Its incredible that there hasn't been a new ranged class added to the game.

[Kehego]

Quick question; Was Survival from Vanilla to Legion a ranged spec, or a melee spec?



Yet Enhancement does exist, so there goes you and @Ielenia's argument right down the toilet.

I see the idea of exception doesn't exist in your brain.

and

Survival did allow for a perfectly functional melee playstyle, if you so chose. Survival hunter was more fleshed out as a melee spec than Enhancement and Ret.

[Teriz]

I see the idea of exception doesn't exist in your brain.

I see that you're still trying to argue after you've been proven completely wrong.

[Ethas]

Yes, we get it, you wanted necromancers. How many threads in how many subforums do you intend to open about that?

I think the same amount as Tinker. My vote is strongly against the latter.

[Kehego]

I see that you're still trying to argue after you've been proven completely wrong.

You've done no such thing.

Also, nice job half quoting the post.

Survival did allow for a perfectly functional melee playstyle, if you so chose. Survival hunter was more fleshed out as a melee spec than Enhancement and Ret.

[Teriz]

I think the same amount as Tinker. My vote is strongly against the latter.

There hasn't been a Tinker thread on this forum in several months.

- - - Updated - - -

You've done no such thing.

Oh? Then why isn't Shaman a completely ranged class?

Also, nice job half quoting the post.

Because it was so ridiculous that it wasn't worth responding to. Play a raid in classic WoW as a melee survival and watch how fast the group kicks you.

[Ielenia]

You didn't answer the question; In what scenario does Blizzard create a Paladin class for a MMO that does NOT have healing spells?

Because your question is irrelevant because it's not about having healing powers or not. It's about a class being melee, but still having ranged powers, as per your holy Warcraft 3 says that all units with "weapon type: normal" become melee classes in WoW, and all units with "weapon type: missile" become ranged classes.

I also should mention that this is also irrelevant to the point of this discussion.

And yet you keep repeating the question, despite knowing it's irrelevant?

It's only a rule if there are no exceptions,

Um... that's not how it works, Teriz. Rules have exceptions. Rules always have exceptions. Where the hecc did you get this idea that "rules do not have exceptions"?

[Kehego]

There hasn't been a Tinker thread on this forum in several months.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh? Then why isn't Shaman a completely ranged class?



Because it was so ridiculous that it wasn't worth responding to. Play a raid in classic WoW as a melee survival and watch how fast the group kicks you.

I mean, enhancement has more ranged spells than melee attacks, used int as one of its 2 primary stats for the first 2 years, so it might as well be.

Classic WoW and vanilla WoW are two different entities, and thinking otherwise is flat out wrong at worst and disingenuous at best.

[FelPlague]

A class that manipulates the mind. A Shadow priest essentially.

so how the fuck would that work in content?
Literally like... there would be no spell effects, and it sounds so fucking limited.

[Pandragon]

I hope the next ranged is Tinker. All other suggestions I've seen are cringe to the max, especially considering pet AI in WoW is still bad and double bad in M+ and Hunter covers every other idea (Dark Ranger), they just won't add more flavor to them (like how they already had black arrow, then removed it).

Marksman should just naturally evolve into void abilities, following Sylvannas and Alleria, maybe they're moving into something like that with Shadowlands?? Who knows, doubt it.

They should actually turn Sub Rogue into the Dark Ranger. Because while the Dark Rangers were originally fallen Farstriders, most of the newer ones were rogues. Sylvanas decided their ability to stealth was a huge asset. They use all the same weapons and gear that rogues do. This change should have been made in Legion when Survival became melee.

[Teriz]

Because your question is irrelevant because it's not about having healing powers or not. It's about a class being melee, but still having ranged powers, as per your holy Warcraft 3 says that all units with "weapon type: normal" become melee classes in WoW, and all units with "weapon type: missile" become ranged classes.

Except WC3 never "says" that. That was your erroneous interpretation that has been proven false.

And yet you keep repeating the question, despite knowing it's irrelevant?

I asked it twice, and you're still refusing to answer. I wonder why.

Um... that's not how it works, Teriz. Rules have exceptions. Rules always have exceptions. Where the hecc did you get this idea that "rules do not have exceptions"?

You're trying to veer us off into irrelevant nonsense in order to avoid answering a relevant question.

I'll ask again; If Shaman and Hunters can have ranged and melee specs that break this "rule" (that you completely made up), why can't Tinkers?

