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

[Triceron]

Sylvanas is not playable because she's a unique character. Being in a cinematic doesn't really mean anything beyond that. We had Illidan in cinematics for a good decade before we finally had a playable version. And what class would Deathwing be, because I'd play that /s.

Heck, we had a Tauren with a giant totem in the original WoW cinematic, and nothing equates to that in game. You have Greymane fighting unarmed, and there is no Worgen class that fights unarmed or with fist weapons. Cinematic team just rolls with the rule of cool.

[Fantazma]

It also took nearly a decade for Demon Hunters to become playable after Illidan got a "protagonist" role in the TBC cinematic, Sylvanas having a protagonist role in multiple cinematics since Legion doesn't nessessarily mean her class is going come with it..

Dude I will just repeat my arguments that I already said on some pages back there:

In my opinion the logic says that the new class can only be Dark Rangers:
- Sylvanas is so popular than Illidan and Arthas. However, these two Warcraft heroes have already had their classes playable. The Sylvanas class has not yet.
- Silvanas is not popular just because of her beautiful legs. People like her style and skills. If in doubt about it, watch a "reaction" on youtube about BFA cinematic. When Sylvanas uses his banshee power and kills alliance soldiers, people experience a nerdy orgasm.
- All new hero-classes are melee. Dark Ranger would come to be the first Ranged hero-Class.
- There is a lack of class that uses mail armor in the game. So ... let the Dark Rangers come.
- Dark Ranger is not just a "Dark Hunter". Saying this is like saying that the DK is a dark warrior or saying that the paladin is just a warrior with Holy damage. There is an infinite world of possibilities for us to see in this class. Certainly this class would inherit Sylvanas' banshee skills in various talents.
- Many classes share swords, maces, staffs, fist weapon etc ...! But only Hunter uses bow. How to solve this? Ok ... DARK RANGERS !!
- There's a battle-ground that Nathanos says "Let me look at you. Pathetic. Why aren't there Dark Rangers here ?? !!" (it's just Blizzard giving us a spoiler?)
- Not having playable Dark Rangers in the game despite how interesting Sylvanas is, and all the possibilities that this class would have ... it's like having a Justice League game and we can't play Batman. Just my opinion.

Now let's stop talking about logic and just talk about fun:

Dark Rangers would be a mix of Hunter and Rogues who could use Banshee's powers. I can't imagine how incredible that would be. In practice it would be a Hunter with perma-stealth with a lot of shadow damage. There could only be two specs (like DHs) one strong on single target damage and the other on survival and aoe damage. No pets in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Sylvanas is not playable because she's a unique character.

C'mon man. Did you understand what I meant. Nobody here wants to "pilot" Sylvanas. I don't need to explain this.

in a cinematic doesn't really mean anything beyond that.

I've always found the fact that we have Sylvanas in the last 3 cinematics and we still don't have the Dark Ranger playable as a great paradox. It is as if Blizzard is doing a big advertisement ... for nothing!

what class would Deathwing be, because I'd play that /s.

C'mon. Really? How would we put pants on Deathwing?

, we had a Tauren with a giant totem in the original WoW cinematic, and nothing equates to that in game. You have Greymane fighting unarmed, and there is no Worgen class that fights unarmed or with fist weapons. Cinematic team just rolls with the rule of cool.

The Tauren is a shamam.
Righ click char-profile. Just unequip your weapons and TA-DANN ... you can fight unarmed. (but not a good idea)

And C'mon dude. I'm pretty sure you understand my point.

[Triceron]

C'mon man. Did you understand what I meant. Nobody here wants to "pilot" Sylvanas. I don't need to explain this.

Oh, I understand the point.

But the point itself isn't anything special since we're talking about an NPC.

And NPCs aren't really representative of playable classes.

I mean I can go into more detail of how Thrall wore plate armor or Anduin is pretty much full-on Paladin mode whereas the classes we get can't do any of that. Sylvanas, for all purposes, could just be a specialized Hunter with powers that we'll never get. As many have pointed out, even the Dark Ranger NPCs following her don't have her unique brand of Banshee powers, and we're seeing some of those powers be tied directly to her weapons.

The point is she's super cool because she's an NPC that's meant to be super cool.

I do agree that we could have a Dark Ranger with super special Banshee powers, but seeing as they're going the simple route of just throwing a couple abilities onto Sylvanas' weapons and giving it to a Hunter, I just don't see that happening any time soon. I mean the last time they did this was for Demon Hunters, and there's a 10+ year gap between TBC and Legion. They're not gonna give us this legendary weapon and then turn around and make a Dark Ranger class by next expansion; it's fairly counter-intuitive design.

C'mon. Really? How would we put pants on Deathwing?

Every dragon has a humanoid form that they take. Even Deathwing has one, even though it was very rarely used in the game.

Wrathion, the Aspects and Chromie are probably the most notable dragons with humanoid forms. At the end of the day though, playing as a Dragon or Dragon form would be cool as hell, and is a big part of why these characters in Heroes of the Storm are so cool.

The Tauren is a shamam.
Righ click char-profile. Just unequip your weapons and TA-DANN ... you can fight unarmed. (but not a good idea)

Right, which means we still can't really be the characters we saw in cinematics. I think I rest my case there.

I do get your point, but using the cinematics as a standard for playable classes isn't a good point when Blizzard doesn't even abide to their own standards. They do a bunch of rule-of-cool stuff that our characters can't, like how Saurfang can destealth and kill a rogue without seeing it. Cinematics aren't really something our classes can really aspire to.

Whether Blizzard gives us one of those special characters in playable form is really a complex ordeal, far more than just looking at a cinematic and saying 'let's make a class out of that because it's popular and cool!'. I would consider their modern design decisions far different than what it used to be. If it were as simple as giving us Dark Rangers because of Sylvanas, then we'd already have playable Dark Rangers now instead of having no class at all and having her drop weapons that give Hunters a couple of her abilities.

[username993720]

I would like to ask a SINGLE question about "new class" for Blizzard:

Why the class of the character that was the main thing in at least the last 3 or 4 cinematic of the game ... is not yet available for us to play ??

I would just ask this question ...

Exactly.
Only a blind man would not see that they are setting up the Dark Ranger.

