5 reasons why Artificer (DH+Tinker) is the next class in WoW.

[Super Kami Dende]

So many people in this thread are such debbie-downers.

I would honestly rather the OP's concept than any of the other concepts of Tinkers or Demon Hunters. Sounds like much more fun than a Warlock Rogue.

[Vulcanasm]

Oh hey, it's another thread asking for Tinkers! This is exciting and new!

Artificers suck. 4th Edition sucked. Steampunk sucks. Eberron sucks. Tinkers are the hero class no one wants except 5 people who can't stop starting threads like this.

As punishment you must go play 2nd Edition Dark Sun.

With 1st Edition Psionics rules.

Infracted, post constructively.

[Teriz]

because what you are saying in your first post basically calls out that demon hunters are going to get shafted into a single class idea with tinkers, when they both can stand on their own.

Not according to arguments I heard in the Tinker thread. According to that thread, both had significant issues with overlap. This concept solves that problem while filling up gaps in the armor/weapon lineup.

And if they wanted it to be a mobile game, they would be working it into existing classes, but in WoD, they are taking away mobility. If you want to play a gunslinger class that is very mobile, You have the gunslinger in wildstar. d3 dh is an action game, with some aspects of role playing (the leveling and the story) otherwise, you are to mobile for this game. The HotS model for Illidan is for a MOBA, not wow, where a demon hunter (in the moba spec of the hunt) would basically be behind the boss and dpsing while stand still or watching out for fire, like every other melee, or if you had it your way, STANDING STILL AND RANGED and watching out for fire. You are not going to get a mobile dps. They took it away from warlocks because they were mobile. They say its the Hunters NICHE and they are already thinking of taking away some of that mobility.

Wrong on several levels. For starters, Blizzard is only removing mobility for casters. Hunter mobility remains. Also when I'm talking about mobility, I'm talking more along the lines of Monks who have Roll, and Flying Serpent Kick. Even Hunters have Disengage. In turn, this class could have something like Vault and Lunge.

The model you are basically giving is trying to stand on the hunters current stand where they are the mobile range. In an mmo, your idea is going to break pvp, as that is something that needs to be balanced... sadly. If this were a Different mmo, where you needed to be constantly mobile, then sure... but for me, a demon hunter in warcraft is melee. If people try to bring up the d3 demon hunter, then they clearly do not know the difference

Nah, there's nothing wrong with adding another physical range into the game. It certainly isn't going to "break" PVP.

Also, I think many DH WC fans would appreciate the darker tone, and and the DWing that this concept brings.

[Yig]

What's wrong with a Demon Hunter with a Ranged spec?

I'd love to see some kind of thing where a demon hunter uses their glaives like Illidan does in HOTS and the Black Temple encounter, throwing them around like boomerangs, marking targets like hunter's mark. Slamming them in the ground like totems with buffs and debuffs and other AOE FX.

[Teriz]

Since you're not using the Demon Hunter from Warcraft at all, I don't see why not use crossbows, bows and guns, since the DH from D3 uses them to great effect.

Thimagryn said a Demon Hunter class with a ranged spec. WTH are you talking about?

My concept does use those things, but it also combines it with the technology angle from both D3 DH and the Tinker, along with some magical influence from several sources, making it into an Artificer.

- - - Updated - - -

So it has no inspiration from Demon Hunters at all and are just all Demon Hunters from Diablo 3?

Did you read the OP?

[kynthrus]

Well thought out thread, WRONG DEMON HUNTER! For the love of god how do people still not understand that warcraft DH is not the diablo demon hunter.

[Thimagryn]

You mean other than another class called Hunter with the ability to use bows?

Also crossbows and guns don't really fit the DH theme. I mean would they be shooting fel bullets or arrows at people? There's simply no basis for it.

Your artificer is very close to what I proposed with Slayers, the main difference in replacing Tinker elements Anti-magic to fit a stronger DH theme. Other than that, using guns and devices would have fit the Slayer class concept just as much as your artificer, since it's still being influenced by the D3 Demon Hunter and D2 Assassin.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against this class concept, and I totally agree with it. Mostly because it is the Slayer concept I proposed. I just think you're pulling more strawman and double standards to avoid admitting you were wrong.

[Yig]

So long, and thanks for all the fish.




Mod-note: Disabled your [IMG] code, you are of course allowed to show the pictures, but resize them or make use of thumbnails

Sorry, i forget how Photobucket auto shrinks images so you don't see what the actual pixels are, hopefully these are small enough.
I'd love to see the demon hunter open up to other races prepared to make the sacrifices and endure the rituals this class has been known for for so long, especially with the impending return of the Legion, and especially considering we've only faced their "scouts" and never a full on invasion.

[fixx]

Its well established that the final WoW class is more than likely to be a mail wearer, and will more than likely use bows. However, this class also needs to be functionally different from Hunters. Well, the Artificer takes care of that problem all at once;

1. They wear mail. Check.
2. They use ranged weapons. Check.
3. They use technology, have no pets, and use magic. Check.

So now you have a class that covers the armor and weapon gaps, as well as establish a tolerable level of separation from Hunters.

Hunters have multiple magic effects starting from Arcane Shot, and the almost guaranteed level 100 talent is petless fighting style for SV/MM. Hunter traps are either technology or magic based. What you describe is a hunter by another name and it does not have room in WoW.

Check. Mate.

[Teriz]

Not really, just you. Those who want a demon hunter (a warcraft one) will not be satisfied and neither will those who want tinkerers. Nobody is going to be happy if you give them the wrong demon hunter and mix that dark dh from d3 with a comical tinkerer from warcraft just to make that dark too and end up pleasing nobody. Just doesn't fit. You think primarily of gnomes and goblins when talking about tinkerers. That should be clearly visible in the class too. Also the whole definition of tinkerer itself implies that machinery is prone to explode.

Which isn't necessary for a tech theme. Think of the "darkness" of this tech theme as similar to the "darkness" of the Iron Horde technology. This kind of class would make a lot of sense in the aftermath of the Iron Horde invasion.

Also people want to perform multiple roles as a tinkerer or DH not just one. People want to tank wearing engineered armor and weapons, throwing bombs around and dropping shrapnel mines as ranged while vaulting with a jetpack or create an army of mechanized chicken to fight next to them in melee as the leader of the pack. I'm just saying some random stuff, but really nobody of either camp will be happy by the way you present it.

That's not a problem either. Again, the D3DH had a healing turret, and technology in WoW provides healing. A Healing spec would be a stretch though. Tanking could also work, either for ranged tanking, or for classic Melee tanking via the Tinker/salvage system.

[Skayth]

Not according to arguments I heard in the Tinker thread. According to that thread, both had significant issues with overlap. This concept solves that problem while filling up gaps in the armor/weapon lineup.

They are basically showing you exactly what you show the people who want demon hunters, that some abilties already exist in game, when in reality both classes can easy be added to game. You taking it so seriously... to actually have 3-5 posts every page of tinker thread... just makes them more gleeful to mess with you, as desperately defend it. Everyone knows that a tinker class can exist in wow, along with engineering. Everyone knows a dragonsworn class could be added. You basically take tinker as if its a princess and you defend it as much as you can, and just cant understand why another class can exist.

Wrong on several levels. For starters, Blizzard is only removing mobility for casters. Hunter mobility remains. Also when I'm talking about mobility, I'm talking more along the lines of Monks who have Roll, and Flying Serpent Kick. Even Hunters have Disengage. In turn, this class could have something like Vault and Lunge.

