WoW Necromancer Hero Class

[Triceron]

Not entirely. [Priestess of the Moon] are more rangers than anything else.

---

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.

The problem is logically a Necromancer and POTM are in the same boat, while you employ personal beliefs and excuses to try and exclude Necromancer for being too similar to existing classes, and shifting the goalpost for Priestess of the Moon which you just admit are more like Hunters.

It's a double standard no matter how you look at it. If I say Necromancer can be like Witchdoctors or Necrolytes, you say no that can't work. But you then turn around and say PotM can be Night Warrior, even though not all Priestess of the Moon are Night Warriors, ONLY Tyrande has ever become one and she's no longer a Night Warrior since last patch.

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

Yet you have no problem equating Necromancers to DKs, down to arguing that Necromancers can have a Rune connection. That is just like arguing Shadow Hunters casting spells, which they actually do since they had healing wave.

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.

You believe it would be hard, but at the same time you are unwilling to accept any Necromancer archetype that works like Priest or Paladin lore where they are different races and cultures mixed into one class. It's hard for you because your imagination is limited, that's all.

For a Night Warrior, it is like DK, DH or Monk where there is one 'culture' defining the class. And inadvertantly, you have chosen to value the Necromancer the same way, only using Maldraxxus Necromancy. So you're really arguing against a strawman argument.

As I said, the use of alchemy and brewing plagues, and using anima/necromancy-based healing, and delving into deeper rituals are things that DKs do not do. That can be expanded upon because those are Maldraxxian themes that DKs don't actually cover at all.

Remember, the context is that you believed the DK could cast spells and use rituals. I've proven very strongly that everything they use magically is sourced from their Runeblade. So really, we have a massive gap of Ritual-based Maldraxxian Necromancy that is not covered by any class, while we have a Death themed Spellcaster archetype that has existed since WC1 that is not yet playable.

If you want to talk about logic, then here it is.

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.

And Necromancers can still use this magic and these themes. Rune magic is not the only way to manipulate Necromancy, there is also Rituals which DKs do not use.

And WoW has established that not all Necromancers use this type of magic. Every culture has their own sources and methods, some which draw back to Maldraxxian style Necromancy, some which do not.

If you are pointing out lore that says Primus made runes, then I don't see how that is relevant to Necromancers since they aren't using runes, they are typically users of Rituals. That is why the House of Rituals represents most of the Necromancers in Maldraxxus.

I mean it's no different than pointing out the Lich King has a Mourneblade and the Helm of Domination. So are you implying every Necromancer under the Lich King uses Runes and domination magic? Cuz I can tell you, they don't.

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

And that's fine.

Paladin is mainly based on Knights of the Silver Hand and the Holy Light. This is the origin of the Paladin class.

If Holy Light is the origin magic for Paladin class, then are all Paladins using this popular depiction? Is this popular depiction different from the Priest? They use the same magic if we are talking about Popular depictions.

So I ask you, what is wrong with Necromancers popularly depicted by Maldraxxus Necromancy? You still admit that a Troll Necromancer would make sense using Voodoo, do you not? So we have lore options.

If people want to be a Maldraxxus type, they can choose to be one. If they want to play a Troll that used Voodoo, they can be one. Either way its the same as Paladin that uses Holy Light or choosing to be Sunwalker instead. Lore options are a good thing.

[username993720]

"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.

The birthplace and origin of necromancy? i'd say that's pretty significant. Not to mention the necromancers there are based on the Warcraft 3 necromancer unit and that their leader is the most powerful necromancer.

Of one type of necromancy magic.

The main type.

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

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

Runic magic =/= melee combat.

Never said it was. Just showing you the connection between Necromancers and Runes.

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

True.
I was trying to show you the connection to Runeblades.

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

Please elaborate.

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

So do other Blood Troll professions.
Thing is, your standard necromancer doesn't use loa power. It might be inferred in a race's lore, but unlikely in the class abilities.
Not to mention that Blood trolls are yet to be playable.

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.

The Lich or Dreadlord belong to the same WC3 faction - the scourge.
It's not like they took the Horde's Witch Doctor and decided to integrate it into the Death Knight.
Not to mention the connection to Frostmourne, Lich King and Vampiric Runeblades.

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

No. It is better off integrated into the Shadow Hunter.
You don't see Diablo integrating the Witch Doctor into the Necromancer, despite both of them summoning undead.

And what about other shadow priests?

What about them?
Forsaken Priests are part of the Cult of the Forgotten Shadows. They worship no deity.

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

In lore. Not in gameplay.

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.

Doubt it. That's too many themes. I can see Blood, Poison and Bone. Less so Void or Voodoo.

The problem is logically a Necromancer and POTM are in the same boat, while you employ personal beliefs and excuses to try and exclude Necromancer for being too similar to existing classes, and shifting the goalpost for Priestess of the Moon which you just admit are more like Hunters.

They aren't.
PotM is a Hero unit while Necromancer is a basic unit.
Secondly, the probability that Blizzard would add another Death-themed class after adding the Death Knight in WotLK, while there are other unaccounted for archetypes, is slim. Class additions would most likely differ from one another, not repeat themselves.

