Necromancer vs Tinker: Which class would be better for the game?

[Deleted]

[SNIP] Sounds like a good 4th spec for Rogues.

Not at all. Bards are about being flashy and loud / noisy, while Rogues are about stealth and such.

You don't need to have a Bard character concept as a pure supporter - but adding support value either as buff for your group in heal spec or debuffer of enemies as DPS spec would work out fine. I had the impression, that BfA is a bit more "back to the root", with returning specific class utility like raid buffs. Again, a good opportunity to introduce this new class.

With the concept of Necromancer and DK being like Priest and Paladin classes, this could probably work out. But I don't know if this would not butcher the Warlock class even more, than the addition of DH already did. And I don't trust Blizzard anymore in this regard. Tinker or Bard would be less complicated.

[Teriz]

Because Death and Decay is a Death Knight ability first from Warcraft 2. Its not a Lich only ability.

Raise Dead was also a DK ability from WC2. That and D&D should tell you how close the DK is to the Necromancer and the Lich.

Death Coil was also a Death Knight ability and they gave it to Warlocks but I don't define Warlock lore on them having Drath Coil. Lore doesn't hinge on spells.

I don't see how that is relevant to the conversation. The point here is that Necromancy isn't something just slapped onto the DK class, it is an integral part of their lore.

Necromancers becoming Liches? Thats not gameplay but it is lore.

Again, the problem with advocating for a Lich spec is that DKs already have a Lich spec.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all. Bards are about being flashy and loud / noisy, while Rogues are about stealth and such.

Not necessarily. Outlaw is a pretty loud spec with all the guns and cannons.

You don't need to have a Bard character concept as a pure supporter - but adding support value either as buff for your group in heal spec or debuffer of enemies as DPS spec would work out fine. I had the impression, that BfA is a bit more "back to the root", with returning specific class utility like raid buffs. Again, a good opportunity to introduce this new class.

With the concept of Necromancer and DK being like Priest and Paladin classes, this could probably work out. But I don't know if this would not butcher the Warlock class even more, than the addition of DH already did. And I don't trust Blizzard anymore in this regard. Tinker or Bard would be less complicated.

Eh, Necromancer and DK are not like Priests and Paladin classes. Paladins don't have two holy healing specs and a DPS spec based on Shadow magic. A Necromancer would have DPS specs based on Unholy, Frost, and Blood.

[Deleted]

[SNIP] Not necessarily. Outlaw is a pretty loud spec with all the guns and cannons.

Eh, Necromancer and DK are not like Priests and Paladin classes. Paladins don't have two holy healing specs and a DPS spec based on Shadow magic. A Necromancer would have DPS specs based on Unholy, Frost, and Blood.

Yes, the current incarnation of Outlaw is loud - when in combat, or pulling with a gunshot. Thinking of it, all this could work out if they pull the "el Mariachi" stereotype like in the Rodriguez movies. I would not mind that my BE rogue could become a Mariachi. They just need to make the mexican outfit moggable on leather gear.

Though I also view a Bard as a healer, and this does not fit the Rogue (I would rather see a tank spec added to the Rogue class).

The connection between Paladin and Priest is that both have a strong connection to the Light, and that the one uses Light in melee combat, to harm enemies and to heal / protect allies, and the other uses the Light in ranged combat, again to harm enemies and to heal / protect allies.

This could be mirrored for the Death-oriented classes, if they should add a Necromancer. For a twist, they could even add a vampiric healing spec to Necromancer, which transfers life from enemies to designated allies or all people in the group. (We also have 6 tank specs currently and 5 healer specs, so adding a character with a healing spec would be on a higher priority list for me.)

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of necromantic and vampiric characters, this is why my Blood DK is one of my favorite alts. And if you are a bit creative, you can think of good mechanics and skills / spells for any kind of character concept / class. But the core question is: How does this fit to the game / setting? Do we get a specific benefit, or is it all just fluff? And will the addition of a new class damage an existing class?

In this regard, I am the most sceptical regarding the Necromancer, because it would probably have an effect on 2 classes in the game (DK and Warlock), while Tinkerer would only have minor interference with the Hunter or with people who use engineering or alchemist professions. Beside that, we could use a ranged mail class, which would work out with the Tinkerer (and probably Bard), while the Necromancer would be a typical clothie. (What we surely do not need anymore is an additional class wearing leather, at least not until we have 4 of every other type.)

