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

[username993720]

Then apply the same to Tyrande. She was a Nightwarrior for the duration she invoked the powers and had black eyes, while she is back to being a Priestess of the Moon after they revoked her powers.

This is bullshit, you know.
They're not just gonna abandon the concept after spending time, money and effort developing it.

Says who? Lore doesn't see it this way at all. It is such a dangerous version that it leads to the death of the users. It is an unstable form, and illustrated as being so in the lore. It is not just a 'class theme'.

Come on... everything heroic about this game is "death threatening". Demon Hunters barely pass the trials in lore, yet we can play them with no problem. Some artifacts traits are so dangerous to wield, but we're special enough to wield them. Only we could channel the heart of azeroth, because we're special. If you really think the Player wouldn't be "special" enough for a Night Warrior, then you're pretty detached from what was going on the last few expansions.

We don't see ANY other Nightwarrior using any particular abilities in the game. I hope you realize this enough to start making a sensible argument.

Tyrande is the ONLY Nightwarrior we've seen using any abilities at all.

The Stonewright uses something similar to Tyrande's beams: (4:28)

Which still has deep connections to Shaman and Monk mechanics through Totems and Brews. You were saying?

Honestly the only difference would be theme of Voodoo, and thats why Class Skin is being discussed. Mechanically, Shaman and Monk both have what we need to represent Witchdoctors. Jade Serpent Statue or Healing Tide totems both could be considered Healing Totems.

A summoner witch doctor.

Bard could be a skin for rogues, blademaster a skin for monks, artificer a skin for druids, dragon knight a skin for death knights, warden a skin for demon hunters, necromancer a skin for priests, etc.

How? saying is one thing. Implementing is another. Show me how each of them fit the classes you listed.

And what the hell is a Dragon Knight?

[FossilFree]

How? saying is one thing. Implementing is another. Show me how each of them fit the classes you listed.

And what the hell is a Dragon Knight?

Implementing is easy. You just use the existing ability mechanics and give them a new animation, icon, and name.

Dragon knight is a knight infused with dragon magic, like Bolvar with red dragon fire.

[username993720]

Implementing is easy. You just use the existing ability mechanics and give them a new animation, icon, and name.

It sounds easy when you describe it this way. But, in reality, not all class abilities fit a concept class.

Dragon knight is a knight infused with dragon magic, like Bolvar with red dragon fire.

You just made it up.

[FossilFree]

It sounds easy when you describe it this way. But, in reality, not all class abilities fit a concept class.



You just made it up.

It's not my job to design the game for them. If they want to pay me a salary, I'll gladly start assigning abilities. They would go their own way with it anyways, it's not like they just copypaste player concepts into the game.

I made the name up sure. But it's all made up until they add something official. Adding "sworn" to the end isn't anymore legitimate than "knight," just like "tinker" isn't automatically a better name for a machinist class than "artificer" is.

[username993720]

So you guy wouldn't think i'm just all negativity:
--- snip ---

There's one with the *censor* class, but i can't post it here.

[Ielenia]

Whether or not it was the reason does not change the fact it happened,

It is a fact that it happen. 'It' being warlocks losing Metamorphosis and demon hunters going live soon soon after. That is not in dispute. What I'm contesting is your assertion that warlocks lost metamorphosis because of the demon hunters.

and that we do not have an example of two classes with the exact same ability and mechanics in play.

Both brewmaster monks and vengeance demon hunters possess a very similar mechanic, in the form of Healing Spheres and Lesser Soul Fragments, respectively. Monks when they take damage have a chance of spawning a healing sphere on the ground around them, and demon hunters spawn lesser soul fragments when they use specific abilities. Said Spheres and Fragments can be pulled to the player through the use of specific abilities.

_I_ am not the one arguing that abilities can't be modified or adapted, so it would do you well to start from the beginning and read the context of the full discussion before cherry-picking my statements.

This has nothing to do about abilities being modified or adapted. This is about you making an assertion of fact about something you have no way of knowing either way, something you have argued against others for doing the same.

[Triceron]

This is bullshit, you know.
They're not just gonna abandon the concept after spending time, money and effort developing it.

Time and money developing what exactly?

There are ZERO gameplay mechanics associated to Nightwarrior in the game. Nothing has been developed except story, and that is already serving its purpose in world building and through Black Eyes customizations. Nothing was wasted.