It's a double standard no matter how you look at it. If I say Necromancer can be like Witchdoctors or Necrolytes, you say no that can't work. But you then turn around and say PotM can be Night Warrior, even though not all Priestess of the Moon are Night Warriors, ONLY Tyrande has ever become one and she's no longer a Night Warrior since last patch.

Tyrande is the iconic character, just like Arthas is for Death Knights, Chen is for Monks and Illidan is for Demon Hunters. Expecting to base the archetypes on some random, unknown character is unrealistic.

Yet you have no problem equating Necromancers to DKs, down to arguing that Necromancers can have a Rune connection. That is just like arguing Shadow Hunters casting spells, which they actually do since they had healing wave.

That's why i'm saying there's no real reason to separate between the two. My example was to show how really unimportant that division is.

No shit it cast spells. Much like how both a Death Knight and a Necromancer have a raise dead ability. Ever wondered why both Shadow Hunters and Witch Doctors use Wards?

You believe it would be hard, but at the same time you are unwilling to accept any Necromancer archetype that works like Priest or Paladin lore where they are different races and cultures mixed into one class. It's hard for you because your imagination is limited, that's all.

For a Night Warrior, it is like DK, DH or Monk where there is one 'culture' defining the class. And inadvertantly, you have chosen to value the Necromancer the same way, only using Maldraxxus Necromancy. So you're really arguing against a strawman argument.

As I said, the use of alchemy and brewing plagues, and using anima/necromancy-based healing, and delving into deeper rituals are things that DKs do not do. That can be expanded upon because those are Maldraxxian themes that DKs don't actually cover at all.

Remember, the context is that you believed the DK could cast spells and use rituals. I've proven very strongly that everything they use magically is sourced from their Runeblade. So really, we have a massive gap of Ritual-based Maldraxxian Necromancy that is not covered by any class, while we have a Death themed Spellcaster archetype that has existed since WC1 that is not yet playable.

If you want to talk about logic, then here it is.

It's all part of the same theme.
What you are suggesting is like dividing Bastion, Ardenweald and Revendreth into different themes. "We have Druids, but we don't really have Night Fae Druids!". Come on...

And Necromancers can still use this magic and these themes. Rune magic is not the only way to manipulate Necromancy, there is also Rituals which DKs do not use.

And WoW has established that not all Necromancers use this type of magic. Every culture has their own sources and methods, some which draw back to Maldraxxian style Necromancy, some which do not.

If you are pointing out lore that says Primus made runes, then I don't see how that is relevant to Necromancers since they aren't using runes, they are typically users of Rituals. That is why the House of Rituals represents most of the Necromancers in Maldraxxus.

I mean it's no different than pointing out the Lich King has a Mourneblade and the Helm of Domination. So are you implying every Necromancer under the Lich King uses Runes and domination magic? Cuz I can tell you, they don't.

You know what lore says they use? Shadow Bolt and Death Coil. Both a Warlock and Death Knight abilities (previously, exclusively Warlock). Since Warlock has gotten Mortal Coil as a compensation, i don't see why they are not a prime choice for a class skin.

And that's fine.

Paladin is mainly based on Knights of the Silver Hand and the Holy Light. This is the origin of the Paladin class.

If Holy Light is the origin magic for Paladin class, then are all Paladins using this popular depiction? Is this popular depiction different from the Priest? They use the same magic if we are talking about Popular depictions.

So I ask you, what is wrong with Necromancers popularly depicted by Maldraxxus Necromancy? You still admit that a Troll Necromancer would make sense using Voodoo, do you not? So we have lore options.

If people want to be a Maldraxxus type, they can choose to be one. If they want to play a Troll that used Voodoo, they can be one. Either way its the same as Paladin that uses Holy Light or choosing to be Sunwalker instead. Lore options are a good thing.

Well, if people want a voodoo-using troll, they should wait for a Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter, not compromise for this rip off.

[kenn9530]

snip

Necromancer cant work for one simple reason, its not a suitable type of magic to be used by the player at all, necromancy is the worst way to use magic in existance and has no place in being made available to the player, any necromancy used in shadowlands is irrelevant because its a land of the dead and has its own rules.

WoW is not a world that will accept necromancy magic, it just kinda ignores magic used by warlocks and deathknights, just choosing to do necromancy magic makes the user evil, there is no good way to use necromancy magic.

Also WoW has too many classes, why dont they focus on making all the current class specs better than wanting more classes that essetially add nothing.

[Ielenia]

The birthplace and origin of necromancy? i'd say that's pretty significant. Not to mention the necromancers there are based on the Warcraft 3 necromancer unit and that their leader is the most powerful necromancer.

Irrelevant. Like I said:

That aside, this isn't a competition. The next expansion of the concept doesn't have to "top" the previous ones.

The main type.

False. It's the Scourge's necromancy. There are other types, and you can't prove your assertion that Maldraxxus' necromancy is the "main type".

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

Link to source?

Never said it was. Just showing you the connection between Necromancers and Runes.

