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

[Teriz]

That's if you were a Druid to begin with. What did Monks start out as before they got trained by Monk Trainers? Were they another class or were they a generic adventurer?

So what happens when an adventurer swears loyalty to Ysera and is trained under the Dragons? They become a Dragonsworn class.

The Dragonsworn class in the TTRPG made it quite clear that you had to be an established class first before you could be a Dragonsworn. Dragonsworn is a prestige class.

- - - Updated - - -

It still gonna be Dark Rangers.

It should have been Dark Rangers in Shadowlands. I don't know wtf Blizzard was thinking.

Unless they have no plans to have a stand alone Dark Ranger class......

[Triceron]

The Dragonsworn class in the TTRPG made it quite clear that you had to be an established class first before you could be a Dragonsworn. Dragonsworn is a prestige class.

And it would be translated into WoW without the established class requirement if it were made into a playable class.

There are no Prestige classes in WoW.

If you're talking about translating the TTRPG source directly into WoW, then yeah I'd say that's a bad idea. Just like if we were to translate the WC3 Death Knight into WoW it'd be bad too since they would be limited to being Paladin Prestige classes, since that's what DKs were in the lore.

[qwerty123456]

I want the next class to be a murloc swarm.

It would be a neutral class/race combo where you control like 10 or so murlocs lead by a prime murloc more intelligent than the others. Gear would show up on different ones but you could use transmog to kit them all out in little outfits (chest, helm, braces/gloves, shoulders, weapons).

There would be a ranged water caster spec, a physical ranged spec where you send your swarm mates? to go and attack with swords and stuff, A tank spec maybe a ranged one where you can split your swarm in half for half your health and tank two separate groups, and a water based heal spec.

[Teriz]

And it would be translated into WoW without the established class requirement if it were made into a playable class.

There are no Prestige classes in WoW.

If you're talking about translating the TTRPG source directly into WoW, then yeah I'd say that's a bad idea. Just like if we were to translate the WC3 Death Knight into WoW it'd be bad too since they would be limited to being Paladin Prestige classes, since that's what DKs were in the lore.

And that's what DK were planned to be in WoW before Blizzard decided on their hero class system.

As it stands, Dragonsworn heavily resembles the current covenant system, where each aspect gives us unique abilities. I could imagine a Dragonsworn-style covenant system working like the old Druid ability Symbiosis.

[Triceron]

And that's what DK were planned to be in WoW before Blizzard decided on their hero class system.

As it stands, Dragonsworn heavily resembles the current covenant system, where each aspect gives us unique abilities. I could imagine a Dragonsworn-style covenant system working like the old Druid ability Symbiosis.

Yep, perfectly imaginable. It would work both ways, and both a Class or a Covenant-style system could work in WoW.

[Unbelievable]

I'll probably need more of an elaboration on this, less I take this as too broad of a statement and start assuming things that you didn't intend to mean.

Every class in the game has unique gameplay from each other, so that's already a given. Even roles that are similar can be differentiated. I have no doubt that even a Bard would have unique gameplay associated to it if made into a Class.

However, new classes introduced into WoW have to serve a unique purpose of not only fitting into the WoW MMORPG gameplay, but also to bring in new mechanics that will hype people up into buying the next expansion. New classes have one primary purpose, and that's selling more copies of the game. We all think it's to diversify gameplay and whatnot, but as Blizzard has shown they are capable of doing that without a new class. Covenants, Artifacts, Azerite Powers; these are all methods they've used to diversify gameplay time and time again, and unlike a new class it is not counter-intuitive to players who choose to stick to their mains rather than try out a new class that they may not have any interest in taking up.

The issues I have with the Bard in concept is that it's not a seamless fit into the current WoW class lineup. It's an archetype associated with Support. If we detach that association and generalize it down to DPS and Healer specs gameplay like everything else, then why choose a Bard as a Class Fantasy instead of say a Dark Ranger or a Necromancer which could also be DPS/Heal built and still provide a higher connection to WoW, as well as satisfy a larger player base that is demanding it. That's just how I see it, and why I am equating it to being a 'Musical Priest'; because at the end of the day the Class Fantasy is about using Music and the support style gameplay that fits WoW is already covered by Priests. I can see this opening more if Blizzard decides to carve a niche into the gameplay to allow more direct Support like how Discipline or Shadow plays, but I just don't see that building hype on the levels of a Tinker or Dragonsworn or Necromancer would.