Not really. Blizzard is thinking about taking away SOME of the mobility of hunters, like making them stand still for steady shot, otherwise most of the mobility would remain. Vault is already in game as a hunter's Disengage, or a monks roll. The HotS lunge is basically our ingame charge, which Illidan has on well. But what you are suggesting, from your first post is a hunter with technology and just a mobile, if not more with its vaults/rolls. Cant have that. Not to mention People want a WARCRAFT demon hunter. They want a tinker, not a hybrid of a tinker and diablo. If they want that, then torchlight 2.

Nah, there's nothing wrong with adding another physical range into the game. It certainly isn't going to "break" PVP.

Also, I think many DH WC fans would appreciate the darker tone, and and the DWing that this concept brings.

There is nothing wrong with another physical range, i agree. But not with your idea of butchering two perfectly fine classes for this one.

As Demon Hunter fan from warcraft.... and someone WHO has played warcraft since Orcs and Humans, your idea sucks for us demon hunter fans. Its about duel wielding warglaives in melee, using the legions magic against them. Not duel weilding bows at range. Thats not even a demon hunter.

[Teriz]

Well thought out thread, WRONG DEMON HUNTER! For the love of god how do people still not understand that warcraft DH is not the diablo demon hunter.

Read the OP. I pointed out that this was primarily inspired by the D3 DH over the WC one. Thanks for the kind words too.

- - - Updated - - -

Hunters have multiple magic effects starting from Arcane Shot, and the almost guaranteed level 100 talent is petless fighting style for SV/MM. Hunter traps are either technology or magic based. What you describe is a hunter by another name and it does not have room in WoW.

Some differences from the Hunter:

-DW ranged weapons
-Technology (turrets, Tinker, Grenades)
-The ability to Heal or Tank
-No pets from level one
-More mobility and agility
-Heavier magic focus

Please read the OP.

Check. Mate.

LoL!

[Ielenia]

My concept does use those things, but it also combines it with the technology angle from both D3 DH and the Tinker, along with some magical influence from several sources, making it into an Artificer.

Your concept has nothing of the Warcraft Demon Hunter at all other than "I guess I'll just say it takes from the Demon Hunter from Warcraft history to appease the Demon Hunter fans, even though it drawns nothing from it."

Did you read the OP?

I did. I saw nothing that connects to the Warcraft Demon Hunter there. At all.
Oh, and as for armor, if you're taking from the Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, it's leather.
If it's the Warcraft Demon Hunter, which you clearly are not, it's cloth.
'Mail' only comes from your 'tinker' idea.

Come to think of it, almost every 'tinker' picture I've seen has them wearing common clothes. Cloth.

[Keltas]

I was thinking about how a DH from d3 would be a good design niche in wow, so I approve. I feel it wouldn't step near hunters because hunters are, according to most over in the hunter forums (and blizzards descriptions) a pet based "nature" like class. I remember a post from blues a long time ago saying they were along the same lines of a druid, except instead of shapeshifting, they befriend animals.

Yes, change it's name, as all these demon hunter lovers have shown by attacking you for using the name.

But they could easily have a turret based spec(healing,dps, or tank), a grenade/missile based spec (dps or healing), and a traditional ranged dps spec. It could easily be implemented if the next expansion is burning legion, as they could be a darker angled take on the tinker design. (aka, a tinker, but not whimsical.)


Edit: For the dual-wielding weapons thing, it could be awesome, but I'd do something like a tier token drop for ranged weapons. Or, have a bow drop from a boss, and you can bring it to the vendor who will exchange it for two 1 handers with the same stats (including wf and tertiary stats.) That way, you can use a 2h or 2 1hs.
They could hand dual wielding to hunters too, but that'd fill the loot tables with more weapons that only 2 classes could use. *cough daggers cough*

[Ielenia]

Some differences from the Hunter:
-DW ranged weapons
-Technology (turrets, Tinker, Grenades)
-The ability to Heal or Tank
-No pets from level one
-More mobility and agility
-Heavier magic focus

1- There are no 'one-handed guns' in WoW, nor will it be added for the sake of a single class. Unless you're talking wands. They're one-handed.
2- 'Turrets' would encroach too much with shamans. Grenades with engineering.
3- Blizzard does not want ranged tanks.
4- Means, at best, a more annoying beginning for the class as mobs will just reach the hunter and bash his skull in?
5- A 'mail wearer' cannot be more agile than a leather-wearer, by logic alone. Rogues and Monks are arguably the most agile classes, because leather is lighter than mail. As for mobility, too much mobility is a bad thing for in-game balance.
6- ... I got nothing.

