WoW Necromancer Hero Class

[username993720]

Warlocks still have quests involving learning from Demon Hunters. Green Fire still has a direct tie to Metamorphosis in the lore. That doesn't make them Demon Hunters.

Hell, the lore for Warlocks is being a former Mage or Shaman who delved in the dark arts with Fel magic and demon summoning. Let's not pretend Warlocks are all multi-classing as Mages, Necrolytes, Demon Hunters and Shamans.

I'd say they have Death themes for certain.

No one said the Necromancer is not associated with Void. Necrolytes are Necromancers that use the power of the Void. It's literally stated in the WoWpedia page.

A Necromancer in the lore is someone who seeks to perfect the secrets of undeath, and there's no limit to what form of magic (or science) to do so. This is why Alchemy, Void, Blood Magic and even dark spiritualism (Voodoo) would be sufficient themes for a Necromancer. It's like how Paladins channel the Light differently, different races could tap into Necromancy in different ways.

That's where i disagree. Voodoo would not be part of the Necromancer, but part of the Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter.

Shadowlands has even expanded on the various subthemes of Death-based magic.

It's all still maldraxxi death-themed, not different cultures.

I pointed at the existence of Melee variants of the WC1 spellcasters existing as playable classes in WoW. I even explained how the pattern was not fool-proof, so I'm not sure why you jumped to the conclusion that we 'need' melee representation. I was merely making a point that we have multiple classes that use Fel, Holy and Elemental magic. There's no reason to exclude Necromancy from that.

There's no particular reason to include necromancy either, since there are other magic types unaccounted for.

And I didn't make any case to exclude Nature at all. I pointed out that it doesn't exist in the RTS and the closest comparison would be the Druids of the Claw, since there is no formal 'Green Knight' archetype in the game, nor does the game necessitate it being created to fill the niche. All the while, a Spellcaster who uses Necromancy is well defined since WC1, and carries the theme with far more breadth than just applying it all to the Death Knight, which is solely a Runeblade-using plated warrior.

The Death Knight is merely a plate-wearing, Runeblade-wielding Warrior? heck, then there was no reason to add it at all. -_-

[Triceron]

That's where i disagree. Voodoo would not be part of the Necromancer, but part of the Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter.

My point is that Trolls use Voodoo as their source of Necromancy; and we already know of this in the lore through their connection with Bwonsamedi or Mueh'zala. Zanzil tapped into Necromancy (raised skeletons and ghouls) through the use of Voodoo. That is their cultural way of using Necromancy, just as it is also their cultural way of tapping into other sources of magic like Shapeshifting (Druids) and Spiritual magic (Shamans and Priests).

It's all still maldraxxi death-themed, not different cultures.

All of the Shadowlands themes encompass Death-based magic. Maldraxxi particularly focuses on the Unholy aspect of it, but Death magic is much more broadly applicable than just another name for Unholy magic. Necromancers in WoW are well beyond just tapping into Unholy, and I've pointed out examples like the Blood Trolls, the Royal Apothecaries and Alchemists, and the Void-users like Ner'zhul and the Dreanai.

There's no particular reason to include necromancy either, since there are other magic types unaccounted for.

I mean, you could apply this to any theme in the game to exclude all classes.

Is there a particular reason to have a new class in the game? Your logic would just as easily dismiss any class other than Bards or Dragons since literally all other types are accounted for either by Classes or Professions. In fact, it's a very common response from Teriz.

The Death Knight is merely a plate-wearing, Runeblade-wielding Warrior? heck, then there was no reason to add it at all. -_-

Why do you assume I'm diminishing its value to the game simply by explaining what the archetype is and how it differs from a spellcaster?

The Paladin is just an armored Priest who learns to fight in martial combat. I can say this confidently without diminishing its value to the game as its own class. That is the archetype it fits, and it differs from being a Priest literally by wearing Armor. Otherwise the Priest and Paladin share 90% of the same lore and origins.

[Semyaz]

You obviously havent played GW2 Mesmer...not even close

[username993720]

My point is that Trolls use Voodoo as their source of Necromancy; and we already know of this in the lore through their connection with Bwonsamedi or Mueh'zala. Zanzil tapped into Necromancy (raised skeletons and ghouls) through the use of Voodoo. That is their cultural way of using Necromancy, just as it is also their cultural way of tapping into other sources of magic like Shapeshifting (Druids) and Spiritual magic (Shamans and Priests).

