1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarohk View Post
    TIINNNKKEEERRRRRRRrrrr *has a seizure*

    But appart from Tinker. I mentioned this in another thread. A class mixing illusions (think mesmer in GW2) and divination/astrology (think astrologian in FF XIV).


    I honestly kind of love this idea of an Illusionist sort of class. But it also feels pretty distant from "Warcraft", if that makes any sense.

    I still personally quite like the thought of a Cosmic/Titan-themed class, but I'd be interested in how a "Mesmer" type class could potentially come about?

    Perhaps it could originate from Suramar?

  2. #242
    Battlemage, that among other stuff can conjure arcane shield and such to let them have a tank spec along side the 2 pure dps specs (one ranged and one melee based).

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Therein lies the problem though; Mechs are used by Goblins and Gnomes to make up for their lack of physical strength and magical power in lore. Technology is supposed to be what evens things out for them against other races. Vulpeira actually fit into that prism because like Goblins and Gnomes they aren't overtly physically strong or attuned to magic. Their strength is their intelligence, resourcefulness, and affinity to Alchemy, which actually aligns them rather well to a technology-based class.

    Orcs and Draenei on the other hand are physically powerful, and the Draenei have rather strong affinity to the Naaru, so while they do have war frames, I can see them being ignored in favor of a Tinker class more aligned for Goblins and Gnomes. It would also make development easier, because Gnomes and Mechagnomes could use the same models for their summoned tech (turrets, robot helpers, etc), and Vulpeira could use the same models as Goblin tech. The only thing Blizzard would need to do is make up some BS lore, and give those 4 races unique mech models.
    Their size certainly hasn't stopped any race from being able to choose a class that would be better suited for a different race, aside from Goblin, Gnome, and Vulpera warriors, theirs also the cases of Orc, Zandalari, and Dwarf rogues, as well as Orc Mages, and also Vulpera seem to me like they'd be more of a backline race, focusing more on supplying and healing their allies, and while Vulpera's strengths complement well with the strengths of a tinker, they still don't exactly fit together on a racial sense, along with actual technologically savvy Vulpera being in comparitively short supply, there's also the weakness in that a Junker-like mech would be more fitting of a goblin, and not so much with a vulpera, if any vulpera were to create a "mech" it'd probably look more like a combo between their totems, and caravans, giving the sense of a more shamanic type of Tinker... I actually wouldn't be opposed to that now that I think of it
    Last edited by Psykho; 2020-11-20 at 11:51 PM.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Claymore View Post
    I honestly kind of love this idea of an Illusionist sort of class. But it also feels pretty distant from "Warcraft", if that makes any sense.

    I still personally quite like the thought of a Cosmic/Titan-themed class, but I'd be interested in how a "Mesmer" type class could potentially come about?

    Perhaps it could originate from Suramar?
    Im assuming an illusion based class would probably be related to the void which could work.

  5. #245
    Necromancer! With a tanking spec that uses undead minions to tank, a dps spec that uses undead minions to attack, and a blood-magic healing spec.

    Seriously, all the arguments against Necromancer are bad.

    1. They'd be no more similar to DK's than priests are to Paladins.

    2. Yes, warlocks have minions, but that's like saying we can't have Elemental shamans because we already have mages. "Having minions" is a broad concept, they'd just have to make the mechanics work a bit differently.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawon View Post
    Battlemage, that among other stuff can conjure arcane shield and such to let them have a tank spec along side the 2 pure dps specs (one ranged and one melee based).
    Came here to say this as well. Battlemage, Spellsword, Swordmage, whatever you want to call it. I'd play the hell out of that kind of class. Apart from that I think it would be fun to see a new ranged class or a new type of spellcaster class.

    Also, I don't get people who say that adding a new class would be a bad idea.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Teriz has a fairly well-fleshed idea for dragonsworn here
    Good work. Has he ever considered the tinker class?

  8. #248
    Wasn't Runecaster supposed to be a thing back in WOTLK?

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgeezer View Post
    Good work. Has he ever considered the tinker class?
    Yes.
    Tinker class here

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why can't Paladins use Shadow magic? Why aren't Death Knights using Holy Magic? Why aren't Mages using Demonic magic? Why can't Hunters transform into animals? Why aren't Shaman draining life from other people? Why aren't Warriors using magic spells?

    Yeah, it's all because of theme.
    And?

    Smite is mechanically identical to Shadowbolt, Fireball, Frost Bolt, Aimed Shot, and Lightning Bolt (and possibly others).

    The reason Paladins feel and play differently than Death Knights, that Warlocks feel and play differently than Mages, that Hunters feel and play differently than Druids is because of their game play mechanics, not their theme.

    Theme can inspire new abilities and new mechanics.

    If all they did was take a Paladin and all it's mechanics and change the theme to be dark and broody based on ice, unholy and blood magic, but keep everything mechanically the same it would still LOOK like a Death Knight, but it would play mechanically identically to a Paladin. There would be zero difference in teh game play between the two.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Factcheck View Post
    Wasn't Runecaster supposed to be a thing back in WOTLK?
    The concepts for Necromancer and Runecaster were all kind of absorbed and molded into what eventually became the Death Knight.

  11. #251
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    And?

    Smite is mechanically identical to Shadowbolt, Fireball, Frost Bolt, Aimed Shot, and Lightning Bolt (and possibly others).
    Actually that's false. Previous iterations of Shadowbolt drained life from targets or generated demons/soul shards. Frostbolt slows enemies. Aimed Shot builds Focus. Previous iterations of Fireball caused an increase in crit damage or initiated a DoT over time. Certainly they're all projectiles, but each one has a unique mechanic based on the theme of its class.

    Theme can inspire new abilities and new mechanics.

    If all they did was take a Paladin and all it's mechanics and change the theme to be dark and broody based on ice, unholy and blood magic, but keep everything mechanically the same it would still LOOK like a Death Knight, but it would play mechanically identically to a Paladin. There would be zero difference in teh game play between the two.
    Except Blood, Ice and Unholy magic have intrinsic mechanics and thematics. So no, a Paladin could never use those types if abilities because it would go against the theme of the Paladin class.

  12. #252
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,329
    Quote Originally Posted by PenguinChan View Post
    Once you realize that base mechanics and design =/= entirely unique you'll understand why people are saying this.
    Hm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Also, I have never said that new classes have to be anywhere near 100% unique to be viable. I have stated, multiple times through multiple threads, that it's fine for classes to share gameplay elements and/or themes. Because, guess what: we have classes, right now, that share gameplay elements, and classes that share themes.
    And remember that this whole thing started with the claim that "a mechanical theme brings unique gameplay" which is the whole contention, here.

    Druids got Symbiosis (Now removed for obvious reasons). Would that have fit on a Paladin? Sure, if you changed it to fit their design and themes. But as is? Hell no. Could you give rogues a mech? Pffff. You'd be hard pressed to even find something literally equivalent to that.
    The theme of the ability is irrelevant, and that includes the ability's name. A mechanic that allows the player to copy the ability of another player character is not something exclusive to the druid theme, and the mechanic can be given as-is to the paladin class, for example. Or the mage class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why can't Paladins use Shadow magic? Why aren't Death Knights using Holy Magic? Why aren't Mages using Demonic magic? Why can't Hunters transform into animals? Why aren't Shaman draining life from other people? Why aren't Warriors using magic spells?

    Yeah, it's all because of theme.
    Irrelevant. Everything you said there is nothing but themes. None of what you mentioned is "gameplay". "Shadow magic", "holy magic", "demonic magic"... all of those are themes. Not gameplay.

    Why does the hunter class lack a mechanic that transforms their character into something else? I don't know. Probably because Blizzard decided not to give them that particular mechanic.

