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

[Traveler Voltin]

But there's nothing that actually indicates that he was trained any differently than other Paladins, except for the fact that he was a Prince. I mean, Arthas was trained by Uther, and Uther himself was originally a Priest.

arthas was never a priest.

[jellmoo]

arthas was never a priest.

Sure, but that doesn't make him fundamentally any different than the Paladins before him. Uther was and he taught Arthas. Nothing indicates that the way Arthas was taught is radically different.

[razorpax]

Nah. Blizzard expansions never have the same theme back to back. The current expansion is dealing with death and its full of Necromancers and death themes. That's not going to happen in yet another expansion where we're dealing with MORE Necromancers and death themes. The subs would fall off a cliff.

Never said it would be the main theme
It’s like BfA to legion
Small tie in

[Teriz]

/snip

No amount of your semantics will change the facts here. Priests and Warlocks are VERY. different from each other. Necromancers and Death Knights are clearly not. This is why you have to use whataboutisms instead of dealing with the root of why there will be no Necromancer class. Feel free to believe whatever you like, but the facts are the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but that doesn't make him fundamentally any different than the Paladins before him. Uther was and he taught Arthas. Nothing indicates that the way Arthas was taught is radically different.

You’re utilizing a lore similarity that isn’t a gameplay reality. Priests players can’t transform their priests into Paladins, and Priests use an entire school of magic that Paladins don’t touch. Thus even in lore, every Priest isn’t going to be able, or desire to become a Paladin. 2/3 of the Priest specs use Shadow magic in some capacity.

- - - Updated - - -

Never said it would be the main theme
It’s like BfA to legion
Small tie in

Yeah, but Necromancy would have to be a major theme to facilitate a Necromancer class. Like in the current expansion which didn’t bring us a Necromancer.

[jellmoo]

You’re utilizing a lore similarity that isn’t a gameplay reality. Priests players can’t transform their priests into Paladins, and Priests use an entire school of magic that Paladins don’t touch. Thus even in lore, every Priest isn’t going to be able, or desire to become a Paladin. 2/3 of the Priest specs use Shadow magic in some capacity.

Which has nothing to do with my point. Paladins were originally Priests that one day said "Aw shit, we gots to do something about dem Orcs. Let's grab some armor and weapons and kick ass with da Light!"

I'm not arguing anything about in game mechanics. Just that saying that Priests and Paladins are somehow super different isn't quite true since one used to be, quite literally, the other.

[Teriz]

Which has nothing to do with my point. Paladins were originally Priests that one day said "Aw shit, we gots to do something about dem Orcs. Let's grab some armor and weapons and kick ass with da Light!"

I'm not arguing anything about in game mechanics. Just that saying that Priests and Paladins are somehow super different isn't quite true since one used to be, quite literally, the other.

Again, that has nothing to do with the class. The class is a healing class that combines Shadow damage and holy healing magic. That lore tidbit has nothing to do with the priest’s purpose in the class lineup.

It’s the same as Mages becoming Warlocks in lore. That really has nothing to do with a discussion arguing for another class that uses demonic magic and demon pets.

[jellmoo]

Again, that has nothing to do with the class. The class is a healing class that combines Shadow damage and holy healing magic. That lore tidbit has nothing to do with the priest’s purpose in the class lineup.

It’s the same as Mages becoming Warlocks in lore. That really has nothing to do with a discussion arguing for another class that uses demonic magic and demon pets.

Of course it does. If you make an argument that Class Concept A is too similar to Current Class B, people are going to naturally compare it current classes that share Lore similarities.

But you're arguing that the classes are different mechanically, so it's okay, as though two additionally similar concepts (let's say Death Knight and Necromancer) wouldn't also be different mechanically.

All I'm saying is that Priests have a direct connection to Paladins thematically.

[Teriz]

Of course it does. If you make an argument that Class Concept A is too similar to Current Class B, people are going to naturally compare it current classes that share Lore similarities.

