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

[Triceron]

I still think Bard would be best added through professions. Professions in general could use a revamp and made to add more combat-viable utility and 'Profession flavour' to the game.

We're seeing the inclusion of a Bow and Quiver that grants Dark Ranger effects, it opens up the possibility of crafting items and item enhancements that add the same properties.

Leatherworking patches could be imbued with a special properties like Glyphs, where it's opened up to a variety of Class-specific abilities. Engineering could open up Class-specific augment options for gloves, boots, belt and back pieces. Having these tied to professions and have them affect your Class ability like Glyphs would make it more feasible to maintain different RP identities, on top of the Transmog systems we already have. It'd be a better way to incorporate Musical and Engineer themes straight into the classes.

[Teriz]

We don't.

Yes we do, and it's exactly the reason why so many people view the Bard as not fitting in WoW.

It's not a derailing. It's a viable comparison. By that same token, there's nothing special about shadow magic: it's just fire magic with a dark purple color. And that goes for everything in this game: "there's nothing special about anything, it's just this other thing with a different color/animation/sound effect."

Mechanicals have their own properties (strengths and weaknesses) like Beasts, demons, and other families. So yeah that makes them special.

[Cosmic Janitor]

To bring a hybrid class like the bard, you need to change the current class design philosophy entirely.

With this, I'm not saying they should not add the class, but that in the current design I find it hard to fit.

There is plenty of unique utility and buffs still around. Healthstones, Gateways, INT/STR/AGI/STA buffs, phys./mag debuff, Shroud, etc.

[Ielenia]

Yes we do,

We do? Okay. Show me the link to the interview or twitter thread where Blizzard developers expressly and unambiguously list all the requirements needed for a class concept to be viable.

Spoiler alert: you won't. Because there is no such thing. All you have are your personal opinions which you love to state as fact. No only that, but what little Blizzard has spoken about it directly opposes your claims. Case in point: the runemaster concept back in Wrath.

And to make matters worse for you, you literally dismiss what Blizzard had said because it goes against your narrative.

and it's exactly the reason why so many people view the Bard as not fitting in WoW.

Personal opinions are not facts. The collective of "anecdote" is not "data".

Mechanicals have their own properties (strengths and weaknesses) like Beasts, demons, and other families. So yeah that makes them special.

Which are highly unlikely to ever come into play because of balance. Since none of the classes today have anything in their toolkits that is effective against mechanicals (and mechanicals have absolutely no weaknesses), by reason of balance, its strengths are unlikely to be implemented as a player class feature.

[Traveler Voltin]

Oh come on, they almost literally put their tumbs in their mouth and started blowing and out came a whole expansion of kung fu pandas. Someone lit a match near a fart and suddenly we have an expansion about the afterlife of wow that explains the whole franchise. They don't even need a single expansion to explore a class, that is done in a little zone, like DH or DK. Other games get away with 2 lines of flavor text on their website.

you clearly forgot that Pandaria hints have existed since WC3.

[Teriz]

We do? Okay. Show me the link to the interview or twitter thread where Blizzard developers expressly and unambiguously list all the requirements needed for a class concept to be viable.

Why do we need Blizzard to officially state the obvious?

Which are highly unlikely to ever come into play because of balance. Since none of the classes today have anything in their toolkits that is effective against mechanicals (and mechanicals have absolutely no weaknesses), by reason of balance, its strengths are unlikely to be implemented as a player class feature.

Demons can be Banished, can take additional damage via certain attacks (demon slaying), cannot be skinned, cannot be polymorphed, can be enslaved by Warlocks, etc.

Beasts can be skinned, hibernated by Druids, take more damage from certain attacks (beast slaying), can be feared via Scare Beast, can be polymorphed, etc.

You're saying that Mechanicals won't get similar treatment because..... ?

[Triceron]

Why do we need Blizzard to officially state the obvious?



Demons can be Banished, can take additional damage via certain attacks (demon slaying), cannot be skinned, cannot be polymorphed, can be enslaved by Warlocks, etc.

Beasts can be skinned, hibernated by Druids, take more damage from certain attacks (beast slaying), can be feared via Scare Beast, can be polymorphed, etc.

You're saying that Mechanicals won't get similar treatment because..... ?

Probably because there's no significant Mechanical classes to play off of.

Druid and Hunter have synergy with each other, and the Beast type was integrated into classes since Vanilla.

Demon type had interaction with Warlocks and Paladin abilities in Vanilla, and continues the trend with Demon Hunter.

Mechanical has mostly been dealt with through Engineering profession, and we can see that it's less relevant today than ever. There's no real precedent for adding any treatment to Mechanical when Blizzard has been lessening the role of Mechanical type interactions overall. If they did, then it'd just be Tinkers playing off of other Tinkers, which isn't all that interesting.

