WoW Necromancer Hero Class

[Teriz]

Blizzard felt not when they added Demon Hunters. They prioritized popularity and demand above all other reasonable factors.

The one consistent thing Blizzard has displayed is using the Rule of Cool to define the shape and design of the game; for better or worse. No matter what feature or system or story, seemingly every 'logical' decision ends up being guided by this singular principle.

Which expansion theme gets picked? The coolest one they think helps explain the story, like how Garrosh gets a new army.

To be fair, Demon Hunters had a niche once metamorphosis was decoupled from Warlocks. Once that happened, you had a melee fighter with demonic abilities that could transform into a demon. That gave it an open niche. Blizzard would have to decouple undead summoning and various abilities from the Death Knight to do the same. It's important to note that unlike Warlocks and Metamorphosis, the ability to summon undead has been part of the DK concept since the beginning.

So what class is fit to take the spot? Whichever Blizzard feel is the coolest to add based on the expansion theme. DK totally beat out the competition. Monk simply makes sense as the coolest one that fits the setting, and had little competition considering the expansion theme. Demon Hunter got picked, even if Wardens and Priestess of the Moon had direct connections to Broken Isles through Vault of the Wardens and the various Temples of Elune. DH was the cooler option.

And which setting will we explore on Azeroth next, after Shadowlands is done? It will be what they consider to be the coolest idea they have at the moment that fits the story they want to tell next. And that is the big question - where does the story go from here, and what is the coolest way to explain that story.

Do you feel that Necromancer didn't fit the setting of Shadowlands?

[Triceron]

Do you feel that Necromancer didn't fit the setting of Shadowlands?

I'm not sure that is very relevant, because ultimately Blizzard isn't choosing to omit the Necromancer because it didn't fit the setting. They're choosing to omit it because they're not ready to make a new class overall.

I think Blademasters fit the setting of AU Draenor and Tinkers fit the setting of BFA. I don't think they were overlooked because they 'didn't fit the setting'. It's a case of Blizzard not being ready for a new class either. Exactly the same as why Demon Hunter was passed over the first time.

If they are ready for a new class by next expansion, then the focus of our attention should be on what the possibilities are. What is happening after Shadowlands? What is Zovaal going to end up accomplishing that will change our perception of Death? Those are still big unanswered questions before we start to get a better idea of what comes next.

That or another Blizzcon reveal.

[username993720]

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.

Sunwalkers aren't Priests, either. Those would be Seers.

Haruspex have been retconned out.

Holdout Medics and North Fleet Medics use Priest abilities.

My point was that no Paladin is considered a Priest in lore (with just the title 'Paladin').

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

Yet, the gameplay would be all the same.

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.

You actually believe it?
That would be like adding a Far Seer on top of a Shaman.

Someone's gotta take a spot at some point. Would you rather it be a Murloc class?

No. A class deserving of addition.

I cannot answer that because I never cared about Shadow Hunters enough to see past the 'wields a glaive' thing.

Hypothetically.

Would you add a Farseer class on top of the Shaman we have because one was using a fist weapon and the other was using a staff and a shield?

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.

No. But that's a pretty big expansion. They got a whole zone dedicated for them, which is the origin of necromancy itself. How much can it grow from there?

Not the concept of Necromancers? there are, literally, Necromancers there with a House dedicated to them. Their leader is a friggin' Necromancer himself. I'd say that's a pretty Necromancer focus right there.

Demon Hunter got picked, even if Wardens and Priestess of the Moon had direct connections to Broken Isles through Vault of the Wardens and the various Temples of Elune. DH was the cooler option.

The whole expansion is about fighting Demons. Warden and PotMs are not expert Demon-slayers.

I think Blademasters fit the setting of AU Draenor and Tinkers fit the setting of BFA.

What? How much of WoD is about the Blademaster? How much of BfA is about tech?

[Teriz]

I'm not sure that is very relevant, because ultimately Blizzard isn't choosing to omit the Necromancer because it didn't fit the setting. They're choosing to omit it because they're not ready to make a new class overall.

