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

[Triceron]

While I do like the idea like for example allowing Subtlety rogues to double down on shadow clone stuff akin to how Maiev and Wardens are depicted, I think there a definite balance issues with that concept, for instance adding Blademaster stuff to the warrior class runs into issues since the warrior class is balanced around not having stealth so adding a wind walk ability to them could run into issues where the overall balance of the class is affected.

I agree, so that has to be addressed on a case-by-case scenario.

However, I will point out that we are getting some of that inserted into Warriors right now, if we consider the different Covenant options and how they affect balance overall. Of course, with Covenants it's clear that people will just pick the 'Fad of the Month' min max build and not worry about themes or class identity, but that's how it's always going to be. Everyone gets mobility options if you take Night Fae or Revendreth Covenants, and it seems to be fairly in line so far.

Expanding current class/spec limitations could be another route, allowing warglaivesto be used by Rogues, Shamans and Hunters, throwing weapons for Hunters, allowing options for being ranged or melee for the likes of Survival Hunter, Subtlety/Assassination Rogues, while these could have balance issues I think it could be interesting to allow more options within a class in terms of weapon selection and range/melee position (ranged survival already technically exists due to the unpruning but certain abilities like kill shot are locked behind two handed melee weapons).

Throwing weapons for Hunters is something I'd definitely get behind. I'd also argue in favour of having 'Massive' weapons available for Warriors. I really want Taurens to be able to use their giant Totems like in WC3, even if it were merely a glorified transmog option.

[username993720]

What about the Priest? Heck, the Warlock isn't a WC3 unit at all. Clearly they don't have a hard and fast rule about what classes they are willing to adapt for WoW.

That's not what i meant.
New classes.
From the Death Knight, to the Monk (Pandaren Brewmaster), to the Demon Hunter.
And, by the way:
Warlock - https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Arc...(Warcraft_III)
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Gul...(Warcraft_III)
Priest - https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Priest_(Warcraft_III)

Er, now you're playing with Teriz level logic. You can't use your own confirmation bias to decide what Blizzard can do based on what Blizzard has or has not done.

Runemaster was not a hero or a unit and was runner up for Hero class in Wrath. You seem to play ignorant here just to satisfy your argument.

I mean, why even bother making the unit/hero distinction? Druid, Priest and Shaman were translated from units in WC3, and are standing toe-to-toe alongside Paladins, which were the only 'Hero' translated directly into WoW.

Again, in regards to new classes.
Vanilla classes are none of my concern or part of my analysis.

Why take this as an example? No one is asking for an Apothecary class. You're using an example that has no real established identity outside of WoW. Who is asking for an Apothecary?

And by what measure are you applying that it could 'be integrated into the Alchemist'? Why not an Alchemist spec out of an Apothecary class?

It's the same as the Blademaster, where the name is practically interchangeable between Warriors and Monks and as its own class. You could have a Warrior with a Blademaster integrated into it, you could have a Monk with Blademaster integrated into it, or we could have a Blademaster with Warrior and Monk themes integrated into it. We've literally seen examples of Warlock with Demon Hunter themes directly added to it, through an entire spec as well as a glyph that allowed a different demonic tanking form.

The Apothecary is simply an identity that exists in WoW through the Forsaken, and we have little to go on beyond that. Yet in all honesty, the Apothecary concept has no more or less to it than the Goblin Alchemist of WC3, which has just as little identity to it. They're all represented in the game through the Alchemy profession. You could have an Apothecary class with Alchemist themes in it, or an Alchemit with Apothecary themes in it. I don't see what makes you think one has any more chance of being a class than the other; either way neither the Alchemist or Apothecary would likely be made into a class since they're both pretty low tier concepts on the list of possible classes.

I mean even when the Tinker is talked about, people already associate it having its own Alchemist/Chemist healing subspec within it, so an Alchemy hero is even less likely.

This has nothing to do with requests.
Considering the viability of classes based on their popularity is not the way to go.

Eh, if you got creative enough with the Mirror Images and Windwalking, you could make a pretty unique and tricky Blademaster.

But WoW's current team isn't creative enough to make that work.

Not creative enough?
They made Mistweaver, Windwalker and Vengeance out of nothing established, basically.

Discarding the "Ranger" aspects of the Hunter class is like discarding the "berserker/barbarian" aspects of the warrior class, the Hunter class is fundamentally based on the Ranger archetype (traps, beast-mastery, archery, tracking) just like how the WoW Warrior class is partially based on the Barbarian archetype (furry warrior, rage resource). "Rangers" have existed the fantasy genre as a class/archetype since Dungeons and Dragons (and even earlier since the D&D Ranger is based on characters like Aragorn) the WoW Hunter is just Blizzards interpretation of that archetype.