Come on... everything heroic about this game is "death threatening". Demon Hunters barely pass the trials in lore, yet we can play them with no problem. Some artifacts traits are so dangerous to wield, but we're special enough to wield them. Only we could channel the heart of azeroth, because we're special. If you really think the Player wouldn't be "special" enough for a Night Warrior, then you're pretty detached from what was going on the last few expansions.

You're arguing with the lore here, not me. I'm not the one twisting lore to suggest this, so please listen to yourself before you move forward with what you want to say next. You've criticized people many times for strating from lore, I'm quite surprised you would do the same then to suggest that Nightwarriors aren't an intended unstable lore power up.

A summoner witch doctor.

How is it that you can dismiss my examples for Necromancers being able to use alchemical plagues and spiders because Kel'thuzad didn't do it himself, but you can suggest Summoner Witchdoctors which are not related to Shadow Hunter class fantasy whatsoever?

[jellmoo]

Who uses wands these days?

Did they remove wands from the game and I missed it? Either way it doesn't terribly matter for the example. The idea is to allow a bow as a transmog item for casters. So a Priest could transmog whatever weapon they are using to a bow, and have spells themed to fit the concept.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not a problem with class skins, it is a problem with class concepts that already have overlap with existing classes.

Shadow Hunter is one of these concepts. So is Warden, Necromancer, a Blademaster and POTM. They all have overlap. That means if they are ever considered as a new class, they would have to do what Demon Hunters did to Warlocks - Gut and take out abilities or entire mechanics from existing classes.

I don't think I agree with that. I mean, yes, this is kind of the case if you look at WC3 as the holy grail and we can't deviate from it. But I absolutely think it's possible to have, say a Necromancer, that doesn't pull a single ability off of the Death Knight. Will there be thematic similarities? Absofrickinlutely. But I think that's fine. Our current classes already have a ton of thematic similarities between them. Having more than one class that summons the dead isn't really a problem provided they do it in a different enough of way that each feels unique and fun.

[Triceron]

Did they remove wands from the game and I missed it? Either way it doesn't terribly matter for the example. The idea is to allow a bow as a transmog item for casters. So a Priest could transmog whatever weapon they are using to a bow, and have spells themed to fit the concept.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think I agree with that. I mean, yes, this is kind of the case if you look at WC3 as the holy grail and we can't deviate from it. But I absolutely think it's possible to have, say a Necromancer, that doesn't pull a single ability off of the Death Knight. Will there be thematic similarities? Absofrickinlutely. But I think that's fine. Our current classes already have a ton of thematic similarities between them. Having more than one class that summons the dead isn't really a problem provided they do it in a different enough of way that each feels unique and fun.

It depends on what separations would be made between the two classes. If we're solely sticking to WC3 or HOTs abilities with no modification, an as per User's arguments, then the only alternative is taking it directly from those classes.

He argues against Necromancers being anything more than just Kel'thuzad as a Lich (Class fantasy) as a means to connect it directly back to DKs, but when I turn the tables and point the same for Shadow Hunter and POTM being connected to Shamans and Hunters, he will freely tap into Witchdoctor Summoners and Nightwarriors as examples which deviate from those core fantasies just the same. Yet he openly dismisses any time I point out Heigan and Scholomance Necros use alchemy or examples of Necromancers building various Constructs beyond Aboms.

Either the rules apply to all, or it applies to none. If we say Class Fantasy and WC3 Mechanics have to be adhered to, then it negates new classes for Necros, Shadow Hunters, POTM all together. If we allow more flexible class fantasies and adapting abilities and new themes, then there is room to expand all of these classes equally. There's no case where we can pick and choose which ones must adhere to a certain fantasy while others can be broadened for the sake of personal desires.

[jellmoo]

It depends on what separations would be made between the two classes. If we're solely sticking to WC3 or HOTs abilities with no modification, an as per User's arguments, then the only alternative is taking it directly from those classes.

He argues against Necromancers being anything more than just Kel'thuzad as a Lich (Class fantasy) as a means to connect it directly back to DKs, but when I turn the tables and point the same for Shadow Hunter and POTM being connected to Shamans and Hunters, he will freely tap into Witchdoctor Summoners and Nightwarriors as examples which deviate from those core fantasies just the same. Yet he openly dismisses any time I point out Heigan and Scholomance Necros use alchemy or examples of Necromancers building various Constructs beyond Aboms.

Either the rules apply to all, or it applies to none. If we say Class Fantasy and WC3 Mechanics have to be adhered to, then it negates new classes for Necros, Shadow Hunters, POTM all together. If we allow more flexible class fantasies and adapting abilities and new themes, then there is room to expand all of these classes equally. There's no case where we can pick and choose which ones must adhere to a certain fantasy while others can be broadened for the sake of personal desires.

Ultimately I think we have to look at potential class development in one of two ways:

1) Blizzard is absolutely beholden to material from other Warcraft properties (and apparently HotS) and cannot deviate from it. Anything new they build must contain the material from those games. How rigid an interpretation that this needs to be is open to debate.

2) Blizzard can use inspiration from other games, but is also more than capable of designing new abilities and mechanics that fit the spirit and aesthetic of a given class, without the need to to take everything directly from existing material.

Why any gaming company would handcuff themselves and insist in following the first methodology is utterly beyond me. There are plenty enough class concepts on these forums for a lot of these classes that show that it's more than possible to design a new class that fits the thematics of these archetypes without infringing on what other classes already do.

I see your point though as it's hard to follow the arguments being made when there's a severe lack of consistency. For myself, I'd personally love to have a Voodoo based class in the game. I just don't happen to think that it needs to follow what the Shadow Hunter or Witch Doctor lay out in WC3. Alternatively, I think that a Shaman reskin could cover the concept well enough to be satisfying.

[Swnem]

Yes, i agree with that.

The Tinker is a unique fantasy we don't have represented in a class. I would like to see it added.

Class skins would be the logical step from there in order not to continuously increase the work load, unless blizz comes up with another unique fantasy we don't know about.
It would also give pretty cool options for class/race combos you normally wouldn't see.

[FossilFree]

It would also give pretty cool options for class/race combos you normally wouldn't see.

This is the main reason I want class skins. They could just get rid of all race/class restrictions and use class skins to cover the combinations that currently don't make much sense.

[Syegfryed]

This is the main reason I want class skins. They could just get rid of all race/class restrictions and use class skins to cover the combinations that currently don't make much sense.

at this point, there is no such thing of "it does not make much sense", they kicked the donkey a few years ago.

[username993720]

Time and money developing what exactly?

There are ZERO gameplay mechanics associated to Nightwarrior in the game. Nothing has been developed except story, and that is already serving its purpose in world building and through Black Eyes customizations. Nothing was wasted.

All of this for black eyes? hardly...

You're arguing with the lore here, not me. I'm not the one twisting lore to suggest this, so please listen to yourself before you move forward with what you want to say next. You've criticized people many times for strating from lore, I'm quite surprised you would do the same then to suggest that Nightwarriors aren't an intended unstable lore power up.

If that would be against the lore, half of what happened last expansions wouldn't have happened. We're basically gods at this point. Night Warrior? a new level 1 character would probably be able to be one, since we're so incredibly special.

How is it that you can dismiss my examples for Necromancers being able to use alchemical plagues and spiders because Kel'thuzad didn't do it himself, but you can suggest Summoner Witchdoctors which are not related to Shadow Hunter class fantasy whatsoever?

I never dismissed alchemical plagues. I dismissed spiders. And you know who can summon spiders? the Witch Doctor. Does it make sense? yes, with the power of Shad'ra.
Not related to the Shadow Hunter fantasy? the whole damn thing is about voodoo.

Did they remove wands from the game and I missed it? Either way it doesn't terribly matter for the example. The idea is to allow a bow as a transmog item for casters. So a Priest could transmog whatever weapon they are using to a bow, and have spells themed to fit the concept.

Well, other weapons don't auto shoot.

He argues against Necromancers being anything more than just Kel'thuzad as a Lich (Class fantasy) as a means to connect it directly back to DKs, but when I turn the tables and point the same for Shadow Hunter and POTM being connected to Shamans and Hunters, he will freely tap into Witchdoctor Summoners and Nightwarriors as examples which deviate from those core fantasies just the same. Yet he openly dismisses any time I point out Heigan and Scholomance Necros use alchemy or examples of Necromancers building various Constructs beyond Aboms.

What? i never pointed out to Lich Kel'thuzad as being a Necromancer. You did. I see it as his human form.

Witch Doctors and Night Warriors stray from the core fantasies of Shadow Hunters and PotM? no, actually. They expand it.

I never doubted Necromancers' use of alchemy or constructs.

