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

[chase_the_mofo]

Bard would be my choice

[TheRevenantHero]

This is what they literally said;



In other words, there's no class that fits the setting of a death expansion like Demon Hunters fit the setting of a Burning Legion/Demonic expansion.

And back to the point; If classes aren't reliant on previous heroes, what that developer said shouldn't be an issue. They can just make up a class on the spot.

Once again, purposely misconstruing words in order to fit your narrative. They decided to put more "effort" into character customization but after seeing everything in Shadowlands, it's clear this was an expansion just like WoD. Put in next to no effort and lie about why a new class wasn't implemented when the reality is Blizzard just doesn't care as much as they used to.

- - - Updated - - -

What indicates it is that every previous expansion class not only matches the setting of the expansion it's in, it also has a lore character to tie it to that expansion as well.

- - - Updated - - -



You can't create an iconic character before an expansion comes out. That character has to be iconic long before the expansion is released.

Except they literally created the Jailer for Shadowlands and he's the villain of Shadowlands. You need to pick a side of the fucking fence. either Blizzard can change the lore with the stroke of a pen or they can't. You can't have both.

[TheFirstOnes]

@TheRevenantHero

"No. A witch is a witch." Yeah, and there are many kinds of witches. You have the Drust Witches, you have the Female Warlocks that can be considered as Witches (In no mention are Males called "witches" in game btw. So, what you say is headcanon), and you have Naga who are called "Sea Witches", etc.

"Based on the dark magic that warlocks use in game, that's likely where Blizzard drew the inspiration for the class." That in itself doesn't mean that female Warlocks can't be witches, nor does it mean that, if they were witches, they would be the only ones to exist, as lots of witches in WoW exist, and they don't wield Warlock magics.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, guys...you do realize that, while the Chromatic Flight DOES exist, it's incredibly rare, and Chromatus himself was an impossible creation made real, yeah?

Why would you guys ever want him to be an example of a "dragonsworn" class? He's not only a 1 time thing, but he's also incredibly evil, and extremely powerful. At MOST, you'll see this fucker as a raid boss for us to kill in a future expansion, but that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

"You can't create an iconic character before an expansion comes out. That character has to be iconic long before the expansion is released."

What? Playable DK's, Pandaren, Monks in general, Allied Races, and (arguably) DH's would love to disagree with you. None of these "playable" characters were really iconic whatsoever prior to their respective Expansions and their release.

[Teriz]

And they released a new class every second expansion until they didn't. Patterns are just that, perceived patterns.

And the pattern would have held if we didn’t already have a death class in WoW.

Look at it another way: Let's say we get a new class next expansion. It's the Tinker in an Undermine expansion. There is much rejoicing. What's the next class? Or the one after that? What iconic characters are those classes going to piggyback?

After the Tinker I think you’re looking at prestige classes based on the current classes, or possibly even class skins. Consider that after the Tinker, pretty much every RPG archetype will have been filled.
.

Why? Says who? All you need is a character that gets a good chunk of narrative time. Nothing says that it has to be a known and super established lore character. Hell, Chen was largely a novelty character before MoP, and even in that expansion he was hardly super prominent (when compared to either Arthas or Illidan). Make a new character, make the character interesting, have them feature heavily in the story and you have everything you need to propel the story and the narrative of a new class forward.

I really have no idea why Blizzard does it that way. However based on the precedent set, it’s rather obvious that they’re doing it that way.

[TheFirstOnes]

When Wrath released, your DK started off as a chump. When MoP released, Pandaren were new, and the whole Wandering Isle thing happened sometime around the Alliance and Horde's initial invasion of Pandaria. When Legion released, your DH (Back in TBC) was just a random Illidari dude. And regarding Allied Races...well...

When BFA's pre-patch started, you were new overall, and didn't really do anything unique until after you entered Kul'tiras/Zandalar, and did all your shit there.

- - - Updated - - -

"It's the Tinker in an Undermine expansion" We'll never get an undermine Expansion, this is just a very weird piece of headcanon you're using. And Tinkers are legit just Engineers but with a reason to exist outside of filling a profession slot.

[Teriz]

What? Playable DK's, Pandaren, Monks in general, Allied Races, and (arguably) DH's would love to disagree with you. None of these "playable" characters were really iconic whatsoever prior to their respective Expansions and their release.

Not the classes, the characters they’re based on; Arthas, Chen, and Illidan. All lore characters from WC3.

