WoW Necromancer Hero Class

[Triceron]

What about it?
It was integrated into the Death Knight.

Frost DK spec plays nothing like a Lich though. Nothing about the Lich is represented there. DK doesn't even have their iconic spells. All they have is Death and Decay, and it's a an AoE Tanking ability like Consecration. Death and Decay in the RTS games were a powerful AoE that would even damage the caster if they stood in it, completely opposite to how DK's use it.

Does a DK use rituals and cast spells? Nope. It fights with Dual Wielding in melee, or dropping AoE's where they stand while they tank. I mean even the Frost Mage has more to do with a Lich than a DK does. That's why it even got a Skeletal Form in Covenants.

I mean look a Kel'thuzad's gameplay as a Lich in Warcraft 3 or Heroes of the Storm. None of this is covered by Death Knight. DK's cover Arthas, not Kel'thuzad.

Okay, and...
Ranged can also be PotM, Dark Ranger, Shadow Hunter, Tinker and Alchemist.
I don't think tanking is mandatory, but a consequence. When Death Knight was added all of its specs were tanking, but none were dedicated.

So you're saying a pattern doesn't have to be followed? That patterns aren't mandatory?

Then I rest my case. WC3 units can be used as new Classes too, as well as Spellcasters and Ranged.

Necromancer is fine where it is if none of these patterns are mandatory.

They made her into a melee glaive fighter. the Lunar beams were never there and so does the launching into the air.

Sure, but why is that necessary as a class? As someone who is arguing what classes deserve to be made, everything you're listing here is just a regurgitation of gameplay found in different classes mixed into one. There's nothing new there. And frankly, a 'Night Warrior' doesn't even have any gameplay to call its own.

And Lunar Beams exist in Balance Druid, have you never seen Moonfire before?

Launching in the air exists with Demon Hunter in various forms, including the Hunt. But if you're specifically talking about Tyrande's specific method? Well it's so OP that a player wouldn't get that anyways, just like Sylvanas' Banshee abilities instant-killing people or Anduin's ability to mass-res allies in combat. Tyrande can do that because she was pushing her Night Warrior powers to the point where she would have died if Elune didn't back off.

I don't see how this deserves to be a class at all.

WC1 Cleric, i believe.

Alonsus Faol was an ArchBishop, and not playable at all. He was not a WC1 Cleric, so you're wrong. There were no hero or named Clerics in WC1.

[username993720]

Frost DK spec plays nothing like a Lich though. Nothing about the Lich is represented there. DK doesn't even have their iconic spells. All they have is Death and Decay, and it's a an AoE Tanking ability like Consecration. Death and Decay in the RTS games were a powerful AoE that would even damage the caster if they stood in it, completely opposite to how DK's use it.

Does a DK use rituals and cast spells? Nope. It fights with Dual Wielding in melee, or dropping AoE's where they stand while they tank. I mean even the Frost Mage has more to do with a Lich than a DK does. That's why it even got a Skeletal Form in Covenants.

I mean look a Kel'thuzad's gameplay as a Lich in Warcraft 3 or Heroes of the Storm. None of this is covered by Death Knight. DK's cover Arthas, not Kel'thuzad.

Then, where does Frost come from?
It does have some Death Knight abilities referenced in its HotS talents, like Hungering Cold and Deathchill.
You can't really expect a Lich class, since it is a race (and an unplayable one at that).

So you're saying a pattern doesn't have to be followed? That patterns aren't mandatory?

Then I rest my case. WC3 units can be used as new Classes too, as well as Spellcasters and Ranged.

Necromancer is fine where it is if none of these patterns are mandatory.

Addition pattern.
I don't know how you got to tanking specs.

Sure, but why is that necessary as a class? As someone who is arguing what classes deserve to be made, everything you're listing here is just a regurgitation of gameplay found in different classes mixed into one. There's nothing new there. And frankly, a 'Night Warrior' doesn't even have any gameplay to call its own.

And Lunar Beams exist in Balance Druid, have you never seen Moonfire before?

Launching in the air exists with Demon Hunter in various forms, including the Hunt. But if you're specifically talking about Tyrande's specific method? Well it's so OP that a player wouldn't get that anyways, just like Sylvanas' Banshee abilities instant-killing people or Anduin's ability to mass-res allies in combat. Tyrande can do that because she was pushing her Night Warrior powers to the point where she would have died if Elune didn't back off.

