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

[Teriz]

Yes, that is also a strong alternative. An alternative we don't yet have in game.

Well I would say that in the case of the Necromancer, that is an alternative that should exist. Perhaps that glyph will scratch the urge that many Necromancer fans feel.

- - - Updated - - -

Since I feel like this thread is getting derailed with Necromancer class talk, I'll let you guys get the last word.

[Triceron]

Well I would say that in the case of the Necromancer, that is an alternative that should exist. Perhaps that glyph will scratch the urge that many Necromancer fans feel.

Completely valid. And hopefully they'll offer more options as well, because there's plenty of itches to scratch.

[Ielenia]

No, I'm pointing out that Jaina's relationship to humanity is far different than Arthas' relationship to the 3rd generation of DKs.

It's a caveat you're adding after the fact, i.e. moving the goalposts, after you have been shown your initial argument was wrong.

Except there's multiple abilities within the DH class where you change into a demon. Ascendance is the only ability in the Shaman class where you turn into an Elemental, and you get it very late in the game.

Chaos Strike and Blade Dance are the only two abilities that change as Havoc. I don't exactly remember which ones change in Vengeance spec, but it's also only two. The shaman's Ascendance ability also changes two of the shaman's abilities per spec, further evidencing the similarities.

Let's try this again; If this entire concept behind this mechanic revolves around undead minions, why wouldn't this mechanic go to the existing class that specializes in undead minions? Why do we need to create an entirely new class just to come up with a new way to summon undead minions?

Ask yourself this: "if this entire concept behind this mechanics revolves around transforming into a demon, why wouldn't this mechanic go to the existing class that specializes in transforming into a demon? Why do we need to create an entirely new class just to come up with a new way to transform into a demon?"

And yet we have the demon hunter class, anyways.

[draugril]

Wouldn't the class fantasy be a dark sorcerer that controls dark minions, manipulates foul magics that steal the life of enemies, and corrupts those around them with curses and afflictions? Warlocks do that. Quite well I might add.

In all seriousness, this reminds me of the people who want Battlemages, but don't like Enhancement Shaman because they don't have arcane magic.

You shifted your own definition. Undead is part of the equation for Necromancer, specifically. Which is what people want. Again, why would they be asking for something if the game already accomplished it?

And asking for Battlemagi is completely legit. Enhancement Shamans are simply one of a myriad of melee magic users, Paladins and Demon Hunters being other forms. But an arcane Battlemage? That is a very specific fantasy that simply isn't covered by existing options, even if you could make a technical argument. Just as you can make the argument that WoW has Necromancy covered with its playable roster (and I would agree with that), but that still doesn't mean that we have Necromancers playable. Mage + Undead = Necromancer, when you go absolute barebones. We don't have that, correct?

- - - Updated - - -

Well I would say that in the case of the Necromancer, that is an alternative that should exist. Perhaps that glyph will scratch the urge that many Necromancer fans feel.

And to bring it right around... a single Glyph simply wouldn't do. Maybe a more drastic overhaul, like a package of Glyphs. Maybe even with a class name change. Call it a "class skin."

[Triceron]

Ask yourself this: "if this entire concept behind this mechanics revolves around transforming into a demon, why wouldn't this mechanic go to the existing class that specializes in transforming into a demon? Why do we need to create an entirely new class just to come up with a new way to transform into a demon?"

This sums it up.

That style of questioning leads nowhere, and Blizzard doesn't stand by it at all. If they were beholden to making certain themes or mechanics exclusive to each class, they'd get pigeonholed into very static classes pretty fast. Can't have Paladins if you already have Priests and Warriors, can't have Demon Hunters if you already have Warlocks and Rogues, can't have Death Knights if you already have Warlocks and Warriors. The game would literally have 2 Classes; Warrior and Mage, and everything else is just a branch/spec off those two archetypes.

[jellmoo]

class skin is a terrible idea. sounds like a lazy excuse to not give us a real new class OR new specs.

The concepts aren't mutually exclusive though. It could be made to be a tool to help players develop characters that fit their concept without the need of a new class.

For example, Blizzard decides that playable Tinkers are a great idea as are playable Necromancers. They can't spare the bandwidth to develop both as new classes. One could be a new class, the other a class skin. They use the system they think best fits, and players itching to play their chosen character concept have something in game they can use without needing to wait literal years for the next class addition.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't realize how adaptable most of those abilities would be. You don't even have to change the names!

I can totally see it. Equip your rocket boots and jet off towards your target, spring-jump to em and whack em with your Sawblades. Then do some quick self-heals and carry on. Even though I have 2 Druids already, I wouldn't mind rolling a Tinker based on the gameplay I already know and love.

I am quite possibly the absolute worst at playing a Druid. It was the first class I ever played in WoW, and I've always sucked at it. This would actually give me a reason to try and learn the mechanics again.

I have little to no interest in a Goblin piloting a mech, but a Goblin with a crazy claw pack that spins around with saws and other wacky cutting things? Yes please!

[Teriz]

Ask yourself this: "if this entire concept behind this mechanics revolves around transforming into a demon, why wouldn't this mechanic go to the existing class that specializes in transforming into a demon? Why do we need to create an entirely new class just to come up with a new way to transform into a demon?"

And yet we have the demon hunter class, anyways.

Because the Demon Hunter had the concept first.

[LedZeppelin]

They wouldn't add it to the druid class. We suggest they could build it around the druids *mechanics*. It wouldn't be a druid, it would be a tinker.

nah it would be a tinker druid

[Ielenia]

Because the Demon Hunter had the concept first.

But it doesn't matter, does it? The demon hunter was already represented in the game through the warlock class transforming into a demon, and rogues having "shadow melee" plus Evasion. It would just "be doing the same things present classes were already doing, therefore not bringing anything new", yadda yadda yadda...

And by your logic? Necromancers came first.

[Teriz]

But it doesn't matter, does it? The demon hunter was already represented in the game through the warlock class transforming into a demon, and rogues having "shadow melee" plus Evasion. It would just "be doing the same things present classes were already doing, therefore not bringing anything new", yadda yadda yadda...

Yes, as long as Warlocks had meta. However, meta was always a DH ability in the Warlock class

And by your logic? Necromancers came first.

The classes in WoW are based on WC3, not WC1 or 2.

[Ielenia]

Yes, as long as Warlocks had meta. However, meta was always a DH ability in the Warlock class.

No, it was a warlock ability in the warlock class. The warlocks had their own version of the ability. The question stands, though. Your own logic of "why add a class whose 'shtick' is already performed by the present classes" not only invalidates the demon hunter class, but it also invalidates the paladin class, since priests already deal with "holy magic/healing", and warriors already deal with two-handed weapon melee DPS, and sword-and-board melee tanking.

The classes in WoW are based on WC3, not WC1 or 2.

That is your own personal interpretation of how things are. Not the facts. Especially since "rogue" and "warlock" are not heroes in WC3.

And even with your twisted logic, in Warcraft 3, it was the necromancer unit who had 'Raise Dead' and 'Unholy Frenzy' and not the death knight, therefore, by your logic, those are necromancer abilities in the DH, therefore, again by your logic, it's okay to remove them for a future necromancer class?

[Teriz]

No, it was a warlock ability in the warlock class. The warlocks had their own version of the ability. The question stands, though. Your own logic of "why add a class whose 'shtick' is already performed by the present classes" not only invalidates the demon hunter class, but it also invalidates the paladin class, since priests already deal with "holy magic/healing", and warriors already deal with two-handed weapon melee DPS, and sword-and-board melee tanking.

Uh, even the lore basis of the warlock version of metamorphosis states that a Warlock learned it from Illidan.

That is your own personal interpretation of how things are. Not the facts. Especially since "rogue" and "warlock" are not heroes in WC3.

Yet the Rogue and Warlock classes were filled with WC3 hero abilities throughout their existence in WoW.

And even with your twisted logic, in Warcraft 3, it was the necromancer unit who had 'Raise Dead' and 'Unholy Frenzy' and not the death knight, therefore, by your logic, those are necromancer abilities in the DH, therefore, again by your logic, it's okay to remove them for a future necromancer class?

The problem is that the Death Knight also had the ability to summon undead minions in WC3. So Necromancers don’t have a monopoly on that concept, unlike the DH’s monopoly on metamorphosis.

[Ielenia]

Uh, even the lore basis of the warlock version of metamorphosis states that a Warlock learned it from Illidan.

He copied and made his own version by studying him from afar. To say "learned from Illidan" implies Illidan taught him.

Yet the Rogue and Warlock classes were filled with WC3 hero abilities throughout their existence in WoW.

It doesn't change the fact that this is just your own personal interpretation of how things are, not the actual facts.

The problem is that the Death Knight also had the ability to summon undead minions in WC3.

They have the "monopoly" in summoning skeletons and buffing them with Unholy Frenzy.

So Necromancers don’t have a monopoly on that concept, unlike the DH’s monopoly on metamorphosis.

But demon hunters no longer had the "monopoly" on metamorphosis when the warlocks gained the ability, right?

[Teriz]

He copied and made his own version by studying him from afar. To say "learned from Illidan" implies Illidan taught him.

The point still stands; Warlocks got the ability from Demon Hunters.

They have the "monopoly" in summoning skeletons and buffing them with Unholy Frenzy.

Yeah, you didn’t buff skeletons with UF. You buffed other units who had the HP to handle the life drain.

But demon hunters no longer had the "monopoly" on metamorphosis when the warlocks gained the ability, right?

Clearly they did, which is why Warlocks lost it when DHs became a class. There’s zero chance Blizzard would remove undead summoning from Death Knights because it’s an original attribute of the concept.

[Lady Atia]

nah it would be a tinker druid

No, it would be a tinker? You couldn't switch between tinker and druid, similiar to Tauren and Highmountain Tauren. It would look like a tinker. It's spells would look like tinker spells. The only things they would have in common is that the underlying MECHANICS would be the same as the druids. I couldn't care less about that, but than again, I play the game for cosmetics and I have multiple alts of each class because playing a bloodelf hunter feels different enough to playing an orc hunter already.

Or in other words - I rather take 12 new class skins/spec combinations that double the amount of class fantasies instead of none or just one new class. And this is the only way to get niche fantasies like Night Warrior, Blade Master or Dark Ranger fullfilled - similiar to niche fantasies of Zandalari Troll, Highmountain Tauren or Lightforged Draenai.

[Triceron]

nah it would be a tinker druid

Is that like a Druid with Engineering?

[Djaye]

druid tinkers are the dumbest thing ive seen mentioned in forums...

makes as much sense as warlock priests, DK healers and undead shaman.

druidism revolves around nature, its balance, protecting and communing with it.
tinker/engineering/alchemy revolves around consuming/destroying elements of nature to build and evolve.

you do see how these are exact opposites, yes?

I feel very embarrassed for people thinking it makes any kind of sense.
it is basically a complete lack of 'common sense'.

[Lady Atia]

druid tinkers are the dumbest thing ive seen mentioned in forums...

makes as much sense as warlock priests, DK healers and undead shaman.

druidism revolves around nature, its balance, protecting and communing with it.
tinker/engineering/alchemy revolves around consuming/destroying elements of nature to build and evolve.

you do see how these are exact opposites, yes?

I feel very embarrassed for people thinking it makes any kind of sense.
it is basically a complete lack of 'common sense'.

And you have a complete lack of `common`reading comprehension. The thread talks about using the underlying mechanics of the druid class and re-skin it to look like a tinker. Of course they have nothing in common at the end because that's not the point. It's not about beeing a druid and suddenly beeing able to be a tinker. It's about creating a tinker class (and potential 11 more) without having to balance 12+ more classes to the game. Because while the druid and tinker would LOOK totally different, they would *mechanically* play the same - the difference is that druids would have a "bear" spell while tinkers would have a "shredder armour" spell that gives them well, a shredder to fight inside instead of a bear to turn into. You can apply this to every spell a class has. Again, your druid wouldn't turn into a tinker - the same way your Draenai doesn't suddenly turn into a Lightforged once you unlocked the allied race lol.

The big selling point of that idea would be that Blizzard would be able to release 6-12 new (niche) class fantasies in one expansion without having to think about balancing them for pve/pvp. Since the original classes and the new ones are mechanically the same on paper. Basically the same thing they did in BfA with Allied Races.

[THC BANDIT]

The point still stands; Warlocks got the ability from Demon Hunters.




Yeah, you didn’t buff skeletons with UF. You buffed other units who had the HP to handle the life drain.



Clearly they did, which is why Warlocks lost it when DHs became a class. There’s zero chance Blizzard would remove undead summoning from Death Knights because it’s an original attribute of the concept.

Bro are you ill? do you just not want to accept reality? are you extremely delusional? NARCISSISM IS A BITCH

[Ielenia]

The point still stands; Warlocks got the ability from Demon Hunters.

Yes, but not really. The warlock's metamorphosis spell is not the same ability as the demon hunters, despite the name and seemingly similar effect. The metamorphosis of the demon hunter is attained by "unleashing the demon within": Assuming Metamorphosis form is a very dangerous feat to undertake: unleashing the demon within is risking that the demonic power will take over. whereas the warlock's metamorphosis came through the absorption of fel magic, not by consuming a demon into your body.

Yeah, you didn’t buff skeletons with UF. You buffed other units who had the HP to handle the life drain.

In your own words: "the point still stands". Necromancers have the "monopoly" in skeleton rising, and the unholy frenzy ability, according to your own logic.

Clearly they did, which is why Warlocks lost it when DHs became a class.

Clearly the point is going over your head. The point of the matter here is that this idea of "monopoly", that this or that class has "exclusive rights to abilities and/or concepts" is dumb, and it even goes against Blizzard's philosophy. I mean, the shaman had the "monopoly" of bloodlust-type abilities. Then the class lost said "monopoly" to leatherworkers, hunters and mages. The druid class had the "monopoly" of battle-rez abilities. Then they lost that "monopoly" to the engineering profession, death knights and warlocks.

There’s zero chance Blizzard would remove undead summoning from Death Knights because it’s an original attribute of the concept.

Well, you are factually wrong about that, because there is always a non-null chance.