Night warrior as a skin for NElf DH instead of Pala?

[DatToffer]

Then you're also not really talking about the OP's topic. Make your own thread about it, stick within it to discuss that?

Or maybe he's just trying to explain that OP's vision of a skin class is not a very good idea and doesn't make much sense.

[Beloren]

@Triceron and @Username99370


Night warrior as it's own class doesn't necessarily need to be a completely new class playstyle, but could be made up of composites of others.

As it's own class, it could have a melee spec copying the havoc spec playstyle/mechanics (with new names, special effect visuals to represent arcane and void instead of fel/shadow/fire), then have a range spec based on an arcane/void version of the balance druid., then a 3rd spec - could be based on shadow priest, or enh/ele shaman or the ret pala - it should probably be range to be honest - could shift to the survival hunter

[Syegfryed]

According to who?

according to the definition of a class skin.

A class skin is literally just that, a skin.

Class skin would be purple fire for warlocks, blue fire for mages, and at beast, if we stretch enough, fire for death knights instead of ice, that is the extant of a class skin that does not goes against of the class fantasy. is like asking demon hunter skin for warriors and making then use fel abilities, or a priest that use fel instead of light, is nonsensical

[Triceron]

Point blank - you have to look into the representatives to have a clue of how that class would likely play.

I look at Monks and I see mistweaving, windwalking, use of august celestials, Chi concepts, roundhouse kicks, jade lightning and instant death touch. All of which do 't even remotely exist on Chen.

If one were to make any suggestion for a Monk class using these ideas, and lets say we are using Chen as we knew him from WC3 as the template, then you would dismiss every single one of these ideas because it doesn't fit WC3 Chen.

Or conversely, take Arthas as we know him in WC3 amd you can dismiss Frost and Blood spec entirely.

Or DH would never have Eyebeams, double jumps, and a Vengeance DH form, because it strays from Illidan's concept.

At some point you need to realize class identities are whatever Blizzard presents in playable form. If Priests are unable to wield 2H swords and wear plate while Anduin is capable of it, then that is what it is. If Thrall can don Doomhammer plate while Shamans can not wear any plate, then that is what it is.

Named Characters are simply an _example_ of an archetype, not a playable class itself.

That is why a Nightwarrior class can be melee with warglaives and not have any arrow/bow abilities and still work fine, because Tyrande will always be the example of a Priestess of the Moon Night Warrior while the player class can be a more general (WC3 unit) Sentinel or Huntress Night Warrior. That would be absolutely fine as a basis for the class skin. We don't need to fully embrace all aspects of a named character in the same way Warriors do not grapple like Saurfang or fight unarmed with claws like Greymane. Hunters don't need to dual wield Axes to be Beastmasters like Rexxar.

Night Warriors do not need long-ranged Archery to be Night Warriors.

- - - Updated - - -

Or maybe he's just trying to explain that OP's vision of a skin class is not a very good idea and doesn't make much sense.

Of course, because his goal is that he wants to play as Tyrande, and a completely new class based on Tyrande is pretty much a mix of Hunter, Druid and Demon Hunter and exclusive to Night Elves. It makes _less sense_ that Blizzard would make a whole new class out of that.

[DatToffer]

Of course, because his goal is that he wants to play as Tyrande, and a completely new class based on Tyrande is pretty much a mix of Hunter, Druid and Demon Hunter and exclusive to Night Elves. It makes _less sense_ that Blizzard would make a whole new class out of that.

I think you misunderstood his point but I'd rather ask the guy directly.

snip

So, are you saying that a Night Warrior skin for DH seems like a bad idea and if we absolutely had to add Night Warrior, a class would make more sense, or do you actually want a Night Warrior class ?

[Teriz]

@Triceron and @Username99370


Night warrior as it's own class doesn't necessarily need to be a completely new class playstyle, but could be made up of composites of others.

As it's own class, it could have a melee spec copying the havoc spec playstyle/mechanics (with new names, special effect visuals to represent arcane and void instead of fel/shadow/fire), then have a range spec based on an arcane/void version of the balance druid., then a 3rd spec - could be based on shadow priest, or enh/ele shaman or the ret pala - it should probably be range to be honest - could shift to the survival hunter

The last thing people want is another melee DPS spec, with an elf-based class that utilizes warglaives. It's DH all over again. Essentially what you're advocating for is a Demon Hunter/Druid hybrid. That's terrible.

[Triceron]

I think you misunderstood his point but I'd rather ask the guy directly.