So, that would make them able to be ones.
Just don't suggest them stealing abilities from the Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter.

All of the Shadowlands themes encompass Death-based magic. Maldraxxi particularly focuses on the Unholy aspect of it, but Death magic is much more broadly applicable than just another name for Unholy magic.

Are you suggesting they start using Ardenweald and Bastion magic?

Necromancers in WoW are well beyond just tapping into Unholy, and I've pointed out examples like the Blood Trolls, the Royal Apothecaries and Alchemists, and the Void-users like Ner'zhul and the Dreanai.

Blood Trolls draw their power from G'huun and Void users from the the Dark Star, i guess. I'm not saying it isn't Necromancy, but it doesn't necessarily make them into Necromancers, per-se. Blood Trolls i would consider more like Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters and Void users more like Shadow Priests. Yes, we can't do what they do, but it is still distinct from your ordinary necromancer. And, before you say Sunwalkers and Prelates, currently, they are merely titles. No representation in the abilities whatsoever.

As for Apothecaries, i agree, since they are alchemists devoted to the aspect of death (who can be found in Maldraxxus).

I mean, you could apply this to any theme in the game to exclude all classes.

Is there a particular reason to have a new class in the game? Your logic would just as easily dismiss any class other than Bards or Dragons since literally all other types are accounted for either by Classes or Professions. In fact, it's a very common response from Teriz.

I didn't mean it that way.
There's no particular reason for the Necromancer to be more important than other unaccounted archetypes.

Why do you assume I'm diminishing its value to the game simply by explaining what the archetype is and how it differs from a spellcaster?

The Paladin is just an armored Priest who learns to fight in martial combat. I can say this confidently without diminishing its value to the game as its own class. That is the archetype it fits, and it differs from being a Priest literally by wearing Armor. Otherwise the Priest and Paladin share 90% of the same lore and origins.

Why? because you didn't even mention its death, frost and blood themes, all magical aspects. That's how you belittle it.

[Triceron]

So, that would make them able to be ones.
Just don't suggest them stealing abilities from the Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter.

Are you suggesting they start using Ardenweald and Bastion magic?

I'm saying lore-wise, the Necromancers are much more broadly scoped than Death Knights.

Death Knight is a VERY specific class. You are a former champion of the Lich King, gifted with a magical Runeblade that you derive your power from. The entire theme os based on being former Scourge, and using that singular theme of Lich-king gifted Death magic.

Necromancer is more flexible because its not ONLY thematic to one source of magic. There are examples of Necromancers of many types of races, of many different methods. The archetype is culturally diverse. Cult of the Damned is just one type of Necromancer. We have seen Necromancers of many races that are not part of the Cult of the Damned, races that use their own forms of magic to be Necromancers. The big boss at the end of Exiles Reach is even an Ogre Necromancer.

So Necromancers may use similar powers and themes to a DK, but lore-wise they are much more open to exploring different types of Necromancy. They're not exclusively using the Scourge-style Death magic.

Blood Trolls draw their power from G'huun and Void users from the the Dark Star, i guess. I'm not saying it isn't Necromancy, but it doesn't necessarily make them into Necromancers, per-se. Blood Trolls i would consider more like Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters and Void users more like Shadow Priests. Yes, we can't do what they do, but it is still distinct from your ordinary necromancer. And, before you say Sunwalkers and Prelates, currently, they are merely titles. No representation in the abilities whatsoever.

I'm not talking about representation of abilities though. I'm talking about how they are different to DK's in the lore, in their use of 'Unholy, Frost and Blood' magic. A Necromancer is a Spellcaster (of various races and cultures) who seek to master the art of Death Magic. And as an abstraction, this applies to different cultural titles such as Witchdoctors and Soulpriests and Apothecaries in the same way as the various racial Paladin titles apply.

This is why Necromancers, as a Death-themed Spellcaster, has a lot of difference from simply the Unholy themed DK. Every playable DK is a member of the Ebon Blade. Not every Troll or Draenei or Orc is part of the Cult of the Damned. They already have their own cultural history with Necromancy, in various forms beyond the Scourge brand of Unholy magic.

I'm not implying we need specific Witchdoctor or Apothecary abilities being represented in the Necromancer game mechanics.

Why? because you didn't even mention its death, frost and blood themes, all magical aspects. That's how you belittle it.

It wasn't intended to belittle, it was intended to emphasize the differences to a Spellcaster archetype.

Exactly by my example above with comparing the Paladin archetype without even one mention of Holy Light, Faith or Justice. I wasn't belittling the concept, I was merely emphasizing the differences to a Spellcaster archetype.

Even if the DK masters Death, Frost and Blood themes, they do so exclusively through Runes. They do not cast spells or use rituals or use voodoo or alchemy to further their art. Archetypically it's the difference between a Marksman and an Engineer; an Engineer builds and creates weapons, and can modify or invent new creations that further the art of warfare. A Marksman masters the use of those weapons, but doesn't actually design them. Death Knights are Marksmen, Necromancers are the Engineers, and Necromancy are the various types of Weapons at their disposal. Neither one is better than the other at the use of Weapons, they simply use and apply their knowledge and craft with different effect.

[username993720]

I'm saying lore-wise, the Necromancers are much more broadly scoped than Death Knights.

Death Knight is a VERY specific class. You are a former champion of the Lich King, gifted with a magical Runeblade that you derive your power from. The entire theme os based on being former Scourge, and using that singular theme of Lich-king gifted Death magic.

Necromancer is more flexible because its not ONLY thematic to one source of magic. There are examples of Necromancers of many types of races, of many different methods. The archetype is culturally diverse. Cult of the Damned is just one type of Necromancer. We have seen Necromancers of many races that are not part of the Cult of the Damned, races that use their own forms of magic to be Necromancers. The big boss at the end of Exiles Reach is even an Ogre Necromancer.

So Necromancers may use similar powers and themes to a DK, but lore-wise they are much more open to exploring different types of Necromancy. They're not exclusively using the Scourge-style Death magic.

Any other type would not be a necromancer. The Necromancer draws its power from Maldraxxus. A Troll using necromancy draws its power from either Bwonsamdi or Mueh'zala, who have nothing to do with Maldraxxus. You can't just fit everything within your Necromancer. A Void user would probably be a Shadow Priest. Even Natalie Seline, a Shadow Priest, delved into the teachings of the Orc Necrolytes who raised the dead. It didn't make her into a Necromancer.
You have to realize that necromancy doesn't automatically mean a Necromancer. There are other classes associated with it.

I'm not talking about representation of abilities though. I'm talking about how they are different to DK's in the lore, in their use of 'Unholy, Frost and Blood' magic. A Necromancer is a Spellcaster (of various races and cultures) who seek to master the art of Death Magic. And as an abstraction, this applies to different cultural titles such as Witchdoctors and Soulpriests and Apothecaries in the same way as the various racial Paladin titles apply.

Wrong. A Witch Doctor would also be a different type of Shaman or Priest. Soulpriests would be another type of a Priest. You're, literally, applying everyone who has a connection to Death magic to the Necromancer. That would make the Warlock a Necromancer, as well. Heigan the Unclean, for example, is listed as a Warlock. But, you wouldn't consider it so, would you?

This is why Necromancers, as a Death-themed Spellcaster, has a lot of difference from simply the Unholy themed DK. Every playable DK is a member of the Ebon Blade. Not every Troll or Draenei or Orc is part of the Cult of the Damned. They already have their own cultural history with Necromancy, in various forms beyond the Scourge brand of Unholy magic.

I'm not implying we need specific Witchdoctor or Apothecary abilities being represented in the Necromancer game mechanics.

So would every non-Hero class. The Death Knights are part of a faction because their creation is unique, much like the Demon Hunters. You don't choose to be one, you're raised into one. Necromancers, on the other hand, choose to delve into the Dark arts. The only exception is the Monk, which is exclusively Pandaren.

It wasn't intended to belittle, it was intended to emphasize the differences to a Spellcaster archetype.

