Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Well.

    Locking on one armor type wasn't good idea of new Blizzard, may be even old too. Stats are important, characteristics are important, but not "armor type". Therefore - why, for example, necromancers couldn't use any other it type? By the way, armor type means almost nothing now, it's just more forced and artificial limitation (5%), since defence index has negligible weight and influence. I don't see people choosing this or that item because of defence index (all the most significant characteristics were cut in previous additions, such as def.rating etc). How would this affect gameplay in the case of necromancers? The more minions/spell power, the weaker necromancer himself (his parameters) damage/hp/etc against of been more survival (more speed moving/casting spells/etc = lighter armor type) - which could be moderated by talents. Something like this. Not a big deal that base armor would be mail or even plate (it would just mean more power reserved).

    So just thought in the ear. But I like how it is framed (OP post), I'm not a big expert in concepts, and therefore I didn't read much into description, so I won't like to spoil concept in OP's head with insisting that my idea is sane.
    It plays into the fantasy of a class to a degree. A rogue in plate wouldn't feel quite the same as a rogue in leather. Necromancers are just a type of mage basically, and have always been portrayed as robe wearing spellcasters. And mail is only one armor class down from plate wearing dks. It's not the only thing, but for me it's a case where if you have to stray too far from what's established for a class already, and this is a class that's been around since at least wc 3, why bother making it that class in the first place? I don't feel there's room for a traditional necromancer in WoW and putting them in mail would at best make them feel off from what's established making me wonder why they even went with necromancer then, and at best would be an arbitray difference that means nothing at which point why not just give them cloth? I mean blizzard made a 4th leather class before a 3rd mail class, clearly they're not bothered by uneven armor distribution. So giving them mail just feels like a forced attempt to make them stand out from warlocks slightly more.

  2. #122
    Dreadlord Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    828

    Smile

    Florena Emberlin
    It plays into the fantasy of a class to a degree. A rogue in plate wouldn't feel quite the same as a rogue in leather. Necromancers are just a type of mage basically, and have always been portrayed as robe wearing spellcasters. And mail is only one armor class down from plate wearing dks. It's not the only thing, but for me it's a case where if you have to stray too far from what's established for a class already, and this is a class that's been around since at least wc 3, why bother making it that class in the first place? I don't feel there's room for a traditional necromancer in WoW and putting them in mail would at best make them feel off from what's established making me wonder why they even went with necromancer then, and at best would be an arbitray difference that means nothing at which point why not just give them cloth? I mean blizzard made a 4th leather class before a 3rd mail class, clearly they're not bothered by uneven armor distribution. So giving them mail just feels like a forced attempt to make them stand out from warlocks slightly more.
    I simply meant that it could be balanced and would give much more depth to RPG component. In fact this isn't armor type, but set of parameters whose index is more or less then each other. That's why there were no a lot intelligence/agility plate in classic, spirit and mp5 was a thing (good separate mechanics for resource management of each of classes that added depth and complexity, magicians use mana pool and special mechanics, healers - mana regeneration). Everyone chose "their own type of armor" on these grounds, but then people began to cry, that it's difficult and boring so everything was removed. Then they implemented bonus so no one can choose "not their type of armor", and recently "not your" items stopped even droping to you. I guess that stuff like different type of DK runes and etc were deleted for the same reason. Old talent tree - the same reason, so no one could choose "not those talents", but Cataclysm didn't help, because they underestimated degree of human "stupidity", and MoP came with even greater losses, followed by WoD, next - Legion even with separate branchs for PvP/PvE (so that you couldn't use "inappropriate" abilities in "inappropriate" place (toys' restrictions?)). From a certain point (from Cata/WotLK/BC?), this also applies to quests, which means dumb leveling experience (questing). That's why people are talking about no choice. Blizzard decided that only they have right to define which way is right and which is not, and this concerns items, talents and any buttons that you press. You have no choice, the only way you can go is that developers have imposed on you, so you can't even find out is it wrong one or not (give me right to make a mistake! or may be clever move?). But it lost sense in some way now, because BG stats ̶equalization (= they lied that removed them, and in fact simply made them less noticeable), zone/items-stats(lvl+class) scaling, personal loot and other PvP-toggle (so that you can't even choose "not your" type of server) idiocy (+ not your type of "customization"?). Specially for players they create illusion that you're never wrong (you just can't be, this is design restriction, nothing depends from you), that relaxes and dulls you (for greater effect they even remove "unnecessary" professions, there is no need to be distracted, just mindlessly press your rotation!), and that's what people mean when they use word "casual" (that's main selling strategy now), but it doesn't quite fit here... but nothing ever changes, they still continue to underestimate human stupidity Open question remains: so may be system should be designed with disregard of such people? (so they could become better?)

    Fantasy isn't the word you wanted to use. Fantasy doesn't mind magicians wearing chainmail or plate, complexity of implementation against this, as this will balk to balance stuff.

    - heavier armor - it means inconvenient to body manipulate and more difficult to move, less ability to evade, more physical strength is required to detriment of intellectual component; besides heavier armor doesn't mean better protection, material is important, mechanics of defense are (physic/magic) - that's what means fantasy

    Diablo had relatively sane implementation of this, but WoW limited everything to Shamans, who in original concept are combat Mages, heavy Necromancers in some way (without full fantasy implementation, only partly) are DK, heavy Priests in the same partly way are Paladins and heavy Rogues are Warriors . You could say that - No, they are completely different! - and would be right, but only because it's not armor type that determine this.
    Note: It's silly to refer to Warcraft characters in this sense, since most orc warriors obviously didn't wear plate armor. And there are too many similar examples in order to fit them all into 1 message. Also their classes were partially blurred, not to mention lack of any specific specialization for them - which only proves stupidity of current "Class philosophy".

    It's just game restriction (realization) what you are talking about, which we're all used to. You better not call this fantasy, fantasy is how and why this armor will be/not used

    But all right, we moved somewhat to offtopic - so, why not make class which can manipulate this parameters?

    tl;dr chainmail armor doesn't ruin any fantasy

    scubistacy
    I disagree. D&D explicitly has rules about armour giving you a spellcasting penalty on arcane spells. The more cumbersome the armour, the less are you able to perform gestures needed for the spell to go off. So, typical arcane spellcasters are not wearing armour at all, or only cloth armour, and help themselves with magical items granting armour class bonuses and with armour spells. I would see a Necromancer in this bunch. For a melee spec, the Necromancer just could use the Bone Armour thing to gain more armour or to mitigate damage by applying a HP shield or something like that.

    So, no chainmail for the Necromancer in my regards. Beside that, the concept looks interesting, though I would not agree on every detail.
    Firstly it concerns only D&D; secondly I have already noted logic above (ie, laws of a concrete fantasy world, and neither in WoW nor in Warcraft, there are no such restrictions), and finally the third - Warcraft necromancers don't use arcan magic, and here is a big problem which was mentioned in link from previous message: Blizzard never introduced separate death magic type in this game. For these reasons, in this case you are still wrong and chainmail armor doesn't violate any fantasy (it's not class, but magic school restriction), but also none of its types do, so choose will depend entirely on implementation.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2019-07-01 at 08:07 AM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  3. #123
    Deleted
    I disagree. D&D explicitly has rules about armour giving you a spellcasting penalty on arcane spells. The more cumbersome the armour, the less are you able to perform gestures needed for the spell to go off. So, typical arcane spellcasters are not wearing armour at all, or only cloth armour, and help themselves with magical items granting armour class bonuses and with armour spells. I would see a Necromancer in this bunch. For a melee spec, the Necromancer just could use the Bone Armour thing to gain more armour or to mitigate damage by applying a HP shield or something like that.

    So, no chainmail for the Necromancer in my regards. Beside that, the concept looks interesting, though I would not agree on every detail.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemmar View Post
    I think it's a cool concept, but as expected it steps on DK and warlock toes.

    I mean... those abilities. The skeketal archer is on the unholy talent tree. The skeletons 10m CD is literally army of the dead.