Or maybe you could read the whole conversation?

Here's some context from him:

How would you explain a Demon Hunter shooting an arrow from a bow?
Or, the use of pets?
Or blasting with a lunar spell?

All uses direct image reference to Tyrande.

The bow and arrow is not an ability. It's by default. You see, a Night Warrior is a previous Priestess of the Moon. And these priestesses wield bow and arrow. Plus, as Tyrande is already showing you in the cinematic, she's throwing her glaives at Sylvanas. So, i don't see a point in replacing the Demon Hunter's Throw Glaive with an Arrow shot just so you can forcefully match the two. Thus, you are still left with a bow and arrow that are not accounted for in the Demon Hunter.

More reference to POTM and Tyrande, which we know is not exclusive to Night Warriors.

"The Night Warrior, in Tyrande's case, is an expansion of her being a Priestess of the Moon. To believe she doesn't use a bow and arrow, owl companion and healing capabilities anymore is nonsensical (especially since she uses some of them in BfA). So, getting rid of these aspects just so you can fit a rectangle into a square is a bit forced."

It does have a mold, and that is Tyrande Whisperwind's playstyle. We're not inventing a new class here, we're drawing from an existing one with a somewhat defined gameplay.

Again, more Tyrande and POTM reference. Not actually talking about Night Warriors, who in the lore can be portrayed as any individual who ritually embodies Elune's Night Warrior aspect.

I mean, there's a whole bunch of context you may be missing because you've never talked to him before, but he's pushed for POTM/Warden/Night Warrior class concepts well before this.



I'm only arguing that the Night Warrior as a Class Skin concept using Demon Hunter gameplay could absolutely be functional. If we're talking about whether the OP's idea itself for a Night Warrior Class Skin is good or bad, then I'd say personally I don't think a Night Warrior should be playable *at all* and that it's a stupid idea. That doesn't get in the way of me making an argument that it could still be made playable in Class Skin form.

I think Bard class don't fit WoW, but I could come up with ideas on how to make them playable as a Class Skin just as well.

[username993720]

@Triceron and @Username99370


Night warrior as it's own class doesn't necessarily need to be a completely new class playstyle, but could be made up of composites of others.

As it's own class, it could have a melee spec copying the havoc spec playstyle/mechanics (with new names, special effect visuals to represent arcane and void instead of fel/shadow/fire), then have a range spec based on an arcane/void version of the balance druid., then a 3rd spec - could be based on shadow priest, or enh/ele shaman or the ret pala - it should probably be range to be honest - could shift to the survival hunter

Or, it could be based on the Priestess of the Moon, Dark Ranger and Warden.

I look at Monks and I see mistweaving, windwalking, use of august celestials, Chi concepts, roundhouse kicks, jade lightning and instant death touch. All of which do 't even remotely exist on Chen.

If one were to make any suggestion for a Monk class using these ideas, and lets say we are using Chen as we knew him from WC3 as the template, then you would dismiss every single one of these ideas because it doesn't fit WC3 Chen.

Or conversely, take Arthas as we know him in WC3 amd you can dismiss Frost and Blood spec entirely.

Or DH would never have Eyebeams, double jumps, and a Vengeance DH form, because it strays from Illidan's concept.

At some point you need to realize class identities are whatever Blizzard presents in playable form. If Priests are unable to wield 2H swords and wear plate while Anduin is capable of it, then that is what it is. If Thrall can don Doomhammer plate while Shamans can not wear any plate, then that is what it is.

Named Characters are simply an _example_ of an archetype, not a playable class itself.

That is why a Nightwarrior class can be melee with warglaives and not have any arrow/bow abilities and still work fine, because Tyrande will always be the example of a Priestess of the Moon Night Warrior while the player class can be a more general (WC3 unit) Sentinel or Huntress Night Warrior. That would be absolutely fine as a basis for the class skin. We don't need to fully embrace all aspects of a named character in the same way Warriors do not grapple like Saurfang or fight unarmed with claws like Greymane. Hunters don't need to dual wield Axes to be Beastmasters like Rexxar.

Night Warriors do not need Archery to be Night Warriors.

Winwalking and Mistweaving was invented for the Monks. I'm not saying the Night Warrior wouldn't have brand new abilities we never came up with. What i'm saying is that excluding existing ones just so it can fit a Demon Hunter is wrong.

WC3 Chen is one spec - the Brewmaster. Just like the Night Warrior, or Priestess of the Moon, would constitute one spec if the other ones were based on the Dark Ranger and Warden.

In the case of Arthas, not if you take into account the Lich unit. After all, he's the Lich King. and Liches are known to wield frost magic. As for the Blood aspect, if you take the Dreadlord's Vampiric Aura into consideration, you can see where it kinda came from. If we look at the Night Warrior, or a Priestess of the Moon, we can expect some aspects of the Huntress, Archer and Warden units to be incorporated as they have a connection to Elune.

The Demon Hunter's abilities might be creative additions, but they didn't come at the cost of previous known aspects of the Demon Hunter.

Again with Anduin and Thrall. That is what is called a cosmetic difference. Anduin is still a Priest, even with Plate and a Sword. Thrall is still a Shaman, even with Plate armor. Go see their HotS incarnations.

*Named and iconic characters are the best examples of a class. Minor ones like Thiernax, the Stonewright and Khaliiq aren't. You'd be wise to distinguish between the two.

So, a Night Warrior would be a glaived moon-caster? You do realize how much potential you're dismissing here? Archery, use of spirit pets, stealth and even healing spells.
It's funny how you're dismissing Tyrande, yet you base the Night Warrior on her use of Glaives, while the other Night Warriors have not been shown to fight in melee with glaives like Tyrande. Even though your notion of a Night Warrior is exclusively based on her Night Warrior appearance, you believe it is right to discard her other aspects based on other Night Warrior not showing to be doing that? you do realize it's contradictory? It's like Teriz trying to shove the Tinker everywhere based on Goblin Tinkers alone while dismissing Gnome Tinkers like Gelbin, as is obviously part of the class.

Of course, because his goal is that he wants to play as Tyrande, and a completely new class based on Tyrande is pretty much a mix of Hunter, Druid and Demon Hunter and exclusive to Night Elves. It makes _less sense_ that Blizzard would make a whole new class out of that.

Are you for real?
Monks were Pandaren exclusive. Demon Hunters are elves exclusives.
I don't want a class solely based on Tyrande. That would be a waste of a class spot. I believe they'd add a class based on her (Night Warrior/Priestess of the Moon), Sylvanas (Dark Ranger) and Maiev (Warden).
It makes a lot of sense for them to nail a class based on 2 popular characters right now (plus one more), with Warcraft 3 origins (like they did with other classes) and new looks, abilities and playstyles.

So, are you saying that a Night Warrior skin for DH seems like a bad idea and if we absolutely had to add Night Warrior, a class would make more sense, or do you actually want a Night Warrior class ?

I'm saying reserve the class skins shtick to race/class combinations like Sunwalkers, Tidesages and such. Leave potential new classes, like the Night Warrior, to be new expansion additions. Note that it would not come alone and that it is based on Warcraft 3 Hero units.

[Triceron]

I'm not saying the Night Warrior wouldn't have brand new abilities we never came up with. What i'm saying is that excluding existing ones just so it can fit a Demon Hunter is wrong.

And I made an example where _every existing visual representation of abilities_ is covered.

Your reaction was:
- Arrow abilities aren't long ranged enough
- Owls could be added as an ability visual, but it could also be a different weapons skin (wtf?)
- Lunar Beams are AoE, not single target (wtf again?)


And then you continue to spin the same tune that things are being excluded even though they're covered. And you do this by inferring that Nightwarriors must have:

- Clear POTM inspired gameplay, including archery and use of Owls
- Owls as pets
- Direct association to a known named character, that being Tyrande
- Direct association with a Hero from Warcraft 3, being the POTM.


All of which aren't really criteria necessary for any new class.

The Demon Hunter's abilities might be creative additions, but they didn't come at the cost of previous known aspects of the Demon Hunter.

They sure as hell do!

Metamorphosis in Warcraft 3 fires long-ranged Chaos blasts that deal splash damage. It's effectively a Spellcaster or Ranged DPS. This entire long-ranged auto attack/spell damage gameplay is missing from WoW's Demon Hunter.

You are 100% fine with Blizzard completely deviating from this to make the WoW DH a melee-centric class, while applying a double standard to the Night Warrior. And the Night Warrior doesn't even exist in Warcraft 3, you're trying to shoehorn a Priestess of the Moon concept into it instead.

Are you for real?
Monks were Pandaren exclusive.

Um, no they aren't?

Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypts had Monks.

I'm saying reserve the class skins shtick to race/class combinations like Sunwalkers, Tidesages and such. Leave potential new classes, like the Night Warrior, to be new expansion additions. Note that it would not come alone and that it is based on Warcraft 3 Hero units.

Exactly my point here. You're not actually talking about Night Warriors, you're talking about Wardens or Priestess of the Moon being made playable. It's a wholly different conversation altogether.

[username993720]

And I made an example where _every existing visual representation of abilities_ is covered.

Your reaction was:
- Arrow abilities aren't long ranged enough
- Owls could be added as an ability visual, but it could also be a different weapons skin (wtf?)
- Lunar Beams are AoE, not single target (wtf again?)


And then you continue to spin the same tune that things are being excluded even though they're covered. And you do this by inferring that Nightwarriors must have:

- Clear POTM inspired gameplay, including archery and use of Owls
- Owls as pets
- Direct association to a known named character, that being Tyrande
- Direct association with a Hero from Warcraft 3, being the POTM.


All of which aren't really criteria necessary for any new class.

It's not actually covered. You're suggesting to alter the way they work and look (more than just cosmetically). An Eye Beam turning into an Arrow? not the same functionality or close in animation and spell effect. A Glaive toss turned into an owl? possible, but unlikely. A single-target Fel spike sprouting from the ground turning into a multiple-target lunar beams? Yeah... you didn't seem to think this through. You just took whatever caught your eye and applied it to the abilities i suggested.
By the way, accommodating for it through a talent or ability addition would go against what class skins would be trying to avoid - balancing.

They sure as hell do!

Metamorphosis in Warcraft 3 is exactly as how the Warlock's Metamorphosis worked; a demon form that fires Chaos blasts that deal splash damage at long range. It's effectively equivalent of being a Spellcaster form.

You are 100% fine with Blizzard completely deviating from the Warcraft 3 Demon Hunter gameplay, while applying a double standard to the Night Warrior which doesn't even have a Warcraft 3 parallel; it's a completely new invention. Tyrande was not a Night Warrior in Warcraft 3.

The functionality changed a bit, but they didn't discard Metamorphosis altogether. Metamorphosis is accounted for. Immolation (Aura) is accounted for. Mana Burn (Mana Rift) is accounted for. Evasion (Blur) is accounted for. Yes, they might work a little differently and have a different name, but they are there.

*Sigh*

Have you considered why they gave the Night Warrior to Tyrande (a Priestess of the Moon) and not to Maiev (a Warden) or any Archer or Huntresses out there? they worship Elune as well. They gave it to her because they intended it to be an elaboration of the PotM.

Um, no they aren't?

Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypts had Monks, and let's not forget that WC3 did not actually have 'Monks', Chen was a Brewmaster and had no direct association as a Monk until that was connection was retroactively applied in MoP. I mean no different than if Blizzard decides to officially bridge Dark Rangers and Hunters as the same class in some future expansion, you can't then point at every instance in current lore as 'they're the same class!', because *right now* they aren't. Same with Blademaster and Warrior connections, they aren't the same thing until Blizzard decides to retcon it so.

I meant the Pandaren version of Monks. You do know that no one practiced it outside of Pandaria/Wandering Isle and that all of the other playable races able to be Monks are taught by the Pandaren, right?

Exactly my point here. You're not actually talking about Night Warriors, you're talking about Wardens or Priestess of the Moon being made playable. It's a wholly different conversation altogether.

It's not. A Night Warrior is meant to be an expansion of the Priestess of the Moon. Why do you think it's so Elune-centric and was given to Tyrande? And don't start with those other mostly unknown characters. They are barely shown to do anything Night Warriorish.

[Triceron]

An Eye Beam turning into an Arrow? not the same functionality or close in animation and spell effect. A Glaive toss turned into an owl? possible, but unlikely. A single-target Fel spike sprouting from the ground turning into a multiple-target lunar beams?

The functionality changed a bit, but they didn't discard Metamorphosis altogether. Metamorphosis is accounted for. Immolation (Aura) is accounted for. Mana Burn (Mana Rift) is accounted for. Evasion (Blur) is accounted for. Yes, they might work a little differently and have a different name, but they are there.

Just want to point out your own contradictions to your own statements.

Again, seems like a case where you're just biased against my examples while you're 100% fine if Blizzard does it.

Lunar Beam as Fel Eruption skin? No way, functionality changes!
Metamorphosis as a completely different Melee-centric ability? Functionality changes but at least it's represented!

Could you please take one moment to address the double standard here? You literally contradicted your reason to dismiss my idea in the very next paragraph.