Which is irrelevant because, again, Maldraxxus is not the "end-all-be-all" of necromancy.

True.
I was trying to show you the connection to Runeblades.

Which is irrelevant.

Please elaborate.

What is there to elaborate? You said necromancers ride around in huge beasts. And the only necromancers riding huge beasts around are throwing magic, not fighting with swords.

So do other Blood Troll professions.
Thing is, your standard necromancer doesn't use loa power. It might be inferred in a race's lore, but unlikely in the class abilities.
Not to mention that Blood trolls are yet to be playable.

And the statement "your standard death knight doesn't use frost magic" was also true before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. Tell me: what happened to "your standard death knight that doesn't use frost magic" after the WotLK expansion went live?

The Lich or Dreadlord belong to the same WC3 faction - the scourge.

Liches and dreadlords are not death knights. That's akin to saying orcs should have ogre abilities because the orcs had ogres in their roster in WC3, or that night elves should have dragon and stone giant powers because they had dragons and stone giants in their roster in WC3.

It's not like they took the Horde's Witch Doctor and decided to integrate it into the Death Knight.

What does that have to do with anything? No one is talking about integrating the witch doctor into the death knight class. We're talking about the possibility of incorporating the WD concept into a future hypothetical necromancer class.

No. It is better off integrated into the Shadow Hunter.

In your opinion.

You don't see Diablo integrating the Witch Doctor into the Necromancer, despite both of them summoning undead.

Diablo is not WoW. Also, in Diablo, the "demon hunter" is a ranged character without demonic powers, just for extra context.

In lore. Not in gameplay.

Gameplay is meaningless regarding the lore, i.e., "who worships who".

Doubt it. That's too many themes. I can see Blood, Poison and Bone. Less so Void or Voodoo.

Void and voodoo are both possible.

[Triceron]

They aren't.
PotM is a Hero unit while Necromancer is a basic unit.
Secondly, the probability that Blizzard would add another Death-themed class after adding the Death Knight in WotLK, while there are other unaccounted for archetypes, is slim. Class additions would most likely differ from one another, not repeat themselves.

Shaman, Priest and Druid were basic units too. Honestly what does this matter?

Paladin, Demon Hunter and Death Knight are actually the only Heros carried over from WC3. Every other class isn't defined purely through single Heroes, and neither would that apply to Necromancer.

Tyrande is the iconic character, just like Arthas is for Death Knights, Chen is for Monks and Illidan is for Demon Hunters. Expecting to base the archetypes on some random, unknown character is unrealistic.

Ner'zhul and Kel'thuzad aren't random or unknown.

That's why i'm saying there's no real reason to separate between the two. My example was to show how really unimportant that division is.

No shit it cast spells. Much like how both a Death Knight and a Necromancer have a raise dead ability. Ever wondered why both Shadow Hunters and Witch Doctors use Wards?

But one could make that same argument to POTM. What do they do differently that isn't covered by Hunters, Druids and Priests? For you to answer that you have to bring up Night Warrior, which not all POTM are. You understand?

No different if I bring in Necrolyte to the conversation. If you say not all Necromancers are Necrolytes, then same applies to not all POTM are Nightwarriors.

Well, if people want a voodoo-using troll, they should wait for a Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter, not compromise for this rip off.

They can still wait after a Necromancer class is added to the game.

Honestly, this is a non-argument.

[username993720]

False. It's the Scourge's necromancy. There are other types, and you can't prove your assertion that Maldraxxus' necromancy is the "main type".

It is, because the Necromancer is mainly, and most iconically, a Scourge thing. Everything else is just flavour. Much like a Sunwalker is to the Paladin.

Link to source?

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Necromancer#Origins

Which is irrelevant because, again, Maldraxxus is not the "end-all-be-all" of necromancy.

It is the top source of necromancy. All others are just secondary.

Which is irrelevant.

It is actually. All under one umbrella.

What is there to elaborate? You said necromancers ride around in huge beasts. And the only necromancers riding huge beasts around are throwing magic, not fighting with swords.

It is clearly said that some are fighting using weapons.

And the statement "your standard death knight doesn't use frost magic" was also true before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. Tell me: what happened to "your standard death knight that doesn't use frost magic" after the WotLK expansion went live?

So, you believe they would start using voodoo?
You're mixing themes...

Liches and dreadlords are not death knights. That's akin to saying orcs should have ogre abilities because the orcs had ogres in their roster in WC3, or that night elves should have dragon and stone giant powers because they had dragons and stone giants in their roster in WC3.

Like how the Orc Shaman unit have Bloodlust like Ogres units had?

You mean Faerie Dragon? no, they shouldn't have Stone giants abilities. But, units like Archer, Huntress and PotM could be mixed into a single thing and like how Druids got abilities from the Keeper of the Grove, Druid of the Claw and Druid of the Talon.

What does that have to do with anything? No one is talking about integrating the witch doctor into the death knight class. We're talking about the possibility of incorporating the WD concept into a future hypothetical necromancer class.

That would be the same fucking thing.
It has no relations, whatsoever. You see a Necromancer dropping Wards?