But you're arguing that the classes are different mechanically, so it's okay, as though two additionally similar concepts (let's say Death Knight and Necromancer) wouldn't also be different mechanically.

All I'm saying is that Priests have a direct connection to Paladins thematically.

But they’re not similar thematically. Priest merges shadow and holy magic. Paladins are pure holy Warriors. Meanwhile, a Death Knight is a Necromancer, since a Necromancer is simply someone who practices Necromancy, which is exactly what a DK does.

It isn’t lore that prevents another Necromancer class, it’s gameplay.

[Ielenia]

No amount of your semantics will change the facts here.

Says the guy who loves to employ semantics and dishonest double-standards in his arguments. You literally tried to redefine the word "build" many pages ago.

Priests and Warlocks are VERY. different from each other.

And so would necromancers and death knights. One is a melee character, the other is a ranged character. One wears plate, the other wears cloth. One uses primarily weapon strikes, the other uses exclusively magic attacks. Those three facts alone debunk any and all claims that DKs and necromancers would play the same.

Necromancers and Death Knights are clearly not.

Demonstrably false.

This is why you have to use whataboutisms

Demonstrating how your arguments are bogus because they invalidate existing classes is not "whataboutism".

instead of dealing with the root of why there will be no Necromancer class.

And you know that just like you knew "the next class is going to be tinker" for the last several years, right? Once again, opinions as fact, by Teriz™.

the facts are the facts.

Of which you have very little, despite your claims. Of course, many of your so-called "facts" are nothing but opinions and headcanons.

[Teriz]

Says the guy who loves to employ semantics and dishonest double-standards in his arguments.

Says the guy who can’t differentiate a specialization similarity from a class similarity.

[jellmoo]

But they’re not similar thematically. Priest merges shadow and holy magic. Paladins are pure holy Warriors. Meanwhile, a Death Knight is a Necromancer, since a Necromancer is simply someone who practices Necromancy, which is exactly what a DK does.

It isn’t lore that prevents another Necromancer class, it’s gameplay.

Of course they are. They are literally the same thing. A Paladin is a Priest in armour with a sword. That's the whole history of Paladins. A Death Knight is a Necromancer in armour with a sword.

[Ielenia]

Says the guy who can’t differentiate a specialization similarity from a class similarity.

But it doesn't matter. It's still similarities. If "specialization similarity" doesn't matter, only "class similarity" does, you're basically saying two specs can be carbon-copies of another class' two specs, as long as the third spec is different. Which would make your necromancer concept (blood spec, frost spec, unholy spec) a valid class considering the blood spec would be healing, instead of tanking.

And then there are the other stuff you... I'll be generous and say you forgot to answer:

Priests and Warlocks are VERY. different from each other.

And so would necromancers and death knights. One is a melee character, the other is a ranged character. One wears plate, the other wears cloth. One uses primarily weapon strikes, the other uses exclusively magic attacks. Those three facts alone debunk any and all claims that DKs and necromancers would play the same.

Necromancers and Death Knights are clearly not.

Demonstrably false.

This is why you have to use whataboutisms

Demonstrating how your arguments are bogus because they invalidate existing classes is not "whataboutism".

instead of dealing with the root of why there will be no Necromancer class.

And you know that just like you knew "the next class is going to be tinker" for the last several years, right? Once again, opinions as fact, by Teriz™.

the facts are the facts.

Of which you have very little, despite your claims. Of course, many of your so-called "facts" are nothing but opinions and headcanons.

[Teriz]

Of course they are. They are literally the same thing. A Paladin is a Priest in armour with a sword. That's the whole history of Paladins. A Death Knight is a Necromancer in armour with a sword.

Again, you’re pulling up lore. I’m talking about the classes, not Priest and Paladin lore. Class wise Priests use shadow magic, Paladins do not. That means they are thematically not the same.

[jellmoo]

Again, you’re pulling up lore. I’m talking about the classes, not Priest and Paladin lore. Class wise Priests use shadow magic, Paladins do not. That means they are thematically not the same.