Of course there's a difference between a Spellcaster and a Melee. But, choosing not to mention that both use the same Death magic is intended to make the Death Knight look like it's not using necromancy whatsoever.

Exactly by my example above with comparing the Paladin archetype without even one mention of Holy Light, Faith or Justice. I wasn't belittling the concept, I was merely emphasizing the differences to a Spellcaster archetype.

Saying a Paladin is a mix between Warrior and a Priest is right. Because that's exactly what it is (in the human case, at least) - A Priest trained in the arts of war, or the other way around. Saying the Death Knight is only a plate-wearing, Runeblade-using, Warrior is misleading, since you totally disregard its Death aspects. And, it's not only Unholy, but Blood as well.

Even if the DK masters Death, Frost and Blood themes, they do so exclusively through Runes. They do not cast spells or use rituals or use voodoo or alchemy to further their art. Archetypically it's the difference between a Marksman and an Engineer; an Engineer builds and creates weapons, and can modify or invent new creations that further the art of warfare. A Marksman masters the use of those weapons, but doesn't actually design them. Death Knights are Marksmen, Necromancers are the Engineers, and Necromancy are the various types of Weapons at their disposal. Neither one is better than the other at the use of Weapons, they simply use and apply their knowledge and craft with different effect.

Wrong. Not all abilities cost Runes or Runic power.
Death Knights are said to directly draw their power from Maldraxxus (where Runeblades are being used, as well, by the way).
Gee, have you thought why Maldraxxus have a war theme to it? it doesn't exactly fit the Necromancer, does it? Maybe because necromancy has something to do with melee combat, as well? Heck, they even have a gladiator arena there. Not very spellcastery, is it?

[Triceron]

Any other type would not be a necromancer. The Necromancer draws its power from Maldraxxus. A Troll using necromancy draws its power from either Bwonsamdi or Mueh'zala, who have nothing to do with Maldraxxus. You can't just fit everything within your Necromancer. A Void user would probably be a Shadow Priest. Even Natalie Seline, a Shadow Priest, delved into the teachings of the Orc Necrolytes who raised the dead. It didn't make her into a Necromancer.
You have to realize that necromancy doesn't automatically mean a Necromancer. There are other classes associated with it.

There isn't one type of Necromancer that has to draw their power from Maldraxxus. I've already presented examples of Necromancers in the game, by name, are already established as using different methods to raise the dead.

The Necromancer is a spellcaster archetype that aims to master the art of (un)Death. Death Magic is not exclusive to Maldraxxus. Orcs derived their own religion for it, thus Necrolytes. Trolls have their own religion for it, thus Witchdoctors and Hexxers. It's not just 'necromancy', otherwise every class who uses Necrolord Covenants is a 'Necromancer', and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm specifically pointing at a Spellcaster archetype that aims to master the art of Death, and that applies to a much broader scope that includes Necrolytes and Witchdoctors and Apothecaries.

Just like the Priest class isn't purely based on Holy Light. You also have Gnome Surgeons/Medics and Tauren Sun Druids.

Wrong. A Witch Doctor would also be a different type of Shaman or Priest. Soulpriests would be another type of a Priest. You're, literally, applying everyone who has a connection to Death magic to the Necromancer. That would make the Warlock a Necromancer, as well. Heigan the Unclean, for example, is listed as a Warlock. But, you wouldn't consider it so, would you?

It's not wrong, it's just not *mutually exclusive*.

Witchdoctors can be represented as Shamans, Priests and Necromancers; even Warlocks to an extent (Affliction connection). Witchdoctors aren't any *one* particular thing, and in the game and lore, they're abstracted as being all of these in some capacity.

When we're talking about WoW Classes, the definitions of a Class is purely defined by gameplay. Example - what significant difference is there between Anduin and Paladins? There isn't really one at all, and he's a Priest only because Blizzard decides unambiguously that he is a Priest.

So would every non-Hero class. The Death Knights are part of a faction because their creation is unique, much like the Demon Hunters. You don't choose to be one, you're raised into one. Necromancers, on the other hand, choose to delve into the Dark arts. The only exception is the Monk, which is exclusively Pandaren.

Yes, and that's the point I was making. Exactly that point.