[Ielenia]

I don't see how that is relevant to the conversation. The point here is that Necromancy isn't something just slapped onto the DK class, it is an integral part of their lore.

Frost magic is integral to the mage, but it was still given in small parts to the shaman, and a whole spec for the DK. Also people is not advocating the removal of necromancy from the DK? They're just saying that, despite having necromancy, the DK does not cover the necromancer theme, since necromancers are frail-looking spellcasters that stay at range, and could become liches.

Again, the problem with advocating for a Lich spec is that DKs already have a Lich spec.

No, they do not. They have frost melee spec. Liches aren't melee character concepts.

Eh, Necromancer and DK are not like Priests and Paladin classes. Paladins don't have two holy healing specs and a DPS spec based on Shadow magic. A Necromancer would have DPS specs based on Unholy, Frost, and Blood.

That is a weak, if not downright useless argument. We're not saying priests and paladins are 1:1 alike. You just point out "there is already a class using necromancy", and others point out, "so what? there are many classes that share concepts. Paladins and priests sharing holy magic, for one."

Necromancers also wouldn't have three melee specs, with one of them being a tank spec. Also, borrowing from the D2 necromancers, the WoW necro could have a ranged poison spec, which would further differentiate them from DKs. They could also get a golem-dedicated spec, raising different types of golems like blood golem, poison golem, bone golem, etc.

[Deleted]

[SNIP]Necromancers also wouldn't have three melee specs, with one of them being a tank spec. Also, borrowing from the D2 necromancers, the WoW necro could have a ranged poison spec, which would further differentiate them from DKs. They could also get a golem-dedicated spec, raising different types of golems like blood golem, poison golem, bone golem, etc.

Eh, you know that the whole Golem thing is purely invented by Blizzard for the Necromancer class in Diablo? Golems are a thing of the Kabbala and have absolutely nothing to do with Necromancy.

Having a variety of bone- and body-constructs like the Marrowgar boss in ICC or Patchwerk in Naxxramas would be OK, but I get angry every time when people use the term "golem" in the connection with a Necromancer.

[Ielenia]

Eh, you know that the whole Golem thing is purely invented by Blizzard for the Necromancer class in Diablo? Golems are a thing of the Kabbala and have absolutely nothing to do with Necromancy.

It's one idea that could be adapted. We're not asking for 1:1 translations of ideas we come up with. Necromancers could also be given a healing spec in the form of blood magic.

Having a variety of bone- and body-constructs like the Marrowgar boss in ICC or Patchwerk in Naxxramas would be OK, but I get angry every time when people use the term "golem" in the connection with a Necromancer.

Why?

[Lazuli]

If I had to choose I guess tinker (sounds fucking horrendous) because the chances of tinker taking abilities away from other classes is slimmer than a necromancer. New Blizz loves taking abilities away and giving them to other classes or throwing them on a talent never to be used again.

[Teriz]

Frost magic is integral to the mage, but it was still given in small parts to the shaman, and a whole spec for the DK. Also people is not advocating the removal of necromancy from the DK? They're just saying that, despite having necromancy, the DK does not cover the necromancer theme, since necromancers are frail-looking spellcasters that stay at range, and could become liches.

When you think of SHaman, you're not thinking of their tiny amount of Frost spells. Necromancy is the core aspect of both DKs and Necromancers.

Additionally, the difference you're describing above is like the difference between Elemental and Enhancement Shaman. Perhaps we should split them into two separate classes?

No, they do not. They have frost melee spec. Liches aren't melee character concepts.

Frost melee and ranged. DKs are a caster/melee hybrid.

That is a weak, if not downright useless argument. We're not saying priests and paladins are 1:1 alike. You just point out "there is already a class using necromancy", and others point out, "so what? there are many classes that share concepts. Paladins and priests sharing holy magic, for one."

And Paladins are pure holy users and Priests combine holy magic with Shadow magic.

DKs and Necromancers would only use Necromancy.

