WoW Necromancer Hero Class

[Trenbolone]

here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHO6bWBqhO8

[Jastall]

Story and setting are what matter, and it applies to both classes and races.

BFA may not have added a class, but they did add races that were previously introduced in Legion. Classes just need a reason to exist, and frankly the two Hero classes we got ended up having starting zones that take place in the past, leading up to current events. Or there's Exiles Reach where ever class starts off completely neutral.

Theres so many new Necromantic spells in Shadowlands that they could easily form a new class out of it. Cult of the Damned is still aligned with Mawsworn until Zovaal is defeated, so who knows maybe they can do a flashback of Cultists who decide to ditch Zovaal at some critical point and seek new benefactors, while offering their knowledge to help with reversing Anduins situation.

Its just a question of whether the Devs have any intention to moving forward with Necromancers.

The class's absence from Shadowlands is proof in and of itself of the dev's lack of interest if you ask me.

I also wouldn't compare Allied Races to new classes. ARs involved Blizzard saving resources by not treating them like full-fledged races (the biggest element being a lack of bespoke starting zone(s), for example) so as to include more of them. They can't treat a class this way, a new class, Hero or not, requires a lot of resources to implement and tons of balancing and design challenges. Given that they only added 3 of them in 16 years, they're obviously wary of the implications of adding classes (whenever one agrees with them or not is besides the point) which makes me strongly doubt they're going to go "hey you know what, this class would have been most fitting during the last expansion, but here let's give it to you anyway lols".

[Triceron]

Except all of those you list there *do* have WC3 hero counterparts (shaman as far seer, as seen with Thrall).

Which is kinda the point: Necromancer has neither a DnD precedent nor a WC3 precedent.

? Necromancer is a unit in WC3, how are you saying its not in WC3?

- - - Updated - - -

The class's absence from Shadowlands is proof in and of itself of the dev's lack of interest if you ask me.

I also wouldn't compare Allied Races to new classes. ARs involved Blizzard saving resources by not treating them like full-fledged races (the biggest element being a lack of bespoke starting zone(s), for example) so as to include more of them. They can't treat a class this way, a new class, Hero or not, requires a lot of resources to implement and tons of balancing and design challenges. Given that they only added 3 of them in 16 years, they're obviously wary of the implications of adding classes (whenever one agrees with them or not is besides the point) which makes me strongly doubt they're going to go "hey you know what, this class would have been most fitting during the last expansion, but here let's give it to you anyway lols".

Which is why I personally think Necromancer could be a class skin, alongside other 'benched' concepts.

You don't need a dedicated expansion theme tie in if they roll out multiple class skins.

I wouldn't count it out for new classes either. I mean the pool of classes left is very small. If its not a Tinker, the next most popular is Necromancer or Dark Ranger. If not those, then we start pulling from deeper B-tier sources.

[loras]

? Necromancer is a unit in WC3, how are you saying its not in WC3?

- - - Updated - - -



Which is why I personally think Necromancer could be a class skin, alongside other 'benched' concepts.

You don't need a dedicated expansion theme tie in if they roll out multiple class skins.

I wouldn't count it out for new classes either. I mean the pool of classes left is very small. If its not a Tinker, the next most popular is Necromancer or Dark Ranger. If not those, then we start pulling from deeper B-tier sources.

A WC3 hero* precedent, as the heroes are the relevant things.

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

The class's absence from Shadowlands is proof in and of itself of the dev's lack of interest if you ask me.

I also wouldn't compare Allied Races to new classes. ARs involved Blizzard saving resources by not treating them like full-fledged races (the biggest element being a lack of bespoke starting zone(s), for example) so as to include more of them. They can't treat a class this way, a new class, Hero or not, requires a lot of resources to implement and tons of balancing and design challenges. Given that they only added 3 of them in 16 years, they're obviously wary of the implications of adding classes (whenever one agrees with them or not is besides the point) which makes me strongly doubt they're going to go "hey you know what, this class would have been most fitting during the last expansion, but here let's give it to you anyway lols".

