, and they have a robust class concept from WC3 currently waiting in the wings.

- - - Updated - - -



Keep in mind, it won't be the SL team doing Dragon Isles if its the next expansion, it'll be the team who did Kul'tiras and Zandalar, which I'm fine with. I loved both those zones.

As for the possibility of a Dragon-themed class; I'm definitely for it if it allows us to actually be dragons. I have a sinking suspicion that instead we won't get a new class in Dragon isles, but we'll get more covenant style stuff to match up with the dragon flights. That honestly mirrors how Dragonsworn behaved in the old RPG game, and I could see Blizzard going that route.

And it would suck. People want to play as dragons!

I think a Titan related threat could be interesting we've technically had something similar with Lei Shen/Mogu and King Mechagon but they were always minor/side plots, not to mention we've been seeing a more ambigious/evil side to the Light and even Life (the evergrowth in WoD) a more villainous side to the Titans/Order could be an interesting main villain (and could be an avenue to introduce tinkers since titans are generally related somewhat to technology)

WoW usually done a decent job putting it's own spin on classic DnD archetypes, WoW priests compared the the usual priest/cleric archetype is actually pretty unique by not being procifient in melee and having shadow/mind based powers in addition to standing holy/healing abilities (which arguably makes it more akin to something like a psion in DnD than the typical cleric)

[Teriz]

I think a Titan related threat could be interesting we've technically had something similar with Lei Shen/Mogu and King Mechagon but they were always minor/side plots, not to mention we've been seeing a more ambigious/evil side to the Light and even Life (the evergrowth in WoD) a more villainous side to the Titans/Order could be an interesting main villain (and could be an avenue to introduce tinkers since titans are generally related somewhat to technology)

That's what makes "The War" very intriguing because we have no idea what is fighting against the Blingtrons, and the Blingtrons are supposedly Titan constructs similar to Mechagnomes. Also MOTHER consistently threatening to wipe out all organic life because of Old God corruption is also an interesting angle that could be taken by this mechanical threat.

WoW usually done a decent job putting it's own spin on classic DnD archetypes, WoW priests compared the the usual priest/cleric archetype is actually pretty unique by not being procifient in melee and having shadow/mind based powers in addition to standing holy/healing abilities (which arguably makes it more akin to something like a psion in DnD than the typical cleric)

Yeah, I really liked how they linked Shadow Priests with the Old Gods. It really gave the spec it's own identity while still adhering to the general themes of the Priest class (worship/devotion of a cosmic power).

BTW to go back to the debate around Blizzard not having to use WC3 concepts for class creation, I think it's VERY telling that given all of the Dark/Death class concepts possible in RPGs, Blizzard still couldn't find a class concept fitting for this expansion. Dark Rangers and Necromancers were pretty obvious, but the idea that Blizzard couldn't think of ANY class for this expansion....? To me that shows that their class creation process is heavily tied to something, and it just might be WC3.

[Eurhetemec]

Keep in mind, it won't be the SL team doing Dragon Isles if its the next expansion, it'll be the team who did Kul'tiras and Zandalar, which I'm fine with. I loved both those zones.

As for the possibility of a Dragon-themed class; I'm definitely for it if it allows us to actually be dragons. I have a sinking suspicion that instead we won't get a new class in Dragon isles, but we'll get more covenant style stuff to match up with the dragon flights. That honestly mirrors how Dragonsworn behaved in the old RPG game, and I could see Blizzard going that route.

And it would suck. People want to play as dragons!

I don't really buy this A-team/B-team theory people have going. There's no sense that SL wasn't made by the people who made BfA, and that goes back until WoD, which didn't feel like it was made by the same people at Cataclysm/MoP, and Cataclysm/MoP didn't feel like it was the same people as Vanilla-WotLK. But there's a clear explanation for that - WoD was when they doubled the size of the WoW team, which had gone down to like 100 people by Cataclysm, and the team is now even bigger than that. And WotLK to Cataclysm saw big changes in the decision-makers.

