Page 36 of 41 FirstFirst ...
26
34
35
36
37
38
... LastLast
  1. #701
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    When discussing anything including classes, nothing is really a permanent addition.

    Look at Death Knights having 3 Tanking specs. Look at Warlocks having Metamorphosis. Look at Druids having 3 specs. Nothing is really permanent.
    That isn't the same thing.

    In Legion we got artifact traits because we obtained legendary weapons in order to combat the Burning Legion.

    In BFA we got Azerite traits in order to empower the heart of Azeroth (or whatever).

    Currently we are in the realm of the dead obtaining necromancer-based abilities from various afterlives.

    Just like the Artifacts and the Azerite, the Covenants are not going to carry over. So the argument that Blizzard has softened their design stance and will somehow make every class have necromatic abilities going forward simply isn't true.

  2. #702
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That isn't the same thing.

    In Legion we got artifact traits because we obtained legendary weapons in order to combat the Burning Legion.

    In BFA we got Azerite traits in order to empower the heart of Azeroth (or whatever).

    Currently we are in the realm of the dead obtaining necromancer-based abilities from various afterlives.

    Just like the Artifacts and the Azerite, the Covenants are not going to carry over. So the argument that Blizzard has softened their design stance and will somehow make every class have necromatic abilities going forward simply isn't true.
    But that's the point. We don't know what actually gets carried through to the next expansion, and what could change with a massive revamp.

    Did you foresee Metamorphosis being taken away at the end of WoD? Did we all know that DK's were going to lose two tanking specs? We know that Unholy would be revamped to be a Pet-centric spec instead of DoT-centric in Legion? There's a lot of factors involved, and like you said, even the unlikely scenario where a DK gets its pet spec gutted is still a possibility.

    Nothing is permanent, and that has to be stressed.

    The last time we got a new class, we had a pretty massive all-class revamp. Prior to that, we had Mists of Pandaria where a new class was introduced and we had a major shift in the Talent system. I mean, suffice to say, with people already getting tired of Borrowed Power mechanics and crying out for something more substantial, it's possible that a new class addition will come with another major shift to all-classes. And frankly, we're at a point where it doesn't even need to be a *new class* for that to happen, since there are so many other alternatives as well such as 4th spec or Class Skins to consider what is actually possible.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-09-17 at 03:08 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  3. #703
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It still is the fact that the priest is at least "50% based around Light magic" which they shouldn't have because the paladin is "100% based around Light magic" (It's not 100%, but you get the point).


    The solution is easy, and I have repeated this I think a hundred times if not more: expand the necromancer concept. Just like it happened to the other classes: the priest class got expanded and got void/shadow. The death knight concept got expanded and got blood and frost. The monk class got expanded and got martial arts and healing. Etc, etc.

    There are several ways to expand a concept. My necromancer concept, linked in my sig, would play nothing like a death knight class, and shares little with the death knight, and takes nothing from the death knight class. All you need is a little imagination and a willingness to think outside the box.
    I'm sorry but the solution isn't easy, and it partially explains why we ended up with a Death Knight class instead of a Necromancer class. It also probably explains why we didn't get a Necromancer class in Shadowlands.

    The Priest expansion made sense because if you have priests worshipping the Light, you're going to have priests worshipping the dark. Blizzard tying the latter with the Old Gods was a pretty obvious choice.

    Necromancer is a bit more tricky. You really only have about 4 options;

    1. Dismantle the Death Knight and Warlock class, remove the relevant Necromancer abilities and restructure all three classes to play nothing alike.
    2. Ignore the similarities and expand the Necromancer concept into something different.
    3. Ignore the similarities and simply implement the Necromancer class without worry about overlap.
    4. Push the Unholy spec further into Necromancer territory by allowing it to fight from range.

    The big landmine here is that even if you somehow bypass the concept's abilities being in the DK class, the potential Necromancer you create is going to be VERY similar to the existing Warlock class (i.e. a Shadow-based caster pet class). This btw partially explains why we have a DK class; because it allows us to play a Necromancer without intersecting with the Warlock class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But that's the point. We don't know what actually gets carried through to the next expansion, and what could change with a massive revamp.

    Did you foresee Metamorphosis being taken away at the end of WoD? Did we all know that DK's were going to lose two tanking specs? We know that Unholy would be revamped to be a Pet-centric spec instead of DoT-centric in Legion? There's a lot of factors involved, and like you said, even the unlikely scenario where a DK gets its pet spec gutted is still a possibility.

