Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Teriz]

That isn't remotely what priests mind control does and if you seriously think that then we don't need tinkers because all their abilities are damaging abilities or tanking abilities which other classes have.

Priest Mind Control allows you take over an NPC and you can walk around and use their NPC abilities. That's pretty much exactly what you said minus duration and your character following behind the "possessed" NPC.

Clearly you still don't understand mechanics vs theme. Let me give you another example:

Let's pretend that Kel'Thuzad saw death knights and was like hey I want my own. He isn't as powerful as the Lich King so his deathknights while using the same elements use different mechanics. He then calls these new death knights dark paladins as a fuck you to actual paladins. I'm going to keep all of these specs as melee just to show you how different something can play while still being identical thematically.

Frost spec - Since Kel'Thuzad was weaker these dark paladins needed to think outside the box to augment their abilities and by encasing themselves in ice they were able to boost their abilities to be comparable to a death knights. Frost now ends up being a tank aoe spec that is more static than most tank specs and uses a health buffer in ice armor.

Blood spec- Kel'Thuzad has been undead for so long he's forgotten what blood is like so these Dark Paladins must learn to manipulate the blood of their enemies and aren't a tank unlike a bood DK. This spec would be more like a rogue using 2 one hand swords/ axes to slice their enemies and drain their blood which they then use to empower themselves or weaken their enemies. These dark paladins store the blood of their enemies in blood globules surrounding them which they can then use to enhance thier abilites or take a fatal hit for them.

Unholy spec- Kel'Thuzad didn't want any competition in the necromancy department and so while the Unholy dark paladin can create a minion they can't summon a ton of undead. They use diseases to plague enemies enough to lop body parts off them which they then use to enhance their undead golem. This spec would then revolve around empowering your pet and gathering body parts from enemies.


See how a death knight clone could easily have much different class mechanics than a death knight? And a Necromancer is a ranged cloth user meaning the mechanics could be a thousand times more different than a death knight while still maintaining the same elemental themes.

You do understand that despite the difference in mechanics, the thematics would still be unfavorably compared to Death Knights and players would say that Blizzard lazily created another set of Death Knights instead of making something new. That's how powerful thematics are when it comes to classes.

[qwerty123456]

Priest Mind Control allows you take over an NPC and you can walk around and use their NPC abilities. That's pretty much exactly what you said minus duration and your character following behind the "possessed" NPC.





You do understand that despite the difference in mechanics, the thematics would still be unfavorably compared to Death Knights and players would say that Blizzard lazily created another set of Death Knights instead of making something new. That's how powerful thematics are when it comes to classes.

Do you actually play the game? Cause only disc has a talent that lets you walk around while still using their abilities for 30 seconds but they then become like a pet you cant really move on its own so no even with the talent its nothing like what I described. Plus basic Priest mind control has a limited range, limited creature abilities, and duration. You don't become a zombie walking behind, you stand in place (without the Disc only talent) and moving the "pet" out of range cancels the effect.

And again how is any tinker ability different from any other class ability if you claim my example was exactly the same. A reskinned range damage ability is still a ranged damage ability at the end of the day so if you claim my possession idea isn't necessary and identical to a priests then you should agree that there is no need for a tinker to exist.

And yet you claimed that mechanics is what matters to you. When I proved you wrong a dozen times over you repeatedly said the lore and look weren't as important as the game mechanics. Which is why Tinkers were needed as they "could" be mechanically different. Now your trying to weasel out of it again lol.

[Teriz]

No, it makes me an engineer because my character created those items with their engineering skills.

So if your warrior takes up enchanting, is he an enchanter or a warrior?

"Goblins are known for their mechanical expertise and clever, though sometimes peculiar, inventions, and the Tinker is certainly no exception. With his Claw-Pack/Hammer-Tank combo, the Tinker's ingenuity is undeniable. Though his parts may sometimes fail and the occasional explosion does occur, the spirit and enthusiasm of this Hero are never diminished. There truly is more to the Goblin Tinker than meets the eye!"
Sounds like "misfires", "failures" and "explosions" is par for the course for the tinker, doesn't it?

Sounds more like flavor text since the hero's abilities never failed in WC3 or HotS, and wouldn't fail in WoW, yet profession items do have a chance to fail or stop working.

Again: "profession" is just a game mechanic term. They are engineers. Remember: the "profession" engineer makes mechs, guns, bombs, missiles, robots, etc., all the stuff that tinkers supposedly make for their "abilities".

And the profession doesn't make the same bombs, missiles, robots, etc. as the Tinker.

I didn't know Gelbin's last name is Blackfuse, considering that's the character I explicitly named and focused on in my post.

