Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Karnak]

Next class, if there is one, will use Mail armor and have at least one spec that is based on Agility and at least one spec based on Intelligence.

While I think that is true, I don't think it will be Tinkers.

As to the races that would be Tinkers I'd say the following simply based on in game presentation to date:

Gnomes - Duh
Goblins - Duh
Dwarves - Steam tanks and such
Forsaken - Alchemical experimentation and such
Draenei - Exodar type tech, has the ability to be every "good" or "neutral" class thus far
Orcs - War machines and such

Races that will NOT be Tinkers:

Night Elves
Tauren

[Ielenia]

The engineering profession certainly is. I can't speak for engineers in WoW lore.

Yet you are. Because we're talking the engineering skill, available to all characters living in the universe of Warcraft. Teriz is going out of his way to try to convince people that engineers and "tinkers" are not the same thing, almost like priests and warriors. He openly states that "tinkers" are 'inventors', and he also states in no uncertain terms that engineers in Azeroth are physically and mentally unable to create new things.

[Tatzi]

An engineer and a tinker are the same thing. I don't understand how THAT isn't getting through. If I am an engineer, in game, I am using schematics to build devices and weapons. If you created a tinker class, the devs wouldn't give you a bunch of stuff to 'invent' your own things. They would take the items that engineers already make, buff them, add a few unique ones and bam! New class. Feels... Kind of like a waste. I would rather them come up with something new and unique, rather than taking apart the profession to make room for a class.

[Teriz]

An engineer and a tinker are the same thing. I don't understand how THAT isn't getting through.

Because one is a class, the other is a profession.

If I am an engineer, in game, I am using schematics to build devices and weapons. If you created a tinker class, the devs wouldn't give you a bunch of stuff to 'invent' your own things. They would take the items that engineers already make, buff them, add a few unique ones and bam! New class. Feels... Kind of like a waste. I would rather them come up with something new and unique, rather than taking apart the profession to make room for a class.

Except they wouldn't be taking apart the profession. The profession isn't based on class abilities. The profession is based around crafting items and mounts. The Tinker has its own abilities that are separate from the profession completely.

Again, a Tinker tanking a dungeon is going to have no effect on an engineer building a mechanical chicken.

[Yig]

Apologies for hijacking the tinker thread, but it's not like it's without precedent here, right?

Yep, plenty of overlap, or we can focus on the portions of the class that don't overlap, which I've already mentioned. If you pick out a handful of traits specifically looking for overlap, you'll find most of the classes available do. For example: paladin monk and shaman are pretty much the same philosopher warrior empowered by an external benevolent force.

Blizzard hasn't really stuck with keeping the classes feeling distinct at all, so we probably don't have to consider your definition of good design. Regardless, their relationship with demons is quite different from that of warlocks; one contracts with demons for power, the other one infuses himself with demonic energy just to be more powerful, and can pull mana out of others to the same purpose. Similar to how there are a broad range of tech types available, there are a broad range of class concepts based around the stealing of powers from other creatures.

Tech is getting a huge chunk of story with this up coming expansion. When that expansion is over, you can tell me how you thought it would have been better with tinkers if you like, but I don't think the lack of a class to support the story telling isn't going to change much.

I personally can't believe anyone thinks this challenge mode set is the demon hunter look beyond the most superficial of equivocations. A person simply has to either acknowledge the distinction between Illidan and his very unique circumstances and the actual demon hunter specialist unit we were presented with in WC3, which it would follow the hero class would arguably be based upon outside a novel development in lore, hero class, wacky 4th warlock spec or not. Whatever the case, the look of a lithe "dark" melee ninja like warrior/rogue with their eyes bound is arguably 10 times(scientific fact) more important than metamorphosis is alone. Of the two images here, I know which one seems more like a demon hunter class to me and which looks like a warlock using Illidan's remains as demonic relics, like some demented unholy perverted reliquary.



So wearing Illidan's bones and skin draped on your body and his horns makes you feel like you look like a demon hunter? His gold trimmed loin cloth added to a robe? I think if that's true for any of you, you must have no distinction between the demon hunter class WC3 implied and Illidan the individual, and this is just vital to understanding the entire issue. With this set they took demon hunter elements, namely Illidans dead body and his remains, and infused them into the warlock look, so it looks like a demon hunter inspired warlock, it's not a warlock given the demon hunter's look beyond the most superficial equivocation. It's basically no different than Illidan carrying Gul'dan's skull only someone went overboard, and needs to see a therapist at the very least once they get back home from their quest. The warlocks of the Black Harvest are using his remains as relics of power, on par with the Catholic Church and Relics of Saints.