    Also, I'll remind you: what the player transforms into is not a mechanic. The act of transformation itself is the mechanic, regardless of what they turn into.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawon View Post
    Battlemage, that among other stuff can conjure arcane shield and such to let them have a tank spec along side the 2 pure dps specs (one ranged and one melee based).
    This is my pick.

  14. #254
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Irrelevant. Everything you said there is nothing but themes. None of what you mentioned is "gameplay". "Shadow magic", "holy magic", "demonic magic"... all of those are themes. Not gameplay.
    The gameplay is based around those themes. Holy Magic and Shadow Magic have mechanical differences.

    Why does the hunter class lack a mechanic that transforms their character into something else? I don't know. Probably because Blizzard decided not to give them that particular mechanic.
    Because it doesn't fit the Hunter theme.

    Also, I'll remind you: what the player transforms into is not a mechanic. The act of transformation itself is the mechanic, regardless of what they turn into.
    I never said it was. I said that what the player transforms into influences the type of gameplay allowed by the theme.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFromHumanResources View Post
    12 pages.. Has this turned into a Tinker thread yet like class threads always do?

    I want a battlemage, arcane magic in melee, yes pls.

    Or something that makes use of the drustvar witch spell effects. The blue/black ones, that seem to be raw death magic before Death Knights turn it into unholy/blood/frost and it could be interesting to play around with.
    Like i knew it would as people started bashing Tinker despite several mentioning it as their choice.

    You don't see people coming here and saying everything except battlemage! That is trolling and mods don't seem to care.
    I pleaded to them to not let it happen to no avail... so, here we go again. People are not allowed to like Tinker in these forums and the trolling is allowed so, yeah. Impossible to talk about new classes when it always turns into vendetta time.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Actually that's false. Previous iterations of Shadowbolt drained life from targets or generated demons/soul shards. Frostbolt slows enemies. Aimed Shot builds Focus. Previous iterations of Fireball caused an increase in crit damage or initiated a DoT over time. Certainly they're all projectiles, but each one has a unique mechanic based on the theme of its class.
    Functionally, they serve the same purpose. It's a relatively short cast time ability that is used as the fill/ more or less primary ability when not using the bigger ones.

    That's what I'm saying.

    The reason they ARE as different as you say has nothing to do with the theme of the ability but the mechanics you discuss.

    Except Blood, Ice and Unholy magic have intrinsic mechanics and thematics. So no, a Paladin could never use those types if abilities because it would go against the theme of the Paladin class.
    No they don't have intrinsic mechanics. They have mechanics Blizzard programmed specifically to work the way they do. That's the point. Frostbolt looks and works the way it does because it was designed specifically to look and work that way and have those mechanics. They didn't just take Fireball, change the animation and call it a day.

    If they were to literally take every Paladin ability, give it more Death Knight appropriate animation, call it a Death Knight appropriate name and then just call the class a Death Knight it would play exactly the same as a Paladin, but look like a Death Knight.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The gameplay is based around those themes. Holy Magic and Shadow Magic have mechanical differences.
    Because those differences are intentionally programmed that way. They do not magically have different game play simply because they call one ability a Shadow Magic ability and one a Holy Magic ability.

  17. #257
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Functionally, they serve the same purpose. It's a relatively short cast time ability that is used as the fill/ more or less primary ability when not using the bigger ones.

    That's what I'm saying.

    The reason they ARE as different as you say has nothing to do with the theme of the ability but the mechanics you discuss.
    So an Frost Mage having Frostbolt which slows enemy targets when it hits them has nothing to do with the theme of a Mage using Frost magic?


    No they don't have intrinsic mechanics. They have mechanics Blizzard programmed specifically to work the way they do. That's the point. Frostbolt looks and works the way it does because it was designed specifically to look and work that way and have those mechanics. They didn't just take Fireball, change the animation and call it a day.
    Again, a Frost Mage would have Frost magic correct? What's a quality of Ice? It slows and freezes. Thus when you create abilities based on that type of magic, you're going to include mechanics that cause enemies to be slowed and frozen. That would be an intrinsic mechanic.