Sorry, i thought you said Goblin.

Really!? Then show me, as a mage, how can I:
• Make a freezing blast that knocks people away.
• Make a ship fly.
• Cast a Howling Wind to reduce the vision of enemies around me AND cast shards of ice at them that freezes enemies on contact.
• Summon 3 water elementals.

Show me, as a priest, how can I:
• Mass rez a whole lot of people, during combat.
• Wield a sword.
• Wear plate armor.
• Have visions of the future.

Show me, as a hunter, how can I:
• Dual-wield axes and fight in melee as a beastmaster.

Show me, as a warlock, how can I:
• Conjure a fel scythe.
• Conjure an Eye of Gul'Dan that deals damage.
• Shackle people using fel chains.

Where did I say you would have ALL of their abilities, or have abilities on their power level?

Nightborne aren't night elves, and kul'tirans aren't humans. I specifically mentioned night elves and Stormwind humans.

Close enough.

And this is not a strawman. It's a direct counter to your claim, because it seems gameplay is still restricted by lore.

Actually it is, because I never said that Blizzard has used gameplay to change ALL lore. A better example would be the complete retcon of Warlock metamorphosis, or Night Elves being mages.

The worgen leader fights unarmed. That is something no player worgen can do.

If they want to fight with teeth and claws, they can roll a Druid.

The night elf leader is a priestess that fights with a bow. Something night elves can't do.

That's a balance restriction.

The human leader is a priest who wears plate and wields a sword. That is something no player human can do. Etc, etc, etc.

That's another balance restriction.

The name "munitions" pretty much confirms it's tech. And the hunter class has a lot of technology in its repertoire.

munition just mean ammunition. Arrows are ammunition.

The hunter class is not a magic class. Not any more than the warrior class is.


No, it's not, because Tyrande is a priestess in WoW, and is a priestess in every incarnation of the character outside canon media.

She had zero healing abilities in WC3. She had Searing Arrows, Sentinel, Trueshot Aura, and Starfall. The Hunter class has has 3/4 of those abilities.

Because, before MoP, the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster neutral hero unit was just tangentially related to the monk concept by way of both sharing a chinese inspiration. The WC3 unit is not a monk.

That wasn't the argument. YOU said they were barely related. That's not the case.

I deny your story. Simple as that. You're asserting as fact something we have absolutely no way of knowing for sure.

And Tinker now being a lore hero via WC3 Reforged? Do you deny that as well?

[GMZohar1]

Because there are around 20 classes that makes more sense and I (and probably others) would rather see implemented than tinker. Necromancer, Spellsword, Dark Ranger, Spellbreaker...; there are far more classes that are better than tinkerer: we have engineering for it, and i rather have an extension to it than a class around it. If they want, they could make Tinkerer an earnable spec from engineering, but it's own class? Nah.

Necromacer would be the dumbest since Unholy Dks already fit that. Spellword or Spellbreaker sound like a 4th spec for some classes, Dark Ranger may also sound like a 4th spec but for sure not a class on its own. Tinkerer actually makes a ton of sense, far more than anything you have mentioned. There is a very good % of wow that is all Engineering/Tinkerer stuff all over the place, to say making a class based on all that doesn't make sense is really weird lol

[Teriz]

Do you actually play the game? Cause only disc has a talent that lets you walk around while still using their abilities for 30 seconds but they then become like a pet you cant really move on its own so no even with the talent its nothing like what I described. Plus basic Priest mind control has a limited range, limited creature abilities, and duration. You don't become a zombie walking behind, you stand in place (without the Disc only talent) and moving the "pet" out of range cancels the effect.

I admittedly haven't played a Priest since MoP, so its quite possible that the ability has changed since then. However, I distinctly remember taking over a NPCs mind, moving around, and being able to access the NPCs abilities.

And again how is any tinker ability different from any other class ability if you claim my example was exactly the same. A reskinned range damage ability is still a ranged damage ability at the end of the day so if you claim my possession idea isn't necessary and identical to a priests then you should agree that there is no need for a tinker to exist.

Well, can you think of an ability in the class lineup that is a reskin of Pocket Factory?

Pocket Factory
Creates a factory which automatically constructs Clockwerk Goblins. Clockwerk Goblins explode upon death, causing damage to nearby enemy units

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

And yet you claimed that mechanics is what matters to you. When I proved you wrong a dozen times over you repeatedly said the lore and look weren't as important as the game mechanics. Which is why Tinkers were needed as they "could" be mechanically different. Now your trying to weasel out of it again lol.

Please link to that exchange. I have a feeling that you're misinterpreting what was discussed.

[Aucald]

But isn't that just a Warlock with undead minions instead of demons?

