Necromancer fans: What are you looking for in a Necromancer class?

[Teriz]

I mean, I'm not hot or cold about Necromancers, but really - Paladins are pretty much priests with martial training.

That analogy is very valid, because all in all there are a lot of similarities between Priests and Paladins, but also enough differences to make them separate classes.

Overall DK existing does not somehow prevent Necromancers as a class - they are 2 different things despite overlapping themes just like Priest and Paladin.

Except the themes don't overlap. Paladins are pure holy warriors, while Priests are a support class that balances Holy and Shadow magic. You can't make a Paladin with shadow magic. In addition, Paladins use weapon and armor based Holy magic. Priests do not.

If anything, the Necromancer theme completely overlaps with Death Knights. Which makes sense because Blizzard purposely used the Necromancer concept to create Death Knights. Just look at the posts here, people are pretty much recreating the Death Knight class in ranged form.

- - - Updated - - -

We already have multiple specs that "do" the same thing. There is little functional difference between a Fire Mage, Destruction Warlock and Elemental Shaman. They all go 'pew pew pew' with slight variations. Having another class that has an undead theme doesn't need to change how Unholy Death Knights handle that schtick, and having multiple summons doesn't need to be done in the same fashion that Warlocks do it.

You're looking at specs, Im talking about entire classes. Fire Mage doesn't use Shadow and Demonic magic, and Destruction Locks don't use Frost and Arcane magic, so they don't overlap. Necromancers are being proposed as using Blood magic to heal (Blood DK), Shadowfrost for DPS (Frost DK), and some sort of Poison plague and Minion spec (Unholy DK). That's real class overlap.

There are plenty of examples of other games having very different approaches to how their Necromancers function. Blizzard need not pigeonhole themselves and say "we need to make it like Death Knights and warlocks". Why would they? Take a different approach and create a thematically appropriate class that is unique.

Blizzard doesn't need to borrow from other games, they're perfectly capable of creating a Necromancer class. The problem here is that they already created one, and we have people attempting to create yet another Necromancer class around the existing one.

[Amunrasonther]

Isn't that simply revisions of what the DKs already do? Poison in the place of diseases? Shadowfrost in the place of Frost? a permanent lich transformation in the place of the temporary Lich transformation via Lichborne?

I mean, there's not much original here. You mention alchemy, but if we're following previous expansion class inclusions, a class using alchemy would be taking from the Goblin Alchemist hero, and that hero is pretty firmly on the technological/whimiscal side of the equation and fits better with the Goblin Tinker.

No, DKs aren't creating poison concoctions nor spraying enemies with chemicals and toxic gasses à la Professor Putricide. They also aren't using fungal blooms and deadly spores/oozes to attack their enemies. Necromancers can use nature magic & alchemy while Death Knights do not. When people say they want Necromancers with the ability to turn into a Lich, they mean the floating Kel'thuzad like caster Lich, and in a permanent way. Not a lame pvp talent where the user becomes "undead" for 10 sec. Shadowfrost is just a school of magic that can be exclusive to Necromancers. Necromancers would be able to twist shadow and frost magic together while DKs, Mages, and Warlocks cannot. Not to mention the possible ability to use blood magic and fill a role specialization that DKs aren't capable of - and I already mentioned rune magic.

There's 10x more use of alchemy with Necromancers than there is within tinkering. To my knowledge, there's not a single tinker nor engineer that uses alchemy (nor any alchemists that are creating robots), and if there was, please correct me if I'm wrong, it still wouldn't match the prevalence of alchemy within necromancy.

[jellmoo]

You're looking at specs, Im talking about entire classes. Fire Mage doesn't use Shadow and Demonic magic, and Destruction Locks don't use Frost and Arcane magic, so they don't overlap. Necromancers are being proposed as using Blood magic to heal (Blood DK), Shadowfrost for DPS (Frost DK), and some sort of Poison plague and Minion spec (Unholy DK). That's real class overlap.

I'm not looking at spec so much as function. The function of what they do is the same. The nuances are different. That's the case with a lot of classes in this game. Prests and Paladins overlap. Druids, Shaman and Monks overlap. Rogues, Monks and Demon Hunters overlap. It's a common occurrence.

I'm not talking about making a Blood/Frost/Unholy Necromancer though. If other folks are, whatevs, I'm talking about Blizzard making a conceptually different Necromancer.

Blizzard doesn't need to borrow from other games, they're perfectly capable of creating a Necromancer class. The problem here is that they already created one, and we have people attempting to create yet another Necromancer class around the existing one.

Of course they can make one. They did it in Diablo. If they feel like it, they could easily just plop that class into WoW and it would make a lot of people happy.

If you want to define a Necromancer as any dude that uses Necromantic spells, sure. But a whole lot of people are going to define it a lot more specifically. Say "a cloth wearing spellcaster that uses necromantic magic, cats spells at range, summons undead, yada yada yada". Pointing at the Death Knight and saying "there he is!" doesn't mean that people are able to play what they want. If the class doesn't satisfy their needs then there is obviously a potential gap in the classes.

[Soon-TM]

I'm really wondering what exactly are Necromancer fans desiring that isn't already available to them in the form of Warlocks and Death Knights.

What are Priest fans desiring that isn't already available in the form of Paladins and Warlocks?

What are Shaman fans desiring that isn't already available in the form of Mages and Druids?

What are DH fans desiring that isn't already available in the form of Monks and Warriors?

<sigh>

[Teriz]

No, DKs aren't creating poison concoctions nor spraying enemies with chemicals and toxic gasses à la Professor Putricide. They also aren't using fungal blooms and deadly spores/oozes to attack their enemies. Necromancers can use nature magic & alchemy while Death Knights do not. When people say they want Necromancers with the ability to turn into a Lich, they mean the floating Kel'thuzad like caster Lich, and in a permanent way. Not a lame pvp talent where the user becomes "undead" for 10 sec. Shadowfrost is just a school of magic that can be exclusive to Necromancers. Necromancers would be able to twist shadow and frost magic together while DKs, Mages, and Warlocks cannot. Not to mention the possible ability to use blood magic and fill a role specialization that DKs aren't capable of - and I already mentioned rune magic.

Ah, so we're back to Professor Putricide being lumped into the Necromancer concept. Okay. The problem is that all of those poison abilities will simply collapse into DoTs that damage a target. That's the gameplay of poison in WoW. Combine that with Undead minions, and the player base is going to immediately associate it with Unholy and its diseases and minions.

You can call it shadow frost until you're blue in the face, but its still predominantly frost magic, because shadow frost freezes enemies in place. Players will look at that and associate it with the DK frost spec, since DKs also have ranged frost spells.

Finally we have blood magic that heals, just like DK uses blood to heal. And Blood DKs could heal party members in the past, and with Blizzard looking to unprunee they'll probably be healing others in the future too.

So yes, we can use buzzwords to make things feel different, but once you scratch below the surface, the Necromancer concept becomes nothing more than a refurbished Death Knight reconstituted for ranged combat.

There's 10x more use of alchemy with Necromancers than there is within tinkering. To my knowledge, there's not a single tinker nor engineer that uses alchemy (nor any alchemists that are creating robots), and if there was, please correct me if I'm wrong, it still wouldn't match the prevalence of alchemy within necromancy.

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=73095/blackfuse-engineer

Compare to;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...lchemist.shtml

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they can make one. They did it in Diablo. If they feel like it, they could easily just plop that class into WoW and it would make a lot of people happy.

And further homogenize the classes.

If you want to define a Necromancer as any dude that uses Necromantic spells, sure. But a whole lot of people are going to define it a lot more specifically. Say "a cloth wearing spellcaster that uses necromantic magic, cats spells at range, summons undead, yada yada yada". Pointing at the Death Knight and saying "there he is!" doesn't mean that people are able to play what they want. If the class doesn't satisfy their needs then there is obviously a potential gap in the classes.

Ironically the DK does almost all of that. It can wear robes that resemble cloth, it uses necromantic magic, it casts spells at range, and it summons undead.

So yeah, there it is.

[jellmoo]

And further homogenize the classes.

How does that do anything to homogenize the classes?

Ironically the DK does almost all of that. It can wear robes that resemble cloth, it uses necromantic magic, it casts spells at range, and it summons undead.

So yeah, there it is.

Rogues, Warriors and Demon Hunters can attack at range too, does that let them fill that class fantasy? Of course not. You know exactly what is meant here. There's a slew of things that Necromancer fans would want their character to do that the Death Knight simply does not do, because it fills a different class fantasy.

[Teriz]

How does that do anything to homogenize the classes?

It's a rehash of what we already have in the class lineup within multiple classes. It adds nothing new at any level.

Rogues, Warriors and Demon Hunters can attack at range too, does that let them fill that class fantasy? Of course not. You know exactly what is meant here. There's a slew of things that Necromancer fans would want their character to do that the Death Knight simply does not do, because it fills a different class fantasy.

Rogues, Warriors, and Demon Hunters don't have full on magical spells like Clawing Shadows, Epidemic, Death and Decay, Death Coil, Howling Blast, Bonestorm, etc.

I understand that there's a slew of things Necromancer fans want, and it generally amounts to either a ranged DK or the Necromancer from Diablo. Which is fine, but they should at least be honest enough to admit that there's nothing original about it.

[Caerrona]

How does that do anything to homogenize the classes?



Rogues, Warriors and Demon Hunters can attack at range too, does that let them fill that class fantasy? Of course not. You know exactly what is meant here. There's a slew of things that Necromancer fans would want their character to do that the Death Knight simply does not do, because it fills a different class fantasy.

Like putting up dots? Maybe some minions perhaps? Or what about the chilling cold of some necro frost magic maybe? OR what about healing through blood? Havent seen these "fantasies" around anywhere.

[Magistrate]

Supposedly, Necromancers were planned for WoW, but in an effort to distinguish themselves from Everquest, Blizzard opted to create the Warlock instead. If you REALLY look at Warlocks, you can definitely see a lot of Necromancer influence there.

I think the story was actually that Necromancer was loosely planned at an early iterative stage of Wrath to release with the DK but they ended up scrapping it and folding the ideas into the DK. Monks were also almost a thing in Wrath, or at least considered.

- - - Updated - - -

If they decide otherwise, then there will be mass pruning in the Death Knight and Warlock classes.

I don't think that was ever announced as a rule.

[Ielenia]

They could do all of that, but there's no reason to mess with tradition.

Chen was an "obscure minor character" until MoP brought him to the spotlight.

Also, Teriz: you should be very careful when talking about "no reason to mess with tradition", considering your beloved class concept "messes with tradition" as it wants to add a class that is outside the "traditional" sword-and-sorcery line-up of playable classes.

[Magistrate]

Except the themes don't overlap. Paladins are pure holy warriors, while Priests are a support class that balances Holy and Shadow magic. You can't make a Paladin with shadow magic. In addition, Paladins use weapon and armor based Holy magic. Priests do not.

In lore I believe it was that Paladins were originally Priests but given combat training. I think that's literally, actually a thing.

[Ielenia]

They could, but again, why mess with tradition?

Also, the Lich King is in the WotLK box art... but we don't know if he's there because of the playable death knights... or because he's the "big baddie" of the expansion. Considering how much he shows up in the game, even during the leveling experience, there's a strong argument that it could be the latter instead of the former.

I agree, and they decided that it's the Death Knight, twice.

They also "decided" that the warlock class would be the demon hunter class of WoW, remember?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, except Priests aren't the ranged version of Paladins. 50% of the Priest class utilizes shadow magic, a type of magic that Paladins don't use at all.

That's a meaningless argument, for two reasons:
• One, because it implies necromancers as a playable class are "a-okay" if we give them a different spec that the death knight does not have access to;
• Two, because it implies that priests got the shadow spec specifically to make themselves stand out from paladins, which brings up back to point one.

[Zorish]

i'll add my 5 cents to this

• many there go with "many permament pets" or "summon many undeads". You forget one thing people. Blizzard position about class/spec having TOO MUCH passive damage. It's cancer in PVP, it's too easy in PVE with heavy movements. That's why with time they changed warlock to more "active" gameplay, than "put dots and kite all day".
• same thing with above. Clusterfuck of minions behind the boss. While having it on CD is somewhat okay (and those abilities still always under blizzard watch), constantly having 5-10 pets from just one class will be just bullshit sitting on boss ass. Ranged minions and suicide ones? *point at warlock, who can just hurl his imps at boss* Turn that ability into bone spear, that collect your temporary skeletal mages/archers and hurl it at boss - BOOM.
• There is go ESO lamenters. Hey ESO player answer me honestly. After they implemented necromancer - CAN they now do Death knight class? Answer - NO. Cause your necromancer took many from DK (ESO version if such happen) aspects, like melee, bone armor, ability to use heavy weapons/armor (all classes thing), and now with update in vampire skills, blood part if possible taken too. See? And diablo have same issue. Class just COMBINED both archetypes. While it can serve reason to redo DK, into necromancer - that's not possible with wow class system. We will end up with at least 5 specs on one class: melee DPS DK style (weapons and smacking in melee), Tank class (NOT PET TANK, pet tanking another topic, that with current gameplay, will be cancer), ranger caster, minion master, healer. And blizzard won't do it.

don't get me wrong, i am interested in ESO, always looking what happen with game, but man. Even their trailer necromancer didn't summon undead, but turned into bone golem to smack dragon in MELEE. HE is just other verion of DK on steroids (heavy bone focus, and selfheal having "spectral" flavor, instead of blood one)

[Teriz]

I think the story was actually that Necromancer was loosely planned at an early iterative stage of Wrath to release with the DK but they ended up scrapping it and folding the ideas into the DK. Monks were also almost a thing in Wrath, or at least considered.

That was for wrath. Swapping Warlocks for Necromancers happened in Vanilla.

I don't think that was ever announced as a rule.

I'm just going by how Blizzard has operated in the past. The sheer overlap present between DKs and Necromancers is more than likely the reason there was no Necromancer class announced for Shadowlands, and will probably never be announced as a separate class.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the Lich King is in the WotLK box art... but we don't know if he's there because of the playable death knights... or because he's the "big baddie" of the expansion. Considering how much he shows up in the game, even during the leveling experience, there's a strong argument that it could be the latter instead of the former.

Considering that the Death Knights we play as were raised from the dead by the Lich King, and we were groomed to be his servants, and when we leave his servitude we take over Archerus, it's pretty safe to assume that he's there partially because of Death Knights. We even gained some of his abilities over the course of WoW.

They also "decided" that the warlock class would be the demon hunter class of WoW, remember?

Yes, until they removed metamorphosis from their class and gave it to Demon Hunters. If Warlocks can take the place of DHs with just metamorphosis, imagine the Necromancer situation when the DK pretty much has all of your spells.

That's a meaningless argument, for two reasons:
• One, because it implies necromancers as a playable class are "a-okay" if we give them a different spec that the death knight does not have access to;
• Two, because it implies that priests got the shadow spec specifically to make themselves stand out from paladins, which brings up back to point one.

The argument is that Priests are ranged Paladins. That's a bad argument because Priests have abilities that Paladins can never have.

Necromancers would be "a-okay" if you can somehow make 50% of their class concept not overlap with the DK class. Good luck with that.

[MrKnubbles]

Like a lot of the minions in demonology?

I don't know, I don't play Warlock. But if I played a Necro, I think that would be important. It doesn't matter if that one aspect is similar because the entire theme of the class would be different.

[jellmoo]

It's a rehash of what we already have in the class lineup within multiple classes. It adds nothing new at any level.

It's only that way to you because you assume it has to be that way. You're not open to the possibility of original ideas or mechanics to give a Necromancer a niche and identity.

Rogues, Warriors, and Demon Hunters don't have full on magical spells like Clawing Shadows, Epidemic, Death and Decay, Death Coil, Howling Blast, Bonestorm, etc.

I understand that there's a slew of things Necromancer fans want, and it generally amounts to either a ranged DK or the Necromancer from Diablo. Which is fine, but they should at least be honest enough to admit that there's nothing original about it.

But if Blizzard were to say "Okay, we have this cool Necromancer class in Diablo, let's pop it into WoW", how is it not original? It would have unique abilities all it's own, unique attacks, an aesthetic noticeably different from the Death Knight, and potentially a unique role within the game. And that's just copying it. If they use it as inspiration and draw other ideas from other sources, there could be a class that's functionally very different from what is currently available. The point is that it doesn't have to be a ranged Death Knight. It can be something very different.

[Ielenia]

Considering that the Death Knights we play as were raised from the dead by the Lich King, and we were groomed to be his servants, and when we leave his servitude we take over Archerus, it's pretty safe to assume that he's there partially because of Death Knights. We even gained some of his abilities over the course of WoW.

Or...
Or...
Or...

Perhaps box art showcases important characters that the expansions deal with, and not because those characters are tied to the classes introduced in those expansions.

Which means the Lich King is there because he is the what the expansion was about. The "Wrath of the Lich King" expansion was about... the Lich King. Cataclysm was about Deathwing, so he's on the cover. Mists of Pandaria was about the pandaren, so Chen, the only recognizable pandaren, is on the cover. Legion's most important character was Illidan, as we spent the whole first third rescuing him. TBC showcases the draenei and blood elves because the expansion has the Aldor/Scryer duality.

In short: Wrath, MoP and Legion expansions' new classes being related to the characters depicted in their respective box arts could possibly be simply coincidental.

The argument is that Priests are ranged Paladins.

No. That is not the argument. Your argument is that "necromancers are ranged death knights".

And the problem with that statement of yours is that you ignore current examples within the game that contradict this posture. Case in point: priests, in the majority of RPG games, tend to be the "holy/pious character". If it was added into WoW the way it is often depicted, it'd be a "holy/holy/holy" class, just like the paladin is "holy/holy/holy".

Which, mind you, would be completely fine, in my opinion, because I can think of a healing spec based on heavy heals, a healing spec based on light heals but mostly shields, and a DPS spec possibly called "Inquisition".

But perhaps Blizzard thought that two classes having the exact same magic-school-based specs was not enough, and decided to give the priest class the "Shadow" spec to further differentiate it from the paladin class. But on the other hand, though, they could have instead made the DPS spec of the paladin a shadow spec, since Paladins are supposed to be defenders, and "revenge" is usually frowned up, which is basically what "retribution" is.

The point of us pointing out at the priest/paladin situation, Teriz, is exactly because of that: Blizzard can give something new to the necromancer class that the death knights don't have access to, if that truly is an issue. And there is enough lore to support that.

[jellmoo]

Like putting up dots? Maybe some minions perhaps? Or what about the chilling cold of some necro frost magic maybe? OR what about healing through blood? Havent seen these "fantasies" around anywhere.

Like trapping spirits in jars, or causing bones to shatter, or turning an enemy into a zombie, or causing skin to melt, or summoning crypt fiends, or building a golem, or speaking with the dead, etc... There's more to what a Necromancer could do than what's in the Death Knight's tool kit.

[Amunrasonther]

Ah, so we're back to Professor Putricide being lumped into the Necromancer concept. Okay. The problem is that all of those poison abilities will simply collapse into DoTs that damage a target. That's the gameplay of poison in WoW. Combine that with Undead minions, and the player base is going to immediately associate it with Unholy and its diseases and minions.

So now DKs own DoT mechanics?? That's crazy since pretty much every class has some kind of abilitity with a DoT component. Pets and DoTs play a very minor role in my Necromancer alchemy spec.

You can call it shadow frost until you're blue in the face, but its still predominantly frost magic, because shadow frost freezes enemies in place. Players will look at that and associate it with the DK frost spec, since DKs also have ranged frost spells.

It is in its own school of magic. It is not predominantly frost magic, it often doesn't even snare enemies let alone freeze them. My shadowfrost spec is the major pet build of my concept. Frost Mages and Frost Dks are not known for their summons.

Finally we have blood magic that heals, just like DK uses blood to heal. And Blood DKs could heal party members in the past, and with Blizzard looking to unprunee they'll probably be healing others in the future too.

Blood healer specialization =/= Blood tank role. Don't compare them.

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=73095/blackfuse-engineer

Compare to;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...lchemist.shtml

That's your tinker/alchemist connection? Healing Spray? Well for starters, one is a chemical spray and the other a magic spray. Extremely weak connection.

[Teriz]

It's only that way to you because you assume it has to be that way. You're not open to the possibility of original ideas or mechanics to give a Necromancer a niche and identity.

Because its niche and identity is already in the class lineup.

A Necromancer's niche is a dark summoner that summons minions to do its bidding. It has curses and soul magic, and has the power to corrupt life itself.

Warlocks fill that niche.

A Necromancer's identity is summoning undead minions and controlling the dead.

Death Knights fill that identity.

This is why so many Necromancer fan concepts fall right into the ditch created by those two classes, and Blizzard purposely made it that way. If Blizzard was seriously considering a Necromancer class, we would see them begin to prune Necromancer based abilities away from the DK class like they did with Warlocks before the Demon Hunter dropped. Instead, we see the exact opposite occurring.

But if Blizzard were to say "Okay, we have this cool Necromancer class in Diablo, let's pop it into WoW", how is it not original? It would have unique abilities all it's own, unique attacks, an aesthetic noticeably different from the Death Knight, and potentially a unique role within the game. And that's just copying it. If they use it as inspiration and draw other ideas from other sources, there could be a class that's functionally very different from what is currently available. The point is that it doesn't have to be a ranged Death Knight. It can be something very different.

What would be original about it? Pretty much all of the Necromancer abilities in Diablo could fit right into the Death Knight WoW class.

- - - Updated - - -

Or...
Or...
Or...

Perhaps box art showcases important characters that the expansions deal with, and not because those characters are tied to the classes introduced in those expansions.

Which means the Lich King is there because he is the what the expansion was about. The "Wrath of the Lich King" expansion was about... the Lich King. Cataclysm was about Deathwing, so he's on the cover. Mists of Pandaria was about the pandaren, so Chen, the only recognizable pandaren, is on the cover. Legion's most important character was Illidan, as we spent the whole first third rescuing him. TBC showcases the draenei and blood elves because the expansion has the Aldor/Scryer duality.

In short: Wrath, MoP and Legion expansions' new classes being related to the characters depicted in their respective box arts could possibly be simply coincidental.

Except Arthas was a Death Knight, Chen was a Brewmaster/Monk, and Illidan was a Demon Hunter.

So it stands to reason that the next class will also have its major lore figure on the cover as well. Again, Kel'thuzad is pretty much on the level of those other lore characters, but he's the only Necromancer character in WoW with that pedigree.

No. That is not the argument. Your argument is that "necromancers are ranged death knights".

And the problem with that statement of yours is that you ignore current examples within the game that contradict this posture. Case in point: priests, in the majority of RPG games, tend to be the "holy/pious character". If it was added into WoW the way it is often depicted, it'd be a "holy/holy/holy" class, just like the paladin is "holy/holy/holy".

Which, mind you, would be completely fine, in my opinion, because I can think of a healing spec based on heavy heals, a healing spec based on light heals but mostly shields, and a DPS spec possibly called "Inquisition".

But perhaps Blizzard thought that two classes having the exact same magic-school-based specs was not enough, and decided to give the priest class the "Shadow" spec to further differentiate it from the paladin class. But on the other hand, though, they could have instead made the DPS spec of the paladin a shadow spec, since Paladins are supposed to be defenders, and "revenge" is usually frowned up, which is basically what "retribution" is.

The point of us pointing out at the priest/paladin situation, Teriz, is exactly because of that: Blizzard can give something new to the necromancer class that the death knights don't have access to, if that truly is an issue. And there is enough lore to support that.

I'm still waiting on someone to show exactly what that is. From my vantage point, the lack of a necromancer class in Shadowlands, and Blizzard reinforcing necromancer concepts into the Death Knight seems to indicate that they have no plans to ever introduce another Necromancer class into the game.