I don't see how this deserves to be a class at all.

It doesn't deserve a class because i want it.
It deserves because it's on the WC3 Hero unit pool that is yet to be part of a playable class.

Alonsus Faol was an ArchBishop, and not playable at all. He was not a WC1 Cleric, so you're wrong. There were no hero or named Clerics in WC1.

Sorry, archbishop in the second war.

[Triceron]

Then, where does Frost come from?
It does have some Death Knight abilities referenced in its HotS talents, like Hungering Cold and Deathchill.
You can't really expect a Lich class, since it is a race (and an unplayable one at that).

It comes directly from Arthas having a famous Mournblade called Frostmourne. Arthas in HOTS is completely themed on Frost. Howling Blast, Frozen Tempest, Frostmourne Hungers - all of these are new abilities dedicated to a Death Knight. Hungering Cold and Deathchill? These are also Death Knight abilities, as a Lich never had either of these.

If we're talking about a Lich adapted as a playable class? Then it would be through the Necromancer, which represents the Death-themed Spellcaster archetype. Same as Brewmaster being a part of a much broader 'Monk' archetype. Same as a Keeper of the Grove being part of the Druid, and Farseer being part of the Shaman. We don't have Keeper of the Grove class, we don't have Farseer class either.

Addition pattern.
I don't know how you got to tanking specs.

Addition pattern

Death Knight is a Melee hero
Monk is a Melee hero
DH is a Melee hero.

So if we're following patterns, so will be the next class.

Guess it could be Tinker or Blademaster then?

It doesn't deserve a class because i want it.
It deserves because it's on the WC3 Hero unit pool that is yet to be part of a playable class.

So is Lich, and it's not yet represented by any class.

Again, tell me how DK actually lets you play as a Lich? It's the same argument you've used for Priestess of the Moon not being covered by other classes. Lich isn't represented by either Mage or Death Knight. Mages don't use necromancy, DK's don't cast spells. Yet the one class that could represent it? The Necromancer. Why? Because Liches ARE Necromancers.

Sorry, archbishop in the second war.

Again, he's not a Priest Hero in Warcraft 3. I'm asking you what Warcraft 3 Hero is the Priest based on.

Brewmaster = Monk
Pitlord = Warlock
Farseer = Shaman
Archmage = Mage
Keeper of the Grove = Druid
??? = Priest

So what hero are we talking about here, since you implied a pattern of Classes representing WC3 Heroes.

[jellmoo]

I agree with the first two, but not with the third.
Alchemy can already be seen as part of the Maldraxxus/Scourge Necromancer.
Voodoo is extremely unrelated and should be reserved to its own class.

We had an expansion where we got to play with the Loa of death and then see how it rolled over into the realm of the dead. I don't think it's unrelated at all. At the very least, it's no more unrelated than the concept of the Light and the Void existing within the confines of the Priest class.

Could the idea of Voodoo be wrapped into its own class? Sure, that would be awesome. I'd love that. But I don't think it's the only way to present that. We already have the example of Shadow Priests to see how an entire idea can be built into only a single spec.

And there are Shadra, Hir'eek, Krag'wa, Gonk and others which your necromancer doesn't account for.

Okay. So what? It's okay for something not to include the entirety of everything.

[Ielenia]

Of course there is.
That's like saying Sunwalkers rank above Paladin of the Silver Hand in terms of representation of the class.

Apples and oranges. The Sunwalkers, despite being represented in game by the paladin class, are not paladins in the lore sense. They have nothing to do with the Knights of the Silver Hand or the Blood Knights. In the lore, Sunwalkers are not called "paladins who worship the sun".

That's what the reference shows. Go search it up.

What reference?

-_-

That's common sense.

Since you're apparently playing dumb:

I'll repeat, again: "it's obvious" and its cousin "it's common sense" are not strong arguments to make.

Necromancy is primarily death magic, not void, not voodoo, not fel, not light. The other ones, like the Burning Legion for example, probably took this kind of power from Maldraxxus itself and incorporated it into their magic. Like how Light was unable to do so until recently ("the light has made a bargain with the enemy of all").

Source? And I'll even pre-emptively put the caveat here: no "obvious/common sense" nonsense, please.

*Facepalm*

Are you serious right now?
Elemental magic comes from the elemental planes while fel magic comes from the twisting nether. How are you saying they all come from the same place?!

I specifically wrote "they're all doing the same thing". Meaning it doesn't matter their origins, what matters is what they're doing, if their effects are the same. Fire magic is fire magic, no matter if it's arcane, elemental or fel, because it's fire.

Oh, so just the ones you want? how convenient...

Dude, stop being dumb try to argue honestly. At no point I said "only the ones I want". This is you putting words into my proverbial mouth, here.

To differentiate it from Mage's frost magic.

A difference that, so far, exists only in your mind. Show me the source link.

Oh, so it's just a cool name?
Weird how the Lich King has many frost abilities under his command...

Really? Then show me the Lich King displaying those "many frost abilities" before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion came along. You know, the expansion that merged the lich to the death knight.

They're no longer demons. Have you been paying attention to the lore recently?

They are still demons. And they were demons back in Warcraft 3. And were still considered demons when the Wrath expansion came along.

Because it doesn't belong there.

Except, again, it does, because voodoo magic can raise the dead, and can affect one's soul.

He's called so because he masters their powers.

Powers he never demonstrated or even hinted at having until the Wrath of the Lich King expansion came along. Not even in Warcraft 3.

So is blatantly being blind to logic.

Did you know it was "logical" to burn women if they're accused of being witches back in the old days? "It's logical" is another fallacious argument to make, because your own view of logic is heavily influenced on your own biases and knowledge (or lack thereof).

Mages can use lightning, as well (Medivh).

Who else? Show me a normal mage, not one who is super-powered and not a representative of your average mage.

The problem with incorporating the Witch Doctor into the Necromancer is that it is more than just Death magic. There are other Loas, as well, which add a lot to its diversity. It can heal and damage with its spirit powers. Meanwhile, your necromancer is all Death (Zzzz....).

And necromances could be given a healing spec through the use of blood magic, which would fit a witch doctor theme.

Yes, we do. Because it had to encompass so many different archetypes.

Except it doesn't? It represents more than one creed, but archetype? It's just one: the priest. Which is why all those creeds are within the same class.

Again, choosing what you want. Is fel not gonna be a part too?

Again: I'm not choosing anything. I'm just saying there's a lot of possible options, and not all options have to be represented at the same time.

No shit. So are Sun and Light beliefs. Yet, you called it all Holy spells.

"Void", "death" and "Fel" magic are all defined and separated in the lore. There is "sun magic" in the lore of this game. It's not defined. When it is, you'll have a point.

- - - Updated - - -

You have been arguing about WC3 heroes that need to be represented. So where is the Priest hero of WC3? The closest character is literally Tyrande Whisperwind.

We're also missing a rogue hero in WC3. And a warlock hero.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to follow along with the conversation a bit, I think it would be kind of cool to have a Necromancer class that wrapped together the different... 'types' I guess is the word... of Necromancy to make something fun.

So if we had something with specs like:

1) Scourge - Traditional idea of a Scourge-esque Necromancer. Make this guy minion heavy.

2) Alchemical - Royal Apothecary Society type guy. Oozes and elixirs and all sorts of vile concoctions. Possibly a healing spec/

3) Voodoo - Tie this in with Bwonsamdi. Give it panache and flavour. Hexes and curses with some more mischievous undead minions.

We already have the Priest class that self contains some very antithetical components, so the precedent is absolutely there. Having a class that can string together different themes that are intertwined would be a fun wasy to introduce a class that would otherwise be just another example of 'dark and gritty'. This could also bring in the archetypes of the mad scientist, the Haitian Voodoo Priest along with the traditional "muhaha, I'm an evil zombie master, muhaha" Necromancer.

Sounds good. I would use blood magic instead of #3, personally. Blood is more directly involved with necromancy, IMO, thanks to the blood troll necromancers in Nazmir.

[jellmoo]

Sounds good. I would use blood magic instead of #3, personally. Blood is more directly involved with necromancy, IMO, thanks to the blood troll necromancers in Nazmir.

Personally I think I would blend the two within the spec. I was super taken by the style of Bwonsamdi, so I'd like to have that be a playable element. I'd simply condense his influence as well as blood magic into a vaguer "Voodoo" and run with that.