    If they were to literally take every Paladin ability, give it more Death Knight appropriate animation, call it a Death Knight appropriate name and then just call the class a Death Knight it would play exactly the same as a Paladin, but look like a Death Knight.
    What?

    Because those differences are intentionally programmed that way. They do not magically have different game play simply because they call one ability a Shadow Magic ability and one a Holy Magic ability.
    Okay, I want you to think about this for a moment; Why would a Blizzard game developer give Shadow Magic and Holy Magic unique qualities and different mechanics?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by EntertainmentNihilist View Post
    Necromancer! With a tanking spec that uses undead minions to tank, a dps spec that uses undead minions to attack, and a blood-magic healing spec.

    Seriously, all the arguments against Necromancer are bad.

    1. They'd be no more similar to DK's than priests are to Paladins.
    Priests use Shadow magic. Paladins use weapon-based Holy Magic. What magic type would Necromancers use that Death Knights couldn't use?

    2. Yes, warlocks have minions, but that's like saying we can't have Elemental shamans because we already have mages. "Having minions" is a broad concept, they'd just have to make the mechanics work a bit differently.
    Well no. Neither Mages or Shaman are a pet class. Warlocks are a Pet class, and they use demonic minions and shadow magic to manipulate their pets. They even have life and soul transfer abilities that just scream "Necromancer". Shadowbolt, Life Drain, Curse of Weakness, Corruption, Hearthstone, Life Tap, Soul Shard, Soulstone, etc. are all Necromancer abilities given to the Warlock class. In short, what you desire is nothing more than a palette swap of the current Warlock class.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post

    Priests use Shadow magic. Paladins use weapon-based Holy Magic. What magic type would Necromancers use that Death Knights couldn't use?

    Well no. Neither Mages or Shaman are a pet class. Warlocks are a Pet class, and they use demonic minions and shadow magic to manipulate their pets. They even have life and soul transfer abilities that just scream "Necromancer". Shadowbolt, Life Drain, Curse of Weakness, Corruption, Hearthstone, Life Tap, Soul Shard, Soulstone, etc. are all Necromancer abilities given to the Warlock class. In short, what you desire is nothing more than a palette swap of the current Warlock class.
    1. Have you not heard of an analogy before? My point was that we can have multiple pet classes (BM hunter, DM warlock, and Necromancers) just like we can have multiple caster classes (elemental Shaman, Mage, Shadow Priest, Destro Warlock).

    2. I'm not sure what you mean about "magic types". Lots of classes use the same magic types. Shamans, druids, and monks all use nature. Rogues and warriors are both physical. Paladins and not-shadow Priests use the Light.

    3. As for spells, you *could* give necros some warlock abilities that fit necromancer better, but you don't have to (and probably shouldn't, because warlocks would whine). You could easily give them a wholly new set of abilities, just look at the abilities of the Diablo 2 & 3 Necromancers.

    In short, Necromancers are different enough, and Warlocks and Death Knights don't fulfill the Necromancer fantasy well enough. A simple green-fire style palette swap would be too cheap. I. Want. Necromancer class. It can be done.
    Last edited by EntertainmentNihilist; 2020-11-21 at 05:19 AM.

  19. #259
    If the next class isnt Bard or a RDPS I'm uninstalling and waiting for Ashes/Pantheon to come out.

  20. #260
    I don't care what they are called, I would just love to see a class that either A: Does pure healing through shadow magic or Fire magic (a healer in RIFT did the fire one.) or B: A class that uses water or blood magic for DPS. >>
    Quote Originally Posted by Boubouille View Post
    Have you seen my posts over the past few days? You should be asking yourself why I'm alive, not why I don't have friends.
    Change is inevitable, Growth is optional.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •