WoW Necromancer Hero Class

[loras]

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.

It's not cherrypicking though - it's clearly defined game mechanics and you can check them out this instant if you'd like.

Replay the game, open up the campaign in the editor, see that they're not heroes.

Warlock might be the first proper argument i've heard in regards to WC3, but remember that it is covered by generic DnD classes, which was the other source you (or someone else? Not gonna look it up) convincingly mentioned as serving as a basis for WoW classes.

So yeah, agree or don't but the precedent is simply absent, much like the class is in WoW.

[Triceron]

It's not cherrypicking though - it's clearly defined game mechanics and you can check them out this instant if you'd like.

Replay the game, open up the campaign in the editor, see that they're not heroes.

What does that matter when these were just abstractions of existing mechanics for the sake of lore? WoW classes aren't based on those definitions considering Priest, Rogue, Warlock and Shaman were also units, not heroes. You still haven't commented on this beyond 'thats fair but' and going on a separate tangent about being covered by DnD as though the WC3 units never existed. The units are still there and are still the basis of the classes, and this extends to thr Druid which is has very strong roots in both Druid of the Claw and Druid of the Talon units.

Warlock might be the first proper argument i've heard in regards to WC3, but remember that it is covered by generic DnD classes, which was the other source you (or someone else? Not gonna look it up) convincingly mentioned as serving as a basis for WoW classes.

And no comment on the Druid whatsoever?

Also Warlock and Shamans were not a standard core DnD class either, and the Warlock in DnD is themed on tapping into eldritch powers, more similar to Shadow Priest themes in WoW than your typical Demon summoner. It's a non-standard class, in which Necromancers and Artificers also fall in the same category. The base DnD classes missing from WoW are literally Sorcerers, Barbarians and Bards.

Not quite sure why you would dodge shapeshifting for Druids. This was not a core concept of the DnD archetype until later editions. Is it not clear that the Shapeshifting and Animal Forms are based on the units, rather than the heroes?

All of the Spellcasters in WoW are non-heroes.

We have a Mage class, not an Archmage, not a Blood Mage. It also takes inspiration from Sorceress and Spellbreaker units
We have Shaman class, not a Farseer or Shadow Hunter. It also takes inspiration from Shaman, Witchdoctor and Spiritwalker units
We have a Druid class, not an Archdruid or a Keeper of the Grove. It also takes inspiration from Druid of the Talon and Claw.
We have a Priest class, not a Priestess of the Moon. It is based on the Priest unit.
We have a Warlock class, not a Pitlord or Dreadlord.

So it would follow suit that we could have a Necromancer Class, not a Lich or a DK, while it takes inspiration from the Necromancer (and Banshee?) unit.

The DK itself is its own class, defined specifically as a Hero class alongside Demon Hunters.

[jellmoo]

Warlock might be the first proper argument i've heard in regards to WC3, but remember that it is covered by generic DnD classes, which was the other source you (or someone else? Not gonna look it up) convincingly mentioned as serving as a basis for WoW classes.

The Warlock wouldn't have been a D&D staple though when WoW was first being developed. It first appeared in a 3rd edition splatbook (Complete Arcane) which only came out in late 2004. It didn't feature as a core class in the Player's Handbook until 4th edition, which was only out in 2007.

[Hitei]

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.

It doesn't, because historically neither of these are actual necessities, hence the goal post moving. Because what actually happened here was:
It has to borrow from WC3 hero units. "No it doesn't, here are several classes that do not"
Well, if it doesn't, it has to borrow from D&D's class list then because a couple, but not all, of those classes are sorta, vaguely in that but not really just kinda similar archetypes. "No it doesn't, there are still classes that don't do that either."

Wow Warlock has neither a hero unit in WC3 nor an actual D&D class.

but remember that it is covered by generic DnD classes, which was the other source you (or someone else? Not gonna look it up) convincingly mentioned as serving as a basis for WoW classes.