In your opinion.

They use the same abilities. They come from the same background, lore, theme and fantasy.
You're just pulling an unrelated archetype to your necromancer to justify it.

Diablo is not WoW. Also, in Diablo, the "demon hunter" is a ranged character without demonic powers, just for extra context.

I know that.
Yet, still a Witch Doctor plays like a Witch Doctor and a Necromancer plays like a Necromancer. So, my equivalence stands.

Gameplay is meaningless regarding the lore, i.e., "who worships who".

Maybe currently, to let the Priest accommodate for all religions. But, it doesn't do such a good job, does it? That's why the Priest was the only class to get racial abilities. There's a need to represent its different beliefs, like Loa, Elune and even science.

Void and voodoo are both possible.

Unlikely.
It would be like putting Sun or Loa abilities in the Paladin class because of Sunwalkers and Prelates.

Shaman, Priest and Druid were basic units too. Honestly what does this matter?

Class additions, not vanilla ones.

Paladin, Demon Hunter and Death Knight are actually the only Heros carried over from WC3. Every other class isn't defined purely through single Heroes, and neither would that apply to Necromancer.

All class additions were carried over from Warcraft 3 Heroes. Including the Brewmaster.

Ner'zhul and Kel'thuzad aren't random or unknown.

I was talking about PotM.
A Necromancer would, indeed, be based on Kel'thuzad's (and the Primus's) appearance. Less so on Ner'zhul. Thing is, Kel'thuzad is now more known as a Lich than as a human Necromancer.

But one could make that same argument to POTM. What do they do differently that isn't covered by Hunters, Druids and Priests? For you to answer that you have to bring up Night Warrior, which not all POTM are. You understand?

No different if I bring in Necrolyte to the conversation. If you say not all Necromancers are Necrolytes, then same applies to not all POTM are Nightwarriors.

The fact that you had to list 3 different classes pretty much says it.
A necrolyte is a negligible side aspect of a Necromancer. The Night Warrior is represented by THE PotM, herself, Ms. Tyrande Whisperwind. I think it speaks for itself.

They can still wait after a Necromancer class is added to the game.

Honestly, this is a non-argument.

Nah... you already got the Death Knight in WotLK. Time for people to get their Voodoo class.

[Tyrannica]

If blizz would announce the necromancer class during SL development in say patch 9.2., this expansion would gain much more interest and avoid to share the fate of other great chapters of the like of cataclysm, WoD and BfA. None of these had a new class making up for any design flaws and content droughts.

[Ielenia]

It is, because the Necromancer is mainly, and most iconically, a Scourge thing.

Once again: Maldraxxus is not the "be-all-end-all" of necromancy. We have other types of necromancy, through blood magic and void magic. Hell, if old lore hasn't been rectonned (and, to my knowledge, it hasn't yet) even fel magic can perform necromancy.

Everything else is just flavour. Much like a Sunwalker is to the Paladin.

You're confusing gameplay with lore. Sunwalkers are not a 'flavor of paladin' in the lore. They're their own thing, but, gameplay-wise, they're categorized as paladins.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Necromancer#Origins

I'll concede on the 'birthplace of necromancy' that the Scourge uses, but I have not found any source linked to the claim that 'Primus created necromancy'. All it links to is evidence that Primus created the runes through which he can others can manipulate necromancy.

It is the top source of necromancy. All others are just secondary.

Source and link to that.

It is actually. All under one umbrella.

No. No, it's not. Just like demonic fire, arcane fire and elemental fire are not the same thing.

It is clearly said that some are fighting using weapons.

Where does it say that? Show me the link.

So, you believe they would start using voodoo?
You're mixing themes...

Who said anything about "start to use voodoo"? Voodoo necromancers have practiced voodoo for a long time, they're not doing it now. And, again, what's the problem of mixing themes? The overwhelming majority of classes are a mixture of themes.

no, they shouldn't have Stone giants abilities.

Why not? Your argument was literally "this corrupted human can surely take abilities from this demon which is not an undead nor a corrupted human and from this this undead monstrosity that is not a corrupted human because they all are in the same playable group in Warcraft 3" so why shouldn't night elves have stone giant abilities?

That would be the same fucking thing.

Are you saying "necromancer" is the same thing as "death knight"?

It has no relations, whatsoever. You see a Necromancer dropping Wards?

How many death knights before the WotLK expansion did you ever see casting frost magic?

I know that.
Yet, still a Witch Doctor plays like a Witch Doctor and a Necromancer plays like a Necromancer. So, my equivalence stands.

No. No, it doesn't. Because, again, Diablo is not WoW. So what if those two concepts are separate in Diablo? That doesn't mean those concepts have to be separate in WoW in terms of playable classes.

Maybe currently, to let the Priest accommodate for all religions. But, it doesn't do such a good job, does it? That's why the Priest was the only class to get racial abilities. There's a need to represent its different beliefs, like Loa, Elune and even science.

No, there's no need at all. The representation in the lore is sufficient.

Unlikely.

Very likely as we have strong links to necromancy for those two magic types.