I meant for the Survival Hunter.
Current description: "An adaptive ranger who favors using explosives, animal venom, and coordinated attacks with their bonded beast".
Old description: "A rugged tracker who favors using animal venom, explosives and traps as deadly weapons."
Headhunter description: "These cunning warriors are trained from birth to hunt, track and trap the most dangerous beasts in the wilds".
The only thing not in place was the explosives, which should have been moved to Marksmanship.

And yes, they can, if they are ever to make a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon or Sea Witch class/specs, which are all, basically, Rangers.
Traps, Beast Mastery and tracking would still be part of the Hunter. Only archery would be taken away).

[Ielenia]

I know what you strive for. Playable necromancers.

Wrong. What I am "striving for" here is to demonstrate how fallacious your argument is, because, as demonstrated, it invalidates present classes.

But, Blizzard never added a basic Warcraft 3 unit as a class.

Rogue, warlock and technically druid.

Let alone the Runemaster, who's an RPG class.

Runemaster was never a Warcraft 1, 2 or 3 unit, and yet it was one of the runner-ups for first expansion class.

[draugril]

Not creative enough?
They made Mistweaver, Windwalker and Vengeance out of nothing established, basically.

The current team. The one that couldn't think of a third for Demon Hunter when the ultimate of the Demon Hunter in WCIII is literally a ranged spec.

[Triceron]

Again, in regards to new classes.
Vanilla classes are none of my concern or part of my analysis.

Which is part of your problem. You're taking a very narrow view of what potential new classes can be without considering how classes have been approached overall. You're deciding that what was okay for Vanilla is not okay for modern WoW based on arbitrary patterns. Again, as I've pointed out, you're employing logic of the same people who argued against Demon Hunters being playable because of arbitrary patterns.

Be it 'Theme' or 'Gameplay' or 'It wasn't a Warcraft 3 Hero', all of these talking points are completely bogus.

This has nothing to do with requests.
Considering the viability of classes based on their popularity is not the way to go.

Classes aren't added to the game because we need more gameplay options. Classes are added to the game as a shiny big new feature to draw the crowd in. That's their only purpose, and you can see by the way Blizzard has designed expansions and classes that the class is meant to hype up the expansion.

When it comes down to the question of whether we need any new class in the game, we're coming up to the point where the answer is No, we don't. We get a new class every 2 expansions, and Shadowlands should have given us a new class, be it something themed to SL like Necromancer or Dark Ranger, or hell even give us a Tinker and bypass the Shadowlands theme entirely in favour of Undermine. We see now that Covenants is a perfectly viable option in lieu of a new class, and Shadowlands has had considerable hype around its release without a class.

When we consider any new class, popularity and demand is a big part of that conversation. Why? Because there's no reason why a Demon Hunter should have been made playable if we consider the merits of Themes and Gameplay. What new Themes does the Demon Hunter provide that aren't covered in the game? None. Warlocks, Rogues and Monks already provide all the theme needed. What new gameplay did they provide? Practically none, since it absorbed a slew of mechanics taken from Monks and Warlocks. It is the only class designed with 2 specs as well, which shows how limited their design is. Did we have other less popular options that would have had better gameplay or design, with a unique theme? Yes, we had plenty of other concepts like a Bard or a Tinker or even a Dragonsworn. Why choose a 4th Leather-wearing Dual Wielding Melee class instead of a Tinker who could easily be Mail-wearing and provide a completely new Tech theme that isn't in the game?


Popularity and demand.


One *must* consider the popularity and demand as a significant factor when addressing class concepts. We can't just blindly talk about Apothecaries as though they'll ever be made without considering their actual value to Blizzard themselves. Are Apothecaries highly identifiable? No, not really. That alone takes this option out of the picture. A significant value to understanding what class could be added is understanding whether Blizzard would value it as a marketable feature. There are some classes that are simply more marketable than others, and part of that is using the feature to hype up the expansion.

So in order to evaluate what new class we get, we also have to frame it under what potential new expansions we get. As Blizzard devs have stated in Shadowlands, a big reason why they *didn't* add a new class is because nothing jumped out at them that fit Shadowlands' setting and story the way the Demon Hunter did for Legion. So we know there is a significant merit to tying in classes that are thematic to an expansion.

This is why I personally value the Dragonsworn higher than the Tinker, since we know Dragon Isles are an upcoming place to explore. I think the Tinker has more merit of becoming playable because it has more general demand surrounding it, but I find it difficult to see Blizzard working them into any particular expansion theme. And of course, my 'exception to the rule' for all of this would be Class Skins, since I personally think they could insert a half-dozen class concepts together regardless of any expansion theme the same way Allied Races aren't tied to any specific BFA theme; they're just there to participate in the Horde/Alliance war for 'reasons'.

[username993720]

Wrong. What I am "striving for" here is to demonstrate how fallacious your argument is, because, as demonstrated, it invalidates present classes.


Rogue, warlock and technically druid.


Runemaster was never a Warcraft 1, 2 or 3 unit, and yet it was one of the runner-ups for first expansion class.

New classes. Not Vanilla ones. I'm tired of repeating that.
And consideration is far from addition. We've seen it twice.

The current team. The one that couldn't think of a third for Demon Hunter when the ultimate of the Demon Hunter in WCIII is literally a ranged spec.

What did you have in mind?
Because that would, probably, overlap too much with the Warlock.

Which is part of your problem. You're taking a very narrow view of what potential new classes can be without considering how classes have been approached overall. You're deciding that what was okay for Vanilla is not okay for modern WoW based on arbitrary patterns. Again, as I've pointed out, you're employing logic of the same people who argued against Demon Hunters being playable because of arbitrary patterns.

Be it 'Theme' or 'Gameplay' or 'It wasn't a Warcraft 3 Hero', all of these talking points are completely bogus.




Classes aren't added to the game because we need more gameplay options. Classes are added to the game as a shiny big new feature to draw the crowd in. That's their only purpose, and you can see by the way Blizzard has designed expansions and classes that the class is meant to hype up the expansion.

When it comes down to the question of whether we need any new class in the game, we're coming up to the point where the answer is No, we don't. We get a new class every 2 expansions, and Shadowlands should have given us a new class, be it something themed to SL like Necromancer or Dark Ranger, or hell even give us a Tinker and bypass the Shadowlands theme entirely in favour of Undermine. We see now that Covenants is a perfectly viable option in lieu of a new class, and Shadowlands has had considerable hype around its release without a class.

When we consider any new class, popularity and demand is a big part of that conversation. Why? Because there's no reason why a Demon Hunter should have been made playable if we consider the merits of Themes and Gameplay. What new Themes does the Demon Hunter provide that aren't covered in the game? None. Warlocks, Rogues and Monks already provide all the theme needed. What new gameplay did they provide? Practically none, since it absorbed a slew of mechanics taken from Monks and Warlocks. It is the only class designed with 2 specs as well, which shows how limited their design is. Did we have other less popular options that would have had better gameplay or design, with a unique theme? Yes, we had plenty of other concepts like a Bard or a Tinker or even a Dragonsworn. Why choose a 4th Leather-wearing Dual Wielding Melee class instead of a Tinker who could easily be Mail-wearing and provide a completely new Tech theme that isn't in the game?


Popularity and demand.


One *must* consider the popularity and demand as a significant factor when addressing class concepts. We can't just blindly talk about Apothecaries as though they'll ever be made without considering their actual value to Blizzard themselves. Are Apothecaries highly identifiable? No, not really. That alone takes this option out of the picture. A significant value to understanding what class could be added is understanding whether Blizzard would value it as a marketable feature. There are some classes that are simply more marketable than others, and part of that is using the feature to hype up the expansion.

So in order to evaluate what new class we get, we also have to frame it under what potential new expansions we get. As Blizzard devs have stated in Shadowlands, a big reason why they *didn't* add a new class is because nothing jumped out at them that fit Shadowlands' setting and story the way the Demon Hunter did for Legion. So we know there is a significant merit to tying in classes that are thematic to an expansion.

This is why I personally value the Dragonsworn higher than the Tinker, since we know Dragon Isles are an upcoming place to explore. I think the Tinker has more merit of becoming playable because it has more general demand surrounding it, but I find it difficult to see Blizzard working them into any particular expansion theme. And of course, my 'exception to the rule' for all of this would be Class Skins, since I personally think they could insert a half-dozen class concepts together regardless of any expansion theme the same way Allied Races aren't tied to any specific BFA theme; they're just there to participate in the Horde/Alliance war for 'reasons'.

And the Demon Hunter just confirmed what options are in store, even though it was very unlikely by the playerbase.

