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

[Teriz]

Take Death Knight for example then.

It's based on Arthas from Warcraft 3 right?

And he had 4 abilities in WC3, all of which were Unholy spells. So where does Frost magic come from?

An association with the artic continent Northrend and the Lich King. Arthas wielded Frostmourne and became the Lich King at the end of WC3. He was also placed on the frozen throne. All of that ties the concept to ice and frost.

Where does Blood magic come from?

The use of Vampiric Runeblades as described in WC3 lore.

[Triceron]

As i already told you, if the Necromancer is a spec, come up with a class.

Why when they fit perfectly as a class that has 3 specs?

There are multiple Necromancer class concepts floating around right now. There are two in the Next Class thread you can check right now, take your pick.

I don't see why you think Necromancer would just be a Spec as a part of some bigger class. Is that how you think classes are designed?

Kel'thuzad's Necromancer form is what you should draw from, otherwise you're suggesting it to be even more like a Death Knight, using Lich frost powers.

Doesn't matter what is based on what. Both Frost Mage and Frost DK double dip into WC3 Lich anyways, I don't see you fussing.

I didn't even suggest Necromancers using any Frost powers in Lich form because WoW has established that not all Liches use frost. There are also Blood Troll Liches or Death-based Liches who focus on summoning undead too. Lich form is treated as a power boost. Shadowlands has opened up their lore significantly, and Chronicles 3 has its own small section dedicated to explaining Liches.

Necromancers can have a Lich form that suits any style of gameplay needed. Blood-based Lich form for healing and health transfers, Ritual based Liches for Death magic and summoning, classic Shadow-frost Liches like Kel'thuzad or Lady Deathwhisper, etc. If you're talking about specs, you're talking about gameplay mechanics, not lore. Specs are based on mechanics first, while lore is just used to explain the mechanics.

Look at Demon Hunter design. Vengeance DH is just an expression of Tanking mechanics with a 'skin' on top that tied back to the Demon Hunter theme. The Tanking spec could have looked exactly like the same Shadow-Illidan form we've seen before, instead they're completely new and not based on ANYTHING we've seen in Warcraft. Vengeance form does not come directly from Illidan, or any other established demon hunter. Blizzard effectively invented a wingless Tanking Demon form. So in comparison, why couldn't we assume Blizzard could create new types of Lich forms for Necromancer that aren't solely based on Kel'thuzad, especially given that we have multiple types of Liches already in the game?

These are 3 different Kel'thuzads. Kirin Tor Kel'thuzad is a Mage, and Lich Kel'thuzad is a Lich

Gonna shift this pivot a bit, because I do not agree with this adhereance to any one concept.

The Druid class is clearly based around Malfurion, would you agree? So Druids should be able to do everything Malfurion could, and he was expressed as an Archdruid that had Keeper of the Grove abilities. Yet in WC3, he had no access to any forms. He was not a Bear Druid or a Storm Crow Druid. He was a nature-based ArchDruid.

So if you said Druid class is based on Malfurion, he would represent just the Restoration spec (and very loosely for that matter) because it is the most Nature-centric without forms (circa Vanilla). So where does Guardian/Feral and Balance come from? Other units. Other sources that are not solely Malfurion.

This is why I am explaining the Necromancer can be designed more openly than just one Hero to base it on. This is why Nerubians or Spiders can be added. This is why I believe classic alchemy-based Necromancers like Heigan who created the Blight and Plagues of Plaguelands can be a source of inspiration for a spec.

Both Naxxramas and Maldraxxus doubles down on the basic themes of Necromancerd - Rituals, Plagues and Constructs. Yet if I mention Naxxramas all you can think of is a Frost Connection? Why? Because you're too focused on a pure Kel'thuxad connection rather than seeing a class as being much more open than that. Otherwise a Druid would not have multiple Specs with Forms if we consider that Malfurion is the ideal Druid, and he never shapeshifted until we saw him in BFA.


- - - Updated - - -

An association with the artic continent Northrend and the Lich King. Arthas wielded Frostmourne and became the Lich King at the end of WC3. He was also placed on the frozen throne. All of that ties the concept to ice and frost.
lore.

Then a Necromancer can be based on the Necrolords Covenant, with a focus on Constructs, on Plagues and on Rituals. Kel'thuzad also has a connection here since he tried to dominate the Margraves and possibly become one himself.

