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

[Teriz]

Then your whole argument about "whole school" and "branches" become null and void. Because, in game terms, "magic damage" is just a term that bears no significance aside from the fact that it describes the type of damage a given spell deals, not its actual school.

Nah. In game terms the shadow magic used follows the theme of the class using it. DKs use more Undead/Necromantic shadow magic, Warlocks use more demonic magic, and Shadow Priests use more Old God-based shadow magic.

I'll repeat: it's not linked. Just because the balance druid casts both nature and arcane magic doesn't mean they're linked. Starfire is not an astral spell. Moonfire is not an astral spell.

You chose the wrong spells;

Starfall
50 Astral Power
Instant cast
Requires Druid (Balance)
Requires level 34
Calls down waves of falling stars upon enemies within 40 yds, dealing (9 * (19.7% of Spell power)) Astral damage over 8 sec.

Starsurge
30 Astral Power 40 yd range
Instant cast
Requires Druid (Balance)
Requires level 12
Launch a surge of stellar energies at the target, dealing (207% of Spell power) Astral damage, and empowering the damage bonus of any active Eclipse for its duration.

etc.

It's no different than a druid's shapeshift form, mechanically: the player character gaining a new graphic, different HP, and allowing the use of certain abilities.

And entirely different mechanics due to the theme of a vehicle as opposed to a shape-shifted form.

[Ielenia]

Nah. In game terms the shadow magic used follows the theme of the class using it. DKs use more Undead/Necromantic shadow magic, Warlocks use more demonic magic, and Shadow Priests use more Old God-based shadow magic.

Again: it makes your entire argument about "whole school" and "branches" null and void either way. Because there is no such thing as "branches" in game mechanics. In the lore, fel magic, necromantic magic, and void magic are completely separate from one-another. The fact that the game treats their damage type as the same is meaningless.

You chose the wrong spells;

I didn't. I remember specifically mentioning arcane spells, not astral spells. Are the two spells I linked arcane, or not?

And entirely different mechanics due to the theme of a vehicle as opposed to a shape-shifted form.

I'll repeat something I've said many times to you before: coat of paints (i.e. textures) are not mechanics. A druid taking on bear form is, in game mechanic terms, not different in the slightest than a tinker getting into a mech. Their differences are strictly and purely cosmetic.

[Teriz]

Again: it makes your entire argument about "whole school" and "branches" null and void either way. Because there is no such thing as "branches" in game mechanics. In the lore, fel magic, necromantic magic, and void magic are completely separate from one-another. The fact that the game treats their damage type as the same is meaningless.

And again, we're talking about gameplay. In terms of gameplay Necromancy, Old Gods magic, and the shadow magic that Warlocks use are all different types of Shadow magic, or different branches of Shadow magic.

I didn't. I remember specifically mentioning arcane spells, not astral spells. Are the two spells I linked arcane, or not?

Sure, but Druids utilize a type of Arcane magic that is closely linked with nature magic.

I'll repeat something I've said many times to you before: coat of paints (i.e. textures) are not mechanics. A druid taking on bear form is, in game mechanic terms, not different in the slightest than a tinker getting into a mech. Their differences are strictly and purely cosmetic.

Self Destruct (blowing up the mech), remote control (controlling your mech while you're outside of it), Eject (getting shot out the mech), Combine (mech linking up with tinker devices), ranged and melee auto attack (melee damage turning into ranged attack out of melee range) etc. Are all mechanics that would be exclusive to a mech.

[razorpax]

I think at this point there isn't anything to be added class wise that wouldn't be a mix of existing mechanics; the only way to renew the gameplay would be to release a wow 2 with a slightly different gameplay, maybe more action and timing/movement based rather than button pushing based

We have 4 classes with combo points

A bit of similarity is fine

[Revamp Man]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

As for Blood magic, Vampirism, Cannibalism, San'Layn, Revenderth, etc. It all relates back to undeath and thus necromancy.

by that logic shamans are mages

[Ielenia]

And again, we're talking about gameplay. In terms of gameplay Necromancy, Old Gods magic, and the shadow magic that Warlocks use are all different types of Shadow magic, or different branches of Shadow magic.