Not really, no. A Warlock is all about Fire, Fel, and Demons whereas a Necromancer is all about Shadow, Frost, and Necromancy - the two classes are very different thematically, and just like a Warlock is different than a Hunter (both classes with an emphasis on minions) a Necromancer will be different from a Warlock. Many Necromancer concepts envision a Necromancer's minions more as a resource than a true companion, they get created and destroyed, mutated and altered, to power the Necromancer's offensive spell-like abilities. Whereas a DK leverages its minions more as shock troops, the Necromancer would treat theirs as Petri dishes, or experiment upon them to enhance them, all depending on the vision in question. A DK is not a Warlock is not a Hunter, even though all three classes make use of minions.

[Melusine]

That isn't remotely what priests mind control does and if you seriously think that then we don't need tinkers because all their abilities are damaging abilities or tanking abilities which other classes have.



Clearly you still don't understand mechanics vs theme. Let me give you another example:

I hope you don't mind me chiming in here while eating some popcorn, right? And if you do, I'm still going to do it. Sry in advance.... except for that whole "sry" part.

Let's pretend that Kel'Thuzad saw death knights and was like hey I want my own.

Ok, you're leaving out a key detail here. When? At what point is Kel'Thuzad planning this? I don't assume anything.

He isn't as powerful as the Lich King

You don't know that. The assumption is that Kel'thuzad is weaker, but what if he wasn't? I mean, let's take a different approach to this. Sansa Stark. Do you think she is more powerful that Brienne of Tarth? Certainly, she has a certain power that comes from her blood line. People know and respect her, but if it came down to a fight between the two of them, it wouldn't even be a contest. Same with Lucille Waycrest. Any one of her Inquisitors could beat the shit out of her, but yet, they don't. Advance to the now, where we KNOW Kel'thuzad has been absent a body. He hasn't learned any new tricks? I find that hard to believe. While it is true that perhaps there is a power disparity, the idea that there would never be the ability to make a more dangerous death knight than the lich King can make has never been tried. I'd be willing to bet, Gul'dan (at the time he is atop the Nighthold) was at a level of power where he could have made a death knight unlike anything our world had ever seen. Don't forget, Ner'zhul and Gul'dan are both orcs, and they both knew how to make death knights. That said, when you have the ability to summon dreadlords, doomguards, and even Archimonde into our worlds, death knights seem like just too much work for little payout. That's why he never did it.

...so his deathknights while using the same elements use different mechanics.

Would they be, though? Many people have argued that Bolvar, the Lich King is somehow weaker than Arthas was, and the most cited reason is because of Frostmourne, which I disbelieve. Arthas was the power behind the death knights, the scourge, and the armies of the dead, as well as the risen frostwyrms. All things Bolvar can do, as well, as evidenced by the new DK starting quests for Allied Races. I'll admit, Frostmourne made the Lich King significantly more dangerous than he would have been without it, but in terms of amplifying his ability to raise and command undead, it did nothing. I noticed Bolvar has a mace of his own. There really is no telling how powerful it was or what it could do, but Bolvar should have kicked the absolute shit out of Sylvanas, regardless of her "new found powers". Clearly, his mace was also well-crafted, possessed obviously magical properties, but because of plot armor, we never actually saw it land a hit.

He then calls these new death knights dark paladins as a fuck you to actual paladins. I'm going to keep all of these specs as melee just to show you how different something can play while still being identical thematically.

Would it really make sense for the game to add a class of obviously inferior variations of existing classes though? Who would do that. And what's more, why would Kel'thuzad do this? And let's assume he actually WAS more powerful, even if that power was more in the form of knowledge, which I am POSITIVE Kel'thuzad was smarter than Arthas was. I'll narrate the other side of the coin.

Frost spec - Since Kel'Thuzad was weaker these dark paladins needed to think outside the box to augment their abilities and by encasing themselves in ice they were able to boost their abilities to be comparable to a death knights. Frost now ends up being a tank aoe spec that is more static than most tank specs and uses a health buffer in ice armor.

Frost Spec - Since Kel'thuzad was an Archmage, one of the 6, no less, he made a point of making sure his troops were better versed at frost magic than the ones Arthas raised. As a result, Every measure of Frost damage was amplified far beyond that of the current Death Knights. The frost presence they generated was so overwhelmingly cold, it hardened their skin, and made them constantly pulse frost aura coldness as if there was a constant Remorseless Winter in effect. Howling blast would leave a frost trail behind, and the lingering coldness would cause enemies caught in it to loose their footing as they tried to escape the aura. These death knights were so insidious, they were true wrecking machines, unable to be hurt but by the strongest of modes of attack, meanwhile, could move in this aura of absolute freezing as if they were completely unhindered by the frost. Even their Obliterate was empowered by frost to cause a frost bomb effect to everything near them, as the freezing aura sucked away the life force of every living creature within, creating a passive healing effect. The frost strike attack was even more fearful, as it would inflict freezing wounds, and inflict a freezing ailment that would weaken everything it struck. And being able to use swords or other intruments in adefensive manner, as his opponents whittled themselves down, as he stood unwavering made for one of the most effective fighters on the battlefield.

Clearly, I've just described a Frost tank that could give a current Blood tank a run for its money, and likely even beat him.

Blood spec- Kel'Thuzad has been undead for so long he's forgotten what blood is like so these Dark Paladins must learn to manipulate the blood of their enemies and aren't a tank unlike a bood DK. This spec would be more like a rogue using 2 one hand swords/ axes to slice their enemies and drain their blood which they then use to empower themselves or weaken their enemies. These dark paladins store the blood of their enemies in blood globules surrounding them which they can then use to enhance their abilities or take a fatal hit for them.

Has he, though? Being undead, and a necromancer as long as he has been, and also considering he wasn't just any mage in life....

Blood Spec - The meat and drink of everything alive is blood. He was exposed to the San'layn, and knew all about their dark powers. In his superior wisdom, he modeled his blood death knights after these vampiric soldiers of the Scourge, and in doing so, managed to create one of the most destructive and annoying opponents to ever grace the battlefield. These warriors were a nightmare on the battlefield, as they appeared to become more powerful the more blood they shed. In combat, they have a hard time being killed as they cause bleeding, agony and revelry in bloodlust. Every defensive they use has a second ability that caused traumatic injury to their opponent while safeguarding themselves from attack. Death and decay would leave a lingering blight in its wake, heart strike was a devastating conal slash attack, and the bones generated by Marrowrend would slash in retaliation to anyone who dared attack these sinister creatures. Nothing and no one could stop them.

These would be a nightmare in PvP, given that they have more defensive abilities than likely any other dps on the board, AND every one of those defensives hurt enemies as a secondary effect.

Unholy spec- Kel'Thuzad didn't want any competition in the necromancy department and so while the Unholy dark paladin can create a minion they can't summon a ton of undead. They use diseases to plague enemies enough to lop body parts off them which they then use to enhance their undead golem. This spec would then revolve around empowering your pet and gathering body parts from enemies.

When you hold sway over a minion, the likelihood of them surpassing you is not very high. That said, hitting [x] to doubt.

Unholy spec - Since his ascension to Lichdom, necromancy and dark arts have become a specialty to this master of unholy powers. He knows how effective the overwhelming powers of these dark arts make short work of those you call enemies, and can even turn former enemies into soldiers under your command to go after their former comrades. Oh the delicious irony of having friends turn on one another as they die on the battlefield. Kel'thuzad imbued all of these death knights with unholy strength (like the rune forging, except this one is permanent), which enabled them all to do something Arthas' death knights could not.... wield 2 giant weapons as if they were practicing swords. These warriors from beyond would raise entire armies of fallen soldiers, both friend and foe alike, to continue spreading blight and scourge everywhere they went. To them, fighting doesn't require a reason. Fighting is its own reason. Everything they do, they do for their master, and with every fallen soldier taken by these one man armies, they only increased Kel'thuzad's reach and power.

See, when you frame it out to be a certain way, you can get the results you want. And not every powerful being is one because of their own brute strength. For every Goliath, a David can appear out of nowhere and take him down, all the same.

See how a death knight clone could easily have much different class mechanics than a death knight? And a Necromancer is a ranged cloth user meaning the mechanics could be a thousand times more different than a death knight while still maintaining the same elemental themes.

I should ask the same question....

And there's something else. The biggest difference between a necromancer and a demonology warlock.... is the minions they summon, and from what source they summon those minions. Is it possible that the reason a warlock doesn't bother with undead in favor of demons is because the demons are more powerful, more plentiful, and serve more roles than undead do? Something to think about. It'd actually be nice if we had the ability to use a class glyph and change from one to the other, since to me, it seems more like an aesthetic than a core class spec.

[Teriz]

Not really, no. A Warlock is all about Fire, Fel, and Demons whereas a Necromancer is all about Shadow, Frost, and Necromancy - the two classes are very different thematically, and just like a Warlock is different than a Hunter (both classes with an emphasis on minions) a Necromancer will be different from a Warlock.

Well that thematic assessment isn’t really true. Affliction Warlocks are literally considered “Masters or Shadow magic”, and Affliction even has a spell called Deathbolt.

Many Necromancer concepts envision a Necromancer's minions more as a resource than a true companion, they get created and destroyed, mutated and altered, to power the Necromancer's offensive spell-like abilities. Whereas a DK leverages its minions more as shock troops, the Necromancer would treat theirs as Petri dishes, or experiment upon them to enhance them, all depending on the vision in question. A DK is not a Warlock is not a Hunter, even though all three classes make use of minions.

I’ll have to look over things, but I’m pretty certain that Warlocks use their pets as resources as well. Mainly for life, mana, and buffs.

[Ielenia]

So if your warrior takes up enchanting, is he an enchanter or a warrior?

Why can't he be both?

Sounds more like flavor text

I'm sorry, but you can't cherry pick when lore text is "just flavor text" or not when it suits you. It's the lore of the unit you constantly use in your examples. You can't ignore that as "simple flavor text" because, and I must remind you, you also used "flavor text" as canon lore when you mentioned the "vampiric blades" of the WC3 death knight.

And the profession doesn't make the same bombs, missiles, robots, etc. as the Tinker.

Yes, it makes the same "bombs, missiles, robots, etc" as the tinkers. Having a different name or painted differently does not make them "whole different"

Where did I say you would have ALL of their abilities, or have abilities on their power level?

If I cannot do the exact same abilities as those NPCs, then I cannot "be like" those NPCs. That's your logic.

Close enough.

Then you have engineering in the game. It's "close enough" to tinkers.

Actually it is, because I never said that Blizzard has used gameplay to change ALL lore. A better example would be the complete retcon of Warlock metamorphosis, or Night Elves being mages.

That's not a retcon. Night elves could always be mages. They just weren't allowed to.

If they want to fight with teeth and claws, they can roll a Druid.

But Genn Greymane is not a druid.

That's a balance restriction.

Doesn't change the fact I cannot play like Tyrande.

That's another balance restriction.

Doesn't change the fact I cannot play like Anduin.

munition just mean ammunition. Arrows are ammunition.

But the word itself alludes to non-magic. Also, the icon of the ability was a belt of grenades.

She had zero healing abilities in WC3. She had Searing Arrows, Sentinel, Trueshot Aura, and Starfall. The Hunter class has has 3/4 of those abilities.

The hunter currently has zero of those abilities, and since you established that you believe that "the way things used to be doesn't matter", that means you cannot play "like Tyrande" as a hunter or priest. Also, since you like to use HotS: she is a healer in HotS, and is a Priest avatar in Hearthstone.

That wasn't the argument. YOU said they were barely related. That's not the case.

Yes, it is, and I've explained it:

Because, before MoP, the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster neutral hero unit was just tangentially related to the monk concept by way of both sharing a chinese inspiration. The WC3 unit is not a monk.

And Tinker now being a lore hero via WC3 Reforged? Do you deny that as well?

Not going to touch Reforged. It's a complete different beast, considering the art was done by a third company and there are inconsistencies like ogres living in draenei huts?

[Aucald]

Well that thematic assessment isn’t really true. Affliction Warlocks are literally considered “Masters or Shadow magic”, and Affliction even has a spell called Deathbolt.

Shadow is only part of the portfolio, though. You tend to focus on the specific to the detriment of the holistic - a single shared spell doesn't make an Afflication Warlock a Necromancer, just like a Warlock formerly having Metamorphosis didn't make them a Demon Hunter. The same rationale is also why an Engineer throwing bombs isn't a Tinker - there's a wide swath of the holistic aesthetic missing.

I’ll have to look over things, but I’m pretty certain that Warlocks use their pets as resources as well. Mainly for life, mana, and buffs.

Demonology does have some "minions as resource" elements, such as using Wild Imps as AoE damage as part of the rotation. The Necromancer, in some incarnations, would have much more meta-management than that, though; and perhaps less emphasis on direct damage. You'd also have a Necromancer spec that acts more like a direct-damage Shadowmage or similar, albeit mixing Death and Frost into the mix. Both a Destruction Warlock and a Fire Mage can throw a fireball, for instance: a Warlock calls it Chaos Bolt and a Fire Mage a Pyroblast. An undeath-themed Necromancer spec might instead hurl a Finger of Icecrown (taking a cue from Bolvar throwing a part of Icecrown Citadel at Sylvanas).

[frozenkex]

tinkerer people are pretty deluded in several ways, but mainly that you guys think this game needs more classes and blizzard can totally handle it - delusional.

[Teriz]

Not going to touch Reforged. It's a complete different beast, considering the art was done by a third company and there are inconsistencies like ogres living in draenei huts?

Well all Blizzard games are canon lore. Reforged was co-developed and published by Blizzard, so that would make it canon lore right?

Canon
Everything released by Blizzard except mods and the table-top RPG is considered canon.[1] This includes games, novels, short stories, manga, and comics[1][2] as well as trailers and cinematics. Warcraft Encyclopedia, History of Warcraft, game manuals and original Warcraft RTS games are also considered canon but in some cases they are overwritten or modified by novels (i.e. history of eredar retconned in Rise of the Horde, War of the Ancients and its aftermath slightly altered by the time-travel in the novel, Dawn of the Aspects revealing the true history of the Aspects instead of a legend told in a History chapter, and Tides of Darkness with Beyond the Dark Portal setting a canon line of events for the first RTS games which had two versions of the ending).
The current history of Warcraft was slightly retconned by the WoW Chronicle series.[3]
No longer available quests that were not replaced by new information should be canon.[4]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lore

Question: Have you (Blizzard) ever revised the lore of the game after it came out? Like Jim's age. According to the lore, he is in his mid-30s right now, even though he looks a lot older.

Answer: We haven't knowingly done that. As more content is added to a given universe, by different teams, there is always the danger of unintentionally contradicting existing lore. But we have never intentionally done it. When something goes out the door at Blizzard—in a game, a novel, a manga, or anything other than mods or the table-top RPG—it's canon. This can be quite unwieldy; someone may have made a decision 12 years ago that was a well-reasoned, smart choice back then, but boxes us in today… but that's the hazard of game writing. We have to find a way to live with it and still tell our story.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150628...n/blog/7922536

[Swnem]

You keep it just like Holy Paladin didn't remove Holy Priests and vice versa

A class plays differently from every other class. Even Feral Druid is practically carbon copy rogue, but its still very different in flavour and feel. No one would be up in arms over two specs having similar themes. Necromancer is ranged caster, DK is melee.

Ok. Now people just need to convince Blizzard of that.

[Teriz]

Shadow is only part of the portfolio, though. You tend to focus on the specific to the detriment of the holistic - a single shared spell doesn't make an Afflication Warlock a Necromancer, just like a Warlock formerly having Metamorphosis didn't make them a Demon Hunter. The same rationale is also why an Engineer throwing bombs isn't a Tinker - there's a wide swath of the holistic aesthetic missing.

Well it isn't just Deathbolt though, it's also the curses and afflictions, which encompasses the entire Affliction spec, and are commonly found within a Necromancer class. Drain Life for example is a pretty common Necromancer spell in many games, and in WoW its in the Warlock class.

Demonology does have some "minions as resource" elements, such as using Wild Imps as AoE damage as part of the rotation. The Necromancer, in some incarnations, would have much more meta-management than that, though; and perhaps less emphasis on direct damage. You'd also have a Necromancer spec that acts more like a direct-damage Shadowmage or similar, albeit mixing Death and Frost into the mix. Both a Destruction Warlock and a Fire Mage can throw a fireball, for instance: a Warlock calls it Chaos Bolt and a Fire Mage a Pyroblast. An undeath-themed Necromancer spec might instead hurl a Finger of Icecrown (taking a cue from Bolvar throwing a part of Icecrown Citadel at Sylvanas).

So how would this Shadowmage spec impact Shadow Priests and Affliction Locks who also have direct damage Shadow spells. Also how does a Necromancer thread the needle between Frost DKs and Mages?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok. Now people just need to convince Blizzard of that.

Good luck with that, considering that Blizzard said that there was no new class that fits the theme of Shadowlands; an expansion about the dead and afterlife, and had an entire section dedicated to Necromancy.

[Triceron]

Ok. Now people just need to convince Blizzard of that.

People don't need to convince Blizzard of anything

Blizzard is the one that convinced US that overlapping themes are not important when they added a Demon Hunter, despite there being a Fel magic user class that had a spec revolving around Metamorphosis.

This showed us that overlapping themes are not a problem, and that existing gameplay can be shifted around to open ip to new classes.

Similar things were removed from DK and given to Monks, like DK Frost tanking made them the first Dual Wield tank. Frost tanking was later removed, and then Monk became the new Dual wield tank.

And consider that the Demon Hunter's gameplay is almost completely mish-mashed out of existing Monk and Warlock gameplay, only has 2 specs and is touted as one of the easiest classes to play. They could have made a Tinker with fresh new gameplay and a fresh theme, a class that has a Ranged DPS spec and could wear mail filling out the 3rd mail user of the bunch. That could have totally been picked instead of a Demon Hunter - yet it didn't.

Now are 4 years past Legion and ready for another new class. Yet Shadowlands isn't adding any new class at all. Even if the theme of this expansion isn't fitting of a Tinker, the expansion itself didn't have to be centered around the Shadowlands and we could have progressed forward with what Mechagon already presented to us, ushering in a Tinker class. But we don't have a Tinker class.


We could be waiting for another 2 years and maybe the expansion after Shadowlands will add in a new class. Personally, I think by that time it's more likely that we would be getting Class skins that skips the whole problem of class balance, adding new specs or any of that jazz. It would be able to add in multiple new class concepts at once, while skipping the bloat of adding new gameplay or rebalancing. We could get Necromancers, Dark Rangers, Wardens, Spellbreakers, Tinkers, Bards and Dragonsworn all in one go. It would probably be best with a staggered release like Allied Races, but all planned in sequence. I don't think it would take a lot of convincing on Blizzard's part to go with Class Skins, seeing as how well received Allied Races have been so far.

[Swnem]

People don't need to convince Blizzard of anything

Blizzard is the one that convinced US that overlapping themes are not important when they added a Demon Hunter, despite there being a Fel magic user class that had a spec revolving around Metamorphosis.

This showed us that overlapping themes are not a problem, and that existing gameplay can be shifted around to open ip to new classes.

Similar things were removed from DK and given to Monks, like DK Frost tanking made them the first Dual Wield tank. Frost tanking was later removed, and then Monk became the new Dual wield tank.

Ah, but now that is not what you said.
You said Unholy DK would stay the same. Demonology warlock was completely redesigned. It didnt stay the same.

So, what is it? Stay the same or redesign?

[Teriz]

There’s no way a Necromancer enters WoW and doesn’t negatively impact multiple existing classes. That’s probably why Blizzard didn’t introduce them in Shadowlands.

We should also note that Warlocks are the stated replacement for Necromancers because Blizzard didn’t want a copy of Everquest’s Necromancer class.

[Triceron]

Ah, but now that is not what you said.
You said Unholy DK would stay the same. Demonology warlock was completely redesigned. It didnt stay the same.

So, what is it? Stay the same or redesign?

It would depend on what Blizzard wants to do with a Necromancer.

Did they change Holy Paladin and Holy Priest at all when they were both designed over the 15+ years that we've had both classes? I remember there being times when Holy Paladin had no shielding abilities and Holy Priest was unique in having Divine Shield. Then during Wrath they gave Holy Paladin Sacred Shield. Then there were subtle differences with Holy Priest having AoE heals while Holy Paladin had no AoE heals but had Beacon of Light. Then later Holy Paladins were given Holy Radiance. This is an example of two classes having specs that became more and more similar to each other.

With Frost DK's, they used the Lich as a core inspiration for the spec. But at that time, Frost Mage already had iconic WC3 Lich abilities Frost Nova and Frost Armor. What happened to DK's then? They got their own AoE frost spell through Howling Blast, and instead of Frost Armor they got Icebound Fortitude. Both of these spells are much more similar to how Frost Nova and Frost Armor worked in WC3, and they didn't have to be removed from the Mage at all. This is an example of two classes pulling from the same sources, and diverging with two different adaptations of the same ability types.

I was actually surprised that Blizzard removed the Metamorphosis entirely from Warlocks. I personally don't think Demonology was redesigned because we couldn't have two Metamorph specs; I think it's fully possible. Keep in mind too that there are some behind-the-scenes shenanigans at play too. Most of the Metamorphosis Warlock and Dark Apotheosis gameplay was the brainchild of one zealous Warlock designer who was very vocal about his design. He didn't really care much about lore and he designed the Warlock more on 'rule of cool'. He was kicked out of Blizz around the time of MoP/Wod (I think) and Legion was a time when the designers felt a whole bunch of classes/specs needed to be redesigned to fit a better class fantasy.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Alexander_Brazie You can read a bit more about Xelnath here. He has his own blog on Warlock design that's still up for viewing, and while Blizzard does design classes as a team, this guy is commonly given credit for making Warlocks pretty cool to play after the first few years of 'Growing pains' of trying to find a Demonology gameplay that was fun to play. If you played a Demon Lock throughout the first 5 years of WoW, you know what I mean. They had a major identity crisis every expansion.