Classes are a mechanic though. Yeah, Priests have a spec that's different than the Paladin. A Necromancer would have spec differentiation from Death Knights. Thematically similar, mechanically different.

[Teriz]

But it doesn't matter. It's still similarities. If "specialization similarity" doesn't matter, only "class similarity" does, you're basically saying two specs can be carbon-copies of another class' two specs, as long as the third spec is different. Which would make your necromancer concept (blood spec, frost spec, unholy spec) a valid class considering the blood spec would be healing, instead of tanking

And that would be a straw man. There are no specs that are “carbon copies” of each other. Further, saying that the difference between specialization vs class similarity “doesn’t matter” is an utterly ridiculous statement to make. There’s a massive difference, and it’s why you might see a few specs share spells, but entire classes not being similar to each other.

[Ielenia]

And that would be a straw man. There are no specs that are “carbon copies” of each other.

It was an example of how your argument allows for two specs of this hypothetical class be literal carbon-copies of another class, as long as the third spec is different, since, like you pointed out, spec similarities don't matter. Only class similarity does. After all, if only 2/3 of a class is similar to another, then the class as a whole is not similar to another.

Further, saying that the difference between specialization vs class similarity “doesn’t matter” is an utterly ridiculous statement to make. There’s a massive difference, and it’s why you might see a few specs share spells, but entire classes not being similar to each other.

It doesn't matter if classes share similarities, big or small. A class concept of a light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting inherently plays differently than a class concept of a heavy-armored, melee character who most of their attacks rely on weapon swings. Those two class concepts will never have the same gameplay. That is an undisputable fact.

Likewise: a spec that is based on tanking inherently plays different than a spec based on healing, regardless if they share the same theme. Otherwise, it's like saying the priest's holy spec "plays the same" as the paladin's prot spec.

[Teriz]

Classes are a mechanic though. Yeah, Priests have a spec that's different than the Paladin. A Necromancer would have spec differentiation from Death Knights. Thematically similar, mechanically different.

Priests have 2 specs that are different than Paladins, and frankly the weapon/armor based magic of Paladins differs highly from the style of Holy magic employed by Priests. However, for the sake of argument, I will say they share 1 specialization similarity, and that's because of the nature of healing in WoW where healing specs have to follow a similar spell set up in order to be competitive and viable.

There would be no Necromancer spec different than the DK class. Even if we ignore Blizzard viewing red spells in healing specs to be problematic, you still have blood in a spec utilized for healing. However in this case instead of blood magic being used on themselves to heal so that the necromancer can tank, this version would heal the group instead (which the DK has been able to do in past iterations of WoW). In addition, you would almost be required to utilize Kel'thuzad since he is the only major Necromancer legacy character in WoW and that would force a Frost spec of sorts, and obviously you're going to want an Unholy style spec that raises minions.

So yeah, Necromancer specs: Blood, Frost, Unholy. Just like the DK class.

- - - Updated - - -

It was an example of how your argument allows for two specs of this hypothetical class be literal carbon-copies of another class, as long as the third spec is different, since, like you pointed out, spec similarities don't matter. Only class similarity does. After all, if only 2/3 of a class is similar to another, then the class as a whole is not similar to another.

Yeah, I never advocated for that at all. I said that you can't tell the difference between a spec similarity and a class similarity. In other words you're arguing about how Affliction Lock and SPriests are similar when the actual issue here is that the entire Necromancer class would be similar to the DK class, which is why it probably won't be implemented.

[jellmoo]

Priests have 2 specs that are different than Paladins, and frankly the weapon/armor based magic of Paladins differs highly from the style of Holy magic employed by Priests. However, for the sake of argument, I will say they share 1 specialization similarity, and that's because of the nature of healing in WoW where healing specs have to follow a similar spell set up in order to be competitive and viable.

Okay? And Necromancers could have 1 spec similar to Death Knights and 2 specs that are different. What exactly is the difference here?

