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

[Ielenia]

The gameplay is based around those themes. Holy Magic and Shadow Magic have mechanical differences.

Because Blizzard decided to give them mechanical differences. But inherently? They have no differences, mechanic-speaking. What's the mechanical difference between a shadow spell dealing damage and healing a friendly target (Vampiric Embrace) and a holy spell dealing damage and healing a friendly target (Atonement)?

Because it doesn't fit the Hunter theme.

I'd argue that 'turning into an animal' fits rather well in an animal-focused class, if Blizzard made it slightly more magical. But, again, to the point: you don't know that, no matter how many times you claim you do.

I never said it was. I said that what the player transforms into influences the type of gameplay allowed by the theme.

Not really. Nothing stops Blizzard from making, for example, a feral druid play the exact same as a guardian druid, if they decided to make both DPS specs. I mean, if Blizzard copied all of the feral druid's attack, gave a 30-yard range to them and changed their graphics to look like magic, and then made the shape-shift model from a cat into a super-fat anthro owl, we'd have a boomkin, which is a completely different theme from the feral druid, but would still play the exact same as the feral druid.

Sure, once in a blue moon you might find a specific mechanic to be not as easy to include into a specific theme, but overall no theme has "unique gameplay". Gameplay, unique or not, does not come from theme, but from the interactions among the class' mechanics.

- - - Updated - - -

So again, what's a magic type that Necromancers can use that DKs wouldn't be able to use.

Easiest question of the century: poison magic.

Except this isn't Diablo 2 or 3

But it's fine for you to use games such as Warcraft 3, Heroes of the Storm and even Hearthstone?

Again, if Necromancers are so different, what magic type would they use that DKs are currently not using.

One, they don't have to have a different magic type than the death knights. Two, there is poison. And considering necromancers often used to be mages... they could have a fire spec. Or an arcane spec. Who knows. There are many possibilities, here.

Frankly this sounds more like you simply want a ranged DK. The range of attack is not enough justification for a new class.

And this exact same argument could be used against people asking for a priest class, if the priest did not exist in the game, already: "sounds like you simply want a ranged paladin. The range of attack is not enough justification for a new class."

Don't you agree?

[AryuFate]

Not tinkerer.

[Teriz]

Because Blizzard decided to give them mechanical differences. But inherently? They have no differences, mechanic-speaking. What's the mechanical difference between a shadow spell dealing damage and healing a friendly target (Vampiric Embrace) and a holy spell dealing damage and healing a friendly target (Atonement)?

Attonement isn't a Holy magic spell, it's a Physical spell. Further, Discipline was designed to be a blend of Shadow and Holy magic, which is why you have spells like Attonement which has attributes of both Holy and Shadow magic.

I'd argue that 'turning into an animal' fits rather well in an animal-focused class, if Blizzard made it slightly more magical. But, again, to the point: you don't know that, no matter how many times you claim you do.

That would be the realm of a Druid, not a Hunter.

Not really. Nothing stops Blizzard from making, for example, a feral druid play the exact same as a guardian druid, if they decided to make both DPS specs. I mean, if Blizzard copied all of the feral druid's attack, gave a 30-yard range to them and changed their graphics to look like magic, and then made the shape-shift model from a cat into a super-fat anthro owl, we'd have a boomkin, which is a completely different theme from the feral druid, but would still play the exact same as the feral druid.

Again, just because it is possible for Blizzard to do it, doesn't change the fact that the themes open up gameplay opportunities in some classes, and restricts gameplay opportunities in others.

Easiest question of the century: poison magic.

Would you care to find any Necromancer in WoW that uses poison magic?

But it's fine for you to use games such as Warcraft 3, Heroes of the Storm and even Hearthstone?

Yes because all three are in WoW in one form or another, Diablo is not.

One, they don't have to have a different magic type than the death knights. Two, there is poison. And considering necromancers often used to be mages... they could have a fire spec. Or an arcane spec. Who knows. There are many possibilities, here.

Feel free to find a Necromancer in WoW (or any Warcraft related game) using Fire Magic or Arcane Magic.

And this exact same argument could be used against people asking for a priest class, if the priest did not exist in the game, already: "sounds like you simply want a ranged paladin. The range of attack is not enough justification for a new class."

Don't you agree?

Nope. All you need to do is tie it to the Old Gods, or as a class that balances Shadow and Holy magic. Paladin doesn't touch those themes at all.

[Golden Yak]

Still holding out hope for Runemaster, one day. Somehow.

[Ielenia]

Attonement isn't a Holy magic spell, it's a Physical spell. Further, Discipline was designed to be a blend of Shadow and Holy magic, which is why you have spells like Attonement which has attributes of both Holy and Shadow magic.

Atonement... is a physical spell. I honestly have a hard time believing you wrote that with a straight face. Are you really going to say that Atonement is a physical spell? That is the hill you want to die on?

That would be the realm of a Druid, not a Hunter.

I'll repeat since you ignored the actual point: "But, again, to the point: you don't know that, no matter how many times you claim you do."

Again, just because it is possible for Blizzard to do it, doesn't change the fact that the themes open up gameplay opportunities in some classes, and restricts gameplay opportunities in others.

And it doesn't change the fact that themes do not offer unique gameplay by themselves.

Would you care to find any Necromancer in WoW that uses poison magic?

There's a whole bunch of necromancer acolytes in Scholomance, learning alchemy, from a guy whose favorite attacks are poison and fire.

Yes because all three are in WoW in one form or another, Diablo is not.

Corpse Explosion would like to have word with you. Initially a D2 spell (from 2000's) but introduced into WoW in 2008. How about Blessed Hammer? Initially a Diablo 2 spell, but made it into WoW in 2016?

Feel free to find a Necromancer in WoW (or any Warcraft related game) using Fire Magic or Arcane Magic.

Kel'Thuzad was a mage, before becoming a lich.

Nope. All you need to do is tie it to the Old Gods, or as a class that balances Shadow and Holy magic. Paladin doesn't touch those themes at all.

Oh REALLY!? Because I've tied the necromancers to the use of poison, something that death knights do not "touch", and yet you keep denying that. You just demonstrated a clear-cut case of "rules for thee but not for me".

Congratulations. You played yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Still holding out hope for Runemaster, one day. Somehow.

Runemaster can be cool if they give it a "warrior/mage"-like gameplay, with melee spells while wielding staves or intellect weapons.

[Katchii]

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?

Only because they want to put that mechanic in there, it doesn't HAVE to. It's a mechanic because that's how they programmed it.

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.

There is no such thing as an "intrinsic" mechanic. Every single one has to be deliberately programmed and designed to work a certain way it's a deliberate choice by the developers to do so. Calling it a "Frost" ability doesn't automatically make it have frost mechanics, those additional slows and freezes have to be programmed to work that way.

What?

Don't play dumb.

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?

The discussion is specifically about theme vs game play/ mechanics. One does not automatically translate to the other. Calling an ability that is a 2 second cast, does 100 damage with a holy light animation a Holy ability doesn't make it mechanically any different than an ability with a 2 second cast, does 100 damage with a shadow burst animation that's called a Shadow ability. The only thing different there is the theme.

Now, they can (and usually do) and additional mechanics on top of those abilities to fit the theme, but again theme and mechanics are separate things. Simply calling something a shadow ability, or animating it as a shadow ability doesn't give it mechanics that match the shadow theme, and conversely, giving it those mechanics doesn't make it a shadow themed ability or animate it any 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.

Based on this quote, you know exactly what @Ielenia and I are saying. You know that theme and mechanics are separate, because you're discussing a "palette swap" in that same context.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

Yeah, false. Shaman use Elemental, Druids use Arcane and Nature. Shaman don't use Arcane. Monks use Nature and Martial Arts. Rogues use Shadow Magic, Warriors don't use magic at all. Shadow Magic permeates every Priest spec, so there's no such thing as a "not-shadow Priest". The very concept of the class is a magic user who balances the light and shadow. Paladin on the other hand is a pure holy warrior.

So again, what's a magic type that Necromancers can use that DKs wouldn't be able to use.

Shamans use both Life/Nature & Elemental. Monks use Life/Nature in melee combat (you know, like DK's use death magic in melee combat). Druids don't actually use arcane story-wise, they just use Life/Nature. Some druids spells may technically do arcane damage in gameplay, but that's about it. Up until cata, the nelves banned arcane magic.

All that aside; Necromancers *would* use death magic, the same kind DK's use. Who cares? That's an arbitrary criteria for a class.

Except this isn't Diablo 2 or 3, and it's important to note that you wouldn't just need to strip Warlocks of abilities, you'd need to strip DKs too.

...And? That doesn't mean Blizzard can't re-use spells from another one of their games. Blizzard cross-pollenates ideas (both story and gameplay) between it's IP's all the time.

Frankly this sounds more like you simply want a ranged DK. The range of attack is not enough justification for a new class.

Wait, so are necromancers too close to DK's or too close to warlocks? Seems like you are just looking for an excuse to not have necromancers.

For how necromancers could be different; see my previous statement about tanking with undead pets and healing with blood magic. At that point, all you'd have to do is differentiate the gameplay of the DPS spec from Demo Warlocks, which wouldn't be hard. I could think of several ways to do it.

[Noctiphobia]

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?

It's not that distant. Actually, it has a lot of overlap with shadow priests. Mind blast, mind flay, psychic scream/mind bomb, mind control all are about messing with the enemies' minds. Plus, remember spectral guise, the skill that made an illusion?
Well, starting with legion, there's also the void stuff to shadow priests. But still, at the very least an illusionist is not that farfetched in Warcraft universe.

[onesBronson]

Whatever the new class will be (if at all possible) it has to wear mail. This next part is my opinion, but nothing wrong with it having a range dps spec either. Mainly cause hunter is the only class that can utilize range weapons to their full potential.

But why not just roll hunter you ask? Well why does hunter have to be the only class to use range weapons, and have a single melee spec. This pretty much opens the door for a possible future class or spec from any of the playable ones already ingame to get the same treatment survival did. Blizzard is known for reworking entire specs into something else completely different from how it used to play.

[Galathir]

Light: Paladin, Priest (2 specs)
[...]
Void? It has no unique class. It only has Shadow Priest, which is ONE SPEC of the Priest class.

Discipline is just as much Shadow as it is Light. That's the point of the spec.

I'm being opposed to Void Knight just for the reason that it'd be yet another melee.

[Varodoc]

Discipline is just as much Shadow as it is Light. That's the point of the spec.

Very well then, the Void has 1 spec and 0.5 of an entire spec.

I hope you realize this doesn't disprove my point in the slightest. No one has disproved it yet, because it is factual that the Void is the only force without an entire dedicated class.

[Galathir]

Very well then, the Void has 1 spec and 0.5 of an entire spec.

I hope you realize this doesn't disprove my point in the slightest. No one has disproved it yet, because it is factual that the Void is the only force without an entire dedicated class.

There is nothing to disprove in the first place because we are talking about opinions here and you just think yours is more important than everyone else's because you've come up with some arbitrary reason.

How about this: Tinker needs to be in the game, WoW has always included lots of technology, from guns over siege weapons of different kinds, including tanks, to cyborgs and literal space travel!
Yet it is only represented through Mechagnomes and the engineering profession. This can't stand!

Is my point now as valid as yours? You can make up similar reasoning for any other class you come up with.

(I'm not even interested in tinkers in the first place, just wanted to make a point)

[Varodoc]

There is nothing to disprove in the first place because we are talking about opinions here and you just think yours is more important than everyone else's because you've come up with some arbitrary reason.

It's... It's not an opinion. Every cosmic force has at least one class tailed around it, except for the Void. Therefore, it makes the most sense to make a new Void-themed class, especially when the next expansion will most likely be about the Light and Void.

^The second part of this clause complex is my opinion, the first is a fact. It's simple.

[Galathir]

It's... It's not an opinion. Every cosmic force has at least one class tailed around it, except for the Void.

So f-ing what? Refer to my edit above.

[Varodoc]

So f-ing what? Refer to my edit above.

Why shouldn't the Void have its own class tailored around it, when every class does? Refer to my first reply to this thread, where I thoroughly explain how every cosmic force has its own dedicated class except Void.

I don't care if you're not a defender of "Tinker", judging by the use of the F-word you seem to be so bothered by my factual observation for some reason.

[Notnow]

A new healer who heals by being far far away from their targets, so far infact that they have to wait outside the raid to heal the best.

Its going to be a caster, its going to have a healign spec, it may only be a healer and might well use mail.

im expecting some sort of death healer, controlling the forces of death and keeping them at bay by redirecting it to enemies.
one talent focuses on increasing healing output the other dps. Like blood Necros in old GW, Blood and death.
We are going to get either a vampire or witchdoctors.

Vampire the whole blood theme, good self heals and based on leech.
with doctor, death magic and poisons. Using corpses as resource to transfer damage to (Voodoo dolls) Cursing allies to give "risky" buffs

- - - Updated - - -

or hell.... Death priests to be the caster version of death knights, They do reverse exorcisms and put ghosts in your house.
"This house, is unclean."

[Eazy]

Dragonsworn? That sounds bad, like a warrior who likes lizards.

Spellbreaker? Something like mage+warrior hybrid(aka DK)? No thanks.

Druid of Nightmare? lmao



The only original and nice class would be Tinkerer/alchemist mix.

[Galathir]

Why shouldn't the Void have its own class tailored around it, when every class does? Refer to my first reply to this thread, where I thoroughly explain how every cosmic force has its own dedicated class except Void.

I don't care if you're not a defender of "Tinker", judging by the use of the F-word you seem to be so bothered by my factual observation for some reason.

I just don't really like special snowflakes who think their personal opinion is so much more important than everyone else's for some reason.
Especially when your "thorough explanation" failed on several levels that were pointed out before.

But hey, I can give you your Void Knight. Special feature: He loses control 50% of the time and runs around like charmed, automatically attacking the raid before regaining his grasp on sanity.

[Varodoc]

I just don't really like special snowflakes who think their personal opinion is so much more important than everyone else's for some reason.
Especially when your "thorough explanation" failed on several levels that were pointed out before.

But hey, I can give you your Void Knight. Special feature: He loses control 50% of the time and runs around like charmed, automatically attacking the raid before regaining his grasp on sanity.

You didn't disprove anything. 1 spec and 0.5 spec is not a class. Only another person tried to disprove my point, and made your same exact mistake.

After reading your suggestion for a "Special Feature", I will ask you again: Why are you so bothered by my suggestion? Does it bother you that I stated a fact, that is that the Void is the only cosmic force without its own class, and thus very likely to get one?

I'm done with this useless flame. At least I gave my opinion on the subject, after presenting a fact, unlike you who haven't even suggested a future class you'd like to see.

[Galathir]

You didn't disprove anything. 1 spec and 0.5 spec is not a class. Only another person tried to disprove my point, and made your same exact mistake.

Except that it showed how you didn't even remotely know anything about the already existing classes. And you had to bend your own rules to not count rogues, but yeah, totally not disproven.

After reading your suggestion for a "Special Feature", I will ask you again: Why are you so bothered by my suggestion? Does it bother you that I stated a fact, that is that the Void is the only cosmic force without its own class, and thus very likely to get one?

I'm done with this useless flame. At least I gave my opinion on the subject, after presenting a fact, unlike you who haven't even suggested a future class you'd like to see.

You don't seem to have read the post you quoted.
I both told you why I am bothered and why your suggestion would be a horrible idea.