If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Teriz]

Clearly, they have been lazy. Using identical art assets but, slightly altering the animation through the years.

Clearly all of this is irrelevant in regards to a potential future class....

I've, already, shown how they could avoid treading on other classes. Have you missed my giant post, with pictures and all, explaining this? Or, do you only read posts that are directed at you?

Which is nonsense. Blizzard isn't going to re-arrange multiple classes just to allow a new class into the game. Further, players of those classes wouldn't appreciate losing abilities they like to the "new class". Warlock players are STILL salty about losing metamorphosis, and that was almost 5 years ago.

"It's not just here in MMO champion. In multiple WoW forums people have stated they wanted a Tinker class, or at least a new ranged class." - That would, also, be the Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Sea Witch. Just sayin'...

No one is stopping you from starting a new thread about this Ranger class. Go ahead, start your new thread and put a poll up asking if its a good or bad class idea.

I think it'll go rather poorly, but who knows? Maybe people around these parts want a rehashed Hunter class.

I don't see any abilities listed in the link you posted. And that's a Shredder mount. Are you suggesting the Tinker uses a Mount?

Yeah, because that NPC is from legion, and invasions don't happen anymore;

Marin led the defense of Gadgetzan during the Legion Invasions, driving a massive shredder with twin flamethrowers against the Burning Legion attackers. After each invasion was successfully repelled, he offered "slightly discounted Noggenfogger Elixirs all around!"

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Marin_Noggenfogger

Boo-hoo... It's not like they have an ownership over leeching abilities.

No, but when multiple shadow-based classes are doing it, adding yet another shadow-based class with leeching abilities becomes redundant.

Can't think of another Dark Ranger who uses pets.

There were a few. However, it's really a moot point since Nathanos is a major Dark Ranger and he has pets.

Yet, many use Black Arrow that raises an Undead Skeleton (Dark Ranger in Durotar/Tiragarde Sound, Dark Ranger Alina/Anya/Kalira/Lenara/Lyana/Velonana, Sylvanas Windrunner and Nathanos Blightcaller):

Funny, how Sylvanas Windrunner, the foremost representative of a Dark Ranger doesn't use Undead Beasts.

It doesn't matter if she does or not, if you have a major Dark Ranger like Nathanos using undead beasts and that concept has been snatched away by Hunters, you know have Dark Rangers with even narrower design space.

"Hunters could NEVER tame mechanical pets until Legion. Now a major concept from the Tinker class is a Hunter ability. It gets to the point where you have to ask; Why do we need a Tinker class? To have your Bombs shot from something else?" - to show you how ridiculous your logic is. The tomes are, obviously, meant to represent the diffrent Hunter races that were lacking, like Gnomes/Goblins and Undead. They were never meant to come at the expense of a Dark Ranger/Tinker. But, as usual, you fail to notice the similarities.

Yeah, taming mechanical pets was never a concept in the Tinker class, major or otherwise. This silly switcheroo stuff just makes you look silly because it doesn't apply in reverse.

"Once again, the concept of the Dark Ranger does not revolve around the use of undead pets/animals. The concept of the Dark Ranger revolves around necromancy and manipulation, combined with archery." - I'm tired of pointing that out. At least, you make it easy to use your paraphrasing....

The use of undead pets and animals IS Necromancy. What manipulative abilities does Nathanos possess? He's pretty much universally hated by WoW fans. Archery? That's the Hunter class all day. So we have 2/3 of those concepts in the Hunter class.

Tinkers share their use of Explosives with the Hunter. Does that mean that they are a pumped-up Hunter with Engineering?
Gazlowe, literally, has a "Big Game Hunter" talent in HotS, which was a Hunter talent in the past:

Hunters toss a fire bomb filled with animal pheromones (urine). That's not remotely the same thing as what Tinkers launch from mechs.

He, also, has "Bomb Toss" talent:

Bomb Toss
Xplodium Charge gains a 2nd charge with a 3 second cooldown between uses and launches 2 more bombs when it detonates.

does that imply he tosses bombs?

Read the tooltip.

[Akibaboy]

Yeah, I feel the same way. I do think there’s a silent majority of players who are craving something different in the class lineup. Not refried versions of what we have already.

Also the mechanical theme opens up a lot of doors for new gameplay possibilities and concepts, and I think people will dig a light-hearted thematic behind it. Something breezy and not too serious, yet offering interesting gameplay and great design. I think that’s what really hampered Demon Hunter design; because you can feel if in the overall class. When I look over the abilities in the Havoc spec for example, you can just see where they were purposely trying to avoid stepping on another agility class and the Warlock class. Having grown up to love the concept of Metamorphosis turning a melee Demon Hunter into a ranged demon, I was disappointed that Blizzard turned metamorphosis melee. They did that (and didn’t give them demonic pets or summons, or a 3rd ranged spec) to avoid it being similar to the Warlock class.

Fortunately, I don’t think the Tinker would have that issue.

Agreed on Demon Hunter. I know it sounds weird as hell, but there could've been a ranged, magic-based dps spec because while its not the absolute forefront of his character, Illidan was trained as a druid and a sorcerer before he was what we all know him as. The problem is that there's just no way to do any of that without stepping all over Warlocks and Mages. One could argue that Warlocks should've never been operating a demon armada and becoming demons etc., but it doesn't change the fact that a major part of the class' identity was yoinked to make DH exist. If we ever get a MoP Classic it'll be hilarious to see people go back and realize there was a literally a Glyph of Demon Hunting and any warlock race could do it just fine.

As far as the fantasy of Tinkers go, I would say they should only do it if the themes and timing of it is right. An expansion where we go to the Titan-related realm of Order to get McGuffins to finally repair Azeroth's wound and finish the job they started - Mimiron summons the High Tinker and other subsequent Tinkers of the world to travel to the realm of Order via a device he locked away within the deepest vaults of Mechagon. I see a pretty strong way to tie them into the core drive of an expansion the same way that Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters were thematically linked to their expansion's content.

That's the kind of thing I want to see from a WoW expansion when introducing a class. If we're adding Blademaster then thematically we should be doing something Draenor-esque (which that ship has sailed). This expansion would've been the one to introduce Necromancer if that was ever going to be a thing, and that ship is now actively sailing. Dragonsworn-whatever-they-call-it is possible if we do a Dragon Isles expansion for sure.

[Teriz]

Which is irrelevant because that is gameplay-only. It's not reflected in the lore.

Yet we're not talking about lore, we're talking about gameplay.

And would not be usable until deployed OUT of those "infinitely smaller devices", as pocket factory and town-in-a-box demonstrate.

Why wouldn't they be deployed if they're producing bombs?

They wouldn't have "the same abilities" as existing classes. And concepts? Those can be shared, as exemplified by the existing classes.

Really? Name two classes that share entirely the same concept.