Of course there's a difference between a Spellcaster and a Melee. But, choosing not to mention that both use the same Death magic is intended to make the Death Knight look like it's not using necromancy whatsoever.

Do I really need to mention Necromancy if we're already establishing that ' necromancy doesn't automatically mean a Necromancer.' as you just did above? We're well aware of what powers a DK channels, and it's not a point of difference to emphasize. Again, context.

Saying a Paladin is a mix between Warrior and a Priest is right. Because that's exactly what it is (in the human case, at least) - A Priest trained in the arts of war, or the other way around. Saying the Death Knight is only a plate-wearing, Runeblade-using, Warrior is misleading, since you totally disregard its Death aspects. And, it's not only Unholy, but Blood as well.

They channel their powers through the Runeblade, and use Runic Power as their resource. I think mentioning the Runeblade covers that.

And again, as you already said, "You have to realize that necromancy doesn't automatically mean a Necromancer."

Death Knights are said to directly draw their power from Maldraxxus (where Runeblades are being used, as well, by the way).
Gee, have you thought why Maldraxxus have a war theme to it? it doesn't exactly fit the Necromancer, does it? Maybe because necromancy has something to do with melee combat, as well? Heck, they even have a gladiator arena there. Not very spellcastery, is it?

You're missing the point.

Death Knights = Masters of channeling Necromancy for Combat purposes
Necromancers = Masters of researching/developing Necromancy, and seeking darker methods that can applied to Combat.

Let's not get hung up on Runes and Maldraxxus, when at the end of the day all those powers are still channeled through the Runeblade which the DK can not cast any spells without

[username993720]

There isn't one type of Necromancer that has to draw their power from Maldraxxus.

"Maldraxxus is the birthplace of necromantic magic and home to the forces that were called upon by the Lich King and the Scourge on Azeroth."

I've already presented examples of Necromancers in the game, by name, are already established as using different methods to raise the dead.

The Necromancer is a spellcaster archetype that aims to master the art of (un)Death. Death Magic is not exclusive to Maldraxxus. Orcs derived their own religion for it, thus Necrolytes. Trolls have their own religion for it, thus Witchdoctors and Hexxers. It's not just 'necromancy', otherwise every class who uses Necrolord Covenants is a 'Necromancer', and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm specifically pointing at a Spellcaster archetype that aims to master the art of Death, and that applies to a much broader scope that includes Necrolytes and Witchdoctors and Apothecaries.

Necrolytes are, indeed, another type of Necromancer. Witch Doctors and Hexxers are not.
I'd argue Apothecaries are another type of Alchemists, but Maldraxxus' (and Scourge) Necromancers do use Alchemy.

It's not wrong, it's just not *mutually exclusive*.

Witchdoctors can be represented as Shamans, Priests and Necromancers; even Warlocks to an extent (Affliction connection). Witchdoctors aren't any *one* particular thing, and in the game and lore, they're abstracted as being all of these in some capacity.

When we're talking about WoW Classes, the definitions of a Class is purely defined by gameplay. Example - what significant difference is there between Anduin and Paladins? There isn't really one at all, and he's a Priest only because Blizzard decides unambiguously that he is a Priest.

Miles of difference, because he is a Priest and not a Paladin. His plate and sword are purely cosmetic (auto-attacking can be done by a Priest as well). You keep using this argument, as well as Thrall, even though it is false.

Yes, and that's the point I was making. Exactly that point.

I agree that it sucks that Death Knights don't have different lore for races beside Humans and Orcs. But, that doesn't mean a copy/paste of it should be added, just so you can say that your character comes from a different background.

They channel their powers through the Runeblade, and use Runic Power as their resource. I think mentioning the Runeblade covers that.

And again, as you already said, "You have to realize that necromancy doesn't automatically mean a Necromancer."

I think it's time for a lore lesson, because you believe Death Knights and Necromancers are miles apart:

"Maldraxxus is the birthplace of necromantic magic, where necromancy was developed by the Primus. He is responsible for the creation of Maldraxxi rune magic, which serves to manipulate necromantic energy, and its more powerful counterpart, Domination, whose purpose is the suppression of another."

You're missing the point.

Death Knights = Masters of channeling Necromancy for Combat purposes
Necromancers = Masters of researching/developing Necromancy, and seeking darker methods that can applied to Combat.

