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

[Alkizon]

Like I said; Hunter tossing a Wildfire Bomb isn't the same as a Tinker firing missiles at a target, or dropping bombs from the air.

Sorry to interfere, but still I would like to clarify something a little off topic... In my opinion, here need to start with fact that hunters shouldn't have any bombs and mines in their arsenal at all, all they can afford in this sense is types of cartridges and only just because they aren't in close proximity to target, so as not to put under threaten own self and master's pet

...and, well that's all what I wanted to clarify.

[draugril]

This idea that the WoW Bard would be a "mockery of the fantasy bard" is an asinine idea that needs to die a horrible death, once and for all. It's just demonstrably wrong.

And a relatively rare one, at that. You are entitled to keep it, but you aren't entitled to demand that others change theirs.

[Unbelievable]

I got the names mixed up, relax.



Still aren't as powerful as the explosives coming launched from vehicles. That's the point.



Strawman, I never said that Tinkers would drop nukes. What I'm saying is that by their nature a Tinker's bombs and explosives would be significantly more powerful than Wildfire Bomb or Explosive shot.



Yeah, the Mag'har and Forsaken are not technology inclined. Mag'har are a bunch of wolf-riding savages who piggy-backed off of Goblin tech. The Forsaken's expertise is in Alchemy not mechanical tech.

As for who says so, every expansion class has had faction equality race-wise. Good chance the next class would as well. Again, the easiest way to do that would be to have Goblins and Gnomes and their allied races.



Size is actually a rather good explanation, gameplay wise and lore wise.

The Tinker mech suit is not the equivalent of a bomber plane. The size of the explosives being loaded in it needs to be carryable by a person (and a short one at that).

Gameplay-wise, or lore-wise? Because gameplay-wise, for balance purposes, it can't be more powerful, and lore-wise, it would be the same explosives manufactured by Engineering (Goblin Rocket Launcher, Super Sapper Charge, The Bigger One, Goblin Bomb Dispenser, Goblin Dragon Gun, Gnomish Flame Turret, Goblin Mortar...).

The Mag'har are the equivalent of Guild Wars 2 Charr race, a warmongering and technological race. If they can be Engineers (and their culture revolves around it) then, i don't see a reason why Mag'har Orcs wouldn't be.

As for the Forsaken, they are part of Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys so, you can't deny that.

The only problem is that the Goblin supposed 'Allied Race', is not a Goblin at all. Nor is it related to them. They just use the same skeleton. Even if it was Gilgoblins, it wouldn't have meant that they could be Tinkers (as Gilgoblins are sea-dwelling creatures). That's why you can't base class/race combinations on Allied Races, alone. Examples would be:
Kul Tirans being able to be Shamans and Druids, while Stormwind Humans can't. Stormwind Humans being able to be Paladins, while Kul Tirans can't. Night elves being able to be Druids and Demon Hunters, while Nightborne can't. Draenei being able to be Monks, while Lightforged Draenei can't. Mag'har Orcs being able to be priests, while Orcs can't. Orcs being able to be Warlocks, while Mag'har Orcs can't. Tauren being able to be Paladins and Priests, while Highmountain Tauren can't. Trolls being able to be Warlocks, while Zandalari Trolls can't. Zanadalari Trolls being able to be Paladins, while Trolls can't. Blood elves being able to be Paladins and Demon Hunter, while Void elves can't. Vulpera being able to be Monks, while Goblins can't.

Size is not an explanation, whatsoever. Look at Tauren being so big and massive yet, they twinkle around like ballerinas with the Monk class. It wasn't given to them based on their agility, i can give you that. You'll have to come up with a better explanation than "little guys love tinkering".

Sorry to interfere, but still I would like to clarify something a little off topic... In my opinion, here need to start with fact that hunters shouldn't have any bombs and mines in their arsenal at all, all they can afford in this sense is types of cartridges and only just because they aren't in close proximity to target, so as not to put under threaten own self and master's pet

...and, well that's all what I wanted to clarify.

Of course they should. This has been the Survival Hunter description, since Cataclysm:
"A rugged tracker who favors using animal venom, explosives and traps as deadly weapons."

This is their description now:
"An adaptive ranger who favors using explosives, animal venom, and coordinated attacks with their bonded beast."

This is how Marksmanship should be like, according to race/class combination lore:

[Alkizon]

Unbelievable
...since Cataclysm

No they don't.