Same difference. Both are bombs being thrown.

So when a rocket launches into space you tell everyone that it was "tossed" from the launchpad?

An inference is still nothing but an opinion. And no, opinions are not solely based on feelings. Opinions can also be based on facts. "It has rained every New Year's Eve in this city." That's a fact. Saying "it'll likely rain this New Year's Eve in this city" is an opinion. Based on inference, according to the aforementioned fact, but it's still an opinion.

http://www.fallacydetective.com/news...t-your-opinion

I hope this helps.

In-game abilities aren't lore. The whole idea of "theme" is also part of the lore, mind you.

No, a theme can lead to lore, but isn't lore in of itself. For example, let's say we wanted to create a Bard class for WoW, and I gave it 5 abilities based on music. There's no lore there, that's all theme because the Bard class' traditional theme is music. We don't have lore until I start creating a story around the Bard in WoW. You can create an entire class with abilities, passives, and talents and NEVER touch the lore behind it. Some RPG games like Final Fantasy have classes with zero lore surrounding them.

I never made that claim. All I said is that we don't know either way.

Which means there's a chance for Black Arrow to return to the Hunter class. Thanks.

And it is a big precedent that classes can share similar-ish abilities.

Yeah, if they're basic functional abilities like a heal for a healing spec. However, class defining abilities like Metamorphosis are not shared.

Then we'll continue while assuming they do not exist. Your word alone that they exist is not enough evidence.

Nathanos and his undead hounds exist, so you're assumption is irrelevant. We have a major Dark Ranger using undead pets to fight with.

No, it is not. Having undead minions does not make the hunter any more a dark ranger than having mechanic minions makes the hunter a tinker.

When Dark Rangers were able to tame undead creatures and Hunters were not for multiple expansions, was it or was it not a Dark Ranger attribute?

No. No, they cannot summon demons.

https://www.wowhead.com/order-advanc...wisting-nether

Because you created the class, the abilities and the lore. The class does not exist in WoW, therefore you created it. Many of the abilities you used in your concept do not exist in WoW, so you created the abilities. Blackfuse is not considered a tinker, but you call him a tinker. "Tinkers invent, engineers copy" and "tinkers are adventurers, engineers are vendors" are not supported in the lore, therefore you created the lore.

Quick question; Does the Tinker hero with the claw pack exist in Warcraft?

Not World of Warcraft, but Warcraft in general.

Which also happen to be mechs.

Nah, Mechs can actually go indoors.

Which just also happens to be a dragon. Saying "obsidian worldbreaker" is not a dragon is just demonstrably wrong.

So you actually think that when you ride the Obsidian Worldbreaker, you've somehow tamed Deathwing and you've forced him to let you ride him around like a pony?

Good lord....

First: Azeroth is not Europe. Second, when we talk about "martial arts" it is obvious for anyone wanting an honest discussion that we're talking about the kind of martial arts we find in the eastern side of the world: tae-kwon-do, kung-fu, karate, etc.

So you're saying an arms warrior can't operate like a Samurai? There are plenty of Samurai-based martial arts out there.

I said "NPCs", as in, the characters in the lore that are not the player, not "certain number of NPCs".

And I was talking about the numbers of certain NPCs in the game. It has absolutely nothing to do with lore, it's only about the numbers.

Considering you're the one that constantly conflate the two, it's certainly not me.

Nice projection. Especially after that comment about the obsidian world breaker.

[Imperator4321]

So you're saying an arms warrior can't operate like a Samurai? There are plenty of Samurai-based martial arts out there.

When people use the term martial art it's almost always used to describe east asian (and more specifically chinese) martial arts (stuff like Shaolin Kung Fu, tai-chi, ect ), while stuff like kendo/Kenjutsu, fencing and other weapon-based fighting are technically martial arts it's usually not what people are thinking of when they use the term, popular culture has just made the term be associate with bare handed eastern fighting styles.

You are right in that Arms Warrior is supposed to represent the weapon master/sword-saint archetype

[Ielenia]

Yet we're not talking about lore, we're talking about gameplay.

And gameplay is useless if you're going to claim any difference between the two concepts to warrant a playable class.

Why wouldn't they be deployed if they're producing bombs?

Because they wouldn't be producing bombs. If all the mechanisms to assemble the bombs is compacted within the mech using the 'town-in-a-box' technology, then those mechanisms would not be able to be used until the "box" is opened and everything is returned to full size.

Really? Name two classes that share entirely the same concept.

Priests and paladins share the holy theme. DKs and mages share the frost theme. Shamans and monks share the spirits/water themes. Priests and warlocks share the DoT theme. Warlocks and hunters share the pet theme.

So when a rocket launches into space you tell everyone that it was "tossed" from the launchpad?

Why would a bomb be "launched" from a launchpad? We're talking bombs in general, now you're trying to move the goalposts to rockets?

I hope this helps.

Did it help you understand what you got is your opinion, and your opinion only? If not, then the link did not help.

Which means there's a chance for Black Arrow to return to the Hunter class. Thanks.

No. No, it does not mean that. I'll repeat: we do not know if the ability can return or not.

Yeah, if they're basic functional abilities like a heal for a healing spec. However, class defining abilities like Metamorphosis are not shared.

Both brewmaster monks and vengeance demon hunters have fire breath, and the "soul fragment/chi sphere" mechanic. Priests and death knights have an area-of-effect bubble that reduces damage taken. Druids and death knights share a battle-rez ability. Shamans, mages and, to a lesser extent, hunters share a "bloodlust" ability. Both paladins and mages have a total immunity ability. Paladins and warriors share a "shield slam" ability.

Nathanos and his undead hounds exist, so you're assumption is irrelevant. We have a major Dark Ranger using undead pets to fight with.

Nathanos is unlikely to exist for much longer. And, again, Nathanos can easily be considered the exception, like Loramus being able to tame demons is an exception. How Anduin being a priest in plate and wielding a sword is an exception. Like Tyrande being a priestess with a bow (now dual-wielding warglaives) is an exception.

When Dark Rangers were able to tame undead creatures and Hunters were not for multiple expansions, was it or was it not a Dark Ranger attribute?

Dark rangers have not been shown to be taming undead pets. In facts, save for Nathanos, all the dark rangers you meet and/or face are pet-less.

https://www.wowhead.com/order-advanc...wisting-nether

So what? That's a magic crystal that summons the demon, not the demon hunters. That's like saying warriors can cast magic because there's a quest in which they shoot magic through a wand.

Quick question; Does the Tinker hero with the claw pack exist in Warcraft?

Not World of Warcraft, but Warcraft in general.

Considering I have never seen one in these sixteen years of Warcraft, in the game or even mentioned in any of the books, I'm going to say "no, it does not".

Nah, Mechs can actually go indoors.

Cool story, bro. So can horses go indoors.

