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

[AngerFork]

I wouldn't say Tinkers are unlikely at all. They have a lot of potential and promise to them, so long as they aren't exclusive to Goblins and Gnomes (and their allied race variants). The idea of a Tech-user class has plenty of material to work with in WoW.

Personally I'd be interested in seeing what Blizzard could do with an all new concept that hasn't been seen in WoW, like Dragonsworn. I wouldn't mind something completely out of left field, since they are the ones who were able to create such iconic classes like Demon Hunters and Wardens and Dark Rangers in the first place. I feel like we're in dire need of seeing something new and iconic. Too many unique designs have been left for NPCs and Bosses instead of our own player classes.

If we don't wind up with Tinkers (which I agree still are by no means unlikely), I'd love to see Dragonsworn. I feel like it's a mostly empty base to work with, so they can really shape and mold it to properly fit the style of the expansion to come. It seems a lot like Monk when it was first introduced...a vague idea of a Brewmaster, but otherwise open to interpretation. It would fit great in with any sort of Dragonflight/Dragon Isles style expansion and would really reinforce the idea of fantasy within WoW.

Pending how they are envisioned, they'd likely have some really cool customization options as well. Scars, markings, eyes, visual implements (like Deathwing's jaw)...stuff like that. And if they do have some sort of dragon/whelp form that is used within combat, you could do a ton with that. Perhaps specs are done by flight, for instance.

[Tsamane]

I would like to see a class that uses wand auto attacks with a mix of spells
So a hunter, but with cloth and no pet. Also wands and not bows/guns

[Teriz]

I know this is a response to someone else, but wanted to note that I completely agree on this spot. Engineering is about making small gadgets to enhance your main fighting style and simplify your life. Portable mailboxes, small belt shield generators, wormhole generators, etc. Tinkers do everything through technology. Bombs, potions, weaponry, protective mech suits. Tinkers are IMO as related to Engineering as Rogues are to Alchemy.

Agreed.

I guess this is where I don't see a ton of difference between control styles. Draenei have shown direct control over their constructs as well, as have most races with golems/constructs/etc. I do think a Nightborne Tinker would be solid, even with adaptations to the designs.

Check out Nightborne artificers and some of their mechanical bosses you encountered in Legion. I think there's definitely potential there. If Blizzard wants to bring Artificers into a tech class, they could utilize some stuff from those concepts.

The base we see is pretty primitive looking to be sure, but they have definitely not lost the technical touch. You can see their tech on display during the Horde invasion of Tiragarde when you drive a giant Iron Star to end the invasion chain. It's debatable how much time they would've had to learn and update the tech before the Lightbound stomping, but the lessons have not been lost.

Yeah, I just don't see it. Blizzard made it a point to stress the more savage and primitive aspects of the Magh'ar, and their purpose as a race is to be a more "pure" variety of Orc before their demonic corruption. So I just don't see them becoming some sort of new Iron Horde. I'll also remind folks that the more advanced aspects of the Iron Horde came from Goblins, not Orcs.

I definitely think Night Elves should stay away from Tinker, it's very counter to their culture. I'm iffy on Void Elves, particularly as it would be hard to pilot a machine with voices yelling at you all the time. But I'm very curious why not Blood Elves from a lore perspective. From a racial balance perspective, I do get it some (lots of Blood Elves out there), but is there any other reason that they specifically wouldn't fit?

I just feel that other races deserve some shine. Nightborne for example really don't have anything unique about them, and their population numbers kind of reflect that. Giving Nightborne a tech angle would be a good thing for their race, and provide a decent counter-point to LF Draenei artificers on the Alliance side.

For sure. If we get Tinkers, I see no way those three races aren't included alongside another Horde race to at least even out the pairings.

Yeah those three are no-brainers. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it's just those three races and that's it. However, I simply don't see a scenario where Blizzard doesn't give the Tinker to Vulpera as well. It's a win-win on multiple levels.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes because mech-based tinkers are something every single race can do and makes it impossible for you to say it should ONLY be gnome and goblins

Oh? Where's the Human/Blood Elf/Void Elf/Night Elf/Worgen/Dwarf/Orc/Troll/Tauren/Undead/etc. built mechs at then?

- - - Updated - - -

I think the idea of a technology class has potential just divorced from being gnome/goblin focused encompassing a more general/less whimsical and comedic style of technology, mostly because while that style has appeal to some the class would be the absolute butt of every joke if it was about summoning explosive robot chickens or having a silly looking attached to your back

I think this is a good discussion to have; Should such a class concept be divorced from being Gnome/Goblin centric, or is part of the appeal of this concept in a sword and sorcery game is its whimsical/wild nature? Would a more serious take on technology be more appealing to the masses, or does the more crazy aspects of Gnomish/Goblin technology allow the concept to stand out more?

I mean personally this;




Is quite appealing to me. It just seems like a lot of whacky fun. I don't need everything to be serious and brooding. Sometimes I just want to turn enemies into robotic chickens and blow them up. I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

[Imperator4321]

Here's the difference though; All Druids despite their racial background have the same ability set. All Paladins despite their racial backgrounds also have the same ability set.

For a technology class, you're going to need art assets for each ability. For example, let's say the Tinker has Cluster Rockets;




Among Goblins and Gnomes, their mechs firing Rockets or Missiles are fine, because it fits the style of their tech. However, Rockets and Missiles wouldn't work for a magitech style user like LF Draenei, they would require something akin to Arcane missiles such as this;



Will Blizzard create an entirely different set of art assets for Draenei or Nightborne artificers? I don't think so.

Theres already plenty of existing art assets for magical fire missiles and ultimately the actual missile part while it's in flight is the least impactful part of the abilities visuals but the explosion part which would be identical regardless of it it was created by an magitech crystal or a chemical reaction is, same with something like a flamethrower or bombs, only thing i could imagine being different is Lightforged Draenei who would have to have more holyfire based visuals but that wouldn't necessitate anything for than a color change akin to green fire for warlocks.

Stuff like pocket factory esque abilities can swap clockwork goblin or mechagnomes (the titanforge version) for something like fire elementals (or lightspawns for LF draenei) or mirror images, dwarves could use something like the iron dwarf model. There would have to be new models created for races like Orcs, Humans or Forsaken if they got a Tinker (or whatever the class would be called)

Or even just not make it something that requires a unique model why build something in your likeness if it's just going to explode, theres examples of mobile robot bombs that aren't made in the likeness of animals or themselves like these crawler mines from the Motherlode https://www.wowhead.com/npc=133482/crawler-mine

I'd even suggest allowing Gnomes and Goblins the option to opt in for more magitech based visuals with something like Azerite based technology which is crystal based and would more magical visuals (albiet blue and gold instead of purples and red/orange that nightborne/blood elves and draenei would use) if they wanted a more magitech style. (i'd prefer this as a glyph set or green fire option though Gnome and Goblin steampunk tech should be represented as the default for those races)

Let's flip this back to Tinkers; The WC3 hero is the Goblin Tinker, so it stands to reason that a class based on that hero is going to be Goblin-centric.

The Death Knights in WC3 were all fallen (not undead) human paladins even the generic ones per their description (and were even initially called anti-paladins in the alpha and beta), yet that concept was completely dropped and they were made undead heroes from all of the races, if Blizzard followed your philosophy with Tinkers with Death Knight then the Death Knight class would have been unavailable to every race that couldn't be Paladins because the WC3 Death Knight was explicitly based on the concept of a fallen paladin.

[TheRevenantHero]

Agreed.




Check out Nightborne artificers and some of their mechanical bosses you encountered in Legion. I think there's definitely potential there. If Blizzard wants to bring Artificers into a tech class, they could utilize some stuff from those concepts.



Yeah, I just don't see it. Blizzard made it a point to stress the more savage and primitive aspects of the Magh'ar, and their purpose as a race is to be a more "pure" variety of Orc before their demonic corruption. So I just don't see them becoming some sort of new Iron Horde. I'll also remind folks that the more advanced aspects of the Iron Horde came from Goblins, not Orcs.




I just feel that other races deserve some shine. Nightborne for example really don't have anything unique about them, and their population numbers kind of reflect that. Giving Nightborne a tech angle would be a good thing for their race, and provide a decent counter-point to LF Draenei artificers on the Alliance side.



Yeah those three are no-brainers. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it's just those three races and that's it. However, I simply don't see a scenario where Blizzard doesn't give the Tinker to Vulpera as well. It's a win-win on multiple levels.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh? Where's the Human/Blood Elf/Void Elf/Night Elf/Worgen/Dwarf/Orc/Troll/Tauren/Undead/etc. built mechs at then?

- - - Updated - - -



I think this is a good discussion to have; Should such a class concept be divorced from being Gnome/Goblin centric, or is part of the appeal of this concept in a sword and sorcery game is its whimsical/wild nature? Would a more serious take on technology be more appealing to the masses, or does the more crazy aspects of Gnomish/Goblin technology allow the concept to stand out more?

I mean personally this;




Is quite appealing to me. It just seems like a lot of whacky fun. I don't need everything to be serious and brooding. Sometimes I just want to turn enemies into robotic chickens and blow them up. I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

Any race is capable of building a mech. If goblins, gnomes, blood elves, nightborne and draenei can do it then any race can.

[Teriz]

Theres already plenty of existing art assets for magical fire missiles and ultimately the actual missile part while it's in flight is the least impactful part of the abilities visuals but the explosion part which would be identical regardless of it it was created by an magitech crystal or a chemical reaction is, same with something like a flamethrower or bombs, only thing i could imagine being different is Lightforged Draenei who would have to have more holyfire based visuals but that wouldn't necessitate anything for than a color change akin to green fire for warlocks.

Stuff like pocket factory esque abilities can swap clockwork goblin or mechagnomes (the titanforge version) for something like fire elementals (or lightspawns for LF draenei) or mirror images, dwarves could use something like the iron dwarf model. There would have to be new models created for races like Orcs, Humans or Forsaken if they got a Tinker (or whatever the class would be called)

Or even just not make it something that requires a unique model why build something in your likeness if it's just going to explode, theres examples of mobile robot bombs that aren't made in the likeness of animals or themselves like these crawler mines from the Motherlode https://www.wowhead.com/npc=133482/crawler-mine

I'd even suggest allowing Gnomes and Goblins the option to opt in for more magitech based visuals with something like Azerite based technology which is crystal based and would more magical visuals (albiet blue and gold instead of purples and red/orange that nightborne/blood elves and draenei would use) if they wanted a more magitech style. (i'd prefer this as a glyph set or green fire option though Gnome and Goblin steampunk tech should be represented as well)

So you think Blizzard will make different assets for Magitech and Mechanical? Interesting take, and thank you for answering.

The Death Knights in WC3 were all fallen (not undead) human paladins even the generic ones per their description (and were even initially called anti-paladins in the alpha and beta), yet that concept was completely dropped and they were made undead heroes from all of the races, if Blizzard followed your philosophy with Tinkers with Death Knight then the Death Knight class would have been unavailable to every race that couldn't be Paladins because the WC3 Death Knight was explicitly based on the concept of a fallen paladin.

While the general concept was altered, ALL of the WC3 abilities from the DK were moved over to WoW along with abilities from multiple WC3 undead units. Again, it stands to reason that a Tinker class would also retain the abilities from the Goblin Tinker and HotS Gazlowe. Blizzard could possibly even pull from the Goblin Alchemist hero as well. Again, all of these abilities are highly Goblin-centric.

- - - Updated - - -

Any race is capable of building a mech. If goblins, gnomes, blood elves, nightborne and draenei can do it then any race can.

What mechs have Blood Elves built?

[Diaphin]

I think the idea of a technology class has potential just divorced from being gnome/goblin focused encompassing a more general/less whimsical and comedic style of technology, mostly because while that style has appeal to some the class would be the absolute butt of every joke if it was about summoning explosive robot chickens or having a silly looking attached to your back

Something more general and appealing that could capture different types of technology (or just skilled inventors in general), mechs, explosives and things like forsaken style alchemy has a a decently broad range of potential specs and gameplay styles (tanking, ranged dps, healing) while also being open to a decent variety of races (dwarves, gnomes, goblins, orcs, nightborne, blood elves, forsaken, draenei and maybe even humans)

Dark Ranger to me and just too narrow in concept and potential abilities even if we take Sylvanas as inspiration, the skilled marksman concept is already ingrained in the Marksman Hunter, Mind manipulation/shadow in shadow priest, and undead raising in Unholy DK, Even if all of them are made mawsworn banshee archers (basically just a mashup of Shadow Priest, Unholy DK and Marksman Hunter) theres only enough material there for really a single spec (honestly can't see Dark Ranger as a tanking or healing class) and a single spec dps class spec is something I just can't see Blizzard making

Can't speak on where i see Sylvanas going as a character, personally i'm thinking they're going to make her a misguided, misled person with potentially justified motives but still a flawed person Think she'll either get some afterlife of her own in the shadowlands or get sent to revendreth (which is honestly where she belongs)

Every argument you made could be applied to most classes. We don't need Monks or Demon Hunters as agile melee combat classes because combat/outlaw rogues already fill that spot. We don't need either shadow priests nor DKs because we already have one dark alligned class in the form of the Warlock. We don't really need Paladins and DKs either, because we already have warriors being two handed plate fighters and with Paladins, we already have priests for using holy magic. The combination of death magic, banshee abilities and possibly blight based abilities on a ranged fighter is still something new.

Dark Rangers also follow the formular of DKs and DHs, the more successful expansion feature classes, more. They are dark heroes based on an iconic Warcraft character. Tinkers are whimsical and have no character cared for by the broader community to call their own. They are follongly more closely the formular of monks, who generated no enthusiasm at all during their release.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd kill for Dragonsworn to become the new class tbh.

Isn't that concept purely from the P&P books?

[Dellis0991]

Tinker or bard.

[TheRevenantHero]

Every argument you made could be applied to most classes. We don't need Monks or Demon Hunters as agile melee combat classes because combat/outlaw rogues already fill that spot. We don't need either shadow priests nor DKs because we already have one dark alligned class in the form of the Warlock. We don't really need Paladins and DKs either, because we already have warriors being two handed plate fighters and with Paladins, we already have priests for using holy magic. The combination of death magic, banshee abilities and possibly blight based abilities on a ranged fighter is still something new.

Dark Rangers also follow the formular of DKs and DHs, the more successful expansion feature classes, more. They are dark heroes based on an iconic Warcraft character. Tinkers are whimsical and have no character cared for by the broader community to call their own. They are follongly more closely the formular of monks, who generated no enthusiasm at all during their release.

- - - Updated - - -



Isn't that concept purely from the P&P books?

Dragonsworn was a class in the now non-canon RPG. But it was a really cool concept that I'd love for them to make canon again because it was all about having a dragon patron that imbued you with draconic powers. I need me some dragoons in Wow lol

- - - Updated - - -

So you think Blizzard will make different assets for Magitech and Mechanical? Interesting take, and thank you for answering.



While the general concept was altered, ALL of the WC3 abilities from the DK were moved over to WoW along with abilities from multiple WC3 undead units. Again, it stands to reason that a Tinker class would also retain the abilities from the Goblin Tinker and HotS Gazlowe. Blizzard could possibly even pull from the Goblin Alchemist hero as well. Again, all of these abilities are highly Goblin-centric.

- - - Updated - - -



What mechs have Blood Elves built?

They have their arcane constructs all over the place. Just because they haven't been piloted yet doesn't mean it's impossible. If they can build the automatons, they can build pilotable mechs. Since an automaton would be far more complicated than a mech.

[Imperator4321]

So you think Blizzard will make different assets for Magitech and Mechanical? Interesting take, and thank you for answering.

I'll admit i'm biased in regards to liking the concept of allowing players more expression (within reason) in regards to modifying the visuals within a class, for instance giving druids a more autumnal/winter inspired visuals to reflect those aspects of nature (which exists with things like the Thornspeakers and Ardenweald), or Elune inspire holy & shadow spells.

Mechanical (for Gnomes, Goblins, Mag'har, Orcs, Dwarves & Dark Iron) and Magitech (for Draenei, Lightforged, Nightborne & Blood Elves). or even blur the lines between the two by having it mechanical side utilize azerite (which Gnomes and Goblins both used to develop war machines during the fourth war), i'm hesitant for the latter though since i'd prefer gnomes and goblin keep their steampunk tech as the default.

What mechs have Blood Elves built?

Well a mech is essentially just a piloted robot, Blood Elves/Nightborne artificers looking at their arcane constructs and thinking "what if we made it pilotable instead of autonomous?" isn't that much of a stretch, same with Dwarves and their golems, Mag'har were already developing a (albiet massive) mecha in the form of the Iron Reaver back on WoD, Even humans and Kul Tirans have their own version of golems (although probably the most primive and simplistic versions out of all the ones listed).

I think this is a good discussion to have; Should such a class concept be divorced from being Gnome/Goblin centric, or is part of the appeal of this concept in a sword and sorcery game is its whimsical/wild nature? Would a more serious take on technology be more appealing to the masses, or does the more crazy aspects of Gnomish/Goblin technology allow the concept to stand out more?

I'd say theres a false dichotomy here, not being whimsical and light hearted doesn't automatical make something serious and edgy, the Warrior class is neutral on the scale of edge vs whimsical yet Gnome and Goblin warriors by default look silly, if someone wanted a light hearted Tinker/Artificer/Whatever they'd probably get that by default just by playing a Gnome or Goblin even if the class wasn't spawning mechanical chickens.

People also tend be more attracted to the edgy/serious style stuff moreso than whimsical and lighthearted, theres just something that appeals to people about being an edgy anti-hero (blizzard even refenced this as a reason they added necromancers to diablo 3 due to the witch doctor being too light hearted despite being the necromancer/pet character), not that i want an edgy and grim tinker/artificer/whatever (i'd say my idea of an Tinker/Artificer would fall more on the neutral end of the scale)

[Teriz]

They have their arcane constructs all over the place. Just because they haven't been piloted yet doesn't mean it's impossible. If they can build the automatons, they can build pilotable mechs. Since an automaton would be far more complicated than a mech.

These are mechs;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Steam_armor

If you notice, Arcane Constructs are not on the list.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Could... Zandalari create 'mechs' in the style of Golems?

Oh, and that Lightforged D.Va skin makes me want to draw a Zandalari/Bwonsamdi-themed skin lol

[Ielenia]

That doesn't change the fact that none of the DK's actual abilities were present until WotLK.

That's an irrelevant fact since we're not talking about abilities, but concepts. And the concept of the death knight raising the dead was already present in vanilla WoW

That also doesn't change the fact that the Meta we ended up with is different than the Warlock version.

That's an irrelevant fact since we're not talking about specific mechanics, but concepts. And the concept of the demon hunter transforming into a demon was already present in TBC.

Cool, so what's the issue?

Where is the hunter pulling all those beasts, considering that ability can be used inside Mechagon and Ulduar. Places without beasts.

Metamorphosis though was still a ranged ability within the Warlock class.

Because the warlock class is a ranged class.

Yet still a mechanical change, which is significant whether you like to admit it or not.

It is insignificant because we're not talking specific mechanics. We're talking about the concept of transforming into a demon.

Compare summon skeletons to animate dead or Army of the dead. There's some pretty significant differences.

It is insignificant because we're not talking specific mechanics. We're talking about the concept of raising the dead.

Now who's being racist? Not all martial arts are "oriental", and those martial arts regardless of their origins are fighting styles.

I'm not being racist. I'm making a specific mention about oriental martial arts because that is what the monk class' fighting style is. It's based on kung-fu and various other oriental martial arts.

If you say so.

I've demonstrated so.

Amazingly Blizzard took that exact same concept and applied it to a Martial Arts class. Funny how that happened.

Where is Gazlowe's claw pack, that he used during the founding of Durotar? Why have we never seen him using one, in these sixteen years of WoW? Why does your "master tinker" Mekkatorque not have one? Or Blackfuse? Or any other tinker in existence?

You know you're being obtuse when you pretend that a 100% permanent movement buff is not a balance issue.

I don't recall death knights being overpowered in Legion, not even for a minute, even with the "mounted combat" ability from their order halls.

[Teriz]

I'd say theres a false dichotomy here, not being whimsical and light hearted doesn't automatical make something serious and edgy, the Warrior class is neutral on the scale of edge vs whimsical yet Gnome and Goblin warriors by default look silly, if someone wanted a light hearted Tinker/Artificer/Whatever they'd probably get that by default just by playing a Gnome or Goblin even if the class wasn't spawning mechanical chickens.

People also tend be more attracted to the edgy/serious style stuff moreso than whimsical and lighthearted, theres just something that appeals to people about being an edgy anti-hero (blizzard even refenced this as a reason they added necromancers to diablo 3 due to the witch doctor being too light hearted despite being the necromancer/pet character), not that i want an edgy and grim tinker/artificer/whatever (i'd say my idea of an Tinker/Artificer would fall more on the neutral end of the scale)

I do agree that a class utilizing both artificer and tinker concepts would be more neutral, but what if Blizzard just restricted the class to Goblins and Gnomes (and their allied races), and went all-in with their whimsical, light-hearted nature? Would that prevent you from playing the class, or would you play it regardless because it's something different in the class lineup?

[Ielenia]

They can supposedly make guns as well;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=137527/vulpera-gunner

If "being a gunner" means they can be tinkers, then so the mag'har orcs can be tinkers, because there are mag'har gunners. Humans can be tinkers too, then, because there are human gunners. Kul'tirans too. And orcs.

[razorpax]

I’ve been thinking about multiple different dragon sworn play styles

1. Build buffs then burn them like OG judgement
2. Builder spender
3. The legion shadow priest style where 100 power gives you dragon wings and like dragon scales

[Imperator4321]

I do agree that a class utilizing both artificer and tinker concepts would be more neutral, but what if Blizzard just restricted the class to Goblins and Gnomes (and their allied races), and went all-in with their whimsical, light-hearted nature? Would that prevent you from playing the class, or would you play it regardless because it's something different in the class lineup?

Well as someone who didn't particularly care for the ow the edge nature of demon hunters and being forced to play as an elf, yeah a class with a overly whimsical and light hearted design while also being forced to play as a race who's design i'm not particularly fond of would affect by desire to play said class (I've barely touched my DH since legion particularly for this reason, in addition to thinking the class is somewhat hollow overall).

I think a more neutral aesthetic would be best overall, my Rogue for instance looks like a swashbuckler but someone elses can look like an shadowy assassin, i think it's best not to pivot something too hard in a particular direction (either edgy or whimsical).

If for instance this "Tinker" class incorperated concepts of Tinker's, Artificers, Apothecaries and other "inventor archetypes" the class could be either style depending on someone transmog/race like a forsaken if someone wanted darker style or a gnome if someone prefers the more light hearted take on technology/invention

[Teriz]

That's an irrelevant fact since we're not talking about abilities, but concepts. And the concept of the death knight raising the dead was already present in vanilla WoW

If we're discussing what was missing from DK NPCs in vanilla that eventually showed up in the DK class, how is the fact that the WC3 abilities were completely absent an "irrelevant fact"?

That's an irrelevant fact since we're not talking about specific mechanics, but concepts. And the concept of the demon hunter transforming into a demon was already present in TBC.

Same argument as above.

Where is the hunter pulling all those beasts, considering that ability can be used inside Mechagon and Ulduar. Places without beasts.

Maybe there's beasts inside Mechagon and Ulduar that we don't know about?

Because the warlock class is a ranged class.

And the demon hunter was a melee hero.

It is insignificant because we're not talking specific mechanics. We're talking about the concept of transforming into a demon.

Whether or not you view it as insignificant doesn't alter the fact that it was a major change to the concept.

I'm not being racist. I'm making a specific mention about oriental martial arts because that is what the monk class' fighting style is. It's based on kung-fu and various other oriental martial arts.

Oriental in describing Asian culture is a offensive, just FYI.

I've demonstrated so.

And Blizzard has demonstrated that the Brewmaster hero was a martial arts hero in WC3. So much so that they were able to build a martial arts class around that concept with no major problems.

Where is Gazlowe's claw pack, that he used during the founding of Durotar? Why have we never seen him using one, in these sixteen years of WoW? Why does your "master tinker" Mekkatorque not have one? Or Blackfuse? Or any other tinker in existence?

Where is Baron Rivendare's Death Coil ability? Aren't Death Knights supposed to have Unholy Aura? I never saw any of the Death Knights use them. Why do these major Death Knights have any of these abilities, or any Death Knight in existence?

I wasn't aware that the Tinker class had been implemented into WoW.

I don't recall death knights being overpowered in Legion, not even for a minute, even with the "mounted combat" ability from their order halls.

As obtuse as ever I see....

- - - Updated - - -

Well someone who didn't particularly care for the ow the edge nature of demon hunters and being forced to play as an elf, yeah a class with a overly whimsical and light hearted design while also being forced to play as a race who's design i'm not particularly fond of would affect by desire to play said class (I've barely touched my DH since legion particularly for this reason, in addition to thinking the class is somewhat hollow overall).

I think a more neutral aesthetic would be best overall, my rogue for instance looks like a swashbuckler but someone elses can look like an shadowy assassin, i think it's best not to pivot something too hard in a particular direction (either edgy or whimsical).

If for instance this "Tinker" class incorperated concepts of Tinker's, Artificers, Apothecaries and other "inventor archetypes" the class could be either style depending on someone transmog/race like a forsaken if someone wanted darker style or a gnome if someone prefers the more light hearted take on technology/invention

Yeah, but the danger in being too neutral is also being too generic and lacking flavor. While Demon Hunters are very limited racially, they're loaded with flavor from that racial limitation. Monks get flavor from having a unifying theme (pandaren Martial Arts), and Death Knights get their flavor from their unifying theme (Necromancy).

Technology is a rather huge theme, and the danger of being all things for all people is that you end up with a class with a muted identity. On the other hand, if you can limit some aspects of that theme and focus on other aspects, you can create a class with a very strong identity and quite a lot of flavor.

Based on previous class inclusions, I frankly think Blizzard is going to go in the direction of limiting the theme and pushing the concepts of the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist. As the Monk class showed, Blizzard tends to desire their own personal spin on class tropes over creating generalized classes. This is especially true of the expansion classes.

Like I said, we'll see who's right in the end.

[TheRevenantHero]

These are mechs;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Steam_armor

If you notice, Arcane Constructs are not on the list.

So essentially you're using semantics instead of a legitimate argument.

[Imperator4321]

Yeah, but the danger in being too neutral is also being too generic and lacking flavor. While Demon Hunters are very limited racially, they're loaded with flavor from that racial limitation. Monks get flavor from having a unifying theme (pandaren Martial Arts), and Death Knights get their flavor from their unifying theme (Necromancy).

Technology is a rather huge theme, and the danger of being all things for all people is that you end up with a class with a muted identity. On the other hand, if you can limit some aspects of that theme and focus on other aspects, you can create a class with a very strong identity and quite a lot of flavor.

Based on previous class inclusions, I frankly think Blizzard is going to go in the direction of limiting the theme and pushing the concepts of the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist. As the Monk class showed, Blizzard tends to desire their own personal spin on class tropes over creating generalized classes. This is especially true of the expansion classes.

Like I said, we'll see who's right in the end.

I think theres also a danger in pivoting too hard towards a particular style that it becomes alienating, especially of the more light-hearted variety, while i don't care too much for the edgy anti-heroes style (thats exemplified by Death Knights and especially by Demon Hunters) that style does have far more broad appeal compared to whimsical and light-hearted that is far more niche.

I think technology or fighting via inventions is enough as a theme that it disinguishes itself from the current lineup of classes who fight using strength, guile, agility or magic (even the engineering profession is mostly utility stuff) without needing to be all about wacky and whimsical inventions (and it can still even have those wacky and whimsical elements, gnomes and goblins are that by default that so even if a Gnome Tinker/Artificer/whatever this class would be called wasn't creating robot chickens they can still be expressive about those elements through how they are animated or transmogged).

A more generic or neutral expression of it's theme also allows players to decide if they want their character to darker or lighter based on how they choose to express it rather than being forced into a particular expression (like my example of how a rogue could be a swashbuckling pirate or a assassin who lurks in the shadows based on specs, transmogs & race choices).