Legion: Sylvanas using Black Arrows.
Battle for Azeroth: Sylvanas front-flips, throwing Shadow Dagger, using Black Arrow, Banshee Form.
Reckoning: Sylvanas fights in melee range, using melee weapons. Sylvanas Blasts Saurfang with an unnamed ability.
Shadowlands: Sylvans uses Black Arrows, Sylvanas backflips, like the Diablo 3 Demon Hunter's Evasive Fire. Sylvanas dodges melee attacks by Bolvar. Sylvanas turns invisible, like the Diablo 3 Demon Hunter's Smoke Screen or Overwatch's Reaper Shadowstep. Sylvanas uses chains, like the Diablo 3 Demon Hunter's Entangling Shot. Sylvanas channels an unnamed spell to weaken Bolvar's attachment to the helm. Sylvanas uses Banshee Form to destroy the helm.

If this is not a showcase of the Dark Ranger's abilities, i don't know what is.

??? What are you saying?

This is what he is saying (look up).

It also took nearly a decade for Demon Hunters to become playable after Illidan got a "protagonist" role in the TBC cinematic, Sylvanas having a protagonist role in multiple cinematics since Legion doesn't nessessarily mean her class is going come with it.

The guy didn't feature in multiple cinematics, showcasing his abilities.

While Demon Hunter does give ground to the idea of more Demon Hunter-like classes getting into the game (overly specific concept, heavily rooted in a popular character that doesn't draw on any specific fantasy archetype), Dark Rangers honestly have even more hurdles that Demon Hunters, I think they have even less room for expansion than Demon Hunters did, I don't really see Dark Rangers as a tanking or healing class, it just doesn't really work the base concept, at most i'd see them as a 2 spec dps class.

Theres also how "unique" a class they actually are, while Sylvanas displays several unique powers (domination magic, chain arrows, banshee form, summoning banshees, throwing shadow blades) you go to more generic Dark Rangers and Nathanos who mostly just display necromancy-flavored Hunter abilities, i'd say this isn't a huge deal though, If a Dark Ranger class is ever on the table it would almost certainly be made to resemble Sylvanas' abilities regardless of how exclusive they were to her beforehand.

Besides if character popularity was a prerequestite for new Classes we would have never gotten Monks (I wouldn't exactly call Chen Stormstout a Illidan or Arthas tier character).

So much for your change of heart. -_-
Dark Ranger would not come alone, but probably with Priestess of the Moon (Healer) and Warden (Tank). They are, already, hinting at that with Dark Wardens, Elune possibly being an Eternal one (Death entity), and the Night Warrior being a dark archetype.

Sylvanas is not playable because she's a unique character. Being in a cinematic doesn't really mean anything beyond that. We had Illidan in cinematics for a good decade before we finally had a playable version. And what class would Deathwing be, because I'd play that /s.

Heck, we had a Tauren with a giant totem in the original WoW cinematic, and nothing equates to that in game. You have Greymane fighting unarmed, and there is no Worgen class that fights unarmed or with fist weapons. Cinematic team just rolls with the rule of cool.

-_-

Are you kidding?
Deathwing has no class. The Tauren is a Tauren Warrior unit of Warcraft III. Genn Greymane's Worgen form is not a defined class.

Illidan only featured in one cinematic (TBC) until Legion. And, Blizzard told us they considered the Demon Hunter for that expansion.

Sylvanas is unique? so is Arthas, Illidan and Chen. When will people get it? They are the representatives of their classes.

Showcasing Sylvanas and her abilities in 4, almost consecutive, cinematics is not just there for the gigs.

- Dark Ranger is not just a "Dark Hunter". Saying this is like saying that the DK is a dark warrior or saying that the paladin is just a warrior with Holy damage. There is an infinite world of possibilities for us to see in this class. Certainly this class would inherit Sylvanas' banshee skills in various talents.

You don't know how right you are.

Dark Rangers would be a mix of Hunter and Rogues who could use Banshee's powers. I can't imagine how incredible that would be. In practice it would be a Hunter with perma-stealth with a lot of shadow damage. There could only be two specs (like DHs) one strong on single target damage and the other on survival and aoe damage. No pets in my opinion.

Look at my class concept:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

I've always found the fact that we have Sylvanas in the last 3 cinematics and we still don't have the Dark Ranger playable as a great paradox. It is as if Blizzard is doing a big advertisement ... for nothing!

Precisely.
People don't seem to realize that.

Oh, I understand the point.

But the point itself isn't anything special since we're talking about an NPC.

And NPCs aren't really representative of playable classes.

I mean I can go into more detail of how Thrall wore plate armor or Anduin is pretty much full-on Paladin mode whereas the classes we get can't do any of that. Sylvanas, for all purposes, could just be a specialized Hunter with powers that we'll never get. As many have pointed out, even the Dark Ranger NPCs following her don't have her unique brand of Banshee powers, and we're seeing some of those powers be tied directly to her weapons.

The point is she's super cool because she's an NPC that's meant to be super cool.

I do agree that we could have a Dark Ranger with super special Banshee powers, but seeing as they're going the simple route of just throwing a couple abilities onto Sylvanas' weapons and giving it to a Hunter, I just don't see that happening any time soon. I mean the last time they did this was for Demon Hunters, and there's a 10+ year gap between TBC and Legion. They're not gonna give us this legendary weapon and then turn around and make a Dark Ranger class by next expansion; it's fairly counter-intuitive design.

She's not an NPC. Minor Dark Ranger NPCs is what you're talking about. She was there before WoW.
She is a representative of the class as much as Arthas is for the Death Knight, Chen is for the Monk and Illidan is for the Demon Hunter.

Comparing armor to abilities is not the same ball-field. One is aesthetic, the other gameplay.
What more you don't seem to realize is that Thrall and Anduin are Shaman and Priest. I'd advise you to look at their HotS characters.

Every dragon has a humanoid form that they take. Even Deathwing has one, even though it was very rarely used in the game.

Wrathion, the Aspects and Chromie are probably the most notable dragons with humanoid forms. At the end of the day though, playing as a Dragon or Dragon form would be cool as hell, and is a big part of why these characters in Heroes of the Storm are so cool.