I can only assume you, and username, who brought up the class list initially(?), haven't actually looked into or played warlock in D&D, because they are not the same thing, they just use the same generic name. D&D warlock is a sniping blaster class who one-tricks a high damage spell called Eldritch Blast. Basically the D&D equivalent of an arcane mage. The wow warlock class was not taken from either WC3's hero roster OR D&D's class roster. They were cobbled together out of lore and vague bits of demon thematics being developed for wow, and then had a bunch of unrelated abilities from other non-warlock heroes and units given to them (Blood Mage's banish and Drain mana, Firelord's Soul Burn and incinerate, Dark Ranger's life drain, Pit Lord's Rain of Fire, Howl of Terror and Doom).

Because having a WC3 hero unit or a D&D class means nothing. They were added because conceptually there was a nebulous proto class of "Warlock" used by the orcs that was some sort of evil caster thing, and they felt they could pull together various demon, fire and drain/doT mechanics into a "Demon Caster" under the name "Warlock" despite the fact that WC2/3 warlocks (and a big chunk of their existing lore) basically had them as pseudo necromancers, which is the sort of hilarious part. That Necromancers are a more iconic and integral caster archetype to the Warcraft universe and all 4 games than EITHER Wow's "Warlocks" or Priests.

There's no precedent for any of it. The way they created DKs is absolutely nothing like the way they created monks, which was nothing like the way they created Shamans, which was nothing like the way they created warlocks, or rogues, or hunters. Necromancer has a much stronger, more cohesive identity in both WC3 and Wow than Warlock did at inception. It also has a much more present character type than monks were prior to MoP (or even still are).

[Ielenia]

Shamans is less nondescript, thus more usable as a name for a class.

Again, I disagree. Both, in my opinion, are vague enough.

[username993720]

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

Why are they nonstandard?
I know about Artificers.
Where are the Necromancers?

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.

Loras meant class additions.

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.

He was referring to class additions.

The base DnD classes missing from WoW are literally Sorcerers, Barbarians and Bards.

Sorcerers and Barbarians are Mages and Warriors. The only thing missing is the Bard.

Wow Warlock has neither a hero unit in WC3 nor an actual D&D class.

Gul'dan.

That Necromancers are a more iconic and integral caster archetype to the Warcraft universe and all 4 games than EITHER Wow's "Warlocks" or Priests.

They weren't a thing till Warcraft 3. Warlocks existed since Warcraft 1. Clerics also existed since Warcraft 1.

[Melusine]

I know this is a touchy subject, but it needs to be said. A death knight is not a necromancer. They can use death-inspired powers, but they are not masters of necromancy, and because of the nature of their making, they never will. It's for the same reason that an Illidari demon hunter has use of fel-magic, but are not the same thing as a warlock using fel-magic. Let's look at who was a necromancer in WoW lore and see what they were prior to being a necromancer. The most obvious example is... Kel'thuzad. before he was a lich, he was a human mage. And not just any human mage, either. He was one of the Council of Six. Before he was struck down by Arthas Menethil, he was the leader and founder of the Cult of the Damned. Where did his knowledge of dark arts originate? Ner'zhul, formerly a shaman and then a warlock, before being imprisoned in the Frozen Throne by Kil'jaeden. And I dare say, the powers Ner'zhul learned, as did the other members of the Shadowmoon Clan and Shadow Council, were learned from Kil'jaeden. In a lot the same way that a shaman and a warlock are related classes, as exemplified by the orc clans of Draenor, mages and warlocks bear similarity to necromancers while the original death knights, as demonstrated by Ner'zhul, were merely the souls of slain Shadow Council members fused to the remains of fallen human knights, and reanimated with powerful magicks to reanimate the corpse. If that was the nature of our current death knights, I would say there is a point to be made that death knights DO have the ability to be necromancers because the souls fused to the death knights were orc necrolytes, who would know a thing or two about necromancy. But we know that the death knights raised by Arthas did not have the souls of orcish necrolytes fused to them. They were created by Arthas, and essentially are whoever they were in life with a corruption in their being due to their lack of a soul. Their powers are derived from their creation, not from what they were prior to becoming a death knight.