[fixx]

Some differences from the Hunter:

Too few differences compared to major similarities. Also hunters can tank pretty well with pets.
You still do not understand what it means when somebody says there's too much overlap with existing game features and your ideas, or there isn't space left in class design for it.

LoL!

Ran out of intelligent responses already? That was fast.

[Keltas]

1- There are no 'one-handed guns' in WoW, nor will it be added for the sake of a single class. Unless you're talking wands. They're one-handed.
2- 'Turrets' would encroach too much with shamans. Grenades with engineering.
3- Blizzard does not want ranged tanks.
4- Means, at best, a more annoying beginning for the class as mobs will just reach the hunter and bash his skull in?
5- A 'mail wearer' cannot be more agile than a leather-wearer, by logic alone. Rogues and Monks are arguably the most agile classes, because leather is lighter than mail. As for mobility, too much mobility is a bad thing for in-game balance.
6- ... I got nothing.

- Yeah, theres no 1 handed ranged weapons technically, and they would fill loot tables or have to create a turn-in system, so it would probably not happen, since it's blizzard and they can't even budget in quivers let alone new weapons.

-Turrets would not encroach shamans much, especially if they had a spec that centered around them. Shamans use totems as utility (for the most part) and they have no specs that revolve around them. Turrets would be what the damage revolves around and managing your turrets by having spells that buff/debuff/do whatever with turrets would be a very different concept than totems.

-Engineering has grenades yeah, but it's a profession. Why is it that a class can't come anywhere near a profession? you enchant things, DK's enchant their weapons using dk abilities, so why do they exist if they're all up in enchantings face?

-They have stated ranged tanks would probably not work in wow, not that they absolutely don't want them. Although yes, I doubt it would be able to tank.

-Mages have no pet (water elemental doesn't tank and isn't until 10) and are clothies, cc is a thing. (plus, let's be fair, it's basically impossible to die in WoW while leveling.)

-Not being as agile as a leather wearer, does not discount them being agile in the first place. Hunters are more agile than warriors, rogues are more agile than hunters, they would be thought of as the in-between of hunters and rogues in the agile department. This wouldn't affect gameplay much either. (rogues aren't actually very 'agile' in-game, compared to a hunter.) Mobility itself is something that would be looked at during class creation and balance.

I just want to note, If they gave them a very unique resource, they would quite easily fill a gap in design space without stepping on hunters. (yet again, blizzard has stated that hunters are like druids with bows and animal friends instead of being the animal. This would be a technology user who happens to have a bow, quite different honestly.)

I think the problem in this thread, is that he tried to make people think he was putting the WoW demon hunters concepts into this. I feel like that would be completely unrelated. This in and of itself would make for a good take on the tinker class. I would love the illidan type demon hunter though too.

[Solzan Nemesis]

Oh hey, it's another thread asking for Tinkers! This is exciting and new!

Artificers suck. 4th Edition sucked. Steampunk sucks. Eberron sucks. Tinkers are the hero class no one wants except 5 people who can't stop starting threads like this.

As punishment you must go play 2nd Edition Dark Sun.

With 1st Edition Psionics rules.

6, The number is 6, you for got me. Also way play DnD or pathfinder when I can play Whitebelt?

Oh and Steampunk is cool. Like bowties.

[Wyrt]

Artificer is what the draenei magi-tech engineers are called.

[sumoncps]

Dark Ranger not have technology