    Nothing is permanent, and that has to be stressed.

    The last time we got a new class, we had a pretty massive all-class revamp. Prior to that, we had Mists of Pandaria where a new class was introduced and we had a major shift in the Talent system. I mean, suffice to say, with people already getting tired of Borrowed Power mechanics and crying out for something more substantial, it's possible that a new class addition will come with another major shift to all-classes. And frankly, we're at a point where it doesn't even need to be a *new class* for that to happen, since there are so many other alternatives as well such as 4th spec or Class Skins to consider what is actually possible.
    Metamorphosis wasn't an expansion-based ability. Neither was the DK's tanking specs. Those are balance and class changes. I'm talking about expansion-based features like BFA's Azerite traits and the current expansion's Covenant traits (which is what you were originally talking about) that are removed at the end of an expansion. When SL ends and we leave the Shadowlands, those traits are not coming with us.

    The point is that Blizzard has not shown any sign of lessening the DK's Necormancer thematics. If anything, they actually increased those thematics in SL, giving the DK even more necromancy-based abilities like Sacrificial Pit and Lichborne.

    The last time we got a new class, we had a pretty massive all-class revamp. Prior to that, we had Mists of Pandaria where a new class was introduced and we had a major shift in the Talent system. I mean, suffice to say, with people already getting tired of Borrowed Power mechanics and crying out for something more substantial, it's possible that a new class addition will come with another major shift to all-classes. And frankly, we're at a point where it doesn't even need to be a *new class* for that to happen, since there are so many other alternatives as well such as 4th spec or Class Skins to consider what is actually possible.
    That really is another discussion entirely.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Anyway, I was just answering a poster's question. I really have no interest in this becoming a back and forth, since it's clear where we all stand. You guys are free to have the last word.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-09-17 at 03:27 AM.

  4. #704
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The point is that Blizzard has not shown any sign of lessening the DK's Necormancer thematics. If anything, they actually increased those thematics in SL, giving the DK even more necromancy-based abilities like Sacrificial Pit and Lichborne.
    That's sort of my point though.

    They gave everyone Necromancy-based abilities, and the DK did not suffer from it. I see no difference with a new class that follows suit.

    The only thing you're correct about may be the change of Pet-centric Unholy to something else, and that's a possiblity rather than an inevitability. Just the same, you can consider that as a 'balance and class change'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  5. #705
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I'm sorry but the solution isn't easy,
    Yes, the solution is easy, to the point that rando posters such as myself and others came up with a necromancer concept of their own that is more than what you call "death knight in robes".

    and it partially explains why we ended up with a Death Knight class instead of a Necromancer class. It also probably explains why we didn't get a Necromancer class in Shadowlands.
    No. Both of what you just said are just confirmation bias.

    The Priest expansion made sense because if you have priests worshipping the Light, you're going to have priests worshipping the dark.
    No, that's a jump in logic. By that logic, "we have paladins worshipping the Light, so we need to have paladins worshipping the dark." Especially since we already had the warlock class that 'worshipped the dark'. Remember that, at the time of the game's release, the priest class didn't use 'the void'. They just used 'shadow magic'. The whole 'void' and 'insanity' came much later.

    Blizzard tying the latter with the Old Gods was a pretty obvious choice.
    Which came way later in the priest class' life.

    Necromancer is a bit more tricky.
    Not really, as explained dozens of times already.

    The big landmine here is that even if you somehow bypass the concept's abilities being in the DK class,
    That is not an issue, whatsoever. After all, the priest class exists despite its concept's abilities being in the paladin class. The death knight class exists despite its frost concept's abilities existing in the mage class. Etc, etc, and etc.

    the potential Necromancer you create is going to be VERY similar to the existing Warlock class (i.e. a Shadow-based caster pet class).
    Not really. Again, if you read my concept in my sig, you'd see that this necromancer does not deal shadow damage. In fact, it deals physical damage with bone magic, and nature damage with poison magic.

    This btw partially explains why we have a DK class; because it allows us to play a Necromancer without intersecting with the Warlock class.
    Once again: that is just confirmation bias talking.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-09-17 at 04:09 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  6. #706
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Yes, the solution is easy, to the point that rando posters such as myself and others came up with a necromancer concept of their own that is more than what you call "death knight in robes".
    Just want to clarify, I think you want to mean the solution is simple, not that it's easy.