It's going to be difficult to apply a Bard Class to WoW when all we have to go on is literally the April Fools and ETC. Even the Kodo Wardrummers of WC3 are so in-the-background that it's not associated with Bards whenever the discussion comes up.

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be unique. Or, that it is above other candidates. All i'm saying is that gameplay overlap is not an issue in regards to WoW classes.

Granted, E.T.C and Lucio are not much of a Bard. But, it would seem to indicate that is how Blizzard views a music class.

You mean the Hunter class, since they are Rangers.



Why couldn't a Tinker class have a gun that shrinks or enlarges? Hunters and Rogues have bombs like Engineering does, so why couldn't a tech class have a gun that shrinks and enlarges?



No its not, because a profession doesn't compete with a class and vice versa. A class' job is perform class roles like completing world quests, boss hunting, raiding, PvP, and collecting gear. A professions job is to be a time sink where you craft stuff to sell to other players or to give you inferior versions of class utility abilities. You can't lose your raid spot to a profession. You can't PvP using only profession skills. You can't complete WQs with just profession items.

Two classes though? Yeah, they definitely compete with each other.

You mean the Engineering profession, since they are Tinkers.

I didn't say it couldn't. Your Tinker class doesn't have it. You dismiss Mekkatorque as a Tinker. As it currently stands, it is in the Engineering profession. So, they are Engineers.

You're talking about gameplay. I'm talking about themes and fantasy. and, in that regard, they definitely "step on each other's toes".

The Dragonsworn class in the TTRPG made it quite clear that you had to be an established class first before you could be a Dragonsworn. Dragonsworn is a prestige class.

- - - Updated - - -




It should have been Dark Rangers in Shadowlands. I don't know wtf Blizzard was thinking.

Unless they have no plans to have a stand alone Dark Ranger class......

You, literally, had to sacrifice a character to make a Death Knight:

"The original concept for making a death knight was for the player to sacrifice a pre-existing high-level character in order to create the death knight.[28] The quest N [80] Kanrethad's Quest is a remnant of that old quest chain."

If the Dark Ranger is a spec, it doesn't fit 100% in Shadowlands.

[Teriz]

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be unique. Or, that it is above other candidates. All i'm saying is that gameplay overlap is not an issue in regards to WoW classes.

Except that it is. Which is why there was no Necromancer or Dark Ranger class introduced in this expansion, because we have a DK and Hunter class already.

Granted, E.T.C and Lucio are not much of a Bard. But, it would seem to indicate that is how Blizzard views a music class.

Lucio isn't a WoW character though, and ETC is a spoof of a WC3 hero. Again, in order to be a WoW class, there must be a lore hero representing that class in place.

You mean the Engineering profession, since they are Tinkers.

The profession has nothing to do with the Tinker hero concept.

I didn't say it couldn't. Your Tinker class doesn't have it. You dismiss Mekkatorque as a Tinker. As it currently stands, it is in the Engineering profession. So, they are Engineers.

None of the Tinker's abilities exist in the engineering profession. I agree that Mekkatorque and Gazlowe are engineers, however they are CLEARLY not the same as profession engineers, because their abilities aren't the same.

You're talking about gameplay. I'm talking about themes and fantasy. and, in that regard, they definitely "step on each other's toes".

Yeah, they don't share theme and fantasy either. You're a bit confused about that as evidenced by your proposed "Ranger" class idea which is a mess thematically and fantasy wise.

If the Dark Ranger is a spec, it doesn't fit 100% in Shadowlands.

But it wouldn't be a spec, because PotMs and Sea Witches have nothing to do with Dark Rangers.

[cocomen2]

I want the next class to be a murloc swarm.

It would be a neutral class/race combo where you control like 10 or so murlocs lead by a prime murloc more intelligent than the others. Gear would show up on different ones but you could use transmog to kit them all out in little outfits (chest, helm, braces/gloves, shoulders, weapons).

There would be a ranged water caster spec, a physical ranged spec where you send your swarm mates? to go and attack with swords and stuff, A tank spec maybe a ranged one where you can split your swarm in half for half your health and tank two separate groups, and a water based heal spec.

You mean like this? :


It would be cool to command atleast 3 murlocs , that have same last name and shared health pool.

[Unbelievable]

Except that it is. Which is why there was no Necromancer or Dark Ranger class introduced in this expansion, because we have a DK and Hunter class already.




Lucio isn't a WoW character though, and ETC is a spoof of a WC3 hero. Again, in order to be a WoW class, there must be a lore hero representing that class in place.



The profession has nothing to do with the Tinker hero concept.



None of the Tinker's abilities exist in the engineering profession. I agree that Mekkatorque and Gazlowe are engineers, however they are CLEARLY not the same as profession engineers, because their abilities aren't the same.



Yeah, they don't share theme and fantasy either. You're a bit confused about that as evidenced by your proposed "Ranger" class idea which is a mess thematically and fantasy wise.




But it wouldn't be a spec, because PotMs and Sea Witches have nothing to do with Dark Rangers.

Nope. We have gameplay overlap with so many classes already. Priests and Paladins healing and protecting with holy light. Warlock, Hunters and Death Knights utilizing pets. Feral Druids and Rogues using Energy, combo points, stealth and bleeds. Warriors and Guardian Druids using Rage and being tanky. Demon Hunters and Rogues using fast-paced slashing gameplay. Demon Hunters and Warlocks utilizing fel in their abilities. Frost Death Knights and Frost Mages slowing using frost magic. Death Knights and Warlocks applying afflictions and diseases. Fire Mages and Destruction Warlocks relying on crit-based fire magic. Warriors and Paladins utilizing a Shield or a two handed weapon to tank or deliver crushing blows. Shadow Priest applying dots, like an affliction warlock. Enhancement Shamans and Fury Warriors being a dual-wielding heavy fighters.

You don't have a Dragonsworn hero, either. So, cut the bullshit.

Actually, it has a lot to do with it:

"Goblins are known for their mechanical expertise and clever, though sometimes peculiar, inventions, and the Tinker is certainly no exception. With his Claw-Pack/Hammer-Tank combo, the Tinker's ingenuity is undeniable. Though his parts may sometimes fail and the occasional explosion does occur, the spirit and enthusiasm of this Hero are never diminished. There truly is more to the Goblin Tinker than meets the eye."

"Engineers take advantage of their inventiveness to create an immense (and occasionally random) variety of helpful items. By tinkering ceaselessly, and tolerating malfunctions and misfires, an engineer can make utterly unique objects: sight-enhancing goggles, potent guns, robot pets, mechanical mounts, and even more unusual trinkets. Successful engineers use their inventions to solve problems and make life easier, faster, and better for themselves and their companions.

Tinkers (or tinkerers and tinkologists) are engineers mostly represented by gnomes, goblins, and dwarves of the Alliance, Horde and the Venture Company.

Engineering enchantments, also known as tinkers, are unique gear enchantments that may be used alongside regular enchantments. They can be placed on the Gloves, Belt or Cloak.

Engineering Upgrade (Passive)

You missed the point. We were talking about those 2 NPCs you mentioned. They represent the Engineering profession, as they use an Engineering-inspired ability.

For the thematic and Fantasy of the Tinker in the Engineering profession, see above.
As for my Ranger class, it makes perfect sense. All 3 are types of Rangers. Like how you combine the Tinker with the Alchemist, even though they are different heroes. So, yeah... kind of hypocritic on your side.

That's where you are wrong. All 3 are rangers at their core. If they have nothing to do with each other, then your Tinker has nothing to do with the Alchemist.

[Ielenia]

Doesn't matter. The DK hero could raise the dead, and the DH hero could turn into a demon.

Actually, it matters a lot since your argument was, and I quote:

Most necrolytes in WoW don't raise the undead either.

And I simply pointed out that, just like "most necrolytes in WoW don't raise the undead", so was the case with the death knights: "most death knights in WoW didn't raise the undead either", back in Vanilla. And before Legion, "most demon hunters didn't turn into a demon either".

There is no Necrolyte hero.

There was no monk hero, either.