There is difference between trap and mine/grenade, but poor devs stopped noticing this, as result of which Legion's hunters appeared. This slag is absent in lore for both ranger and beastmaster, on basis of which this class was created. According to your logic, we can safely issue them at least half of tech tree, for which Teriz is so strive here (in the sense of - wants to receive for own "needs"). For this particular case, I'll be completely on his side
- Lasers? - Yes, no question, take it here!
- Flare launchers? - Why not, fill out this form!
For the same reason, I was against introduction of fully mechanical pets to hunters. Some variations of cyborgs (half with half) may be - like something special/unique, but not this cosmetic disgrace that they were given. There is certain line between joke and stupidity, and for them it has even grown with moss for a very long time.

For reference - you have one of tinkers' version at this picture, while in basic set of combinations neither these guys (goblins), let alone gnomes could be hunters... but, as you already managed to discuss above, they had "that" different direction for balance and historical justice. So it goes.

I understand that devs have already sunk in stinking pit for these parameters, but you, players, shouldn't drown in these sewage, you have choice, you have honor and own head on shoulders. You're the ones who set the beat, they're nobody without you, however, like you are without them.

Here some other stuff:

Still think that goblins/gnomes/forsaken hunters are big mistake. Ones for the first two would be perfectly replaced by tinkers, and for latter - by dark rangers... that's all, and lore is in order and less weird moves during dances from tambourines around style and racial characteristics. Once again I'll clarify for the sake of decency, to replace not because of "similarity", but because of the inappropriateness of incongruity of certain mechanics.

- snip -

They are a mistake in the first and foremost because these races don't fit with main lore component of hunter class.

Imperator4321
Hunter class is based on the Ranger class from D&D which has (mostly) been a divine (nature) half-caster that got druid spells. Hunter can be seen as the martial equivalent to the druid same way the paladin is a more martial priest, the Druid is overtly a spellcaster while the Hunter uses it in more subtle ways such as imbuing their arrows with magic, taking on the aspects of certain animals and forming magical bonds with beasts.

Triceron
Hunters use traps and animal pets, have a strong connection to beasts and the wilds, and they're themed on survival and resourcefulness. Dark Rangers are very much themed more as shadowy assassins fueled by hatred and vengeance, using their own torment to cause pain and fear to their enemies. I think these are very different concepts at the core which can't be ignored and simply equated as a Hunter specialization.

Gnomes and goblins will conditionally have problems of complementation and lack of interest in having something like that at all, but they compensate for such a lack ("disadvantages") by ownership and manipulation of technologies (which in turn is either difficult or not necessary for the rest races) for their own full-fledged implementation
- - - - - - - - - - -
yes, I’m talking, for example, about draenei (they do tech, but mostly don’t need personal mechanical stuff), however for tinkers it would be much more appropriate to put in 3rd slot not real mech-suit itself, but cyber kit with gadgets manipulators and other nonsense, while vehicles will remain means of transportation; but devs buried 3rd slot (after reading today another one of topics about poor surv hunters, who were turned into this(=current) nasty perversion) so this gap in equipment mechanics haunts them to this day, they continue to fail without it, but they are too narrow-minded to fix everything as it was
- - - - - - - - - - -
You can call it "overcompensation", if you like, although of course it's not, rather "historical balance", just first thing that came to mind. And forsaken simply won't fully form/implement connection of original part of hunters with "druidism's" harmony with nature, they are aliens at this party of life, but dark rangers will allow not only to preserve racial purity of origin of these dangerous creatures, but also to fill gap created by absence of hunters.

So: Hunters/Tinkers/DRs. It's simple, you just need to have balls to make a full-fledged and meaningful decision, but for an obvious reason, devs have long been deprived of those.

Hunters have nothing to do with "technology", and talking about archery and gnomes in one sentence is generally ridiculous.

No, main hunters' role-playing aspect is care and control of animals, symbiosis and coexistence/friendship/mutual assistance with them, this is hunting and survival in the wild (while use of "technologies" here as such is limited to "handy material", and not something so artificial and alien to this) environment, ability to merge with it and landscape, use of nature magic (about which "Gnomes and Forsaken" have zero knowledge), reading footprints, knowing habits and predicting behavior of booty... Therefore, hunters have nothing to do with technology or magic used by gnomes, and even more so with nature of forsaken. With same success it is possible to attribute "technology" to shamans based on their use of "lightning". That's bull$hit, completely nothing in common, and we even analyzed it in detail in that thread

This is why use of same type of armor, weapon, or magic school can't in any way be related to similarity of class fantasy.

main thing is lore/fantasy, main thing is whole set of class' core mechanics.

It's enough to imagine small gnome with long large bow and with quiver of arrows with heavy combat tips, from which one supposedly should aim to shoot, and in between of this "mad" poor creature will laughingly throw bombs and grenades under own and pet's feet, being next to bear 5 times larger than owner, which trying to sleep on this "loser" or use as link in food chain; or forsaken as friend with living wolf, allowing to play and chew on own leg bone during rest period, and in battle merging with environment (well, only if will be hunting in cemetery apparently)... yes, they are absolutely out of their minds (I'm talking about devs).