They are not branches. Because "branches" implies lore, and you specifically mentioned game mechanics. And both having the same damage type means nothing. It doesn't mean that all of them are even related, much less "branches". You're mixing up game mechanics and lore, here. The most likely reason, as far as I see it, that they're all the same type of damage is simply because there wasn't any need to separate those two considering "void magic" was something inexistent, and necromancy was not something available to players, and changing everything now would be am unnecessary hassle.

Pointing at how those three magic types share a damage type in game mechanic terms is irrelevant, because game mechanics are not lore, and in the lore, all three of them are separate and independent of each other. Worse: if the "cosmic forces" chart is anything to go by, "necromancy" is on par with "holy" in the grand scale of things.

Sure, but Druids utilize a type of Arcane magic that is closely linked with nature magic.

Except when it's not, as demonstrated.

Self Destruct (blowing up the mech), remote control (controlling your mech while you're outside of it), Eject (getting shot out the mech), Combine (mech linking up with tinker devices), ranged and melee auto attack (melee damage turning into ranged attack out of melee range) etc. Are all mechanics that would be exclusive to a mech.

None of those are "mech piloting mechanics". A "mech piloting mechanic" is exactly that: piloting a mech. Nothing more, nothing less. You're describing abilities which are separate from the "mech riding" mechanic itself. You're basically saying Maul is a "shapeshift into bear" mechanic. And it's not. Those are two completely separate mechanics.

[Teriz]

They are not branches. Because "branches" implies lore, and you specifically mentioned game mechanics. And both having the same damage type means nothing. It doesn't mean that all of them are even related, much less "branches". You're mixing up game mechanics and lore, here. The most likely reason, as far as I see it, that they're all the same type of damage is simply because there wasn't any need to separate those two considering "void magic" was something inexistent, and necromancy was not something available to players, and changing everything now would be am unnecessary hassle.

Pointing at how those three magic types share a damage type in game mechanic terms is irrelevant, because game mechanics are not lore, and in the lore, all three of them are separate and independent of each other. Worse: if the "cosmic forces" chart is anything to go by, "necromancy" is on par with "holy" in the grand scale of things.

Again, it’s all Shadow magic in gameplay terms, and the themes of the classes determine abilities behind each type of shadow magic. This existed before that cosmology chart came around, and that chart has nothing to do with class creation or class mechanics. Once again, Necromancy is merely a branch of shadow magic, and multiple classes have their own branch of shadow magic that they use.

WoW lore is a separate discussion entirely.

None of those are "mech piloting mechanics". A "mech piloting mechanic" is exactly that: piloting a mech. Nothing more, nothing less. You're describing abilities which are separate from the "mech riding" mechanic itself. You're basically saying Maul is a "shapeshift into bear" mechanic. And it's not. Those are two completely separate mechanics.

Part of piloting a mech are the abilities that go along with it. Self Destruct, eject, etc. are all examples of exactly that. Further, the question was what new mechanics could a new class bring to the table. A class that can eject from a mech and then blow it up is an example of a mechanic currently not present in the class lineup.

[cocomen2]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

As for Blood magic, Vampirism, Cannibalism, San'Layn, Revenderth, etc. It all relates back to undeath and thus necromancy.

Gameplay overrides lore. Case in point

Stay classy my boy ( Tinkers are Engineers , but you don't know what a lore means)

[Triceron]

There is nothing rogues in DR

Since HOTS and WoW, they seemed to give Sylvanas more Rogue connections. Shadow Daggers, using Daggers in melee, heavy use of shadow magic and shadow clones, shadow-step-like ability baked into Haunting Wave.

[Ielenia]

Again, it’s all Shadow magic in gameplay terms,

Which is meaningless when you're trying to make a connection to the lore. Fel magic, void magic, and necromantic magic are not the same, and are not even related to each other.

Once again, Necromancy is merely a branch of shadow magic,

Wrong. Because "shadow magic" is not something that exists in the lore. There is void magic, necromantic magic and fel magic, and all three are separate and independent of each other. The fact that the game assigns them the same damage type is meaningless because game mechanics are not lore, and game mechanics also say that a rock to the face and a lightning bolt to the ass deal the exact same damage type.