I could see them justifying adding them next expansion based on how we brought the necromantic teachings with us from the Shadowlands so lore-wise they'd be a thing after Shadowlands is done with. If they do make the Shadowlands covenants allied races, that would even further justify it. Some come back with us and teach us their magic.

[Ielenia]

Except all of those you list there *do* have WC3 hero counterparts (shaman as far seer, as seen with Thrall).

Considering Warcraft III has a unit called "shaman", not a hero, I believe it's more likely to say that the unit incorporated aspects of the hero unit, not the other way around. So the shaman unit is technically the representative of the class, not the Farseer. After all, it's called "shaman", not "farseer", right?

[Triceron]

A WC3 hero* precedent, as the heroes are the relevant things.

Didn't we literally establish that we have no Rogue, Warlock and Priest heroes? You even said fair enough, so why are we back to this fictional precedent? Its not a requirement of classes to have to be based on WC3 heroes, and even if it were we have pre-Lich Kel'thuzad as that standard.

To say Necromancers don't have that standard is outright ignorance if we're talking about Kel'thuzad, the Cult of the Damned and all the Necromancers in WC3.

- - - Updated - - -

The class's absence from Shadowlands is proof in and of itself of the dev's lack of interest if you ask me.

To each their own, because we could just as much assume DH were not chosen in TBC due to lack of interest just as well, and be wrong for it. Do we really know the reasons why we didn't have any new class at all in Shadowlands is due to lack of interest, and no other reasons?

[Jastall]

To each their own, because we could just as much assume DH were not chosen in TBC due to lack of interest just as well, and be wrong for it. Do we really know the reasons why we didn't have any new class at all in Shadowlands is due to lack of interest, and no other reasons?

Absence stems from lack of interest as I see it. Lore doesn't stop them in the least, the thematic is suitable, it's been a while since we had a new class, and more ranged DPS specs would be welcome. Whenever said lack of interest is in the Necromancer in particular, or any new class in general I truly could not say, but if it was instead due to lack of resources, well, it means they decided incorporating things like Covenant abilities was more important (and/or had fewer long-term consequences) than a new class which to me also means they didn't think it that important.

Maybe next expansion is Light vs Void, or Dragon Isles or whatever, and they pull Necros out of their hats and prove me totally wrong. But I strongly doubt they will. To use your TBC example, not getting DHs during that expack meant waiting 10 years for Legion to thread similar enough thematics to justify them.

[Triceron]

Absence stems from lack of interest as I see it. Lore doesn't stop them in the least, the thematic is suitable, it's been a while since we had a new class, and more ranged DPS specs would be welcome. Whenever said lack of interest is in the Necromancer in particular, or any new class in general I truly could not say, but if it was instead due to lack of resources, well, it means they decided incorporating things like Covenant abilities was more important (and/or had fewer long-term consequences) than a new class which to me also means they didn't think it that important.

Maybe next expansion is Light vs Void, or Dragon Isles or whatever, and they pull Necros out of their hats and prove me totally wrong. But I strongly doubt they will. To use your TBC example, not getting DHs during that expack meant waiting 10 years for Legion to thread similar enough thematics to justify them.

So growing specs and balance issues causing hesitation is not a factor, in your opinion? Just gauging what you think

[Jastall]

So growing specs and balance issues causing hesitation is not a factor, in your opinion? Just gauging what you think

Yes they are, I did mention them and they're the long-term consequences I alluded to (as opposed to Covenant stuff which is for the most part getting trashed in 10.0). It's part and parcel of the lack of interest, Blizzard don't want to make their job balancing the game harder and thus it would take a class that really interests them to break through that barrier, so to speak.

[username993720]

3 specs based around constructs/plague, anima manipulation/gargoyle control, and Domination runic magic respectively.

Already covered by the Death Knight.

They don't have Shamans either *shrug*

They do, actually:

"In the various versions of the Dungeons & Dragons games, there have been several versions of Shaman character classes.

The Basic Dungeons & Dragons line included the following shaman classes:

Shaman - introduced in Gazetteer 12 The Golden Khan of Ethengar (TSR 9246) in 1989.
Shaman - revised for Shadow Elves in Gazetteer 13 "The Shadow Elves" (TSR 9287) in 1990.
Shamani - priests of the Atruaghin race, introduced in Gazetteer 14 "Atruaghin Clans (TSR 9306)
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition included differing versions of the shaman class in multiple sourcebooks, with the "Shaman" supplement (TSR 9507) from 1995 spotlighting a distinct take on the class.

Dungeons & Dragons v.3.5 rulebooks included the following Shaman classes:

Dragon Shaman - introduced in the Player's Handbook II. Open to all races, the Dragon Shaman is primarily a physical combatant who gains dragon-like powers from the particular type (color) of dragon they align with and develops an affinity for. This character may employ medium armor, and gains some spell-like abilities.
Shaman - introduced in the Oriental Adventures sourcebook. Shamans are divine spellcasters who draw their spells from the spirit world.
Spirit Shaman - introduced in the Complete Divine sourcebook. Spirit Shamans are similar to druids in that they use the druidic spell list, but they cast spells spontaneously like a Sorcerer. Spirit Shamans have their own spirit guide and possess special abilities that affect spirits (such as incorporeal undead, fey, and elementals). Unlike Sorcerers, Spirit Shamans may change their spell selection whenever they meditate to regain their daily allotment of spells.
Totemist - introduced in the Magic of Incarnum sourcebook. Totemists revere magical beasts, such as worgs and unicorns, whom they see as the most powerful forces of nature. They shape incarnum, the material of souls, to make magical items based around magical beasts, such as Displacer Mantles. Totemist is the favored class of Dusklings.
The Shaman is among the classes included in the 4th edition Player's Handbook 2 (March 2009). The Shaman class has the Primal power source and the Leader role, and has a clear link with the primal spirits of the earth."

I wouldn't stick to their archetypes so literally otherwise the only classes left to discuss would be Barbarians, Sorcerers and Bards.

It would be Bards and Artificers, since Sorcerers and Barbarians are already fulfilled by the Mage and Warrior classes.

I wouldn't count it out for new classes either. I mean the pool of classes left is very small. If its not a Tinker, the next most popular is Necromancer or Dark Ranger. If not those, then we start pulling from deeper B-tier sources.

Necromancers are A tier?
Would you consider the Shadow Hunter, Blademaster, Priestess of the Moon, Warden and Alchemist B tiers?

Class worthiness is not based on demand. Otherwise, the Monk would never be added.

Considering Warcraft III has a unit called "shaman", not a hero, I believe it's more likely to say that the unit incorporated aspects of the hero unit, not the other way around. So the shaman unit is technically the representative of the class, not the Farseer. After all, it's called "shaman", not "farseer", right?

He's talking about class additions, not base ones.

Didn't we literally establish that we have no Rogue, Warlock and Priest heroes? You even said fair enough, so why are we back to this fictional precedent? Its not a requirement of classes to have to be based on WC3 heroes, and even if it were we have pre-Lich Kel'thuzad as that standard.

Who is a base unit, not a Hero one.

To say Necromancers don't have that standard is outright ignorance if we're talking about Kel'thuzad, the Cult of the Damned and all the Necromancers in WC3.

Warcraft III also had an entire faction dedicated to Night elves. You won't see another Druidic class coming anytime soon.
Warcraft III even had a Naga faction. Are we to expect a Siren class anytime soon?

[Triceron]

They do, actually:

"In the various versions of the Dungeons & Dragons games, there have been several versions of Shaman character classes.

If you're looking at nonstandard classes sure, then Necromancers and Artificers also exist in DnD.

[loras]

Considering Warcraft III has a unit called "shaman", not a hero, I believe it's more likely to say that the unit incorporated aspects of the hero unit, not the other way around. So the shaman unit is technically the representative of the class, not the Farseer. After all, it's called "shaman", not "farseer", right?

I'm afraid that's just a naming convenience, shamans just sound better than far seers.

[Ielenia]

I'm afraid that's just a naming convenience, shamans just sound better than far seers.

In your opinion. I just think Farseers sound better. More unique.

[loras]

Didn't we literally establish that we have no Rogue, Warlock and Priest heroes? You even said fair enough, so why are we back to this fictional precedent? Its not a requirement of classes to have to be based on WC3 heroes, and even if it were we have pre-Lich Kel'thuzad as that standard.

To say Necromancers don't have that standard is outright ignorance if we're talking about Kel'thuzad, the Cult of the Damned and all the Necromancers in WC3.

- - - Updated - - -



To each their own, because we could just as much assume DH were not chosen in TBC due to lack of interest just as well, and be wrong for it. Do we really know the reasons why we didn't have any new class at all in Shadowlands is due to lack of interest, and no other reasons?

You somehow manage to keep forgetting what was said just one post ago, remarkable.

The complete sentence would be (i think): No WC3 hero precedent or DnD precedent, and yes that excludes dnd 3 as it has been pointed out they made classes out of everything, and no Kel'thuzad in his role as necromancer does not apply, much in the same way Sylvanas as a banshee wasn't a hero. Lich and Dark Ranger = WC3 heroes, necromancer and banshee = common WC3 units.

The other classes are easily accounted for through dnd 5e, especially if you consider how many of the names are just words for the same concept except reskinned to sound WoW-y, i.e. Far Seer -> Shaman, Cleric -> Priest etcetera.

Sorry that it has to be such a jumble, but if i cannot trust you to still know the contents of previous answers in the same conversation there is no other way than to jumble it all into a single thing.

- - - Updated - - -

In your opinion. I just think Farseers sound better. More unique.

It's all opinions down here.
Shamans is less nondescript, thus more usable as a name for a class.

[Triceron]

You somehow manage to keep forgetting what was said just one post ago, remarkable.

The complete sentence would be (i think): No WC3 hero precedent or DnD precedent, and yes that excludes dnd 3 as it has been pointed out they made classes out of everything, and no Kel'thuzad in his role as necromancer does not apply, much in the same way Sylvanas as a banshee wasn't a hero.

Ahh, that makes sense now.

And I still completely disagree with that assessment.

[Hitei]

You somehow manage to keep forgetting what was said just one post ago, remarkable.

The complete sentence would be (i think): No WC3 hero precedent or DnD precedent, and yes that excludes dnd 3 as it has been pointed out they made classes out of everything, and no Kel'thuzad in his role as necromancer does not apply, much in the same way Sylvanas as a banshee wasn't a hero. Lich and Dark Ranger = WC3 heroes, necromancer and banshee = common WC3 units.

The other classes are easily accounted for through dnd 5e, especially if you consider how many of the names are just words for the same concept except reskinned to sound WoW-y, i.e. Far Seer -> Shaman, Cleric -> Priest etcetera.

Sorry that it has to be such a jumble, but if i cannot trust you to still know the contents of previous answers in the same conversation there is no other way than to jumble it all into a single thing.

I think if you're having to goal post shift from "WC3 hero units are what classes are made from" to "...except sometimes not because they can also be general tabletop/RPG archetypes or classes" then you've sort of shot yourself in the foot as to either of those things being a real requirement. Either WC3 hero units are required or they aren't, and if they aren't (which is the case) then it's completely arbitrary to draw the line at "well then they have to be a listed base class in 5E!".

The way Blizzard implements classes is to draw from a bunch of different sources. They look at WC3 elements (not necessarily one hero unit, but any units that have relevant abilities), they look at existing wow NPCs and lore, they look at the things similar archetypes can do in tabletop or in other video games, and then they come up with a bunch of new and more unique stuff and blend all of the above into a cohesive class.

That is how you get monk. There's no WC3 monk, there's brewmaster. So they took Brewmaster, then they took the ideas of pandaren culture to get a basis for the look of the class, they took bits of later edition D&D monk (chi), they took bits of general martial arts fantasy for themes and abilities, added in a bunch of new stuff (mistweaving) and put out a class.

Necromancer has those same things. It has deep WC3 roots. It has probably the most widespread WoW lore of any potential class, with dozens of important NPCs both friendly in not, an extreme variety of established types of necromancy and thematic options, hundreds of NPCs and spells to draw from, it has long-standing tabletop tradition (even if it isn't a separate default class) with a D&D spell school list to pull from (not that you'd need to with how much is in wow alone) and iterations in other games, movies and media, and it has near limitless potential for new stuff to be baked in, as was shown by Shadowlands, an entire expansion about people using death-spirit magic in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of purposes.

[Capultro]

necromancer IS a DPS classs, not a healer.stop heal/tank specs on Hero clases please.3 DPS specs IS more interesting...finished classes!,not an unfinished clases like DH(1 DPS spec XD),paladín (1dps spec only XD),or death Knight (dk need a ranged necromancer 4 spec)

[loras]

Ahh, that makes sense now.

And I still completely disagree with that assessment.

Eh, so long as we agree on the precedent thing.

- - - Updated - - -

I think if you're having to goal post shift from "WC3 hero units are what classes are made from" to "...except sometimes not because they can also be general tabletop/RPG archetypes or classes" then you've sort of shot yourself in the foot as to either of those things being a real requirement. Either WC3 hero units are required or they aren't, and if they aren't (which is the case) then it's completely arbitrary to draw the line at "well then they have to be a listed base class in 5E!".

The way Blizzard implements classes is to draw from a bunch of different sources. They look at WC3 elements (not necessarily one hero unit, but any units that have relevant abilities), they look at existing wow NPCs and lore, they look at the things similar archetypes can do in tabletop or in other video games, and then they come up with a bunch of new and more unique stuff and blend all of the above into a cohesive class.

That is how you get monk. There's no WC3 monk, there's brewmaster. So they took Brewmaster, then they took the ideas of pandaren culture to get a basis for the look of the class, they took bits of later edition D&D monk (chi), they took bits of general martial arts fantasy for themes and abilities, added in a bunch of new stuff (mistweaving) and put out a class.

Necromancer has those same things. It has deep WC3 roots. It has probably the most widespread WoW lore of any potential class, with dozens of important NPCs both friendly in not, an extreme variety of established types of necromancy and thematic options, hundreds of NPCs and spells to draw from, it has long-standing tabletop tradition (even if it isn't a separate default class) with a D&D spell school list to pull from (not that you'd need to with how much is in wow alone) and iterations in other games, movies and media, and it has near limitless potential for new stuff to be baked in, as was shown by Shadowlands, an entire expansion about people using death-spirit magic in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of purposes.

I would suggest reading the earlier posts.
Or reading up on some examples of what moving goal posts actually entails, as the particular source of precedent us not quite so relevant as the precedent part itself.

It borrows from a source? Well there's no precedent in that source.
There's another source? Well look at that, still no precedent.

It really only strengthens the point.

[Triceron]

Eh, so long as we agree on the precedent thing.

Well I agree to disagree, is where I stand. It's not a precedent to me if we're cherry picking what state of heroes can or can not be used. I mean you might as well apply that to Thrall since he was a Shaman and not actually a Farseer which was the Hero, or Gul'dan who was a Warlock and not a Pitlord, and both of these are the archetypes for the playable classes. And there aren't even formal Hero archetypes for the Priest or Rogue from WC3 at all, as I've pointed out. These were barely even considered units.

You're using assessment of Classes = WC3 Heroes as a precedent, though there's nothing exclusive to Heroes when it just as easily applies to units and, quite frankly, NPC creeps like Rogues and Warlocks. So really, you're only saying Kel'thuzad as a Necromancer doesn't fly because you personally don't want to view classes being based on that, that's all.

Look at Druid. What is the Bearform based on? Malfurion had zero transformation abilities and Keeper of the Groves didn't shapeshift either. We're looking at the Druid of the Claw unit, which was not a hero at all, yet the archetype that the Druid class' Guardian and Feral specs are based on. Shapeshifting is the core feature of the WoW Druid Class, which is not present in any WC3 Druidic-based Hero archetype.

And if you're adamant to argue that those don't matter because they're not heroes, then I'll agree to disagree with your precedents.