So you actually think that when you ride the Obsidian Worldbreaker, you've somehow tamed Deathwing and you've forced him to let you ride him around like a pony?

Good lord....

Just out of a curiosity, then: if it's not a dragon... then what is it? Because I surely know that the mount we get from killing N'Zoth is a dragon.

So you're saying an arms warrior can't operate like a Samurai? There are plenty of Samurai-based martial arts out there.

Except the arms warrior is not a samurai. Taking a hint from you: "stop with the headcanons."

And I was talking about the numbers of certain NPCs in the game.

In other words, you're using a red herring.

Nice projection. Especially after that comment about the obsidian world breaker.

But the obsidian world breaker is not Deathwing. Deathwing is a lot more dark brown and red, not ashen and yellow.

- - - Updated - - -

Rexxar is not a representative of the Beastmaster spec and hasn't been for a long time the Legion Class Hall for Hunters even calls him a Survival Hunter, whats intergral to the Beastmaster fantasy is the idea of fighting alongside and empowering a beast companion which is what Barbed Shot does it's a shot type ability that empowers your current pet

Just wanted to say this: Barbed Shot is an integral part of the Beastmaster's rotation, but it's not an integral part of its fantasy. The mechanic effects of Barber Shot are also quite dissonant to what the ability's name invokes. By the name, one would expect an ability that leaves a bleed or weakens the target somehow, like hamstringing it, but not "empower your beast companion". The beastmaster's fantasy is exactly that: the focus on their companion beasts by empowering them. The way this "empowerment" is done is not.

[Imperator4321]

Just wanted to say this: Barbed Shot is an integral part of the Beastmaster's rotation, but it's not an integral part of its fantasy. The mechanic effects of Barber Shot are also quite dissonant to what the ability's name invokes. By the name, one would expect an ability that leaves a bleed or weakens the target somehow, like hamstringing it, but not "empower your beast companion". The beastmaster's fantasy is exactly that: the focus on their companion beasts by empowering them. The way this "empowerment" is done is not.

I figure the idea might have been that making your target bleed is what sends the pet into a frenzy, but something like pheromone shot or something might also make sense as an alternative like how survival has the pheromone bomb infusion.

Hunter specs are honestly in a bit of an awkward space i think marksman has a good niche being the least pet focused and more about the sniper fantasy but both beastmastery and survival kind of have the "fight alongside a pet" thing going on just with different ranges and beast mastery having more pets (even thats optional).

I like the idea of survival being more about venoms, traps & explosions sort of that cunning & crafty (don't even mind the idea of them being melee since spears are just as much a "hunting" weapon as rifles, crossbows, and bows) "man of the wilds" idea but you only really get that feeling with wildfire bomb, steel trap and a few other abilities, with everything else being just a kind of awkward melee spec with some pet abilities

[Teriz]

And gameplay is useless if you're going to claim any difference between the two concepts to warrant a playable class.

Classes and professions aren't the same thing, so there's a difference right there. There's also a rather massive difference between items and abilities. Further none of the Tinker's abilities or themes exist within the engineering profession, so there's a difference there as well. We shouldn't also forget that a major theme of the Tinker revolves around the use of mechs while no viable mechs exist in engineering.

Because they wouldn't be producing bombs. If all the mechanisms to assemble the bombs is compacted within the mech using the 'town-in-a-box' technology, then those mechanisms would not be able to be used until the "box" is opened and everything is returned to full size.

Clearly their mechs would be producing bombs, because a class would be able to unload bombs rapidly and in an unlimited fashion.

Priests and paladins share the holy theme. DKs and mages share the frost theme. Shamans and monks share the spirits/water themes. Priests and warlocks share the DoT theme. Warlocks and hunters share the pet theme.

.....................

Those are spec theme similarities, not class theme similarities.

You know what? I'm not going to waste my time with this. If you can't even get this correct, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed on Demon Hunter. I know it sounds weird as hell, but there could've been a ranged, magic-based dps spec because while its not the absolute forefront of his character, Illidan was trained as a druid and a sorcerer before he was what we all know him as. The problem is that there's just no way to do any of that without stepping all over Warlocks and Mages. One could argue that Warlocks should've never been operating a demon armada and becoming demons etc., but it doesn't change the fact that a major part of the class' identity was yoinked to make DH exist. If we ever get a MoP Classic it'll be hilarious to see people go back and realize there was a literally a Glyph of Demon Hunting and any warlock race could do it just fine.

Yeah, more than likely they didn't do a ranged DH 3rd spec because it would be too much like the Warlock class. In addition Metamorphosis in that spec would have resembled the Warlock ability they just snatched from the Warlock class. I gotta say, Havoc is probably the worst melee DPS to play right now. I messed around with it at max level, and it was really just a mess. That class could really use a revamped version of Dark Apotheosis to flesh out their class, but I guess Blizzard just feels its too close to the Warlock class.

Unfortunately I think something similar would happen with a Dark Ranger class. It'd probably be two specs, both DPS and both being extremely weighed down by the Hunter and Rogue classes.

As far as the fantasy of Tinkers go, I would say they should only do it if the themes and timing of it is right. An expansion where we go to the Titan-related realm of Order to get McGuffins to finally repair Azeroth's wound and finish the job they started - Mimiron summons the High Tinker and other subsequent Tinkers of the world to travel to the realm of Order via a device he locked away within the deepest vaults of Mechagon. I see a pretty strong way to tie them into the core drive of an expansion the same way that Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters were thematically linked to their expansion's content.

That's the kind of thing I want to see from a WoW expansion when introducing a class. If we're adding Blademaster then thematically we should be doing something Draenor-esque (which that ship has sailed). This expansion would've been the one to introduce Necromancer if that was ever going to be a thing, and that ship is now actively sailing. Dragonsworn-whatever-they-call-it is possible if we do a Dragon Isles expansion for sure.

Consider this;
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Undermine

And this;
https://wow.gamepedia.com/The_War

As other potential Tinker expansion concepts.

- - - Updated - - -

When people use the term martial art it's almost always used to describe east asian (and more specifically chinese) martial arts (stuff like Shaolin Kung Fu, tai-chi, ect ), while stuff like kendo/Kenjutsu, fencing and other weapon-based fighting are technically martial arts it's usually not what people are thinking of when they use the term, popular culture has just made the term be associate with bare handed eastern fighting styles.

You are right in that Arms Warrior is supposed to represent the weapon master/sword-saint archetype

Interesting side note; I actually transmogged my Arms warrior into a Blademaster to make him more like a wandering Samurai/Ronin character.

[Unbelievable]

Except the rogues version of Evasion bears no resemblance to how it worked in WC3 in WC3 it was a percentage chance (up to 30%) to avoid an attack, In wow it's a brief period of 100% dodge (so essentially immunity to anything that can be dodged unless the attack comes from behind), the Demon Hunters evasion was probably change to blur because A: the name was already taken B: Blur's visuals and name fits the magical nature of Demon Hunters better and C: probably referencing the illusion spell Blur from Dungeons and Dragons which historically made the target harder to hit.

Mana Burn was removed from priests because it was an unhealthy ability design wise(it wasn't even removed in legion it was removed in mists), it also doesn't fit the design of the DH class a cast time ranged spell and mana break fits the gameplay concept of DH's better.

Warlock version of Death Coil bore no resemblance to the WC3 Death Knight version and actually resembles the WC2 version better nor even does the WoW Death Knight version bear a resemblance to the WC3 version being a runic power spender that damages and restores energy to the casters minion wheras in WC3 it was a inverse holy light that healed undead and damage living targets.

Warlocks were never meant to be the Demon Hunter class and giving them demon hunter abilities and designing an entire spec around the concept was a bad idea, the Legion version of Demonology is far closer to the original concept of the spec of a master summoner rather than becoming a demon.



Rexxar is not a representative of the Beastmaster spec and hasn't been for a long time the Legion Class Hall for Hunters even calls him a Survival Hunter, whats intergral to the Beastmaster fantasy is the idea of fighting alongside and empowering a beast companion which is what Barbed Shot does it's a shot type ability that empowers your current pet

HotS is also not the arbitier of how WoW classes are designed why are you obsessing over HotS of all things when discussing WoW classes.



HoTS has nothing to do with how WoW classes are designed, Festering Wounds is a part of the Unholy DK kit because Unholy DK's are "A master of death and decay, spreading infection and controlling undead minions to do <his/her> bidding." are you seriously telling me that causing festing wounds isn't part of the Unholy DK fantasy?

Definition of festering:

"1 : contaminated by an infective agent (such as a bacterium) and producing pus a festering wound"

how is this not something that fits a "A master of death and decay, spreading infection and controlling undead minions to do <his/her> bidding."?



1: I'm not Teriz and i've argued with him multiple times on this very thread, unless you think Teriz is some really dedicated sockpuppet master
2: You're the one whos seemingly thinks Blizzard bases the entirity of their class design philosophy on HoTS and WC3 a spin-off MOBA and a nearly 2 decades old RTS
3: ever heard of glass houses username993720? making an account after you've been banned is one thing but then making the exact same arguments you used on your banned account is another thing, at least be subtle about it.



abilities like Flash Heal and Flash of Light are part of the design of healing specs where they have a slow but efficient heal (like holy light/heal/healing wave) and a fast but expensive heal (like flash of light/flash heal/healing surge) with a exceptions like restoration and mistweaver (even then rejuvination/soothing mists and regrowth/vivify fall into the same paradigm of "slow but efficient and "fast but expensive"), Disicpline priests are unique in that the slow but efficient healing spells is replaced with turning damage into healing but they still have fast but expensive healing in the form of shadow mend.

stuff like flametongue/windfury weapon are different because those are gimmicks/iconic elements that are supposed to be unique to that classes identity, giving 1 hour weapon enchantments to another class is like giving runeforging to another class.

What purpose does a 1 hour weapon enchant exactly serve a priestess of the moon spec anyway? you've said it would be a healer spec why does a healer spec need an AOE weapon enchant beyond "they had it in WC3 so they should have it in WoW"



Balance druids can do without their only AOE resource spender? also how is an ability that calls down falling stars not integral to the fantasy of a solar, lunar and astral based spellcaster, is fireball not integral to the fantasy of a fire mage? is blizzard not integral to the fantasy of a frost mage?

How/Why is HoTS somehow the game that defines the fantasy of World of Warcraft classes instead of the actual game itself?

Once again what purpose does Starfall an AOE damage dealing spell serve a healer spec beyond "priestess of the moon had it in WC3" do any healers have a mass AOE damage dealing spell thats unique to their spec and not a general class ability like chain lightning for restoration shamans

Once again HoTS has no impact on how WoW is designed they have different dev teams.



Shamans Are Not Just About The Elements, do abilities like Ancestral Vision, Ancestral spirit, Ancestral Guidance, Spirit Walk, Ancestral Protection Totem, Cleane/Purify Spirit, Reincarnation, Spiritwalker's Grace, Spirit Link Totem not imply a connection spirits/ancestors? how can you misunderstand what a class is supposed to represent this hard.

Loa is just an umbrella term for what Trolls worship, they can be everything from wild gods, to spirits, to elementals, to even old gods like G'huun, a zandalari/Darkspear shaman gets their power from Loa, same with Zandalari/Darkspear priests, same with Zandalari/Darkspear Druids

We don't need another class/spec to represent the idea of getting power from Loa because several classes already do that, Shamans get theirs from communion/pacts with loa, priests get theirs from worship of loa, druids get theirs from Gonk.



Except pets and minions are different, Pets are caught and have unique abilties depending on species/spec, Minions are learned at specific levels, and always know the same abilities

Wards and Totems are the exact same thing just under a different name, giving them to another class would not be an acceptable design just like they wouldn't give DK runeforging, paladin blessings, shaman enchants/shields, hunter pets, warlock summons to other classes.

It's funny how you accuse me of being Teriz when you and Teriz apparently share the idea that Blizzard is unerringly devoted to WC3 (and HoTS) that they'd cripple and destroy their own game design to do so like removing balance druids main AOE resource spender just to give it to a priestess of the moon spec where it would serve absolutely no real purpose in a healer spec or thinking a Tinker class can only be about Goblin/Gnomes because the WC3 hero was a goblin ignoring that DK's stopped being Fallen Paladins and Monks weren't solely based on Brewmasters, Theres no pattern or devotion to WC3, Blizzard does what they want, sometimes using WC3 as a baseline.


By the way if we're using out of WoW Blizzard intellectual properties lets see what classes hearthstone considers several iconic warcraft characters to be.

Tyrande is a priest, Maiev is a Rogue, Sylvanas is a Hunter, funny how they slot pretty well into those classes almost like Priestesses of the Moon, Wardens and Dark Rangers aren't unique classes in of themselves and are just culture specific versions of already existing classes (night elf priests, night elf rogues and undead hunters)

Vol'jin a priest card and well shadows hunters ARE like 1/3 shadow priest so fits well enough.

Again. You're talking about game mechanics. No iteration works 100% like the Warcraft III incarnation. The fact is that Evasion belonged to the Demon Hunter, lore-wise. They could do the same to the classes i've suggested - change the name and functionality a bit an Ta Da! You have overlapping abilities like Blur and Evasion.

Evasion
Instant 2 min cooldown
Requires Rogue
Requires level 21
Increases your dodge chance by 100% for 10 sec.



Blur
Instant 1 min cooldown
Requires Demon Hunter (Havoc)
Requires level 21
Increases your chance to dodge by 50% for 10 sec.



How dare they do such a thing right? It's unbelievable, unforgettable and unforgivable. Shame on them... they should all be fired.

Once again, talking about game design and what you think fits what. Mana Burn belonged to the Demon Hunter, was given to the Priest, removed and changed to give the Demon Hunter something similar. I don't know how you don't see the situation here being, exactly, what would happen with future class additions.

Mana Burn
Level 58 priest ability
30 yd range
14% of base mana
2.5 sec cast
Destroy 10% of the target's mana (up to a maximum of 20% of your own maximum mana). For each mana destroyed in this way, the target takes 0.5 Shadow damage.



Mana Rift PvP Talent
50 Fury 8 yd range
Instant cast 10 sec cooldown
Requires Demon Hunter (Havoc)
Requires level 20
You manifest a 6 yard wide mana rift under the feet of the target.

After 2.5 sec, it erupts dealing up to 8% of each enemy's maximum health in Chaos damage and destroys 8% of each enemy's total mana if present.



It doesn't matter what bore resemblance to what. Lore-wise, it was a Death Knight ability. "Death Coil is an iconic death knight ability that was first used by the Death Knight unit in Warcraft II, and was subsequently used by Death Knights in Warcraft III, and the tabletop RPG. In World of Warcraft, a variation of [Death Coil] was given to the warlock class." - That's why they got Mortal Coil, instead. I'm tired of arguing with you, like you're some kind of a Blizzard developer.





Could you imagine?! Two abilities that have strikingly similar themes because they are both necromantic. The audacity of some Blizzard employees...

"Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Sea Witch/Shadow Hunter/Warden/Blademaster were never meant to be the Hunter/Warrior/Shaman/Rogue class and giving them their abilities was a bad idea, the concepts i suggested would be far better versions of them rather than what they are now". - used your own paraphrasing to show you how ridiculous your argument is. Warlocks were meant to supplement the Demon Hunter Fantasy UNTIL the Demon Hunter class came. The Hunter/Rogue/Warrior/Shaman are supposed to do the same for the TIME BEING.

Rexxar is the foremost Beast Mastery representative, that's why he is called a BEASTMASTER. Legion follower system is no indication whatsoever.

HotS and Warcraft III are the foundation of WoW class fantasies, because they are meant to reflect how a class/spec plays, the animations and overall design. A good source for inspiration. Unlike WoW, that just throws abilities at NPCs that are, sometimes, unrelated and absurd.

It is part of the Unholy Death Knight fantasy. It is part of every NECROMANCY fantasy. That's why it fits in the Dark Ranger, as well.

I do believe Teriz is a sockpuppet master. He's got General Zanjin to complement him all the time.

Of course they are based on WC3. Have you seen the Death Knight, Demon Hunter and Pandaren Brewmaster? their HotS incarnation refines them even more. Of course it's not the only source of inspiration. Otherwise, we would have just 10 abilities top. But, it is a large foundation.

Someone with connections in higher places have kept me banned for 3 consequtive times in a row. I had no other choice. I don't use it to quote myself and say how right and amazing i am, like Teriz does.

So, you admit that there can be an overlap in classes? The fact that both the Priest and Paladin use similar healing spells, can shield their allies and call upon the Holy Light. Seems, rather, inappropriate according to your draconic standards.

Runeforging shares similarities with weapon Enchanting. I don't see you crying about it. Did you forget Rogues can coat their weapons with poisons, for a variety of effects, like damaging? Stop making up rules where there aren't any. If Hunters had Exotic Munitions, alongside Shaman weapon enchants, there is no reason why there can't be.

Healing specs can't deal damage? tell that to the Priest, Paladin, Shaman, Monk and Druid.

Should i remind you that Warlocks and Mages shared many themes with Pyroblast/Soul Fire, Scorch/Searing Pain, Fire Blast/Conflagrate? Need i remind you that Frost mages share their theme with Frost Death Knights, Shaman frost spells and Hunter frost abilities?

Why? because in WoW they add all sort of spells to NPCs, that aren't, entirely, representing it. Did you know Death Knights used Warlock and Warrior spells before the addition of Death Knights in WotLK. Would you say that is an appropriate representation?

Spinning Crane Kick, Light's Hammer, Holy Prism, Consecration, Halo, Holy Nova. I don't care about numbers, right now. I care about the fantasy. Blizzard can tweak it however they like, as far as i'm concerned.

All the abilities you've mentioned are connected to ANCESTRAL SPIRITS. Shadow Hunters do not commune with ANCESTRAL SPIRITS. They commune with LOA SPIRITS. That is the domain of a restoration shaman:

"A healer who calls upon ancestral spirits and the cleansing power of water to mend allies' wounds."

The only ability i could be seen taken is Spirit Walk.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Loa

Not a single Ancestral Spirit mentioned. That is more the domain of an Orc Shaman/Far Seer (with Oshu'gun and Frostwolf ancestral stones) or Tauren Spirit Walkers.

Yes, we do. None of those classes embody Voodoo and Loa powers, like the Shadow Hunter. Having 2 abilities and a toy is, hardly, a proper representation.

That's semantics. in the end of the day, you have a Pet/Minion for PvE, PvP and Solo content.

Really? the mechanic of controlling pets is shared between Warlock, Hunter, Shaman, Mage, Death Knight and Monk. Shielding abilities are shared between Priests and Paladins. DoTs are shared between Affliction Warlocks and Shadow Priests. Bleeds are shared between Assassination Rogues and Feral Druids. Slowing frost spells are shared between Frost Mages, Frost Death Knights, Shamans and Hunters. Critical Strike fire playstyle is shared between Fire Mages and Destruction Warlocks. Shield-using mechanics are shared between Protection Warriors and Protection Paladins. Rage is shared between Warriors and Guradian Druids. Energy and Combo Points/Chi is shared between Feral Druids, Rogues and Monks.

"It's funny how you share the idea that Blizzard will cripple and destroy their own game design to do so like removing Demonology's main playstyle mechanic just to give it to a Demon Hunter" - and, look at us now.

That's the whole premise. They are not just bound to WC3 and HotS. They can come up with whatever they like. Like they did with Misweaving and Windwalking. I can only base mine only on existing materials. But, at the end of the day, the inspiration for Death Knights was Arthas, Demon Hunters was Illidan and Monks was Chen Stormstout. Their WC3 incarnations laid the foundations. HotS just expands upon it.

I was never against Dwarf and Mechagnome Tinkers.

In Hearthstone, Lich Kel'thuzad is a mage. That would mean giving Death and Decay, Dark Ritual and other necromantic abilities to the Mage. He stopped being a Mage, when he became a Necromancer and, definitely, when he became a Lich.

N'zoth is a Warlock hero. Even, though, he is part of the forces of the Void and Warlocks are about the forces of Fel. That would mean butchering the Shadow Priest class and giving it to the Warlock.

