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

[Alkizon]

Imperator4321
To be fair this wasn't exclusive to rogues, a number of classes got to some extent a redesign/shift in identity or theme in the name of giving them a more distinct identity/fantasy.

Yes, but no. Man, not for classes, it was done for specs, what never should happen. This is root of problems of modern design. Combat had to stay combat, it was fine, surv had to stay surv, it was even better then just fine... classes were supposed to remain classes.

Separate comment on last paragraph: if it was start of game/another game, I could accept it, but post-factum such changes are never made, dnd is not "one" game, rather set of campaign's rules/recomendations, therefore, consider general evolution of those "rules" within framework of this game makes no sense. Initial implementation is taken as a base. It's just not polite.

Even D&D "new" rulebooks in this sense are far from good example.

[Imperator4321]

Yes, but no. Man, not for classes, it was done for specs, what never should happen. This is root of problems of modern design. Combat have to stay combat, it was fine.

Specs should reflect back on the core themes of it's class though right? the rogue is about underhandedness, cunning/guile, quick bladework and stealth, the Outlaw is a pirate/swashbuckler a common criminal archetype and it's spec emphasises quick blade (main gauche, saber/sinister strike, run through/dispatch) and underhandness (pistol shot, between the eyes, opportunity strikes), Subtlety is the Ninja another common archetype who is commonly associated with supernatural or mystical powers and it's about using shadow magic to slip into stealth (shadow dance), Assassination is an Assassin who uses poisons (envenom) and bleeds (garrote/rupture). All three are archetypes that ones associates with the core themes of a "rogue" class.

Separate comment on last paragraph: if it was start of game/another game, I could accept it, but post-factum such changes are never made, dnd is not "one" game, rather set of campaign's rules/recomendations, therefore, consider general evolution of those "rules" within framework of this game makes no sense. Initial implementation is taken as a base. It's just not polite.

Retcons and reiteration and kind of the norm especially in anything thats been going on as long as WoW, i'd honestly consider it a challenge to find any long running game/series that hasn't retconned or change something that was previously established, obviously it sucks when it happens especially when it was something you grew attached to,there are people that liked pre-legion combat rogue and dislike the more swashbuckler style it has now, same with subtlety and people disliking the Ninja/Nightblade style, Demonology and the summoner style it has now.

[Alkizon]

Imperator4321
Specs should reflect back on the core themes of it's class though right? the rogue is about underhandedness, cunning/guile, quick bladework and stealth, the Outlaw is a pirate/swashbuckler a common criminal archetype and it's spec emphasizes quick blade (main gauche, saber/sinister strike, run through/dispatch) and underhandedness (pistol shot, between the eyes, opportunity strikes), Subtlety is the Ninja another common archetype who is commonly associated with supernatural or mystical powers and it's about using shadow magic to slip into stealth (shadow dance), Assassination is an Assassin who uses poisons (envenom) and bleeds (garrote/rupture). All three are archetypes that ones associates with the core themes of a "rogue" class.

No-no-no. Quote one more time:

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).

There is no fantasy, there are only rules in form of mechanics used, realization of this basic fantasy. There are no swashbucklers, no ninjas, nothing of this kind, there are only bare "numbers".

(it's from hunters' discussion)
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.

In other words, you can play as ninja or swashbuckler, but within limits of mechanic available to whole class (when I say class, I don't mean even just one class at all, you can be swashbuckler-warrior/hunter), but game has no right to impose such thing, focus on it at expense of class, it's your personal choice.

By the way, funny theme in connection with this, friend used general image of Karai (TMNT character) not as rogue, as in most of such implementations, but as warrior, strength character, also with point about honor and other trifles. It seems to be initially agility character, and final result without stealth, but still - freedom from unnecessary stylistics (in picture's center). Funny, isn't it?

Imperator4321
Duelists and pirates typically belong to this archetype.

They do, but just outside game mechanics, they have no pistols and mechanics of middle distance fighter inside the game. Mechanically this isn't their theme, another class with similar mechanics may be, let's even assume that it should be, but not this one, already not. Is it understandably? Speaking with friend's words from quote:

Every rogue can be pirat, but not every pirate can be rogue - that the difference ;] Here you go (don't forget links):

But charm of the old talent-trees/approach to classes was just that they could withstand <url> the most unusual combinations <url>, but "new fancy" yet so narrow that consciousness is necessary to be huddle so much for fitting into this framework <url>

It's about mechanics, as you can see, as for “stylistic” features, they didn’t exist, moreover, they aren't needed, because these are exclusively personal preferences of each RP-customization... or maybe players have become so poor on “fantasy”, that now they can’t even choose anything on their own without indication/limitations?