[TheRevenantHero]

How would a necromancer be anything, but what a warlock and DK already are? I don't see any world where necromancer is the next class, or ever a class tbh since it's essentially already in the game (twice over).

I think, as much as I hate to admit this, that 'tinkerer' has the best shot at being the new class, if there is to be one.

How is tinker anything different than a class version of engineer?

[Puxycat]

Necromancer Hero Class is the one of the two big cards they can play now on. Player housing after that.

[OokOok]

Dumb thread #199454488333

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Let's look at why it's dumb, pay attention sheep.

1 - people cried when Demon hunter took abilities from warlock, people are still crying.

2 - See above, Necromancer is LITERALLY what a Dark knight and warlock is.

3- People's concept of necromancer is involved in using skeleton/undead pets like in Diablo 2. Blizzard hates pet classes so... it'd be more like a DK where every couple min it can summon skeleton/undead on a cd.......JUST LIKE DK... dur.. why do we need a necro?

4 - Blizzard can't even balance the classes they have

5 - this would just end in player crying like everything else

6 - Nothing will save WoW, not even "necromancer" or housing, idiots.

[Ielenia]

Dumb thread #199454488333

And this is "dumb post #916". Coincidentally, they all seem to belong to the same poster, but I digress.

See above, Necromancer is LITERALLY what a Dark knight and warlock is.

And a priest is "LITERALLY what a paladin and a warlock is". That's how nonsensical the argument is.

Blizzard hates pet classes so...

Yeah... hates so much that we have three of them?

this would just end in player crying like everything else

Regardless of what Blizzard does or does not do, someone will cry, so this statement is irrelevant.

[Triceron]

How is tinker anything different than a class version of engineer?

As if engineering (or professions for that matter) have been relevant for the past decade....

[TheRevenantHero]

As if engineering (or professions for that matter) have been relevant for the past decade....

Which is more of a reason not to introduce tinker. Seemingly nobody cares about the artificer style gameplay.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I hate the idea as well and agree with you, but I daresay Blizz might have laid the groundwork for tinkerers with mechagon in case they decide to go ahead and make it a new class.

I mean there aren't a lot of options anymore really to be honest. You could make your same argument with most of the new 'class ideas' really that they are already tied in-game somehow, but that didn't stop Blizz from taking from demo locks for Demon Hunters, so it's not outside the realm of possibilities that they rework Engineering somehow in order to make room for a Tinkerer class, should they go that route.

I think any new class at this point is going to demand changes be retromodded to something in-game in order for that new class to come in.

I'd like to see Dragonsworn from the TTRPG before tinker.

[Triceron]

Which is more of a reason not to introduce tinker. Seemingly nobody cares about the artificer style gameplay.

No one cares about Gnomes either, maybe they should just remove the race too?

[TheRevenantHero]

No one cares about Gnomes either, maybe they should just remove the race too?

Not gonna lie, if I had it my way, I'd remove them so I'm the wrong person to ask.

[Teriz]

Oh I hate the idea as well and agree with you, but I daresay Blizz might have laid the groundwork for tinkerers with mechagon in case they decide to go ahead and make it a new class.

I mean there aren't a lot of options anymore really to be honest. You could make your same argument with most of the new 'class ideas' really that they are already tied in-game somehow, but that didn't stop Blizz from taking from demo locks for Demon Hunters, so it's not outside the realm of possibilities that they rework Engineering somehow in order to make room for a Tinkerer class, should they go that route.

I think any new class at this point is going to demand changes be retromodded to something in-game in order for that new class to come in.

The simple reality is that you don't need to rework a profession to make room for a class. The two never intersect with each other on any level, and you can be a class and a profession at the same time. In fact, a new class tends to benefit the existing professions because it gives them a new customer base to craft items for. If the profession shares the theme of the new class, all the better.

The issue with class overlap is that the existing class and the potential class compete for purpose and position, and if they're doing fundamentally the same thing then you have class homogeneity that no one wants.

[Teriz]

If you don't see similarities between all the dead gadgets engineers can make and a tinkerer, well I just don't know what to tell ya

Okay, but why would a minimal similarity between an item and an ability have an adverse effect on a profession? For example, Rogues and Monks don't adversely effect Alchemy despite those classes being able to produce potions that they can trade with other players. Mages have never effected the Cooking profession despite being able to create food to sell to other players.