Deathwing is a Warrior. That would mean giving Draconic powers to the Warrior class.

Hearthstone is, barely, cannon. It adds some hypothetical situations, like corrupted/Undead versions of hero figures in Knights of the Frozen Throne. It has a Murloc Demon Hunter. Do you want them added?

If they were these classes, they would have been better represented in-game. Just like you can't expect a Warlock with Metamorphosis/Immolate/Death Coil, Rogues with Evasion/Blindfold/Blades of Azzinoth, Priests with Mana Burn to be the replacement for Demon Hunters and Death Knights.

Shadow Hunters are not Priests. "[Healing Wave] and [Hex] were Warcraft III shadow hunter abilities that were given to shaman (though the shadow hunter spell functioned more like [Chain Heal], another shaman spell). [Vol'jin's Serpent Totem] is a shaman-exclusive toy that summons a serpent ward similar to those used by shadow hunters in Warcraft III. Vol'jin has also been called a shaman, but this could have been an oversight.

Vol'jin and other shadow hunter NPCs have also used shadow priest abilities throughout World of Warcraft, such as [Shadow Word: Pain], something not part of the Warcraft III unit's skill set.

Some shadow hunter NPCs have been seen using rogue abilities, and have been depicted wearing rogue leather armor. They've also been seen in different places using either the rogue's variant of [Stealth], or the hunter's variant of [Camouflage]."

Same with Witch Doctors. "Witch doctors are semi-playable as troll priests (with shadowy magic, ritualistic chants and spiritual guidance), shamans (with wards being replaced by totems), and warlocks (with curses, soul harvesting, haunt)."

Meaning, the representation is all over the place. It is lackluster, as you cannot combine a Shaman, Warlock, Priest and Rogue, together. Just like you couldn't combine a Warlock, Rogue and Priest together, for the Demon Hunter fantasy.

Clearly all of this is irrelevant in regards to a potential future class....



Which is nonsense. Blizzard isn't going to re-arrange multiple classes just to allow a new class into the game. Further, players of those classes wouldn't appreciate losing abilities they like to the "new class". Warlock players are STILL salty about losing metamorphosis, and that was almost 5 years ago.



No one is stopping you from starting a new thread about this Ranger class. Go ahead, start your new thread and put a poll up asking if its a good or bad class idea.

I think it'll go rather poorly, but who knows? Maybe people around these parts want a rehashed Hunter class.



Yeah, because that NPC is from legion, and invasions don't happen anymore;



https://wow.gamepedia.com/Marin_Noggenfogger



No, but when multiple shadow-based classes are doing it, adding yet another shadow-based class with leeching abilities becomes redundant.



There were a few. However, it's really a moot point since Nathanos is a major Dark Ranger and he has pets.



It doesn't matter if she does or not, if you have a major Dark Ranger like Nathanos using undead beasts and that concept has been snatched away by Hunters, you know have Dark Rangers with even narrower design space.



Yeah, taming mechanical pets was never a concept in the Tinker class, major or otherwise. This silly switcheroo stuff just makes you look silly because it doesn't apply in reverse.



The use of undead pets and animals IS Necromancy. What manipulative abilities does Nathanos possess? He's pretty much universally hated by WoW fans. Archery? That's the Hunter class all day. So we have 2/3 of those concepts in the Hunter class.



Hunters toss a fire bomb filled with animal pheromones (urine). That's not remotely the same thing as what Tinkers launch from mechs.




Read the tooltip.

Oh, so now this is irrelevant. I like how you change the subject when it doesn't suit you anymore.

If Blizzard has been lazy with spell effects and animations, it mean that it is not representative of how it is or, should, look like.

Blizzard is not going to re-arraneg anything? They did it twice, already, in the span of 4 years. Once, in Legion's spec identity and, twice, in Shadowland's Class identity. No one is losing anything. Taking something out of the game is outrageous. Giving it to a playable class isn't. That's the whole point of fantasy and roleplaying.

I, already, made a thread. Not as detailed as i posted here, though. I, intentionally, put a lot of effort to show you how they are different and how they could be added, without harming other classes. Yet, you guys don't appreciate shit. You know how much time it took me? like 2 days each post with pictures and abilities (and i did 3 these past few days). My finger hurts like hell.

Gazlowe used twin flamethrowers? That's the whole point of timeline. They are misrepresented until better iterated or, added. Using an existing shredder mech mount is indicative of how they just are lazy at that time. Same can be applied to other classes.

"No, but when multiple classes are slowing, using frost magic, having Mages, Death Knights Shamans and Hunters is redundant." - your logic.

Let me tell you something about Nathanos' "undead" pets:

"Darkhounds are a species of magical, demonic dog".

"Originally classified as demons in-game, they have been re-classified as beasts since Cataclysm." - meaning, we could tame them all the way back then.

We, could, already tame plagued Bears and Wolves before Shadowlands:




Which is, essentially, what Nathanos' pets were:




"Blighthounds are hostile mastiffs found in Marris Stead in Eastern Plaguelands. They were the pets of Nathanos Blightcaller, who used them to slaughter Scourge. Nathanos fed them with Coagulated Rot. - Hence, the name BLIGHTcaller and BLIGHThounds.

Yes, it does. Since Tinkers are synonymous with Engineers. Dark Ranger concept was never about Undead Beasts, either. Not in Warcraft III, nor in Heroes of the Storm. You, clearly, not seeing the flavorful aspects that the TOMES add, is silly.

"The use of Mechanical pets and explosives IS Tinkering. So we have 2/3 of those concepts in the Hunter class." - i can go like that all day long. Simplifying everything is an easy yet, annoying and dangerous tool.

Hunters:

Wildfire Bomb
40 yd range
Instant 18 sec recharge
1 Charges
Requires Hunter (Survival)
Requires level 20
Hurl a bomb at the target, exploding for (45% of Attack power) Fire damage in a cone and coating enemies in wildfire, scorching them for (90% of Attack power) Fire damage over 6 sec.


Explosive Shot Talent
20 Focus 40 yd range
Instant cast 30 sec cooldown
Requires Hunter (Marksmanship)
Requires level 25
Requires
Fires an explosive shot at your target. After 3 sec, the shot will explode, dealing (188.5% of Attack power) Fire damage to up to 6 enemies within 8 yards.



Hi-Explosive Trap PvP Talent
40 yd range
Instant 40 sec cooldown
Requires Hunter
Requires level 20
Hurls a fire trap to the target location that explodes when an enemy approaches, causing (57.33% of Attack power) Fire damage and knocking all enemies away. Trap will exist for 1 min.


The pheromone aspect is just a talent:

Wildfire Infusion Talent
Requires Hunter (Survival)
Requires level 50
Lace your Wildfire Bomb with extra reagents, randomly giving it one of the following enhancements each time you throw it:

Shrapnel Bomb: Shrapnel pierces the targets, causing Raptor Strike and Carve to apply a bleed for 9 sec that stacks up to 3 times.