- - - Updated - - -

so how the fuck would that work in content?
Literally like... there would be no spell effects, and it sounds so fucking limited.

I agree. There will always be people who want new dark or edgy classes, no matter how ridiculous and pointless they are.

[Ielenia]

Except WC3 never "says" that. That was your erroneous interpretation that has been proven false.

Warcraft III never "says" that you must use at least one of its units as basis for classes in WoW, but you always tout that "rule" over and over in other people's class concept fan threads, now, don't you?

I asked it twice, and you're still refusing to answer. I wonder why.

Because it's irrelevant. Like I said, it's not about the paladin having healing powers or not.

"rule" (that you completely made up)

But you can make up rules?

[fwc577]

I think when you're discussing ranged vs melee, you need to remove healing and tank specs.

Ranged: Shadow Priest, Arcane, Fire, Frost, Demonology, Affliction, Destruction, Balance, Elemental, Beast Mastery, Marskmanship
Melee: Havok, Feral, Assassination, Combat, Sub, WW, Enhancement, Survival, Frost, Unholy, Retribution, Fury, Arms
Healer: Disc, Holy, Resto Druid, MW, Resto Sham, Holy Paladin
Tank: Prot War, Prot Pal, Blood DK, Guardian Druid, BM Monk, Havok DH

Ranged - 11
Melee - 13
Healer - 6
Tank - 6

So WoW is for sure due a range spec.

Would also like to see the addition of a Healer and Tank.

Tinker would be good to fit all three....

Tinker Tank - Introduce a new "Guardian" type tank. The tinker "shifts" into a Mech for tanking
Tinker Healer - Utilizes a blaster to shield and channel heals to enemies. Make it somehow a mix of Disc and Mistweaver
Tinker Ranged - Explosives dots w/ acids and other gadgets. Maybe even make it a pet spec like BM hunters have their mech pets they can tame.


Add a Tinker as Ranged/Healer/Tank we are at Ranged 12, Heal 7, Tank 7, Melee 13.

[Teriz]

Warcraft III never "says" that you must use at least one of its units as basis for classes in WoW, but you always tout that "rule" over and over in other people's class concept fan threads, now, don't you?

I never tout it as a rule. I merely point it out as a matter of fact that nearly all of the original classes, and ALL of the expansion classes have corresponding units or heroes in WC3, indicating that Blizzard uses that as a basis for their classes.

Because it's irrelevant. Like I said, it's not about the paladin having healing powers or not.

No, it was about your silly argument that it would be justified for a class to have Hunter and Mage abilities (via Tyrande's archetype) because Paladins are a supposed combination of Priests and Warriors. Seemingly ignoring that Paladins are a RPG staple that always has had healing abilities.

But you can make up rules?

Once again you're refusing to answer the question. How sad. In the end, the Tinker is completely justified in having a ranged spec because of its abilities. The fact that it has a melee auto-attack is completely irrelevant, just like all Shaman heroes and units in WC3 were ranged yet we still ended up with the melee Enhancement spec.

- - - Updated - - -

I think when you're discussing ranged vs melee, you need to remove healing and tank specs.

Ranged: Shadow Priest, Arcane, Fire, Frost, Demonology, Affliction, Destruction, Balance, Elemental, Beast Mastery, Marskmanship
Melee: Havok, Feral, Assassination, Combat, Sub, WW, Enhancement, Survival, Frost, Unholy, Retribution, Fury, Arms
Healer: Disc, Holy, Resto Druid, MW, Resto Sham, Holy Paladin
Tank: Prot War, Prot Pal, Blood DK, Guardian Druid, BM Monk, Havok DH

Ranged - 11
Melee - 13
Healer - 6
Tank - 6

So WoW is for sure due a range spec.

Would also like to see the addition of a Healer and Tank.

Tinker would be good to fit all three....

Tinker Tank - Introduce a new "Guardian" type tank. The tinker "shifts" into a Mech for tanking
Tinker Healer - Utilizes a blaster to shield and channel heals to enemies. Make it somehow a mix of Disc and Mistweaver
Tinker Ranged - Explosives dots w/ acids and other gadgets. Maybe even make it a pet spec like BM hunters have their mech pets they can tame.


Add a Tinker as Ranged/Healer/Tank we are at Ranged 12, Heal 7, Tank 7, Melee 13.

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm thinking as well. Perhaps even have the mech aspect be a part of all three specs to have a more unified class identity? If not, then the ranged spec should definitely utilize a gun of some type.

[Armakus]

I very much doubt it. They just added them as allied race.

Is this not similar to saying "I very much doubt they'll add Death Knights, they already added forsaken as a race"

[Ielenia]

I never tout it as a rule. I merely point it out as a matter of fact that nearly all of the original classes, and ALL of the expansion classes have corresponding units or heroes in WC3, indicating that Blizzard uses that as a basis for their classes.

Yeah. And you treat it as if it is a rule, that new classes must use WC3 units as basis. You say you don't think it's a rule, but you sure do treat it as one. If you didn't, you wouldn't constantly repeat it and use it against any and all class concept fan threads that aren't tinkers.

No, it was about your silly argument that it would be justified for a class to have Hunter and Mage abilities (via Tyrande's archetype) because Paladins are a supposed combination of Priests and Warriors. Seemingly ignoring that Paladins are a RPG staple that always has had healing abilities.

That wasn't the argument. You said that "class+class" combinations "don't work in WoW", when it's actually the exact opposite going on. It doesn't matter that "paladins are a staple of RPG", the concept is still a class + class combination. Same thing with the demon hunter.

Once again you're refusing to answer the question. How sad. In the end, the Tinker is completely justified in having a ranged spec because of its abilities.

This is more evidence that you don't read what other people write, just skim through. Did you really miss the part where I conceded due to the existence of the Mortar Team unit?

The fact that it has a melee auto-attack is completely irrelevant

It's not irrelevant. I'm amused how someone who loves to use WC3 as a "rule book" is now willing to ignore the "rules" when they don't suit him.

[Teriz]

Yeah. And you treat it as if it is a rule, that new classes must use WC3 units as basis. You say you don't think it's a rule, but you sure do treat it as one. If you didn't, you wouldn't constantly repeat it and use it against any and all class concept fan threads that aren't tinkers.

Only because all the previous expansion classes did. Considering that we still have more concepts to mine from the WC3 units, why wouldn't Blizzard continue doing it? It simply makes sense because those hero units in WC3 have a strong connection to Warcraft lore since they tend to be major lore figures. Gazlowe and the Tinker hero have all the traits that the previous expansion class inclusions had. So it would only make sense to assume that that would be the next class. All we need now is an expansion that makes its inclusion logical for Blizzard.

This is more evidence that you don't read what other people write, just skim through. Did you really miss the part where I conceded due to the existence of the Mortar Team unit?

This is the first time you've mentioned that you conceded, so of course I didn't see it.

It's not irrelevant. I'm amused how someone who loves to use WC3 as a "rule book" is now willing to ignore the "rules" when they don't suit him.

Thanks for taking my quote out of context. Again, the Tinker is completely justified in having a ranged spec because of its abilities. The fact that it has a melee auto-attack is completely irrelevant, just like all Shaman heroes and units in WC3 were ranged yet we still ended up with the melee Enhancement spec.

[Aresk]

Only because all the previous expansion classes did. Considering that we still have more concepts to mine from the WC3 units, why wouldn't Blizzard continue doing it? It simply makes sense because those hero units in WC3 have a strong connection to Warcraft lore since they tend to be major lore figures. Gazlowe and the Tinker hero have all the traits that the previous expansion class inclusions had. So it would only make sense to assume that that would be the next class. All we need now is an expansion that makes its inclusion logical for Blizzard.

I agree that looking at WC3 for ideas is a good idea, but I don't understand why Gazlowe and the Tinker hero traits indicate that we should assume that it would be the next class? I could make similar statements about Kel'thuzad and Lich/Necromancer and point to an afterlife-themed expansion, and I don't see why that would be any less likely to be the next class over Tinker.

I have nothing against Tinker. I just don't understand how one character who had a short arc in BfA and a few traits of the hero leads to assuming it's next.

[Teriz]

I agree that looking at WC3 for ideas is a good idea, but I don't understand why Gazlowe and the Tinker hero traits indicate that we should assume that it would be the next class? I could make similar statements about Kel'thuzad and Lich/Necromancer and point to an afterlife-themed expansion, and I don't see why that would be any less likely to be the next class over Tinker.

I have nothing against Tinker. I just don't understand how one character who had a short arc in BfA and a few traits of the hero leads to assuming it's next.

Fair points. The problem is that the Lich’s abilities are already incorporated into the Death Knight and Mage classes. Death Knights have Death and Decay, and Mages have Frost Armor and Frost Nova. Some of Kelthuzad’s HotS abilities are also currently within the DK and Mage classes; Chains of Ice, Glacial Spike, and Comet Storm under a different name. Frost DKs are trained by Lichs within Archerus, and even have a spell called Lichborne. So for all intents and purposes, the Lich is already in the class lineup.

The other problem would be creating a class that is different enough from Mages and DKs. Considering that a Lich would be pretty much another Frost Mage with some DK abilities tossed in, that would be a tall order, and in the end we would end up just having a Frost mage clone who has taken abilities away from both mages and DKs.

One of the major advantages that the Tinker has it that none of its abilities from WC3 or HotS exists in any WoW class. In fact, the Tinker is pretty much the only WC3 hero who's abilities isn't absorbed by any of the existing WoW classes. The only other hero with that feature is the Goblin Alchemist, who could easily be incorporated into the Tinker class as the basis of a healing, or DPS spec.

[Ielenia]

Only because all the previous expansion classes did.

Again, you're just confirming that you're treating it as a rule. "Other expansions did it, so it must be so".

Considering that we still have more concepts to mine from the WC3 units, why wouldn't Blizzard continue doing it?

Considering we have a much richer wealth of possible concepts in fantasy universes outside of Warcraft, why shouldn't Blizzard take inspirations from those to add more variety to their own universe?

This is the first time you've mentioned that you conceded, so of course I didn't see it.

This just further reinforces the idea that you don't read what other people post and just skim for key words. I mean, it's not like a wrote a huge paragraph and the line where I conceded the idea was lost in the middle of it. It was one single line of text, dude.

Thanks for taking my quote out of context.

It's not out of context. It was a rule I made up, using the Warcraft 3 game like you do, and you kept denying said rule exist... just like everyone does when you bring out your "rules" in other people's class concept fan threads.

And the "weapon type" is not "irrelevant", considering there is a single exception to this, whereas all other eleven classes follow the "weapon type" of their WC3 inspirations to a 'T'.

[Shiza]

Fair points. The problem is that the Lich’s abilities are already incorporated into the Death Knight and Mage classes. Death Knights have Death and Decay, and Mages have Frost Armor and Frost Nova. Some of Kelthuzad’s HotS abilities are also currently within the DK and Mage classes; Chains of Ice, Glacial Spike, and Comet Storm under a different name. Frost DKs are trained by Lichs within Archerus, and even have a spell called Lichborne. So for all intents and purposes, the Lich is already in the class lineup.

The other problem would be creating a class that is different enough from Mages and DKs. Considering that a Lich would be pretty much another Frost Mage with some DK abilities tossed in, that would be a tall order, and in the end we would end up just having a Frost mage clone who has taken abilities away from both mages and DKs.

One of the major advantages that the Tinker has it that none of its abilities from WC3 or HotS exists in any WoW class. In fact, the Tinker is pretty much the only WC3 hero who's abilities isn't absorbed by any of the existing WoW classes. The only other hero with that feature is the Goblin Alchemist, who could easily be incorporated into the Tinker class as the basis of a healing, or DPS spec.

To be honest, the way to go for Blizz to do a Necromancer class would be to copy off some aspects of the Diablo 3 Necromancer. Which would be something I support. Monk already should have been more inspired by Diablo, considering that the Diablo 3 Monk is simply more interesting in concept and abilities. Hell, I would be even down for a Tinker class if they borrow from Overwatch, considering how gnomes are extremely underdeveloped and unpopular in the game while Overwatch offers the potential to borrow the fantasies of iconic and popular classes like D.Va or Reinhardt. I mean, here even you have to admit: Almost anyone would rather have the fantasy of being like one of the more popular tech related Overwatch heroes than being Mekkadril. And Overwatch offers more interesting ideas what to do with the tech concept. I mean, on tank alone it could be either a mecha-tank or an Ironman suit. Demon Hunters worked as classes tailored specifically to two races, because it was elves and elves are always popular. With the case of Monks, we see that classes who are tailored towards less popular and more gimmicky races will simply take off.

Blizzard should finally start allow other Blizzard properties to inspire their class design. This is why FF14 classes work, they are most often designed after something we know and love from older Final Fantasies, like Gunbreaker who is designed after Squall Leonhart.