    This would only make sense in the game if they removed the unholy DK and Affliction warlock specs. And at that point, is it really necessary? What are we gaining by taking? Quite honestly, i'm someone who disliked the DH addition. It made the warlock class alot less interesting and the DH class isn't that interesting. Imo we lost more than we gained.
    The Skeletal Army spell is a 2 min cooldown and 10 minute duration. Unlike the DK's temporary army, my Necromancer one is permanent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xavin View Post
    You obviously put a lot of thought into this, and I like a lot of your ideas. BUT. A healing spec for a Necromancer? I don't know, it clashes with the very concept of a Necromancer, which is raising the dead to do his bidding. On the other hand, some would probably argue that it's what a Priest (or any other healer) already does, essentially. I suppose the Faithless spec might work, kind of the opposite of a Discipline Priest as a damage/healing hybrid, but it would still be a bit redundant. I think it's the least convincing of the three specialisations, but then again I might also be biased since I played MMOs since EverQuest, which was also strongly based on D&D, and historically necromancers were never healers. Thumbs up for the other two specs though.

    Also, as much as I love the concept of a Necromancer (and I really do) I don't think it would be a good fit for WoW at this point, with the Warlock class - especially the Affliction spec, which always was extremely similar (some said also TOO similar) to the EQ Necromancer - and the Death Knight already in game. Minions, curses, DoTs, the death theme: there's already more than enough of this stuff.
    If the Necromancer was to ever be implemented into WoW, I think it would have to have a healing spec. Not only does it distinguish them from DKs and Warlocks immensely (putting a stopper on all the complainers who think there's no way to create a Necromancer class without stepping on other class toes) but it also fills in a niche with a dark healer concept, which doesn't exist at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farrarie View Post
    Even as I don't like the necromancer idea, I totally like your concept well done.
    Thank you very much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Florena Emberlin View Post
    And a mail wearing necromancer veers not only away from how we've seen necromancers portrayed in wow but also too close to an unholy dk if you give them mail imo.
    As it should veer away slightly from how we've seen Necromancers portrayed in WoW. By doing so, it nullifies the naysayers. All in all, I think mail actually makes the most sense since their armor would heavily utilize chains and bone, and the first Necromancer was essentially a shaman. Speaking of shamans, I like how my Necromancer concept feels somewhat like an anti-shaman similar to how DKs feel like the anti-paladin. And more importantly, WoW armor these days is practically indistinguishable between plate, mail, leather, and cloth.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post
    The Skeletal Army spell is a 2 min cooldown and 10 minute duration. Unlike the DK's temporary army, my Necromancer one is permanent.



    If the Necromancer was to ever be implemented into WoW, I think it would have to have a healing spec. Not only does it distinguish them from DKs and Warlocks immensely (putting a stopper on all the complainers who think there's no way to create a Necromancer class without stepping on other class toes) but it also fills in a niche with a dark healer concept, which doesn't exist at the moment.



    Thank you very much.



    As it should veer away slightly from how we've seen Necromancers portrayed in WoW. By doing so, it nullifies the naysayers. All in all, I think mail actually makes the most sense since their armor would heavily utilize chains and bone, and the first Necromancer was essentially a shaman. Speaking of shamans, I like how my Necromancer concept feels somewhat like an anti-shaman similar to how DKs feel like the anti-paladin. And more importantly, WoW armor these days is practically indistinguishable between plate, mail, leather, and cloth.
    But here's the thing, if you have to veer away from what it has been traditionally...why even call it a necromancer? If you have to change it too much to keep it from overlapping with dks and locks why not go for something new instead?

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Florena Emberlin View Post
    But here's the thing, if you have to veer away from what it has been traditionally...why even call it a necromancer? If you have to change it too much to keep it from overlapping with dks and locks why not go for something new instead?
    It's still called a Necromancer because the magic of necromancy and the necromantic themes found within Warcraft are still the foundation for all three specs. It's not about changing. It's about using themes that are currently up for grabs and implementing a Necromancer class people could enjoy to play. It also has to fit in with the story. The Scourge is going to be a main enemy again one day and the Necromancer class is the best class to fit that story.