Where was that ever stated by Blizzard? According to Blizzard they didn't bring in a new class because no new class fit the setting of the current expansion. An expansion filled with themes of death, afterlife, necromancy, and redemption.

I think Blademasters fit the setting of AU Draenor and Tinkers fit the setting of BFA. I don't think they were overlooked because they 'didn't fit the setting'. It's a case of Blizzard not being ready for a new class either. Exactly the same as why Demon Hunter was passed over the first time.

If BFA took place on a technology-based continent, every character got a tech-based ability, and the story revolved around said technology-based continent I could see your point here, but that didn't happen.

If they are ready for a new class by next expansion, then the focus of our attention should be on what the possibilities are. What is happening after Shadowlands? What is Zovaal going to end up accomplishing that will change our perception of Death? Those are still big unanswered questions before we start to get a better idea of what comes next.

Here's the thing though, Blizzard tends to wrap stories/themes up rather tightly at the end of expansions, and I have yet to see two expansions share similar themes back to back. While there may be some lingering effects of whatever Zovaal has planned for the expansion, the next expansion's theme won't have anything to do with death and shadow. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the exact opposite with Yrel's Lightbound army.

[Triceron]

Where was that ever stated by Blizzard? According to Blizzard they didn't bring in a new class because no new class fit the setting of the current expansion. An expansion filled with themes of death, afterlife, necromancy, and redemption.

So you agree with this statement? That Necromancers didn't fit a Death expansion?

Curious.

Here's the thing though, Blizzard tends to wrap stories/themes up rather tightly at the end of expansions, and I have yet to see two expansions share similar themes back to back. While there may be some lingering effects of whatever Zovaal has planned for the expansion, the next expansion's theme won't have anything to do with death and shadow. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the exact opposite with Yrel's Lightbound army.

MoP was heavily Iron Horse themed, leading straight i to more Iron Horde in WoD. WoD had heavy Demon themea and fought Gul'dan and Archimonde, leading straight into Legion.

Curious that you don't see that as leading into the next expansions.

[Ielenia]

Hypothetically.

Would you add a Farseer class on top of the Shaman we have because one was using a fist weapon and the other was using a staff and a shield?

Same answer. I never cared to consider the 'Farseer' class in my mind enough to develop it past its superficial characteristics.

No. But that's a pretty big expansion. They got a whole zone dedicated for them, which is the origin of necromancy itself. How much can it grow from there?

And yet only one zone is about the necromancy: Maldraxxus. And I'll repeat my previous question: do you think that a concept can only be expanded upon once and then never again?

Not the concept of Necromancers? there are, literally, Necromancers there with a House dedicated to them. Their leader is a friggin' Necromancer himself. I'd say that's a pretty Necromancer focus right there.

There are necromancers there, but that zone is not about the necromancers. It's about necromancy. And as others have pointed out, there are other types of necromancy magic, such as blood magic (evidenced by G'huun) and void magic (as evidenced by Magister Umbric).

Your logic is akin to saying BfA was supposed to be a tinker class expansion considering we got Mechagon and the theme of how Azerite could be used as fuel to empower machines as well as the myriad of tinkers characters and themes utilized through the expansion.

[Triceron]

You actually believe it?
That would be like adding a Far Seer on top of a Shaman.

As long as they are different units and heroes in WC3, why not?

Paladin and Priest units shared the same connection as Farseer and Shaman or Shadow Hunter and Witchdoctor, or Blademasters and Grunts/Raiders, or Mountain Kings and Footmen/Knights.

So what defines which ones should be merged and which ones get their own class? Paladin and Priest got their own class. Farseer, Blademaster, Mountain King did not. I'm pointing out how there is no pattern. Blizzard has picked what they want to be a class.

So in a world where Shaman and Farseer were different classes? Absolutely possible if Shaman happened to focus on Melee and Spellcasting, while Farseer was a Spellcaster/Healer class in Vanilla, rather than Shaman being all a hybrid of all 3. In WoW now? Less possibility, but it all depends on how much revamping they wish to do.