That's because we hadn't seen any Necrolytes since WC2,

Have you played WoW?

and again there's no Necrolyte hero in WC3.

I fail to see the importance. Blizzard has never said that a WC3 hero is mandatory for new classes.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the Hunter class, since they are Rangers.

Because of what? Because Blizzard's official class webpage calls them "rangers"? Well, Blizzard's official class webpage calls the shaman "warriors".

[Teriz]

Nope. We have gameplay overlap with so many classes already. Priests and Paladins healing and protecting with holy light. Warlock, Hunters and Death Knights utilizing pets. Feral Druids and Rogues using Energy, combo points, stealth and bleeds. Warriors and Guardian Druids using Rage and being tanky. Demon Hunters and Rogues using fast-paced slashing gameplay. Demon Hunters and Warlocks utilizing fel in their abilities. Frost Death Knights and Frost Mages slowing using frost magic. Death Knights and Warlocks applying afflictions and diseases. Fire Mages and Destruction Warlocks relying on crit-based fire magic. Warriors and Paladins utilizing a Shield or a two handed weapon to tank or deliver crushing blows. Shadow Priest applying dots, like an affliction warlock. Enhancement Shamans and Fury Warriors being a dual-wielding heavy fighters.

Specialization similarity is not the same as class similarity. You would do well to understand the difference.

You don't have a Dragonsworn hero, either. So, cut the bullshit.

Again, Wrathion says hello.

Actually, it has a lot to do with it:

"Goblins are known for their mechanical expertise and clever, though sometimes peculiar, inventions, and the Tinker is certainly no exception. With his Claw-Pack/Hammer-Tank combo, the Tinker's ingenuity is undeniable. Though his parts may sometimes fail and the occasional explosion does occur, the spirit and enthusiasm of this Hero are never diminished. There truly is more to the Goblin Tinker than meets the eye."

"Engineers take advantage of their inventiveness to create an immense (and occasionally random) variety of helpful items. By tinkering ceaselessly, and tolerating malfunctions and misfires, an engineer can make utterly unique objects: sight-enhancing goggles, potent guns, robot pets, mechanical mounts, and even more unusual trinkets. Successful engineers use their inventions to solve problems and make life easier, faster, and better for themselves and their companions.

Tinkers (or tinkerers and tinkologists) are engineers mostly represented by gnomes, goblins, and dwarves of the Alliance, Horde and the Venture Company.

Engineering enchantments, also known as tinkers, are unique gear enchantments that may be used alongside regular enchantments. They can be placed on the Gloves, Belt or Cloak.

Engineering Upgrade (Passive)

Semantic nonsense. This has been refuted multiple times, so there's no need to refute it again.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it matters a lot since your argument was, and I quote:

And I simply pointed out that, just like "most necrolytes in WoW don't raise the undead", so was the case with the death knights: "most death knights in WoW didn't raise the undead either", back in Vanilla. And before Legion, "most demon hunters didn't turn into a demon either".

You seem to miss the point that despite not every Death Knight having the ability to raise the undead, we still had the WC3 hero as the foundation. Again, we didn't have that for the Necrolyte, since it was largely replaced in WC3 by the Necromancer.

Which in turn was incorporated into the Death Knight class.

There was no monk hero, either.

Chen Stormstout says hello. You're free to wrongly believe otherwise.

Have you played WoW?

Quote mining? For shame.

I fail to see the importance. Blizzard has never said that a WC3 hero is mandatory for new classes.

A hero character has been required for every expansion class. Which makes sense because the class has to match the expansion theme as well. Having a hero that matches the expansion's theme makes class incorporation easier, and sets the style of the class itself. Without that anchor, we get sad examples like the "Ranger class" that's been peppering this thread, or the ridiculous notion that Lorewalker Cho, Russell Broward, and Hearthsinger Forrestein can all be part of the same class.

But again, you're free to wrongly believe otherwise.

Because of what? Because Blizzard's official class webpage calls them "rangers"? Well, Blizzard's official class webpage calls the shaman "warriors".

A Ranger (also known as Hunter, Archer, Scout, or Tracker) is an archetype found in works of fantasy fiction and role-playing games.