This is a demon hunter.






They look far more like rogues traditionally, and many rogue tiers are designed arguably especially to evoke "demon hunter-y" themes, along with several other hero units and racial homages we've had to make due using the generic net each class offers for a number of explorations. We've got to stop ignoring that Rogues and Warlocks still heavily share the tone and mechanics of the demon hunter, and that metamorphosis intrinsically is the backbone setting them apart from anything. That Challenge Mode armor is like claiming a Priest tier set looks like a Paladin to me, if we didn't have paladins yet and someone was claiming Tier 5, Tier 6, Tier 13 were "good enough".

Arguably the only reason Demon Hunters wear kilts in WOW is because we lack hakama geosets that do the wide panted leg silhouette justice. They aren't meant to look robed like a warlock, though it would certainly be a plausibly circumstantial design if they were part of a tier should the class see the light of day,(with spectral sight of course) the same way paladins are robed at times like a priest. But traditionally a demon hunter's look is much more rogue than warlock aesthetically. But they certainly share aspects, but it's become more than tiresome as to the ratio of which vs which is which here in the way this serves a number if individual's necessary positions.


The only "look" warlocks get from demon hunters is metamorphosis. Basically Illidan as a unicorn of darkness.
Personally, in the subjective issue I'm fixated on here, this is my attempt at creating a warlock evoking a demon hunter's look, trying to make a distinction beyond a robed caster. If only Dark Apotheosis didn't feel like a cheap halloween costume. But it may just be the best I ever will get in my puerile and superficial fixation on the tackiest of tacky.

Dual Wielding is unfortunately off the table. Warglaives for mogging too. Night Elves as Shen'Dralar Warlocks too. An so we make due,....

And so we make due,...


- - - Updated - - -

Next class, if there is one, will use Mail armor and have at least one spec that is based on Agility and at least one spec based on Intelligence.


Tauren

This is what everyone said after DKS. Blizzard doesn't follow a pattern like this. They work on what they think seems fun and cool and inspiring, and when absolutely necessary they factor in this kind of logic behind their process. You cant' infer this, and everyone who tried ended up on their ass when monks got released.

- - - Updated - - -

There's nothing a DH can do that a Warlock can't do.

Beyond twirling two swords around of course.

Your flippant dismissal of something so much more nuanced and meaningful makes it a basic waste of time to try and discuss this. You're just doing the paladin/prist thing. As if waving around a hammer and wearing plate is so incidental. You're within inches of applying this to any melee class i the game and dismissing them with the same flippancy.

You're spinning things and overlooking the spectrum of positions on this in favor of your own.

[Talen]

We do have cars today, don't we? That kind of answer your question.

Which is why I asked for a toytally new method of transportation. You're an engineer. i'm sure you have the spark of genius to invent something. But you can't even imagine a world without cars or the skills/creativity needed to actually create it.

Put simply - you are assuming - wrongly - that every engineer is also an inventor. That having the engineering skill also guarantees a certain degree of creativity instead of, for example, the ability to simply follow a schematic and assemble stuff.

Ok. First. A 'gunman' is not a tinker

Yoiu talked about a tech class. Not a Tinker. A Tech class cannot be a posisbility because of overlap

I gave several examples that showed your opinion to be wrong. It is possible to create a tech class.

, he'd be a hunter with guns, so this comparison has no merits, in my opinion. WoW's combat medic, I believe it's the priest. Technomages...? Never ever heard of one in all WoW, I don't think. Mages who know engineering?

Technomages are those who combine magic with technology. Combat medics aren't priests - they are excatly what they say they are; medics. Surgeons. Doctors. They don't rely upon magic at all. The Gunman is a ranged class who doesn't work with animal, but does work with guns. Lots of guns.

All concepts for tech classes. All with no overlap with Engineering.

Yes you did present your opinion.

I presented a fact based upon your erroneous assertion a tech class cannot be added de to overlap.

Just like your opinion now that World of Warcraft is a Steampunk game. And that is wrong. World of Warcraft is not a steampunk game. It would be akin to saying if 1/6 of all of the US states speak Spanish, that would mean the official language of the US is Spanish?

Warcraft is a game which combines mundane technologies with wierd steampunk science in a medieval S&S setting. By defintion its a steampunk world. Its not heavily steampunk - but it is steampunk.