What if we get a Legion style Class Overhaul for more classes? Then it opens room for alternative classes. Shaman Resto overhauled into Earthwarden tanking spec, while a new Farseer class gets added with Resto healing, Nature/Wilds direct Caster, and a Pet-based Caster spec themes on the 'Wilds'. That is possible, if we are talking about what is possible.

No. A class deserving of addition.

Then we're talking about the top 5 again. They are the most deserving.

[Teriz]

So you agree with this statement? That Necromancers didn't fit a Death expansion?

Curious.

Actually, I think Necromancers would have been perfect for Shadowlands. You could have had a class that reflects the major aspects of death shown during this expansion. Why didn't they introduce a Necromancer class? According to Blizzard they already had a class based around the concept of death; The Death Knight.

MoP was heavily Iron Horse themed, leading straight i to more Iron Horde in WoD. WoD had heavy Demon themea and fought Gul'dan and Archimonde, leading straight into Legion.

Until 5.3 MoP took place entirely on Pandaria. We didn't really deal with Garrosh until Escalation and Siege of Orgrimmar. Further, Garrosh's forces were called the TRUE Horde. They weren't called the Iron Horde until Dreanor. The Alliance and the Horde clashing on a new landmass (Pandaria) and awakening a dismembered old God is a completely different theme than repelling an Orc invasion from an alternate timeline.

Curious that you don't see that as leading into the next expansions.

I didn't say it didn't lead into the next expansion, I said the themes weren't continued. MoP's theme was completely different than WoD's.

[username993720]

Same answer. I never cared to consider the 'Farseer' class in my mind enough to develop it past its superficial characteristics.

So, you are oblivious to the fact that this is the same case with Necromancers and Death Knights.

And yet only one zone is about the necromancy: Maldraxxus.

How much do you want? you expected all of Shadowlands to be deathly green?
There are Necromancers in the Maw, as well. Is it not enough for you?

And I'll repeat my previous question: do you think that a concept can only be expanded upon once and then never again?

No. But, you're diminishing the importance of Shadowlands Necromancer lore.

There are necromancers there, but that zone is not about the necromancers. It's about necromancy. And as others have pointed out, there are other types of necromancy magic, such as blood magic (evidenced by G'huun) and void magic (as evidenced by Magister Umbric).

It shows the different aspects of it, which Necromancers are a part of. It also shows how Necromancy relates to melee combat and runes.

As i've said before, just because G'huun's and Void magic can do necromancy, doesn't mean it would be part of the Necromancer.

Your logic is akin to saying BfA was supposed to be a tinker class expansion considering we got Mechagon and the theme of how Azerite could be used as fuel to empower machines as well as the myriad of tinkers characters and themes utilized through the expansion.

No doubt it increased upon tech lore. We got Mechagon, Mekattorque as a boss and new Shredders.

[Teriz]

And yet only one zone is about the necromancy: Maldraxxus. And I'll repeat my previous question: do you think that a concept can only be expanded upon once and then never again?

There are necromancers there, but that zone is not about the necromancers. It's about necromancy. And as others have pointed out, there are other types of necromancy magic, such as blood magic (evidenced by G'huun) and void magic (as evidenced by Magister Umbric).

Your logic is akin to saying BfA was supposed to be a tinker class expansion considering we got Mechagon and the theme of how Azerite could be used as fuel to empower machines as well as the myriad of tinkers characters and themes utilized through the expansion.

This is such a strange argument....

You could rather easily construct a Necromancer class based on the 4 parts of Shadowlands. You could have a Soul-based/archangel healing/damage spec based on Bastion and Adrenwald, a Anima-based healing/damage spec based on Revendearth, and you could have an interesting flesh construction based spec based on Maldraxxus.

I don't think ANYONE would have complained about that.

[Ielenia]

So, you are oblivious to the fact that this is the same case with Necromancers and Death Knights.

I'm very much aware that it is not the same case as necromancers and death knights. The superficial differences between your examples are the weapons they wield, and nothing else: same armor type, same attack type, etc.

Death knights and necromancers, on the other hand, differ not just on the weapons they wield, but also their armor, and their attack types.

How much do you want? you expected all of Shadowlands to be deathly green?
There are Necromancers in the Maw, as well. Is it not enough for you?

Do are you think the Shadowlands' necromancer lore is the be-all-end-all lore, and nothing can ever be added or expanded from it?

No. But, you're diminishing the importance of Shadowlands Necromancer lore.

I'm not, really. If anything, you

It shows the different aspects of it, which Necromancers are a part of. It also shows how Necromancy relates to melee combat and runes.

False, actually. The void and blood necromancers show no relation to melee combat and runes.

As i've said before, just because G'huun's and Void magic can do necromancy, doesn't mean it would be part of the Necromancer.

Let me flip your statement around: why shouldn't it be part of the necromancer, considering it is necromancy?

- - - Updated - - -

This is such a strange argument....

Why is it strange?

You could rather easily construct a Necromancer class based on the 4 parts of Shadowlands.

And just as easily come up with a necromancer concept based on none of the shadowlands. Which I did. What's your point?

I don't think ANYONE would have complained about that.

Come on. Not even you believe that.

[Triceron]

Actually, I think Necromancers would have been perfect for Shadowlands. You could have had a class that reflects the major aspects of death shown during this expansion. Why didn't they introduce a Necromancer class? According to Blizzard they already had a class based around the concept of death; The Death Knight.

Source? I don't remember them saying DK being the reason they said they didn't add a new class. I think players would have been quite upset with that answer if they actually said that.

Until 5.3 MoP took place entirely on Pandaria. We didn't really deal with Garrosh until Escalation and Siege of Orgrimmar. Further, Garrosh's forces were called the TRUE Horde. They weren't called the Iron Horde until Dreanor. The Alliance and the Horde clashing on a new landmass (Pandaria) and awakening a dismembered old God is a completely different theme than repelling an Orc invasion from an alternate timeline.

So not MoP in particular.
Highmountain and Nightborne were added after the expansion where they were introduced. I'd say that's carry over.

[Teriz]

Why is it strange?

It’s strange because you’re very flexible in regards to the Necromancer concept, but seemingly inflexible when it comes to applying the Necromancer theme to Shadowlands.

And just as easily come up with a necromancer concept based on none of the shadowlands. Which I did. What's your point?

Indeed, but we’re basing this on Blizzards overall Shadowlands concept, and your argument seems to be that Blizzard couldn’t create a Necromancer class using the themes and concepts from this expansion; an expansion that revolves around death and the afterlife.

Come on. Not even you believe that.

What would be the problem? First and foremost, if Blizzard ever did a Necromancer class it wouldn’t be your standard run of the mill Necromancer, it would have to have a Warcraft twist to it. I don’t even think they would call it a Necromancer. Instead they would give it a “cool” name like Arbiter.

That said, why would there be a problem? Are you saying that Necromancer fans wouldn’t want a spec based on flesh crafting (Maldraxxus)? The Anima-based healing spec is along the same lines as the Blood-magic based spec, and the Soul-based Bastion spec could be a spec for those not really into the dark grimy Necromancer thematics.

It seems more like a missed opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -

Source? I don't remember them saying DK being the reason they said they didn't add a new class. I think players would have been quite upset with that answer if they actually said that.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...he-Death-Class

So not MoP in particular.
Highmountain and Nightborne were added after the expansion where they were introduced. I'd say that's carry over.

Uh no. Highmountain and Nightborne were obtainable in the final Legion patch (7.3). They were the first available allied races.

https://blizzardwatch.com/2017/12/07...ace-areas/amp/

[username993720]

As long as they are different units and heroes in WC3, why not?

Because they are both Shamans.

Paladin and Priest units shared the same connection as Farseer and Shaman or Shadow Hunter and Witchdoctor, or Blademasters and Grunts/Raiders, or Mountain Kings and Footmen/Knights.