You may not like the examples I've presented for the Night Warrior, but in your own words, Yes, they might work a little differently and have a different name, but they are there.

It's not. A Night Warrior is meant to be an expansion of the Priestess of the Moon.

I rest my case. You're talking about POTM, not a Night Warrior.

Have you considered why they gave the Night Warrior to Tyrande (a Priestess of the Moon) and not to Maiev (a Warden) or any Archer or Huntresses out there? they worship Elune as well.

You mean like they gave it to entirely different races who aren't Priestess of the Moon at all, like Thierax, Khaliiq and the Stonewright? You mean like how you can unlock this customization for all Night Elves, regardless of your class?

"Tyrande Whisperwind managed to complete the rite and embody the Night Warrior and the ritual was so powerful that it affected others of her people who merely witnessed it — this transformation helped create the Army of the Black Moon"


When we talk about the Night Warrior as a playable class form, it's just a gameplay representation. Mechanics can be whatever Blizzard wants it to be. You accept the Demon Hunter being changed to be melee centric with zero long-ranged gameplay while you can't fathom a Night Warrior that is absent of the Priestess of the Moon's representation. This is a double standard that you've created for yourself.

A Night Warrior is already represented by every Night Elf who unlocks the Black Eyes, by Blizzard's own design. That you're arguing that they need Archery or POTM influence is well beyond any standard set by Blizzard themselves.

No one else is making a point that a Night Warrior has to be like Tyrande or that they have to play like POTM, here. There are plenty of people who have criticized the OP's idea, but no one else is pointing at the absence of Priestess of the Moon gameplay being a problem.

[username993720]

Just want to point out your own contradictions to your own statements.

Again, seems like a case where you're just biased against my examples while you're 100% fine if Blizzard does it.

Lunar Beam as Fel Eruption skin? No way, functionality changes!
Metamorphosis as a completely different Melee-centric ability? Functionality changes but at least it's represented!

Could you please take one moment to address the double standard here? You literally contradicted your reason to dismiss my idea in the very next paragraph.

You may not like the examples I've presented for the Night Warrior, but in your own words, Yes, they might work a little differently and have a different name, but they are there.

I knew that would cause an uproar
A class being added and altering it's abilities is not the same as a class skin. You're trying to avoid any change that would require a lot of work and effort with that.

I rest my case. You're talking about POTM, not a Night Warrior.

"Same same. But different" - James Franco, The Interview (2014)

You mean like they gave it to entirely different races who aren't Priestess of the Moon at all, like Thierax, Khaliiq and the Stonewright? You mean like how you can unlock this customization for all Night Elves, regardless of your class?

And what were they before? you don't know. Because they are souls is the Shadowlands.
Does unlocking black eyes give you Night Warrior powers? no. You're still the same old class you were.

"Tyrande Whisperwind managed to complete the rite and embody the Night Warrior and the ritual was so powerful that it affected others of her people who merely witnessed it — this transformation helped create the Army of the Black Moon"

Are they presenting Night Warrior powers? i bet they're not.

When we talk about the Night Warrior as a playable class form, it's just a gameplay representation. Mechanics can be whatever Blizzard wants it to be, and you have absolutely no say in how it plays out just like you have zero control over whether a Demon Hunter has Ranged abilities/attacks as we seen in Warcraft 3's Demon Form. That you accept the Demon Hunter being changed to be melee centric while you can't fathom a Night Warrior that is absent of the Priestess of the Moon's representation is really a problem with your own internal headcanon, since you're not actually talking about what a Night Warrior is.

Demon Hunter has always been melee. It uses glaives in Warcraft 3. So, it's not hard to imagine applying that to the Demon Form as well. Especially considering Illidan uses them while being in a constant Demon Form.

A Night Warrior is already represented by every Night Elf who unlocks the Black Eyes, by Blizzard's own design. That you're arguing that they need Archery or POTM influence is well beyond any standard set by Blizzard themselves; it's just you wanting the concept to be more like Tyrande for your own reasons. No one else is making a point that a Night Warrior has to be like Tyrande or that they have to play like POTM, here.

Except we are all basing it, including you, on the recent Tyrande vs Sylvanas cinematic. So, yeah... saying i'm too hanged on Tyrande is bullshit. If you didn't too, it wouldn't wield glaives in melee combat, since the other Night Warriors don't use that combat style and the other Night elves with Black eyes don't have any special powers. So, you're using a double standard as well. "I imagine the Night Warrior like Tyrande's recent cinematic appearance, but not like her previous appearances!".

