Class Skins would add many new classes and be a major draw for a new expansion

[Ielenia]

Interestingly enough you seem to forget that allied races get unique racials including
Stuns
Teleport
Buff
Damage reduction
Trade skill improvements

And they have a completely separate story

It’s almost like they are new things and not just reskins

First off: read this. It would be informative to you.

Second: the main point of races is being cosmetic, with racials being mostly secondary. Plus it's easy to create 3-4 abilities that have nigh-negligible impact in gameplay save for cosmetics. For classes, it's the other way around: cosmetics are mostly secondary, while its abilities and mechanics are the focus point.

Class skins would have different graphics and animations, while keeping the mechanics of its "parent class" intact. Class skins would also have different NPCs attributed to them. The druid class would not have Mekkatorque as one of its representatives despite it being the representative of the tinker class skin, for example.

[Triceron]

No, i don't believe that.

And i'm here to point out that it's not merely dressing up a class like you guys make it look like. You actually have to consider which ones would fit what classes. You guys try to take a dress size 4 (i don't use american measurement, so don't take it seriously) and force it on a person size 6.

What exactly do you mean by fit? There's no universal standard for this, you understand right?

Your arguments tend to be all over the place when it comes to what class fits what.

I present a Spellbreaker for Paladin and you think Warrior fits it better. And you probably took zero consideration about what a Spellbreaker actually does, until you looked into it and then realized later that Paladin actually fits it better after all. So when you make claims that Hunters can't do all the things a Dark Ranger can, I'm not sure how sound your argument would be since you also thought a Spellbreaker would have been better on a Warrior even though Warriors are all about using Shouts, charging into battle and primarily using physical attacks with almost no ranged abilities.

What gauge are you using to define Tinkers being so vastly different from Druid? You ended up bringing examples of Alchemists, which aren't even Tinkers. You've broken the same rules on maintaining a Tinker Fantasy if you're implying Tinkers would use chemicals to heal, drink chemicals to go into a rage and throw acid bombs. Alchemists aren't Tinkers. Alchemists are not related to the Tinker fantasy whatsoever. It's really an odd set of double standards you're implying to say a Tinker couldn't use HoT healing because it doesn't fit the fantasy, but Alchemy spells from the completely unrelated Alchemist hero are totally fine. It doesn't matter what reason you have to believe it works better, the fact is you're implying a double standard that values your own personal interpretation of what a Tinker should be as being a definitive standard, rather than adhering to actual Tinkers, which don't have any healing at all.

I mean even now, I'm not quite sure what ended up convincing you that Spellbreakers actually fit Paladins. You just posted two pictures of Spellbreakers and said you were wrong, without any actual context or explanation. I still don't really know why you thought Spellbreaker was a better fit for the Warrior, and why you eventually changed your mind. And without that insight, I have no idea why you wouldn't think Dark Ranger could ever fit Hunter, but you totally think Alchemist fits the Tinker Fantasy. I'm having a hard time pinpointing any consistent argument regarding what your standard of 'Fit' really means, because it's all over the place.

[Revamp Man]

First off: read this. It would be informative to you.

Second: the main point of races is being cosmetic, with racials being mostly secondary. Plus it's easy to create 3-4 abilities that have nigh-negligible impact in gameplay save for cosmetics. For classes, it's the other way around: cosmetics are mostly secondary, while its abilities and mechanics are the focus point.

Class skins would have different graphics and animations, while keeping the mechanics of its "parent class" intact. Class skins would also have different NPCs attributed to them. The druid class would not have Mekkatorque as one of its representatives despite it being the representative of the tinker class skin, for example.

i see this and raise you: it does not change anything

reskinning a class doesnt change anything no matter if there are different npcs or not

playing a warrior vs playing a reskin wont play differently or feel different
playing a human on denathrius vs playing a void elf is different
playing a dwarf on shriekwing vs playing a gnome is different

it doesnt matter if its only two buttons or a passive the thing is it is different

[TheRevenantHero]

Who defines what fits and what doesn't?

Your arguments tend to be all over the place when it comes to what class fits what.

I present a Spellbreaker for Paladin and you think Warrior fits it better. And you probably took zero consideration about what a Spellbreaker actually does, until you looked into it and then realized later that Paladin actually fits it better after all. So when you make claims that Hunters can't do all the things a Dark Ranger can, I'm not sure how sound your argument would be since you also thought a Spellbreaker would have been better on a Warrior even though Warriors are all about using Shouts, charging into battle and primarily using physical attacks with almost no ranged abilities.

What gauge are you using to define Tinkers being so vastly different from Druid? You ended up bringing examples of Alchemists, which aren't even Tinkers. You've broken the same rules on maintaining a Tinker Fantasy if you're implying Tinkers would use chemicals to heal, drink chemicals to go into a rage and throw acid bombs. Alchemists aren't Tinkers.

The Class Skin system is an imperfect system. It is not going to be a replacement for classes. Yet if you are using arguments that imply a Dark Archer does not fit as a class skin for the Archer class, then I'm not quite sure how serious I can take that argument. On the one hand, maybe you're just saying it for the sake of being a contrarian, because you don't want to acknowledge any Class SKin concepts are actually good. Maybe you just want to stir the pot, despite you saying you aren't doing so. What I get is that you respond to concepts based on your feelings more than with any sensible logic on what may actually fit best, and that makes it difficult to regard your criticisms when you think Warriors made better Spellbreakers than Paladins, and you think Dark Rangers have no possibility of being a Hunter class skin. Yet you eventually accepted the Spellbreaker for Paladin after you saw the Heroes of the Storm Spellbreaker skin for Johanna. What would it take for you to be convinced the same way about Dark Ranger?

Spellbreakers have absolutely no connection to the Light. As much as I hate to agree with him, Spellbreakers really would be a Warrior class skin and not a paladin one.

[Triceron]

Spellbreakers have absolutely no connection to the Light. As much as I hate to agree with him, Spellbreakers really would be a Warrior class skin and not a paladin one.

Spellbreakers as a class skin wouldn't have any connection to the Light either.

As a Class skin they would be reskinned to use Arcane magic instead of Holy.

- - - Updated - - -

i see this and raise you: it does not change anything

reskinning a class doesnt change anything no matter if there are different npcs or not

playing a warrior vs playing a reskin wont play differently or feel different
playing a human on denathrius vs playing a void elf is different
playing a dwarf on shriekwing vs playing a gnome is different

it doesnt matter if its only two buttons or a passive the thing is it is different

It depends on the experience.

When you played Warcraft 2, the Horde and Alliance are near-exact mirrors of each other. The gameplay is exactly the same, and mechanically they are no different from each other. So is this how everyone feels about the game? That both sides are no different from each other? Well, different people will have different experiences.

For me as a younger, more impressionable player who was more easily immersed into the universe when I see different graphics and hear different voice-lines, it did feel like I was playing a different race, even though the mechanics were almost exactly the same for both. And that's the charm of skins. They offer a fresh approach to the same mechanics.

Personal anecdote- As a Druid player, I spend most of my time in Bear or Cat form. I rarely end up melee DPSing in a humanoid form. Back in Vanilla, you could use Noggenfoggers to turn yourself into a Skeleton in Bearform, and mask your appearance completely. All your Bear abilities still work using Skeleton Melee animations. And I have to say, on a personal level, it really felt like playing a different character, even though it's just a simple transformation ability.

I was also able to glitch out CoT: Stratholme while in Bearform. You use the Iron Boot Flask (Iron Dwarf transformation toy) to turn into a Dwarf, and when you shift into Bearform it triggers the Caverns of Time Human Disguise instead. Then you can run around and do all your bear stuff in that form for the rest of the dungeon. I loved freaking out pugs when they see a Druid tank charging in while still in human form and whacking things with a staff. Everything worked except for Feral Charge, which uses the standing animation while you fly towards the enemy.

[TheRevenantHero]

Spellbreakers as a class skin wouldn't have any connection to the Light either.

As a Class skin they would be reskinned to use Arcane magic instead of Holy.

- - - Updated - - -



It depends on the experience.

When you played Warcraft 2, the Horde and Alliance are near-exact mirrors of each other. The gameplay is exactly the same, and mechanically they are no different from each other. So is this how everyone feels about the game? That both sides are no different from each other? Well, different people will have different experiences.

For me as a younger, more impressionable player who was more easily immersed into the universe when I see different graphics and hear different voice-lines, it did feel like I was playing a different race, even though the mechanics were almost exactly the same for both. And that's the charm of skins. They offer a fresh approach to the same mechanics.

Personal anecdote- As a Druid player, I spend most of my time in Bear or Cat form. I rarely end up melee DPSing in a humanoid form. Back in Vanilla, you could use Noggenfoggers to turn yourself into a Skeleton in Bearform, and mask your appearance completely. All your Bear abilities still work using Skeleton Melee animations. And I have to say, on a personal level, it really felt like playing a different character, even though it's just a simple transformation ability.

They don't use Arcane magic either. They specifically wield anti-magic. Which is why I think they'd function better as a skin for warriors.

[Revamp Man]

Spellbreakers as a class skin wouldn't have any connection to the Light either.

As a Class skin they would be reskinned to use Arcane magic instead of Holy.

- - - Updated - - -



It depends on the experience.

When you played Warcraft 2, the Horde and Alliance are near-exact mirrors of each other. The gameplay is exactly the same, and mechanically they are no different from each other. So is this how everyone feels about the game? That both sides are no different from each other? Well, different people will have different experiences.

For me as a younger, more impressionable player who was more easily immersed into the universe when I see different graphics and hear different voice-lines, it did feel like I was playing a different race, even though the mechanics were almost exactly the same for both. And that's the charm of skins. They offer a fresh approach to the same mechanics.

Personal anecdote- As a Druid player, I spend most of my time in Bear or Cat form. I rarely end up melee DPSing in a humanoid form. Back in Vanilla, you could use Noggenfoggers to turn yourself into a Skeleton in Bearform, and mask your appearance completely. All your Bear abilities still work using Skeleton Melee animations. And I have to say, on a personal level, it really felt like playing a different character, even though it's just a simple transformation ability.

as a human i had an easier time on SLG than my KT friends
this isnt an old rts
void elves had an extra port

[Triceron]

They don't use Arcane magic either. They specifically wield anti-magic. Which is why I think they'd function better as a skin for warriors.

Spellbreakers don't really fit the rest of the Warrior kit though, which has plenty of mobility, dual wielding and physical based abilities. For example, I don't really see Spellbreakers planting down banners, using Heroic Leaps or using Bladestorm.

Paladins have much more Shield-oriented abilities, ranged attacks and also have anti-magic in the form of cleanses and immunities that could be more fitting for a Spellbreaker. All the Judgements and Hammer-based spells can be changed into thrown Glaives, all the Holy abilities given a blue tinge. And overall, Paladins fit better with the Robes than Warriors do.

- - - Updated - - -

as a human i had an easier time on SLG than my KT friends
this isnt an old rts
void elves had an extra port

New race/class comboes can still be considered with Class Skins.

The Druid-Tinker connection is a prime example. It opens up Druid gameplay to Gnomes and Goblins, who otherwise would never have access to a Druid class. Framing it as a Tinker using Mech forms would be a way to make sense of it.

Even as a class reskin, it opens up the potential for people to play certain race/class combinations they may have not considered before.

Say if we had Runemasters playable as a Monk class skin, I might actually consider rolling a Dwarf or Tauren Runemaster, whereas I'd almost never roll a Dwarf or Tauren Monk since I find Pandaren much more fitting for that.

[TheRevenantHero]

Spellbreakers don't really fit the rest of the Warrior kit though, which has plenty of mobility, dual wielding and physical based abilities. For example, I don't really see Spellbreakers planting down banners, using Heroic Leaps or using Bladestorm.

Paladins have much more Shield-oriented abilities, ranged attacks and also have anti-magic in the form of cleanses and immunities that could be more fitting for a Spellbreaker. All the Judgements and Hammer-based spells can be changed into thrown Glaives, all the Holy abilities given a blue tinge. And overall, Paladins fit better with the Robes than Warriors do.

Saying the cleanses and immunities to everything is a HUGE reach. Warriors actively have spell reflection and also the lore behind spellbreakers is that they are warriors trained in using anti-magic to specifically combat spellcasters. They also don't throw their glaives so judgment and hammer-based spells don't work either. And there's no reason to give them a blue tinge because, once again, spellbreakers don't wield the Arcane.

[Cosmic Janitor]

They don't use Arcane magic either. They specifically wield anti-magic. Which is why I think they'd function better as a skin for warriors.

And why do you think that? Can you link this to some warrior mechanics? Paladin already has alot more magical things in their tookkit can can easily be remodeled, the only think Warrior has going for them would be spell reflect, while paladins have alot more absorbs/blocks.

[Triceron]

Saying the cleanses and immunities to everything is a HUGE reach. Warriors actively have spell reflection and also the lore behind spellbreakers is that they are warriors trained in using anti-magic to specifically combat spellcasters. They also don't throw their glaives so judgment and hammer-based spells don't work either. And there's no reason to give them a blue tinge because, once again, spellbreakers don't wield the Arcane.

We're talking about the same thing here, aren't we? The Warcraft 3 unit Spellbreaker? Which had a medium-short ranged attack that throws glaives? It wasn't a melee unit, unless you're forgetting. I'm not talking about a WoW NPC, if that's what you're talking about.


Spell Reflection is a strong point, granted. But it's literally the only mechanic a Warrior has that would represent a Spellbreaker, as literally everything else in its kit is physical and melee-centric.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Saying the cleanses and immunities to everything is a HUGE reach. Warriors actively have spell reflection and also the lore behind spellbreakers is that they are warriors trained in using anti-magic to specifically combat spellcasters. They also don't throw their glaives so judgment and hammer-based spells don't work either. And there's no reason to give them a blue tinge because, once again, spellbreakers don't wield the Arcane.

You are channeling your finest Teriz or "the other with the autogenerated name" here. A sensible implementation of class skins is not prestige/advanced classes or 4th specs.

[TheRevenantHero]

We're talking about the same thing here, aren't we? The Warcraft 3 unit Spellbreaker? Which had a medium-short ranged attack that throws glaives? It wasn't a melee unit, unless you're forgetting. I'm not talking about a WoW NPC, if that's what you're talking about.

I don't recall them being ranged units. I just know the lore behind them as being warriors that specifically battle spellcasters since they are immune to magic. They also wield a double-sided sword though I think that was changed to just being a sword when they were introduced officially to WoW in MoP. They certainly are a melee unit now.

- - - Updated - - -

And why do you think that? Can you link this to some warrior mechanics? Paladin already has alot more magical things in their tookkit can can easily be remodeled, the only think Warrior has going for them would be spell reflect, while paladins have alot more absorbs/blocks.

Warriors have numerous absorbs and blocks that are available. Ignore Pain, Spell Reflect, Mass Spell Reflect, and Die By The Sword are some examples. But based on your other comment to me, it's clear you're only interested in your own opinion so this is the last time I respond to you.

[Triceron]

I don't recall them being ranged units. I just know the lore behind them as being warriors that specifically battle spellcasters since they are immune to magic. They also wield a double-sided sword though I think that was changed to just being a sword when they were introduced officially to WoW in MoP. They certainly are a melee unit now.

Yeah, I'm not talking about the WoW NPC at all, as it's a very poor translation of the original fantasy.

Throwing glaives is a big part of that identity for me, since I always felt that's what helped separate them apart from all the conventional front-line melee units in the game. They were a unique mix of footman and Huntress, retaining both an armored infantry role but with enough grace to wield an exotic ranged weapon. As I don't really see the Warrior class having a lot of ranged abilities, I personally think the Paladin would suit it much better.

[TheRevenantHero]

Yeah, I'm not talking about the WoW NPC at all, as it's a very poor translation of the original fantasy.

Throwing glaives is a big part of that identity for me, since I always felt that's what helped separate them apart from all the conventional front-line melee units in the game. They were a unique mix of footman and Huntress, retaining both an armored infantry role but with enough grace to wield an exotic ranged weapon. As I don't really see the Warrior class having a lot of ranged abilities, I personally think the Paladin would suit it much better.

In the lore, that's not part of their identity at all. I'm not even sure why they were given ranged attacks to be totally honest. They're meant to be frontline combatants with a sword and shield that shut down spellcasters.

[Triceron]

In the lore, that's not part of their identity at all. I'm not even sure why they were given ranged attacks to be totally honest. They're meant to be frontline combatants with a sword and shield that shut down spellcasters.

Well if you're talking about being called 'Blood Elf Warriors' in the Warcraft 3 description, Warrior was pretty much used to describe any melee or close-combat unit, and not really a reference to the WoW class in retrospect. Even Brewmasters, Beastmasters and Demon Hunters are referred to as Warriors.

[TheRevenantHero]

Well if you're talking about being called 'Blood Elf Warriors' in the Warcraft 3 description, Warrior was pretty much used to describe any melee or close-combat unit, and not really a reference to the WoW class in retrospect. Even Beastmasters and Demon Hunters are referred to as Warriors.

I'm more saying warrior because they have no inherent magic of their own.

[Triceron]

I'm more saying warrior because they have no inherent magic of their own.

I wouldn't say that at all!

They had a Mana bar, which represents the use of magic. This is clearly intentional, since there exists other units with on-use abilities that do not have mana bars, like Raiders and Kodoriders.

They had actual spells such as Spellsteal and Control Magic. Control Magic is absolutely using magic to take over an enemy summonable unit, what else would it be using?

And more importantly even from a gameplay-centric tie in to lore, they're not a Barracks-trained martial unit, they're trained from the Arcane Sanctum, the building dedicated to Elves and Magic. And to make even more of a connection to Arcane magic as I stated before, they require an Arcane Vault, are built at the Arcane Sanctum, and their Feedback ability works exactly the same as what you'd find on an Arcane Tower.

[TheRevenantHero]

I wouldn't say that at all!

They had a Mana bar, which represents the use of magic. If they have no inherent magic, then their abilities would have been simple cooldown abilities like what Raiders and Kodoriders had.

They had actual spells such as Spellsteal and Control Magic. Control Magic is absolutely using magic to take over an enemy summonable unit, what else would it be using?

And more importantly even from a gameplay-centric tie in to lore, they're not a Barracks-trained martial unit, they're trained from the Arcane Sanctum, the building dedicated to Elves and Magic.

Game mechanics=/=lore. In lore, they don't wield the arcane. They wield anti-magic. I'm not sure anti-magic is fueled by a mana bar but I feel like it would make more sense to be powered by a generated resource like Rage or Runic power.

The rest of your statement falls in line with the game mechanics=/=lore as well. Sure, they were produced in the Arcane Sanctum but they don't actually wield the arcane.

[Triceron]

Game mechanics=/=lore. In lore, they don't wield the arcane. They wield anti-magic. I'm not sure anti-magic is fueled by a mana bar but I feel like it would make more sense to be powered by a generated resource like Rage or Runic power.

The rest of your statement falls in line with the game mechanics=/=lore as well. Sure, they were produced in the Arcane Sanctum but they don't actually wield the arcane.

If you really want to talk about lore then the lack of lore doesn't make it a warrior either. It's history is more ambiguous than it is defined. 'Antimagic' isn't even a tangible type of magic in WoW.

If you're saying Rage and Runic power would make more sense, then you're not adapting lore either since neither of those represent Spellbreakers either. They don't fight with rage, and they don't use Runes on any of their weapons or spellcasting. Mana bar actually makes sense since its a direct translation of what it used in the game, and has significance to where its actually trained. Gameplay mechanics based on gameplay mechanics.