Blademaster isn't an upgrade from a Grunt/Raider and Mountain King isn't an evolved version of a Footmen/Knight (heck, they're not even the same race).

So what defines which ones should be merged and which ones get their own class? Paladin and Priest got their own class. Farseer, Blademaster, Mountain King did not. I'm pointing out how there is no pattern. Blizzard has picked what they want to be a class.

Far Seers are Shamans and Mountain Kings are Warriors.

Then we're talking about the top 5 again. They are the most deserving.

Subjective.
Deserving are the ones from the pool of classes Blizzard has been adding.

I'm very much aware that it is not the same case as necromancers and death knights. The superficial differences between your examples are the weapons they wield, and nothing else: same armor type, same attack type, etc.

Death knights and necromancers, on the other hand, differ not just on the weapons they wield, but also their armor, and their attack types.

Not true. They differ in their attack styles.

Do are you think the Shadowlands' necromancer lore is the be-all-end-all lore, and nothing can ever be added or expanded from it?

Again, i said no. But, it's pretty substantial.

I'm not, really. If anything, you

Apparently, it's not enough for you.

False, actually. The void and blood necromancers show no relation to melee combat and runes.

Never said they did. Maldraxxus ones do.

Let me flip your statement around: why shouldn't it be part of the necromancer, considering it is necromancy?

Because Blood Trolls follow G'huun as their Loa, which makes them more akin to Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters than Necromancers. Void users are more akin to Shadow Priests.
You can't have everything that involves necromancy. You gotta have a defined Necromancer archetype. And that is, most likely, the Maldraxxus/Scourge one.

[Triceron]

Because they are both Shamans.

So? Priestess of the Moon and Priests are both... Priests. It's even in the name of the class. They're the same class functionally. You'd argue there is still room for separation despite being called by the same name.

Blademaster isn't an upgrade from a Grunt/Raider and Mountain King isn't an evolved version of a Footmen/Knight (heck, they're not even the same race).

So do you think MK deserves its own class separate from the Warrior?

Far Seers are Shamans and Mountain Kings are Warriors.

Blademasters are also Warriors.

Subjective.
Deserving are the ones from the pool of classes Blizzard has been adding.

If you really want to talk about what class deserves to be made, the only answer is whatever Blizzard chooses. And what Blizzard chooses is whatever has the potential to rake in the most dough. That's pretty much how it all works out.

Blizzard has been choosing the ones that appeal to the widest demographic of players and have been in demand or associated with features in high demand. All choices get filtered through the 'Rule of Cool'.

So if I ask you which do people want more, a Night Warrior or a Necromancer? The answer should be obvious.

[Ielenia]

It’s strange because you’re very flexible in regards to the Necromancer concept, but seemingly inflexible when it comes to applying the Necromancer theme to Shadowlands.

How is me saying that Maldraxxus doesn't have to be this "be-all-end-all" of necromancy, and saying that concepts can be expanded more than once is me being "inflexible"?

Indeed, but we’re basing this on Blizzards overall Shadowlands concept

Uh, no. You are. My necromancer concept is not based at all on the Shadowlands concept. After all, I made my concept in August 2nd, 2019, a whole three months before the Shadowlands expansion was announced in Blizzcon.

and your argument seems to be that Blizzard couldn’t create a Necromancer class using the themes and concepts from this expansion; an expansion that revolves around death and the afterlife.

... My arguments never even come close to alluding anything of the sort. That is such a dishonest misrepresentation of what I said that it borders on trolling, in my opinion.

What would be the problem? First and foremost, if Blizzard ever did a Necromancer class it wouldn’t be your standard run of the mill Necromancer, it would have to have a Warcraft twist to it. I don’t even think they would call it a Necromancer. Instead they would give it a “cool” name like Arbiter.

Why? WoW does have necromancers in the game, so why not call them that? Also, they called the monk class 'monk' instead of 'Brewmaster' or 'Windwalker' or 'Kung fu inspred panda-based class'. The other classes in the game have generic names: warlock, mage, paladin, rogue, warrior, death knight, demon hunter, etc.

That said, why would there be a problem? Are you saying that Necromancer fans wouldn’t want a spec based on flesh crafting (Maldraxxus)? The Anima-based healing spec is along the same lines as the Blood-magic based spec, and the Soul-based Bastion spec could be a spec for those not really into the dark grimy Necromancer thematics.

My beef is with your claim that "no one would complain". I'm not saying "no one would dislike it".

- - - Updated - - -

Not true. They differ in their attack styles.

Attack type: ranged. Same attack type.

Again, i said no. But, it's pretty substantial.

Then if you don't think it's the "be-all-end-all" of necromancer lore, you agree that the concept can still be expanded further, and even in ways not even related to the Shadowlands?

Never said they did. Maldraxxus ones do.

No. No, not really, considering the necromancers are all spellcasters, and the melee mobs are not necromancers.

Because Blood Trolls follow G'huun as their Loa, which makes them more akin to Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters than Necromancers.

Necromancers can also worship deities. And blood trolls are necromancers.

Void users are more akin to Shadow Priests.

Sorry, but this statement of yours is in direct conflict with the previous. You said that the blood troll necromancers are more akin to witch doctors and shadow hunters because they worship a deity, but somehow the void mages/necromancers are more like shadow priests despite not worshipping anything?

You can't have everything that involves necromancy. You gotta have a defined Necromancer archetype. And that is, most likely, the Maldraxxus/Scourge one.

Yes, we can have "everything that involves necromancy" because "everything that involves necromancy" is necromancy, therefore valid to use in a necromancer class. A "defined necromancer archetype" is not the same thing as a "super-specialized necromancer archetype that is focused on a single aspect of a theme and nothing else".

The death knight class, for example, is not "super-specialized", either. Not only it raises the dead, but it also deals with frost magic and blood magic, two types of magic that are not really seen in Maldraxxus outside of liches casting frost magic.

[Teriz]

My beef is with your claim that "no one would complain". I'm not saying "no one would dislike it".

Gotcha. My mistake.

[username993720]

So? Priestess of the Moon and Priests are both... Priests. It's even in the name of the class. They're the same class functionally. You'd argue there is still room for separation despite being called by the same name.

Not entirely. They are more rangers than anything else.

So do you think MK deserves its own class separate from the Warrior?

Nope. I believe Fury should represent it more.

Blademasters are also Warriors.

From the Samurai kind. Unrepresented in the least.

If you really want to talk about what class deserves to be made, the only answer is whatever Blizzard chooses. And what Blizzard chooses is whatever has the potential to rake in the most dough. That's pretty much how it all works out.

Blizzard has been choosing the ones that appeal to the widest demographic of players and have been in demand or associated with features in high demand. All choices get filtered through the 'Rule of Cool'.

So if I ask you which do people want more, a Night Warrior or a Necromancer? The answer should be obvious.

But, what people want might also already exist in the game. If Druid of the Claw were in popular demand, should they be added? no, because we already have the Guardian Druid.

People don't use logic when they ask for new classes, they use emotion. That's why some of the options are illogical.

Attack type: ranged. Same attack type.

Witch Doctors cast spells while Shadow Hunters throw their glaives. That would be like comparing a Hunter with a spellcaster.

Then if you don't think it's the "be-all-end-all" of necromancer lore, you agree that the concept can still be expanded further, and even in ways not even related to the Shadowlands?

Of course it can. No one expected the Night Warrior, for example.
But, what i'm saying is Blizzard already recently tried to expand it's lore pretty significantly with Maldraxxus. Topping that would be hard.

No. No, not really, considering the necromancers are all spellcasters, and the melee mobs are not necromancers.

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.

The Jailer defeated the Primus, took his memories from him, and confined him to the tower of Torghast as a prisoner called the Runecarver.

The Blade of the Primus is a powerful runeblade which was created by the Primus.

necromancers could be found in the employ of the Chosen and Eyes. Some of these necromancers also seem to take on the path of the warrior, fighting with blades or riding atop massive beasts.