No. Nothing of such kind should be.

ps. One more time *pointing up*, all of it, not just "something of", that's what is called class.

[Unbelievable]

No they don't.

There is difference between trap and mine/grenade, but poor devs stopped noticing this, as result of which Legion's hunters appeared. This slag is absent in lore for both ranger and beastmaster, on basis of which this class was created. According to your logic, we can safely issue them at least half of tech tree, for which Teriz is so strive here. For this particular case, I'll be completely on his side
- Lasers? - Yes, no question, take it here!
- Flare launchers? - Why not, fill out this form!
For the same reason, I was against introduction of fully mechanical pets to hunters. Some variations of cyborgs (half with half) may be - like something special/unique, but not this cosmetic disgrace that they were given. There is certain line between joke and stupidity, and for them it has even grown with moss for a very long time.

For reference - you have one of tinkers' version at this picture, while in basic set of combinations neither these guys, let alone gnomes could be hunters... but, as you already managed to discuss above, they had "that" different direction for balance and historical justice. So it goes.

I understand that devs have already sunk into stinking pit for these parameters, but you, players, shouldn't drown in these sewage, you have choice, you have honor and own head on shoulders. You are the ones who set the beat, they are nobody without you, however, like you are without them.

Hunter's explosives would include:
Bombs, Grenades, Mines and, possibly, Rockets.

They won't be using lasers, gravity bombs or Robot pets.

It's not a Tinker but, a Sapper:
"Sappers, saboteurs, demolitionists, grenadiers: all similar names to design the same thing, experts in the handling of explosive weapons."

The Beastmaster would be the Beastmastery specialization. The Headhunter would be the Survival specialization. The Ranger should be taken out, for the purpose of a Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon (and, even, maybe a Naga Sea Witch) class. The Sapper would be, then, the Marksmanship specialization.

If you haven't seen my concepts, on previous pages then, go have a look:

Hunter, Shaman, Warrior and Rogue concepts.

Ranger, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster and Warden concepts.

Tinker and Alchemist concepts.

[Alkizon]

Hunter's explosives would include:

I have seen that, but, I repeat, all they can count on is set of ammunition for immediate weapons and nothing else, this goes beyond their concepts - this goes by definition from this class' mechanics, no mines, no grenades, only traps and even those with desirable requirement of natural (elements) origin.

Do you hear me or just trying to move up your concepts like your opponent? Should I explain basics of class mechanics to you?

Нow this all works? You take lore, clarify all possible classes mechanics, which will be their canonical distinguishing feature within the game (in this case, it can be easily skipped, because class design already had this state in framework of game’s history, suppose that it was somewhere between WotLK and BC, so next), sprinkle this functionality with functionally non-changing, but only complementary, tasty "dessert" mechanics of subsequent expansions (don’t see any reason to discard random good ideas even from “mediocre” former/current team members) - we get formed&working class system !of each of their representatives! What to do next? Now you need to think about talents that will make this or that class mechanics more convenient/preferable to use, while some mechanics can get, in sense, interdependent state thereby forming specialization area. After all this, we look at whether all available mechanics are taken into account in areas of specialization, if not... here already optional action will begin: let it be as it is, add them somewhere, or there could be formed additional specialization on their basis. Moreover! this choice had no dictatorial impact for player’s individual preferences regarding “RP” component, and no matter what mechanics were chosen as preferred, still rogue with any set of talents could be just duelist or pirate, secret agent, ninja and anyone else at player's will. [Axiom] Class' names aren't what "they" are within game system component (just conditional separation), but key mechanics are. They are your class, which means they are mandatory for each of its representatives (and there can be even no talk in framework of this design about "modern way" understanding of specs; build is your spec here). - set of posts in "after pre-SL" talkings - here some of later stuff

Forget all nonsense that modern devs are trying to cram into their anomalous lore. They have long ago forgotten the rules. There is nothing that you have seen in recent years, it's just figment of sick imagination.

Don't be like devs. They are the main reason for this your all dispute, their disregard for details.

...for many years now:

^ still same answer, only ammunition and nothing else, the rest is delirium stuck into class area in detriment of main one, as well as entire structure of classes, both available and hypothetical, so have zero interest for me. Don't forget that "spec is nothing, class is all", giving something to one of specs, thereby you give it to the whole class (current architecture of talent doesn't count, it just simply breaks a gigantic heap of rules, that is, so mentioning "some" tiers by you only worsens position of your theory). No bombs, no mines, these not their fantasy, these not there mechanics - just aspects, stings, pets, traps, thematic distance abilities and melee zone weakness, not more and not less. No survival, no mm, no bm, there is hunter class... and everything else is moderated by selected talents that complement/enhance general class mechanics, which are mostly available for any its member.