They're not Dragonsworn, no matter how much you push it.

Right, which means we still can't really be the characters we saw in cinematics. I think I rest my case there.

I do get your point, but using the cinematics as a standard for playable classes isn't a good point when Blizzard doesn't even abide to their own standards. They do a bunch of rule-of-cool stuff that our characters can't, like how Saurfang can destealth and kill a rogue without seeing it. Cinematics aren't really something our classes can really aspire to.

Whether Blizzard gives us one of those special characters in playable form is really a complex ordeal, far more than just looking at a cinematic and saying 'let's make a class out of that because it's popular and cool!'. I would consider their modern design decisions far different than what it used to be. If it were as simple as giving us Dark Rangers because of Sylvanas, then we'd already have playable Dark Rangers now instead of having no class at all and having her drop weapons that give Hunters a couple of her abilities.

Can you categorize Greymane's class?
Can you say the Tauren is anything but the Tauren Warrior (Totem as weapon) of WC3?

[Triceron]

Can you categorize Greymane's class?
Can you say the Tauren is anything but the Tauren Warrior (Totem as weapon) of WC3?

We can categorize them as NPCs that are being shown to do things beyond what any class is capable of. The whole point of my argument is that none of these traits from the cinematics really reflect a potential playable class. The decision to make a class comes from the designers wanting to do so, and the cinematics team does not always follow some arbitrary rule of including characters with clear class archetypes.

Consider that MOP's cinematic was directly made to hype the new class and race they aimed to introduce to WoW. They could do this for any future class, and it's not a matter of whether that class appeared in cinematics before or not. Even though we know Chen is a Monk, he used zero Monk or Brewmaster abilities in the cinematic, and could have just as easily been a Pandaren Warrior variation, one that happened to use staves.


There is no justification to say we need a Sylvanas class in the game because she was in the cinematics . And if we are so quick to say that Tauren is a Warrior who can use weapons that our Warrior class can not, then what stops someone from simply saying Sylvanas is a Hunter and her special arrows are just a part of her bow and quiver which she is dropping in the next raid? Because as you've generalized the Tauren into being am existing class even though he does nothing to show he is specifically a Warrior, the same applies to Greymane and Sylvanas, who could just be unique variants of Warrior and Hunter and not an independent class. Again, arguing based on Cinematic presence and correlation.

I am aware a Dark Ranger can be its own class, but that is very different discussion from saying 'Sylvanas was in the cinematics so she should be playable' because so is Greymane and he's class-less, and so is the Tauren with a totem who could be a 'Chieftain' class for all we know. At the end of the day, the cinematics are glorified because they're cinematics. Class rules need not apply. Saurfang de-stealths Rogues, after all.

They're not Dragonsworn, no matter how much you push it.

They don't need to be. They're dragons.

Not quite sure why you're mentioning Dragonsworn when I was making an example of the absurdity of having Deathwing playable in WoW just because he's in a cinematic. Don't take my examples out of context for your own purposes, please.

[Sativ]

It would be Agility, Leather, Melee DPS w/ a side of tanking & or Healing.

[Varaben]

Is dark ranger that much different from a hunter? I think the challenge with new classes right now is that they all sort of seem like specs of existing classes vs. actual new classes. Like isn't Blademaster a rogue or Warrior variant? Isn't Necromancer just a warlock or DK spec? I'm not sure what I've seen besides something like a tinker that's actually a "class" in the wow-sense.

[Ielenia]

Exactly.
Only a blind man would not see that they are setting up the Dark Ranger.

There is no such thing as "setting up X class". The death knight class was not "set up". It just happened. Completely out of the blue. The monk class was not "set up". The demon hunter class was not "set up".

Such claims, "Blizzard is setting up X class", are nothing but confirmation bias. Because we have absolutely zero guarantees that X class will ever be implemented, no matter how "likely" or "unlikely" we deem it to be. Especially since there are so many classes that Blizzard has been "setting up" (by your logic) for several expansions already, such as the blademaster, tinker, bard, necromancer, dragonsworn, etc. The dark ranger is not special.

- - - Updated - - -

Is dark ranger that much different from a hunter? I think the challenge with new classes right now is that they all sort of seem like specs of existing classes vs. actual new classes. Like isn't Blademaster a rogue or Warrior variant? Isn't Necromancer just a warlock or DK spec? I'm not sure what I've seen besides something like a tinker that's actually a "class" in the wow-sense.

That's like saying priests should just be a spec for the paladin, or vice-versa. Such classes could be made to do things the present classes cannot. For example: "necromancers, just a warlock or DK spec"? If you give necromancers a spec dedicated entirely through bone magic, skin to how the D2 necromancer was, and/or give them a healing spec using blood magic, wouldn't that heavily differ them from what the death knight class is, despite having the same necromantic thematic?

[Fantazma]

Is dark ranger that much different from a hunter?

The only similarity is that they both use bow.
Comparing the Dark Ranger to the Hunter just because they use the same weapon... is like comparing Warrior with DK, Druid with Warlock, Rogue with Priests etc ...

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such thing as "setting up X class". The death knight class was not "set up". It just happened. Completely out of the blue. The monk class was not "set up". The demon hunter class was not "set up".

Such claims, "Blizzard is setting up X class", are nothing but confirmation bias. Because we have absolutely zero guarantees that X class will ever be implemented, no matter how "likely" or "unlikely" we deem it to be. Especially since there are so many classes that Blizzard has been "setting up" (by your logic) for several expansions already, such as the blademaster, tinker, bard, necromancer, dragonsworn, etc. The dark ranger is not special.

Dude, you and I know how it works. All you have to do is create a "scenario", a "purpose" in a single patch and that's it: In the next move we have the Dark Rangers. It was like that with all the other new classes that you mentioned. Blizzard only controls which side of the Warcraft story they wants to go to.

And YES!! Dark Ranger is very special since WTLK.
It got even more special when the famous Dark Ranger from Warcraft became the main character in the cinematics and the main story of the game since LEGION !!