Pheromone Bomb: Kill Command has a 100% chance to reset against targets coated with Pheromones.

Volatile Bomb: Reacts violently with poison, causing an extra explosion against enemies suffering from your Serpent Sting and refreshes your Serpent Stings.

One again, you were caught lying.

Launch: Synonymous with Throw, Hurl, Fling, Pitch, Lob, Toss, Cast, Let Fly, Propel, Project, Fire, Shoot.

Again, we're going to the same discussion about Rocket Barrage:

Rocket Barrage Goblin Racial
30 yd range
Instant 1.5 min cooldown
LAUNCHES your belt rockets at an enemy, dealing [(42.9% of Spell power + 50% of Attack power) + Level * 2] fire damage.

Yet, we don't see it being Launched in-game. Just, magically, fired from the character (without, even, a movement animation - That's how lazy they were).

By the way. How do you like my Tinker and Alchemists Concepts i posted?

[Teriz]

Again. You're talking about game mechanics. No iteration works 100% like the Warcraft III incarnation. The fact is that Evasion belonged to the Demon Hunter, lore-wise. They could do the same to the classes i've suggested - change the name and functionality a bit an Ta Da! You have overlapping abilities like Blur and Evasion.

Actually when DK and Monk were implemented, many of their abilities DID function like their WC3 counterparts. Obviously through patching and revamps they're a bit different now, but traditionally, new class abilities pulled from WC3 match their RTS counterparts.

Oh so now thiis is irrelevant. I like how you change the subject when it doesn't suit you anymore.

If Blizzard has been lazy with spell effects and animations, it mean that it is not representative of how it is or, should, look like.

Please explain how your opinion that Blizzard is being lazy is relevant to this discussion at all.

Blizzard is not going to re-arraneg anything? They did it twice, already, in the span of 4 years. Once, in Legion's spec identity and, twice, in Shadowland's Class identity. No one is losing anything. Taking something out of the game is outrageous. Giving it to a playable class isn't. That's the whole point of fantasy and roleplaying.

No, I said that Blizzard isn't going re-arrange multiple classes just to stuff in a new class that does nothing but cannibalize existing classes. When you need to purposely remove abilities from the Hunter class for example to make room for a Ranger class, your new class is too similar to the existing class.

I, already, made a thread. Not as detailed as i posted here, though. I, intentionally, put a lot of effort to show you how they are different and how they could be added, without harming other classes. Yet, you guys don't appreciate shit. You know how much time it took me? like 2 days each post with pictures and abilities (and i did 3 these past few days). My finger hurts like hell.

That should tell you how viable your idea is (not very).

Gazlowe used twin flamethrowers? That's the whole point of timeline. They are misrepresented until better iterated or, added. Using an existing shredder mech mount is indicative of how they just are lazy at that time. Same can be applied to other classes.

There's no need to put out a class-level mech model when you can just use existing models. However in BFA they did introduce this mech;



Which had better animation than the old shredder models.

"No, but when multiple classes are slowing, using frost magic, having Mages, Death Knights Shamans and Hunters is redundant." - your logic.

I really don't understand how you guys don't understand this....

DK frost vs Mage frost: Melee vs ranged, and only a single spec.

Shaman and Hunters only have a few Frost-based abilities, they don't have entire specs dedicated to it.

That is not the same as say a Necromancer concept that is pretty much Blood, Frost, and Unholy, just regurgitated in convoluted ways in order to avoid looking like the existing Death Knight class.

Let me tell you something about Nathanos' "undead" pets:

"Darkhounds are a species of magical, demonic dog".

"Originally classified as demons in-game, they have been re-classified as beasts since Cataclysm." - meaning, we could tame them all the way back then.

We, could, already tame plagued Bears and Wolves before Shadowlands:
Which is, essentially, what Nathanos' pets were:
"Blighthounds are hostile mastiffs found in Marris Stead in Eastern Plaguelands. They were the pets of Nathanos Blightcaller, who used them to slaughter Scourge. Nathanos fed them with Coagulated Rot. - Hence, the name BLIGHTcaller and BLIGHThounds.

Just FYI, you were never able to tame the blighted/undead variation of those mastifs or Hyenas. Honestly, you still can't. With that said, you can play exactly like Nathanos did with two undead hounds at your side, shooting barbed shot at people.

Yes, it does. Since Tinkers are synonymous with Engineers. Dark Ranger concept was never about Undead Beasts, either. Not in Warcraft III, nor in Heroes of the Storm. You, clearly, not seeing the flavorful aspects that the TOMES add, is silly.

The Dark Ranger concept was pretty much a Hunter with Necromancy. Taming/controlling undead pets is a Dark Ranger quality.

Tinkers being synonymous with engineer is pure semantics. Again, we have clear ability and concept differences between a Tinker hero concept and the engineering profession. We don't have a clear ability and concept difference between Hunters and Dark Rangers because Blizzard purposely muddied the waters by allowing Dark Ranger characters like Nathanos and Delaryn Summermoon to be pretty much identical to Hunters ability wise. Blizzard allowing Hunters to now have undead pets makes creating a Dark Ranger class even more pointless.

"The use of Mechanical pets and explosives IS Tinkering. So we have 2/3 of those concepts in the Hunter class." - i can go like that all day long. Simplifying everything is an easy yet, annoying and dangerous tool.

Again, the Tinker class has nothing to do with mechanical pets.

Hunters:

Wildfire Bomb
40 yd range
Instant 18 sec recharge
1 Charges
Requires Hunter (Survival)
Requires level 20
Hurl a bomb at the target, exploding for (45% of Attack power) Fire damage in a cone and coating enemies in wildfire, scorching them for (90% of Attack power) Fire damage over 6 sec.

Explosive Shot Talent
20 Focus 40 yd range
Instant cast 30 sec cooldown
Requires Hunter (Marksmanship)
Requires level 25
Requires
Fires an explosive shot at your target. After 3 sec, the shot will explode, dealing (188.5% of Attack power) Fire damage to up to 6 enemies within 8 yards.

Hi-Explosive Trap PvP Talent
40 yd range
Instant 40 sec cooldown
Requires Hunter
Requires level 20
Hurls a fire trap to the target location that explodes when an enemy approaches, causing (57.33% of Attack power) Fire damage and knocking all enemies away. Trap will exist for 1 min.

The pheromone aspect is just a talent:

Wildfire Infusion Talent
Requires Hunter (Survival)
Requires level 50
Lace your Wildfire Bomb with extra reagents, randomly giving it one of the following enhancements each time you throw it:

Shrapnel Bomb: Shrapnel pierces the targets, causing Raptor Strike and Carve to apply a bleed for 9 sec that stacks up to 3 times.