    Simple implies that the solution is uncomplicated and understandable. So fans making a Necromancer concept? That's uncomplicated and understandable.

    Easy implies little effort required. So fans making a Necromancer concept? Not the same as the amount of work that actually has to go in to adapting it into a playable class.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  7. #707
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Just want to clarify, I think you want to mean the solution is simple, not that it's easy.

    Simple implies that the solution is uncomplicated and understandable. So fans making a Necromancer concept? That's uncomplicated and understandable.

    Easy implies little effort required. So fans making a Necromancer concept? Not the same as the amount of work that actually has to go in to adapting it into a playable class.
    Yes. But by that metric? No class is easy. Doesn't matter if it's a tinker, bard, necromancer, dragonsworn, dark ranger, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  8. #708
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Yes. But by that metric? No class is easy. Doesn't matter if it's a tinker, bard, necromancer, dragonsworn, dark ranger, etc.
    Exactly.

    None of it is easy, and there is no such thing as an easy solution. It never will be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  9. #709
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's not the same kind.
    It is. Both draw from Maldraxxus.

    Necrolytes are types of Necromancers. Necrolytes use Void. So it's not 'unlike Void users' when we have Necromancers that can use Void to do their thing.
    Well, Ulthalesh doesn't have any Void traits and it already belongs to the Warlock class.
    When you look at Void casters like Nerz'hul, they fall more into the category of a Shadow Priest, rather than a Necromancer.

    Necromancers are not bound to only using Maldraxxus type Necromancy.
    Yes, they mostly are. It is the utmost representation of a Necromancer. Can't get anymore Necromancy than that.

    Ghuun was another example you brought up. That is a source of Necromancy that does not derive from Maldraxxus, and lore-wise a Necromancer class is not bound mechanically or by lore to sourcing necromancy ONLY from Maldraxxus.
    So do Bwonsamdi and Mueh'zala. It doesn't make their followers into Necromancers, but more like Witch Doctors, Shadow Hunters or Priests.

    There's nothing binding a 'Raise Skeleton' ability to Maldraxxus, right? For DK's, their lore is absolutely bound to using Runic magic that draws from Maldraxxus. For Necromancers? No such limitation, because it could be Void or Voodoo or Necrolord or even Science and Alchemy. A Necromancer raising a Skeleton would be done through whatever culturally appropriate methods are applicable.
    No. That's just you trying to package it all into the Necromancer. A Necromancer would most probably draw its necromantic powers from Maldraxxus. Yes, the races would get different lore for the class, but the core of it would be a Maldraxxian archetype (like a Paladin is a Holy Light one, with others like Sunwalkers being marginalized).

    No such thing. Your definition is arbitrary.

    "Mountain King" is not a lesser archetype that is drawn into the Warrior, for example. It is the archetype of a Dwarven warrior, and it mechanically is not given any exclusive playable Class in the game, by design. It does not mean a Mountain King is a lesser concept than a Demon Hunter or a Druid or a common Priest.
    Mountain King is a Hero class. I'm talking about basic units that are just what you would call in 'Pokemon' a non-evolved Pokemon. For Example, Raichu would be able to do everything a Pikachu can do and more.

    I agree. You seem to think that any time I defend a certain concept, it equates to needing it to be represented.

    As I said many times, I don't think a Necromancer would ever be playable as its own class, nor a Bard, nor Class Skins, but I will discuss them as being possible for the sake of discussion. There's no case where I'm discussing this on the basis of 'needing representation'.
    Well, it seems like it.

    DK's only tap into the Maldraxxus brand of Necromancy. That alone is a massive separation to the broader scope of Necromancers.
    Again, a Necromancer would not be any different other than the lore text. It would still be Maldraxxian through and through.

    Necrolytes blur the line of what traditional Necromanacers are capable of. Orc Necromancers that use Void are known as Necrolytes. And beyond Necrolytes, there may be Void Elf or Draenei exploring Void-based Necromancy beyond this, like the Necromancy that one Void Elf used to ressurect a dinosaur. Is that sourced from Maldraxxus? No. Is it a type of magic that a Void Elf Necromancer would be interested in exploring? Absolutely.
    Those would be Shadow Priests with unavailable abilities to players.

    When it comes down to it, you can point out to a connection between Necromancers and DK's, because they're connected by being able to use the same magic. Just as Monks and Shamans literally use the same Shamanistic Spirit magic. The differences become obvious when we regard the immediate differences, which you seem to refuse to acknowledge. You're still focused on the similarities, and trying to draw a comparison between the two.
    No. You seem to include Void elves using Void magic under the Umbrella of Necromancer because it allows for necromancy. That's the mistake. Trolls using their Loa and Voodoo to raise the dead does not make them into a Necromancer, but into a Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter. Let me give you an example. In Diablo 3, both the Witch Doctor and the Necromancer can raise the dead. But, still they are different classes. That's because they're not the same thing.

    Having a connection does not make them the same thing, so I'm not quite sure what purpose you think explaining the history of Maldraxxus Necromancy has to do with anything since I can just as easily point to a half-dozen other examples of non-Maldraxxus Necromancy. You want to talk Mogu Flesh shaping? Void Dinosaurs? What about the Drust and their connections to Ardenweald? Or perhaps we could talk about the Witchdoctors and the use of Juju to raise the dead, and various bargains with Bwonsamedi?
    Again, you confuse Necromancy with the Necromancer. Mogu Flesh Shaping are Flesh-Shapers. Void elves using Void magic to resurrect a Devilsaur are most likely Shadow Priests with unique capabilities. Drust are Death-themed Druids. Witch Doctors are apart from the Necromancer as i explained above.
    You trying to fit everything under a single umbrella is the issue here. These are different classes using a similar type of technique. It still doesn't make them one of the same.

    All of this can be reflected in Necromancer lore because Necromancers are as culturally encompassing as Priests, Druids and Shamans. There is no limit to a singular Necromancer organization that dictates how Necromancy must be used. The Cult of the Damned is not the only source of Necromancers in the Warcraft universe, and Maldraxxus is not the only place where Necromancy can be sourced.
    It is the main source, though. You can bet your ass that a Necromancer would be Maldraxxus-based.

    And do Death Knights have Force powers like Vader? No, they don't.

    You can choose to use this headcanon, but that doesn't make you right. Keep this in mind next time you're trying to argue 'what is right'. If we're talking about Death Knight lore, then channeling from the Runeblade is what we know it to be.
    Can i have a source for that? That all Death Knight abilities come from their Runeblade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Val the Moofia Boss View Post
    I don't get why people think that just because we have a Death Knight class means we can't have a Necromancer class. This:



    is nothing like this:

    It doesn't justify a new class, either.

    I'm not against a Necromancer, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of other classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Specific abilities are meaningless. What matters is the concept. And a heavy-armored two-hand-weapon-wielding or dual-wielding melee fighter concept is never going to be even remotely like a light-armored staff- or wand-wielding ranged spellcaster concept.

    Again: two classes can be themed around raising the dead, just like two classes can be themed around the Light, and like two classes can be themed around demons, etc.

    What you're saying is basically akin to saying that because priests can heal with Light magic, no other class in the game can have access to Light magic, especially for healing.
    Would you separate between a Witch Doctor and a Shadow Hunter because one uses a staff and the other a glaive?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And given that the purpose of the DK was to have Necromancer abilities, Blizzard seems to have relaxed on that position given that they've been open to share all of those DK themes with practically every other class through Necrolord Covenants. I also think this is a fair point to make if we're talking about purposeful design decisions.


    That's a temporary feature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'd say Blademasters had a very great spot to be introduced in WoD,
    They're just a small part of WoD.

    and Tinkers had the perfect moment in BFA too.
    War doesn't, necessarily, constitute a tech class. a tech-themed expansion does.

    Hell, even every expansion has had *something* Troll themed in it since Vanilla, and we still don't have a dedicated Troll culture class.
    Side themes.

    It's a case of when Blizzard feels ready for the game to have a new class.
    It's a case of money, time and resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The solution is easy, and I have repeated this I think a hundred times if not more: expand the necromancer concept. Just like it happened to the other classes: the priest class got expanded and got void/shadow. The death knight concept got expanded and got blood and frost. The monk class got expanded and got martial arts and healing. Etc, etc.
    They already did with Maldraxxus. And the themes stayed the same.

    There are several ways to expand a concept. My necromancer concept, linked in my sig, would play nothing like a death knight class, and shares little with the death knight, and takes nothing from the death knight class. All you need is a little imagination and a willingness to think outside the box.
    Share little with the Death Knight?