As for range weapon, this has already been discussed above, they had it and should have remained such. So if they'd add one-handed pistol as third slot weapon, and ability to use it for any rogue - it's another matter. But, firstly, they likely won't do it already, and secondly, if they'd did it during old mechanics, then implementation itself would be very poor, in comparison with all possibilities that pirate theme can offer. It's foolish to waste them for the sake of "only one pistol's shot". Even players can offer much more stuff, but then it will go beyond rogue class. Simple.

Imperator4321
I'm curious your friend used a warrior as the class of a character inspired by a ninja style character who duel wielded katana's weapons but in order to play that wouldn't they have had to be a fury warrior?

This person is no longer playing any Blizzard's games, this can be seen in picture's signature and date it was posted. Although, in the end, it wasn't even matter of game design, but its stylistic changes: they changed character models, so it all happened before Legion. I can't say anything in terms of character's role-playing component, we didn't know each other yet at that moment. Also, as far as I'm familiar with TMNT universe, character sometime used just one sword, and sometimes even fist weapons, although I don't quite understand why this could be important. She practiced bushido in one of versions, which is... what? "the way of the warrior" isn't it?

In addition, you may not be aware of it, but trick is that old models had primacy of race and gender over class in animations, therefore, "combat movements" of warrior and rogue were not much different, still mechanics itself didn't interfere with basic style chosen by player, didn't interfere in any way, if we'll add few cosmetic glyphs to this, then everything will be even more fine.

Imperator4321
haven't these types of "unnecessary stylistics" always existed by the nature of classes and specs work? Fury Warrior has always been styled as a berserker/barbarian type character similar to how Outlaw is now styled as a Swashbuckler/Duelist type character?

That's its amenity, it didn't. All that was important was common set of mechanics and manipulation with specific resources.

Imperator4321
WoW isn't D&D where i can make a Fighter and build them around using dexterity instead of strength or say that my cleric isn't actually casting divine spells

It was the one. Point is, they messed up how characteristics work and why they are needed, what classes mean, what is their design, hierarchy, structure. What you're saying is true, but only within framework of current unworking design, which I'm completely not going to accept. This is blatant outrage against it, an absolutely illiterate approach. I'm, in turn, talking about its working/correct version and absolutely don't care about its state "now".

ps. Okay, imo I overdid with "off topic rent", we need to off with it for today

[razorpax]

They granted players the ability to have black eyes, making them night warriors too. Instead of getting a class, you got a cosmetic option. Night Warrior doesn't have any unique spells. It's never becoming a class.

Yeah it’s not like they have cosmetics to make you look like other classes
Nope they never made gear to make you look like a demon hunter in the past and they didn’t give you gear that was meant to be a knock off frostmourne

Thanks for clarifying what will and won’t be a class though. I didn’t know you were the lead dev at blizzard

[Imperator4321]

No-no-no. Quote one more time: There is no fantasy, there are only rules in form of mechanics used, realization of this basic fantasy. There are no swashbucklers, no ninjas, nothing of this kind, there are only bare "numbers".

I agree that a spec is about mechanics (the how) but it's also a theme/fantasy (the why), the rogue fantasy is about stealth, underhanded tactics and quick bladework, the mechanics of the Outlaw spec involve swordplay and guile without much if any stealth (only mechanics outlaw has involving stealth are ambush/cheap shot and vanish) what archetype of is associated heavily with swordplay, guile and panache/swagger? the Swashbuckler which is also associated with Pirates/Duelists from it's "pirate" theme we also get abilities like pistol shot and between the eyes.

Outlaw is a swashbucker/pirate/duelist because it's mechanics are about bladework and guile without much stealth? or is the Outlaw spec is about bladework and guile because it's themed as a swashbuckler/pirate/duelist?, Is it themes informing gameplay or gameplay informing themes?

Rogues being associated with swashbucklers/dueling also isn't a WoW invention, the 5e D&D Rogue has a Roguish Archetype thats about single combat, two weapon fighting and swagger/panache it's called the Swashbuckler heres it's description:

"You focus your training on the art of the blade, relying on speed, elegance, and charm in equal parts. While some warriors are brutes clad in heavy armor, your method of fighting looks almost like a performance. Duelists and pirates typically belong to this archetype."

It's pirate theme gives it it's ranged attack (pistol shot) same way subtlety gets shurikten toss and assassination gets poisoned knife, this also creates an opportunity for an ability/passive that interacts with it in a gemplay and thematic way, saber/sinister strike gives you a free empowered use of pistol shot after a melee strike this gives the impression of getting in a shot with a pistol when the outlaw gets a opening, which is a relatively common trope in pirate fiction, this also ties back into the idea of the rogue as a opportunistic and underhanded fighter, if Outlaw didn't have the pirate theme what would this ability be a knife toss? that doesn't resonate as much with the idea of a pirate style character.

[Teriz]

Yeah it’s not like they have cosmetics to make you look like other classes
Nope they never made gear to make you look like a demon hunter in the past and they didn’t give you gear that was meant to be a knock off frostmourne

Thanks for clarifying what will and won’t be a class though. I didn’t know you were the lead dev at blizzard

He's making a valid point though. What exactly are you expecting this class to do that isn't the domain of an existing class? From what I've seen from Tyrande, Night Warriors seem like Hunters mixed with Balance Druids, which would make sense considering that Balance Druids are where you go to access Elune-based magic. It's an interesting combo, but not really something I could see Blizzard basing a class on. I don't see Blizzard dismantling Balance Druids, and I really don't see Blizzard creating yet another highly specialized elf-based class after Demon Hunters.

I think Revenanthero is correct; You're looking at a cosmetic option for Night Warriors, and that's about it.

[Nightfyre]

I'd like more of a support class. Though I'd like to see Specs added to classes, like Shield Mages - a tank caster with mastery equaling a shield they always have on that absorbs damage, or DH with redemption spec that's a support life drain for nearby people.

[Cts53]

PvP would most likely be ruined in this game, but it would be neat if Blizz added a class similar to Guild Wars 2 Mesmer.

[Imperator4321]

By the way, funny theme in connection with this, friend used general image of Karai (TNMT character) not as rogue, as in most of such implementations, but as warrior, strength character, also with point about honor and other trifles. It seems to be initially agility character, and final result without stealth, but still - freedom from unnecessary stylistics (in picture's center). Funny, isn't it?

I'm curious your friend used a warrior as the class of a character inspired by a ninja style character who duel wielded katana but in order to play that wouldn't they have had to be a fury warrior? who even before Legion had abilities like raging blow, bloodthirst and whose core mechanics involved becoming enraged doesn't that also qualify as "unessessary stylistics" that detracts from your characters theme, in this case why is a ninja looking/dextrous looking character fighting like a barbarian/berserker?

haven't these types of "unessessary stylistics" always existed by the nature of classes and specs work? Fury Warrior has always been styled as a berserker/barbarian type character similar to how Outlaw is now styled as a Swashbuckler/Duelist type character?

You're always going to be opting into a particular style of character based on class, classes aren't just their mechanics it's also about the fantasy and theme, sure you can make a warrior look like a more dextrous character (like what your friend did) but the abilities are always going to involve strength/rage instead of dexterity/guile, same way as a druid your spells are always going to be about nature, priests light & shadow, WoW isn't D&D where i can make a Fighter and build them around using dexterity instead of strength or say that my cleric isn't actually casting divine spells, video games are inherently more limited in that type of freedom because it's a visual medium and we're going to be limited by what the artists/game designers decide.

[razorpax]

He's making a valid point though. What exactly are you expecting this class to do that isn't the domain of an existing class? From what I've seen from Tyrande, Night Warriors seem like Hunters mixed with Balance Druids, which would make sense considering that Balance Druids are where you go to access Elune-based magic. It's an interesting combo, but not really something I could see Blizzard basing a class on. I don't see Blizzard dismantling Balance Druids, and I really don't see Blizzard creating yet another highly specialized elf-based class after Demon Hunters.

I think Revenanthero is correct; You're looking at a cosmetic option for Night Warriors, and that's about it.

There’s been like 3 proposed night warrior concepts in the thread

You have one melee spec using glaives
One ranged spec using lunar spells
One healer spec

The class can be worked to not require anything from balance druids which have like 4 spells attached to elune

We still know very little about the night warrior other than It makes you strong enough to injure an old god

Nobody here is blizzard
Nobody here knows what they will do
Claiming something won’t happen is pointless

[Ielenia]

We already have a rather robust Hunter class that uses magic and poison arrows,

The hunter does not use magic, though. Arcane Shot can be easily explained by being ammunition that the Hunter acquires that is already enchanted, and other abilities like 'mend pet' and 'revive pet' can be explained as just to expedite and smooth out gameplay, to avoid having the hunter to stay put by ten seconds while applying bandages to their pets or tending to their mortal wounds, instead of being actual representations of how the abilities work.

That's like saying that the Warrior is a magic melee class because it can summon giant weapons to smash the ground before them, summon lightning, and summon dragon heads.

and that class had the Dark Ranger's signature ability for years with no problem.

I would hardly call Black Arrow a "signature ability". Either way, the hunter no longer has it.

There really is no issue with simply reinserting Black Arrow back into the Hunter class instead of basing an entire new class around it.

Just like there's really no issue with giving it to a hypothetical future Dark Ranger class instead of giving back to the hunter an ability that never really fit the class' theme and concept.

We don't really need another magical Ranger class.

We also don't really need a tech class, though. Or any new class. Or even a new race. Or even a new expansion. The point is: we don't "need" anything.

[Teriz]

There’s been like 3 proposed night warrior concepts in the thread

You have one melee spec using glaives

That is reminiscent of Demon Hunter.

One ranged spec using lunar spells

And that is reminiscent of Balance Druids.

One healer spec

What would that be based on? We've only seen Tyrande tear through people. Further we've seen her shoot arrows, so why is there no ranged spec?

The class can be worked to not require anything from balance druids which have like 4 spells attached to elune

Actually their entire spec is tied to Elune. That's the theme behind Astral magic which is the basis of the Balance spec.

We still know very little about the night warrior other than It makes you strong enough to injure an old god

And it also kills the person who manifests its power. How would this be widespread enough to become a player class? Also what would be the point of this when we have a Balance Druid spec already using lunar based spells? What's the selling point here? More badass elves using glaives? We already have Demon Hunters for that.

Nobody here is blizzard
Nobody here knows what they will do
Claiming something won’t happen is pointless

True, but at this point in WoW's life cycle we have a good idea of how Blizzard structures classes. A class that is essentially a Demon Hunter using lunar power instead of fel power isn't going to become a class.

- - - Updated - - -

The hunter does not use magic, though. Arcane Shot can be easily explained by being ammunition that the Hunter acquires that is already enchanted, and other abilities like 'mend pet' and 'revive pet' can be explained as just to expedite and smooth out gameplay, to avoid having the hunter to stay put by ten seconds while applying bandages to their pets or tending to their mortal wounds, instead of being actual representations of how the abilities work.

There's also Chimera Shot and Binding Shot. Binding Shot is literally called a Magical Arrow. There's also Resonating Arrow, which despite being a covenant ability, is still a magical arrow ability.

I would hardly call Black Arrow a "signature ability". Either way, the hunter no longer has it.

It is a signature ability for Dark Rangers since they had it in both WC3 and HotS. While the Hunter no longer has it, Hunters do currently have Flayed Shot and Death Chakram, two abilities that both do Shadow damage. In fact, Death Chakram bears a striking resemblance to Sylvanas' Shadow Dagger ability in HotS.

Just like there's really no issue with giving it to a hypothetical future Dark Ranger class instead of giving back to the hunter an ability that never really fit the class' theme and concept.

Hunters had the ability for almost a decade, and only lost it because it was redundant. How does it not fit the Hunter class?

We also don't really need a tech class, though. Or any new class. Or even a new race. Or even a new expansion. The point is: we don't "need" anything.

Considering that there is a potential user base of new and retired players who are not currently playing WoW because of a lack of a technology class, and that there are multiple WoW races who are technology based but have no class that matches their theme, I would say that a tech class is very much needed.

[Ielenia]

There's also Chimera Shot and Binding Shot. Binding Shot is literally called a Magical Arrow.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:
"The hunter does not use magic, though. Arcane Shot can be easily explained by being ammunition that the Hunter acquires that is already enchanted"

There's also Resonating Arrow, which despite being a covenant ability, is still a magical arrow ability.

But covenant abilities don't count, according to you, because you discounted the Venthyr covenant ability for the paladins when we pointed out that it's paladins using shadow magic when you said that paladins couldn't use shadow magic:

Nope, because covenant abilities don’t really count for general class themes, it’s just an expansion feature. In the end, the difference between Priests and Paladins is the use of Shadow magic.

So which is it? Do they count, or do they not count?

It is a signature ability for Dark Rangers since they had it in both WC3 and HotS. While the Hunter no longer has it, Hunters do currently have Flayed Shot and Death Chakram, two abilities that both do Shadow damage. In fact, Death Chakram bears a striking resemblance to Sylvanas' Shadow Dagger ability in HotS.

Read above. You can't eat your cake and still have it, Teriz. Either all covenant abilities count, or none of them do.

Hunters had the ability for almost a decade, and only lost it because it was redundant. How does it not fit the Hunter class?

It does not fit the hunter class' theme and concept because their concept and theme is about a marksman, and a survivalist of the wilds. Necromancy does not fit those themes. And also: the ability being in the class "for almost a decade" means nothing. Because the metamorphosis ability stayed in the warlock class "for almost a decade" too, remember?

Considering that there is a potential user base of new and retired players who are not currently playing WoW because of a lack of a technology class, and that there are multiple WoW races who are technology based but have no class that matches their theme, I would say that a tech class is very much needed.

None of that stipulates a "need". We don't "need" anything.