[FossilFree]

at this point, there is no such thing of "it does not make much sense", they kicked the donkey a few years ago.

You know what? You make a good point, I agree. Let's just get rid of the restrictions anyways.

[Triceron]

I never doubted Necromancers' use of alchemy or constructs.

You never acknowledged it either. You simply equated them to DK's even though Necromancers absolutely have their own brand of alchemy and constructs that is different from what DK's use. Necromancers are even now shown in Shadowlands creating various constructs that DK's do not have any access to, not even in Acherus.

You never once acknowledged whether a Necromancer could have its own class, and you asserted that any idea that *expanded* on Necromancers was straying from Kel'thuzad. How would that be any different than implying Witchdoctors that summon would stray from Vol'jin?

[username993720]

You never acknowledged it either. You simply equated them to DK's even though Necromancers absolutely have their own brand of alchemy and constructs that is different from what DK's use. Necromancers are even now shown in Shadowlands creating various constructs that DK's do not have any access to, not even in Acherus.

You never once acknowledged whether a Necromancer could have its own class, and you asserted that any idea that *expanded* on Necromancers was straying from Kel'thuzad. How would that be any different than implying Witchdoctors that summon would stray from Vol'jin?

Thing is, abomination is already an asset of the Death Knight, which can potentially be glyphed into its various forms.

Oh, and by the way:

A Forgewarden of the House of the Chosen sharpening a Runeblade

"Some of these necromancers also seem to take on the path of the warrior, fighting with blades or riding atop massive beasts."

[WowIsDead64]

Ehhh. Haven't we seen too many so called "Blizzard-planted threads" lately? They're starting to duplicate.

[Dancaris]

I think some people aren't thinking abstractly enough, or maybe I'm just completely crazy. Here is an example of how a tinker COULD work, at least in my mind.

First, there has to be some seismic change, some reason, some threat so great that Azeroth's best get together and the decision is made that Azeroth needs more Tinkers. I don't know what the next expansion is going to be. But whatever it is, lets say that Mimiron receives a message from somewhere in the Great Beyond. There is a looming threat, and it's heading towards Azeroth. Flesh has no chance of defeating it, but machines, metal and stone, etc, can.

Mimiron reaches out to the Horde and the Alliance to warn them of this threat and to recruit Gazlowe and High Tinker Mekkatorque along with any willing members of the Alliance and Horde. Then there is a short questline, much like the quest chains that unlocked Allied Races. This one would involve Mimiron repurposing Ulduar into a Tinker Training Area, and our characters have to get various supplies, metals, gems, fuels, etc, in order to get the Training Area working. Just as it looks like we are about to have everything in place, X threat attacks. For arguments sake, lets say its a Darkened Naaru. Playable characters can't battle it because it invades their minds and sears their flesh, but Mimiron and a small group of Tinkers are able to defeat this advanced threat (more are on the way). Afterward, you get an achievement and Tinker's are unlocked as a class choice.

On the character creation screen we have all the available races and the icons for the classes. Now there is a cog icon, with a description stating that Tinkers are highly advanced technological battlers who use their mechanical knowledge to fight for them. They can be tanks, melee dps, ranged dps, and heal.

There's nothing linking them (on the surface) to a druid. Just as many players don't realize that Mogu are reskinned Draenei or Saurok reskinned Worgen, Tinkers would share no surface links to a druid.

You would create a character, choose Tinker, gather abilities and mech suits, etc, like any other class. All your abilities will be tech based. All the animations will be tech based. It's not that druids would somehow became technological wizards. There's nothing druid about a tinker, until you realize that the background, nuts and bolts (pun intended) skeleton if you will is the same. A druid swipe would do the same damage as a tinker's Gyro Arm, etc.

This would also work for any number of other class skins. Necromancer, Spellbreaker, Spellblade, etc. It would also help alleviate the need to have every single class have a class skin. Much like how they released Allied Races over time and not all at once, they could do the same here. Necromancer-Warlocks and Spellblade-Paladins are probably the easiest to do so they would probably come first. The animations, ability names, etc needed for Tinkers and others would take more work.

Yes, so much yes.
One thing i wish to add is lifted weapon restrictions or adding more available weapons for class skins. Guns for tinker skin, glaives for shadow hunter and spellbreaker (no dual wield)

[PedroloGeo]

Would this new class skins require new employees to work on them? Could they be young women so the seniors can harass and abuse them? Then sure it goes with Blizzard ideals! Go ahead!