    Blood and Bone are already part of the Death Knight's blood spec.
    The healing part isn't really grounded in lore.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-09-17 at 08:08 AM.
    I'm tempted to apply for a moderator position, just so i can go moderator on your asses.

  10. #710
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    It doesn't justify a new class, either.

    I'm not against a Necromancer, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of other classes.
    Do any of us get to decide that?

    Death Knights and Demon Hunters both took spells from Warlock. So really, Blizzard don't give a fuck about expense of any class.

    Can i have a source for that? That all Death Knight abilities come from their Runeblade.
    Do you play a DK at all? Starting zone explains it sufficiently.

    "The runeblade is an extension of your being. A death knight cannot battle without a runeblade.”

    — Instructor Razuvious[1]

    or look up Runeblade on WoWpedia.

    Under the directions of Instructor Razuvious, the death knights of Acherus forged their own runeblades shortly after their creation by learning of [Runeforging]. The Instructor warns that no death knight may battle without a runeblade, for it is the vessel that stores runic power and the instrument by which a death knight commands the powers of frost, blood and unholy.[1] Lady Blaumeux further highlights the crucial importance of the runeblade, noting that it is perhaps the most guarded treasure in a death knight's possession and that a death knight separated from their runeblade is weak and powerless.[14]


    This is all lore dedicated to the Player DK. It did not formally exist in WC3. If you want to make an argument that they used to cast spells like a Necromancer, then sure we can assume they innately channeled that power like any mage could. But the lore could not be more unambiguous about Runeblades since Wrath of the Lich King, and CONTINUES to emphasize the importance of runes in Shadowlands, with the Runecarver and the Mourneblades lore. Since Wrath, all DKs of the Ebon Blade have Unholy, Frost and Blood directly tied to their Runeblades.

    It all comes down to illustrating how DKs (and to an extent, whatever Anduin has become) draws their dark power directly from their weapons, and without it they are rendered powerless. Theres no clause to say they simply default to casting spells like a spellcaster. No other class has this sort of lore association, not even Demon Hunters being bound to Warglaives. DH don't get 'rendered powerless' from losing their weapons, while DKs in the lore do.

    And the funny thing is you somehow tried to make this a Necromancer thing, but Necromancers aren't bound to using runes to channel that power, nor are they exclusively channeling from Maldraxxus. Mogu fleshshaping is what I referenced directly from the WoWpedia Necromancer page. Same with references to Trolls using voodoo and Orcs using Void. They're all referenced under the Necromancer page. Maybe you should do your research before talking about a class you clearly have no grasp on, considering you still aren't regarding Necrolytes as types of Necromancers even though it's blatantly stated that they are.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-09-17 at 08:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  11. #711
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Do any of us get to decide that?

    Death Knights and Demon Hunters both took spells from Warlock. So really, Blizzard don't give a fuck about expense of any class.
    Not ability-wise. Addition-wise.

    Do you play a DK at all? Starting zone explains it sufficiently.

    "The runeblade is an extension of your being. A death knight cannot battle without a runeblade.”

    — Instructor Razuvious[1]

    or look up Runeblade on WoWpedia.

    Under the directions of Instructor Razuvious, the death knights of Acherus forged their own runeblades shortly after their creation by learning of [Runeforging]. The Instructor warns that no death knight may battle without a runeblade, for it is the vessel that stores runic power and the instrument by which a death knight commands the powers of frost, blood and unholy.[1] Lady Blaumeux further highlights the crucial importance of the runeblade, noting that it is perhaps the most guarded treasure in a death knight's possession and that a death knight separated from their runeblade is weak and powerless.[14]
    Thanks.

    This is all lore dedicated to the Player DK. It did not formally exist in WC3. If you want to make an argument that they used to cast spells like a Necromancer, then sure we can assume they innately channeled that power like any mage could. But the lore could not be more unambiguous about Runeblades since Wrath of the Lich King, and CONTINUES to emphasize the importance of runes in Shadowlands, with the Runecarver and the Mourneblades lore. Since Wrath, all DKs of the Ebon Blade have Unholy, Frost and Blood directly tied to their Runeblades.

    It all comes down to illustrating how DKs (and to an extent, whatever Anduin has become) draws their dark power directly from their weapons, and without it they are rendered powerless. Theres no clause to say they simply default to casting spells like a spellcaster. No other class has this sort of lore association, not even Demon Hunters being bound to Warglaives. DH don't get 'rendered powerless' from losing their weapons, while DKs in the lore do.
    Seems kind of extreme to me, but okay.
    You mean the Lich King is nothing without Frostmourne?
    Because gameplay-wise, there are abilities that don't require a weapon to be equipped in order to cast them.

    And the funny thing is you somehow tried to make this a Necromancer thing, but Necromancers aren't bound to using runes to channel that power, nor are they exclusively channeling from Maldraxxus. Mogu fleshshaping is what I referenced directly from the WoWpedia Necromancer page. Same with references to Trolls using voodoo and Orcs using Void. They're all referenced under the Necromancer page. Maybe you should do your research before talking about a class you clearly have no grasp on, considering you still aren't regarding Necrolytes as types of Necromancers even though it's blatantly stated that they are.
    I am aware of it. But, again, there are also Witch Doctors listed under Shaman and Priest. It doesn't mean they are ones, it means that there is nowhere else to associate them with, yet.
    Probably the same happened with Demon Hunters and Death Knights before their addition.
    Flesh-shaping might be a Mogu type of necromancy, but trolls using the Voodoo would make them into Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters - a separate entity.
    As for Orc void users, you can see how most of the Shadowmoon clan uses Void magic, similar to a shadow priest, and that is probably the reason why the Priest class was added to them.
    Necrolytes are, indeed, a type of a Necromancer. As for their use of the Void, it is very ambiguous, since they don't seem to use it in all cases. That's why they are said to overlap with Warlocks, as well, for some reason (but, not with a Death Knight, for some reason).
    I'm tempted to apply for a moderator position, just so i can go moderator on your asses.

  12. #712
    Ghostcrawler is literally on record during cata saying they rolled their necromancer class work-ups into the unholy tree during wrath's dev cycle. Can opinions (and staff) change in a decade? Sure.

    Does the argument 'Death knights and necromancers are totally different and don't overlap' make any sense given the above context? No.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  13. #713
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Yes. But by that metric? No class is easy. Doesn't matter if it's a tinker, bard, necromancer, dragonsworn, dark ranger, etc.
    By the metric that implementing a Necromancer would require Blizzard to navigate both the Death Knight and Warlock classes while still having to create a class that satisfies players. That's quite a bit more difficult than creating a class that has zero ties with existing classes. The design space is simply far more open in the latter case.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    Ghostcrawler is literally on record during cata saying they rolled their necromancer class work-ups into the unholy tree during wrath's dev cycle. Can opinions (and staff) change in a decade? Sure.

    Does the argument 'Death knights and necromancers are totally different and don't overlap' make any sense given the above context? No.
    The thing to remember also is that since that time, the necromancer concepts in the Unholy spec have only increased. Death Knights can now summon skeletons, abominations, zombies, and a host of other things. Also abilities like Sacrificial Pit, Life and Death, Necromancer's Bargain, Apocalypse, Magus of the Dead, and Necrotic Aura have only reinforced the theme.

  14. #714
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Death Knights and Demon Hunters both took spells from Warlock. So really, Blizzard don't give a fuck about expense of any class.
    Coil was a DK spell in WCII (and III) and meta is the DH Ult in WCIII. If anything it was the lock designers taking from spell books of not yet implemented classes, not new classes taking from old classes.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  15. #715
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Seems kind of extreme to me, but okay.
    You mean the Lich King is nothing without Frostmourne?
    Because gameplay-wise, there are abilities that don't require a weapon to be equipped in order to cast them.
    The Lich King was the Lich King. Not every DK has their own Helm of Domination that allows them an alternative form of power.

    I am aware of it. But, again, there are also Witch Doctors listed under Shaman and Priest. It doesn't mean they are ones, it means that there is nowhere else to associate them with, yet.
    That's where you're incorrect.

    You assume that a class or title can only be exclusive to one thing. That is not true.

    A Paladin is a Paladin, but it is also a Priest, and a type of Warrior. It is a Crusader, and a Vindicator, and a Knight. These are all synonyms because a Paladin is an archetype, and not a singular entity. A Paladin is all of these things.

    We only disassociate the Paladin from being a Priest or Warrior only because Blizzard has defined them as a Playable Class, which uniquely separates from any other Playable Class. That is purely a gameplay definition. Lorewise, Paladins are still types of Warriors and are no different if a Warrior decided to learn Light magic one day. Lore doesn't make distinctions like this.

    In the lore, Witchdoctors are not separate from Priests, Shamans and Necromancers. They ARE Priests, Shamans and Necromancers, all together. They simply do not have actual Gameplay defining them as their own Playable class, and that is the only difference.

    Probably the same happened with Demon Hunters and Death Knights before their addition.
    Flesh-shaping might be a Mogu type of necromancy, but trolls using the Voodoo would make them into Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters - a separate entity.
    As for Orc void users, you can see how most of the Shadowmoon clan uses Void magic, similar to a shadow priest, and that is probably the reason why the Priest class was added to them.
    Necrolytes are, indeed, a type of a Necromancer. As for their use of the Void, it is very ambiguous, since they don't seem to use it in all cases. That's why they are said to overlap with Warlocks, as well, for some reason (but, not with a Death Knight, for some reason).
    Again, based on lore, these are ALL types of Necromancers.

    Yet if you look in that page, guess what it doesn't associate with Necromancers? The Death Knight class.

    My point here is to illustrate the broad range of what class lore encompasses. I'm not demanding them to be playable, and they are no solution to making the game better. I'm discussing purely on the basis that you're equating s connection between Death Knights and Necromancers as possibly being or doing exactly the same thing, when the lore is unambiguous about the differences.

    As long as we agree they are different and regard the Necro being able to be its own class, there is not much left to debate. Again, I am not interested in pushing for this to be made, I'm simply debunking your insistence that a connection between the two somehow negates the other from being considered as a class, or that it somehow infringes on the exact themes of a DK. My argument is that we have enough examples in the lore to expand Necromancers in very different directions than just being 'Cloth Death Knights'.

    And as for your personal values of 'expense of other classes', then fear not because Blizzard isn't going to remove the DK from the game just by adding a Necromancer. They can coexist just as Paladins and Priests do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  16. #716
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The Lich King was the Lich King. Not every DK has their own Helm of Domination that allows them an alternative form of power.
    They were a set, but okay.

    That's where you're incorrect.

    You assume that a class or title can only be exclusive to one thing. That is not true.

    A Paladin is a Paladin, but it is also a Priest, and a type of Warrior. It is a Crusader, and a Vindicator, and a Knight. These are all synonyms because a Paladin is an archetype, and not a singular entity. A Paladin is all of these things.

    We only disassociate the Paladin from being a Priest or Warrior only because Blizzard has defined them as a Playable Class, which uniquely separates from any other Playable Class. That is purely a gameplay definition. Lorewise, Paladins are still types of Warriors and are no different if a Warrior decided to learn Light magic one day. Lore doesn't make distinctions like this.
    A Paladin is not a Priest, but a mix of a Priest and a Warrior. What i'm trying to say is that they have evolved beyond the Priest class. That's why none of the races have lore pertaining to them being Priests that are just called Paladins.

    In the lore, Witchdoctors are not separate from Priests, Shamans and Necromancers. They ARE Priests, Shamans and Necromancers, all together. They simply do not have actual Gameplay defining them as their own Playable class, and that is the only difference.
    True. But so does every class before its addition. Death Knights were represented through the Warrior and Warlock classes. Demon Hunters through the Warlock and Rogue.
    A Troll Necromancer would indeed be a voodoo one in lore. But, it would definitely not be part of the class itself.

    Again, based on lore, these are ALL types of Necromancers.

    Yet if you look in that page, guess what it doesn't associate with Necromancers? The Death Knight class.

    My point here is to illustrate the broad range of what class lore encompasses. I'm not demanding them to be playable, and they are no solution to making the game better. I'm discussing purely on the basis that you're equating s connection between Death Knights and Necromancers as possibly being or doing exactly the same thing, when the lore is unambiguous about the differences.

    As long as we agree they are different and regard the Necro being able to be its own class, there is not much left to debate. Again, I am not interested in pushing for this to be made, I'm simply debunking your insistence that a connection between the two somehow negates the other from being considered as a class, or that it somehow infringes on the exact themes of a DK. My argument is that we have enough examples in the lore to expand Necromancers in very different directions than just being 'Cloth Death Knights'.
    Let's take a look at the Witch Doctor and Shadow Hunter, both Voodoo and Loa classes but with different weapons, shall we?