Necromancers can also worship deities. And blood trolls are necromancers.

No. Trolls worship deities.
You won't see Voodoo or Loa related abilities and talents in the Necromancer.
You wanna know where you might also see Blood magic? in the Witch Doctor.

Sorry, but this statement of yours is in direct conflict with the previous. You said that the blood troll necromancers are more akin to witch doctors and shadow hunters because they worship a deity, but somehow the void mages/necromancers are more like shadow priests despite not worshipping anything?

Huh? why do they need to worship anything? Void magic comes from research (in the case of Void elves) and Dark Star (in the case of the Orcs).

Yes, we can have "everything that involves necromancy" because "everything that involves necromancy" is necromancy, therefore valid to use in a necromancer class. A "defined necromancer archetype" is not the same thing as a "super-specialized necromancer archetype that is focused on a single aspect of a theme and nothing else".

The death knight class, for example, is not "super-specialized", either. Not only it raises the dead, but it also deals with frost magic and blood magic, two types of magic that are not really seen in Maldraxxus outside of liches casting frost magic.

It might be referenced in their lore, but i doubt Necromancers would get Void and Voodoo specs. It's like expecting the Priest to accommodate for all religions, like Elune, Loa, Sun and Medicine.

Your Necromancer would most likely be based on the popular depiction of a Necromancer, which would use Maldraxxus death magic and, perhaps, also Blood.

[Ielenia]

Of course it can. No one expected the Night Warrior, for example.
But, what i'm saying is Blizzard already recently tried to expand it's lore pretty significantly with Maldraxxus. Topping that would be hard.

"Pretty significantly" is subjective. I don't think it was that big of a lore. That aside, this isn't a competition. The next expansion of the concept doesn't have to "top" the previous ones.

Maldraxxus is the birthplace of necromantic magic, where necromancy was developed by the Primus.

Of one type of necromancy magic.

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.

I haven't seen any statement that Primus is the one who 'created necromancy', only that he created necromantic runes and domination runes.

The Jailer defeated the Primus, took his memories from him, and confined him to the tower of Torghast as a prisoner called the Runecarver.

Runic magic =/= melee combat.

The Blade of the Primus is a powerful runeblade which was created by the Primus.

He's a blacksmith. So what? That's your only link. Primus himself doesn't wield a sword.

necromancers could be found in the employ of the Chosen and Eyes. Some of these necromancers also seem to take on the path of the warrior, fighting with blades or riding atop massive beasts.

You mean the same necromancers who don't use melee weapons, instead use magic?

No. Trolls worship deities.

And since blood troll necromancers are blood trolls and blood trolls are trolls, therefore we can infer that blood troll necromancers worship deities.

]You won't see Voodoo or Loa related abilities and talents in the Necromancer.

Couldn't that exact same argument be made against the idea of a death knight using frost magic, pre-WotLK? Because no death knight at all has ever been seen using any kind of frost magic before the WotLK expansion came along and brought in the playable DK class.

You wanna know where you might also see Blood magic? in the Witch Doctor.

And the witch doctor concept, of someone who uses voodoo for necromancy, could be incorporated into this hypothetical necromancer class.

Huh? why do they need to worship anything? Void magic comes from research (in the case of Void elves) and Dark Star (in the case of the Orcs).

And what about other shadow priests?

It might be referenced in their lore, but i doubt Necromancers would get Void and Voodoo specs. It's like expecting the Priest to accommodate for all religions, like Elune, Loa, Sun and Medicine.

And yet... the priest class does. The NE priests worship Elune. The tauren priests worship An'she (the sun). Troll priests worship loa, etc.

Your Necromancer would most likely be based on the popular depiction of a Necromancer, which would use Maldraxxus death magic and, perhaps, also Blood.

Or most likely be a more broad concept bringing in more than one type of necromancy, such as void and blood magic, or even use poison or bone magic as well.

[Empower]

Love the lore, love the theme, mechanically I can't see them working without massively overhauling warlocks and dks.