It would be like putting Sun or Loa abilities in the Paladin class because of Sunwalkers and Prelates.

Why, if it's all holy magic? You'd have a point if those concepts using a different magic type, but they don't.

[Triceron]

Class additions, not vanilla ones.

But Necromancer isn't a 'Hero Class', and frankly doesn't need to be. It can start at level 1 just the same.

All class additions were carried over from Warcraft 3 Heroes. Including the Brewmaster.

And are you suggesting that Blizzard can only make Warcraft 3 Heroes? Seems a bit like your personal definition, considering DK and DH were specified as 'Hero' classes, and it implies not all new classes need to be Heroes.

I was talking about PotM.
A Necromancer would, indeed, be based on Kel'thuzad's (and the Primus's) appearance. Less so on Ner'zhul. Thing is, Kel'thuzad is now more known as a Lich than as a human Necromancer.

Which is no different jf you were talking a Witchdoctor class that also dips into Vol'jin. Vol'jin isn't a Witchdoctor, right?

Or Night Warrior tapping into Tyrande, even though Tyrande is no longer a Night Warrior.

The fact that you had to list 3 different classes pretty much says it.
A necrolyte is a negligible side aspect of a Necromancer. The Night Warrior is represented by THE PotM, herself, Ms. Tyrande Whisperwind. I think it speaks for itself.

It speaks for itself, yes. PotM has zero unique gameplay to add to WoW.

Tyrande brings nothing that isn't already covered by other classes.

Starfall? Druids have it.

Magical Arrows? Covered by Hunters.

Healing with moonlight? Covered by NE Priests.


So if you are making an argument that there is room for a new Class that has its themes covered by other classes and brings nothing particularly unique to the game, then this applies to Necromancers. Necromancers would not be excluded from this definition.

Any time you dismiss Necrolytes would equally dismiss Night warrior as being negligeable as a new class. There is nothing more special about being able to play as a Night Warrior, especially if 9.1 already reverted Tyrande back to normal, as well as Night Warrior already being playable as a cosmetic option for NE. I don't see Night Warrior deserving to be playable if Blizzard has decided not to make a class for them when they could have for Shadowlands. What is the point adding Night Warrior class after Tyrande is already reverted back to normal PotM? Are you suggesting she will always be Night Warrior again? Because the lore has implied otherwise by her saying it's time for Renewal instead of Revenge.

[username993720]

Once again: Maldraxxus is not the "be-all-end-all" of necromancy. We have other types of necromancy, through blood magic and void magic. Hell, if old lore hasn't been rectonned (and, to my knowledge, it hasn't yet) even fel magic can perform necromancy.

You can't just take everything out there and shove it into the Necromancer. Even Light can do necromancy (Calia). At is stands, Maldraxxus is the standard of necromancy.

You're confusing gameplay with lore. Sunwalkers are not a 'flavor of paladin' in the lore. They're their own thing, but, gameplay-wise, they're categorized as paladins.

They're ex-warriors who draw light from the Sun (Paladins).

I'll concede on the 'birthplace of necromancy' that the Scourge uses, but I have not found any source linked to the claim that 'Primus created necromancy'. All it links to is evidence that Primus created the runes through which he can others can manipulate necromancy.

It's probably here: Grimoire of the Shadowlands and Beyond, pg. 118.

Source and link to that.

*facepalm*

It's, literally, the birthplace and origins of Necromancy. The realm of Death. Where necromancers first conceived. All other types just imitate it.

No. No, it's not. Just like demonic fire, arcane fire and elemental fire are not the same thing.

They don't all belong to the same realm.

Where does it say that? Show me the link.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Maldraxxi#Necromancers

Who said anything about "start to use voodoo"? Voodoo necromancers have practiced voodoo for a long time, they're not doing it now. And, again, what's the problem of mixing themes? The overwhelming majority of classes are a mixture of themes.

Because you believe it would account for everything that uses necromancy. That would include Fel and Light, as well.

Why not? Your argument was literally "this corrupted human can surely take abilities from this demon which is not an undead nor a corrupted human and from this this undead monstrosity that is not a corrupted human because they all are in the same playable group in Warcraft 3" so why shouldn't night elves have stone giant abilities?

They all use Death magic. Liches use Frost Death Magic. Heck, the Lich King, a Death Knight, is the King of Liches. Dreadlords use vampiric Blood magic. Death Knights are said to wield vampiric Runeblades and we know now that Dreadlords are from the Shadowlands, specifically Revendreth.

Are you saying "necromancer" is the same thing as "death knight"?

It would be incorporating a voodoo archetype into a death class. Same thing.

How many death knights before the WotLK expansion did you ever see casting frost magic?

Frostmourne.
Lich King.
Pretty self explanatory.

No. No, it doesn't. Because, again, Diablo is not WoW. So what if those two concepts are separate in Diablo? That doesn't mean those concepts have to be separate in WoW in terms of playable classes.

It means they use common sense. They knew another undead raiser class would tread on the already existing Witch Doctor and they still added it separately - because they knew it's not the same thing.

No, there's no need at all. The representation in the lore is sufficient.

Barely.
There's a reason why this class was the only one with racial abilities.

Very likely as we have strong links to necromancy for those two magic types.

That would be like adding Fel and Light into the mix because they can do necromancy.

Why, if it's all holy magic? You'd have a point if those concepts using a different magic type, but they don't.

-_-

Void, Voodoo and Death are all shadow magic in game.

But Necromancer isn't a 'Hero Class', and frankly doesn't need to be. It can start at level 1 just the same.

Neither is a Brewmaster. We're not talking about Hero classes, but Hero units.

And are you suggesting that Blizzard can only make Warcraft 3 Heroes? Seems a bit like your personal definition, considering DK and DH were specified as 'Hero' classes, and it implies not all new classes need to be Heroes.

As i said above, the Monk isn't either. It's not about Hero classes.

Which is no different jf you were talking a Witchdoctor class that also dips into Vol'jin. Vol'jin isn't a Witchdoctor, right?

He was in WC3. And it doesn't really matter, since it and Shadow Hunter would be under the same class.

Or Night Warrior tapping into Tyrande, even though Tyrande is no longer a Night Warrior.

So what? she defined what a Night Warrior is.

It speaks for itself, yes. PotM has zero unique gameplay to add to WoW.

Tyrande brings nothing that isn't already covered by other classes.

Starfall? Druids have it.

Magical Arrows? Covered by Hunters.

Healing with moonlight? Covered by NE Priests.


So if you are making an argument that there is room for a new Class that has its themes covered by other classes and brings nothing particularly unique to the game, then this applies to Necromancers. Necromancers would not be excluded from this definition.

So was a Demon Hunter (Warlock, Rogue, Priest). And it turned out to be a new class.

Necromancers aren't scattered across different classes. It was mainly integrated into the Death Knight.

Any time you dismiss Necrolytes would equally dismiss Night warrior as being negligeable as a new class. There is nothing more special about being able to play as a Night Warrior, especially if 9.1 already reverted Tyrande back to normal, as well as Night Warrior already being playable as a cosmetic option for NE. I don't see Night Warrior deserving to be playable if Blizzard has decided not to make a class for them when they could have for Shadowlands. What is the point adding Night Warrior class after Tyrande is already reverted back to normal PotM? Are you suggesting she will always be Night Warrior again? Because the lore has implied otherwise by her saying it's time for Renewal instead of Revenge.

You know any famous Necrolytes? yeah, that...

Why would they make it for Shadowlands?
Black eyes do not make you a Night Warrior. You need to go through a ritual, like Tyrande did.

*Ehm* Elune *Ehm*. Look out for her development.

[Ielenia]

You can't just take everything out there and shove it into the Necromancer. Even Light can do necromancy (Calia). At is stands, Maldraxxus is the standard of necromancy.

False. There is no "standards of necromancy".

They're ex-warriors who draw light from the Sun (Paladins).

In lore, they are completely separate entities from the original paladin concept.

It's probably here: Grimoire of the Shadowlands and Beyond, pg. 118.

"Probably"?

*facepalm*

It's, literally, the birthplace and origins of Necromancy. The realm of Death. Where necromancers first conceived. All other types just imitate it.

I'm still waiting for a link to the source of your statement that "Maldraxxus necromancy is THE necromancy and everything else is secondary."

They don't all belong to the same realm.

Except they do since they're all doing the same thing: creating fire. Just like blood, void, fel and necromancy are raising undead.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Maldraxxi#Necromancers

Sounds like they become death knights, just like priests "taking the path of the warrior" gave birth to the paladins.

Because you believe it would account for everything that uses necromancy. That would include Fel and Light, as well.

Objectively and indisputably false. I never made the claim that a playable necromancer class "would have to account for all forms of necromancy".

They all use Death magic. Liches use Frost Death Magic.

Prove it. Show me that the lich, in WC3, was using "frost death magic". That's a term you just made up.

Heck, the Lich King, a Death Knight, is the King of Liches.

Is this guy a rat?

Dreadlords use vampiric Blood magic. Death Knights are said to wield vampiric Runeblades and we know now that Dreadlords are from the Shadowlands, specifically Revendreth.

Not the same thing. They're demons, not undead. Again, you're saying that because they belonged to a same playable group in Warcraft 3 then they're the same, despite being completely different races.

It would be incorporating a voodoo archetype into a death class. Same thing.

And that is a problem why...?

Frostmourne.
Lich King.
Pretty self explanatory.

No. No, it's not. I'll repeat: "it's obvious" and its cousin "it's common sense" are not strong arguments to make. The Lich King is called a lich not because he is a lich. Those are names.

It means they use common sense.

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

They knew another undead raiser class would tread on the already existing Witch Doctor and they still added it separately - because they knew it's not the same thing.

I'll repeat: Diablo is not Warcraft. What happens or is added in Diablo has absolutely zero effect over what happens or is added in World of Warcraft. The wizard has a lot of lightning spells, so why does the shaman class exist in WoW?

Barely.
There's a reason why this class was the only one with racial abilities.

And that reason is irrelevant because: a) those "racial abilities" are gone; and b) we don't know what it was.

That would be like adding Fel and Light into the mix because they can do necromancy.

We could. But I think we have a whole lot of ways to play with necromancy that we don't need to bring Holy into the mix.

-_-

Void, Voodoo and Death are all shadow magic in game.

Partially right. They are the same thing in spell damage gameplay terms. In lore? They're completely separate things.

[Triceron]

Neither is a Brewmaster. We're not talking about Hero classes, but Hero units.

Not quite. You're talking about Hero units, and all the expansion classes based directly on Hero units were made specifically into Hero classes.

Monk is not a hero class. Neither would Necromancer.

And we know classes can be based on units since we have that in the game. I mean, why would we exclude that? Blizzard certainly hasn't made it a rule that they won't add a class based on Units.

He was in WC3. And it doesn't really matter, since it and Shadow Hunter would be under the same class.

So would Lich and Necromancer. Necro with a Lich form would be satisfactory as repping Ritual use of Death Magic.

And other cultures have their own variations of Liches, like the Troll ones in Nazmir. It fits the lore for many races having their own Lich forms, like different races having their own Druid forms, or DH having their own Demon forms.

So what? she defined what a Night Warrior is.

Which is covered by existing class gameplay.

Night Warrior Tyrande used zero unique abilities or themes that aren't already covered by existing classes.

If your case is that these concepts bring nothing new or different to the table, then either we include both Necros and POTM as classes that should be playable, or we exclude both as classes that aren't deserving to be made playable. There's simply no case you've made where one is different from the other, because as I've said Blizzard made no mandate to exclude classes based on units, especially when they already exist in the class lineup.

You know any famous Necrolytes? yeah, that...

There were no famous Priests either.

And we're talking about a Necromancer class, which has two famous Necromancers in Ner'zhul and Kel'thuzad, so whether Necrolytes are famous or not is like irrelevant. Necrolytes are how Orcs adapted Necromancy. There were no famous Sunwalkers or Vindicators or any example of Dwarf or Zandalari Paladins either. We're just looking at how different cultures adapt a certain class, and those subclasses don't need to be famous or even known to exist at all.

[username993720]

False. There is no "standards of necromancy".

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

In lore, they are completely separate entities from the original paladin concept.

Source?
Every class has it differently.
Humans were turned into ones by training Priests and Warrior in the arts of war and divinity.
Draenei were introduced to it by the Naaru.
Blood elves were introduced to it by siphoning the powers of a Naaru.
Zandalari do it by channeling the power of the Loa.
And Sunwalkers do it by their connection to the Sun.

"Probably"?

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

I'm still waiting for a link to the source of your statement that "Maldraxxus necromancy is THE necromancy and everything else is secondary."

-_-

That's common sense.
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").

Except they do since they're all doing the same thing: creating fire. Just like blood, void, fel and necromancy are raising undead.

*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?!

Sounds like they become death knights, just like priests "taking the path of the warrior" gave birth to the paladins.

Sounds like you're making things up. It says "Necromancers who fight with blades".

Objectively and indisputably false. I never made the claim that a playable necromancer class "would have to account for all forms of necromancy".

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

Prove it. Show me that the lich, in WC3, was using "frost death magic". That's a term you just made up.

To differentiate it from Mage's frost magic.

Is this guy a rat?

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

Not the same thing. They're demons, not undead. Again, you're saying that because they belonged to a same playable group in Warcraft 3 then they're the same, despite being completely different races.

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

And that is a problem why...?

Because it doesn't belong there.

No. No, it's not. I'll repeat: "it's obvious" and its cousin "it's common sense" are not strong arguments to make. The Lich King is called a lich not because he is a lich. Those are names.

He's called so because he masters their powers.

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

So is blatantly being blind to logic.

I'll repeat: Diablo is not Warcraft. What happens or is added in Diablo has absolutely zero effect over what happens or is added in World of Warcraft. The wizard has a lot of lightning spells, so why does the shaman class exist in WoW?

Mages can use lightning, as well (Medivh).
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 that reason is irrelevant because: a) those "racial abilities" are gone; and b) we don't know what it was.

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

We could. But I think we have a whole lot of ways to play with necromancy that we don't need to bring Holy into the mix.

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

Partially right. They are the same thing in spell damage gameplay terms. In lore? They're completely separate things.

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

Not quite. You're talking about Hero units, and all the expansion classes based directly on Hero units were made specifically into Hero classes.

Are you forgetting the Brewmaster?

Monk is not a hero class. Neither would Necromancer.

It doesn't need to be. It's still based on a Warcraft 3 Hero unit.

And we know classes can be based on units since we have that in the game. I mean, why would we exclude that? Blizzard certainly hasn't made it a rule that they won't add a class based on Units.

Vanilla classes are not part of their addition pattern.

So would Lich and Necromancer. Necro with a Lich form would be satisfactory as repping Ritual use of Death Magic.

Which, have been integrated into the Death Knight.

Which is covered by existing class gameplay.

A single one?

Night Warrior Tyrande used zero unique abilities or themes that aren't already covered by existing classes.