The necromancer should be a 4th spec warlock, or, just an applied flavor skin applied to demonology warlocks, where, instead of summoning demons, they reanimate dead to fight once more for them. I'd be more in favor of the latter, because if warlocks are going to get a 4th spec, it should be the apotheosis spec, so that warlocks can become nathrezir demon hybrids, as they once were able to do, and take it a step further and tank.

[Triceron]

They weren't a thing till Warcraft 3. Warlocks existed since Warcraft 1. Clerics also existed since Warcraft 1.

Necrolytes existed since Warcraft 1 and are a type of Necromancer.

If you actually look at the spellcasters of WC1, we had Conjuror (Mage), Cleric (Priest), Warlock and Necrolyte. Necromancer as a playable class makes sense because it fits right there as a core spellcaster archetype since Warcraft 1. It actually fits very well as the 4th Cloth spellcaster, being a direct homage to WC1.

That being said, fitting patterns doesn't really mean much in the end since Blizzard has their own reasons for what class to pick to be playable rather than patterns. We know for a fact that Runemaster was their intended 'non-traditional Spellcaster' class, only to be eventually replaced by Warlock. It wasn't in the original lineup and it came a bit later in development, so it's not like they were intended to homage WC1 in the first place, and they don't have to stick with that format even now. But regardless of what their intentions are, a Necromancer class would still fit in as a direct homage to WC1, and as a legitimate 4th caster archetype that fits among the 3 we already have. It covers all major iconic spellcaster magic types from the first two RTS games.

And if you actually look at it, we have a Melee class that represents each of the themes. Paladin for Holy, Shaman for Elemental magic, Demon Hunters for Fel and Death Knight for Necromancy. The DK fills in the theme, but as many have said, it's not a traditional spellcaster at all. So there's really no case to say 'Oh we have a DK so obviously Necromancy is covered' because the themes are already being represented by both a broad 'Warrior' and a 'Spellcaster' archetype.

[Mardux]

Necrolytes existed since Warcraft 1 and are a type of Necromancer.

If you actually look at the spellcasters of WC1, we had Conjuror (Mage), Cleric (Priest), Warlock and Necrolyte. Necromancer as a playable class makes sense because it fits right there as a core spellcaster archetype since Warcraft 1. It actually fits very well as the 4th Cloth spellcaster, being a direct homage to WC1.

That being said, fitting patterns doesn't really mean much in the end since Blizzard has their own reasons for what class to pick to be playable rather than patterns. We know for a fact that Runemaster was their intended 'non-traditional Spellcaster' class, only to be eventually replaced by Warlock. It wasn't in the original lineup and it came a bit later in development, so it's not like they were intended to homage WC1 in the first place, and they don't have to stick with that format even now. But regardless of what their intentions are, a Necromancer class would still fit in as a direct homage to WC1, and as a legitimate 4th caster archetype that fits among the 3 we already have. It covers all major iconic spellcaster magic types from the first two RTS games.

The DK fills in the theme, but as many have said, it's not a traditional spellcaster at all. Look at my sig, even Teriz considers them more like Runemasters.

Who got to decide what you say is fact? Since, ya know, Staats, Bell, and Brazie all claim something other than what you're claiming is fact.

[Triceron]

Who got to decide what you say is fact? Since, ya know, Staats, Bell, and Brazie all claim something other than what you're claiming is fact.

Does it matter to the context?

Point I'm making is the Warlock wasn't there from the beginning, and that there was a class before the Warlock got picked as final result; meaning they weren't adhering to the Warlock as a part of the original Caster lineup.


Besides, the only conflict is one person saying Druid replaced Runemaster, while another said Warlock replaced em. Both could be true since replacing the Runemaster with another class isn't exactly mutually exclusive. Consider the similarities between the Druid and Monk as being Leather-wearing Tank/DPS/Healer hybrids. If it came down to Runemaster and Warlock, then already having a Druid that tanks and heals and wears leather would be a point towards the ultimate choice of Warlock. Either class could have been attributed to the decision to not have a Runemaster.

https://old.reddit.com/r/wow/comment...asses/e6endmi/

Our original goal for the 9 classes we settled on was to bring in all the hero classes from the Warcraft RTS games. We also wanted them to be open ended concepts so that various races could attach to it and make it their own. For example, we didn't set out to make the Dwarven Mountain King, Tauren Chieftain and Orc Berserker. We made the Warrior, so that any of those could become a reality based on other choices made by the player (race, weapons, etc., note that this was before talents were dreamed up).

After we had the basics covered, we also wanted to have a freak class that was unusual and different from the standard RPG tropes. It came down to two choices. The Warlock and the Runemaster. Warlock KO'd Runemaster! :P

And just to be clear, I used 'We know for a fact' as emphasis to statements made by official sources which can be regarded as being true. 'We know for a fact' is a way of saying we definitely know about this; not to be taken literally as this is a verifiable fact that can be scientifically proven. Nuances of the English language.

[AcidicSyn]

I had a question in another similar thread about why people kept using Hots as a source for what classes should be or how they should work.

I have that same question now, except with regard to D&D. Why does D&D have to hold any power whatsoever over what classes and/or class fantasy exists outside of it?

Just because it is used as the inspiration for a lot in a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of way, what does it matter? Heck I would say the Clerics of Azeroth are quite different from the Clerics of D&D, yet Necromancers have to match D&D? I don't follow the logic here.

[username993720]

I'd be more in favor of the latter, because if warlocks are going to get a 4th spec, it should be the apotheosis spec, so that warlocks can become nathrezir demon hybrids, as they once were able to do, and take it a step further and tank.

It's called a Demon Hunter, you know.

Necrolytes existed since Warcraft 1 and are a type of Necromancer.

If you actually look at the spellcasters of WC1, we had Conjuror (Mage), Cleric (Priest), Warlock and Necrolyte. Necromancer as a playable class makes sense because it fits right there as a core spellcaster archetype since Warcraft 1. It actually fits very well as the 4th Cloth spellcaster, being a direct homage to WC1.

Necrolytes are Warlocks:

"Affliction warlocks are also shown as having abilities like [Secrets of the Necrolyte] while also being able to use [Ulthalesh, the Deadwind Harvester]."

That being said, fitting patterns doesn't really mean much in the end since Blizzard has their own reasons for what class to pick to be playable rather than patterns. We know for a fact that Runemaster was their intended 'non-traditional Spellcaster' class, only to be eventually replaced by Warlock. It wasn't in the original lineup and it came a bit later in development, so it's not like they were intended to homage WC1 in the first place, and they don't have to stick with that format even now. But regardless of what their intentions are, a Necromancer class would still fit in as a direct homage to WC1, and as a legitimate 4th caster archetype that fits among the 3 we already have. It covers all major iconic spellcaster magic types from the first two RTS games.

A spellcaster? Runemasters are martial artists.

And if you actually look at it, we have a Melee class that represents each of the themes. Paladin for Holy, Shaman for Elemental magic, Demon Hunters for Fel and Death Knight for Necromancy. The DK fills in the theme, but as many have said, it's not a traditional spellcaster at all. So there's really no case to say 'Oh we have a DK so obviously Necromancy is covered' because the themes are already being represented by both a broad 'Warrior' and a 'Spellcaster' archetype.

1. There are affliction Warlocks for a spellcaster with death themes.
2. Arcane doesn't have a melee representation, Void doesn't either, and neither does Nature.

I have that same question now, except with regard to D&D. Why does D&D have to hold any power whatsoever over what classes and/or class fantasy exists outside of it?

Because it's a blueprint for general fantasy trope?

[AcidicSyn]

Because it's a blueprint for general fantasy trope?

That doesn't really answer the question though, it's a bit of a silly reason too. Why let clerics and warlocks be different and not Necromancers?