WoW lore is a separate discussion entirely.

And yet you continue to conflate and flip-flop between the two.

Part of piloting a mech are the abilities that go along with it.

No.

You're mixing up the mechanics and mashing them together into an abomination to make your point. "Mech piloting" mechanic is just that: mech piloting. The mechanic that makes the tinker get into a mech. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is why it's a fact that this is no different at all, mechanic-wise, from the druid's shapeshifting mechanic. Their only difference is simply cosmetic.

An example: the shaman's Ascendant mechanic and the demon hunter's Metamorphosis mechanics are the exact same: the player character temporarily acquires a new model, and temporarily alters their rotational abilities.

Further, the question was what new mechanics could a new class bring to the table.

To you you specficially said that "mech riding is a new mechanic", and I explained and demonstrated it is not.

[Imperator4321]

Since HOTS and WoW, they seemed to give Sylvanas more Rogue connections. Shadow Daggers, using Daggers in melee, heavy use of shadow magic and shadow clones, shadow-step-like ability baked into Haunting Wave.

Could be an interesting route to take a Dark Ranger (or Dark Ranger esque class or spec), a mid range (20-30 vs the typical 40 range) damage dealer who moves in and out of melee and range with arrows, throwing knifes, dagger strikes, shadow clones/steps.

Rogue already has the skills for range weapons (although they lack auto-shot) and melee skills could work similarly to how Outlaw and Survival utilize a pistol and hand crossbow for ranged abilities, have them pull out daggers for melee abilities when needed.

[Teriz]

Which is meaningless when you're trying to make a connection to the lore. Fel magic, void magic, and necromantic magic are not the same, and are not even related to each other.

They’re not the same because the classes using it are doing different things. Warlocks are summoning demons and Death Knights are summoning undead minions, while Shadow Priests assault the mind. There’s some overlap, but the various ways shadow magic is used are distinct and obvious. Again, we had this in place long before any cosmology charts were employed.

Wrong. Because "shadow magic" is not something that exists in the lore.

Which proves my point that we are talking about gameplay and the class lineup, not lore. They’re very different things.

You're mixing up the mechanics and mashing them together into an abomination to make your point. "Mech piloting" mechanic is just that: mech piloting. The mechanic that makes the tinker get into a mech. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is why it's a fact that this is no different at all, mechanic-wise, from the druid's shapeshifting mechanic. Their only difference is simply cosmetic.

Incorrect. Mech piloting is every ability that is associated with that activity.

To you you specficially said that "mech riding is a new mechanic", and I explained and demonstrated it is not.

Nope, read it again. I said mech piloting, not simply riding. Piloting involves quite a bit more than simply riding.

- - - Updated - - -

by that logic shamans are mages

Nah. Mages are Arcane, Frost, and Fire. Shaman are elemental (fire, wind/air, water, earth) and that’s reflected in their totems. Not the same, though there is a little overlap.

[Ielenia]

They’re not the same because the classes using it are doing different things.

Wrong. They are not the same because they are not the same. Fel magic, void magic and necromantic magic are not "different ways" of using shadow magic. They're just separate things altogether and independent of each other.

Again, we had this in place long before any cosmology charts were employed.

Gameplay is not lore.

Which proves my point that we are talking about gameplay and the class lineup, not lore. They’re very different things.

Why is why saying "necromancy is a branch of shadow magic" is not only meaningless, but irrelevant. Because "branches" is not something that exists in game mechanics.

Incorrect. Mech piloting is every ability that is associated with that activity.

Wrong. "Mech piloting" is just that: piloting a mech. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, you're taking separate mechanics and mashing them together into an abomination to back your argument, and it doesn't work that way.

Nope, read it again. I said mech piloting, not simply riding. Piloting involves quite a bit more than simply riding.

Riding, piloting, it's all the same for the context of what we're discussing here, Teriz. Stop being pedantic.

[Teriz]

Wrong. They are not the same because they are not the same. Fel magic, void magic and necromantic magic are not "different ways" of using shadow magic. They're just separate things altogether and independent of each other.

Not according to game mechanics.

Gameplay is not lore.