[Triceron]

Don't be like devs. They are the main reason for this your all dispute, their disregard for details.

Rofl, who do you think will design the next new Class? The players on this forum?

Just look at how Allied Races have been rolled out, and how they suddenly opened up racial customization so that you've got High Elf options on both sides and Sand Trolls in the Horde where there's zero lore to explain it away. That's the new norm. We can all regard it as nonsense, but there's also no alternative to this. When it comes to classes, specs and lore, the lore is only used to explain away gameplay mechanics. No sensible reason for Blood Elves to join the Horde back in TBC; this was purely gameplay driven. No reason for Druids to be accessible to Tauren, they were a Night Elf exclusive cultural class. Disregarding lore for the sake of gameplay has always been a part of WoW; it's absolutely gameplay driven.

They didn't forget the rules, they changed them.

[draugril]

They didn't forget the rules, they changed them.

To be fair, they also forget a lot of their own rules in addition to deliberately changing them.

[Triceron]

To be fair, they also forget a lot of their own rules in addition to deliberately changing them.

Perhaps

Or, a more plausible answer, there were no 'rules' to begin with. Just general guidelines that they happen to follow in each iteration of the game.

Consider this - Would you consider 'No Neutral Races playable on both factions' to be a rule of the game before Mists of Pandaria? I see it as two ways to look at it - either it was a rule and it was broken, or it was a soft guideline that was followed up until the necessity for a Neutral Race to be added to the game.

If we regard these as rules that always get changed, can we really call them rules at all?

[draugril]

Perhaps

Or, a more plausible answer, there were no 'rules' to begin with. Just general guidelines that they happen to follow in each iteration of the game.

Consider this - Would you consider 'No Neutral Races playable on both factions' to be a rule of the game before Mists of Pandaria? I see it as two ways to look at it - either it was a rule and it was broken, or it was a soft guideline that was followed up until the necessity for a Neutral Race to be added to the game.

Naw, I completely agree with where you're coming from. But that doesn't negate that they tend to forget details as well.

For example... both the Undead and Blood Elves weren't members of the Horde - they were both allied with the Horde. Until they forgot that small, but very impactful, detail. Or how the Warlords of Draenor missed quite a few important representatives of the Orc clans and they literally stated on stage that they forgot about some of them.

[Alkizon]

Rofl, who do you think will design the next new Class? The players on this forum?

Just look at how Allied Races have been rolled out, and how they suddenly opened up racial customization so that you've got High Elf options on both sides and Sand Trolls in the Horde where there's zero lore to explain it away. That's the new norm. We can all regard it as nonsense, but there's also no alternative to this. When it comes to classes, specs and lore, the lore is only used to explain away gameplay mechanics. No sensible reason for Blood Elves to join the Horde back in TBC; this was purely gameplay driven. No reason for Druids to be accessible to Tauren, they were a Night Elf exclusive cultural class. Disregarding lore for the sake of gameplay has always been a part of WoW; it's absolutely gameplay driven.

They didn't forget the rules, they changed them.

No they don't, they kind of... well:
"You haven't beaten me. You've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." - Henri Ducard
They can't change rules, for that they are rules, since there are certain requirements for functioning of particular system and whether you like it or not, but you have to reckon with them, because otherwise there is completely exact mathematically calculated resultant of your failure... all they do is ignore them and this obviously doesn't help them in any way, but only complicates each subsequent task.

Do you know where allied race idea came from? - probably not. They took idea proposed in completely different way and for completely different reason, and then perverted and "monetized" it (turned it into conditional profit). Do you know why there're now problems with classes and lore (current discussion), or, for example, with addition, organization, customization and other not the last things for allied races now (conflict with original)? Because by perverting idea, they ignored rules. They know it. They also know that not all players mindlessly follow/obey their "perversions", but continue to criticize/persuade them to point out their mistakes (I don't mean myself, I'm, rather, just little person who voices something somewhere, moreover what even based initially not on own considerations).

So they listen, not to those who thoughtlessly sag, but those whom they lose yesterday today tomorrow, roles in this theater have changed, they don't know what to do... but problem is that they continue to ignore the very rules of which they are being reminded. They keep taking good ideas one by one and trying to make them "profitable", but not fit according to rules of this world or design (place for it and its mechanics). They listen/read, but apparently too greedy and stupid to achieve desired result, the very idea. If you look closely, you will see this in many changes to retail game.