Not arguing here, don't have a horse in this race either way, just wondering how the logic works and "blueprint for a general fantasy trope" is insufficient as an explanation. I get its a blueprint, my question was why some of you appear to be treating it like law, especially when clerics and warlocks do not follow that same law; its inconsistent.

[username993720]

That doesn't really answer the question though, it's a bit of a silly reason too. Why let clerics and warlocks be different and not Necromancers?

I don't think they have to be like that version.

[Triceron]

Necrolytes are Warlocks:

I mean I'd love to agree with your point but you should know it's completely in bad faith.

Affliction Warlocks can delve into the secrets of Necrolytes, but they themselves are not Necromancers or Necrolytes. If they were ever considered Necromancers, then no one would be demanding Necromancers as a playable class. It's the same as how you view Priestess of the Moon being called a Hunter or a Priest. They're not the same class, because there are no formal ties between the class concepts.

If we're regarding what the Necrolyte was in WC1, then it's a Spellcaster that raises the dead and supports allies with invincibility at the cost of life. It had no Curses or Afflictions. It was a support caster. That is why I personally believe a Necromancer class that fits that archetype could work in WoW, whereas the Warlock is a purely offensive caster like the Mage. A Necromancer class could have a support aspect to it, and the precedent is there in Warcraft 1 with the Necrolyte unit.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Nec...ir%20depiction.

"Necrolytes are a type of necromancer"


That is why even a class skin would be able to satisfy this, since there is no formal cosmetic or lore in the Warlock class that covers actually being Necromancers.

- - - Updated - - -

I
2. Arcane doesn't have a melee representation, Void doesn't either, and neither does Nature.

You were talking about WC1 representation, and Arcane, Void and Nature magic didn't formally exist in the first two RTS games. Void didn't even have its own lore until WoW, so it doesn't have roots in WC1.

If Arcane and Void needed representation then Blizzard could absolutely add classes to cover that too. I've been very open about adding more class concepts that cover these themes, which is why I think Class Skins are an ideal way to tackle that all.

Runemaster or Spellbreaker could cover Arcane, while Riftblades/Void Knights could potentially cover Void. Nature, I consider the Druid already covering that by representing Druid of the Claw and having a Feral DPS form, as well as Survival Hunters filling in the melee gaps.

[Crysis]

I think we all agree next expansion has to bring new class and it will most likely be necromancers. And I will play the hell out of it.

[Semyaz]

Your idea sucks...necro theme already has DK and warlock. Mesmer fighting with mirages is the way to go

[Triceron]

Your idea sucks...necro theme already has DK and warlock. Mesmer fighting with mirages is the way to go

Shadow Priest pretty much covers the Mesmer in WoW. Shadow apparitions are pretty much that, then you got mind controls and fears on top of that.

[username993720]

I mean I'd love to agree with your point but you should know it's completely in bad faith.

Affliction Warlocks can delve into the secrets of Necrolytes, but they themselves are not Necromancers or Necrolytes. If they were ever considered Necromancers, then no one would be demanding Necromancers as a playable class.

Necromancers and Necrolytes are not the same thing. That's where your mistake lies.

It's the same as how you view Priestess of the Moon being called a Hunter or a Priest. They're not the same class, because there are no formal ties between the class concepts.

Never claimed so.

If we're regarding what the Necrolyte was in WC1, then it's a Spellcaster that raises the dead and supports allies with invincibility at the cost of life. It had no Curses or Afflictions. It was a support caster. That is why I personally believe a Necromancer class that fits that archetype could work in WoW, whereas the Warlock is a purely offensive caster like the Mage. A Necromancer class could have a support aspect to it, and the precedent is there in Warcraft 1 with the Necrolyte unit.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Nec...ir%20depiction.

"Necrolytes are a type of necromancer"


That is why even a class skin would be able to satisfy this, since there is no formal cosmetic or lore in the Warlock class that covers actually being Necromancers.

They clearly changed it since then, otherwise they wouldn't have given it to the Affliction Warlock.

They are also said to use the power of the Void, which the iconic necromancer is not associated with.

You were talking about WC1 representation, and Arcane, Void and Nature magic didn't formally exist in the first two RTS games. Void didn't even have its own lore until WoW, so it doesn't have roots in WC1.

If Arcane and Void needed representation then Blizzard could absolutely add classes to cover that too. I've been very open about adding more class concepts that cover these themes, which is why I think Class Skins are an ideal way to tackle that all.

Runemaster or Spellbreaker could cover Arcane, while Riftblades/Void Knights could potentially cover Void. Nature, I consider the Druid already covering that by representing Druid of the Claw and having a Feral DPS form, as well as Survival Hunters filling in the melee gaps.

You were in the belief that every class needs a melee and a spellcaster representation.

Feral doesn't use nature in its attacks and Survival hardly represents nature melee.
Riftblades are most likely Warriors and Void Knight is a made up thing.

I think we all agree next expansion has to bring new class and it will most likely be necromancers. And I will play the hell out of it.

How come?

Your idea sucks...necro theme already has DK and warlock. Mesmer fighting with mirages is the way to go

That's already the Arcane Mage.
But, i agree it is rather lackluster.

[Triceron]

Necromancers and Necrolytes are not the same thing. That's where your mistake lies.

We're talking about the same class archetype, whether they are the same or not.

Clerics aren't exactly Priests and Conjurors aren't exactly Mages, yet you don't seem to make any particular difference when regarding their similarities.

Never claimed so.

But others could claim so on the same basis you're using to define Necrolytes as being a type of Warlock. It's conjecture, and I'm dismissing both examples.

They clearly changed it since then, otherwise they wouldn't have given it to the Affliction Warlock.

Warlocks still have quests involving learning from Demon Hunters. Green Fire still has a direct tie to Metamorphosis in the lore. That doesn't make them Demon Hunters.

Hell, the lore for Warlocks is being a former Mage or Shaman who delved in the dark arts with Fel magic and demon summoning. Let's not pretend Warlocks are all multi-classing as Mages, Necrolytes, Demon Hunters and Shamans.

They are also said to use the power of the Void, which the iconic necromancer is not associated with.

No one said the Necromancer is not associated with Void. Necrolytes are Necromancers that use the power of the Void. It's literally stated in the WoWpedia page.

A Necromancer in the lore is someone who seeks to perfect the secrets of undeath, and there's no limit to what form of magic (or science) to do so. This is why Alchemy, Void, Blood Magic and even dark spiritualism (Voodoo) would be sufficient themes for a Necromancer. It's like how Paladins channel the Light differently, different races could tap into Necromancy in different ways. Shadowlands has even expanded on the various subthemes of Death-based magic.

The iconic Necromancer of WC3 is that of the Cult of the Damned, and that's no different than pointing at the iconic Paladin as being a Knight of the Silver Hand. It doesn't exclude all the other Necromancers we've seen in the game like the Blood Trolls, AU Ner'zhul and the Draenei Soulpriests, the Royal Apothecaries and more. It'd be like how we have Blood Knights and Sunwalkers and Prelates expanding the different types of Paladins in the lore.

You were in the belief that every class needs a melee and a spellcaster representation.

Feral doesn't use nature in its attacks and Survival hardly represents nature melee.
Riftblades are most likely Warriors and Void Knight is a made up thing.

I pointed at the existence of Melee variants of the WC1 spellcasters existing as playable classes in WoW. I even explained how the pattern was not fool-proof, so I'm not sure why you jumped to the conclusion that we 'need' melee representation. I was merely making a point that we have multiple classes that use Fel, Holy and Elemental magic. There's no reason to exclude Necromancy from that.

And I didn't make any case to exclude Nature at all. I pointed out that it doesn't exist in the RTS and the closest comparison would be the Druids of the Claw, since there is no formal 'Green Knight' archetype in the game, nor does the game necessitate it being created to fill the niche. All the while, a Spellcaster who uses Necromancy is well defined since WC1, and carries the theme with far more breadth than just applying it all to the Death Knight, which is solely a Runeblade-using plated warrior.