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Shadow_hunter#Notable

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Witch_doctor#Known

    They are listed differently. Does that mean that they both deserve their own class?

    And as for your personal values of 'expense of other classes', then fear not because Blizzard isn't going to remove the DK from the game just by adding a Necromancer. They can coexist just as Paladins and Priests do.
    Not what i meant.
    What i meant was the Necromancer taking the spot of another class addition.
    I'm tempted to apply for a moderator position, just so i can go moderator on your asses.

  17. #717
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    They have evolved beyond the Priest class. That's why none of the races have lore pertaining to them being Priests that are just called Paladins.
    Not sure what your point is.

    Sunwalkers technically never get called Paladins either. Seriously.

    Same with Haruspex never being called Druids.

    And Gnome Surgeons are never called Priests, it's always the other way around.

    Gameplaywise, they are all the same class despite s different title and specific cultural identity.

    Witchdoctor is not a formal class. It is simply a title and cultural identity. It can be abstracted to fit a Priest, Shaman or Necromancer class all the same, because Witchdoctors ARE all of them in some capacity.

    A Troll Necromancer would indeed be a voodoo one in lore. But, it would definitely not be part of the class itself.
    Not in gameplay, but in lore.

    And lore is what I've illustrated as being the key difference here. If a Troll Necromancer is using Voodoo, as we commonly understand their culture, then Troll Necromancers aren't tapping into Maldraxxus Necromancy like a Troll Death Knight would. That is a key point in difference in lore and identity

    Let's take a look at the Witch Doctor and Shadow Hunter, both Voodoo and Loa classes but with different weapons, shall we?

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Shadow_hunter#Notable

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Witch_doctor#Known

    They are listed differently. Does that mean that they both deserve their own class?
    You are muddling arguments again, and I don't want to get looped in you misunderstanding my position, so I will clarify again.

    I believe all classes are possible, therefore there can be cases made for a separate Necromancer class as there would be to a separate Witchdoctor class AND a separate Shadow Hunter class. My belief is in possibilities.

    If you are asking whether anything deserves to be made, then you're assuming that my arguments of a Necromancer points to then _deserving_ to be a class, and that is far from my point. No class deserves to be playable more than any other. Period.

    If you want to know what I think the game deserves I'd tell you the game doesn't need any classes at all. I think Blizzard should make Classic Plus and add new classes to that instead. Classic WoW was built to support way more class options than modern WoW. 1-Role per Class is the best design they could have for allowing more classes to exist. It allowed classes to have racials. It had Faction-specific classes. It had room for Support roles and buffers, and dead weight that simply had to stand with the group to soak up Cleave damage. That is the game that is built for adding multiple new classes. Not Modern WoW.

    Not what i meant.
    What i meant was the Necromancer taking the spot of another class addition.
    Someone's gotta take a spot at some point. Would you rather it be a Murloc class?
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  18. #718
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Someone's gotta take a spot at some point. Would you rather it be a Murloc class?
    Wouldn't the spot be better taken by a class whose themes are currently absent from the class lineup? With so many complaining about class homogeneity a class that is very similar thematically and gameplay-wise to existing classes could exacerbate those feelings.

  19. #719
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    They can coexist just as Paladins and Priests do.
    QFT! Play nicer friends xD

  20. #720
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Would you separate between a Witch Doctor and a Shadow Hunter because one uses a staff and the other a glaive?
    I cannot answer that because I never cared about Shadow Hunters enough to see past the 'wields a glaive' thing.

    They already did with Maldraxxus. And the themes stayed the same.
    Two answers:
    • "So you're saying a concept can only be expanded once and then never again?"
    Necromancy was expanded in Shadowlands, not the concept of necromancers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    By the metric that implementing a Necromancer would require Blizzard to navigate both the Death Knight and Warlock classes while still having to create a class that satisfies players.
    No, it doesn't. I honestly don't know why you insist in that debunked line of thought when others have explained to you many times already.

    That's like saying the tinker would have to 'navigate both the warlock and hunter' when it comes to its robot-summoning gameplay, and 'navigate around the druid' when it comes to its "shapeshifting" (i.e. mech riding) gameplay.

    That's quite a bit more difficult than creating a class that has zero ties with existing classes. The design space is simply far more open in the latter case.
    No. No, it's not. Gameplay is independent of themes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

Posting Permissions

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