I have nothing to accept, I know rules and I know their mistakes, which grow like snowball with each expansion/addition. I’m fine in this sense, you better take care of yourself. Start with yourself, and when you can convince yourself of real need for something, then perhaps that very "will to act" will appear.

ps. Don't think anything bad, I'm not trying to convince you, or intimidate or humiliate you, I'm just trying to suggest that you think for yourself, be aware of your own actions, be honest, be friends with logic. Do we understand each other? I have complete picture of my stuff, complete peace with myself

ps2. All right, we're almost completely off topic again, I have to leave you with this.

2: This is not a modern dev issue. ^

Here I was talking about system's requirements, its basic rules, this is more general concept, understand the difference, very often this is enough to make emotional-theoretical component more or less safe. Lore is a little different thing, but yes, this all started much earlier for it, but even for lore there are some rules of safety, retcon doesn't grow from scratch. Even D&D "new" rulebooks in this sense are far from good example. This isn't, what I builded from in my statement.

I sure as hell don't consider 'Druid's role in raiding is to Innervate the Priest' as a Rule simply because it happened to be the way they were initially designed.

Under class' "lore" I see rather structure, set of mechanics that it was given as own implementation, but not what was added to it when devs cut its limbs or when they decided to cross hippo with rhino. It makes no sense to mention holy trinity here, since it's not connected with structure of class, only with organization of encounters and selection of appropriate characteristics (I understand that they have perverted this too, but initially it should have been, and it was)... so, answering question, druid don't have any appointed roles, just set of mechanics, which it can use for own/party help, just that, actually like any other class. Relatively speaking, this is actually the same as what I answered at the end to this member.

[Triceron]

Naw, I completely agree with where you're coming from. But that doesn't negate that they tend to forget details as well.

For example... both the Undead and Blood Elves weren't members of the Horde - they were both allied with the Horde. Until they forgot that small, but very impactful, detail. Or how the Warlords of Draenor missed quite a few important representatives of the Orc clans and they literally stated on stage that they forgot about some of them.

Agreed, that's going to happen all the time though.

And none of that really pertains to any 'rules'. The Lore is treated as a mean to explain game mechanics, flavour the world and progress the story. The details are superfluous because, frankly, they always were. That we hold those details to a higher regard doesn't mean they devs ever did.

Consider how much Warcraft has changed with each iteration even before WoW. Warcraft 2 introduced concepts like 'Northeron' and Gnomes and Warcraft 3 completely forgot about them, only explaining why they were gone many years later into WoW. This isn't something exclusive to modern devs; it's literally a part of Warcraft since its conception. Changes and losses of details happen all the time, in every sense of the game. This doesn't relate to 'modern devs' forgetting rules; as I said the rules may not truly exist in the first place. Lore is absolutely rewritten in every iteration we get. Details are always forgotten and misplaced because frankly they were never all that important to the structure of the narratives they plan to tell.

[Ielenia]

Did you? You'd easily notice the posts the article are talking about no longer exist because of the many forum changes WoW website has gone through.

And have you actually tried the link that I provided, which is from the WayBackMachine website which holds a snapshot of the old forum thread?

I simply proved you wrong,

You proved nothing.

no need to deflect to nonarguments.

I'm not deflecting. I've provided an actual link that shows that the thread the Endgadget website showcased as "showing how people didn't like the idea of non-human DKs" is nothing more than a thread discussing how the playable races look as death knights. The title of the thread is simply asking "which races can be DKs", and only one post shows displeasure about the idea of all the races (at the time) being death knights. The rest just keep discussing how some races look as death knights.

Want me to get some more for you or are you satisfied with this?

If you got some actual evidence, show it.

- - - Updated - - -

<meme image>

Right back at you, man. Right back at you.

And a relatively rare one, at that.

Is it? Did you poll everyone to know that?

you aren't entitled to demand that others change theirs.

I'm not saying you should change your opinion. I'm saying you should stop spreading misinformation.

[Triceron]

No they don't, they kind of... well:
"You haven't beaten me. You've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." - Henri Ducard
They can't change rules, for that they are rules, since there are certain requirements for functioning of particular system and whether you like it or not, but you have to reckon with them, because otherwise there is completely exact mathematically calculated resultant of your failure... all they do is ignore them and this obviously doesn't help them in any way, but only complicates each subsequent task.

1: Rules can be changed. We know this.

Night Elf Druids were created in the story by Metzen, completely fleshed out in Warcraft 3 lore. Metzen wanted the WoW Druid class to be Night Elf exclusive, as they should have always been in the lore and in forth-coming sequels; we could consider this a rule. The gameplay designers argued otherwise and that Druid class was not going to follow like the Paladin as a Alliance only class; they wanted Druids on both factions and thus Tauren were allowed to be Druids, with lore to accompany that change. Now, we have a half-dozen Druid races in the game. The rule was absolutely changed.