Your denial of this fact seems to stem only from your desire to shut down the concept of a tech class being added for some reason and requires us to willingly overlook the presence of every single technological artifact in game. We need to overlook the guns, and rockets and satellites, and lasers and computers and tanks and planes and robots and the world engines and all the wierd science.

That can't be done. We even have two players races who have a large tech focus. WoW is a steampunk setting and your wilful ndisregard for this apsect of the gameworld is puzzling.

You don't have to like it...but it is there

Yep, plenty of overlap, or we can focus on the portions of the class that don't overlap

For a tech class? thats a lot of space. For DH? Next to none. Anything a DH can do or bring....a Warlock or Rogue can do the same.

For example: paladin monk and shaman are pretty much the same philosopher warrior empowered by an external benevolent force.

The trouble isn't that overlap exists. Its the degree of overlap. The only aspect of a DH design space tha isn't covered by Warlocks is the melee gameplay. And thats covered by rogues. If a DH brings nothing to the game except the DH...why add it?

Blizzard hasn't really stuck with keeping the classes feeling distinct at all, so we probably don't have to consider your definition of good design.

Blizzards game design usually has a solid basis in the fundamentals of game design. I can disgaree with a lot fo what they do, but they can make a case for what they do. So expecting them to be a bunch of amateurs and bring in what amounts to a copy of an existing class is probably too much to hope for.

Regardless, their relationship with demons is quite different from that of warlocks; one contracts with demons for power, the other one infuses himself with demonic energy just to be more powerful

And thus BOTH gain power from demons. Your infusion argument is nothignmor than GoSac for example.

and can pull mana out of others to the same purpose. Similar to how there are a broad range of tech types available, there are a broad range of class concepts based around the stealing of powers from other creatures.

And when it comes to Demons, the class that has that role, that concept, that story is Warlocks. Hence the overlap in design space. Blizzard chance to differentiate the two would have come in vanilla, if the DH was a class then.

And so am I right to assume that you agree with the idea that engineers are physically and mentally unable to create new tech items?

You are an engineer. Invent something. Create something.

EJL

[hrugner]

Put simply - you are assuming - wrongly - that every engineer is also an inventor. That having the engineering skill also guarantees a certain degree of creativity instead of, for example, the ability to simply follow a schematic and assemble stuff.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. An engineer in the real world designs things and hands those designs off to a machinist of some sort. There's often problems between engineers and those who have to build what was engineered, mostly regarding things like "alright, but there's nowhere to put my hands when I put this together". If the idea of an engineer not inventing things is some hidden WoW definition I'm interested in where it comes from.

If we're going off of the WoW definition as stated in Blizzard's own description of engineering it says that engineers "tinker" explicitly and describes their creations in a manner that implies some trial and error, something that wouldn't come from following a schematic correctly, but would be part of developing new tech.

- - - Updated - - -

The trouble isn't that overlap exists. Its the degree of overlap. The only aspect of a DH design space tha isn't covered by Warlocks is the melee gameplay. And thats covered by rogues. If a DH brings nothing to the game except the DH...why add it?
EJL

The degree of the overlap in mechanics or cosmetics?

As I've mentioned before, converting much of the warlocks kit to work effectively in melee wouldn't be a trivial change. Most of their DH like abilities are channeled and unappealing in melee. Rogues also don't have same sort of abilities warlocks have, they are melee though and have the right equipment selection... so I guess DH and rogues share that.

I agree that a DH is essentially choosing a really powerful "Grimoire of Sacrifice", making all of their channeled abilities instant, allowing them to dual wield melee weapons, giving them some mobility skills (probably from the rogue kit, but maybe warrior), making their drains powerful enough to be their primary threat, and making their glyph of demon hunting something other than a cosmetic ability. Oh, and making locks available to night elves and other races that don't have normal warlocks. I guess it should probably let them wear leather as well. There should probably be some way of telling prospective groups that you're melee and don't have much to do with the warlock class kit... just add a melee and ranged slot to the dps queue set-up, no problems there.

So sure, with tons of changes to what's there already, adding a fourth spec to warlocks with tons of extra abilities and an unprecedented change in armor type (no complaints there, so long is shows up in other classes) as well as a few player choice and UI changes... yeah, same thing. Till it gets to that point, DH fans are probably going to stay realistically unimpressed.

but a tinker could just be a shaman with reskinned totems and elementals and a gun added to his casting animation. Now that's a glyph. It would be a huge disappointment to myself and every other player who wants a tech class (If it doesn't cover Brann, send it back), but it would be a decent surrogate for everyone who isn't invested in the tech class option.