Pheromone Bomb: Kill Command has a 100% chance to reset against targets coated with Pheromones.

Volatile Bomb: Reacts violently with poison, causing an extra explosion against enemies suffering from your Serpent Sting and refreshes your Serpent Stings.

One again, you were caught lying.

Where's the lie? Also btw, those "explosives" aren't all in the same specialization, and one of those is a PvP talent.

Launch: Synonymous with Throw, Hurl, Fling, Pitch, Lob, Toss, Cast, Let Fly, Propel, Project, Fire, Shoot.

Again, we're going to the same discussion about Rocket Barrage:

Rocket Barrage Goblin Racial
30 yd range
Instant 1.5 min cooldown
LAUNCHES your belt rockets at an enemy, dealing [(42.9% of Spell power + 50% of Attack power) + Level * 2] fire damage.

Yet, we don't see it being Launched in-game. Just, magically, fired from the character (without, even, a movement animation - That's how lazy they were).

Again, the difference between the profession and a Tinker launching projectiles from a mech;

Profession (and the Hunter class):


Tinker Class:


I hope this helps.

By the way. How do you like my Tinker and Alchemists Concepts i posted?

Not bad, but I wouldn't add so much Overwatch to it.

[Ielenia]

Classes and professions aren't the same thing, so there's a difference right there.

Not in the lore, they are not.

There's also a rather massive difference between items and abilities.

Game mechanics and game balance are not lore, therefore meaningless.

Further none of the Tinker's abilities or themes exist within the engineering profession, so there's a difference there as well.

Irrelevant, since what matters are the concepts and theme, not abilities.

We shouldn't also forget that a major theme of the Tinker revolves around the use of mechs

Correction: it's a major theme of your tinker concept.

while no viable mechs exist in engineering.

Engineering can craft mechs.

Clearly their mechs would be producing bombs, because a class would be able to unload bombs rapidly and in an unlimited fashion.

Then we can eliminate the mech in its entirety, because we have hunters throwing bombs "rapidly and in an unlimited fashion". If hunters don't need a mech for it, then neither do the tinkers.

.....................

Those are spec theme similarities, not class theme similarities.

Except in this specific point we were "in your turf", i.e. talking about in-game abilities:

And it is a big precedent that classes can share similar-ish abilities.

Yeah, if they're basic functional abilities like a heal for a healing spec. However, class defining abilities like Metamorphosis are not shared.

So stop moving the goalposts.

You know what? I'm not going to waste my time with this. If you can't even get this correct, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Says the guy who constantly got things wrong regarding my arguments so far, with one such egregious example just above.

[Traveler Voltin]

I have returned.

what are we talking about?

[Teriz]

I have returned.

what are we talking about?

It would appear that some people have a difficult time understanding the difference between this;



and this;

[phattsao]

Since Vanilla, they've added:

4 Melee DPS specs
3 Tank specs
1 healer spec

Seems like we could use another ranged spec or another healer spec. Tanks are always useful, too...but no more melee!

[Traveler Voltin]

It would appear that some people have a difficult time understanding the difference between this;



and this;

the different between throwing a grenade and using a grenade launcher.

they also hold professions and classes to different standards. especially after having to remove the bonuses from professions because some were required over others.

[Stabbyfists]

if anything we need another Mail class - Only 2 classes wear mail when 3 - 4 use Cloth, Leather or Plate

[Teriz]

the different between throwing a grenade and using a grenade launcher.

Yeah, and there's a difference between this;



And this;



As well.

they also hold professions and classes to different standards. especially after having to remove the bonuses from professions because some were required over others.

Very true. The idea that they would buff professions to rival classes is pure nonsense. This was attempted in WotLK and it led to disastrous consequences in gameplay on multiple levels.

- - - Updated - - -

if anything we need another Mail class - Only 2 classes wear mail when 3 - 4 use Cloth, Leather or Plate

A new mail class would be nice, yes. Especially a mail class that could heal AND tank.

Also Goblins are the only race in the game without access to a tribrid (healing/tank/DPS) class. That's rather interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

Since Vanilla, they've added:

4 Melee DPS specs
3 Tank specs
1 healer spec

Seems like we could use another ranged spec or another healer spec. Tanks are always useful, too...but no more melee!

The Tinker could rather easily have a healing spec, especially if Blizzard merges it with the Goblin Alchemist hero from WC3.

Also considering that all of the Tinker's abilities are ranged, and Blizzard seems to like to design mechs with guns for arms, a ranged DPS spec for the Tinker seems like a given.

[Traveler Voltin]

Yeah, and there's a difference between this;



And this;



As well.



Very true. The idea that they would buff professions to rival classes is pure nonsense. This was attempted in WotLK and it led to disastrous consequences in gameplay on multiple levels.

a launcher will fire something at a greater distance than throwing something. common sense there.

i keep saying that tinker will barely affect the engineering profession. i have already listed reasons.

i think the anti tinker at this point is mostly just to try it spite you. also some odd hatred for gnomes and goblins.
i just dont get it.

[Al Gorefiend]

Visual images are fun!

This is a Hunter


This is a Tinker




Hunter



Tinker

(As a proposed Sapper spec maybe)

At this point, not accepting Tinkers as a plausibility is just asinine. Its fine to say you don't want them (I didnt want DHs) but obtusely ignoring the fact there exists little overlap between the two fantasies...? What one would look like and play is still up to Blizzard, and engineering continues to be a weak excuse as the distinction between a crafter and a fighter who uses that tech runs a literal real world comparison of a civilian who manufactures guns and a soldier in the military using it. Not to mention you can be a Mage who picks up Blacksmithing or Leatherworking, your class and profession don't have to be tied together.

I think if we get another class, it should be ranged DPS and it should be Tinker! I really don't see them as a hybrid as @Teriz does.

[Traveler Voltin]

Visual images are fun!

This is a Hunter


This is a Tinker




Hunter



Tinker



At this point, not accepting Tinkers as a plausibility is just asinine. Its fine to say you don't want them (I didnt want DHs) but obtusely ignoring the fact there exists no overlap between the two fantasies and engineering continues to be a weak excuse as the distinction between a crafter and a fighter who uses that tech runs a literal real world comparison of a civilian who manufactures guns and a soldier in the military using it.

why did you show a picture of a Goblin sapper?

[Teriz]

a launcher will fire something at a greater distance than throwing something. common sense there.

i keep saying that tinker will barely affect the engineering profession. i have already listed reasons.

i think the anti tinker at this point is mostly just to try it spite you. also some odd hatred for gnomes and goblins.
i just dont get it.

I get it. Take this thread for example;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ion-Megathread

Some people love elves and they want any new class inclusion to include them, even if it makes no sense. Pushing for a Goblin/Gnome only class is crazy talk.