Necromancers also wouldn't have three melee specs, with one of them being a tank spec. Also, borrowing from the D2 necromancers, the WoW necro could have a ranged poison spec, which would further differentiate them from DKs. They could also get a golem-dedicated spec, raising different types of golems like blood golem, poison golem, bone golem, etc.

Here's another example of a D2 inspired Necromancer:



A melee Necromancer who definitely isn't a frail spellcaster.

[Theonus]

There is already a Necromancer style class in the game, it's called a BM Hunter.

[Thimagryn]

Raise Dead was also a DK ability from WC2. That and D&D should tell you how close the DK is to the Necromancer and the Lich.

No it doesn't because spells are just spells. They share the general theme of Necromancy, because in lore DK's are borne from and empowered by Necromancy, while Necromancers are Mages/Shamans/Priests who choose to delve into those dark arts. One doesn't do the same as the other because one channels power through Runeblades and is bound by the limits of the Scourge (as Bolvar still has moderate influence over them in lore) while Necromancers are unbound and hail from all cultures and races.

If you're just using abilities to describe classes then a Mage is a Lich too because they use Frost magic and have Frost Nova and Frost armor. Shadow Priests are Demon Hunters because they had Mana Burn. Abilities don't define a class. Lore does, and we have clear and distinct lore that tells us there is a difference between a Necromancer and a Death Knight. They do similar things, as does a Paladin and a Priest. You're just conveniently ignoring any potential differences between DK's and Necromancers, mainly the fact that DK's are completely themed around their Runeblades and Runic Power.

I don't see how that is relevant to the conversation. The point here is that Necromancy isn't something just slapped onto the DK class, it is an integral part of their lore.

The Light is an integral part of Paladin lore but we don't need to separate that from Priests in order to have a Paladin class. Priests don't need Holy removed from them, all they needed was something to make them slightly different - and Shadow was what Blizzard used.

Necromancers have a ton of themes left unused. Metamorphosis gameplay is gone from Warlocks because it's too thematically similar to Demon Hunters - Bring that back for Necromancers having a Lichform that drains a soul-based resource. Necromancers were the ones who created the Blight and created the plaguelands, have an entire spec themed to Poisons since we have no Spellcaster who actually uses Poison. Then we have new skeleton models for many races from Gnomes to Tauren; have multiple Skeleton summons be a part of the Necromancer gameplay.

A DK doesn't do any of this because they're bound by the gameplay restrictions that limit a melee-DPS class that is thematically tied to a Runeblade and Runic Power. It's not likely that they would get a Mana spec or use any caster weapons that aren't Runeblades. They already have diseases, they already have Ghouls and zombie-like minions, they already have Frost abilities. They still aren't casters.

[Ielenia]

When you think of SHaman, you're not thinking of their tiny amount of Frost spells.

Hence "small amounts" in my post.

Necromancy is the core aspect of both DKs and Necromancers.

So is frost magic a core aspect of mages... but it was given to DKs, anyways.

Additionally, the difference you're describing above is like the difference between Elemental and Enhancement Shaman. Perhaps we should split them into two separate classes?

So your counter-argument is "let's split the shaman class into a one-spec class and a two-spec class"? Joking aside, the "difference I'm describing" is like the difference between the mage's frost aspect (ranged spells that slow and freeze the opponent) and the dk's frost aspect (melee and close-range spells that slow and freeze the opponent).

Frost melee and ranged. DKs are a caster/melee hybrid.

They're not "melee/ranged" hybrids. They're just melee characters with one or two ranged abilities, and they're primarily and fundamentally a melee class. By your argument, hunters shouldn't exist because warriors have ranged abilities and can equip a bow. And tinkers can't exist because hunters have tech abilities...

And Paladins are pure holy users and Priests combine holy magic with Shadow magic.

DKs and Necromancers would only use Necromancy.

Give necromancers a poison spec. Presto! Difference from the dks!

Here's another example of a D2 inspired Necromancer:

https://d1u5p3l4wpay3k.cloudfront.ne...ba3423a3b52884

A melee Necromancer who definitely isn't a frail spellcaster.

Why would I want a 1:1 translation of the D2 necromancer when there are necromancers who look different from the Diablo necros? No one is asking for Diablo necros. We're just pointing out at some of their unique abilities and kits that could be adapted. We're not asking specifically for the Diablo necromancer.