Popularity dictates the class position on the waiting list. Not the pool itself.

[draugril]

What did you have in mind?
Because that would, probably, overlap too much with the Warlock.

Poach from FFXIV and go full Red Mage with it. Or, you know, literally give them the old transformation Demonology spec that was removed to make room for Demon Hunter, but never rematerialized. Name it Chaos after their old damage type and call it a day.

In any case, you can argue about "overlap" until you're red in the face, but it's all moot when classes are homogenized as they are. We have combo points and we have builder/spenders and very little outside of that in terms of variable gameplay. Just add another skin on the already creatively-bereft options and it's a done deal.

My assumption is that they didn't want to devote the art resources for a third demon form.

[Ielenia]

New classes. Not Vanilla ones. I'm tired of repeating that.

This is your post that made in response to me, in its entirety:

I know what you strive for. Playable necromancers. But, Blizzard never added a basic Warcraft 3 unit as a class. They integrate them into Heroic ones. So, while the Demon Hunter was a Hero unit, the Necromancer wasn't. Let alone the Runemaster, who's an RPG class.

You never said "new classes" or "expansion classes." You never specified you were talking about expansion classes only. And also: it has never been demonstrated that class design rules for expansion classes are any different than the class design rules for the original vanilla classes.

And consideration is far from addition. We've seen it twice.

It still proves it's a valid concept, considering, again, it was one of the runner-ups. If "must be linked to Warcraft 3" was such an important factor as you people claim it is, then runemaster wouldn't be one of the runner-ups.

[username993720]

Poach from FFXIV and go full Red Mage with it. Or, you know, literally give them the old transformation Demonology spec that was removed to make room for Demon Hunter, but never rematerialized. Name it Chaos after their old damage type and call it a day.

In any case, you can argue about "overlap" until you're red in the face, but it's all moot when classes are homogenized as they are. We have combo points and we have builder/spenders and very little outside of that in terms of variable gameplay. Just add another skin on the already creatively-bereft options and it's a done deal.

My assumption is that they didn't want to devote the art resources for a third demon form.

You'll have to elaborate a little more, because i'm not familiar with FFXIV or the red mage.
I couldn't care less if it had a third spec. Just asking you...

This is your post that made in response to me, in its entirety:

You never said "new classes" or "expansion classes." You never specified you were talking about expansion classes only. And also: it has never been demonstrated that class design rules for expansion classes is any different than the class design rules for the original vanilla classes.


It still proves it's a valid concept, considering, again, it was one of the runner-ups. If "must be linked to Warcraft 3" was such an important factor as you people claim it is, then runemaster wouldn't be one of the runner-ups.

the word "added".
It, somewhat, has with the addition of Death Knights, Monks and Demon Hunters.
I guess that's why they've been integrated, instead of added, in the end.

[Triceron]

And the Demon Hunter just confirmed what options are in store, even though it was very unlikely by the playerbase.

Popularity dictates the class position on the waiting list. Not the pool itself.

Yes, and the pool itself is practically infinite.

As I said, anything can be a class, whether you personally put merit in the concept or not.

Apothecary or Alchemist, there isn't one concept that is stronger than the other. There is no value to either, and there is value to both. Its ranks on the list would actually be what matters to whether Blizzard chooses to take that concept and run with it; as otherwise it's just a 'name on a list' just like Tinkers or Bards or Dragonsworn.

You can't say rank isn't important either. It's all equally important. We're not talking about a class for the Table Top RPG or for Heroes of the Storm where they can add anything they wish, we're talking about what would potentially be considered on the shortlist of actually being playable.

[draugril]

You'll have to elaborate a little more, because i'm not familiar with FFXIV or the red mage.
I couldn't care less if it had a third spec. Just asking you...

In a nutshell, is a ranged caster that reacts to procs to build two resources in balance. Once you've maxed them out, you leap into melee range for a high damage combo spender, then leap back out. Nothing mind-boggling, but something WoW doesn't have and would fit the concept of a ranged Demon Hunter quite well.

[jellmoo]

That's not what i meant.
New classes.
From the Death Knight, to the Monk (Pandaren Brewmaster), to the Demon Hunter.
And, by the way:
Warlock - https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Arc...(Warcraft_III)
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Gul...(Warcraft_III)
Priest - https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Priest_(Warcraft_III)

The Priest unit was what I meant though. It wasn't a hero unit, it was just a regular one. And there wasn't a warlock unit available at all. Neither Archimonde nor Gul'dan were playable units, much less a Hero unit.