It was a rule-change that happened early enough to substantiate the addition of more non-Night Elf Druid races in subsequent iterations of WoW. The exceptions that were added into the rule changed the lore entirely from being a culturally-exclusive derived 'religion' to something that has permeated the cultures of other races for centuries and simply left with loose connections back to Cenarius and the Wild Gods/Loa.

Here's the kicker - considering how Vanilla WoW was initially designed, there is plausability for them to have kept Druid as an Alliance-only race, because the Paladin already set the precedent that this was a definite possibility. We also know from devs themselves that this was initially planned and fought for by Metzen, and that this was a Game Design change to open them up to Horde. And even now, the 'Rule' of allowing Faction-exclusive classes is all but gone. It hasn't applied to the game since Vanilla, and frankly it never will apply again considering the direction of the game since TBC. I wouldn't even consider this a 'Rule', though your definition may differ since you seem you seem to be an expert on 'certain requirements for functioning of particular system and whether you like it or not'.

2: This is not a modern dev issue. ^


Honestly speaking, any rules we speak of are ultimately subjective to us.

Which would you consider a Rule if the gameplay devs are the ones defining them? That Druids should have been Night Elf exclusive because of Warcraft 3 lore? Or that Druids should be accessible to multiple races because WoW lore established this at the start of Vanilla? Oh but wait! The first mention of Druids actually comes from Warcraft 2 where the High Elf Druids were explained as the keepers of the Runestone of Caer Darrow. So this must be the Rule and Warcraft 3 changed the lore away from being Runestone keepers, right?

Or we could regard it in a more sensible way - there are no true Rules. They're just guidelines the lore happens to follow for the purpose of telling the story. All we have to consider is that the canon is definitive guideline for all lore.

Here I was talking about system's requirements, its basic rules, this is more general concept, understand the difference, very often this is enough to make emotional-theoretical component more or less safe. Lore is a little different thing, but yes, this all started much earlier for it.

Forgive me if I misunderstood. 'Forget all nonsense that modern devs are trying to cram into their anomalous lore". I may have taken that out of context if you weren't actually talking about modern devs changing lore.

If we're talking about class mechanics and systems, I'd probably do the same line of argument though. Vanilla WoW is a vastly different system to modern WoW. The few mechanics that did stay the same; I wouldn't truly consider rules. Even the Holy Trinity system could easily be done away with any time during the past ~16 years, given that they were experimental enough to try it. And we also have seen many of their experiments in the game that have varying levels of success and failure, like 3 DPS/Tank specs of DK, or the no-Auto Attacks Monk. I'm not sure what you would really consider as a rule or an exception; to me that's something purely subjective if we were discuss the design and intentions of WoW over the years.

I sure as hell don't consider 'Druid's role in raiding is to Innervate the Priest' as a Rule simply because it happened to be the way they were initially designed.

[PsychoSe7eN]

I really want a necromancer class. It fits the lore. It fits gameplay. It fits this expansion really well and maybe good as an intro class to the next expansion from shadowlands where necromancer is included. Necromancer needs to be a class. And the argument that a necromancer would impact other classes like warlock, shadow priest, and death knight are irrelevant and unjustified at this point. We are way beyond that argument. Its no longer something that can be argued. A good necromancer class would have enough lore and gameplay mechanics would have enough to keep its identity unique and distinguishable to not step on the other classes.

There have been some awesome concepts for a good necromancer class on this forum and I think it would fit right in since the class has been in the lore and game since the beginning.

- armor type: cloth wearing class

- weapons: daggers staves swords tomes

- specs: plague doctor (range healer), death (range pet dps/tank), Darkness (ranged dps)

- class mounts: skeletal hound (ground) / Shadow dragon (flying mount)

[draugril]

I'm not saying you should change your opinion. I'm saying you should stop spreading misinformation.

... by stating that my opinion is "misinformation," you are telling me to stop stating my opinion.

[Teriz]

The Tinker mech suit is not the equivalent of a bomber plane. The size of the explosives being loaded in it needs to be carryable by a person (and a short one at that).

You know we're talking about races that extensively use robots right? Why wouldn't goblins and gnomes build worker bots to carry and load weapons onto their mechs?

Gameplay-wise, or lore-wise? Because gameplay-wise, for balance purposes, it can't be more powerful, and lore-wise, it would be the same explosives manufactured by Engineering (Goblin Rocket Launcher, Super Sapper Charge, The Bigger One, Goblin Bomb Dispenser, Goblin Dragon Gun, Gnomish Flame Turret, Goblin Mortar...).