[Teriz]

Then a Necromancer can be based on the Necrolords Covenant, with a focus on Constructs, on Plagues and on Rituals. Kel'thuzad also has a connection here since he tried to dominate the Margraves and possibly become one himself.

Except Warlocks already do all of that (constructs/pets, plagues, rituals).

[draugril]

Except Warlocks already do all of that (constructs/pets, plagues, rituals).

First off, I never want to see Necromancers playable in WoW. They're all mooks.

That being said, the thing with Warlocks in WoW is that they're supposed to cover all forbidden types of magic. That includes Necromancy, Fel, Elemental, Void, and so on. In the lore, they are any mages who violate taboo to gain personal power. The playable selection solely reflects the demonic pact, unfortunately. That is why people desire the Necromancer - it is a blindspot in the Warlock's repertoire, not reflected in the de facto fantasy.

Again, I don't think it deserves a playable spot, given that Necromancers tend to be the first stepping stone to greater powers (ie. Warlocks, Death Knights, Liches) rather than a power unto themselves, but I completely understand the desire and will never deny that there is a clear gap in the playable selection.

[Triceron]

Except Warlocks already do all of that (constructs/pets, plagues, rituals).

Since when do Warlocks spread undead Plagues? Or use Constructs?

Warlocks summon demons. Demons are not constructs.

Nobody dismisses Warlocks because Priests use Shadow Magic, Mages had Fire magic and Hunters had Pets. No one.

[Deferionus]

We can reuse old features and market them as new. Wouldn't make it any good, though. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Some classes are remarkably similar, not all. And that is because they have to follow certain rules (so, shockingly, a new class would fill roles that previous ones did). That's hardly a reason to throw a new garment at an existing class and call it a new one.
No, you can't change what they do. You can only change how it looks with class skins.



In the realm of feasibility. There's no reason for Tinkers to perma-stealth while wearing a claw pack (cat form) as you suggested. You just throw in whatever you think is cool instead of what is suitable.



Because you already have the Tank and the DPS aspects.



Check up on Gazlowe and Mekkatorque to get an idea of what a Tinker is.



Monks would like to have a word with you



Damn... you're clueless.



And how would it differ beside doing the same things a Death Knight does, just from range?



While in Robo-form?

And that is still highly unlikely, because stealth isn't usually part of the Tinker fantasy.



If you'd check out lore, you'd see the class is mostly associated with them, since they are the only technological races (other than the Dwarves, and of course the Mechagnomes).



Do you realize it doesn't require mounted combat?
It would be like a Demon Hunter's Metamorphosis.

A Necromancer could different multiple ways from a DK. I would see it having 3 specs: a minion swarming spec, a plague/disease dot spec, and a healing spec.

Undead swarming spec would be similar to legion Warlocks with the imps. No "strong monsters," just disposable skeletons, some of which could be mages, some melee, hitting your target. The plague spec could have dots that stack and once they get stacked high mutates into an infection for burst damage, and the healing spec could be one where you heal someone but do damage to yourself and then you either have to drain lifeforce out of an enemy or the ground to heal yourself so you have the play pattern of heal an ally, take dmg yourself, then heal yourself. Obviously these would need to be examined in an environment see if they fit into the game and are fun, but there is definitely room in the game for it.

[Triceron]

Undead swarming spec would be similar to legion Warlocks with the imps. No "strong monsters," just disposable skeletons, some of which could be mages, some melee, hitting your target. The plague spec could have dots that stack and once they get stacked high mutates into an infection for burst damage, and the healing spec could be one where you heal someone but do damage to yourself and then you either have to drain lifeforce out of an enemy or the ground to heal yourself so you have the play pattern of heal an ally, take dmg yourself, then heal yourself. Obviously these would need to be examined in an environment see if they fit into the game and are fun, but there is definitely room in the game for it.

Whats interesting is Alexstrasza has that type of gameplay in WoW, and I can see that being adapted pretty well as a Healer mechanic. Guild Wars 2 alsp reinforces this idea, and the Necromancer (my main class) uses Healing Wells (ground buffs) to heal themselves while sacrificing life to create summons or cast certain spells.

[Teriz]

Since when do Warlocks spread undead Plagues? Or use Constructs?

Affliction is an entire spec dedicated to afflictions/disease/curses.

Constructs are simply pets, which is covered by the demonology spec.

Warlocks summon demons. Demons are not constructs.

What would be the difference between a construct and a pet? The main point is that the Warlock also summons vile servants whom the Warlock manipulates to empower themselves. Necromancers would do the exact same thing, just with undead minions instead of demonic minions.

Nobody dismisses Warlocks because Priests use Shadow Magic, Mages had Fire magic and Hunters had Pets. No one.

Yeah, because Priests utilize Holy magic as well, and the Priest shadow magic is Old God based shadow, whereas Warlock is Demonic-based with some other attributes that bleed into Necromancy like Drain Life and Soul Stone.

[Triceron]

Yeah, because Priests utilize Holy magic as well, and the Priest shadow magic is Old God based shadow, whereas Warlock is Demonic-based with some other attributes that bleed into Necromancy like Drain Life and Soul Stone.

And you think Warlocks cover all the Maldraxxus themes and Naxxramas themes because they have demon pets and curses?

You tell me what Demon pet is considered a construct first, since the proof of burden is on you. Tell me what Necromantic constructs do Warlocks create?

[Teriz]

First off, I never want to see Necromancers playable in WoW. They're all mooks.

That being said, the thing with Warlocks in WoW is that they're supposed to cover all forbidden types of magic. That includes Necromancy, Fel, Elemental, Void, and so on. In the lore, they are any mages who violate taboo to gain personal power. The playable selection solely reflects the demonic pact, unfortunately. That is why people desire the Necromancer - it is a blindspot in the Warlock's repertoire, not reflected in the de facto fantasy.

Again, I don't think it deserves a playable spot, given that Necromancers tend to be the first stepping stone to greater powers (ie. Warlocks, Death Knights, Liches) rather than a power unto themselves, but I completely understand the desire and will never deny that there is a clear gap in the playable selection.

Yeah, but there are limits to what can be covered in a class. I believe that Warlocks cover forbidden magics rather effectively, to the point where bringing in Necromancers would be highly redundant.

- - - Updated - - -

And you think Warlocks cover all the Maldraxxus themes and Naxxramas themes because they have demon pets and curses?

Nope, that's what DKs are for.

You tell me what Demon pet is considered a construct first, since the proof of burden is on you.

Any pet you summon can be considered a construct. The only pets that can't be considered such would be those you tame, ala the Hunter class.

[Kiwijello]

Here is an idea that would fix a couple of things:

One of the ways to advance the class "skin", like "Tinker" would be to use professions.

Tinker would obviously level through Engineering, gaining all abilities through recipes and advanced crafting.

Druid could level through Alchemy? Anyway, if we are going this route, let's get creative and fix professions too. Give me a reason to level Inscription again (MAGE?).

Any class can still do any profession, but certain classes can take certain professions to more powerful levels. Might be kind of fun to craft abilities and items that actually MATTER.

[Triceron]

Any pet you summon can be considered a construct. The only pets that can't be considered such would be those you tame, ala the Hunter class.

Demons are constructs now? So you're saying the lore makes no distinction between an Abomination and an Imp, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an idea that would fix a couple of things:

One of the ways to advance the class "skin", like "Tinker" would be to use professions.

Tinker would obviously level through Engineering, gaining all abilities through recipes and advanced crafting.

Druid could level through Alchemy? Anyway, if we are going this route, let's get creative and fix professions too. Give me a reason to level Inscription again (MAGE?).

Any class can still do any profession, but certain classes can take certain professions to more powerful levels. Might be kind of fun to craft abilities and items that actually MATTER.

I really wish Blizzard would just boost Professions, expand on them and open up more thematic variations.

Professions are the best layer of customization the game should expand on. Gnome and Goblin culture should scale further and provide more transmog options and unique things like the Clawpacks. Alchemy could be diversified with different cultures of brewing, say Pandaren, Forsaken, Troll and Dwarf. This would help fill in niches like roleplaying a Witchdoctor or Alothecary.

All the effort they out in covenants and borrowed power should really be focused on Professions instead.

[Sagenod]

The Tnker doesn’t work as a Druid class skin. The Tinker has unique abilities that simply can’t be replicated within the Druid class.

Give me any Druid spell or ability that you believe cannot be re-skinned to fit the Tinker theme

[Ielenia]

They are applied in gameplay, so i think they are consequential.

No, they're meaningless. I have explained more than once already the reason for my comparison of class skins to allied races. You refuse to acknowledge it, and instead supplant my own comparison to yours and attack my arguments based on your own comparison to allied races.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: class skins are about cosmetic changes to bring new fantasies to the playable roster, with no changes to gameplay or how abilities work.

If you choose to, once again, ignore this fact and continue to argue against something I am not arguing for, then I'll just dismiss you as being dishonest (which I'm very close to doing, mind you) and end the discussion.

Your blood healing spec is based on a single Blood Troll NPC's ability (that i couldn't even find), right?

No. It's based on an unexplored concept. This "single blood troll NPC ability you cannot even find" is just an example I give to those who claim that "it must currently exist in WoW outside of a player class".

Thing is, Blood trolls worship an Old God/Loa entity, called G'huun the blood god. Now, just because Bwonsamdi is the loa of Death, for example, it doesn't make his followers into Necromancers.

Irrelevant. I never claimed my class concept is a worshiper of G'huun or Bwonsamdi.

[Teriz]

Demons are constructs now? So you're saying the lore makes no distinction between an Abomination and an Imp, right?

How would a Necromancer construct be mechanically different than a Demonic pet or a DK undead summon? DK minions (which include Aboms) don't operate much differently than Warlock minions.

- - - Updated - - -

Give me any Druid spell or ability that you believe cannot be re-skinned to fit the Tinker theme

Per mod request, I'm avoiding talking about Tinkers in this thread. Sorry.

[Triceron]

How would a Necromancer construct be mechanically different than a Demonic pet or a DK undead summon? DK minions (which include Aboms) don't operate much differently than Warlock minions.

I'm not talking mechanics. I'm talking lore.

You said a Priest is different from Warlock because their shadow spells are Old God instead of Fel. That is not a difference of mechanics if you're comparing a Shadow-based DoT to one another. The difference comes from lore and themstics.

And you jumped in saying Warlocks summon Demon pets that are no different from Abominations, since these are the 'Undead Constructs' that the House of Constructs creates.

So if you acknowledge a Warlock share themes with Death Knights, you're aware that both exist and neither Blizzard or the players consider the overlap a problem, right? If you're making a case that Warlocks already cover it and theres no room for Abominations, then DKs already proved you wrong lol

You're making up arguments that wouldn't even work against existing classes. At this point you might as well say theres no room for another Healer because we already have Healers.

[Soikona]

Since when do Warlocks spread undead Plagues? Or use Constructs?

Warlocks summon demons. Demons are not constructs.

Nobody dismisses Warlocks because Priests use Shadow Magic, Mages had Fire magic and Hunters had Pets. No one.

It’s because warlocks use fel/chaos. No other caster uses fel magic as their core magic type.

Closest would be a DH, but it’s melee and is a perfect example of how a spec was butchered to accommodate a new class (demo spec losing a cool identity so that DH can exist). Do we want to see that to happen to DK’s?

[draugril]

Yeah, but there are limits to what can be covered in a class. I believe that Warlocks cover forbidden magics rather effectively, to the point where bringing in Necromancers would be highly redundant.

As do I.

But I can still admit that there is a gap. Not one that I believe would warrant filling, but a gap nonetheless.

[Triceron]

It’s because warlocks use fel/chaos. No other caster uses fel magic as their core magic type.

Closest would be a DH, but it’s melee and is a perfect example of how a spec was butchered to accommodate a new class (demo spec losing a cool identity so that DH can exist). Do we want to see that to happen to DK’s?

Do we want to? Depends on how you subjectively value the importance of the Necromancer and its themes in terms of what unique things could be brought to the table. Some people thing Unholy, Frost and Blood are the only themes they could use and it's an immediate problem. Yet DKs and Mages sharing a literal Frost spec that sources Lich spells, and no one bats an eye. Or how we're quite comfortable when Priests and Paladins share more similarities in mechanics and lore than actual differences.

It depends on what the Necromancer explores in terms of abilities and mechanics, and that will prove itself more than some nebulous concept of a 'Unholy, Frost and Blood spellcaster variation' that most arguments are focused against.

[Teriz]

I'm not talking mechanics. I'm talking lore.

Well then we're talking about two entirely different things. You don't play lore, you play mechanics. Essentially you're making the argument for a Necromancer to just be a class skin of the Warlock class, because all it would take to turn a demon into a construct is a reskin.

- - - Updated - - -

As do I.

But I can still admit that there is a gap. Not one that I believe would warrant filling, but a gap nonetheless.

What would this "gap" be exactly?