Indeed, they're two separate things, and since we're talking about classes, we're talking about gameplay.

Why is why saying "necromancy is a branch of shadow magic" is not only meaningless, but irrelevant. Because "branches" is not something that exists in game mechanics.

"Branches" is merely another way of saying that it's another aspect of Shadow magic in the class lineup. Warlocks have their shadow magic, Priests have their shadow magic, Rogues, have their shadow magic, DKs have their shadow magic, and so forth.

Wrong. "Mech piloting" is just that: piloting a mech. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, you're taking separate mechanics and mashing them together into an abomination to back your argument, and it doesn't work that way.

Riding, piloting, it's all the same for the context of what we're discussing here, Teriz. Stop being pedantic.

Clearly when I was talking about mech piloting I was talking about all aspects of utilizing a mech, which includes it's unique abilities. Sorry if you misunderstood.

[Ielenia]

Not according to game mechanics.

Game mechanics are not lore. It doesn't matter what game mechanics say in this regard. They also say that a stone to face is the same type of damage as a gust of wind and a lightning strike.

Indeed, they're two separate things, and since we're talking about classes, we're talking about gameplay.

And yet you continue to conflate the two, when you talk about "branches of shadow magic".

"Branches" is merely another way of saying that it's another aspect of Shadow magic in the class lineup. Warlocks have their shadow magic, Priests have their shadow magic, Rogues, have their shadow magic, DKs have their shadow magic, and so forth.

So what? It still doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

Clearly when I was talking about mech piloting I was talking about all aspects of utilizing a mech, which includes it's unique abilities. Sorry if you misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand a thing. Because you were very precise in your wording:

I think mech piloting would be a very original mechanic.

You specifically mentioned that mech piloting itself would be a very original mechanic. This isn't me misunderstanding, it's you poorly wording your statements at best, and being willfully dishonest at worst by lying about what you wrote. And "mech piloting" is not a new mechanic in any way, shape or form considering it's just a reskin of the druid's shapeshift mechanic.

Either way, all of that you mentioned are still not new mechanics in any way, shape or form. None of the abilities you spoke of are new mechanics.

[Teriz]

Game mechanics are not lore.

We've established that, which is why we're not talking about lore, we're talking about game mechanics.

And yet you continue to conflate the two, when you talk about "branches of shadow magic".

Merely a way to point out the mechanical and gameplay differences of the various classes that use shadow magic.

I didn't misunderstand a thing. Because you were very precise in your wording:

You specifically mentioned that mech piloting itself would be a very original mechanic. This isn't me misunderstanding, it's you poorly wording your statements at best, and being willfully dishonest at worst by lying about what you wrote. And "mech piloting" is not a new mechanic in any way, shape or form considering it's just a reskin of the druid's shapeshift mechanic.

Either way, all of that you mentioned are still not new mechanics in any way, shape or form. None of the abilities you spoke of are new mechanics.

I'm not aware of a class that can eject from a vehicle and/or use that vehicle as a weapon that explodes. I'm also not aware of any class using a mechanical device to connect to another mechanical device and give those devices a new purpose. Finally I'm not aware of any class that can pilot a vehicle, have that vehicle be destroyed and continue to fight until they can summon a new vehicle.

Yet here we are.

[cocomen2]

I'm not aware of a class that can eject from a vehicle and/or use that vehicle as a weapon that explodes.

There a D.VA for you, just try it and please don't come back.

Edit: sorry , that she not fugly as goblin.

[Ielenia]

We've established that, which is why we're not talking about lore, we're talking about game mechanics.

And yet, despite me explaining that this claim of "branches of shadow magic" is not only complete nonsense but also pertains solely to lore, you still keep mentioning it as part of your arguments.

Merely a way to point out the mechanical and gameplay differences of the various classes that use shadow magic.

Which is completely irrelevant, considering that each and every one of those class concepts use different magic types in the lore.

I'm not aware of a class that can eject from a vehicle

All classes can eject from vehicles. And enter them, too.

and/or use that vehicle as a weapon that explodes.

You mean like all the bombs we piloted in the game?