Actually it can be. Hunters revolve around the use of spears, arrows, harpoons, etc. A Tinker class could revolve around bombs and missiles. Wildfire bomb isn't even close to the most damaging ability within Survival Hunters, but Xplodium Charge or Gravity Bomb could be the most damaging ability in the Tinker class.

The Mag'har are the equivalent of Guild Wars 2 Charr race, a warmongering and technological race. If they can be Engineers (and their culture revolves around it) then, i don't see a reason why Mag'har Orcs wouldn't be.

The main reason being that Orcs have no reason to use technology. They have brute strength and they can use magic.

As for the Forsaken, they are part of Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys so, you can't deny that.

An exception that doesn't prove much of anything. Lady Sena has been Gazlowe's assistant for a long time. It would make sense for her to be on his squad.

The only problem is that the Goblin supposed 'Allied Race', is not a Goblin at all. Nor is it related to them. They just use the same skeleton. Even if it was
Size is not an explanation, whatsoever. Look at Tauren being so big and massive yet, they twinkle around like ballerinas with the Monk class. It wasn't given to them based on their agility, i can give you that. You'll have to come up with a better explanation than "little guys love tinkering".

Nah. Again, it makes sense that a smaller race would depend more on intelligence than raw strength. Technology is an expression of intelligence, so it makes perfect sense that you would have a diminutive race turn to tech in order to level the field. Vulpera are said to be highly intelligent and adaptable, so nothing really stops Blizzard from pushing them to the next level.

[Unbelievable]

I have seen that, but, I repeat, all they can count on is set of ammunition for immediate weapons and nothing else, this goes beyond their concepts - this goes by definition from this class' mechanics, no mines, no grenades, only traps and even those with desirable requirement of natural (elements) origin.

Do you hear me or just trying to move up your concepts like your opponent? Should I explain basics of class mechanics to you?
Forget all nonsense that modern devs are trying to cram into their anomalous lore. They have long ago forgotten the rules. There is nothing that you have seen in recent years, it's just figment of sick imagination.

Don't be like devs. They are the main reason for this your all dispute, their disregard for details.

Hunters had the explosive aspects for many years now:

T.N.T.(3 ranks)
Survival, Tier 4
When you deal periodic damage with your Immolation Trap, Explosive Trap or Black Arrow you have a 6/12% chance to trigger Lock and Load.

Explosive Shot Rank 1
7% of base mana 35 yd range
Instant 6 sec cooldown
Requires Ranged Weapon
You fire an explosive charge into the enemy target, dealing RAP*0.14+144-RAP*0.14+172 Fire damage. The charge will blast the target every second for an additional 2 sec.

Explosive Trap
Level 50 Survival hunter ability
8 yd range30 sec cooldown
Instant cast
Tosses a fire trap on the ground in front of you that explodes when an enemy approaches, causing (350% of attack power) Fire damage and burning all enemies within 8 yards for (420% of attack power) additional Fire damage over 10 sec. Trap will exist for 1 min.

Dragonsfire Grenade
Level 90 Survival hunter talent
40 yd range30 sec cooldown
Instant cast
Hurls a dragonsfire grenade at the target that explodes into flames, inflicting [(1304% of Attack power) + (400% of Attack power)] Fire damage over 8 sec and reducing movement speed by 20%. The volatile flames on the target also scorch nearby enemies.

Wildfire Bomb
Level 20 Survival hunter ability
40 yd range18 sec cooldown
Instant cast
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.

You're talking from a gameplay perspective.
I'm talking from a lore perspective.

It doesn't go beyond their concept, because lore-wise the Beastmaster is:

"A beastmaster, also known as beast master, is a warrior hero or wilderness warrior who is able to call forth the creatures of the forest to serve him. These lone wandering forest dwellers come from all backgrounds and cultures, seeking the essence of combat through the mimicry of wild beasts."

Beast Mastery description:
"A master of the wild who can tame a wide variety of beasts to assist in combat." The mimicry of beasts is represented through the various beast aspects (Aspect of the Hawk, Fox, Turtle, Viper, Monkey, Dragonhawk, Eagle, Cheetah, Chameleon).

A Headhunter is:
"The disenfranchised Trolls of northern Lordaeron have once again pledged their savage services to the Orcish Horde. These cunning warriors are trained from birth to hunt, track and trap the most dangerous beasts in the wild. In times of war, however, Troll Headhunters turn their mighty spears upon the enemies of the Horde without hesitation. Capable of hurling their deadly spears at distant enemies, Troll Headhunters provide invaluable cover fire for the other warriors of the Horde."