Rangers are usually associated with the wisdom of nature. Rangers tend to be wise, hardy, cunning, and perceptive in addition to being skilled woodsmen. Many are skilled in woodcraft, stealth, wilderness survival, beast-mastery, herbalism, tracking, and sometimes "nature magic" or have a resistance to magic. Rangers spend a great deal of time hunting, fishing, and camping—whether on a short- or long-term basis—and their preferred martial arts weapons leans towards practical-utility: archery, knife fighting, stick-fighting, axeplay, spearplay and swordplay.

Oh, and further;

Ranger archetype[edit]
Rangers skills in books and games can include and are not limited to:

Combat expertise with bows and other ranged weapons, often the result of years hunting wild animals
Use in martial combat weapons, often swords, axes, and daggers; oftentimes they may dual-wield such weapons and rely on finesse over brute strength
Throwing knives
Non-magical stealth
Climbing
Detecting or laying traps
Taming, calming or charming animals; often they may be accompanied by a favored animal companion
Tracking and leaving no trail to be tracked
Knowledge of herbs for medical and poisonous uses
The art of healing (magical or medical) due to their self-reliance
Land and nature related magic and enchantments or the ability to recognize them or resistance to them
Ability to move quickly through any terrain they are familiar with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(character_class)

While I highlighted the main ones, all of this really applies to the Hunter class.

[qwerty123456]

You mean like this? :

It would be cool to command atleast 3 murlocs , that have same last name and shared health pool.

Hmmm that looks kind of interesting do like certain ones of the creatures do certain moves? What I'm thinking is like that but with more murlocs. Maybe a couple sitting on top of the others. They would all move together regularly but certain skills would be like some of the murlocs charging in and attacking or what not. Like I'm thinking there would be a main murloc and that would be your actual hp and movement unless like you were tank spec and could split into 2 different sets of murlocs with half hp each.

[Revamp Man]

And it would be translated into WoW without the established class requirement if it were made into a playable class.

There are no Prestige classes in WoW.

If you're talking about translating the TTRPG source directly into WoW, then yeah I'd say that's a bad idea. Just like if we were to translate the WC3 Death Knight into WoW it'd be bad too since they would be limited to being Paladin Prestige classes, since that's what DKs were in the lore.

they already have the intro essentially set up

you start as wrathion's talon guard and do some quests where throughout multiple points you interact with the human PC until you get to the dragon isles part and gain the other dragon's blessings

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like this? :


It would be cool to command atleast 3 murlocs , that have same last name and shared health pool.

that game brings back memories

[Ielenia]

You seem to miss the point that despite not every Death Knight having the ability to raise the undead, we still had the WC3 hero as the foundation.

So what? When you prove that we need a WC3 hero for class design, then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't. Not to mention that there is no examples in Warcraft 3, or in any of the canon franchise games and lore, of death knights being able to use frost magic before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion came along.

And yet... death knights can use frost magic. Literally out of nowhere.

Chen Stormstout says hello.

Chen Stormstout was never a monk before Mists of Pandaria.

Quote mining? For shame.

It's not quote-mining. That's the entire context of what you wrote: you claimed we did have not seen any necrolytes since Warcraft II, and I've shown you that your claim is false.

A hero character has been required for every expansion class.

False. You repeat that claim ad nauseum, but never even came close to proving it to be a fact.

That's a fact, though.

Oh, and further;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(character_class)

While I highlighted the main ones, all of this really applies to the Hunter class.

So. It's fine for you to use class concepts from outside WoW, but when others reach outside the Warcraft for their ideas, suddenly it's a "no-no" because it's not Warcraft?

[Teriz]

So what? When you prove that we need a WC3 hero for class design, then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't. Not to mention that there is no examples in Warcraft 3, or in any of the canon franchise games and lore, of death knights being able to use frost magic before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion came along.

And yet... death knights can use frost magic. Literally out of nowhere.

Yeah I mean this is their creator the Lich King at the end of WC3 holding a sword called Frostmourne sitting on a seat of ice called the Frozen Throne in the polar continent of Northrend.



I have absolutely no idea how they could have possibly thought up the idea that DKs would get frost abilities...

Chen Stormstout was never a monk before Mists of Pandaria.