  7. #127
    I love the ideas and the amount of effort you put into this.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post
    The Skeletal Army spell is a 2 min cooldown and 10 minute duration. Unlike the DK's temporary army, my Necromancer one is permanent.



    If the Necromancer was to ever be implemented into WoW, I think it would have to have a healing spec. Not only does it distinguish them from DKs and Warlocks immensely (putting a stopper on all the complainers who think there's no way to create a Necromancer class without stepping on other class toes) but it also fills in a niche with a dark healer concept, which doesn't exist at the
    Just want to state first that you did a fantastic job with this and think that you did an impressive job writing this up. All of this is my opinion so please don't feel like I'm insulting you. Nothing but respect! That being said....

    I've actually stated my personal opinion on this topic a while ago. And after more and more discussions, I stand even more firmly that the healer concept should be thrown out.

    I understand you're trying to make necromancer unique but the whole idea and concept of necromancy is the opposite of life. Dark healer concept is honestly just that, a concept, you shouldn't force something just for the sake of innovation, esepcially when it doesn't make sense. Im sorry, Necromancer should not be a healer class period by any logic. The only argument I coupd see, is necros "healing" undeads and possibly dks. Also, you've already have them set up with mail, so it only furthers my argument of making them a tank class. Such things as bone armor, leaching abilities etc etc, are familar concepts with necro that contribute to a more tanky style class.

    Why don't you take a shot at a tank spec and see what others think? Then we can discuss the better of the two.

  9. #129
    High Overlord Ivank0v's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    No where
    Posts
    147
    Very well done.

    But, it's not differentiated enough from the DK/Warlock styles and themes.

    I would like it, but probably not as the next class. Or even the class after that.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man in Room V View Post
    I love the ideas and the amount of effort you put into this.
    Thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scornedfury View Post
    I understand you're trying to make necromancer unique but the whole idea and concept of necromancy is the opposite of life. Dark healer concept is honestly just that, a concept, you shouldn't force something just for the sake of innovation, esepcially when it doesn't make sense. Im sorry, Necromancer should not be a healer class period by any logic. The only argument I coupd see, is necros "healing" undeads and possibly dks. Also, you've already have them set up with mail, so it only furthers my argument of making them a tank class. Such things as bone armor, leaching abilities etc etc, are familar concepts with necro that contribute to a more tanky style class.

    Why don't you take a shot at a tank spec and see what others think? Then we can discuss the better of the two.
    If you allow Necromancers to be tanks, then it really clashes with DKs too much. I feel my Necromancer healing spec works because it deals with themes that make sense in a necromancy world. They have power over spectral and undead entities that heal, they can steal blood from enemies and give it to their allies, they can heal the bones of their allies, and they have alchemy-based healing tools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivank0v View Post
    Very well done.

    But, it's not differentiated enough from the DK/Warlock styles and themes.

    I would like it, but probably not as the next class. Or even the class after that.
    I think its the best class choice if the next expansion is undead themed, and while I respect your opinion, I'm pretty sure a class that can heal, shapeshift, and use chemical attacks - all significantly distinguishes it from DKs and Locks.

  11. #131
    Scarab Lord Kyphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,248
    This needs to be done. Great concept.

  12. #132
    Deleted
    Shapeshifting is not really a common theme for Necromancers. The only transformations they usually do is when they become undead, permanently.

    I connect shape-shifting to some extent to vampires, who usually are not necromancers.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by scubistacy View Post
    Shapeshifting is not really a common theme for Necromancers. The only transformations they usually do is when they become undead, permanently.

    I connect shape-shifting to some extent to vampires, who usually are not necromancers.
    The EQ Necromancer (best MMO necro ever) did shapeshift for health-to-mana (skeleton form or specter form).

  14. #134
    Amazing job! Why do Blizzard never listen to such amazing concepts? "Necromance is DK" they say, no, it is not. You can make Necro feel and be completely different from DK you if truly want and this person just proven it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •