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

[Teriz]

"Frostmourne" is nothing but a name. The sword itself doesn't have frost powers. We never seen Arthas do any frost-based feat in Warcraft 3. The Frozen Throne is literally just that: ice. That's like saying paladins should have stone powers because the cathedrals are made of stone, or that paladins should have necromantic powers because the Light's Hope Chapel is in a land covered in necromantic fallout.

In short:
• The Lich King is not a lich. It's just a name.
• Frostmourne had no frost powers before WotLK. It's just a name.
• The Frozen Throne is literally just an icy tomb to house Ner'zul's soul. It's just a name because it's made of ice.
• Northrend is just the name of the continent, which Ner'zul just happened to fall on.


Irrelevant. The point is that Ner'zul, Arthas or the Frostmourne has never demonstrated any frost powers whatsoever. Your reasoning is akin to saying humans should have stone powers because they live in buildings made of stone.

That’s hilarious that you believe that. I always figured the DK would get Frost powers due to the fact that he was called the Lich King and operated from a polar ice cap. I guess some folks have problems reading the tea leaves.

Glad you agree. Because he wasn't. Not a single mention of monks or oriental style martial arts in the WC3 unit's bio. not a single mention of monks or martial arts in the WC3 unit's voice lines. Not a single mention of monks or martial arts in the WC3 unit's animations.

In short: Chen Stormstout was never a monk, until he was retroactively made into one for the Mists of Pandaria expansion.

Same thing with this one. I mean Chen gave us a Pandaren Monk pet in WotLK, but sure, he himself wasn’t made a Monk until MoP right?

And death knights were "pretty much nothing more" than warriors with a handful of warlock abilities, before becoming a playable class of their own.

You misspell Necromancer.

All you have is correlation, and zero causation, because correlation does not imply causation.

In other words, no expansion classes came out without a hero attached.

"I wasn't reaching outside of WoW for ideas. I reaching outside of WoW for ideas."

That is literally what you just wrote, there. Also, I thought you once said that Blizzard likes to "put their own spin" on classes? That means that linking to outside definition of classes doesn't really do much.

Seriously? You asked me what made Hunters “Rangers” and I linked you to the definition.

Did you really forget your own question in the span of two responses?

[Ielenia]

That’s hilarious that you believe that.

I like to stay honest, and I don't use confirmation bias and correlations to falsely state opinions as facts like you do.

I always figured the DK would get Frost powers due to the fact that he was called the Lich King and operated from a polar ice cap.

Just like you've always figured the tinker class was going to be the next class to be added... over and over in these last 10+ years?

Same thing with this one. I mean Chen gave us a Pandaren Monk pet in WotLK, but sure,

Did the letter that Chen sent said that he taught the pandaren monk? No, it did not. Did the letter say anything about Chen being a monk? No, it did not.

he himself wasn’t made a Monk until MoP right?

It's a fact, really.

You misspell Necromancer.

No. Warlock.

In other words, no expansion classes came out without a hero attached.

In other words: it's just correlation.

Seriously? You asked me what made Hunters “Rangers” and I linked you to the definition.

I asked what defines hunters as rangers in the Warcraft lore. Otherwise, go search Wikipedia for the definition of "necromancer" and you'll find how you're giving us necromancer fans victory on a silver platter.

[TheRevenantHero]

Specialization similarity is not the same as class similarity. You would do well to understand the difference.



Again, Wrathion says hello.



Semantic nonsense. This has been refuted multiple times, so there's no need to refute it again.

- - - Updated - - -



You seem to miss the point that despite not every Death Knight having the ability to raise the undead, we still had the WC3 hero as the foundation. Again, we didn't have that for the Necrolyte, since it was largely replaced in WC3 by the Necromancer.

Which in turn was incorporated into the Death Knight class.



Chen Stormstout says hello. You're free to wrongly believe otherwise.



Quote mining? For shame.



A hero character has been required for every expansion class. Which makes sense because the class has to match the expansion theme as well. Having a hero that matches the expansion's theme makes class incorporation easier, and sets the style of the class itself. Without that anchor, we get sad examples like the "Ranger class" that's been peppering this thread, or the ridiculous notion that Lorewalker Cho, Russell Broward, and Hearthsinger Forrestein can all be part of the same class.

But again, you're free to wrongly believe otherwise.






Oh, and further;



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(character_class)

While I highlighted the main ones, all of this really applies to the Hunter class.

Wrathion isn't a Dragonsworn. He's a full blown dragon. Are you being serious with that comment? lol

[Teriz]

I like to stay honest, and I don't use confirmation bias and correlations to falsely state opinions as facts like you do.

Well DKs wound up with Frost powers and Chen became the archetypal hero for the Monk class. So it would seem that those biases and correlations were correct.

Just like you've always figured the tinker class was going to be the next class to be added... over and over in these last 10+ years?

And I'm far from the only person who got the next class incorrect. In the end, the Tinker class will come eventually, so who cares what order it arrived in?

Did the letter that Chen sent said that he taught the pandaren monk? No, it did not. Did the letter say anything about Chen being a monk? No, it did not.

I always find it hilarious that everything with you has to be literal, unless it applies to Necromancers and Bards. I do believe that's called a double standard.

No. Warlock.

Uh huh. Look, if you want to believe that Blizzard is going to use Necrolytes to create a Necromancer class when we're currently in an expansion loaded with Necromancers, that's your business.

I asked what defines hunters as rangers in the Warcraft lore. Otherwise, go search Wikipedia for the definition of "necromancer" and you'll find how you're giving us necromancer fans victory on a silver platter.

That Wikipedia entry applies to all fantasy games and RPGs, so yes in standard RPG standard the Hunter class is a Ranger. This is even backed up by Blizzard called Survival Hunters a type of ranger. What is your point with this back and forth? Are you trying to argue that an archer based class that tames animals, tracks, lays traps, etc. is NOT a ranger?

As for Necromancers;

Necromancer is one of the classes in several role-playing games. Necromancers employ the spells of necromancy, a magic that allows them to play with life and death. Many necromancers use spells to prolong their own lives and to raise the undead, either by summoning ghosts or animating skeletons or awakening zombies. This dangerous sort of magic can corrupt the necromancer. Because necromancers tend to lead their undeads into battle, spreading fear and terror, necromancy has gained a reputation for being evil and taboo.

https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

Is there anything in that description that doesn't apply to Death Knights?

- - - Updated - - -

Wrathion isn't a Dragonsworn. He's a full blown dragon. Are you being serious with that comment? lol

He was talking about for MY concept. Thanks for the misread.

[Ielenia]

Well DKs wound up with Frost powers and Chen became the archetypal hero for the Monk class. So it would seem that those biases and correlations were correct.

By complete accident, not because of facts. Blizzard literally retroactively made Chen Stormstout into a monk for the Mists of Pandaria expansion. Blizzard literally retroactively gave all death knights frost and blood powers for the Wrath of the Lich King expansion.

And I'm far from the only person who got the next class incorrect.

But we're not talking about other people, are we? We're talking about how you

In the end, the Tinker class will come eventually, so who cares what order it arrived in?

Or it might never come. You don't know that the class will ever be added to the game. This is another bullshit from you as you state your opinion as fact.

I always find it hilarious that everything with you has to be literal, unless it applies to Necromancers and Bards. I do believe that's called a double standard.

Apples and oranges. You're making a statement of fact, that Chen was a monk already way back in the early 2000's, when Warcraft 3 was the most recent Warcraft game. And for that, we need to be literal because we need conclusive evidence for that claim. But there is none. None whatsoever.

Uh huh. Look, if you want to believe that Blizzard is going to use Necrolytes to create a Necromancer class when we're currently in an expansion loaded with Necromancers, that's your business.

I literally never said that. Stop the bullshit misrepresentation. I simply debunked your claim that we haven't seen any necrolytes in WoW.

That Wikipedia entry applies to all fantasy games and RPGs, so yes in standard RPG standard the Hunter class is a Ranger. This is even backed up by Blizzard called Survival Hunters a type of ranger.

And Blizzard calls the shaman a type of warrior. By your logic, the two classes are the same.

As for Necromancers;

https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

Is there anything in that description that doesn't apply to Death Knights?

I do notice that that webpage's list fails to mention the death knight. It's almost as if... hmm...

[cocomen2]

Once again we at fun part where Chromatic Teriz did himself IN.

Lucio isn't a WoW character though, and ETC is a spoof of a WC3 hero. Again, in order to be a WoW class, there must be a lore hero representing that class in place.

You don't have a Dragonsworn hero, either. So, cut the bullshit.

Again, Wrathion says hello.

Wrathion isn't a Dragonsworn. He's a full blown dragon. Are you being serious with that comment? lol

He was talking about for MY concept. Thanks for the misread.

So for your Concept you dont need lore hero representing that class? (only other people must obey these rules?)

Or i missed a part where Wrathion in WC3 , or him being Chromatic dragon?

edit:These who not seen that Teriz-concept , big brain idea -> you are Chromatic dragon and can take any color "spec" you want , your mentor is Wrathion.

[Aleax]

Tinker?

Nah praise the Knight.......................

The wow paladin is a footman as its core. He is a medic, a protector, and a 2Her. Not a knight. Food for thought.

[Revamp Man]

Tinker?

Nah praise the Knight.......................

The wow paladin is a footman as its core. He is a medic, a protector, and a 2Her. Not a knight. Food for thought.

interesting enough the knight from runes of magic was a very interesting take on what is essentially a paladin

[LiPiNo]

From my point of view, they will never do Tinker because the people/fans are way too invested on that concept and its impossible at this point to please them. Its a loose-loose scenario, because no matter how they would implement it, there would be huge whine that its not up to expectation and endless posting "it was so easy you just had to use this particular concept".
I think the same applies to necromancer, there are already specs (i agree its not whole class) doing this type of fantasy and obviously its not enough to the fans and they are defending it "by teeth" - they would have to gut unholy and blood spec like they did demolock for DH.
I wouldnt mind DragonKnight or Sworn type of character , but we have more melee options already.
If I could choose I would prefer some fast paced range character as option for those who do not enjoy hunter. Something like mid-range axethrower , or even javelin - could be hybrid like mentioned gladiator class (melee spec with shield and javelin/trident). Nets for roots and so on..

EDIT - Something with insects ? either related to MoP or even Ardenweald , or both?

[Aleax]

interesting enough the knight from runes of magic was a very interesting take on what is essentially a paladin

I had to google "runes of magic". You are right. Paladins and knights are similar. However, the WoW paladin doesn't fight on horseback since WarCraft, he even prefers to heal instead... (Holy), or fight with a 2H... (extremely not suitable on horseback).

That being said the current paladin is a major improvement to the knight idea these days on, because Holy paladins can now moderately dps (like a knight), or paladins have this divine steed spell. However divine steed is still awkward with a 2H, lasts for a mere seconds, and may be considerate stupid in a dungeon.

Imo the current paladin still doesn't cut in as a knight. A knight on the other hand should fight on foot in dungeons, and always fight on horseback in the open world and BG. The wow paladin doesn't do that.

If you like other games as you suggested "Runes of magic" that I didnt know, Magic the Gathering have released a ridiculous ton of knights in their years of existence, and Blizzard could use that for inspiration for their wow paladin, or for a distinct knight class.

The knighthood as we know it, IRL or in other games more serious about knights like MTG, is almost inexistent in wow, we have instead the wow paladin and the DK, not that these classes are a bad thing, but they are not knights.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Tinker?

Nah praise the Knight.......................

The wow paladin is a footman as its core. He is a medic, a protector, and a 2Her. Not a knight. Food for thought.

My only complaint about paladins would be that they got all the horse-back gimmiks, when the literal (death) knight class class doesn't. Not to mention the DK mount is an actual shadowlands creature that can be summoned, wheres the charger of paladins is pretty much just a horse they pull from their asses.

[LemonDemonGirl]

I do notice that that webpage's list fails to mention the death knight. It's almost as if... hmm...

I think the DK is just WoW's version of the Dark Knight

[Unbelievable]

Specialization similarity is not the same as class similarity. You would do well to understand the difference.



Again, Wrathion says hello.



Semantic nonsense. This has been refuted multiple times, so there's no need to refute it again.

A hero character has been required for every expansion class. Which makes sense because the class has to match the expansion theme as well. Having a hero that matches the expansion's theme makes class incorporation easier, and sets the style of the class itself. Without that anchor, we get sad examples like the "Ranger class" that's been peppering this thread, or the ridiculous notion that Lorewalker Cho, Russell Broward, and Hearthsinger Forrestein can all be part of the same class.

But again, you're free to wrongly believe otherwise.






Oh, and further;



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(character_class)

While I highlighted the main ones, all of this really applies to the Hunter class.

It is. Since we're talking about a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch specs.
The overall class would not overlap with the Hunter, because while the Ranger would be an archer, the Hunter would be a Beastmaster, Sapper and Headhunter.

Wrathion is not a Dragonsworn hero. You've, already, acknowledged it. Or, do you suffer from amnesia?

You've never refuted it. You just called it semantics. That's, hardly, refuting. You, even, acknowledged that the Tinker is an Engineer. So, my amnesia assessment is, probably, right.

Except that this "Ranger" concept is based on WC3 heroes, as it should be. Just like your sad combination of a Tinker and an Alchemist. But, as i said, you probably forget, easily, how you do the same in that department.

And you blame me for using semantics?
Your Ranger/Hunter equivalency is the same explanation for Tinkers and Engineers.

There's no doubt that a Hunter is a Ranger, as well. Yet, none of the descriptions you provided said anything about necromancy, manipulation, astral, lightning, arcane or water magic. You know why? because the Hunter does not cover those departments.
My Ranger concept is not going to be a Beastmaster or a Tracker. It's not gonna lay traps, use spears, tame beasts or use nature magic. That is the department of the Beast mastery (Beastmaster) and Survival (Headhunter) specs.
The only thing it is gonna use is archery. Which, is going to be taken from the Hunter in favor of a Sharpshooter, instead.

Yeah I mean this is their creator the Lich King at the end of WC3 holding a sword called Frostmourne sitting on a seat of ice called the Frozen Throne in the polar continent of Northrend.



I have absolutely no idea how they could have possibly thought up the idea that DKs would get frost abilities...

Yeah... i mean, this is their creator:


Literally, called the Banshee Queen, was a former Banshee, led a group of Banshees in Warcraft III, and uses Banshee abilities, seen in numerous cinematics.

I have absolutely no idea how they could possibly think of the idea that Dark Rangers would get Banshee abilities

It's unbelievable how two-faced you are, when you claimed a unique NPC cannot apply his abilities to the class it represents. Yet, you use the Lich King's unique frost abilities as a justification for Death Knights having frost magic. The amount of hypocrisy is tremendous.

Tinkers are a type of engineer, so it’s no big deal. Heck, the class might not even be called Tinker. Just like Brewmaster became a specialization, the Tinker could be a specialization as well, and the class could be called something else entirely. Maybe even Engineer.

*facepalm*

An Engineer with an Engineering profession?

And I'm far from the only person who got the next class incorrect. In the end, the Tinker class will come eventually, so who cares what order it arrived in?

Who cares? you care.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be here advocating for the Tinker as the next class, while shitting on other class concepts.
You, clearly, care. and you, clearly, think this is a competition.
So, don't act all innocent and naive, all of the sudden.

From my point of view, they will never do Tinker because the people/fans are way too invested on that concept and its impossible at this point to please them. Its a loose-loose scenario, because no matter how they would implement it, there would be huge whine that its not up to expectation and endless posting "it was so easy you just had to use this particular concept".
I think the same applies to necromancer, there are already specs (i agree its not whole class) doing this type of fantasy and obviously its not enough to the fans and they are defending it "by teeth" - they would have to gut unholy and blood spec like they did demolock for DH.
I wouldnt mind DragonKnight or Sworn type of character , but we have more melee options already.
If I could choose I would prefer some fast paced range character as option for those who do not enjoy hunter. Something like mid-range axethrower , or even javelin - could be hybrid like mentioned gladiator class (melee spec with shield and javelin/trident). Nets for roots and so on..

EDIT - Something with insects ? either related to MoP or even Ardenweald , or both?

Actually, only Teriz would be whining.

If you want an axe/spear thrower, check out my Survival Hunter concept (Troll Headhunter/Berserker) on page 111. It, also, utilizes nets.

[LiPiNo]

Actually, only Teriz would be whining.

If you want an axe/spear thrower, check out my Survival Hunter concept (Troll Headhunter/Berserker) on page 111. It, also, utilizes nets.

It still pains me that survival is only some niche pvp spec. i like the concept.

[Ielenia]

*facepalm*

An Engineer with an Engineering profession?

Or, better yet: an engineer without the engineering profession.

[Unbelievable]

It still pains me that survival is only some niche pvp spec. i like the concept.

Good to know.

I'm, also, in favor of a shield and spear gladiator type of a warrior, like you.
If the Warrior can wield a two-handed weapon, 2 one-handed weapons, 2 two-handed weapons, and one-handed weapon and a shield, why can't it wield a two-handed weapon and a shield, as well?

[Rageadon]

Gimme Bard! Not tinker or dark ranger, thats booooring

[LiPiNo]

Good to know.

I'm, also, in favor of a shield and spear gladiator type of a warrior, like you.
If the Warrior can wield a two-handed weapon, 2 one-handed weapons, 2 two-handed weapons, and one-handed weapon and a shield, why can't it wield a two-handed weapon and a shield, as well?

Yeah! and there only few tridents now, but wow style tridents would not only fit but would also look amazing.
Another weapon id like to see more of is chakram (perhaps the survival hunter?).

[Revamp Man]

Gimme Bard! Not tinker or dark ranger, thats booooring

in the playstyle of vanilla support

[Unbelievable]

Yeah! and there only few tridents now, but wow style tridents would not only fit but would also look amazing.
Another weapon id like to see more of is chakram (perhaps the survival hunter?).

A Trident is something i would give an aquatic creature to wield, like aquaman, triton or nagas.

The Chakram, already, exists in the game as an ability, and is part of my survival hunter concept.