[Triceron]

I knew that would cause an uproar
A class being added and altering it's abilities is not the same as a class skin. You're trying to avoid any change that would require a lot of work and effort with that.

Blah blah blah, excuse excuse. Goalpost shift yet again.

Class skins don't even formally exist, therefore you can not actually define what is and is not the same as a 'Class skin'. The concept has no limits because it doesn't actually exist. Whatever limitations you're applying to it you're doing so arbitrarily to dismiss it. We're not talking about Transmogs, we're not talking about Glyphs, we're talking about Class Skins as a feature.

It'd be the same as implying Allied Races can't have their own racials or customizations because you think it only means Race Transmogs.

And what were they before? you don't know. Because they are souls is the Shadowlands.
Does unlocking black eyes give you Night Warrior powers? no. You're still the same old class you were.

Demon Hunter has always been melee. It uses glaives in Warcraft 3. So, it's not hard to imagine applying that to the Demon Form as well. Especially considering Illidan uses them while being in a constant Demon Form.

Except we are all basing it, including you, on the recent Tyrande vs Sylvanas cinematic. So, yeah... saying i'm too hanged on Tyrande is bullshit. If you didn't too, it wouldn't wield glaives in melee combat

I'm making a very simple case and a very simple point.

A Class skin of a Night Warrior that uses Demon Hunter gameplay is functionally viable. Any discrepencies are treated in the same way Demon Hunter Metamorphosis changes the functionality of its WC3 counterpart, but is otherwise aesthetically represented.

Arguments based on Tyrande in the cinematic were all done to satisfy your questions on 'where is X' and 'where is Y'. The reason is to answer a question you posed, not to give an example that the Night Warrior can only be Tyrande in the cinematics. Again, I point that *you* are the only one who has made Tyrande the end-all be-all Night Warrior concept, while I've simply been making a case that *IF* that is the concept you choose to discuss, then a Class Skin can still satisfy that in aesthetics, albeit with modified functionality.

And through circular discussion, you're pretty much admitted that you're okay with functionality changing so long as the aesthetics and representation are there. But only if Blizzard does it. And every explanation you've given to try and differentiate a class from a class skin is nothing more than an excuse, which I've pointed out pages earlier. If I give a unique example, then it's deviating from your vision of Tyrande. If I give an example of something already in game, then you say it's too derivative and should be made into its own class instead.



At the end of the day you're only arguing for the sole purpose of wanting the Priestess of the Moon to be playable as a class, complete with throwbacks to the gameplay shown in Warcraft 3. Every one of your arguments circles back to this one point, and you are unable to accept a reality where a Night Warrior could ever be aesthetically represented as a Class skin for any existing class.

The Night Warrior does not need to be based on Tyrande or the Priestess of the Moon. As far as I'm concerned, a Night Warrior Class skin could work on practically any class in the game, while the Demon Hunter just happens to be the example the OP gave. If we were talking about a Paladin, I'd just as easily correlate spells and abilities to work. Or a Mage. Or a Hunter. Or even a Rogue. At the end of the day we're talking visual FX and animation swaps, which already exist in the game.

A Class skin is little different than the 'outlier' Race/Class comboes we already have. The Zandalar know not of druidic ways; nature is to be shaped by their need, not the other way around. Zandalari Haruspex is already conceptually a Class Skin of the Druid. If Blizzard can say Zandalari Trolls don't use Druidism directly, and can turn into Dinosaurs instead of Bears and Cats, then so be it, they can do so. We simply accept it all as a Druid class because that is how the game mechanics define it. It's a gameplay definition, not exactly a Lore definition. Same can be applied to Sunwalkers, which are Paladins because that's how gameplay defines it, but from a lore perspective they are absolutely Sunwalkers who are Warriors using the powers of the Sun. Paladin never enters the lore description of a Sunwalker, that is purely a gameplay definition.

Effectively, we're talking about a Night Warrior that adopts another class' gameplay. The OP suggests Demon Hunter instead of Paladin, meaning at some point they considered both. And that's fine and dandy, at a functional and conceptual level that still fits a Night Warrior because what we've seen of it is simple a Melee combatant who can use spells. That is functionally viable in the Paladin and Demon Hunter class.

And at the end of the day, Blizzard has already made the Night Warrior playable. Blackened Eyes visuals as a race-wide quest unlock. It is not kept as a class-exclusive cosmetic feature, meaning they never intended to make a specific class in the first place. And even if they did, it doesn't exclude the other Night Elves who are still able to choose to be Night Warriors of various different classes.