I'm also not aware of any class using a mechanical device

"Mechanical" is nothing but a coat of paint, cosmetic.

to connect to another mechanical device and give those devices a new purpose.

How is it mechanically different than a warlock sacrificing their demons for extra power?

Finally I'm not aware of any class that can pilot a vehicle,

First: the actual mechanic of "piloting a vehicle" already exists.
Second: it is not something that is going to be available as part of a class' mechanics.

have that vehicle be destroyed and continue to fight until they can summon a new vehicle.

You mean like almost every single vehicle that exists in WoW right now, in which you can still continue fighting even after it's destroyed?

[Teriz]

And yet, despite me explaining that this claim of "branches of shadow magic" is not only complete nonsense but also pertains solely to lore, you still keep mentioning it as part of your arguments.

How is it complete nonsense? Death Knights, Shadow Priests, Warlocks, Rogues, and Demon Hunters all use shadow magic, yet all use them in different ways.

Which is completely irrelevant, considering that each and every one of those class concepts use different magic types in the lore.

What they use in lore is irrelevant. The only thing relevant in this discussion is what they're doing gameplay wise.

All classes can eject from vehicles. And enter them, too.

Not a class ability.

You mean like all the bombs we piloted in the game?

Nope, nothing like that.

"Mechanical" is nothing but a coat of paint, cosmetic.

Actually mechanicals have a variety of attributes.

How is it mechanically different than a warlock sacrificing their demons for extra power?

Because it doesn't give Warlocks any new abilities. In addition, you should be able to see the new device on the mech when you merge.

First: the actual mechanic of "piloting a vehicle" already exists.
Second: it is not something that is going to be available as part of a class' mechanics.

I didn't say pilot a vehicle, I said pilot a mech. "Mech" as in the class ability. More than likely Robo Goblin/Gnome, or Gazlowe's Summon Mech from Island Expeditions.

You mean like almost every single vehicle that exists in WoW right now, in which you can still continue fighting even after it's destroyed?

Nope, I mean like Gazlowe or Mech Jockeys who will keep fighting after you destroy their mech and if you don't kill them, they'll resummon it.

- - - Updated - - -

There a D.VA for you, just try it and please don't come back.

Edit: sorry , that she not fugly as goblin.

I'm actually a rather big fan of Overwatch.

It's quite nice to see some of D.va's attributes leak into WoW like Eject, Self Destruct, and other abilities.

[Ielenia]

How is it complete nonsense? Death Knights, Shadow Priests, Warlocks, Rogues, and Demon Hunters all use shadow magic, yet all use them in different ways.

No, they don't. Death knights use necromancy. Shadow priests use void magic. Warlocks use fel magic. Demon hunters use chaos magic.

What they use in lore is irrelevant. The only thing relevant in this discussion is what they're doing gameplay wise.

And gameplay-wise the damage type does not matter.

Not a class ability.

And it won't happen as a class ability.

Actually mechanicals have a variety of attributes.

We're talking about that one, single, specific mechanic: i.e. "mech piloting", and how it is no different than the druid's shapeshifting, mechanic-wise.

Because it doesn't give Warlocks any new abilities.

It grants the warlock extra damage as AoE for their abilities. And on top of that, it also grants them new abilities depending on the demon sacrificed:
• Voidwalker: Shadow Bulwark
• Felguard: Pursuit
• Felhunter: Spell Lock
• Imp: Singe magic
• Succubus: Seduction
So, yes, it does grant the warlock new abilities.

In addition, you should be able to see the new device on the mech when you merge.

Which is irrelevant because that is purely cosmetic, therefore not a mechanic.

I didn't say pilot a vehicle, I said pilot a mech.

Your exact words:

I'm not aware of a class that can eject from a vehicle and/or use that vehicle as a weapon that explodes.

Once again, you try to lie your way out.

Nope, I mean like Gazlowe or Mech Jockeys who will keep fighting after you destroy their mech and if you don't kill them, they'll resummon it.

Just like my warrior can continue to keep fighting after their vehicle has destroyed and can return to the vehicle to get a new one? Regardless, that is something that is not happening to WoW in terms of a class feature. Blizzard is not going to give a class two health bars, which is essentially a permanent "cheat death".