Why differentiate between old and new classes though? It's not like Blizzard developers have one set of rules they had to follow for launch classes and another set they have to follow for classes released in expansions.

[draugril]

it's just a 'name on a list' just like Tinkers or Bards or Dragonsworn.

And Necromancers and Dark Rangers and Shadow Hunters and Wardens and a dozen others.

Without that shortlist in hand, nothing is completely off the table. Particularly when the current development team seems pretty obsessed with subverting our expectations rather than following any kind of logical or consistent plan for the flavour elements of the game.

[username993720]

Yes, and the pool itself is practically infinite.

As I said, anything can be a class, whether you personally put merit in the concept or not.

Apothecary or Alchemist, there isn't one concept that is stronger than the other. There is no value to either, and there is value to both. Its ranks on the list would actually be what matters to whether Blizzard chooses to take that concept and run with it; as otherwise it's just a 'name on a list' just like Tinkers or Bards or Dragonsworn.

You can't say rank isn't important either. It's all equally important. We're not talking about a class for the Table Top RPG or for Heroes of the Storm where they can add anything they wish, we're talking about what would potentially be considered on the shortlist of actually being playable.

Then, this whole discussion is pointless. I can suggest the slavemaster class, for all i care, and it would be considered 'viable'.

Until they do so, and break their pattern, like they did with Allied races, for example, i'm gonna go with their current class addition pattern.

In a nutshell, is a ranged caster that reacts to procs to build two resources in balance. Once you've maxed them out, you leap into melee range for a high damage combo spender, then leap back out. Nothing mind-boggling, but something WoW doesn't have and would fit the concept of a ranged Demon Hunter quite well.

Sounds like the old Demonology Warlock.
Which was, in fact, based on the Warcraft 3 Metamorphosis.

The Priest unit was what I meant though. It wasn't a hero unit, it was just a regular one. And there wasn't a warlock unit available at all. Neither Archimonde nor Gul'dan were playable units, much less a Hero unit.

Why differentiate between old and new classes though? It's not like Blizzard developers have one set of rules they had to follow for launch classes and another set they have to follow for classes released in expansions.

The Warlock was a campaign unit.

It seems they do. As can be seen with the addition of the Death Knight, Demon Hunter and Monk (while Necromancer and Runemaster didn't make it).

[AthranThom]

Poach from FFXIV and go full Red Mage with it. Or, you know, literally give them the old transformation Demonology spec that was removed to make room for Demon Hunter, but never rematerialized. Name it Chaos after their old damage type and call it a day.

I would so main that

In any case, you can argue about "overlap" until you're red in the face, but it's all moot when classes are homogenized as they are. We have combo points and we have builder/spenders and very little outside of that in terms of variable gameplay. Just add another skin on the already creatively-bereft options and it's a done deal.

This problem is exactly why i think they are afraid to make new classes

My assumption is that they didn't want to devote the art resources for a third demon form.

[Triceron]

Then, this whole discussion is pointless. I can suggest the slavemaster class, for all i care, and it would be considered 'viable'.

Yes, because potential means viability.

Can anyone really say *any* class is off the table? If Blizzard wanted to make Slavemaster, they could surprise us out of left field and do so. Can you say with complete certainty that they wouldn't make it? No, without any evidence against the class concept, you couldn't.

All we can discuss are the merits of the possibilities of having them. And despite what patterns you see with Themes or Gameplay or Warcraft 3 Heroes, we don't actually have insight into what they consider a viable or non-viable pick. All we have to go off of are statements the devs have made regarding post-mortem picks of classes.

Even the current PR speak they do is not reliable. When asked about a Tinker, Ghostcrawler poses whether they would be too whimsical. Well, is this denying the Tinker? Not at all, he's simply addressing part of the Tinkers merits. Or what about when a CM literally said 'No we do not have plans for Demon Hunter right now'? Well, we know in retrospect they *did* plan it, as the time of those statements would have had Legion as a potential expansion planned, with all the classes lined up on the shortlist, including the Demon Hunter. Yet they couldn't just reveal that in a twitter/blue post, so of course we can only take what they say in regards to new classes with a grain of salt. There is no reliable way to *deny* any class concept as a potential class, because every precedent that was used against Demon Hunters had been broken.

As for my own evaluations, I'm simply pointing at popularity and demand as *one of many* factors that should all be considered. They aren't designing new classes in a box where only the right Warcraft 3 hero will fit. We know for a fact that's not how they consider new classes. We know for a fact they can and will take a WC3 Hero concept and simply attribute it as a *spec* of a more broad-range class; the Brewmaster as a Monk. We know they considered the Necromancer as a different entity from the Death Knight as a class unto itself. We know they would even consider concepts outside of Warcraft itself, like Runemasters and Rogues, which have no formal equivalent in the RTS games and rather have a more generic 'RPG' archetype background.

There's plenty we can discuss when it comes to the merits of a class, and they aren't bound to whatever constraints you seem to be choosing to classify it all under. You've chosen to categorize certain ones that may have more merit than others, but you've gone so far down your own rabbit hole that you are regarding your own box as though everyone agrees with your standards. I'm simply bringing you back to reality and laying out the clear truth - there is no box except for what you decided to create for yourself. There are no patterns to glean which classes are 'more viable' than others. There is no standard that can point to an Alchemist class being more substantial than an Apothecary. Your conclusions are based on your own subjective patterns of recognition, which you're using to deny the viability of concepts that don't happen to fit your box.

All you have to base your ideas on is causation. So what if Blizzard has so far only added new classes based on WC3 heroes? You hadn't even considered that WC3 heroes were being picked because they were popular and in high demand. Arthas and Illidan are the two most popular characters in Warcraft, so of course they would be added. Demon Hunters were planned but simply never had the chance to appear. Pandaren were also highly in demand and were about to become playable in TBC, but were held back due to complications with China's rules around that time (https://games.no1geekfun.com/thats-w...rning-crusade/). It wasn't until MOP that they could officially make them playable, and so they packaged it all with a new Class to top it off.

Just because a concept didn't make it to become playable doesn't mean it's off the list. We see multiple concepts return in post-mortems. Demon Hunters, Pandarens, Runemasters; all had second chances with variable success. Some were cut, some were held back, some were changed completely; all due to different factors and none pointing directly at 'Warcraft 3 Hero' as a common reasoning. I don't see there being a point to adhering to the old, fallacious logic that new classes would only be derived from WC3.

[AthranThom]

In a nutshell, is a ranged caster that reacts to procs to build two resources in balance. Once you've maxed them out, you leap into melee range for a high damage combo spender, then leap back out. Nothing mind-boggling, but something WoW doesn't have and would fit the concept of a ranged Demon Hunter quite well.

I would go one step farther and and say reverse that.

Meaning the resources would be generated in melee range and then you would jump back for the damaging barrage. More in line with their ultimate in wc3 i think.

Survivability wouldnt be a problem cause of the soul fragment mechanic

[draugril]

I would go one step farther and and say reverse that.

Meaning the resources would be generated in melee range and then you would jump back for the damaging barrage. More in line with their ultimate in wc3 i think.

Survivability wouldnt be a problem cause of the soul fragment mechanic

It might be cool to change their Fel Rush to a disengage that marks the target for, say, 60 seconds. You leap back, do your ranged combo, then hit the button again to bring you back to the original target, regardless of LOS or range. Make it like Illidan's ult in HotS.

[jellmoo]

The Warlock was a campaign unit.

It seems they do. As can be seen with the addition of the Death Knight, Demon Hunter and Monk (while Necromancer and Runemaster didn't make it).

What unit are you referring to?

So, when they decided to make World of Warcraft, they sat around and said "We need to make some classes. We can use some Hero unit as direct representation, like say, the Paladin. We can use non hero units like the Priest or the Druid to make classes too. We can invent brand new stuff that really wasn't in WC3, like the Warlock. We can mash a bunch of units together to make new, more generic classes like the Warrior and the Mage. Really, we have tons of options!"

Later on...

"Well now we have a series of intricate rules we have to follow when adding a new class. Obviously we can't just add what we want, or try and create something new. We need to follow the rules!"

Really?

[Ielenia]

the word "added".

Means nothing.

It, somewhat, has with the addition of Death Knights, Monks and Demon Hunters.
I guess that's why they've been integrated, instead of added, in the end.

And that is moving the goalposts, considering your claim was that Blizzard "would not add a Warcraft 3 unit as a class". And they have: the rogue glass did not come from any hero unit in WC3. The druid class came from the druid units. The warlock class came from no warcraft 3 unit. All three of them just took abilities from other units and heroes, but the concept themselves did not come from the hero units.

And then we have the runemaster concept, which did not come from anywhere in Warcraft 3, and was still one of the top 3 choices for a class in Wrath.