To be fair, many of the DH to warlock conversion problems could be removed by opening up player choice in gear selection, removing the now almost meaningless armor type identifier and making the demon hunting glyph appropriately valuable. There are certainly other ways to open up that classes play style beyond an actual class, though I'd hate to see a class more broadly based on stealing the powers of their opponents dropped simply because there was an easier option. Of course, I also advocate dropping traditional class selection for resource and ability kits that give the player a range of self identifiable classes based off of those choices, but that's a completely different post.

That said, I'm sure both choices will happen eventually in some fashion and lore won't be impeded by when; though player satisfaction could be influenced by how.

[Tatzi]

Except they wouldn't be taking apart the profession. The profession isn't based on class abilities. The profession is based around crafting items and mounts. The Tinker has its own abilities that are separate from the profession completely.

Again, a Tinker tanking a dungeon is going to have no effect on an engineer building a mechanical chicken.

The engineering profession does make rockets, bombs, lasers and other weapons. You seem to be focusing on the fun, world-shrinking rays and mounts, rather than the actual facts. They would have to take away all the bombs and the rockets from the engineering profession for the tinker class to become viable. Yes, one is a profession and one is a class, but they do the EXACT same things. All you're suggesting is that, instead of one-time (useless) items, you make them abilities and make them actually useful. But you fail to acknowledge that they already exist (even if they are useless).

Enchanting does not cast spells, like a mage. They both perform magic, but enchanting is ONLY enhancing weapons/armor. Engineering does produce bombs, rockets, laserz that do deal damage (even if its insignificant), just as a tinker class would (all made up to be useful).

You're making out engineering to be only toys, when in fact, most of the items that would make up the abilities of a tinker (rockets, bombs, lasers) EXIST already in-game. Just because they're virtually useless, doesn't mean that an engineer doesn't build them. The profession isn't based around building items and mounts, its based around using technology to craft weapons (however useless they are in-game), inventions and mounts. Why can't you understand that? Even though they have no real purpose as of now, creating a tinker class would mean taking away the weapons (more than just one item) built by an engineer.

[Ielenia]

Which is why I asked for a toytally new method of transportation. You're an engineer. i'm sure you have the spark of genius to invent something. But you can't even imagine a world without cars or the skills/creativity needed to actually create it.
Put simply - you are assuming - wrongly - that every engineer is also an inventor. That having the engineering skill also guarantees a certain degree of creativity instead of, for example, the ability to simply follow a schematic and assemble stuff.

You're wrong. You said, and I quote: Lets say a car didn't exist. Would he have the genius to actually invent -or at least design it? To which I answered: 'We do have cars today, don't we?'

That answers your question because for us to have cars today, it means someone invented it.

Yoiu talked about a tech class. Not a Tinker. A Tech class cannot be a posisbility because of overlap
I gave several examples that showed your opinion to be wrong. It is possible to create a tech class.

What examples? If you are talking 'uses tech items' you basically just described every single character currently on WoW. Everyone can use tech items. But if you're talking 'creates tech items', then it's the engineering skill.

Technomages are those who combine magic with technology. Combat medics aren't priests - they are excatly what they say they are; medics. Surgeons. Doctors. They don't rely upon magic at all. The Gunman is a ranged class who doesn't work with animal, but does work with guns. Lots of guns.

Technomages do not exist in the lore of Warcraft. 'Combat Medics' as you describe are impossible to have as a playable option, because it's impossible to perform medical duties on an injured person when said person is on the move, or worse, during an actual combat situation. Second, the 'gunman' you describe seems nothing but a petless hunter.

I presented a fact based upon your erroneous assertion a tech class cannot be added de to overlap.

You presented your opinion as a fact based on a wrong premise. I didn't say it's impossible for Blizzard to add a "tinker" class. I said it's impossible to add a Tinker class the way it's idealized in these forums.

Warcraft is a game which combines mundane technologies with wierd steampunk science in a medieval S&S setting. By defintion its a steampunk world. Its not heavily steampunk - but it is steampunk.
Your denial of this fact seems to stem only from your desire to shut down the concept of a tech class being added for some reason and requires us to willingly overlook the presence of every single technological artifact in game. We need to overlook the guns, and rockets and satellites, and lasers and computers and tanks and planes and robots and the world engines and all the wierd science.
That can't be done. We even have two players races who have a large tech focus. WoW is a steampunk setting and your wilful ndisregard for this apsect of the gameworld is puzzling.
You don't have to like it...but it is there

By your definition, the USA's official language is Spanish, then?

I'm not denying there is technology in Azeroth. However, Warcraft is FAR from being considered a 'Steampunk game'. The only parts of WoW where one can even consider 'steampunk' is limited. Gnomeregan, Kezan, Bilgewater Harbor and Fizzle and Pozzik's Speedbarge. That's all. The rest of the game setting? Sword and Sorcery. You seem more in denial of that to make your case for 'tech classes' than I am of WoW's technology, from what I'm seeing.

You are an engineer. Invent something. Create something.

EJL

Using Teriz's "arguments" now?

[Thimagryn]

Put simply - you are assuming - wrongly - that every engineer is also an inventor. That having the engineering skill also guarantees a certain degree of creativity instead of, for example, the ability to simply follow a schematic and assemble stuff.

Tinkers aren't all Inventors either, so what's the point really?

[Teriz]

The engineering profession does make rockets, bombs, lasers and other weapons. You seem to be focusing on the fun, world-shrinking rays and mounts, rather than the actual facts. They would have to take away all the bombs and the rockets from the engineering profession for the tinker class to become viable. Yes, one is a profession and one is a class, but they do the EXACT same things. All you're suggesting is that, instead of one-time (useless) items, you make them abilities and make them actually useful. But you fail to acknowledge that they already exist (even if they are useless).

How does a profession do the EXACT same thing when it can't tank, DPS, or heal groups or raids? That's what classes do. Professions gather materials to construct items for sale.

They don't need to take away any of Engineering's "weapons" because its weapons are completely useless beyond leveling the profession. Thus, even the weapons of Engineering wouldn't overlap with a tech class. Furthermore, Engineering already overlaps with some class skills in the game, and yet those Engineering items are still around;

Parachute cloak duplicates a mages Slow Fall.
The ultrasafe teleporters duplicate a mages Portal.
Invisibiliy field duplicates a mages Invisbility spell.
The poultryiser duplicates a mages polymoprh or a shamans Hex.
The Mind Amplification Dish duplicates a priuests Mind Control.

So no worries, you can still build your crappy, Engineering contraptions worry-free.

There's no lasers in Engineering. Just FYI.

Enchanting does not cast spells, like a mage. They both perform magic, but enchanting is ONLY enhancing weapons/armor. Engineering does produce bombs, rockets, laserz that do deal damage (even if its insignificant), just as a tinker class would (all made up to be useful).

http://www.wowhead.com/item=44494
http://www.wowhead.com/item=46348
http://www.wowhead.com/item=16248
http://www.wowhead.com/item=22558
http://www.wowhead.com/spell=104440

You could also argue that Disenchant and Enchant are also spells.

You're making out engineering to be only toys, when in fact, most of the items that would make up the abilities of a tinker (rockets, bombs, lasers) EXIST already in-game. Just because they're virtually useless, doesn't mean that an engineer doesn't build them. The profession isn't based around building items and mounts, its based around using technology to craft weapons (however useless they are in-game), inventions and mounts. Why can't you understand that? Even though they have no real purpose as of now, creating a tinker class would mean taking away the weapons (more than just one item) built by an engineer.

Engineering does only make toys, because they can't kill anything. Its usefulness is for novelty purposes only. Its main useful purpose is to make money. You make money building mounts and armor. Not crafting a bunch of useless bombs or fireworks.

Seriously, what purpose do any of those "weapons" serve? Even at level, they do piddling amounts of damage. They don't scale, they require a lot of materials, money, and time. Blizzard could erase all of those Engineering "weapons" tomorrow and streamline the Engineering leveling process, and no one would care.


But more to your point; The Tinker doesn't even use any of those Engineering weapons. Tinkers have their own set of abilities that are completely distinct from the Engineering profession. In fact, the Engineering Profession houses NONE of the Tinker's abilities. It doesn't even house the Tinker's abilities from HotS. So again, no worries, you can continue to craft mechanical chickens and malfunctioning teleporters while a Tinker is tanking dungeons or healing allies.

- - - Updated - - -

Tinkers aren't all Inventors either, so what's the point really?

Yes, what IS the point?

I have yet to see any evidence that Blizzard views profession overlap as a problem, so this entire line of "engineering lore" arguing is pretty pointless.

[Deleted]

I like the poll-results in this one.

[-Superman-]

I like the poll-results in this one.

I would too if the poll question was not deliberately placed wrong to skew the data.

Question of the thread: "Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?"

Poll question: "What is the probability that the Tinker can be the next class ( IYO)"

My interpretation of the data is people answered the poll based on the thread title question. If they answered based on the poll question, the 0% would be a lot higher.

- - - Updated - - -

I have yet to see any evidence that Blizzard views profession overlap as a problem, so this entire line of "engineering lore" arguing is pretty pointless.

This entire thread is pretty pointless. At this point, it is the same 4 people arguing the same 4 points, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[Teriz]

This entire thread is pretty pointless. At this point, it is the same 4 people arguing the same 4 points, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And yet it's still vastly superior to the countless threads about how Blizzard is failing, or how buying 90s is a crime against humanity.

Hell, I'd argue with Thing, Ielenia, Suckhoi, and Yig until the end of time before I subject myself to those ridiculous threads.

- - - Updated - - -

I like the poll-results in this one.

I do too. It indicates that the Tinker implementation is going to surprise a lot of people.

[Wildberry]

Mmmm, those poll results, glad to see there's still a shred of sense in the community, way to go sluggers.

[-Superman-]

And yet it's still vastly superior to the countless threads about how Blizzard is failing, or how buying 90s is a crime against humanity.

Hell, I'd argue with Thing, Ielenia, Suckhoi, and Yig until the end of time before I subject myself to those ridiculous threads.

Hey, it's your prerogative how you spend your time here. But at this point, it is like an empty Denny's at 3:45am save for one table of nerds having a discussion about which Anime is the best.

[Azgraal]

The only way Tinkers could ever be a class is if they redid engineering, the profession, to simply be a DIY profession, and not the technology creation is is today both in lore and in mechanics.

[Drilnos]

The engineering profession does make rockets, bombs, lasers and other weapons. You seem to be focusing on the fun, world-shrinking rays and mounts, rather than the actual facts. They would have to take away all the bombs and the rockets from the engineering profession for the tinker class to become viable. Yes, one is a profession and one is a class, but they do the EXACT same things. All you're suggesting is that, instead of one-time (useless) items, you make them abilities and make them actually useful. But you fail to acknowledge that they already exist (even if they are useless).

Enchanting does not cast spells, like a mage. They both perform magic, but enchanting is ONLY enhancing weapons/armor. Engineering does produce bombs, rockets, laserz that do deal damage (even if its insignificant), just as a tinker class would (all made up to be useful).

You're making out engineering to be only toys, when in fact, most of the items that would make up the abilities of a tinker (rockets, bombs, lasers) EXIST already in-game. Just because they're virtually useless, doesn't mean that an engineer doesn't build them. The profession isn't based around building items and mounts, its based around using technology to craft weapons (however useless they are in-game), inventions and mounts. Why can't you understand that? Even though they have no real purpose as of now, creating a tinker class would mean taking away the weapons (more than just one item) built by an engineer.

It wouldn't mean that any more than creating a new class which uses magic spells would mean taking spells away from mages, warlocks and priests. Tinker bombs would differ from Engineering bombs mechanically. They would not use a targeting reticule, they would not root the targets, they might not even hit multiple targets, they would not have long cooldowns, and they would hit harder. Lorewise they would be made of powerful stuff that simple crafters don't have access to. It wouldn't be the exact same thing scaled up. Same deal for the rockets, and the flamethrowers, and whatever else Engineering can already do.

A Tinker who took up Engineering would have access to a greater variety of bombs, rockets, and lasers, and would be able to insert them into his rotation same way as any class could. If they were worth inserting into any class's rotation, that is. Come to think of it Engineering doesn't actually have lasers. But think of mages for a second, who have three bomb spells, none of which are similar at all. Why do physical or magitek bombs all have to be the same thing too?

[hrugner]

Come to think of it Engineering doesn't actually have lasers.

Heh, yeah that privilege is reserved for jewel crafters.

http://www.wowhead.com/item=41367/da...eated-by-spell

Death ray is close, but a "Life amplification through the stimulated emission of radiation" isn't exactly the same thing.

[-Superman-]

Come to think of it Engineering doesn't actually have lasers.

Wonder where the S.A.F.E. Team in Gnomer got those laser rifles.