So, basically, the difference is no more than Ranged vs Melee.

Let's not get hung up on Runes and Maldraxxus, when at the end of the day all those powers are still channeled through the Runeblade which the DK can not cast any spells without

Look who's talking. Your entire phrase is being hanged up on runes (or, should i say Runeblade).

Maybe Legion incorporated the animations into the Runeblade, but in the past, things like Death Grip were casted by hand.

[Triceron]

I think it's time for a lore lesson, because you believe Death Knights and Necromancers are miles apart:

"Maldraxxus is the birthplace of necromantic magic, where necromancy was developed by the Primus. He is responsible for the creation of Maldraxxi rune magic, which serves to manipulate necromantic energy, and its more powerful counterpart, Domination, whose purpose is the suppression of another."

Sure. There is a connection in Maldraxxus.

Now the question - Is a Death Knight the same as a Necromancer for sourcing the same magic as Necromancers? And does the Necromancer archetype solely exist with the Death Knight archetype?

No. The connection is simply the same as you said - Just because they use Necromancy doesn't mean they are Necromancers. You're just explaining where Necromancy comes from, and you're choosing to avoid the archetypes.

So, basically, the difference is no more than Ranged vs Melee.

Which can be applied to Paladins/Priests, Warlocks/Demon Hunters or Mages/Shamans. I mean take your pick.

You either ignore the lore and base it down to 'it's just a Range/Melee difference', or you regard the actual lore and see that there is a much broader difference in *how* these classes are channeling Necromancy differently.

Necromancers aren't all using Runes to channel their powers from Maldraxxus, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe Legion incorporated the animations into the Runeblade, but in the past, things like Death Grip were casted by hand.

Legion fixed the lore inaccuracies because there *was no weapon-based Spellcasting animation* in the game to represent Deathgrip. Even Mages continue to lack them today. Deathgrip used the same unarmed casting animation because that's the same animation they use for EVERY class that casts a spell; it all used to use the same hand gesture for all classes.

[username993720]

Sure. There is a connection in Maldraxxus.

Now the question - Is a Death Knight the same as a Necromancer for sourcing the same magic as Necromancers? And does the Necromancer archetype solely exist with the Death Knight archetype?

No. The connection is simply the same as you said - Just because they use Necromancy doesn't mean they are Necromancers. You're just explaining where Necromancy comes from, and you're choosing to avoid the archetypes.

Notice how it is the same kind of Necromancy, unlike Voodoo or Void users.

Now, you need to realize something about lesser archetypes. They usually get integrated into grand archetypes, like the Death Knight.

For example, would you expect an Archer or a Huntress unit to be a standalone class, or would you expect it to be absorbed into the Priestess of the Moon? i think the latter is more probable.
Same with Witch Doctors and Shadow Hunters. Is there really a need to separate between the two? no, the Witch Doctor would most likely be absorbed into the Shadow Hunter. Much like how the Farseer and Shaman weren't divided into separate classes. That's what happens to lesser units that serve as a 'precursor' to a grand unit. They get integrated.

Which can be applied to Paladins/Priests, Warlocks/Demon Hunters or Mages/Shamans. I mean take your pick.

You either ignore the lore and base it down to 'it's just a Range/Melee difference', or you regard the actual lore and see that there is a much broader difference in *how* these classes are channeling Necromancy differently.

Not everything needs a melee and a ranged representation.
Besides, Paladins can't use the shadows like Priests, Warlocks can't transform into a Demon while Demon Hunters can't call upon demons, Mages can't use lightning or earth and Shamans don't use the Arcane. So, it's not simply melee/ranged representations as you make it seem like.

Necromancers aren't all using Runes to channel their powers from Maldraxxus, right?

The Primus, the grandest Necromancer of them all, was literally responsible for the creation of Maldraxxi Rune magic and had a Rune weapon called the Blade of the Primus. He was, literally, the Runecarver himself. He was the one to forge Frostmourne and the Helm of Domination. He was said to be a master tactician. The guy has runes on his vest, for crying out loud. and you still believe there's no connection between Necromancers and runes, or melee combat, at all?