[username993720]

It'd be the same as implying Allied Races can't have their own racials or customizations because you think it only means Race Transmogs.

Ok, let's talk allied races. They use existing skeletons (except for Kul Tirans). They have exclusive customization options. And they have racial abilities.

If we go based on these criteria then a class skin would use an existing class skeleton (gameplay), would have exclusive spell effects (customizations), and a few unique abilities (racial abilities). Yet, there is still potential for new ones (Kul Tiran skeleton).

Ok, now i get your mindset...
I was so hanged up on making the connections between Demon Hunter and Night Warrior lore-wise, as i excepted class skins to be a derivative of the base class, that i overlooked some of the possibilities.

You see, even Allied races are mostly a derivative of the main races:
Human - Kul Tiran Human
Dwarf - Dark Iron Dwarf
Gnome - Mechagnome
Blood Elf - Void elf
Draenei - Lightforged Draenei
Orc - Mag'har orc
Troll - Zandalari Troll
Tauren - Highmountain Tauren
Night Elf - Nightborne

But, if you mean Goblin - Vulpera, which have nothing in common other than the skeletons being used, i can somehow see what you meant.

[Triceron]

Ok, let's talk allied races. They use existing skeletons (except for Kul Tirans). They have exclusive customization options. And they have racial abilities.

If we go based on these criteria then a class skin would use an existing class skeleton (gameplay), would have exclusive spell effects (customizations), and a few unique abilities (racial abilities). Yet, there is still potential for new ones (Kul Tiran skeleton).

Ok, now i get your mindset...
I was so hanged up on making the connections between Demon Hunter and Night Warrior lore-wise, as i excepted class skins to be a derivative of the base class, that i overlooked some of the possibilities.

You see, even Allied races are mostly a derivative of the main races:
Human - Kul Tiran Human
Dwarf - Dark Iron Dwarf
Gnome - Mechagnome
Blood Elf - Void elf
Draenei - Lightforged Draenei
Orc - Mag'har orc
Troll - Zandalari Troll
Tauren - Highmountain Tauren
Night Elf - Nightborne

But, if you mean Goblin - Vulpera, which have nothing in common other than the skeletons being used, i can somehow see what you meant.

And beyond that, Allied Races have the following differences
- Unique cosmetic customizations, like tattooes, mechanical limbs, hairstyles etc
- New voice work
- New Dance animations
- New Racials that affect balance and gameplay
- Heritage Armor and Mounts
- Unique questlines or starting zone content for some races

If Class Skins were respectfully given that level of customization to help define them, then I don't see why it couldn't work out. Would they be a perfect solution? No, by no means. But it's a step in a direction that makes sense without overtly upsetting the balance.

I don't really concern myself with the minutia of whether new talents would imbalance the game or not, because talents already employ a certain level of imbalance. Talents offer a window of acceptable imbalance (BIS talents Maximum Effectiveness vs Worst talents Minimum Effectiveness), and all that needs to be ensured is that any new talents created for Class Skins should be weighed in relative power within that window. Otherwise there's no reason why a Night Warrior (based on Havoc Demon Hunter gameplay) couldn't get a long-ranged Arrow talent while the Demon Hunter retains a Fel Rush Damage Boost talent, as long as they can both be properly weighed in power in their respective rotations. At the end of the day you won't be able to stop people from min-maxing Class/Race/Talent combinations, but offering the option to play an alternate class that still has 95-105% effectiveness with a handful of unique talents is a tradeoff I'd deem acceptable.

[username993720]

And beyond that, Allied Races have the following differences
- Unique cosmetic customizations, like tattooes, mechanical limbs, hairstyles etc
- New voice work
- New Dance animations
- New Racials that affect balance and gameplay
- Heritage Armor and Mounts
- Unique questlines or starting zone content for some races

If Class Skins were respectfully given that level of customization to help define them, then I don't see why it couldn't work out. Would they be a perfect solution? No, by no means. But it's a step in a direction that makes sense without overtly upsetting the balance.