[Teriz]

I'll repeat what I said earlier:
"The hunter does not use magic, though. Arcane Shot can be easily explained by being ammunition that the Hunter acquires that is already enchanted"

But you don't know that for sure, that's entirely an assumption. Also what about Chimera shot? Chimera shot splits into two magical arrows, one nature based and the other frost.

But covenant abilities don't count, according to you, because you discounted the Venthyr covenant ability for the paladins when we pointed out that it's paladins using shadow magic when you said that paladins couldn't use shadow magic:

So which is it? Do they count, or do they not count?

They don't count for Paladins because Shadow magic runs against their class theme. Paladins won't be using Shadow abilities when we leave Shadowlands next expansion.

However, Hunters using magical arrows is a mainstay of the class, and has been since vanilla, and the class has a long history of using shadow-based arrow abilities, so those covenants are not counter to the established theme of the class, and quite frankly could be carried over into future expansions.

Read above. You can't eat your cake and still have it, Teriz. Either all covenant abilities count, or none of them do.

See above.

It does not fit the hunter class' theme and concept because their concept and theme is about a marksman, and a survivalist of the wilds. Necromancy does not fit those themes. And also: the ability being in the class "for almost a decade" means nothing. Because the metamorphosis ability stayed in the warlock class "for almost a decade" too, remember?

Wouldn't a Hunter learning how to tame undead beasts via a tome they obtained from Necromancers in the realm of the dead count as Hunters learning and using Necromancy?

None of that stipulates a "need". We don't "need" anything.

Why wouldn't it? The goal of Blizzard is to always gain new users. There are a contingent of players out there who only play technology-based classes in RPGs. You can see this in various MMO forums like GW2, RO, DFO, FFXIV, and other games, so WoW lacking such a class makes those players less likely to pick up WoW for an extended amount of time even if they enjoy the game. Adding a technology class increases the chance that those types of players will pick up and stick to WoW and happily pay the monthly subscription fee and buy all the vanity stuff in order to make Blizzard money.

Then there are the Goblin, Gnome, Draenei, and Mechagnome races; Technology based races that can't really partake in the major aspect of their racial lore. Draenei can somewhat escape this because their tech is more magical (though the constant appearance of LF Warframes is also causing issues there as well), but Goblins, Gnomes and especially Mechagnomes seem very out of place given the current class options.

The lack of a technology class is a pretty massive thematic hole in the WoW class lineup. Every other class suggestion is merely an addition to what we already have.

[jellmoo]

Unlikely. Even in Dungeons and Dragons Monks were a very versatile class concept with self healing and group healing abilities. It's quite easy to see how they would end up as a class that could do all three roles in WoW. DnD isn't the only RPG where you see this either. It's present in games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Ragnarok, Dungeon Fighter, Diablo 3, etc.

They aren't though. Absolutely nobody is playing a Monk in D&D as a healer. Because they aren't one. They can't fill that role. In 3rd edition they have a single self heal that they only get at level 7 and even then, will only heal a maximum of 14 hit points. They can't heal others at all. In 4th edition they are a Striker, not a Leader. In 5th edition it all depends on their Monastic Tradition, but none of the ones I know of allow them to function as a dedicated healer.

Regardless of other games or game systems though, the point was that Blizzard, upon creation of the Monk class, made up the spec entirely. It was a fabrication from the ground up. Pretty much showcasing that they are more than comfortable making something completely from scratch when they want to.

It's also important to remember that the class is called a Monk, not a Brewmaster. When Blizzard created the class they were using a wide concept more than likely pulled from several other games and concepts. The Dark Ranger isn't very broad at all. It is HIGHLY specific, and thus very limited in possible scope and design possibilities.

I don't disagree. The Monk absolutely is a broader archetype allowing for a wider array of character concepts. The Dark Ranger would be very specific. Much like a Death Knight or a Demon Hunter.

Well that's the thing; As a ranged class, you summon minions to tank for you in every case. Hunters do it. Mages do it. Warlocks do it. Even Shaman do it with their elementals.

What tanking minion does the Mage have? The Elemental one is on a 5 minute cooldown. The Druid one on a 1 minute cooldown. What tanking minion does a Priest have? There is absolutely no rule that says that a ranged class needs to have a tanking minion.

The only class that doesn't do it is Death Knights, but that's because they're plated tanks.

I mean, they're also not a ranged class...

Dark Rangers would almost certainly be in the same vein as Hunters in that regard. They would summon their undead minions and their minions would tank for them while they sit back and shoot them with arrows. It's the Hunter's gameplay style through and through. We know this because Hunters had Black Arrow in Legion and that's exactly how they operated, and their version of Black Arrow was actually more powerful than previous versions since it could summon undead as a proc without the requirement of your target being killed by the DoT.

That's pure assumption, and a bad one. They could be made entirely differently. Hell, why on earth would they be made to function like a Hunter? If you work on the assumption that they'll be made exactly like a Hunter, then sure, it seems silly to include them. But it's equally silly to think that they would be made exactly like a Hunter. They could be built in such a way that the only similarity is that they use a bow. Everything else would be very different. There's absolutely no reason that such a class would need to mirror the Hunter class.

Well the difference there is that you're only talking about a specialization similarity. I'm talking about 2 entire classes being similar to each other. Warlocks and Mages as an entire package are very different from one another. Dark Rangers and Hunters would not be. Mainly because Blizzard has incorporated many Dark Ranger concepts into the Hunter class over the years. In the end, I simply don't see how you remain true to the Dark Ranger concept as presented in WC3 and HotS and even WoW without it slamming head first mechanics wise into the Hunter class.

No, unless you expect a Dark Ranger to also include a melee spec and some sort of BM equivalent, which I don't think anyone does. We're really only talking about MM here.

The easiest answer is to simply ignore WC3 and HotS. They don't matter. You make the Dark Ranger class that's faithful to the archetype, that lets players play something they want without the baggage of other games. Take the theme and build abilities off of it. There's really no reason it can't be done.

[howdy]

I think Necromancer would be easy as hell to implement. nevromancer is simply an unholy death knight that can use a staff. if players want to play as a necromancer they should be asking for an unholy death knight rework that turns them into a ranged spec.

They granted players the ability to have a blindfold, making them demon hunters too. Instead of getting a class, you got a cosmetic option. demon hunters doesn't have any unique spells. It's never becoming a class.

"death magic' and 'necromancy' are distinct from Shadow magic. while shadow priests are about Void Shadow magic, death knights are about death shadow magic and warlocks are about fel shadow magic.

The Ranger class concept is many things, but narrow is not one of them.

You have the Dark Ranger, based on Sylvanas. That could be a spec or something spread out in the entire class.

You have the Night warrior, based on Tyrande. That could also be a spec or an entire class.

You have the Priestess of the Tide, based on lady vashj.

And then you have the combination of all three alongside archers like Hanzo and Valla.

It's also weird to say that the Dark Ranger and Night Warrior are integrated into the classes when barely any of their abilities or attributes appear in any class, and the Hunter class in WoW, mainly, comes from the WC3 Beastmaster, Archer/Sharpshooter and Headhunter/Sapper, not so much from the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon or the Priestess of the Tide.

The Tinker and the Alchemist were integrated into the WoW profession system though. So if there's really none of them in the professions, why would their concepts be integrated into the Engineering and Alchemy professions? Not only are they refered to as the technological and chemical professions, they are also regarded as such in lore.

Consider if this was 2013/2017 and we knew that the upcoming expansion was going to be set in alternate draenor, kul tiras and zandalar, and we'd be fighting against, literal, army of technology-users. We'd have literal bosses with mechanical themes and abilities.

And to top it all off, the expansion starts with a military battle, using technological devices because Garrosh took goblins plans to alternate draenor (hey, there's a reason for a Tinker class right there).

Would anyone seriously say that a Tinker class wouldn't fit such an expansion? If a Tinker doesn't fit an expansion like that, one has to truly ask what expansion would a Tinker fit into?

While we're at it, you can add Alchemists to that question as well. I simply don't see a better set up, given the events of WoD and BfA, an opening for Alchemists given explosives themes of the expansions, and the contribution of war science to those expansions. Again, if Alchemists aren't fit to be introduced in those expansions, when would they be?

Game needs another gun/bow/crossbow class; maybe tie it in with what Tyrande is doing with Night Warrior. Go 2 specs like with DH, only 1 DPS 1 Heals. I think a class designed around Tyrande's toolkit would be pretty fun to play.

True. You can add a Dark Ranger and a Priestess of the tide to that equation.


We already have a rather robust technology profession that uses mechanical devices and explosives, and that profession had filled the Tinker fantasy for years with no problem. There really is no issue with simply inserting Tinker abilities into the engineering profession instead of basing an entire new class around it. We don't really need another gimmick technology concept.

Well consider what a Tinker does. Based on WC3 they make mechanical robots, shoot explosives, and use a mech.

How does that play out? Hunter/engineering pets/devices and explosives serve the exact same purpose, and Hunters can even tame mechanical beasts now.

Then we come to the Tinker's mech In WC3. In WoW engineers have the reaves module.

When you think about it, a Tinker class wouldn't be much different than what we currently have in the engineering profession. It'd just be a "whackier" variant, which is more cosmetic than mechanical.

Tinkers would almost certainly be in the same vein as engineers in that regard. They would summon their mechanical minions and their minions would tank for them while they sit back and shoot them with explosives. It's the engineers/Hunter gameplay style through and through.

Dark Rangers and Hunters as an entire package are very different from one another. Tinkers and engineers would not be. Mainly because Blizzard has incorporated many Tinker concepts into the Engineering profession over the years. In the end, I simply don't see how you remain true to the Tinker concept as presented in WC3 and HotS and even WoW without it slamming head first mechanics wise into the Engineering profession.

What exactly are you expecting this class to do that isn't the domain of an existing profession? From what I've seen from Gazlowe, Tinkers seem like Engineers mixed with Hunters, which would make sense considering that Hunters are where you go to access explosive-based abilities. It's an interesting combo, but not really something I could see Blizzard basing a class on. I don't see Blizzard dismantling Hunters and engineers, and I really don't see Blizzard creating yet another highly specialized explosive-based class after Hunters and Engineering profession.

the entire concept is tied to explosives. That's the theme behind fire damage which is the basis of the survival spec.

Also what would be the point of this when we have a Engineers already using technological devices? What's the selling point here? More midgets using cogwheels? We already have engineers for that.

at this point in WoW's life cycle we have a good idea of how Blizzard structures classes. A class that is essentially an engineer using technological devices like the engineering profession, and it isn't going to become a class.

Considering that there is a potential user base of new and retired players who are not currently playing WoW because of a lack of a ranged class, and that there are multiple WoW races who are ranged based but have no class that matches their theme, I would say that a ranger class is very much needed.

However, Hunters using explosives is a mainstay of the class, and has been since wrath, and the class has a long history of using explosive abilities.

Wouldn't a Hunter learning how to tame mechanical beasts via a tome they obtained from engineers in the class hall count as Hunters learning and using technology?

Why wouldn't it? The goal of Blizzard is to always gain new users. There are a contingent of players out there who only play ranged-based classes in RPGs. You can see this in various MMO forums like GW2, RO, DFO, FFXIV, and other games, so WoW lacking such a class makes those players less likely to pick up WoW for an extended amount of time even if they enjoy the game. Adding a ranged class increases the chance that those types of players will pick up and stick to WoW and happily pay the monthly subscription fee and buy all the vanity stuff in order to make Blizzard money.

Then there are the Goblin, Gnome, Draenei, and Mechagnome races; Technology based races that can totally partake in the major aspect of their racial lore. Draenei can somewhat escape this because they worship the light and Goblins, Gnomes and especially Mechagnomes seem very in place given the current class options.

The lack of a ranger class is a pretty massive thematic hole in the WoW class lineup. Every other class suggestion is merely an addition to what we already have.

[Teriz]

They aren't though. Absolutely nobody is playing a Monk in D&D as a healer. Because they aren't one. They can't fill that role. In 3rd edition they have a single self heal that they only get at level 7 and even then, will only heal a maximum of 14 hit points. They can't heal others at all. In 4th edition they are a Striker, not a Leader. In 5th edition it all depends on their Monastic Tradition, but none of the ones I know of allow them to function as a dedicated healer.

I didn’t say they were dedicated healers, I said that they had a significant healing component.

Regardless of other games or game systems though, the point was that Blizzard, upon creation of the Monk class, made up the spec entirely. It was a fabrication from the ground up. Pretty much showcasing that they are more than comfortable making something completely from scratch when they want to.

And all I’m saying is that when you’re dealing with a major RPG trope that has historically had a significant healing attribute it is easy to create a healing spec for a 3-spec WoW class. Look at Diablo 3’s Monk class for example.

I don't disagree. The Monk absolutely is a broader archetype allowing for a wider array of character concepts. The Dark Ranger would be very specific. Much like a Death Knight or a Demon Hunter.

What tanking minion does the Mage have? The Elemental one is on a 5 minute cooldown. The Druid one on a 1 minute cooldown. What tanking minion does a Priest have? There is absolutely no rule that says that a ranged class needs to have a tanking minion.

Frost Mages have a permanent Water Elemental.

Druids don’t need one, they can shapeshift, heal, and Moonkin form is pretty tough.

Priests also have significant healing abilities so they don’t need a pet to tank for them.

I didn’t say it’s for all ranged classes, I’m talking about ranged classes that summon persistent minions like DKs, Warlocks, and Hunters. Black Arrow is an example of an ability that summons constant minions in the majority of its incarnations.

I mean, they're also not a ranged class...

True, which means they’re built to withstand front line pressure. A bow-based class like DR wouldn’t be.

That's pure assumption, and a bad one. They could be made entirely differently. Hell, why on earth would they be made to function like a Hunter? If you work on the assumption that they'll be made exactly like a Hunter, then sure, it seems silly to include them. But it's equally silly to think that they would be made exactly like a Hunter. They could be built in such a way that the only similarity is that they use a bow. Everything else would be very different. There's absolutely no reason that such a class would need to mirror the Hunter class.

It’s an assumption based on every example of Dark Ranger in WoW, WC3, and HotS. If we’re not basing Dark Ranger based on those incarnations, what are we basing it on?

No, unless you expect a Dark Ranger to also include a melee spec and some sort of BM equivalent, which I don't think anyone does. We're really only talking about MM here.

The easiest answer is to simply ignore WC3 and HotS. They don't matter. You make the Dark Ranger class that's faithful to the archetype, that lets players play something they want without the baggage of other games. Take the theme and build abilities off of it. There's really no reason it can't be done.

The Dark Ranger archetype comes from WC3 and HotS, which is why you can’t ignore them. For example, Wailing Arrow, a somewhat common ability for Dark Ranger NPCs in WoW post-WoD, comes from HotS. Black Arrow the signature DR ability originated in WC3 and appears again in HotS.

[HoopyFrood]

How about just a "Ranger" class with a Dark Ranger spec? I think it would open things up a little bit for creative flexibility.

[Triceron]

How about just a "Ranger" class with a Dark Ranger spec? I think it would open things up a little bit for creative flexibility.

A bit tricky since being undead is part of the Dark Ranger schtick. Kinda like making Death Knight just a Paladin spec ala Shadow being part of Priest. It doesn't really work the same because it's a completely separate identity.

[jellmoo]

I didn’t say they were dedicated healers, I said that they had a significant healing component.

But they don't. Heck, the Ranger has more healing ability and the WoW Hunter doesn't have a healing spec.

And all I’m saying is that when you’re dealing with a major RPG trope that has historically had a significant healing attribute it is easy to create a healing spec for a 3-spec WoW class. Look at Diablo 3’s Monk class for example.

I'm absolutely not disagreeing. All I'm saying is that's exactly what they did. From scratch. They took a super specific concept like the Brewmaster and broadened it, making a healing spec for the class. They just didn't have anything within their game universe to base it on, which is perfectly fine.

Frost Mages have a permanent Water Elemental.

Which does not tank.

Druids don’t need one, they can shapeshift, heal, and Moonkin form is pretty tough.

Priests also have significant healing abilities so they don’t need a pet to tank for them.

As a ranged class, you summon minions to tank for you in every caseI didn’t say it’s for all ranged classes, I’m talking about ranged classes that summon persistent minions like DKs, Warlocks, and Hunters. Black Arrow is an example of an ability that summons constant minions in the majority of its incarnations.

I'm not getting your point then. What you said was: "As a ranged class, you summon minions to tank for you in every case." Which really sounds like you're saying that every ranged class has a tank minion, which is clearly not the case. Regardkess, there's no reason that a Dark Ranger would need something of the sort. They could very easily give it a slew of mobility and/or utility defensive options, much like the Rogue. Black Arrow could very well be a part of that (say it summons a spirit that causes an adverse effect depending on some other criteria, like if you spend X amount of a resource it slows, X amount disorients, X amount stuns, etc...

True, which means they’re built to withstand front line pressure. A bow-based class like DR wouldn’t be.

Or it could very well be. Maybe they use a variety of life drains so that while they take a ton of damage, they also heal it back up. There's a lot of ways to give them survivability.

It’s an assumption based on every example of Dark Ranger in WoW, WC3, and HotS. If we’re not basing Dark Ranger based on those incarnations, what are we basing it on?

The sheer concept of an undead type of archer that uses necromancy and dark magics. It need not mirror anything from another source, or it could take inspiration but make sweeping changes. There are lots of options.

The Dark Ranger archetype comes from WC3 and HotS, which is why you can’t ignore them. For example, Wailing Arrow, a somewhat common ability for Dark Ranger NPCs in WoW post-WoD, comes from HotS. Black Arrow the signature DR ability originated in WC3 and appears again in HotS.

Yup, and if you want you can absolutely ignore all of it. You can boil it down to a concept and build it from the ground up to suit your needs. You can totally ignore everything from WC3 and HotS if you want to. You can use them as a spiritual inspiration if you want to. You can change the mechanics completely. You can take the ability names from WC3 and then add on completely different mechanics. You can make it a combo class like the Rogue if you want. You can make it a builder/spender like the old Demo Warlock if you want. You can give it a brand new mechanic unique to WoW if you want. All of this is more than possible.

The only way the class is too much like a Hunter is if you purposely make it that way, and there's nothing that says you have to do that.