Legion was when Blizzard decided to take a good long look at specs and 'bring them closer to class fantasy'. I didn't agree with all of their changes here. I mean honestly, it doesn't make sense to me that with all the melee specs we already have in the game, they decided to remove a Ranged spec from the Hunter and make it melee. I can't speak on Blizzard's behalf on why they feel this makes sense, because it doesn't make sense to me. Removing Metamorphosis from Warlocks didn't make sense to me either considering the new DH forms look totally different from Shadow Illidan form that was already built into Warlock lore through Green Fire questline. There were a lot of factors here involved with the Warlock losing its Metamorphosis and having the spec changed to something completely different; from losing their main designer to the idea of bringing in Demon Hunters to the fanciful idea of making Demo Warlocks summoners once again. I don't think it's any singular factor here saying Demon Hunters are the sole reason this gameplay was taken away. I'm sure if Xelnath was still at Blizz during that time, Meta could have stayed where it was while DH gets something completely new out of their own melee variation. One gets Metamorphosis, the other gets Dark Apotheosis, and everyone's happy.

We have both examples of classes with specs that overlap with others, and classes that had to be redesigned to fit new ones. The answer is both, depending on which classes you're talking about and what Blizzard would view as a Necromancer class. IMO I don't think any new class will be added to the game and I think Class skins are the future.

- - - Updated - - -

There’s no way a Necromancer enters WoW and doesn’t negatively impact multiple existing classes. That’s probably why Blizzard didn’t introduce them in Shadowlands.

Class skins would work, and doesn't need to be based on any expansion theme. Allied Races are already added despite having little-to-no relation to the BFA Alliance/Horde war, especially when regarding Highmountains and Nightborne siding with Horde despite having good relations with both factions during Legion.

[Swnem]

It would depend on what Blizzard wants to do with a Necromancer.

Did they change Holy Paladin and Holy Priest at all when they were both designed over the 15+ years that we've had both classes? I remember there being times when Holy Paladin had no shielding abilities and Holy Priest was unique in having Divine Shield. Then during Wrath they gave Holy Paladin Sacred Shield. Then there were subtle differences with Holy Priest having AoE heals while Holy Paladin had no AoE heals but had Beacon of Light. Then later Holy Paladins were given Holy Radiance. This is an example of two classes having specs that became more and more similar to each other.

With Frost DK's, they used the Lich as a core inspiration for the spec. But at that time, Frost Mage already had iconic WC3 Lich abilities Frost Nova and Frost Armor. What happened to DK's then? They got their own AoE frost spell through Howling Blast, and instead of Frost Armor they got Icebound Fortitude. Both of these spells are much more similar to how Frost Nova and Frost Armor worked in WC3, and they didn't have to be removed from the Mage at all. This is an example of two classes pulling from the same sources, and diverging with two different adaptations of the same ability types.

I was actually surprised that Blizzard removed the Metamorphosis entirely from Warlocks. I personally don't think Demonology was redesigned because we couldn't have two Metamorph specs; I think it's fully possible. Keep in mind too that there are some behind-the-scenes shenanigans at play too. Most of the Metamorphosis Warlock and Dark Apotheosis gameplay was the brainchild of one zealous Warlock designer who was very vocal about his design. He didn't really care much about lore and he designed the Warlock more on 'rule of cool'. He was kicked out of Blizz around the time of MoP/Wod (I think) and Legion was a time when the designers felt a whole bunch of classes/specs needed to be redesigned to fit a better class fantasy.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Alexander_Brazie You can read a bit more about Xelnath here. He has his own blog on Warlock design that's still up for viewing, and while Blizzard does design classes as a team, this guy is commonly given credit for making Warlocks pretty cool to play after the first few years of 'Growing pains' of trying to find a Demonology gameplay that was fun to play. If you played a Demon Lock throughout the first 5 years of WoW, you know what I mean. They had a major identity crisis every expansion.

Legion was when Blizzard decided to take a good long look at specs and 'bring them closer to class fantasy'. I didn't agree with all of their changes here. I mean honestly, it doesn't make sense to me that with all the melee specs we already have in the game, they decided to remove a Ranged spec from the Hunter and make it melee. I can't speak on Blizzard's behalf on why they feel this makes sense, because it doesn't make sense to me. Removing Metamorphosis from Warlocks didn't make sense to me either considering the new DH forms look totally different from Shadow Illidan form that was already built into Warlock lore through Green Fire questline.

We have both examples of classes with specs that overlap with others, and classes that had to be redesigned to fit new ones. The answer is both, depending on which classes you're talking about and what Blizzard would view as a Necromancer class. IMO I don't think any new class will be added to the game and I think Class skins are the future.

- - - Updated - - -



Class skins would work, and doesn't need to be based on any expansion theme. Allied Races are already added despite having little-to-no relation to the BFA Alliance/Horde war, especially when regarding Highmountains and Nightborne siding with Horde despite having good relations with both factions during Legion.

Well, i do agree that a class skin would make a lot of sense for Necromancer, based off the demonology warlock, but i don't know if that is something that will satisfy people or not.

[OFiveNine]

They already exist, it's a profession called engineering