[TheRevenantHero]

@TheRevenantHero

"No. A witch is a witch." Yeah, and there are many kinds of witches. You have the Drust Witches, you have the Female Warlocks that can be considered as Witches (In no mention are Males called "witches" in game btw. So, what you say is headcanon), and you have Naga who are called "Sea Witches", etc.

"Based on the dark magic that warlocks use in game, that's likely where Blizzard drew the inspiration for the class." That in itself doesn't mean that female Warlocks can't be witches, nor does it mean that, if they were witches, they would be the only ones to exist, as lots of witches in WoW exist, and they don't wield Warlock magics.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, guys...you do realize that, while the Chromatic Flight DOES exist, it's incredibly rare, and Chromatus himself was an impossible creation made real, yeah?

Why would you guys ever want him to be an example of a "dragonsworn" class? He's not only a 1 time thing, but he's also incredibly evil, and extremely powerful. At MOST, you'll see this fucker as a raid boss for us to kill in a future expansion, but that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

"You can't create an iconic character before an expansion comes out. That character has to be iconic long before the expansion is released."

What? Playable DK's, Pandaren, Monks in general, Allied Races, and (arguably) DH's would love to disagree with you. None of these "playable" characters were really iconic whatsoever prior to their respective Expansions and their release.

ok so you very clearly didn't actually read what I was saying. I'm saying IN REAL LIFE witch is not a gendered term. Men and women can both be witches. Warlock are witches who got too deep into black magic and made pacts with evil entities and are called a warlock because the word literally means oathbreaker. I was pointing out that warlocks from pagan mythology is is very similar to warlocks in game so it's likely where they drew some inspiration. As for witches in game, sure we haven't seen male witches but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.

Also, chromatic dragons aren't naturally occurring like the other flights. They are genetic experiments using the blood from all the other flights. They were a catastrophic failure with most whelps dying before hatching or were volatile and short lived. Chromatus is the only successful chromatic dragon. And Teriz doesn't care about lore so bringing lore into this is a crapshoot.

[TheFirstOnes]

"As for witches in game, sure we haven't seen male witches but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist." That just makes the topic debatable, then, since it's not confirmed that Male Warlocks are infact Witches within the Warcraft universe, but it's also not impossible either.

"I'm saying IN REAL LIFE witch is not a gendered term." While Warlocks in WoW are inspired by things in real life, they are overall different tbh. Warlocks in WoW don't really use "witchcraft", all to much outside of those Drustvar Witches, and even then that can be argued as a type of dark Druidism. Also, not every Warlock in WoW is an oathbreaker, unlike real life. Some Warlocks are just that way cause they love to dabble in Dark Magics. Hell, Gul'dan is not at all an "Oathbreaker". The guy became a Warlock cause Kil'Jaeden promised him power and acceptance.

"warlocks from pagan mythology" In a way, Warlocks in WoW are similar to them. Other times, it's a little more complicated? I'd say lower Warlocks (Such as the ones you see in SW), or Warlocks of old (Like from pre-WC1 Draenor, for example) are 100% based off of Pagan Mythology. However, you then have Warlocks that are just Dragon Ball-esc evil badass wizards that house tons of power, and are demonically evil and shit like that.

"Also, chromatic dragons aren't naturally occurring like the other flights." I know...

"They are genetic experiments using the blood from all the other flights. They were a catastrophic failure with most whelps dying before hatching or were volatile and short lived. Chromatus is the only successful chromatic dragon. And Teriz doesn't care about lore so bringing lore into this is a crapshoot." I get that about Chromatus, that's why I said he was a terrible example to bring into this.

Also, why is bringing lore into this topic a crapshoot? A lot of the classes, if not all of them, are heavily affected by the lore within the game. Bringing up Chromatus, and why his existence is not at all a benefit to having a Dragonsworn class is totally reasonable to talk about, especially considering this is also a big factor as to why anything relating to a Dragonsworn class would be weird as fuck lore-wise.

Teriz just needs to learn the lore of WoW then. That's it.

- - - Updated - - -

WoW's kinda weird with how they treat Warlocks, but most of the time, they are comparable to things from Pagan Mythology. It's just that rare guys such as Gul'dan, and Kil'Jaeden exist, where the whole Warlock thing starts to take some different kinds of twists.

- - - Updated - - -

Hell, even regular Eredar Warlocks are kinda built different, too.

[lolmmofuture]

Tinker
Bard
Dragon Knight

[TheFirstOnes]

Also, lastly, in regards to Chromatus, I would LOVE to face him as a raid boss. He would be fuckin' perfect!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Tinker
Bard
Dragon Knight

Okay, I want a Bard, but unironically. Think about it.