Furthermore, the leadership in all the departments is clearly not split, and there's no evidence to support the idea that there's any kind of actual, fixed, "two team" thing going on at Blizzard with WoW. The entire idea seems to stem from a misunderstanding of a single off-hand comment some years ago, which people Pepe Silvia'd into this massive deal. Blizzard has a bunch of teams, but each is assigned to 1 game at a time. WoW's team is team 2 and always has been.

The art design, for example, has steadily improved since WoD - there wasn't much improvement TBC-MoP. Technically there was some, but no big jumps - then WoD, visual-design-wise, is an actual jump, and Legion/BfA/SL have been steady and notable improvements, expansion on expansion. Same with the quest design, and leveling design, and so on. The only issues I can see are ones related to leadership decisions about endgame stuff, but that's not A/B-Team, that's just a person at the top okaying a bad idea. If there were two separate teams you'd expect to see art and quest design discontinuities, but that's definitely not the case. Nor would it make any sense at all for an MMORPG. That's just not a viable way to develop them.

For an example of an MMO that tried that approach one can look at Destiny/Destiny 2, where Destiny 2 was actually a missing a ton of features/fixes/refinements from Destiny 1, because the team working on maintaining and updating Destiny 1 was genuinely different to the one on Destiny 2. WoW doesn't work like that and never has.

I suspect the reality is that they have a part of their art and design teams that is continually working on "further future" content, and a part that is working on nearer content, but there's no reason to believe those teams would "swap" or anything. It wouldn't make sense to how an MMO like WoW operates. Especially not given the extremely long "content pipeline" WoW has always had, and still has. The entire concept of a content pipeline doesn't work with teams swapping around.

[Teriz]

I just realized that Goblins are the only race in WoW who can’t play a true hybrid (heal/DPS/tank) class. That would be Monks, Paladin, or Druid.

That’s quite interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really buy this A-team/B-team theory people have going. There's no sense that SL wasn't made by the people who made BfA, and that goes back until WoD, which didn't feel like it was made by the same people at Cataclysm/MoP, and Cataclysm/MoP didn't feel like it was the same people as Vanilla-WotLK. But there's a clear explanation for that - WoD was when they doubled the size of the WoW team, which had gone down to like 100 people by Cataclysm, and the team is now even bigger than that. And WotLK to Cataclysm saw big changes in the decision-makers.

Furthermore, the leadership in all the departments is clearly not split, and there's no evidence to support the idea that there's any kind of actual, fixed, "two team" thing going on at Blizzard with WoW. The entire idea seems to stem from a misunderstanding of a single off-hand comment some years ago, which people Pepe Silvia'd into this massive deal. Blizzard has a bunch of teams, but each is assigned to 1 game at a time. WoW's team is team 2 and always has been.

The art design, for example, has steadily improved since WoD - there wasn't much improvement TBC-MoP. Technically there was some, but no big jumps - then WoD, visual-design-wise, is an actual jump, and Legion/BfA/SL have been steady and notable improvements, expansion on expansion. Same with the quest design, and leveling design, and so on. The only issues I can see are ones related to leadership decisions about endgame stuff, but that's not A/B-Team, that's just a person at the top okaying a bad idea. If there were two separate teams you'd expect to see art and quest design discontinuities, but that's definitely not the case. Nor would it make any sense at all for an MMORPG. That's just not a viable way to develop them.

For an example of an MMO that tried that approach one can look at Destiny/Destiny 2, where Destiny 2 was actually a missing a ton of features/fixes/refinements from Destiny 1, because the team working on maintaining and updating Destiny 1 was genuinely different to the one on Destiny 2. WoW doesn't work like that and never has.

I suspect the reality is that they have a part of their art and design teams that is continually working on "further future" content, and a part that is working on nearer content, but there's no reason to believe those teams would "swap" or anything. It wouldn't make sense to how an MMO like WoW operates. Especially not given the extremely long "content pipeline" WoW has always had, and still has. The entire concept of a content pipeline doesn't work with teams swapping around.