There would be no Necromancer spec different than the DK class. Even if we ignore Blizzard viewing red spells in healing specs to be problematic, you still have blood in a spec utilized for healing. However in this case instead of blood magic being used on themselves to heal so that the necromancer can tank, this version would heal the group instead (which the DK has been able to do in past iterations of WoW). In addition, you would almost be required to utilize Kel'thuzad since he is the only major Necromancer legacy character in WoW and that would force a Frost spec of sorts, and obviously you're going to want an Unholy style spec that raises minions.

So yeah, Necromancer specs: Blood, Frost, Unholy. Just like the DK class.

Why... Why on earth would Blizzard use the same specs as the Death Knight? No really, why can't they make other specs? Let's go with Bone, Poison and Undead. Or Curses, Disease and Alchemy. There is zero reason that they would ever just use Death Knight specs and there's no reason that they can't make up other ones.

If they can make Priests and Paladins different enough from one another to be separate class, there is absolutely no reason that they can't make Necromancers and Death Knights different enough to be separate classes.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, I never advocated for that at all. I said that you can't tell the difference between a spec similarity and a class similarity. In other words you're arguing about how Affliction Lock and SPriests are similar when the actual issue here is that the entire Necromancer class would be similar to the DK class, which is why it probably won't be implemented.

And that premise is demonstrably false, as I already explained:

It doesn't matter if classes share similarities, big or small. A class concept of a light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting inherently plays differently than a class concept of a heavy-armored, melee character who most of their attacks rely on weapon swings. Those two class concepts will never have the same gameplay. That is an undisputable fact.

Light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting: necromancer.
Heavy-armored, melee character who relies mostly on weapon swings: death knight.

- - - Updated - - -

Why... Why on earth would Blizzard use the same specs as the Death Knight? No really, why can't they make other specs? Let's go with Bone, Poison and Undead. Or Curses, Disease and Alchemy. There is zero reason that they would ever just use Death Knight specs and there's no reason that they can't make up other ones.

Or better yet: Blood Ritual, Construct and Poison. Which are the specs of the new necromancer concept I'm slowly writing up.

[Teriz]

Okay? And Necromancers could have 1 spec similar to Death Knights and 2 specs that are different. What exactly is the difference here?

How? The capabilities of WoW Necromancers are quite clear, and they're pretty much aligned 1:1 with Death Knights.

Why... Why on earth would Blizzard use the same specs as the Death Knight? No really, why can't they make other specs? Let's go with Bone, Poison and Undead. Or Curses, Disease and Alchemy. There is zero reason that they would ever just use Death Knight specs and there's no reason that they can't make up other ones.

Because they purposely put the Necromancer concept into the DK class back in WotLK. People don't want to accept that, but that's exactly what happened. In other words, Blizzard's design for the Necromancer class IS the DK class.

Also Warlocks use curses. Necromancers don't use poison in WoW, that would be Diablo. DKs already do Bone, Disease, and Undead.

Alchemy isn't magic, and based on the Alchemist hero from WC3, that concept belongs more with the Tinker class than any Necromancer concept.

So yeah that's that.

If they can make Priests and Paladins different enough from one another to be separate class, there is absolutely no reason that they can't make Necromancers and Death Knights different enough to be separate classes.

You're acting as if Priests and Paladins are one in the same, like Priests are just ranged Paladins. That has never been the case in the history of Warcraft.

And yeah there is a reason they can't make Necromancers and DKs different; DKs are necromancers. A necromancer is simply someone who uses necromancy, which is exactly what the DK does.

- - - Updated - - -

And that premise is demonstrably false, as I already explained
Light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting: necromancer.
Heavy-armored, melee character who relies mostly on weapon swings: death knight.

In short, you're stating that the only difference is one wear cloth and is a spell caster, while the other is a heavily armored battle-mage. Which is irrelevant because it isn't stated anywhere that a Necromancer MUST be a cloth-wearing spell caster, and there are examples of Blizzard creating melee Necromancers.

What you describe isn't enough of a difference to justify them as two separate classes. It's literally the difference between an Elemental and Enhancement Shaman.