Bard Specs:

Tank Spec- Play tunes to protect your allies from harm, and play some war tunes to annoy the enemy, giving you immense threat, protection, and damage potential. Ya know, the usual tank stuff, but with tunes. Weapon options: String instruments with the stick as a 1 handed weapon and the violin or cello as the shield, or a guitar, etc.

DPS spec 1- Play heavy metal and harm your opponents ears with bass boosting damage and insane guitar or drum solos. Weapon options: 2 handed guitars, drums, etc.

DPS spec 2- Play some rap or hip hop, and use all types of gig such as jazz, or funk to groove your enemies to a hasty grave. Weapon options: Trumpets and other jazz instruments, disco ball, Microphone (for ranged rap attacks) or even a ranged Vinyl disk.

Healing spec- Play harmonious, Celtic tunes that can sooth the souls and mindsets of your allies, providing them with immense single target and AOE healing abilities. Weapon options: A harp, or some other nice instrument like that.

I know this sounds like the dumbest fucking thing ever, and may make zero sense whatsoever, but it's fucking Warcraft. We're already down the rabbit hole as it is regarding what makes sense and what doesn't anymore. Why can't Bards be a fucking class? ;P

[TheRevenantHero]

"As for witches in game, sure we haven't seen male witches but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist." That just makes the topic debatable, then, since it's not confirmed that Male Warlocks are infact Witches within the Warcraft universe, but it's also not impossible either.

"I'm saying IN REAL LIFE witch is not a gendered term." While Warlocks in WoW are inspired by things in real life, they are overall different tbh. Warlocks in WoW don't really use "witchcraft", all to much outside of those Drustvar Witches, and even then that can be argued as a type of dark Druidism. Also, not every Warlock in WoW is an oathbreaker, unlike real life. Some Warlocks are just that way cause they love to dabble in Dark Magics. Hell, Gul'dan is not at all an "Oathbreaker". The guy became a Warlock cause Kil'Jaeden promised him power and acceptance.

"warlocks from pagan mythology" In a way, Warlocks in WoW are similar to them. Other times, it's a little more complicated? I'd say lower Warlocks (Such as the ones you see in SW), or Warlocks of old (Like from pre-WC1 Draenor, for example) are 100% based off of Pagan Mythology. However, you then have Warlocks that are just Dragon Ball-esc evil badass wizards that house tons of power, and are demonically evil and shit like that.

"Also, chromatic dragons aren't naturally occurring like the other flights." I know...

"They are genetic experiments using the blood from all the other flights. They were a catastrophic failure with most whelps dying before hatching or were volatile and short lived. Chromatus is the only successful chromatic dragon. And Teriz doesn't care about lore so bringing lore into this is a crapshoot." I get that about Chromatus, that's why I said he was a terrible example to bring into this.

Also, why is bringing lore into this topic a crapshoot? A lot of the classes, if not all of them, are heavily affected by the lore within the game. Bringing up Chromatus, and why his existence is not at all a benefit to having a Dragonsworn class is totally reasonable to talk about, especially considering this is also a big factor as to why anything relating to a Dragonsworn class would be weird as fuck lore-wise.

Teriz just needs to learn the lore of WoW then. That's it.

- - - Updated - - -

WoW's kinda weird with how they treat Warlocks, but most of the time, they are comparable to things from Pagan Mythology. It's just that rare guys such as Gul'dan, and Kil'Jaeden exist, where the whole Warlock thing starts to take some different kinds of twists.

- - - Updated - - -

Hell, even regular Eredar Warlocks are kinda built different, too.

I call it a crapshoot because every time lore is brought up, Teriz disregards it if it doesn't fit his narrative. He will be adamant about goblins and tinkers being the only races that should get tinkers because the lore better supports only those races being tinkers. It's a wrong assessment but he won't listen. He will also utterly disregard lore in favor of game mechanics and say the lore doesn't matter because of mechanics. Example being he said shadow magic and fel magic both generate soul shards in game so clearly that's what canon. I showed him multiple times that it's only fel users than use souls for power in lore and he disregarded it because of game mechanics.

[Xeenith]

I had a strange idea about dragon sworn as a "covenant like feature", dragons are all about out of ressources, but we their allies have always found ways to help them and grow stronger.
giving us a spark of their power to nurture and have it grow in power inside us (aka the covenant like player power progression, just like artefacts weapons or the heart of azeroth) and in the end of the expansion, when the baddie is done, we have a cutscene like when we drained Sargeras sword, but instead the dragons collect the power they lent to players, revitalizing the flights and creating each a new aspect.

[Ielenia]

More than likely Gazlowe since he's inside a mech.

"More than likely" is not an answer, since it's nothing but guesswork. I asked which character uses that ability considering the WoWHead page does not attribute that to any character in the game. So I'll repeat my question: which character uses that ability?

No there isn't.

Sorry, but it's lore. The Mechagon intro cinematic for the Alliance shows humans and night elves in the tinker's team, and he even calls them "the best and the brightest".

- - - Updated - - -

Who should I believe? You or the game?

And yet you still go against what in-game abilities do or say when it contradicts your claims, like when you said that "it's shadow magic what creates soul shards" yet we have a lot of fire spells actually doing that.

- - - Updated - - -

And back to the point; If classes aren't reliant on previous heroes, what that developer said shouldn't be an issue. They can just make up a class on the spot.

Wrong. Again, the existence of a character or not has nothing to do with a class "fitting the expansion's story being told". Blizzard said it, black on white: "a lot of it is informed by setting and story." Notice the complete lack of "we need a character to base the class on" in that entire statement.

- - - Updated - - -

According to leaks, it was the Tinker class. It may have been scrapped because it didn't fit the setting of this expansion.

Oh, please. Blizzard has gone on record to say that they come up with story first then class second, so your claim there is nothing but bullshit. There is no way with them going "let's add a tinker" first and then deciding on the story later.

Or are you going to claim that the entire expansion's story and theme have been COMPLETELY REWRITTEN to completely remove any and all hints of involvement of tinkers?

- - - Updated - - -

You can't create an iconic character before an expansion comes out. That character has to be iconic long before the expansion is released.

Except for the monks... based off a character that few people even knew of, and then made fun of by many when the expansion was announced...

[Teriz]

I call it a crapshoot because every time lore is brought up, Teriz disregards it if it doesn't fit his narrative. He will be adamant about goblins and tinkers being the only races that should get tinkers because the lore better supports only those races being tinkers. It's a wrong assessment but he won't listen. He will also utterly disregard lore in favor of game mechanics and say the lore doesn't matter because of mechanics. Example being he said shadow magic and fel magic both generate soul shards in game so clearly that's what canon. I showed him multiple times that it's only fel users than use souls for power in lore and he disregarded it because of game mechanics.

I simply said that Blizzard will flush that entire lore down the toilet if they're bringing in a class using Chromatic dragons and no one will think twice about it. I even gave Demon Hunters to you as an example of them doing exactly that to shoehorn a class into the game. You guys obsessing over the ins and outs of lore are wasting your time. If game mechanics need to be put in place to insure an enjoyable experience for the player, Blizzard will disregard it without a second thought. Using lore to restrict a potential gameplay addition is silly and a waste of time.

Now when it comes to Tinkers, I said keep their races restricted in order to provide more potential options for the class in terms of unique appearance and perks. Sort of what you see with Druids and Demon Hunters in that they get unique models for their individual races. For example, if Blizzard restricts the Tinker class to Goblins, Gnomes and their allied races, you could see Alliance Tinkers getting Gnomish style technology, and Horde Tinkers getting Goblin style technology. Sort of what you saw with the Island Expedition teams. If Blizzard wants to make a generic one size fits all class like Hunters, Warriors, Monks, Mages, and other such classes, then yeah, they'll spread the Tinker concept to as many races as they want. However, I don't see them going in that direction. I see 4 races minimum, and 10 races maximum, with 4 being the more likely number.

- - - Updated - - -

I had a strange idea about dragon sworn as a "covenant like feature", dragons are all about out of ressources, but we their allies have always found ways to help them and grow stronger.
giving us a spark of their power to nurture and have it grow in power inside us (aka the covenant like player power progression, just like artefacts weapons or the heart of azeroth) and in the end of the expansion, when the baddie is done, we have a cutscene like when we drained Sargeras sword, but instead the dragons collect the power they lent to players, revitalizing the flights and creating each a new aspect.

Yeah, that's a possibility. Honestly it's probably the more likely outcome over a dragon-based class tbh. Like I said, Dragonsworn in the TTRPG is almost exactly like the Covenant system.

- - - Updated - - -

In the end, the Tinker class should embody this;



And not be a generic tech class.

[Imperator4321]

In the end, the Tinker class should embody this;



And not be a generic tech class.

How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?

Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.

If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks so it has appeal to those who like those concepts not just liking the pandaren) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.

[Bodakane]

I honestly would just prefer they expanded some more classes to 4 specs.

Shaman needs to have a spec for each "element". I don't know why this hasn't been done, quite frankly.

Water = Resto
Fire = Elemental
Wind = Enhance
Earth = a mail wearing tank spec finally

DKs could be reworked to have 4 specs based on the 4 horsemen.

[TheRevenantHero]

How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?

Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.

If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks so it has appeal to those who like those concepts not just liking the pandaren) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.

Letting vulpera be tinkers makes absolutely no sense. Vulpera are nomads that live in a desert. They don't really know much at all about technology.

[Teriz]

How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?

We don't know how large the fanbase for Gnomes and Goblins actually is because there isn't a class that reflects their racial lore and that keeps their racial numbers down. I for example don't have a Gnome or Goblin character currently, but I would immediately roll one (or two) for a Tinker class.

In addition, there is no technology class in WoW, and there is a base of gamers who like playing tech-based classes in RPG games. So in short, we simply don't know what the potential base for this class is, but it should be substantial, especially if the class is well designed and interesting. I think the class will be interesting by default simply because of the abilities available to it via HotS and WC3.

Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.

I disagree that people wouldn't get excited over such a class. Consider what most people in our community are asking for; A ranged class. A class that can rival Hunters for weapons. A new healing spec. Ranged tanking. Something that doesn't take abilities from existing classes. A class that isn't edgy or dark. etc.

You put out a Tinker class that checks all or most of those boxes, and people will get excited about it.

If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.

Nah I disagree. Druids for example isn't open to a lot of races and it's the most popular class in WoW. Demon Hunters seem to be doing okay with only being available to two races. At minimum you're looking at 4 Tinker races, that's already more than Demon Hunters. At max you'd be looking at 10 races, and that would put it ahead of Druids. Again, you limit it race-wise in order to allow more race-based customization, which is also very popular among the userbase. For example, limit it to Goblins, Gnomes, Vulpera, Mechagnomes, LF Draenei and Nightborne, and I could see a situation where you could have Goblins using Goblin tech, have Vulpera use Junker tech, have Gnomes and Mechagnomes using Gnome/Mechagnome tech, and LF Draenei and Nightborne having artificer tech. You do something like that, and people won't care that it's limited to only 6 races.

- - - Updated - - -

Letting vulpera be tinkers makes absolutely no sense. Vulpera are nomads that live in a desert. They don't really know much at all about technology.

We have Tinkerin' Taiji;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=138151/tinkerin-taji

And we have multiple examples of Vulpera who have seemingly left the desert and have no issue picking up guns;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=137527/vulpera-gunner
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=131770/v...ities;mode:lfr

[Imperator4321]

We don't know how large the fanbase for Gnomes and Goblins actually is because there isn't a class that reflects their racial lore and that keeps their racial numbers down. I for example don't have a Gnome or Goblin character currently, but I would immediately roll one (or two) for a Tinker class.

Are they going to design a class entirely around 2 unpopular races on the off chance it boosts the Gnome/Goblin population?

In addition, there is no technology class in WoW, and there is a base of gamers who like playing tech-based classes in RPG games. So in short, we simply don't know what the potential base for this class is, but it should be substantial, especially if the class is well designed and interesting. I think the class will be interesting by default simply because of the abilities available to it via HotS and WC3.

I have no doubt there is an a potential audience for a technology class, artificer has been a D&D class and other fantasy video games have featured such an archetype but how much do you think that audience crosses over with the audience who like wacky gnome/goblin stuff? do they want robot chickens, deth lazors, clockwork midgets, oversized rockets, shrink rays ect or do they want this:




Just because people may desire a technology class doesn't mean they also want the baggage of it also being about wacky gnome/goblin shit

I disagree that people wouldn't get excited over such a class. Consider what most people in our community are asking for; A ranged class. A class that can rival Hunters for weapons. A new healing spec. Ranged tanking. Something that doesn't take abilities from existing classes. A class that isn't edgy or dark. etc.

You put out a Tinker class that checks all or most of those boxes, and people will get excited about it.