Sure he wasn't.

It's not quote-mining. That's the entire context of what you wrote: you claimed we did have not seen any necrolytes since Warcraft II, and I've shown you that your claim is false.

And I corrected that post earlier. Like I said Necrolytes in WoW are pretty much nothing more than Warlocks.

False. You repeat that claim ad nauseum, but never even came close to proving it to be a fact.

Which expansion class didn't have a hero character attached?

That's a fact, though.


So. It's fine for you to use class concepts from outside WoW, but when others reach outside the Warcraft for their ideas, suddenly it's a "no-no" because it's not Warcraft?

I wasn't reaching outside of WoW for ideas, I was showing you the standard trope for Ranger classes. Yeah, the Hunter applies.

[cocomen2]

Yeah I mean this is their creator the Lich King at the end of WC3 holding a sword called Frostmourne sitting on a seat of ice called the Frozen Throne in the polar continent of Northrend.

Its funny , here you showed how clever you are to connect these dots , yet in other things you act like blind.

You still cant get that "Tinker" its title for engineer Gazlowe.

You was thinking that Dragonsworn is actual dragon , while its mortals who sworn to dragons.

[razorpax]

Both current hero classes are simply the covenant system jeez guys

[Teriz]

Its funny , here you showed how clever you are to connect these dots , yet in other things you act like blind.

You still cant get that "Tinker" its title for engineer Gazlowe.

Tinkers are a type of engineer, so it’s no big deal. Heck, the class might not even be called Tinker. Just like Brewmaster became a specialization, the Tinker could be a specialization as well, and the class could be called something else entirely. Maybe even Engineer.

[razorpax]

Its funny , here you showed how clever you are to connect these dots , yet in other things you act like blind.

You still cant get that "Tinker" its title for engineer Gazlowe.

You was thinking that Dragonsworn is actual dragon , while its mortals who sworn to dragons.

You don’t understand man

In order for the class to work it has to be the dragon race because mortals don’t get empowered by stronger beings

[Ielenia]

Yeah I mean this is their creator the Lich King at the end of WC3 holding a sword called Frostmourne sitting on a seat of ice called the Frozen Throne in the polar continent of Northrend.

"Frostmourne" is nothing but a name. The sword itself doesn't have frost powers. We never seen Arthas do any frost-based feat in Warcraft 3. The Frozen Throne is literally just that: ice. That's like saying paladins should have stone powers because the cathedrals are made of stone, or that paladins should have necromantic powers because the Light's Hope Chapel is in a land covered in necromantic fallout.

In short:
• The Lich King is not a lich. It's just a name.
• Frostmourne had no frost powers before WotLK. It's just a name.
• The Frozen Throne is literally just an icy tomb to house Ner'zul's soul. It's just a name because it's made of ice.
• Northrend is just the name of the continent, which Ner'zul just happened to fall on.

I have absolutely no idea how they could have possibly thought up the idea that DKs would get frost abilities...

Irrelevant. The point is that Ner'zul, Arthas or the Frostmourne has never demonstrated any frost powers whatsoever. Your reasoning is akin to saying humans should have stone powers because they live in buildings made of stone.

Sure he wasn't.

Glad you agree. Because he wasn't. Not a single mention of monks or oriental style martial arts in the WC3 unit's bio. not a single mention of monks or martial arts in the WC3 unit's voice lines. Not a single mention of monks or martial arts in the WC3 unit's animations.

In short: Chen Stormstout was never a monk, until he was retroactively made into one for the Mists of Pandaria expansion.

And I corrected that post earlier. Like I said Necrolytes in WoW are pretty much nothing more than Warlocks.

And death knights were "pretty much nothing more" than warriors with a handful of warlock abilities, before becoming a playable class of their own.

Which expansion class didn't have a hero character attached?

All you have is correlation, and zero causation, because correlation does not imply causation.

I wasn't reaching outside of WoW for ideas, I was showing you the standard trope for Ranger classes.

"I wasn't reaching outside of WoW for ideas. I reaching outside of WoW for ideas."

That is literally what you just wrote, there. Also, I thought you once said that Blizzard likes to "put their own spin" on classes? That means that linking to outside definition of classes doesn't really do much.