I don't really concern myself with the minutia of whether new talents would imbalance the game or not, because talents already employ a certain level of imbalance. Talents offer a window of acceptable imbalance (BIS talents Maximum Effectiveness vs Worst talents Minimum Effectiveness), and all that needs to be ensured is that any new talents created for Class Skins should be weighed in relative power within that window. Otherwise there's no reason why a Night Warrior (based on Havoc Demon Hunter gameplay) couldn't get a long-ranged Arrow talent while the Demon Hunter retains a Fel Rush Damage Boost talent, as long as they can both be properly weighed in power in their respective rotations. At the end of the day you won't be able to stop people from min-maxing Class/Race/Talent combinations, but offering the option to play an alternate class that still has 95-105% effectiveness with a handful of unique talents is a tradeoff I'd deem acceptable.

I still think it would better be served as a race/class combination thing. I just don't wanna see a potential new class like the Shadow Hunter or Tinker become an echo of an existing class.

Beside that, do you see them adding several class skins at once? or would it be just one per expansion?

[Triceron]

I still think it would better be served as a race/class combination thing. I just don't wanna see a potential new class like the Shadow Hunter or Tinker become an echo of an existing class.

Beside that, do you see them adding several class skins at once? or would it be just one per expansion?

Pretty much like how they handled Allied Races, added either in waves or in packages.

I see them capable of adding ~6 new Class skins that could cover a wide variety of iconic classes and playstyles. That's half the current class count, which covers a nice variety. 2-3 options of each role; mix and match the 6 options in varying degrees.

Roll them out in waves similar to Allied Races, unique lore and starting zones that eventually all gets an 'Exiles Reach' central starting zone setting up a future expansion. They wouldn't need any direct expansion theme, just a broad purpose of being playable for 'reasons' would be enough.

Just a brainfart of examples of class skin options:

Blademaster - Based on Warrior, with Stealth, Deception and Illusion talents
Bard - Based on Priest with musical spell effects and Instrument weapon skins and spell animations
Necromancer - Based on Warlock, with Undead minion variation, emphasis on Poisons and Necromancy.
Runemaster - Based on Monk, more Arcane themes, glowing tattoos
Spellbreaker - Based on Paladin, Arcane themes. Applicable to more than just Blood Elves
Dark Ranger - Based on Hunter, should be fairly straight forward.


Some classes might get more options or overlap, like a Warrior could have skins to be Gladiators, Blademasters, Chieftain/Highlord, etc. Kind of depends on how far we want to go with this idea. Since it's a modular concept there's no real limit, and it's kinda like how Guild Wars 2 has set up their Path system.

The core goal of this would be Roleplaying over all. Allow niche class concepts that may not have a chance to be their own class to be playable, like Runemasters and Necromancers and Bards.

I'm still playing an idea of 'remixing' specs from different classes to better represent certain Class identities, but it doesn't feel right just yet. Like a Spellbreaker could be an ideal mix of Prot/Ret Paladin and Arcane Mage specs, or a Necromancer be a mix of Warlock Demonology with an Anima-based channelling Healing spec based on Disc or Mistweaving. The biggest problems are consolidating Talents, and dealing with unique Resource mechanics like Chi, Runic Power, Holy Power etc. This kind of idea would require a larger revamp of how specs currently work.

But I'll reserve these ideas for a later time, I don't want to completely derail the thread topic.

[username993720]

Pretty much like how they handled Allied Races, added either in waves or in packages.

I see them capable of adding ~6 new Class skins that could cover a wide variety of iconic classes and playstyles. That's half the current class count, which covers a nice variety. 2-3 options of each role; mix and match the 6 options in varying degrees.

Roll them out in waves similar to Allied Races,

And, what would be left to add in future expansions?

[Triceron]

And, what would be left to add in future expansions?

I dunno, more raids and more shit story telling? Not quite sure what answer you're looking for. It's not like we get a new class and new race every expansion anyways, so I can't say what is left to add. We haven't seen more allied races in Shadowlands even though that was a trend that people expected to continue with BFA. I don't know what Blizzard plans for the future classes, I can only hope it's not more borrowed power mechanics.

[Beloren]

Blah blah blah, excuse excuse. Goalpost shift yet again.

Class skins don't even formally exist, therefore you can not actually define what is and is not the same as a 'Class skin'. The concept has no limits because it doesn't actually exist. Whatever limitations you're applying to it you're doing so arbitrarily to dismiss it. We're not talking about Transmogs, we're not talking about Glyphs, we're talking about Class Skins as a feature.

It'd be the same as implying Allied Races can't have their own racials or customizations because you think it only means Race Transmogs.


.

Well said.
@Syegfryed

Look, Triceron articulates it very well here.

You can’t say it is not a class skin because that hasn’t actually become a thing yet.

It can over a host of meanings