Like i said you're adding way to much additional baggage by saying those all those things have to be expressed in a way that's whimsical and wacky, it would certainly kill my interest in such a class because i have a disinterest in Gnomes/Goblins same way Demon Hunter didn't interest me because having to play a Night/Blood elf didn't interest me, just because it's not whimsical and wacky doesn't automatically make it dark and edgy thats a complete false dichotomy, majority of classes we have are completely neutral in regards to tone and up to ones individual taste in race and transmog to determine where it falls on tone, my Rogue looks like a swashbuckling scoundrel but someone elses can looks like a brooding assassin, i wasn't forced into a particular tone and neither was the other person by the mere selection of class.

Nah I disagree. Druids for example isn't open to a lot of races and it's the most popular class in WoW. Demon Hunters seem to be doing okay with only being available to two races. At minimum you're looking at 4 Tinker races, that's already more than Demon Hunters. At max you'd be looking at 10 races, and that would put it ahead of Druids. Again, you limit it race-wise in order to allow more race-based customization, which is also very popular among the userbase. For example, limit it to Goblins, Gnomes, Vulpera, Mechagnomes, LF Draenei and Nightborne, and I could see a situation where you could have Goblins using Goblin tech, have Vulpera use Junker tech, have Gnomes and Mechagnomes using Gnome/Mechagnome tech, and LF Draenei and Nightborne having artificer tech. You do something like that, and people won't care that it's limited to only 6 races.

Druid is also open to Night Elves one of the most popular races in the game in general and Worgen, Zandalari, Trolls, Tauren aren't too shaby in terms of population, it's also a more diverse range of options than just various comic relief midgets so even someone who doesn't like a particular races aesthetic still has potentially something they like.

If you're going to lift it in to include LF draenei and Nightborne you might as well lift it to include Orcs, Dwarfs, DI dwarves, Mag'har, regular Draenei and Blood elves since all of those have also shown similar tech inclinations (or magitek in the draenei and Belf's case), additionally if you're already including non-goblins/gnomes/vulpera you kind of have to drop the more wacky stuff since that stuff doesn't really fit the more serious takes on technology/magitek we're seen from LF draenei and Nightborne.

Either the class is about wacky gnome/goblin stuff and is exclusive to them (and other comic relief midget races) or it's not and it's a more serious (if perhaps generic) take on a tech-class thats open a far more diverse and appealing range of races.

[TheRevenantHero]

We don't know how large the fanbase for Gnomes and Goblins actually is because there isn't a class that reflects their racial lore and that keeps their racial numbers down. I for example don't have a Gnome or Goblin character currently, but I would immediately roll one (or two) for a Tinker class.

In addition, there is no technology class in WoW, and there is a base of gamers who like playing tech-based classes in RPG games. So in short, we simply don't know what the potential base for this class is, but it should be substantial, especially if the class is well designed and interesting. I think the class will be interesting by default simply because of the abilities available to it via HotS and WC3.



I disagree that people wouldn't get excited over such a class. Consider what most people in our community are asking for; A ranged class. A class that can rival Hunters for weapons. A new healing spec. Ranged tanking. Something that doesn't take abilities from existing classes. A class that isn't edgy or dark. etc.

You put out a Tinker class that checks all or most of those boxes, and people will get excited about it.



Nah I disagree. Druids for example isn't open to a lot of races and it's the most popular class in WoW. Demon Hunters seem to be doing okay with only being available to two races. At minimum you're looking at 4 Tinker races, that's already more than Demon Hunters. At max you'd be looking at 10 races, and that would put it ahead of Druids. Again, you limit it race-wise in order to allow more race-based customization, which is also very popular among the userbase. For example, limit it to Goblins, Gnomes, Vulpera, Mechagnomes, LF Draenei and Nightborne, and I could see a situation where you could have Goblins using Goblin tech, have Vulpera use Junker tech, have Gnomes and Mechagnomes using Gnome/Mechagnome tech, and LF Draenei and Nightborne having artificer tech. You do something like that, and people won't care that it's limited to only 6 races.

- - - Updated - - -



We have Tinkerin' Taiji;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=138151/tinkerin-taji

And we have multiple examples of Vulpera who have seemingly left the desert and have no issue picking up guns;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=137527/vulpera-gunner
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=131770/v...ities;mode:lfr

Anybody can pick up a fun and pull the trigger. Vulpera, for the most part, have absolutely no idea how technology works so there is no legitimate reason to campaign for vulpera tinkers just because they use the goblin skeleton. You really need to stop insisting gnomes and goblins are the only races that can be tinkers. Making the least popular races into a brand new class would be a horrendous mistake.

As for not knowing what the playerbase is for a race, that's nonsense. We know exactly how many of each race are played. so those very small minority might have fun but literally everyone else would just be pissed that a new class got restricted to shit races.