Yet, they gave her front an center stage to develop the PotM concept. I wonder why...

If your case is that these concepts bring nothing new or different to the table, then either we include both Necros and POTM as classes that should be playable, or we exclude both as classes that aren't deserving to be made playable. There's simply no case you've made where one is different from the other, because as I've said Blizzard made no mandate to exclude classes based on units, especially when they already exist in the class lineup.

They did, however, when they added the Death Knight, followed by the Monk and then the Demon Hunter.

There were no famous Priests either.

Alonsus Faol.

[Triceron]

Are you forgetting the Brewmaster?

It doesn't need to be. It's still based on a Warcraft 3 Hero unit.

Are you forgetting Lich?

Vanilla classes are not part of their addition pattern.

We never had a Ranged expansion class either
And all Expansion classes can Tank.

Yet, they gave her front an center stage to develop the PotM concept. I wonder why...

What did they develop?

She still has zero new abilities that aren't covered by existing classes.

Alonsus Faol.

Who was not playable and had zero gameplay associated with him, and was not even alive in WC3.

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.

[jellmoo]

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.

[Triceron]

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.

I'm down with the #1 and #2, but I don't think you even need to have #3 be tied to Voodoo specifically. Voodoo already applies to the first two through use of dark magic and alchemy, two themes Trolls already use.

I think you could adapt a life/anima/spirit based Healing spec with shadowy wards (ie WC2 style Unholy Armor, Big Bad Voodoo) to provide temporary invincibility, use dark magic to heal, and create physical shields or barriers to block damage. Necrolytes in WC1 were support units like Clerics, and so were Witchdoctors and Shadow Hunters, so it makes sense to have a dark magic Support role.

[jellmoo]

I'm down with the #1 and #2, but I don't think you even need to have #3 be tied to Voodoo specifically. Voodoo already applies to the first two through use of dark magic and alchemy, two themes Trolls already use.

I think you could adapt a life/anima/spirit based Healing spec with shadowy wards (ie WC2 style Unholy Armor, Big Bad Voodoo) to provide temporary invincibility, use dark magic to heal, and create physical shields or barriers to block damage. Necrolytes in WC1 were support units like Clerics, and so were Witchdoctors and Shadow Hunters, so it makes sense to have a dark magic Support role.

I think tying Voodoo to the first two really waters them all down though. It's like how it's supposedly wrapped up into the Shaman class, but doesn't have anywhere near enough identity within the class to fulfill the fantasy.

I think that the introduction of Bwonsamdi really amped up the style points for what such a thing could be. The way that death and undeath are viewed by various races is a potential source of interest for players and I would love to have a potential new class explore that more.

[Teriz]

If blizz would announce the necromancer class during SL development in say patch 9.2., this expansion would gain much more interest and avoid to share the fate of other great chapters of the like of cataclysm, WoD and BfA. None of these had a new class making up for any design flaws and content droughts.

Unfortunately the chances of Blizzard introducing a new class mid-expansion is close to zero.

Why they decided not to introduce a Necromancer or a Dark Ranger class in SL is baffling, and frankly a missed opportunity. I think a lot of players would be enjoying SL a lot more if they could play with a new class that mirrors the thematics of this expansion. Hopefully we get a new class announcement in February during BlizzCon.

[Tyrannica]

Unfortunately the chances of Blizzard introducing a new class mid-expansion is close to zero.

Why they decided not to introduce a Necromancer or a Dark Ranger class in SL is baffling, and frankly a missed opportunity. I think a lot of players would be enjoying SL a lot more if they could play with a new class that mirrors the thematics of this expansion. Hopefully we get a new class announcement in February during BlizzCon.

Yeah, sure i know. I just tell what it takes to bring back some interest to retail wow while SL is still the expansion. And this is, tbh. Don't think the usual patch content formula will do it this time around.

[username993720]

Are you forgetting Lich?

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

We never had a Ranged expansion class either
And all Expansion classes can Tank.

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.

What did they develop?

She still has zero new abilities that aren't covered by existing classes.

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

Who was not playable and had zero gameplay associated with him, and was not even alive in WC3.

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.

WC1 Cleric, i believe.

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.

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.

I think you could adapt a life/anima/spirit based Healing spec with shadowy wards (ie WC2 style Unholy Armor, Big Bad Voodoo) to provide temporary invincibility, use dark magic to heal, and create physical shields or barriers to block damage. Necrolytes in WC1 were support units like Clerics, and so were Witchdoctors and Shadow Hunters, so it makes sense to have a dark magic Support role.

Leave the Witch Doctor/Shadow Hunter out of it. It's like asking a Shaman to be in the Death Knight class because both use frost magic.

I think tying Voodoo to the first two really waters them all down though. It's like how it's supposedly wrapped up into the Shaman class, but doesn't have anywhere near enough identity within the class to fulfill the fantasy.

I think that the introduction of Bwonsamdi really amped up the style points for what such a thing could be. The way that death and undeath are viewed by various races is a potential source of interest for players and I would love to have a potential new class explore that more.

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