- - - Updated - - -

Look at my class concept:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

JESUS!! Fantastic compilation man!! o.O

Let me reproduce some I like most here:

Dark Arrows:




Withering Fire:



Mind Control:


Vault:


Entangling Shot:




Yeahhh ... I would drop my main to play 100% of my time with a Dark Ranger without a doubt.
I respect people who prefer Tinker or Bard or Holy Murloc ... but well ... this is me.
Dark Ranger has the potential to recover all the players that wow has lost in the last few years. (My opinion).

[username993720]

We can categorize them as NPCs that are being shown to do things beyond what any class is capable of. The whole point of my argument is that none of these traits from the cinematics really reflect a potential playable class. The decision to make a class comes from the designers wanting to do so, and the cinematics team does not always follow some arbitrary rule of including characters with clear class archetypes.

Consider that MOP's cinematic was directly made to hype the new class and race they aimed to introduce to WoW. They could do this for any future class, and it's not a matter of whether that class appeared in cinematics before or not. Even though we know Chen is a Monk, he used zero Monk or Brewmaster abilities in the cinematic, and could have just as easily been a Pandaren Warrior variation, one that happened to use staves.


There is no justification to say we need a Sylvanas class in the game because she was in the cinematics . And if we are so quick to say that Tauren is a Warrior who can use weapons that our Warrior class can not, then what stops someone from simply saying Sylvanas is a Hunter and her special arrows are just a part of her bow and quiver which she is dropping in the next raid? Because as you've generalized the Tauren into being am existing class even though he does nothing to show he is specifically a Warrior, the same applies to Greymane and Sylvanas, who could just be unique variants of Warrior and Hunter and not an independent class. Again, arguing based on Cinematic presence and correlation.

I am aware a Dark Ranger can be its own class, but that is very different discussion from saying 'Sylvanas was in the cinematics so she should be playable' because so is Greymane and he's class-less, and so is the Tauren with a totem who could be a 'Chieftain' class for all we know. At the end of the day, the cinematics are glorified because they're cinematics. Class rules need not apply. Saurfang de-stealths Rogues, after all.

Vanilla cinematic

Dwarf = Hunter
Night elf = Druid
Forsaken = Warlock
Orc = Warrior
Human = Mage

TBC cinematic

Draenei = Paladin
Blood elf = Priest
Orc = Warrior
Troll = Hunter (spear)
Forsaken = Warlock
Human = Mage

WotLK cinematic

Arthas = Death Knight

MoP cinematic

Chen = Monk
Orc = from the look of his armor, probably a Grunt.
Human = Admiral, as far as i can see.

WoD cinematic

Grommash = Warrior
Garrosh = Warrior
Gul'dan = Warlock

Legion cinematic

Varian = Warrior
Sylvanas = Dark Ranger

BfA cinematic

Human = Footmen
Dwarf = Riflemen
Night elf = Archers (and one a Mage)
Draenei = Paladin
Anduin = Priest
Sylvanas = Dark Ranger
Saurfang = Warrior
Tauren = Warrior
Troll = Shaman
Forsaken = Archers

Shadowlands cinematic

Bolvar = Death Knight
Sylvans = Dark Ranger

As for your Tauren:


As for Genn Greymane, they couldn't bring us to discard our weapons or spells and go all out feral with Worgen Form, so they made it cosmetic. I'd wager he's, either, a Rogue (pistol) or a Warrior.

1. She doesn't just appear in a cinematic. She appears in 4 of them, consecutively almost.
2. She doesn't just shoot arrows, does she? So, attributing everything a Dark Ranger can do to a bow is ridiculous.

Is dark ranger that much different from a hunter? I think the challenge with new classes right now is that they all sort of seem like specs of existing classes vs. actual new classes. Like isn't Blademaster a rogue or Warrior variant? Isn't Necromancer just a warlock or DK spec? I'm not sure what I've seen besides something like a tinker that's actually a "class" in the wow-sense.

Yes, actually.
A Hunter is attuned with the wilds (or gadgets) not a user of necromancy and manipulation.
A Blademaster is a samurai, an archetype uncovered by the Warrior.
Go have a look at my class concepts:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

There is no such thing as "setting up X class". The death knight class was not "set up". It just happened. Completely out of the blue. The monk class was not "set up". The demon hunter class was not "set up".

Such claims, "Blizzard is setting up X class", are nothing but confirmation bias. Because we have absolutely zero guarantees that X class will ever be implemented, no matter how "likely" or "unlikely" we deem it to be. Especially since there are so many classes that Blizzard has been "setting up" (by your logic) for several expansions already, such as the blademaster, tinker, bard, necromancer, dragonsworn, etc. The dark ranger is not special.

You are right. The Death Knight and Monk were not set up. The Demon Hunter was kinda, though, With the heavily demonic themes of Warlords of Draenor.

Besides, saying they are not setting particular classes up (today, not in the past) is not reading the map. You might think that Sylvanas is showing up in multiple cinematics because of fan service, but in truth it is deeper than that. Same as with the Night Warrior. Or Dark Wardens, all of the sudden. Even Vol'jin being set to be reborn is "setting up". Chromie's mechanical alternate future could serve as the set up for a Tinker class.

That's like saying priests should just be a spec for the paladin, or vice-versa. Such classes could be made to do things the present classes cannot. For example: "necromancers, just a warlock or DK spec"? If you give necromancers a spec dedicated entirely through bone magic, skin to how the D2 necromancer was, and/or give them a healing spec using blood magic, wouldn't that heavily differ them from what the death knight class is, despite having the same necromantic thematic?

What's so special about bone magic that Death Knight can't have (or, already have)?
The only varying thing you said is healing allies through Blood which, if i'm not mistaken, is not part of Diablo 3's Necromancer.

JESUS!! Fantastic compilation man!! o.O

Let me reproduce some I like most here:

I don't think that's allowed.
Please delete it (i thought you were going to copy the entire post).
My first idea was to combine the Naga Sea Witch, but Blizzard is clearly going to a different direction.
I, already, did that in page 108. I just figured that linking that page again and again is complicated, so i revised an old thread of mine about future classes.

[pacotaco]

Is dark ranger that much different from a hunter? I think the challenge with new classes right now is that they all sort of seem like specs of existing classes vs. actual new classes. Like isn't Blademaster a rogue or Warrior variant? Isn't Necromancer just a warlock or DK spec? I'm not sure what I've seen besides something like a tinker that's actually a "class" in the wow-sense.

Not really. Blademasters are just as different from Rogue/Warrior as DHs are from Rogues.
The same with Tinkers and Hunter (shooting guns)/Shaman (planting turrets/totems).
The problem with the Necromancer is more gameplay (Warlock is too close) but not thematically.

It just depends on making the flavor different enough from the others even if they share some aspects.
Why people focus so much on this when we have druids with spec that are copies of other clases is beyond me.

[Ielenia]

Dude, you and I know how it works. All you have to do is create a "scenario", a "purpose" in a single patch and that's it: In the next move we have the Dark Rangers. It was like that with all the other new classes that you mentioned.

It wasn't. Literally, it wasn't. The DK, monk and DH did not have a "scenario" or "purpose" before becoming playable, before their respective expansions were announced. We had absolutely no idea about or even reason to believe that death knights would become a playable class until the Wrath expansion was announced.

And YES!! Dark Ranger is very special since WTLK.
It got even more special when the famous Dark Ranger from Warcraft became the main character in the cinematics and the main story of the game since LEGION !!

No. No, it's not special, much less "very special". Again, this is confirmation bias. You're taking all the evidence that backs up your current beliefs while ignoring or dismissing what goes against it. None of these things that make the dark ranger "very special" in your eyes guarantees the concept will ever become an actual playable class.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right. The Death Knight and Monk were not set up. The Demon Hunter was kinda, though, With the heavily demonic themes of Warlords of Draenor.

Besides, saying they are not setting particular classes up (today, not in the past) is not reading the map. You might think that Sylvanas is showing up in multiple cinematics because of fan service, but in truth it is deeper than that. Same as with the Night Warrior. Or Dark Wardens, all of the sudden. Even Vol'jin being set to be reborn is "setting up". Chromie's mechanical alternate future could serve as the set up for a Tinker class.

Again, that is confirmation bias. You're looking at all the stuff that backs up your already established conclusion, while ignoring and/or dismissing what doesn't. And this "map" you speak of? It doesn't exist. Or at least it has never been confirmed, or even rumored to exist. As far as I know, you literally made that up on the spot, here.

What's so special about bone magic that Death Knight can't have (or, already have)?

Because it would require a complete rework of one of the death knight specs, to have a spec dedicated to bone magic. Either "blood" will have to stop being about blood magic, Frost will have to stop being about frost magic, or Unholy will have to stop being about diseases.

The only varying thing you said is healing allies through Blood which, if i'm not mistaken, is not part of Diablo 3's Necromancer.

And I never mentioned the diablo 3 necromancer, so I don't know why you felt like making that mention.

[Triceron]

As for Genn Greymane, they couldn't bring us to discard our weapons or spells and go all out feral with Worgen Form, so they made it cosmetic. I'd wager he's, either, a Rogue (pistol) or a Warrior.

We're just assigning arbitrary classifications to NPCs that aren't following any of the usual Player Class guidelines.

That's why you've decided to classify some as Grunts and Admiral and Archers and Riflemen. None of these are playable classes, right? And yet just being in a cinematic doesn't give them more weight in being chosen to be made playable.

And with Greymane, we absolutely don't know what he is, nor does it matter if we should or not. He could be a 'Berserker' for all we know, but it doesn't mean he's an example of what new class should be playable because he's just an NPC featured in a cinematic doing some cool shit. It's not an indicator that Blizzard is considering doing something with the game to reflect his portrayal in the cinematics; Worgen still aren't able to fight unarmed through transmogs, and they have no access to Shamans and Monks who are classes that fight with Fist weapons.

At the end of the day, Greymane fights with bare claws because that's cool for a cinematic, same way Saurfang is given the ability to catch a stealthed Rogue in mid-attack and snap its neck while its still invisible. These aren't making their way into the game as class mechanics, just as we're not gonna get Anduin's in-combat mass battle res or Sylvanas' crazy banshee powers and flight.

1. She doesn't just appear in a cinematic. She appears in 4 of them, consecutively almost.
2. She doesn't just shoot arrows, does she? So, attributing everything a Dark Ranger can do to a bow is ridiculous.

She does stuff that no other Dark Ranger, not even in Warcraft 3, is capable of. Even recently in her fight with Bolvar, we see her using some straight-up Jailer themed chain arrows and other super powers that no Dark Ranger has ever been shown to be capable of. Her Banshee powers seem unique to herself.

While I would be on the side to argue that we could have a Dark Ranger class that has these abilities, I would not say that we *should* have them because we seen them all in a cinematic. Blizzard doesn't operate on this kind of logic. They aren't telegraphing what new classes they plan to make years ahead of time through their cinematics. They will just introduce a new class whenever they see fit, regardless of what we've seen in previous cinematics. If cinematics are really the concern, then there's no reason why we would have had a Monk before a Demon Hunter considering how even the MOP cinematic doesn't really show off Chen doing anything particularly special about being a Monk.

Cinematics are just gonna be cinematics. We've had Naga featured in cinematics and Metzen openly wanting them to be playable races, yet here we are without playable Naga in the game, and with Void Elves and Nightborne and Lightforged Draenei and Vulpera well before we even have a chance of seeing any playable Naga. If we're just talking about possibility, then sure, it's possible, and they'll be on the same waiting list that the Dark Ranger is while Blizzard opts to push out some other status-quo race and class options that suit the needs of their design and story telling.

By all means, a Dark Ranger has a pretty darn low chance following up in the near future when they're so recently putting Dark Ranger abilities onto a Legendary Bow and Quiver in the next patch. I think it'd be quite counter-intuitive to their design, because why would they even bother putting these abilities on items when they could be reserving them for a new class next expansion? It doesn't even make sense 'to test these abilities' because they're designed specifically for hunters as 'borrowed power' class mechanics.

[Alkizon]

I think the challenge with new classes right now is that they all sort of seem like specs of existing classes vs. actual new classes.

And do you know why it's so *smiles slyly* this all happens for the same reason, since there is no clear separation of scope of class and specialization, which I have mentioned in this topic more than 10 times already. Specializations in current hierarchy plays classes' role, and formalized integral concept as "class" has long ceased to exist either in players' minds, or even more so among main ones to blame for current state of things - devs themselves

There is no sense to expect something better on the future, until this position gets off the ground. This is almost the very bottom, dead end of design of such element.