Profession items serve a completely different purpose than class abilities, even if they share a similar theme. They don't compete with one another. Compounded on this is the fact that Mages can take up cooking, and Rogues and Monks can take up Alchemy.

[Ielenia]

The simple reality is that you don't need to rework a profession to make room for a class. The two never intersect with each other on any level, and you can be a class and a profession at the same time.

Do you have no problem in having two concepts that, while gameplay-wise are different, in the lore they're the exact same thing?

Do you have no problem in having a class that specializes in creating mechs, robots, guns, bombs, rockets, teleporters, etc... but does not know how to create mechs, robots, guns, bombs, rockets, teleporters, etc?

Think about it: how can a tinker be a tech class, if it doesn't know technology, i.e., the engineering profession? It makes absolutely zero sense from a lore perspective. Should tinker players be forced to have one of their two profession choices be locked to engineering? Or what?

[Teriz]

Do you have no problem in having two concepts that, while gameplay-wise are different, in the lore they're the exact same thing?

Do you have no problem in having a class that specializes in creating mechs, robots, guns, bombs, rockets, teleporters, etc... but does not know how to create mechs, robots, guns, bombs, rockets, teleporters, etc?

If a concept is a class and another concept is a profession, then they wouldn't be the exact same thing in lore, and obviously the class concept wouldn't need knowledge of the profession in order to function.

Think about it: how can a tinker be a tech class, if it doesn't know technology, i.e., the engineering profession? It makes absolutely zero sense from a lore perspective. Should tinker players be forced to have one of their two profession choices be locked to engineering? Or what?

The same way Rogues can create Crimson Vials and Monks can create Elixirs without the Alchemy profession, Hunters could create Grenades, Bombs, and Nets without Engineering and Tailoring, and Monks can create Brews and Teas without the Cooking profession.

[Ielenia]

If a concept is a class and another concept is a profession, then they wouldn't be the exact same thing in lore, and obviously the class concept wouldn't need knowledge of the profession in order to function.

Yes. Yes, they would. And it's demonstrated right now in the game: we have adventuring tinkers and vendor tinkers, as well as adventuring engineers and vendor engineers.

Not to mention: both tinkers and engineers "create mechs, guns, bombs, rockets, teleporters, etc...".

The same way Rogues can create Crimson Vials and Monks can create Elixirs without the Alchemy profession, Hunters could create Grenades, Bombs, and Nets without Engineering and Tailoring, and Monks can create Brews and Teas without the Cooking profession.

Not the same thing. The rogue class is not fundamentally based around the creation of "crimson vials", the monk class is not fundamentally based around the creation of "elixirs", the hunter class is not fundamentally based around the creation of "grenades, bombs and nets" like the tinker class is fundamentally based around the creation of technology gadgets.

The core of the tinker concept, unlike your examples, is wholly centered around technology. You can know a little bit about a "profession" without delving deeply into the full thing. The overlap is rather minimal between your example classes and your example professions. One is not dependent on the other to be able to exist. Whereas tinkers, without the full knowledge about engineering, about how to build and use mechs, rockets, and other technology gadgets, simply cannot exist.

Remove "crimson vials" from rogues, "elixirs" from monks and "grenades, bombs and nets" from hunters and what do we get? We still have rogues, monks and hunters. Remove "technology" from tinkers... what do we get?

[Teriz]

Yes. Yes, they would. And it's demonstrated right now in the game: we have adventuring tinkers and vendor tinkers, as well as adventuring engineers and vendor engineers.

Not to mention: both tinkers and engineers "create mechs, guns, bombs, rockets, teleporters, etc...".

But that is just semantics. This is like saying the Daralan Brewmaster, Brewmaster Drohn, and the Brewmaster title you get when you complete Brewfest are the exact same thing as the Brewmaster spec within the Monk class.

Not the same thing. The rogue class is not fundamentally based around the creation of "crimson vials", the monk class is not fundamentally based around the creation of "elixirs", the hunter class is not fundamentally based around the creation of "grenades, bombs and nets" like the tinker class is fundamentally based around the creation of technology gadgets.

Degree doesn't matter. Your argument is that if you don't know the profession you can't perform the skill. Rogues don't know the alchemy profession by default so per your argument they should not be able to produce Crimson Vials and hand them off to other players at all unless they spec into the profession. That simply is not the case.