Great points. You're probably right about that.

[Ielenia]

Except Dragonsworn has never been shown to be anything other than what Druids and Mages currently are.

Runemaster was rolled into the Death Knight class. Like the Necromancer, the chances of this class entering the game is slim to zero. It doesn't help that they were similar to monks in the tabletop RPG, and we already have a Monk class.

Bard has never appeared as a class or as a hero in any Warcraft RTS or RPG game. So the idea that they're a contender is nonsense.

When you take all of that into account, it is clear that the Tinker class is the frontrunner.

The problem with you when discussing class ideas is that you assume as fact that Blizzard either completely lacks the creativity necessary to create something new, or is somehow chained to the Warcraft 3 game in terms of what they can make, to the point that there's a gun to their heads that will shoot the moment they stray even slightly from what is in the Warcraft 3 game. On top of that, you have heavy bias toward the tinker class, and heavy bias against any and all other class ideas.

And you have repeatedly shown to NOT be a reliable barometer regarding which classes are "frontrunners" and which classes are "not happening", considering you kept saying that demon hunters would not happen... and yet they did. Yes, the warlock may have lost the 'metamorphosis' ability, but guess what? Even with all the "qualities" you claim make the tinker the "frontrunner" for the next class... three other classes have been added into the game before the tinker. Even one you swore left and right would not happen because it "would cannibalize" the warlock class.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and the reason is because they chose not to.

And the reason they chose not to, perhaps it was because none fit the story and theme being told, like they said?

The way the story already plays out is practically madlibs. Look how easy it would be to swap out Baine having his life threatened by the jailer with a new class leader instead.

And then we have the question of why would this (bard/necromancer/tinker/whatever) character be kidnapped in the first place, considering that Baine, Jaina, Anduin and Thrall likely were chosen specifically for being the figureheads who worked against Sylvanas. I doubt they were chosen by chance. So now we would need some rather ham-fisted, likely shoe-horned backstory to explain why a character that has not existed in the lore up to this point has earned the ire of Sylvanas to the level that Baine and friends have.

[Teriz]

Yes, the warlock may have lost the 'metamorphosis' ability, but guess what? Even with all the "qualities" you claim make the tinker the "frontrunner" for the next class... three other classes have been added into the game before the tinker. Even one you swore left and right would not happen because it "would cannibalize" the warlock class.

Yes, all three came from WC3, and all three had the "qualities" that the Tinker currently possesses over those other concepts.

As for what happened with Demon Hunters, you'll excuse me if I didn't believe Blizzard would remove a popular spec from one class just to bring another one into the game. Yeah they did that, and there's still some anger about that. Which is probably why the Necromancer idea was never as popular as the Tinker; Players didn't want that situation to happen again to the Death Knight or Warlock class. Further, I think what's happening now with the DH class in terms of balance is a good reason why you need more than 2 specs for a class.

[Triceron]

And the reason they chose not to, perhaps it was because none fit the story and theme being told, like they said?


And then we have the question of why would this (bard/necromancer/tinker/whatever) character be kidnapped in the first place, considering that Baine, Jaina, Anduin and Thrall likely were chosen specifically for being the figureheads who worked against Sylvanas. I doubt they were chosen by chance. So now we would need some rather ham-fisted, likely shoe-horned backstory to explain why a character that has not existed in the lore up to this point has earned the ire of Sylvanas to the level that Baine and friends have.

Why does it have to be a character who has not existed?

We have Dark Rangers in lore who already lost their purpose since Sylvanas' betrayal. We have Necromancers who may have chosen to become loyal to Bolvar (or the missing Margrave) over the Jailer despite the recent power shift, allowing these characters a redemption arc. Have a Dark Ranger leader be caught by Jailer for attempting to kill Sylvanas. Have a Necromancer leader be caught refusing to invade the Alliance and Horde cities and revealing secrets to them that allowed major characters to survive thus far in the Maw/Shadowlands.

Enemy of our enemy is our friend is how most factions get added to the game. That you consider it 'hamfisted' doesn't really mean anything, just look at how easily Anduin and all the faction leaders get conveniently kidnapped at the start of the expansion. Is there anything specific in the story that required Baine to be caught by the Jailer instead of any other character? Would the story change mich had it been any other character in his place? No, not really. There is nothing specific to Baine.

Any formal allliance would have been established before the kidnappings, like Dark Ranger leader or Necromancer leader coming straight to the faction leaders (using liasons) to provide secret information or asking to formally join the ranks to fight their common enemy. After that, the class leader being kidnapped would elevate them to plot-worthy status alongside the main characters

Having a character personally addressed by the Jailer at the same time the other faction leaders are kidnapped will give that character purpose in the story, and a connection thar they are considered a threat to the Jailer on the level of the faction leaders. This helps root any new character into the plot without having to shoe-horn anything. Jailer simply gives his typical evil villain 'Nothing will get in my way' monologue while the heroes save the Class Leader. Done.

The possibility is there.

[Teriz]

Those of you wanting to be a plague spreader, this armor from Revendreth is for you;



Affliction Warlocks would be the perfect fit for this.

[Ielenia]

Why does it have to be a character who has not existed?

It doesn't change the overall question, though: why would this character be chosen to be kidnapped together with Jaina, Baine, Thrall and Anduin, or in place of one of them? Again, the reason most of us can infer as for why those two were kidnapped was because those were the figureheads working against her with Saurfang.

So, again: why would this character that has been shown to do anything against Sylvanas be picked for being kidnapped along with the others?

- - - Updated - - -

Those of you wanting to be a plague spreader, this armor from Revendreth is for you;

https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/scree...mal/933344.jpg

Affliction Warlocks would be the perfect fit for this.

Those of you wanting to be a tinker, this armor from Cataclysm is for you:



It has tech goggles, it has a cog on the belt, and moving cogs on the shoulders. Or perhaps, if you wanted to play as a demon hunter prior to Legion, this armor set from Mists of Pandaria's challenge mode was for you:

[Teriz]

Those of you wanting to be a tinker, this armor from Cataclysm is for you:



It has tech goggles, it has a cog on the belt, and moving cogs on the shoulders.

Yet you're still a mage casting spells. Also that set was based on time. That plague set is actually based on Apothecary.

Or perhaps, if you wanted to play as a demon hunter prior to Legion, this armor set from Mists of Pandaria's challenge mode was for you:

To be fair, in MoP Warlocks had metamorphosis and Dark Apotheosis, so they were pretty much Demon Hunters.

[jellmoo]

Probably because mechanically they overlap too much with Warlock and Mage, and thematically with DK.

They absolutely don't have to though. There's a bunch of different ways to build a class mechanically so that it's unique and has a playstyle that works.

Thematically it's not terribly different than existing classes that are already very similar, even to the point of having specs with the same name.

[Triceron]

It doesn't change the overall question, though: why would this character be chosen to be kidnapped together with Jaina, Baine, Thrall and Anduin, or in place of one of them? Again, the reason most of us can infer as for why those two were kidnapped was because those were the figureheads working against her with Saurfang.

So, again: why would this character that has been shown to do anything against Sylvanas be picked for being kidnapped along with the others?

I already explained how they fit into the story. Its literally the same as any Class Faction or Race story that we had.

1: New Class Leader was actively working on the Sylvanas/Jailer side and chose to enact revenge; motivated by revenge or otherwise. Dark Rangers have a reason already due to abandonment; they could have tracked Sylvanas back to the Shadowlands. Necromancers and Cult of the Damned are explained to have joined forces with the Jailer; there could be a separate group that wishes to stay allied with Bolvar or the missing Margrave. Either way, they see the Alliance and Horde as the key to stopping the Jailer/Sylvanas, namely due to the events of BFA.

2: This character rallies loyalists to interfere with Sylvanas and Jailers plans. A connection is established to reach out to the Alliance and Horde, making a formal introduction. Starting zone would explain the full backstory, the betrayals they incurred and some connection to the Alliance and Horde leaders. The story could go any direction; A/H could openly welcome them or mistrust them; either way the kidnapped leaders will force them into trusting the faction to get help similar to Alliance and Horde trusting Death Knights or Demon Hunters during a time of necessity. Again, enemy of our enemy.

The reason to do anything to Sylvanas and the Jailer would all be explained in the class starting zone, exactly as we got Darion's formal introduction and the explanation of why the two Demon Hunters end up helping the Alliance and Horde after being freed. All motivations will be explained there, and would conclude with the Class Leader going off to enact some sort of revenge/double cross and end up getting caught for it. This could even be as simply as having Dark Rangers or Necromancers take the place of the Death Knights opening the portal into the Shadowlands; simply have it be them that provides some 'key' that allows Bolvar to bridge the rest of the connection.

I mean, this is literally a pattern used for numerous Races, Class factions and even Neutral factions joining/helping the Alliance and Horde. We've seen it a million times, I'm surprised you can't seem to fill in the blanks yourself. A Class Faction doesn't have to be any more important than say Worgen or Pandaren or even Hozen participating in the story. Just having a starting zone and some minimal presence in the plot is enough. We didn't need Worgen and Goblins taking front stage against Deathwing right?. They don't even have to have direct ties to the ongoing plot; Monks had no direct relation to the Siege of Orgrimmar. 'Revenge against Garrosh' was a motivation that everyone shared throughout Pandaria and that was more than enough reason to keep them as allies. Here, the starting zone would establish a "Revenge against X" motivation, choosing to join the Alliance and Horde for support, and the rest writes itself.

[Teriz]

They absolutely don't have to though. There's a bunch of different ways to build a class mechanically so that it's unique and has a playstyle that works.

Thematically it's not terribly different than existing classes that are already very similar, even to the point of having specs with the same name.

They would have to if they're adhering to WC3 and not deviating from the heroes and units in that game. If that's the case, there's no need to create a new Necromancer class, it's already in the game as the Death Knight. For Dark Rangers, Blizzard has gone above and beyond to show that they're no more than Forsaken Hunters.

[Traveler Voltin]

They absolutely don't have to though. There's a bunch of different ways to build a class mechanically so that it's unique and has a playstyle that works.

Thematically it's not terribly different than existing classes that are already very similar, even to the point of having specs with the same name.

how would you make a necromancer then that doesnt focus on Undead minions and plagues?

[Triceron]

Well there’s no telling how much an expansion needs to fit a class’ theme in order for them to implement it. If Undermine for example is the main continent of an expansion, then that’s obvious. However what if an expansion has something like Mechagon in one patch? Does that warrant a Tinker class? I suppose it’s up to Blizzard to decide.

To be honest it doesn't warrant a Tinker class, because Undermine is already tied to Goblin race lore. There's nothing specific about tying any of that to an actual class; its representatives are already well established within the Alliance and Horde. It's kinda like suggesting if WoD's Iron Horde theme warranted a 'Siegecrafter' type class; it doesn't since the setting and story was more about the Mag'har, Draenei and the eventual Legion invasion more than any specific class.

Death Knights, Pandaren Monks and Demon Hunters were all foreign to the Alliance and Horde, which made sense to be introduced. Tinkers however are already in the Alliance and Horde since they're just Gnome and Goblin Engineers. Mechagon could have been the prime opportunity, but it was already introduced without the need for any new class. What we did get instead was more Gnome lore.

If we get to explore Undermine, then it's just establishing more lore for the Goblins (and to an extent, Gnomes). We'd have to establish a full tech theme of the entire expansion for Tinkers to fit the setting and story. Undermine isn't solely rooted in Technology, considering the Goblins society is rooted in economics more than anything. They're led by Trade Princes and corporations, so even an Undermine expansion wouldn't be as exclusively tech-themed as Mechagon would have been; and we already have Mechagon.


It's why I don't give much credence to the Blizzard dev's explanation of no class 'jumping out' at the story and setting as some kind of definitive against new classes. If it were some kind of rule then it works against Tinkers just as much as it works against practically any other class that has a lesser connection than Demon Hunters to Legion. At that point, it seems like Dragonsworn are the only viable option since a Dragon-themed expansion is the most likely future candidate at this point in time.

I think any class can fit any expansion regardless of theme, setting or story. Just treat it like Vanilla WoW where the worldly threats aren't specific to any one class, and the classes are participants in a collective effort to defend the world/fight the enemy. It's not like Ragnaros was specific to Shamans, why do Tinkers and Necromancers have to be specific to anything in the story? It honestly shouldn't.

[Agrossive]

Expansion based classes are so frustrating to me. Its why I never play DK, DH or Monk. It feels like your playing old content because its to closely tied to the old expansions.

[Ielenia]

I already explained how they fit into the story. Its literally the same as any Class Faction or Race story that we had.

And all of that, like I've said since the beginning: would require a massive rewrite of the story so far.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, in MoP Warlocks had metamorphosis and Dark Apotheosis, so they were pretty much Demon Hunters.

And knowing what we know today, what does that tell you? Let me spell it out for you: pointing at transmog sets mean nothing. Even back in MoP, even with that transmog set, even with the warlock having metamorphosis, you still couldn't play as a demon hunter. Just like today you cannot play as a necromancer, even with an unholy death knight that wears that transmog set.

- - - Updated - - -

They would have to if they're adhering to WC3 and not deviating from the heroes and units in that game.

First: all you have is correlation to your claim that they are "adhering to WC3", and I've explained, time and again, why this is a nonsensical and meaningless restriction. Blizzard would be stupid to restrict their creative sources solely on a single game they developed almost twenty years ago.

Second: even if that was true, you're still wrong, because even if Blizzard is strictly adhering to WC3 as their creative source, even then the necromancer class could be made mechanically different from existing classes.

[Triceron]

And all of that, like I've said since the beginning: would require a massive rewrite of the story so far.

But that is not what you said.

You said it did not *fit* the story. There is nothing that suggests they couldn't or wouldn't fit.

It's like if you said a cure to the Worgen Curse doesn't fit the story. That is an empty statement since there is nothing actually preventing it from being introduced in the story; just saying 'it would require massive rewrites' doesn't excuse this.


As I said, the explanation and insertion of any new class could happen *ANY* time during an expansion. I simply answered you with an example of how they could be introduced *at the start* of Shadowlands if it were to happen. You didn't specify an example had to accomodate existing lore.

If you're talking about future content, then they could be introduced mid-expansion the same way Mechagnomes and Mechagon were introduced. Just add a new subzone that is relevant to both new content and the new class, and give some relevance to the Dark Rangers or Necromancers wanting to fight back. All the other anachronicities are as unimportant as the lack of explanation for why Mechagnomes exist in the Alliance/Horde content prior to BFA when we first visit Mechagon.

[jellmoo]

They would have to if they're adhering to WC3 and not deviating from the heroes and units in that game. If that's the case, there's no need to create a new Necromancer class, it's already in the game as the Death Knight. For Dark Rangers, Blizzard has gone above and beyond to show that they're no more than Forsaken Hunters.

Considering that they are under no obligation to base a new class on what was present in a different game it really isn't an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

how would you make a necromancer then that doesnt focus on Undead minions and plagues?

Why would you have to? We already have classes that essentially do the same thing or have a similar shtick. This isn't any different. There is already thematic overlap in the game and the classes come out just fine.

[Traveler Voltin]

Why would you have to? We already have classes that essentially do the same thing or have a similar shtick. This isn't any different. There is already thematic overlap in the game and the classes come out just fine.

so you dont understand anything. got it