[vindicatorx]

option C None both suck and do not belong anywhere.

[Teriz]

Hence "small amounts" in my post.


So is frost magic a core aspect of mages... but it was given to DKs, anyways.

Yes because there was an Archmage hero and a Lich hero in WC3.

So your counter-argument is "let's split the shaman class into a one-spec class and a two-spec class"? Joking aside, the "difference I'm describing" is like the difference between the mage's frost aspect (ranged spells that slow and freeze the opponent) and the dk's frost aspect (melee and close-range spells that slow and freeze the opponent).


They're not "melee/ranged" hybrids. They're just melee characters with one or two ranged abilities, and they're primarily and fundamentally a melee class. By your argument, hunters shouldn't exist because warriors have ranged abilities and can equip a bow. And tinkers can't exist because hunters have tech abilities...

Except DKs have far more than just two ranged abilities.

Give necromancers a poison spec. Presto! Difference from the dks!

Poison isn't really an attribute of Necromancy in WoW.

Why would I want a 1:1 translation of the D2 necromancer when there are necromancers who look different from the Diablo necros? No one is asking for Diablo necros. We're just pointing out at some of their unique abilities and kits that could be adapted. We're not asking specifically for the Diablo necromancer.

And I'm just pointing out that there are examples of melee necromancers within WoW, so a frail, spellcasting necromancer isn't a requirement.

[Butosai]

THey are worried that Necromancer is basically just Warlock except they use Necromantic magic instead of Fel magic, and the fact that "why do we want necromancers? we already have Death Knights"

I really would want a necromancer class since Necromancer is what is to death knight as what a Priest is to Paladins.

If blizzard can somehow integrate Paladins and Priest fine then they will have an opportunity to include necromancers.

Maybe in the 2nd lich expansion when the current lich king figured out that Necromancers are more powerful than Death Knights.

I mean I mean I hope to Arceus that If they do that I hope they make a new class/hero class. Since it would be a missed opportunity.

I think the best idea is to completely rework demonology warlock tree into a pure necromancer summoning undead tree

[Thimagryn]

Poison isn't really an attribute of Necromancy in WoW.

No, but it's an attribute of Necromancers in lore. Creating alchemical plagues and spreading blight is what they're all about. Then there's the heavy use of poisonous Spiders in Naxxramas. Necromancers spreading plagues and summoning swarms of vermin is well within the archetype and theme.

And I'm just pointing out that there are examples of melee necromancers within WoW, so a frail, spellcasting necromancer isn't a requirement.

But why? Priests can melee too, and we call them Paladins. Once you make a class do something different from its core identity, it breaks the archetype. Why are you bringing examples that break the Necromancer archetype? A frail, spellcasting necromancer is what Necromancer fans want; else everyone would just be happy with Death Knights which clearly isn't the case. Why would you suggest that people want a melee Necromancer that does exactly the same as a Death Knight anyways?

That's like saying we could have a Tinker who specializes in ranged weapons and mecha minions but doesn't use mech suits turrets or any other gadgets for the purpose of attacking it and saying it's too similar to Hunters. It seems like the only person who brings up a melee Necromancer is the one who is looking for ways to attack the class.

[Teriz]

No it doesn't because spells are just spells. They share the general theme of Necromancy, because in lore DK's are borne from and empowered by Necromancy, while Necromancers are Mages/Shamans/Priests who choose to delve into those dark arts. One doesn't do the same as the other because one channels power through Runeblades and is bound by the limits of the Scourge (as Bolvar still has moderate influence over them in lore) while Necromancers are unbound and hail from all cultures and races.

If you're just using abilities to describe classes then a Mage is a Lich too because they use Frost magic and have Frost Nova and Frost armor. Shadow Priests are Demon Hunters because they had Mana Burn. Abilities don't define a class. Lore does, and we have clear and distinct lore that tells us there is a difference between a Necromancer and a Death Knight. They do similar things, as does a Paladin and a Priest. You're just conveniently ignoring any potential differences between DK's and Necromancers, mainly the fact that DK's are completely themed around their Runeblades and Runic Power.

As I said earlier, the reason there's a mage frost spec is because of the Archmage WC3 hero. There's also a Lich hero as well, and their abilities were split between Mages and DKs. Shadow Priests lost Mana Burn a long time ago (probably around cataclysm). The point is that Blizzard has shown that they don't allow multiple classes to share abilities, so yes abilities do define the class.

The Light is an integral part of Paladin lore but we don't need to separate that from Priests in order to have a Paladin class. Priests don't need Holy removed from them, all they needed was something to make them slightly different - and Shadow was what Blizzard used.

Considering that Priests have an entire specialization dedicated to Shadow, and Shadow appears in some form or another in every Priest spec, I would say that it is far more than a slight difference. We also shouldn't forget that Priests use Holy only for healing, while Paladins use Holy for DPS and Tanking.

Necromancers have a ton of themes left unused. Metamorphosis gameplay is gone from Warlocks because it's too thematically similar to Demon Hunters - Bring that back for Necromancers having a Lichform that drains a soul-based resource. Necromancers were the ones who created the Blight and created the plaguelands, have an entire spec themed to Poisons since we have no Spellcaster who actually uses Poison. Then we have new skeleton models for many races from Gnomes to Tauren; have multiple Skeleton summons be a part of the Necromancer gameplay.

A DK doesn't do any of this because they're bound by the gameplay restrictions that limit a melee-DPS class that is thematically tied to a Runeblade and Runic Power. It's not likely that they would get a Mana spec or use any caster weapons that aren't Runeblades. They already have diseases, they already have Ghouls and zombie-like minions, they already have Frost abilities. They still aren't casters.

So we're back to essentially saying that we need a Necromancer class because the DK is melee instead of ranged?

[Thimagryn]

As I said earlier, the reason there's a mage frost spec is because of the Archmage WC3 hero. There's also a Lich hero as well, and their abilities were split between Mages and DKs. Shadow Priests lost Mana Burn a long time ago (probably around cataclysm). The point is that Blizzard has shown that they don't allow multiple classes to share abilities, so yes abilities do define the class.

They make new spells and move on. Or they remove spells and move on. Warlocks weren't dependent on having Death Coil to sustain their class identity. Neither does maintaining Frost Nova when DK's were given an equivalent; Howling Blast. So when you point out things like 'Death and Decay' which is a DK spell, Necromancers can easily have 'Creeping Blight' which can be a caster version of plopping dirty poop on the ground that no one wants to stand in.

Considering that Priests have an entire specialization dedicated to Shadow, and Shadow appears in some form or another in every Priest spec, I would say that it is far more than a slight difference. We also shouldn't forget that Priests use Holy only for healing, while Paladins use Holy for DPS and Tanking.

An invention of WoW. Necromancers can have the same thing with a Lichform spec taken straight out of Warlock Metamorphosis. Did you know that the entire mechanic was lifted 1:1 from Guild Wars 2's Necromancers, who turn into a Grim Reaper? That's where the origin of the entire Demon Form gameplay came from, using the same resource draining mechanic and practically the same ability swaps. A Death Knight doesn't use any forms, nor should it.

So we're back to essentially saying that we need a Necromancer class because the DK is melee instead of ranged?

We can have a Necromancer class because the DK is melee. We don't need any class. Every class we get from this point on is a bonus, not a necessity.

And to be honest, the only limitation to what classes get added into the game is time. At the pace of 1 class every 4 years, we wouldn't see a Necromancer until 2020, and if not then, 2024. The reason Necromancer should be added is as simple as the fact that there is substantial demand for them. Just like the arguments of DH vs Tinker didn't mutually exclude any class from being added; the answer has always been both because there is demand for both.

As for Bards, there really isn't very high demand for them, thus they aren't being highly considered. Other factors include marketability and potential ties into expansion theme and content, which Bards don't have a strong presence with. If Blizzard somehow adds in a new faction like the Harpers in DnD, then that could change, but not very likely to happen.

[Teriz]

No, but it's an attribute of Necromancers in lore. Creating alchemical plagues and spreading blight is what they're all about. Then there's the heavy use of poisonous Spiders in Naxxramas. Necromancers spreading plagues and summoning swarms of vermin is well within the archetype and theme.

DKs already spread plagues (various diseases) and summon vermin (blood worms, Unholy Blight).