Even the Goblin and Gnome mech pets are just variations of beasts.

[Teriz]

Probably because there's no significant Mechanical classes to play off of.

Druid and Hunter have synergy with each other, and the Beast type was integrated into classes since Vanilla.

Demon type had interaction with Warlocks and Paladin abilities in Vanilla, and continues the trend with Demon Hunter.

Mechanical has mostly been dealt with through Engineering profession, and we can see that it's less relevant today than ever. There's no real precedent for adding any treatment to Mechanical when Blizzard has been lessening the role of Mechanical type interactions overall. If they did, then it'd just be Tinkers playing off of other Tinkers, which isn't all that interesting.

Even the Goblin and Gnome mech pets are just variations of beasts.

Why couldn't Shaman and/or Hunters develop some form of synergy? Shaman via lighting/electricity attacks (mechanicals taking more damage from electric/lightning) and Hunters with tracking and perhaps taming and having a unique fear developed by Gnome/Goblin Hunters (since Mechanicals are immune to fear)?

I think that would be a very interesting interplay among the mail classes.

[Ielenia]

Why do we need Blizzard to officially state the obvious?

This "obvious" thing you claim exist are nothing but bullshit, especially since what little Blizzard has spoken about class design directly contradicts your assertions.

Demons can be Banished, can take additional damage via certain attacks (demon slaying), cannot be skinned, cannot be polymorphed, can be enslaved by Warlocks, etc.

Beasts can be skinned, hibernated by Druids, take more damage from certain attacks (beast slaying), can be feared via Scare Beast, can be polymorphed, etc.

You're saying that Mechanicals won't get similar treatment because..... ?

Had you actually read what you quoted, you'll find the answer to your question right there. But I'll be magnanimous and repeat my post since you completely ignored the answer to your question:

Which are highly unlikely to ever come into play because of balance. Since none of the classes today have anything in their toolkits that is effective against mechanicals (and mechanicals have absolutely no weaknesses), by reason of balance, its strengths are unlikely to be implemented as a player class feature.

[Teriz]

This "obvious" thing you claim exist are nothing but bullshit, especially since what little Blizzard has spoken about class design directly contradicts your assertions.

No, bullshit is believing that Bards would be an exception to the established precedent.

Had you actually read what you quoted, you'll find the answer to your question right there. But I'll be magnanimous and repeat my post since you completely ignored the answer to your question:

Already addressed.

[Triceron]

Why couldn't Shaman and/or Hunters develop some form of synergy? Shaman via lighting/electricity attacks (mechanicals taking more damage from electric/lightning) and Hunters with tracking and perhaps taming and having a unique fear developed by Gnome/Goblin Hunters (since Mechanicals are immune to fear)?

I think that would be a very interesting interplay among the mail classes.

Because Mechanical isn't in either of their themes.


At most they're brought in by Goblins because it is their racial theme, and even then it's a stretch. All mechanical pets are still 'Beast' type when tamed by a Hunter.

Shamans are built to be spiritual and elemental based, with some affinity for wild spirits. Hunters are completely themed around taming, hunting and using beasts, regardless of whether they are undead or mechanical. Hunters don't have any actual interactions with other types of creatures, in their class abilities or theme.

If you implement lightning causing shocks to Mechanical, then it's an implied weakness for that race type. No different than if you say Fire prevents health regen to Trolls or Undead get dazed by any Holy abilities. It's a trait that isn't specific to the Shaman class fantasy, and these racial/spell school interactions don't really exist in WoW. Breath of the Wild, for sure. WoW, not so much.

If we're talking about incorporating mechanical stuff into these classes, then it would be done like how Shadowlands is applying Necromancer and Dark Ranger themes through Covenants and special Items. That's what we're looking at. Hunters can get the Necromancy theme through these whereas it's not directly changing or adding new abilities to their class; it's all borrowed power. I'd be fine if Engineering added a gadget that allowed Shamans to hone in on the weakspots of Mechanicals, and allow their Shock abilities to CC or Stun em. That makes sense from a fantasy POV, since you're an Engineer who knows the ins-and-outs of Mechanical things and would know what to target your Shamanistic abilities.

Engineering is in the best spot to cover those aspects.

I mean even with a Tinker class, I doubt they would give them abilities like a 'Mech-based fear' or a 'Bonus damage to Mechs' trait. Look at Elementals, the only Class-based ability is Banish from the Warlock, and even the Shaman has no Elemental control specific abilities.

Enchanting Profession does have an Enchantment of Elemental Slaying though, which is why I suggest using Professions to cover this aspect.

[Ielenia]

No, bullshit is believing that Bards would be an exception to the established precedent.

Your personal, arbitrary, so-called "established precedent" literally goes against what Blizzard has told us. We don't need already established lore heroes, and we don't need Warcraft 3 for class ideas.

That is literally what Blizzard meant when they told us the runemaster concept almost made it into Wrath as the chosen expansion class.

From this point on, this is you dishonestly disregarding what Blizzard has said in lieu of your narrative.

Already addressed.

You haven't. You have failed to give any 'weakness' to the mechanical, and failed to address the fact the classes we have today are not equipped to deal with mechanicals effectively.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at Elementals, the only Class-based ability is Banish from the Warlock, and even the Shaman has no Elemental control specific abilities.

They used to, but for some reason Blizzard decided to remove it.

[Syegfryed]

It is the point though.

Blizzard can make anything playable, Blizzard is the ones that defines what goes into the game and what doesn't.

"blizzard can do anything" is not an argument to make in those kind of topics

we can take "blizzard can do anything" and say the most dumb things and get a pass, like "blizzard can just make sylvanus marry with anduin and unite factions"

no, they can't do that, for a number of reasons.

So yeah, tinker is possible, for a number of reasons, like other common classes are, necromancers, dragon-related class and not less likely, but still had chances, like dark ranger

[Teriz]

Because Mechanical isn't in either of their themes.


At most they're brought in by Goblins because it is their racial theme, and even then it's a stretch. All mechanical pets are still 'Beast' type when tamed by a Hunter.

Shamans are built to be spiritual and elemental based, with some affinity for wild spirits. Hunters are completely themed around taming, hunting and using beasts, regardless of whether they are undead or mechanical. Hunters don't have any actual interactions with other types of creatures, in their class abilities or theme.

If you implement lightning causing shocks to Mechanical, then it's an implied weakness for that race type. No different than if you say Fire prevents health regen to Trolls or Undead get dazed by any Holy abilities. It's a trait that isn't specific to the Shaman class fantasy, and these racial/spell school interactions don't really exist in WoW. Breath of the Wild, for sure. WoW, not so much.

Strengths or weaknesses to certain family types don't need to be associated to any class themes. It would just be an interesting quirk that anyone would recognize. The point is that every family in WoW has unique characteristics. Mechanicals wouldn't be any different.

- - - Updated - - -

Your personal, arbitrary, so-called "established precedent" literally goes against what Blizzard has told us. We don't need already established lore heroes, and we don't need Warcraft 3 for class ideas.

That is literally what Blizzard meant when they told us the runemaster concept almost made it into Wrath as the chosen expansion class.

From this point on, this is you dishonestly disregarding what Blizzard has said in lieu of your narrative.

You literally have no argument until Blizzard introduces an expansion class that doesn't follow the same blueprint as the previous three expansion classes.

You haven't. You have failed to give any 'weakness' to the mechanical, and failed to address the fact the classes we have today are not equipped to deal with mechanicals effectively.

Hunters have mechanical pets, and they're considered to be on the weaker end of pet options. Why is that if mechanicals are somehow OP?

[jellmoo]

"blizzard can do anything" is not an argument to make in those kind of topics

we can take "blizzard can do anything" and say the most dumb things and get a pass, like "blizzard can just make sylvanus marry with anduin and unite factions"

no, they can't do that, for a number of reasons.

Sure they can. At any point in time they can do just that. They can have Anduin marry Sylvanas and Baine. They can have Anduin marry a basiv campfire if they want.

Saying they can't do something is flat out incorrect. Saying that they shouldn't or probably wouldn't? Go right ahead. Plenty of room there to make an argument. But words matter, and using an utter absolute like "can't" puts a creative limitation on game developers that just plain does not exist.

[Ielenia]

You literally have no argument until Blizzard introduces an expansion class that doesn't follow the same blueprint as the previous three expansion classes.

Dude, you do not know what these "so-called blueprints" are. What you call "blueprints" literally go against what Blizzard themselves have told us. The runemaster class concept goes against those "arbitrary blueprints" of yours, objectively proving your claims to be wrong. Because if your "personal blueprints" were actually true, the runemaster wouldn't even be considered, much less be in the top three.

You're literally going against what Blizzard has told us. Are you trolling us right now?

Hunters have mechanical pets, and they're considered to be on the weaker end of pet options.

Source for that claim?

- - - Updated - - -

we can take "blizzard can do anything" and say the most dumb things and get a pass, like "blizzard can just make sylvanus marry with anduin and unite factions"

no, they can't do that, for a number of reasons.

They can, though. They absolutely can. Because they're the ones writing the story, and they are the ones who decide to direction the story takes.

[pacotaco]

There is plenty of unique utility and buffs still around. Healthstones, Gateways, INT/STR/AGI/STA buffs, phys./mag debuff, Shroud, etc.

Yeah, but none of them are from a "buff-bot" class.

To fit in the current design, it should be a dps or healer with some minor utility (something like the Bard or the Dancer in FF14), but the typical bard is more like a support/jack-of-all-trades.

[Teriz]

You're literally going against what Blizzard has told us. Are you trolling us right now?

And like I said, until you have an actual class that doesn’t match the blueprint of the existing expansion classes, you have no argument.

Source for that claim?

Read the Hunter forums.

[Ielenia]

And like I said, until you have an actual class that doesn’t match the blueprint of the existing expansion classes, you have no argument.

We have the runemaster, which Blizzard themselves said was one of the three runner-ups for the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. If your "obvious things" were actually true, the runemaster concept wouldn't even be considered, much less become one of the top three picks.

Read the Hunter forums.

How about you link to some threads, instead? Y'know, do your job of backing up your own arguments?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, but none of them are from a "buff-bot" class.

To fit in the current design, it should be a dps or healer with some minor utility (something like the Bard or the Dancer in FF14), but the typical bard is more like a support/jack-of-all-trades.

Bards don't have to be hybrid classes, them. This is just an erroneous and debunked myth perpetrated by those who don't like the bard concept.

[Triceron]

"blizzard can do anything" is not an argument to make in those kind of topics

Sure it is.

Any time we talk about possibilities, it's all down to what Blizzard would make possible.

If I said if it were possible for McDonalds to bring back Pizza, then what are the possibilities based on? McDonald's decisions to make it happen.

We can then discuss the merits and possibilities that McDonalds would bring Pizza to the table. If they have no reason to make it, then of course the possibility would be extremely low. But hey, if they're tying in some promotion with something they want to try out? Sure they could bring it back. It's all based on marketting and demand as well as feasability.

It's not based on 'I hate McDonalds Pizza so it should never happen'. That's just sharing an opinion, not denying a possibility.

we can take "blizzard can do anything" and say the most dumb things and get a pass, like "blizzard can just make sylvanus marry with anduin and unite factions"

no, they can't do that, for a number of reasons.

It depends on what 'unite the factions' means. If it's against a singular big threat, then sure. We had that multiple times.

If it's a permanent thing, then no, because we know Blizzard has zero intention to do so. Again, our reasons are based on Blizzard's intentions, that is the core reasoning which we're basing any of this on.

Is the reason because I personally don't want them to be merged? Is the reason because the story can't have it happen? No. There is no reason based on anyone's personal opinion that will actually change whether Blizzard would do this or not. This has to come from Blizzard themselves.

Just because it's possible does not mean it will happen. What is possible can still be unlikely, and that is what can be discussed based on any number of factors.

My biggest example of this is Classic WoW. Blizzard themselves deemed it unlikely to happen, and even had zero intention to make it happen. So was it created based on simple opinion that Blizzard should do it? It was *more* than just opinion, it was the full effort of the community that allowed Blizzard to decide to devote resources into exploring the possibilities, and making it happen. The possibilities are all based on what Blizzard decides to do, and that is based on their own intentions. Those intentions can be influenced by public demand, and it's those changes in their actions that will drive change in what we consider likely or unlikely.

So yeah, tinker is possible, for a number of reasons, like other common classes are, necromancers, dragon-related class and not less likely, but still had chances, like dark ranger

Yes, that's what I said. Why are you pointing this out as though you're disagreeing with what I've said?

It's chances are the same as any other class in the game. All classes are possible, so there's no way anyone can truly *deny* the possibility of it happening.

All people are doing is sharing an opinion that they don't think it would ever happen, which is no different than you sharing yours that you don't think Blademasters will ever be its own class.

You may have different reasons than people who argue against Tinkers, but at the end of the day it doesn't change what is actually possible. Tinkers and Blademasters, both are possible. Blizzard would just as likely choose one as they would the other, given they have strong enough reason to do so. That you think they wouldn't pick a Blademaster over a Tinker is the same reasoning as someone thinking they wouldn't pick a Demon Hunter over a Tinker. It's opinion that a Tinker has more potential, even though Blizzard may opt to choose something else instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Strengths or weaknesses to certain family types don't need to be associated to any class themes. It would just be an interesting quirk that anyone would recognize. The point is that every family in WoW has unique characteristics. Mechanicals wouldn't be any different.

If it doesn't need to be associated with any class themes, then we don't need class abilities to address a connection.

If we're talking about interesting quirks, then Engineering can just as easily manage those additions. Just like it's an interesting quirk to have Enchanting provide an enchantment of Elemental Slaying, which may have been useful in Vanilla for Molten Core. Whether Blizzard would expand on that system and modernize it would be something they should address across the board, and not just with Mechanicals alone.