In other words, you're absolutely correct in describing what you see by looking at situation with "current approach to design", it's exactly confusing/strange/contradictory/puzzling as it should look with such philosophy.

[Kumorii]

Dark Ranger of course, only valid answer.

[username993720]

Again, that is confirmation bias. You're looking at all the stuff that backs up your already established conclusion, while ignoring and/or dismissing what doesn't. And this "map" you speak of? It doesn't exist. Or at least it has never been confirmed, or even rumored to exist. As far as I know, you literally made that up on the spot, here.

"Reading the map" is a figure of speech. Stop taking everything literally.
Ignoring/dismissing what doesn't? what, exactly, am i ignoring/dismissing?
If i was so biased i'd say they are setting the Blademaster, as well, but i don't have anything to back that up.

Because it would require a complete rework of one of the death knight specs, to have a spec dedicated to bone magic. Either "blood" will have to stop being about blood magic, Frost will have to stop being about frost magic, or Unholy will have to stop being about diseases.

Would it?

Bonestorm
Talent
10 to 100 Runic Power
Instant cast 1 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Blood)
Requires level 50
A whirl of bone and gore batters up to 8 nearby enemies, dealing (19.65% of Attack power) Shadow damage every 1 sec, and healing you for 3% of your maximum health every time it deals damage (up to 15%). Lasts 1 sec per 10 Runic Power spent.


Bone Shield
Instant
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 23
Surrounds you with a barrier of whirling bones, increasing Armor by (70 * Strength / 100).

Each melee attack against you consumes a charge. Lasts 30 sec or until all charges are consumed.


They can add Diablo 3's Necromancer's Bone Spikes, Bone Spear, Bone Spirit and Bone Prison.

And I never mentioned the diablo 3 necromancer, so I don't know why you felt like making that mention.

Any of Diablo's necromancer incarnations.

We're just assigning arbitrary classifications to NPCs that aren't following any of the usual Player Class guidelines.

That's why you've decided to classify some as Grunts and Admiral and Archers and Riflemen. None of these are playable classes, right? And yet just being in a cinematic doesn't give them more weight in being chosen to be made playable.

And with Greymane, we absolutely don't know what he is, nor does it matter if we should or not. He could be a 'Berserker' for all we know, but it doesn't mean he's an example of what new class should be playable because he's just an NPC featured in a cinematic doing some cool shit. It's not an indicator that Blizzard is considering doing something with the game to reflect his portrayal in the cinematics; Worgen still aren't able to fight unarmed through transmogs, and they have no access to Shamans and Monks who are classes that fight with Fist weapons.

At the end of the day, Greymane fights with bare claws because that's cool for a cinematic, same way Saurfang is given the ability to catch a stealthed Rogue in mid-attack and snap its neck while its still invisible. These aren't making their way into the game as class mechanics, just as we're not gonna get Anduin's in-combat mass battle res or Sylvanas' crazy banshee powers and flight.

Greymane portrays what Worgen Form should have been. It is not like that for gameplay purposes. It has nothing to do with Shamans and Monks. He rips his targets apart with his claws, like a Worgen should. It is just not reflected in the racial.

Mass Resurrection
0.8% of base mana 100 yd range
10 sec cast
Requires Priest (Discipline, Holy)
Requires level 37
Brings all dead party members back to life with 35% health and mana. Cannot be cast when in combat.

Maybe he's out of combat. How do you know?

I don't know about her flight, but Banshee form is possible:
Shadow Power
Draw in the power of the shadows, gaining X% of all damage done as HP for Y seconds.

She does stuff that no other Dark Ranger, not even in Warcraft 3, is capable of. Even recently in her fight with Bolvar, we see her using some straight-up Jailer themed chain arrows and other super powers that no Dark Ranger has ever been shown to be capable of. Her Banshee powers seem unique to herself.

While I would be on the side to argue that we could have a Dark Ranger class that has these abilities, I would not say that we *should* have them because we seen them all in a cinematic. Blizzard doesn't operate on this kind of logic. They aren't telegraphing what new classes they plan to make years ahead of time through their cinematics. They will just introduce a new class whenever they see fit, regardless of what we've seen in previous cinematics. If cinematics are really the concern, then there's no reason why we would have had a Monk before a Demon Hunter considering how even the MOP cinematic doesn't really show off Chen doing anything particularly special about being a Monk.

Cinematics are just gonna be cinematics. We've had Naga featured in cinematics and Metzen openly wanting them to be playable races, yet here we are without playable Naga in the game, and with Void Elves and Nightborne and Lightforged Draenei and Vulpera well before we even have a chance of seeing any playable Naga. If we're just talking about possibility, then sure, it's possible, and they'll be on the same waiting list that the Dark Ranger is while Blizzard opts to push out some other status-quo race and class options that suit the needs of their design and story telling.

By all means, a Dark Ranger has a pretty darn low chance following up in the near future when they're so recently putting Dark Ranger abilities onto a Legendary Bow and Quiver in the next patch. I think it'd be quite counter-intuitive to their design, because why would they even bother putting these abilities on items when they could be reserving them for a new class next expansion? It doesn't even make sense 'to test these abilities' because they're designed specifically for hunters as 'borrowed power' class mechanics.

Let me show you your logic:
"Demon Hunters and Death Knights are not going to get Arthas' and Illidan's abilities, since they are unique. Only Illidan consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and got his eyes seared by Sargeras. Only Arthas (up until Bolvar) had the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne. Did we get their abilities, eventually? hell yeah. Summoning a Frostwyrm was seen as something unique to Arthas.

As for her arrow chains - it can, definitely, be a Dark Ranger ability:
Entangling Shot
Imbue an arrow with shadow energy that deals X% damage and entangles up to Y enemies, slowing their movement by Z% for A seconds.



Why would they put abilities in her bow? same as with the Demonology Warlock having Demon Hunter abilities. To fill that gap in the meantime. It'd be like asking why Hunters had Black Arrow in the past. You know, weapons are often discarded after a patch or expansion, just like any borrowed power. So, you can't expect that to stay around for long.

[Triceron]

I don't know about her flight, but Banshee form is possible:
Shadow Power
Draw in the power of the shadows, gaining X% of all damage done as HP for Y seconds.

I don't see how you're building a case for playable Dark Rangers if you're pointing out the ability is already in the game.

same as with the Demonology Warlock having Demon Hunter abilities. To fill that gap in the meantime.

They didn't just add metamorphosis to the Warlock as a testbed for Demon Hunters. Xelnath actively TRIED to absorb the Demon Hunter completely into the Warlock. Meta had to be forcefully removed from the Warlock in the most indignifying way, and left Warlocks with a Demonology spec that didn't function correctly for years after. This isn't something to look lightly on. Your perception of 'filling a gap' is actually the Warlock dev not caring about a Demon Hunter class at all, and trying to scavenge every last drop of its identity to bolster his vision of the Warlock class, glyph of Demon Hunting and all.

Dude has a literal blog about doing this over years of post-mortem articles on his site.

Let me show you your logic:
"Demon Hunters and Death Knights are not going to get Arthas' and Illidan's abilities, since they are unique. Only Illidan consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and got his eyes seared by Sargeras. Only Arthas (up until Bolvar) had the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne. Did we get their abilities, eventually? hell yeah. Summoning a Frostwyrm was seen as something unique to Arthas.

Yes.

Eventually. Over the course of literal years.

To classes that have been in the game for years. Including giving cursed vision to anyone who could use a blindfold.

We should be talking about cinematics and how they indicates a new class, not just granting abilities to existing classes. Illidan did nothing in the cinematics that wasn't already in the game by the time Demon Hunters were made into a class. The decision to make Demon Hunters a playable class goes well beyond just taking what was cool in the cinematics and making it playable. It goes much deeper than just devs pointing at Illidan and saying 'make it a class!' because everything cool about him was already being shoved off to Rogues and Warlocks. And they had to GUT the Warlock AND only release two specs in order to even make it happen.

I doubt Blizzard would repeat that for Dark Ranger, otherwise they would already be playable instead of leaving us with no new class this expansion.

As for her arrow chains - it can, definitely, be a Dark Ranger ability:

Sure.

And by the time a Dark Ranger actually comes, would those arrow chains even be relevant after we beat down the Jailer and 'redeemed' the Maw? The abilities we see in the cinematic are going to be as relevant as Covenant abilities and Legendary items. It's borrowed power from the Maw.

If we have a Dark Ranger, it should have come with this expansion where its most relevant. They can set up for a Dark Ranger in the future, but the more time passes the more different it will be from what Sylvanas originally portrayed, since she is ultimately going to have less relevance to the future of the story.

They made DKs when Arthas was relevant. They brought back Illidan to usher in the Demon Hunters. They're ending Sylvanas' story and role, so what's it going to take to bridge in a Dark Ranger class that is supposed to be relevant to Sylvanas? Whatever it is, it's not likely to happen soon after the next Raid and Sylvanas' fall. If they want Dark Rangers to be playable, they wouldn't be writing her out as a supporting villain to the big bad of the expansion and as a raid boss who drops special weapons that grant Dark Ranger abilities.

I'm literally talking about plausibility right now, and if you can't see this as a warning flag that it's not a good sign for Dark Rangers in the near future, you're just overly hopeful of what you want to see rather than look at how the devs are actually taking the direction of the game and their class design intentions.

If you were planning to make a Blademaster class, would it make sense to you to make Samuro a raid boss who gives Warriors a Legendary Katana that gives them windwalk and mirror image in the current expansion?

Blizzard is giving Hunters the ability to RP as a Dark Ranger. They're seemingly concluding Sylvanas' story. We're very likely going to beat the Jailer and leave the Shadowlands and all the Covenant powers by the end of the expansion. Let's address the elephant in the room before we start theorizing how the other Dark Rangers in the forsaken would suddenly gain Banshee powers and start using Jailer-style Chains of Domination and Maw powers.

[Varodoc]

I'd vastly prefer a Void Ranger/Umbral Ranger class over a Dark Ranger class. You could come up with more unique abilities if you mixed the Void and Archery. And we're due for a Void expansion, so a new Void-based class is obvious.

It's late for Dark Rangers. We already had the Death-themed expansion, twice. And neither times they even mentioned Dark Ranger as a potential class.

[username993720]

I don't see how you're building a case for playable Dark Rangers if you're pointing out the ability is already in the game.

It doesn't. It's a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter ability.

They didn't just add metamorphosis to the Warlock as a testbed for Demon Hunters. Xelnath actively TRIED to absorb the Demon Hunter completely into the Warlock. Meta had to be forcefully removed from the Warlock in the most indignifying way, and left Warlocks with a Demonology spec that didn't function correctly for years after. This isn't something to look lightly on. Your perception of 'filling a gap' is actually the Warlock dev not caring about a Demon Hunter class at all, and trying to scavenge every last drop of its identity to bolster his vision of the Warlock class, glyph of Demon Hunting and all.

Dude has a literal blog about doing this over years of post-mortem articles on his site.

I'm aware of it. As are all other classes that are being pushed into existing classes. Warlocks had the Death Knight's Death Coil. Priests had the Demon Hunter's Mana Burn. Rogues have the Demon Hunter's Evasion. Dark Ranger's Black Arrow was a Hunter ability. Warriors have the Blademaster's Bladestorm. Druids have the Priestess of the Moon's Starfall. Rogues have the Warden's Fan of Knives. The Shaman has the Shadow Hunter's Healing Wave and Hex. You see, the Demon Hunter is not a special case. They just put more effort into it.

Yes.

Eventually. Over the course of literal years.

To classes that have been in the game for years. Including giving cursed vision to anyone who could use a blindfold.

We should be talking about cinematics and how they indicates a new class, not just granting abilities to existing classes. Illidan did nothing in the cinematics that wasn't already in the game by the time Demon Hunters were made into a class. The decision to make Demon Hunters a playable class goes well beyond just taking what was cool in the cinematics and making it playable. It goes much deeper than just devs pointing at Illidan and saying 'make it a class!' because everything cool about him was already being shoved off to Rogues and Warlocks. And they had to GUT the Warlock AND only release two specs in order to even make it happen.

I doubt Blizzard would repeat that for Dark Ranger, otherwise they would already be playable instead of leaving us with no new class this expansion.

Does it matter when it happened? Do classes need to gain veteran status over the years to justify an ability added to them? They, probably, just hadn't thought to add that ability at the time. Very much like we weren't these god-like characters up until recently. Did we not deserve to be? no, we killed badass characters before. They just hadn't thought, back then, to make us such. That doesn't invalidate anything.

You are unaware of how things change over the years. If cinematics used to just showcase different classes/races or the big boss of the expansion, these days they are much more indicative of what's to come. Go see my expansion prediction thread:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ure-expansions

They won't repeat the Demon Hunter with the Dark Ranger, because:
1. it would not just be the Dark Ranger. It would, most likely, include the Priestess of the Moon and Warden in it.
2. Hunters would be revised to something like this, that completely lacks archery, magic or ranger:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s)-should-have

Sure.

And by the time a Dark Ranger actually comes, would those arrow chains even be relevant after we beat down the Jailer and 'redeemed' the Maw? The abilities we see in the cinematic are going to be as relevant as Covenant abilities and Legendary items. It's borrowed power from the Maw.

If we have a Dark Ranger, it should have come with this expansion where its most relevant. They can set up for a Dark Ranger in the future, but the more time passes the more different it will be from what Sylvanas originally portrayed, since she is ultimately going to have less relevance to the future of the story.

They made DKs when Arthas was relevant. They brought back Illidan to usher in the Demon Hunters. They're ending Sylvanas' story and role, so what's it going to take to bridge in a Dark Ranger class that is supposed to be relevant to Sylvanas? Whatever it is, it's not likely to happen soon after the next Raid and Sylvanas' fall. If they want Dark Rangers to be playable, they wouldn't be writing her out as a supporting villain to the big bad of the expansion and as a raid boss who drops special weapons that grant Dark Ranger abilities.

I'm literally talking about plausibility right now, and if you can't see this as a warning flag that it's not a good sign for Dark Rangers in the near future, you're just overly hopeful of what you want to see rather than look at how the devs are actually taking the direction of the game and their class design intentions.

If you were planning to make a Blademaster class, would it make sense to you to make Samuro a raid boss who gives Warriors a Legendary Katana that gives them windwalk and mirror image in the current expansion?

Blizzard is giving Hunters the ability to RP as a Dark Ranger. They're seemingly concluding Sylvanas' story. We're very likely going to beat the Jailer and leave the Shadowlands and all the Covenant powers by the end of the expansion. Let's address the elephant in the room before we start theorizing how the other Dark Rangers in the forsaken would suddenly gain Banshee powers and start using Jailer-style Chains of Domination and Maw powers.

Yes, they would. It's like saying defeating N'zoth would have abolished Azshara's Old God powers, or defeating the Legion would have abolished Gul'dans Fel powers.

Only if it came alone. Dark Ranger+Priestess of the Moon+Warden doesn't, necessarily, fit the expansion 100%. Besides, Demon Hunters had the same case in TBC, yet they still came in Legion. Saying it would be different is like saying Demon Hunters are different from Illidan because of the 8 year gap between TBC and Legion.

Never claimed it's gonna happen after Sylvanas' fall in 9.1 (if she even does. You're just assuming she will). Need i remind you that Illidan fell at the Black Temple only to be revived in Legion?

Why wouldn't she be villain? Arthas was a villain. Illidan was a villain. Illidan became a protagonist later on. Invalidating a class due to a bow dropping is like saying Demon Hunters would have never happened, because we looted Illidan's glaives in TBC.

I'm blind to what's going on?
Jesus christ... read the surface. There's no need to show Sylvanas and her abilities for 3 (4, even) consecutive cinematics when it causes fatigue. There's no need to tie-in Wardens to Dark Rangers with War of Thorns. There is no need to expand Tyrande's story with the Night Warrior and give her glaives. There's no need to set Vol'jin to be reborn. There's no need for Mekkatorque, specifically, to be a raid boss with what seems like Tinker abilities.

Yes, it would. Because, like Samuro, other classes have been raid bosses: Arthas & Illidan. You could even loot Illidan's glaives. That's just for flavour in the meantime. Learn from the past. Did having abilities in a class, especially borrowed ones, ever restricted a class from being added? it wasn't. You're just making an imaginary case for yourself.

Exactly. You answered yourself. RP. That's all you can do with that bow, right now. Nothing more.
"They're concluding Sylvanas' story" - how pretentious of you. We don't even know if she dies in the end. She is getting a new book just as she is about to be eliminated for good?

There's no reason why they wouldn't get. Again, claiming Sylvanas is a special case, but Illidan and Arthas not, and still getting abilities based on them, is the most demagogy thing someone can say.

I'd vastly prefer a Void Ranger/Umbral Ranger class over a Dark Ranger class. You could come up with more unique abilities if you mixed the Void and Archery. And we're due for a Void expansion, so a new Void-based class is obvious.

It's late for Dark Rangers. We already had the Death-themed expansion, twice. And neither times they even mentioned Dark Ranger as a potential class.

There's no established Void Ranger/Umbral ranger class in lore. Just a name for a race/class combination. When they get abilities associated with them, then it is a possible option. Same with Sunwalkers.

[Varaben]

And do you know why it's so *smiles slyly* this all happens for the same reason, since there is no clear separation of scope of class and specialization, which I have mentioned in this topic more than 10 times already. Specializations in current hierarchy plays classes' role, and formalized integral concept as "class" has long ceased to exist either in players' minds, or even more so among main ones to blame for current state of things - devs themselves

There is no sense to expect something better on the future, until this position gets off the ground. This is almost the very bottom, dead end of design of such element.

In other words, you're absolutely correct in describing what you see by looking at situation with "current approach to design", it's exactly confusing/strange/contradictory/puzzling as it should look with such philosophy.

Fair enough - I see what you mean like if you compare a ret paladin to a holy paladin, they're really not that similar. For whatever reason, Blizzard decided that Specs ARE classes. That kind of makes sense, but I kind of wish we could go back to being a class, not a spec.