Survival Hunter old description:
"A rugged tracker who favors using animal venom, explosives and traps as deadly weapons."

Now, as for Marksmanship, its description has, mostly, been:
"A master archer or sharpshooter who excels in bringing down enemies from afar." (as of now, it's just Sharpshooter).

Sharpshooters are:
"Sharpshooters (or sharp-shooters) are shooters of many races affiliated with various factions. They use mostly guns, but bows and crossbows as well. They are hunter marksmen".

Archers are:
"Archers are soldiers that shoot with a bow or a crossbow."

A Sapper is:
"The mischievous Goblin Sappers are known throughout the Horde for their incredible aptitude for destruction".

What i'm suggesting is:
Taking the explosives aspect of Survival and moving it to Marksmanship (because headhunters don't use explosives but, in real-life, at least, they use animal venom). That way, we'll have a gun wielding, explosives expert, like the Sapper (Junkrat version).

The archer archetype can be moved to a Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Sea Witch class.

You know we're talking about races that extensively use robots right? Why wouldn't goblins and gnomes build worker bots to carry and load weapons onto their mechs?



Actually it can be. Hunters revolve around the use of spears, arrows, harpoons, etc. A Tinker class could revolve around bombs and missiles. Wildfire bomb isn't even close to the most damaging ability within Survival Hunters, but Xplodium Charge or Gravity Bomb could be the most damaging ability in the Tinker class.



The main reason being that Orcs have no reason to use technology. They have brute strength and they can use magic.



An exception that doesn't prove much of anything. Lady Sena has been Gazlowe's assistant for a long time. It would make sense for her to be on his squad.



Nah. Again, it makes sense that a smaller race would depend more on intelligence than raw strength. Technology is an expression of intelligence, so it makes perfect sense that you would have a diminutive race turn to tech in order to level the field. Vulpera are said to be highly intelligent and adaptable, so nothing really stops Blizzard from pushing them to the next level.

Small robots, like the Gnomish Alarm-O-Bot, Lil' Smokey and Spark Bots, that is. Or, are you expecting them to walk around with giant robots, like the Gnomish Pounders and the Goblin Shredders at their side?

That's just your opinion. As of right now, we don't know how much damage Xplodium Charge will do. Plus, we don't know how much it will be nerfed or buffed by Blizzard.

They had a reason In WoD. That reason is war and conquering. And explosives go well with that theme.

and use abilities like:
Arachnobomb 2.0, Cascading Lightning Pulse, Cutting Beam and Shock Baton?

Intelligence, also, means magical knowledge. Not just Technological. In the case of the Vulpera, it means Alchemical knowledge. You need more reasoning than just small races are intelligent. Because, as it stands now, their technological knowledge, as well as living conditions, are very primitive.

[Teriz]

Small robots, like the Gnomish Alarm-O-Bot, Lil' Smokey and Spark Bots. Or, are you expecting them to walk around with giant robots, like the Gnomish Pounders and the Goblin Shredders at their side?

It's possible. Siegecrafter Blackfuse had automated Shredders assisting him. Nothing stops a Tinker class from also being able to call in automated mechs to assist them.

That's just your opinion. As of right now, we don't know how much damage Xplodium Charge will do. Plus, we don't know how much it will be nerfed or buffed by Blizzard.

Again, from a lore perspective you have a Hunter tossing a fire bomb versus a Tinker flying a machine of death launching missiles, firing lasers, and dropping bombs on targets. Either way you slice it, the Tinker is going to have far more powerful explosives than a class based around archers/riflemen and their animal friends.

They had a reason In WoD. That reason is war and conquering. And explosives go well with that theme.

Yeah because their leader was influenced by Garrosh Hellscream, an Orc who detested magic and thoroughly embraced Goblin technology. The philosophy of the Iron Horde isn't the standard viewpoint of the Mag'har in of themselves.

and use abilities like:
Arachnobomb 2.0, Cascading Lightning Pulse, Cutting Beam and Shock Baton?

Again, just an NPC who was there due to her connection to Gazlowe. I wouldn't look into anything beyond that.

Intelligence, also, means magical knowledge. Not just Technological. In the case of the Vulpera, it means Alchemical knowledge. You need more reasoning than just small races are intelligent. Because, as it stands now, their technological knowledge, as well as living conditions, are very primitive.

Yeah, but Elves are the ones who kind of corner being the best at magic. Goblins and Gnomes are more the technological angle. It makes sense that Vulpera would be more along the lines of Goblins and Gnomes instead of Elves.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

You proved nothing.

Alright I'm not going to argue with someone that keeps backtracking. The evidence is there, take it if you want but I won't know/care.