But why? Priests can melee too, and we call them Paladins.

If Priests are merely melee paladins, where's the Paladins using Shadow magic?

Once you make a class do something different from its core identity, it breaks the archetype. Why are you bringing examples that break the Necromancer archetype? A frail, spellcasting necromancer is what Necromancer fans want; else everyone would just be happy with Death Knights which clearly isn't the case. Why would you suggest that people want a melee Necromancer that does exactly the same as a Death Knight anyways?

So an Enhancement Shaman isn't really a shaman because its melee, and just about every Shaman in Warcraft is a frail spellcaster?

That's like saying we could have a Tinker who specializes in ranged weapons and mecha minions but doesn't use mech suits turrets or any other gadgets for the purpose of attacking it and saying it's too similar to Hunters. It seems like the only person who brings up a melee Necromancer is the one who is looking for ways to attack the class.

If Hunters contained Tinker abilities from WC3 or HotS that argument could be made. DKs contain the abilities of both Necromancers and the Lich.

[Thimagryn]

If Priests are merely melee paladins, where's the Paladins using Shadow magic?

They're called Death Knights. Arthas showed us what happens when a Paladin turns to the dark side. Again, break the archetype and you change the class.

So an Enhancement Shaman isn't really a shaman because its melee, and just about every Shaman in Warcraft is a frail spellcaster?

Specs are Specs. Enhancement is a Shaman who specializes in 'Enhancement' of their abilities in melee combat. That's what they are. RP that how you see fit. The archetype of a Shaman in WoW is beyond a 'frail spellcaster', and we saw this in Warcraft 3 with muscular Shamans wearing wolf skins and bearing claw weapons. Rehgar isn't frail at all.

Necromancers are always frail spellcasters, just like Warlocks and Mages. Until we have a clear identity of a muscle-bound mage that we want to play as, that's the archetype that will persist. Any specialization within that archetype is just that- a Specialization. A Necromancer and a Shadow Priest can both be 'Priests who use Dark Magic', just as a Mage and a Shaman can both be 'Master of the element of Fire'. If your argument is a Death Knight uses Necromancy, then you don't have much of an argument considering we have Pallies and Demon Hunters who completely overlap with caster counterparts.

If Hunters contained Tinker abilities from WC3 or HotS that argument could be made. DKs contain the abilities of both Necromancers and the Lich.

Abilities are abilities. Warlock had a DK ability but that didn't make them DK's. Again, it's a non-issue.

If you're afraid of Blizzard removing spells from existing classes, then that's a fear you'll have to get over.

WC3 and HOTS abilities aren't a good source of why we should have Tinkers or Necromancers. If you're going that route, then please give us Dragonsworn because Alexstraza is fucking epic. Please give us Wardens because her new kit is no longer bound to Rogues.

[Teriz]

They make new spells and move on. Or they remove spells and move on. Warlocks weren't dependent on having Death Coil to sustain their class identity. Neither does maintaining Frost Nova when DK's were given an equivalent; Howling Blast. So when you point out things like 'Death and Decay' which is a DK spell, Necromancers can easily have 'Creeping Blight' which can be a caster version of plopping dirty poop on the ground that no one wants to stand in.

But why is creating a class that does that necessary when we already have a necromancy-using class that has Death and Decay?

We can have a Necromancer class because the DK is melee. We don't need any class. Every class we get from this point on is a bonus, not a necessity.

So a ranged DK would be a bonus? I disagree. A ranged version of an existing class would be redundant.

- - - Updated - - -

They're called Death Knights. Arthas showed us what happens when a Paladin turns to the dark side. Again, break the archetype and you change the class.

Except Shadow Priests don't use Necromancy. They use psionics and more recently Void powers.

Specs are Specs. Enhancement is a Shaman who specializes in 'Enhancement' of their abilities in melee combat. That's what they are. RP that how you see fit.

My point is that the difference you seek is the same difference between an enhancement and elemental shaman.

Abilities are abilities. Warlock had a DK ability but that didn't make them DK's. Again, it's a non-issue.

If you're afraid of Blizzard removing spells from existing classes, then that's a fear you'll have to get over.

Me viewing such a practice as undesirable for the health of the game doesn't make me "afraid" of the practice.