Legion fixed the lore inaccuracies because there *was no weapon-based Spellcasting animation* in the game to represent Deathgrip. Even Mages continue to lack them today. Deathgrip used the same unarmed casting animation because that's the same animation they use for EVERY class that casts a spell; it all used to use the same hand gesture for all classes.

And, who said it isn't right?

You know, something like strangulate fits with a hand animation, like Vader does.

[Triceron]

Notice how it is the same kind of Necromancy, unlike Voodoo or Void users.

It's not the same kind.

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. Necromancers are not bound to only using Maldraxxus type Necromancy.

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.

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.

Now, you need to realize something about lesser archetypes. They usually get integrated into grand archetypes, like the Death Knight.

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.

Not everything needs a melee and a ranged representation.

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'.

Besides, Paladins can't use the shadows like Priests, Warlocks can't transform into a Demon while Demon Hunters can't call upon demons, Mages can't use lightning or earth and Shamans don't use the Arcane. So, it's not simply melee/ranged representations as you make it seem like.

DK's only tap into the Maldraxxus brand of Necromancy. That alone is a massive separation to the broader scope of Necromancers.

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.



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.

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?

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.

And, who said it isn't right?

You know, something like strangulate fits with a hand animation, like Vader does.

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.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

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:

[Teriz]

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:

Because the Death Knight has the Necromancer's abilities.

[Ielenia]

Because the Death Knight has the Necromancer's abilities.

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.

[Teriz]

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.

Priests can heal with light magic because healing with light magic isn't the point of the class, it's merely an aspect of the class. The point of the Priest class is a Light and Shadow magic user. Hence why the player can be mostly a light magic healer, a shadow magic damage dealer, or a hybrid who uses both. No other class in WoW does that.

The ENTIRE point of a Necromancer class is a character that can raise and control the undead. Since we already have a class that can raise and control the undead, that current class will need to be altered to provide space for the Necromancer class that you want. It certainly can be done if Blizzard is willing to fundamentally change the Death Knight class.

This point really needs to be stressed; Blizzard purposely placed the Necromancer's abilities into the Death Knight class. That was a purposeful design decision. That is the basis of why people feel that the Necromancer class being implemented into the game is a long shot. And it is a fair point to make.

[Triceron]

This point really needs to be stressed; Blizzard purposely placed the Necromancer's abilities into the Death Knight class. That was a purposeful design decision. That is the basis of why people feel that the Necromancer class being implemented into the game is a long shot. And it is a fair point to make.

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.

[Teriz]

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 was for the current expansion's theme though. Those were not permanent class additions. When the new expansion launches, those covenants will go the way of the previous traits from BFA and Legion.

A better question is why wasn't a necromancer class added to the game when the expansion's theme was so heavily tied to necromancy and the dead?

[Triceron]

That was for the current expansion's theme though. Those were not permanent class additions. When the new expansion launches, those covenants will go the way of the previous traits from BFA and Legion.

A better question is why wasn't a necromancer class added to the game when the expansion's theme was so heavily tied to necromancy and the dead?

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.

Why wasn't a Necromancer class added to the game when the expansion's theme was so heavily tied to necromancy? Probably the same reason why the Demon Hunter wasn't added when the expansion's theme was heavily tied to Demon Hunters. I'd say Blademasters had a very great spot to be introduced in WoD, and Tinkers had the perfect moment in BFA too. Hell, even every expansion has had *something* Troll themed in it since Vanilla, and we still don't have a dedicated Troll culture class. These decisions to exclude them are quite beyond simply fitting the expansion theme.

It's a case of when Blizzard feels ready for the game to have a new class.

[Ielenia]

Priests can heal with light magic because healing with light magic isn't the point of the class, it's merely an aspect of the class. The point of the Priest class is a Light and Shadow magic user. Hence why the player can be mostly a light magic healer, a shadow magic damage dealer, or a hybrid who uses both. No other class in WoW does that.

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 ENTIRE point of a Necromancer class is a character that can raise and control the undead. Since we already have a class that can raise and control the undead, that current class will need to be altered to provide space for the Necromancer class that you want. It certainly can be done if Blizzard is willing to fundamentally change the Death Knight class.

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.

[Teriz]

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.