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

[ReleaseDay]

Necromancer. No DK is not the same thing. Still makes no sense they didnt make it for SL, would 've fit the theme perfectly.

[Teriz]

Your question is irrelevant because you're asking something I never argued for. I never said that the mechanics of "pocket factory" currently exist in the present playable classes. My only argument, in which you're making a monumental effort to move away from, is that themes do not bring "unique gameplay".

And yet the mechanical theme of the Tinker would bring in the unique mechanics of Pocket Factory, Mech piloting, the upgradable Turret system, etc.

There's none. Your attempt at mockery does not count as a difference.

So you think there's no difference between abilities created by Blizzard and abilities you created out of thin air?

Hilarious.

And both the paladin and the priest use holy abilities from the exact same source.

And Priests use Shadow magic, Paladins don't. I have yet to see any evidence of a Necromancer using a spell school the DK class doesn't use.

Variation, perhaps? I mean, you're basically asking why playable demon hunters don't become a copy of Illidan's demon form.

Well since you can't be honest, I'll help you; It's because the Lich is a source of Necromancy in WoW, and it's already within the DK class. It popping up in a Necromancer concept just shows that people are just looking for a ranged version of the DK class.

It doesn't matter. The blood mage from Warcraft 3 is much more akin to the warlock class we have right now if we go by their backstory. The WC3 lore explicitly said they turned to the fel and demonic.

You said that no Mage was using fire spells in WC3, and I pointed out that the Blood Mage used fire spells, and spells from that hero ended up in the Mage class, and now you're saying that "doesn't matter"?

If we go by what he could do in the Warcraft 3 game, just like you're doing for Kel'Thuzad, no, he wouldn't. Kel'Thuzad was a powerful mage of the Kirin Tor... yet you're saying he couldn't cast arcane and fire magic because you never saw him doing so in Warcraft 3.

Once again, beyond your head canon can you show ANY example of a Necromancer using Fire or Arcane spells?

And you haven't produced a single death knight pre-Wrath that used blood or frost spells. You're just pointing at their weapon and saying "blood spec! That's your blood spec!" while at the same denying the exact same courtesy to the idea that necromancers in a necromancer school being taught alchemy from a teacher that favors poisons and fire link a hypothetical necromancer playable class the possibility of having a poison spec.

Because I don't need to. We're almost 20 years into WoW now and there's no evidence of anything you speak of on any level. I've even asked you to provide evidence of any of this beyond your head canon and you've provided nothing but more head canon.

I think we're done here.

That is called "double standards".

Yes, because WC3 Death Knights having Vampiric weapons being used as evidence as a forerunner for the Blood spec is the exact same thing as NO Necromancer using poison being used as evidence as a forerunner for a Necromancer poison spec....

Also: druids summoning plants exist. Spores being hostile and attacking those that come close exist. Spores detonating upon death exist.

Cool. Let me know when they create an ability with similar mechanics to Pocket Factory. Until then, you have no argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know a single person who uses engineering guns over dungeon and raid drops. I don't know a single person who uses scopes over weapon enchants. All of the other gadgets would be covered by teriz's idea for tinker. Are you seriously not following at all?

Even if that were true (it's not), that argument only works if everyone is playing a Tinker. If you're not playing a Tinker, you're not getting those gadgets.

So if you're a Warrior, how are you getting those gadgets? You wouldn't get them from a Tinker.

[Ielenia]

And yet the mechanical theme of the Tinker would bring in the unique mechanics of Pocket Factory, Mech piloting, the upgradable Turret system, etc.

No. It wouldn't. Because we can have a tinker class without it, and we can also have those "unique mechanics" be the present classes, instead. See? Two viable options.

So you think there's no difference between abilities created by Blizzard and abilities you created out of thin air?

Hilarious.

If I create "out of thin air", one ability that is mechanically identical to another ability (that also does not exist in WoW, mind you), yes, there would be no mechanical difference between the two abilities.

And Priests use Shadow magic, Paladins don't. I have yet to see any evidence of a Necromancer using a spell school the DK class doesn't use.

No, you have evidence. The thing is, though, is that you refuse to admit said evidence. And the funny thing is, this exact same argument of yours would completely deny the death knight playable class from having the frost and blood specs, and would prevent the monk playable class from having the mistweaver spec, and all of their summoning abilities. It would also prevent any and all demon hunters' meta form from looking any different from Illidan's meta form.

Well since you can't be honest, I'll help you; It's because the Lich is a source of Necromancy in WoW, and it's already within the DK class. It popping up in a Necromancer concept just shows that people are just looking for a ranged version of the DK class.

Stop projecting. The only one being dishonest here, because you're making the exact kind of association I made to link the necromancers to poison usage to link the death knights to frost magic. The. Exact. Same. But it's all double-standards from you.

This is why I simply don't put you on ignore and move on. Because I know that, if I give you enough rope, metaphorically speaking, you'll hang yourself with it. Like you're doing right now.

You said that no Mage was using fire spells in WC3, and I pointed out that the Blood Mage used fire spells, and spells from that hero ended up in the Mage class, and now you're saying that "doesn't matter"?

Because those aren't mage abilities. If you read the lore of the blood mages, you'd see those are fel fire and demon magic, not arcane magic.

Once again, beyond your head canon can you show ANY example of a Necromancer using Fire or Arcane spells?

How about a deal? I'll show you all the necromancers using fire or arcane spells as you want... if you first produce me death knights using frost and blood magic BEFORE the Wrath expansion, and monks using mist magic and summoning celestial animals BEFORE the MoP expansion.

Cool. Let me know when they create an ability with similar mechanics to Pocket Factory. Until then, you have no argument.

But I do have argument. You're just ignoring it because you can't address it. At no point you even tried to address it, you just deflected by saying "it doesn't exist" or "show me where this ability is".

[Teriz]

No. It wouldn't. Because we can have a tinker class without it, and we can also have those "unique mechanics" be the present classes, instead. See? Two viable options.

Thankfully Pocket Factory isn't the only unique mechanic that the Tinker would bring into the game.

If I create "out of thin air", one ability that is mechanically identical to another ability (that also does not exist in WoW, mind you), yes, there would be no mechanical difference between the two abilities.

It exists in WC3, which makes it an ability that Blizzard created. Further given the history of WC3 abilities being translated into WoW, Pocket Factory is to be an expected ability if the Tinker class is implemented.

No, you have evidence. The thing is, though, is that you refuse to admit said evidence. And the funny thing is, this exact same argument of yours would completely deny the death knight playable class from having the frost and blood specs, and would prevent the monk playable class from having the mistweaver spec, and all of their summoning abilities. It would also prevent any and all demon hunters' meta form from looking any different from Illidan's meta form.

Stop projecting. The only one being dishonest here, because you're making the exact kind of association I made to link the necromancers to poison usage to link the death knights to frost magic. The. Exact. Same. But it's all double-standards from you.

How about a deal? I'll show you all the necromancers using fire or arcane spells as you want... if you first produce me death knights using frost and blood magic BEFORE the Wrath expansion, and monks using mist magic and summoning celestial animals BEFORE the MoP expansion.

How many Death Knights were in WoW before WotLK? How many Pandaren Monks were in WoW before MoP?

How many Necromancer NPCs have been in WoW since Vanilla? How many Necromancers are going to be in Shadowlands? Yet you can't provide one single examples of a Necromancer using Poison, Fire, or Arcane?

Hopefully you see the difference.

Because those aren't mage abilities. If you read the lore of the blood mages, you'd see those are fel fire and demon magic, not arcane magic.

Flamestrike isn't a Mage ability? Mages have no Phoenix spells?

But I do have argument. You're just ignoring it because you can't address it. At no point you even tried to address it, you just deflected by saying "it doesn't exist" or "show me where this ability is".

The argument is that the Tinker would bring in unique mechanics that are non-existent in the current class lineup. You making up an ability for purely contrarian purposes isn't a valid counter-argument.

[Ielenia]

Thankfully Pocket Factory isn't the only unique mechanic that the Tinker would bring into the game.

What I said applies to any and all mechanics, from any and all class fan concepts.

It exists in WC3, which makes it an ability that Blizzard created. Further given the history of WC3 abilities being translated into WoW, Pocket Factory is to be an expected ability if the Tinker class is implemented.

I specifically mentioned WoW. Also, you didn't address my argument that you quoted. You simply addressed the sidenote I put there.

How many Death Knights were in WoW before WotLK? How many Pandaren Monks were in WoW before MoP?

Naxxrammas was full of them DKs, remember? Also one in Scholomance. As for pandaren monk, I wonder why you felt the need to add that specific description there, despite you claiming that 'monks' already existed in WoW before, and pointing at many examples already present in the game before MoP. Also, that doesn't change the fact that you cannot produce any example of a monk using mist magic or summoning celestial beasts.

How many Necromancer NPCs have been in WoW since Vanilla? How many Necromancers are going to be in Shadowlands? Yet you can't provide one single examples of a Necromancer using Poison, Fire, or Arcane?

For the exact same reason why you cannot provide even a single example of a death knight using blood or frost magic before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion.

Flamestrike isn't a Mage ability? Mages have no Phoenix spells?

I don't see you contesting the lore behind the Blood Mage unit. Also, you do know "Mirror image" and "Reincarnation" are warrior abilities, according to Warcraft 3, right?

The argument is that the Tinker would bring in unique mechanics that are non-existent in the current class lineup. You making up an ability for purely contrarian purposes isn't a valid counter-argument.

Wrong. The argument is that saying that "X theme brings unique gameplay/mechanics" is false because themes, by themselves, do not bring "unique mechanics or gameplay".

[Alkizon]

By tradition, I'll put here couple of links to my posts in similar topics (and for not to clutter up current one): <1> <2> <3>

Also, let it be here too:

Many scold Tinker+, Dragonsworn, Necromancer(old), Chronomancer or Dark Ranger+(some my words about witches) concepts, but they do exist, people have worked on them in a very good way. Everything is in your hands, go for it

[Chonar]

Given Blizzard's track record, it's gonna be another leather or plate melee class, with no less than 2, maybe 3 different tank specs!

[Teriz]

What I said applies to any and all mechanics, from any and all class fan concepts.

Except there's a difference between fan concepts and Blizzard concepts. Pocket Factory is a Blizzard concept.

I specifically mentioned WoW. Also, you didn't address my argument that you quoted. You simply addressed the sidenote I put there.

Given that numerous WC3 abilities have transferred over to WoW from WC3, and that WC3 is tied directly to WoW, I fail to see the difference. Especially if we're talking about a scenario where the Tinker class based on the WC3 Tinker hero is being brought into WoW.

Naxxrammas was full of them DKs, remember? Also one in Scholomance. As for pandaren monk, I wonder why you felt the need to add that specific description there, despite you claiming that 'monks' already existed in WoW before, and pointing at many examples already present in the game before MoP. Also, that doesn't change the fact that you cannot produce any example of a monk using mist magic or summoning celestial beasts.

Yes, one DK NPC. Again, how many Necromancer NPCs have we encountered in WoW since Vanilla? Further since you're basing this poison spec silliness on a NPC supposedly teaching necromancers poison, how many Necromancers in Scholomance use poison?

Since you can't see the flaw in your argument, I'll point it out for you; Blood and Frost for DKs was simply Blizzard combining all forms of Necromancy into the DK class, because the DK was the Necromancer hero unit from WC3. Monks got a healing spec because it's a common trope in RPGs for Monks to be able to heal, and Blizzard just wanted to give that class a unique healing concept.

In the case of Necromancers having poison, we're operating from an assumption that Blizzard is attempting to find a spec that will allow a Necromancer class to avoid clashing thematically with Death Knights. The problem with this belief is that poison in the case of the scourge is used for the creation of disease. Every scourge NPC that utilizes poison is using it for the purpose of creating some sort of plague. Professor Putricide for example was found in the Plagueworks within Icecrown. Scholomance, from where you're pulling this silliness was used to create the Plague of Undeath, which is what alchemists like Professor Slate were working on.

In short, the poison you're talking about isn't associated with Necromancers, it's associated with Mad Scientists who work for the Scourge and are attempting to spread disease and undeath. It isn't even magic based, it's alchemy/science based, which is why you can't find any Necromancers doing it. The magic-based diseases are already used by the Death Knight class.

Also it should be noted that Alchemy makes far more sense within a Tinker class than a Necromancer class. Mainly thanks to the Goblin Alchemist hero from WC3.

I don't see you contesting the lore behind the Blood Mage unit. Also, you do know "Mirror image" and "Reincarnation" are warrior abilities, according to Warcraft 3, right?

This is also the Blood Mage lore;

Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves 'Blood Elves' - these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost - even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion! Though still loyal to the Alliance, the Blood Elves' passions will lead them not only to the highest pinnacles of power, but to the darkest depths of madness.

A mystical Hero, adept at controlling magic and ranged assaults. Though still members of the Alliance, the Blood Elves have begun to turn to the darkest parts of magic, abandoning the water and frost spells of the Kirin Tor for the fire and heat of what some people fear to be Demonic magic. Attacks land and air units.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/human...loodmage.shtml

Why would I need to contest the lore behind the Blood Mage unit? Some of its abilities went to Warlocks and some of its abilities went to Mages. The point is that there was a Mage in WC3 that was using fire magic. Also this lore was explored further in Burning Crusade.

Also like the Blood Mage, Blademaster and Tauren Chieftain got their abilities dispersed among multiple classes. What's your point?

Wrong. The argument is that saying that "X theme brings unique gameplay/mechanics" is false because themes, by themselves, do not bring "unique mechanics or gameplay".

Again, is there another class currently in WoW that is offering the gameplay and mechanics offered by a prospective Tinker class? You know the answer to that question.

- - - Updated - - -

By tradition, I'll put here couple of links to my posts in similar topics (and for not to clutter up current one): <1> <2> <3>

Also, let it be here too:

Always interesting seeing my old class concepts. Thanks for posting that.

- - - Updated - - -

Given Blizzard's track record, it's gonna be another leather or plate melee class, with no less than 2, maybe 3 different tank specs!

Hopefully the next class uses Mail armor. It's way overdue.

[Super Kami Dende]

Just make an Artificer Class.

Make Tinker a Ranged DPS Spec, Thaumaturgist a Healing Spec (to differentiate it's name from Alchemy profession), Mekkaknight a Tank Spec.

[Kaver]

This is my personal preference. Since there is a lack of ranged specs in the game and especially a lack of bow wielding specs (in my opinion), I would like to see the Hunter class split up into two classes:

1) Beast master: 3 specs all based on using pets.

2) Ranger: 3 specs all based on being an archer. No pets.

The Beast master could have a melee Tank spec based on splitting damage between you and the pets. The Ranger could have a healing spec based on shooting healing arrows at teammates.

I don’t see Dark Ranger as a playable spec because of lore, but one of the Ranger specs could still be very similar gameplay wise to what a Dark Ranger spec would have been.

... just some crazy ideas...

[Teriz]

Just make an Artificer Class.

Make Tinker a Ranged DPS Spec, Thaumaturgist a Healing Spec (to differentiate it's name from Alchemy profession), Mekkaknight a Tank Spec.

Eh, Artificer in WoW tends to be magi-tech based, like Draenei and Nightborne.

I think if they're going with something other than the Tinker name they'd use something like Mechanic, Technician, Machinist, or Inventor. If the entire class is mech based, I could imagine the class being called Mekkgineer.

I agree with your spec configuration though, with the tank spec being called Steam Knight.

[Ielenia]

Except there's a difference between fan concepts and Blizzard concepts. Pocket Factory is a Blizzard concept.

Not in WoW, it's not. And, also, I'd go so far as to claim that what I said also goes for any and all game mechanics present in the game, too.

Given that numerous WC3 abilities have transferred over to WoW from WC3, and that WC3 is tied directly to WoW, I fail to see the difference. Especially if we're talking about a scenario where the Tinker class based on the WC3 Tinker hero is being brought into WoW.

Again, you did not address my argument. Unless you're agreeing with me that there is no mechanical difference between your concept of the Warcraft 3 ability, and my concept for the druid ability.

Yes, one DK NPC.

Are you playing dumb? I literally reminded you that Naxxramas (a vanilla WoW raid) was full of death knights:

Naxxrammas was full of them DKs, remember?

Since you can't see the flaw in your argument, I'll point it out for you; Blood and Frost for DKs was simply Blizzard combining all forms of Necromancy into the DK class, because the DK was the Necromancer hero unit from WC3. Monks got a healing spec because it's a common trope in RPGs for Monks to be able to heal, and Blizzard just wanted to give that class a unique healing concept.

There is no flaw in my argument. You, on the other hand, move the goalposts left, right, front, back, up and down to fit your narrative. It's a simple fact that death knights never had access to frost and blood magic before the Wrath expansion, despite a large amount of death knights already existing in WoW at the time. A fact that you refuse to accept, despite your claim that you do accept facts:

If you mean I'll only accept the facts, you'd be correct.

And this showcases your dishonesty because you demand to actually see necromancer NPCs using poison to admit as possible that a hypothetical necromancer playable class could have a poison-based spec, and yet you refuse to apply your own argument against present classes in the game. Come on, Teriz. Show me the death knight NPCs using blood and frost magic from before the Wrath expansion. Show us that your argument isn't bogus.

In the case of Necromancers having poison, we're operating from an assumption that Blizzard is attempting to find a spec that will allow a Necromancer class to avoid clashing thematically with Death Knights.

No, we don't, because we already have classes that "clash thematically" with other classes in the game

The problem with this belief is that poison in the case of the scourge is used for the creation of disease.

Poison is not the same thing as disease.

This is also the Blood Mage lore;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/human...loodmage.shtml

Why would I need to contest the lore behind the Blood Mage unit? Some of its abilities went to Warlocks and some of its abilities went to Mages. The point is that there was a Mage in WC3 that was using fire magic. Also this lore was explored further in Burning Crusade.

Allow me to emphasize the parts you're ignoring:
"Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves 'Blood Elves' - these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost - even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion! Though still loyal to the Alliance, the Blood Elves' passions will lead them not only to the highest pinnacles of power, but to the darkest depths of madness.

A mystical Hero, adept at controlling magic and ranged assaults. Though still members of the Alliance, the Blood Elves have begun to turn to the darkest parts of magic, abandoning the water and frost spells of the Kirin Tor for the fire and heat of what some people fear to be Demonic magic. Attacks land and air units."
In other words, they're much more like the definition of the WoW warlock class than the WoW mage class.

Also like the Blood Mage, Blademaster and Tauren Chieftain got their abilities dispersed among multiple classes. What's your point?

That it's irrelevant to say "this WC3 unit has this power that went to this WoW class" to link said WC3 unit to the WoW class. Otherwise you're linking warriors to mages.

Again, is there another class currently in WoW that is offering the gameplay and mechanics offered by a prospective Tinker class? You know the answer to that question.

And again, that is irrelevant because the question is now about what mechanics exist in the game or not, but the claim that themes bring unique gameplay. That is a false statement. You can bring that exact type of gameplay and mechanics to the present classes. And you can do that, because themes do not bring unique gameplay.

To say that "themes bring unique gameplay" is like saying that, for example, changing all the warlock pets into undead minions, the graphics and name of all the warlock spells to fit the necromancy theme, and then changed the class' name from 'warlock' to 'necromancer', while keeping everything else the same... we'd have different gameplay because it's not a warlock class.

[Teriz]

Not in WoW, it's not. And, also, I'd go so far as to claim that what I said also goes for any and all game mechanics present in the game, too.

Again, WC3 abilities have been transferred to WoW repeatedly, and WC3 abilities are still abilities created by Blizzard, which puts them above abilities that fans create.

Again, you did not address my argument. Unless you're agreeing with me that there is no mechanical difference between your concept of the Warcraft 3 ability, and my concept for the druid ability.

There's no need for me to address mechanical differences between Pocket Factory and your concept because your concept doesn't exist. There's no point in comparing an actual ability to a made up one.

Are you playing dumb? I literally reminded you that Naxxramas (a vanilla WoW raid) was full of death knights:

That wasn't the link you previously posted.

There is no flaw in my argument. You, on the other hand, move the goalposts left, right, front, back, up and down to fit your narrative. It's a simple fact that death knights never had access to frost and blood magic before the Wrath expansion, despite a large amount of death knights already existing in WoW at the time. A fact that you refuse to accept, despite your claim that you do accept facts:

And this showcases your dishonesty because you demand to actually see necromancer NPCs using poison to admit as possible that a hypothetical necromancer playable class could have a poison-based spec, and yet you refuse to apply your own argument against present classes in the game. Come on, Teriz. Show me the death knight NPCs using blood and frost magic from before the Wrath expansion. Show us that your argument isn't bogus.

So you're saying a DK using a Vampiric weapon isn't an example of them using Blood magic?

Also this entire line of argument is silly. If you're creating a class based on Necromancy, isn't Blood and Frost obvious choices, especially given the Undead faction in WC3?

No, we don't, because we already have classes that "clash thematically" with other classes in the game

Such as?

Poison is not the same thing as disease.

In terms of the scourge it is.

Allow me to emphasize the parts you're ignoring:
"Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves 'Blood Elves' - these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost - even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion! Though still loyal to the Alliance, the Blood Elves' passions will lead them not only to the highest pinnacles of power, but to the darkest depths of madness.

A mystical Hero, adept at controlling magic and ranged assaults. Though still members of the Alliance, the Blood Elves have begun to turn to the darkest parts of magic, abandoning the water and frost spells of the Kirin Tor for the fire and heat of what some people fear to be Demonic magic. Attacks land and air units."
In other words, they're much more like the definition of the WoW warlock class than the WoW mage class.

That it's irrelevant to say "this WC3 unit has this power that went to this WoW class" to link said WC3 unit to the WoW class. Otherwise you're linking warriors to mages.

Yes, it was established in Warcraft that mages using fire magic can lead to demonic magic. I'm not seeing your point here.

Also I'm again not seeing your point about Mirror Image. Obviously Blizzard felt that it made more sense going to Mages, just like it felt that Stealth (Wind Walk) made more sense for Rogues. There's multiple examples of WC3 hero abilities going to different classes that simply fit their themes better.

And again, that is irrelevant because the question is now about what mechanics exist in the game or not, but the claim that themes bring unique gameplay. That is a false statement. You can bring that exact type of gameplay and mechanics to the present classes. And you can do that, because themes do not bring unique gameplay.

To say that "themes bring unique gameplay" is like saying that, for example, changing all the warlock pets into undead minions, the graphics and name of all the warlock spells to fit the necromancy theme, and then changed the class' name from 'warlock' to 'necromancer', while keeping everything else the same... we'd have different gameplay because it's not a warlock class.

That would be because the purpose of the Warlock class was to take the place of a Necromancer class. Thus, Warlock mechanics are pretty much the same as what you'd find in a necromancer class. That similarity is by design.

You can't do that with the Tinker's mechanics because no class was purposely put into the game in place of a Tinker/Technology class.

[Lodreh]

Guys, guys, guys... let’s address the elephant in the room... should it be Tinkers or Tinkerers... one who Tinks? or one who Tinkers?

[Shadowferal]

I'm enamoured with the "Dragonsworn."

[Kaver]

Necromancer. No DK is not the same thing. Still makes no sense they didnt make it for SL, would 've fit the theme perfectly.

It makes sense in the sense that they didn’t make a new class at all.

[Teriz]

I'm enamoured with the "Dragonsworn."

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my Dragonsworn concept.

- - - Updated - - -

It makes sense in the sense that they didn’t make a new class at all.

Yeah, the lack of a Necromancer class being introduced in Shadowlands, and Blizzard saying that DKs are WoW's death class should have driven the point home for a lot of people.

Unfortunately it didn't.

[Crutos]

I would like to see either a 4th specialization for class or an advanced class system with 2 paths each that changes your talents/specializations.

You will have your standard talents as they are now. Then you get idk to level 30 or some shit and you get a quest line (sorth of like Legion artifacts but y'know... better) to unlock your advanced classes. This should be purely playstyle changes so that might be difficult for blizzard to properly balance (to make standard sets still viable if you prefer that). So when you pick either A or B advanced classes your specs/talents will change accordingly to the AC you chose..
So yeah, this could make way for idk melee locks, ranged DKs, etc. Could funnel in the beloved Tinkerer or the necromancer into this system.

But this would be a shitload of work for blizzard and they can barely properly design what they have as it is. So this would never happen.

[Neuroticaine]

Hopefully a caster of some sort. For the obvious reasons. Every new class added since launch has been melee.

[Lastgope]

Hopefully a caster of some sort. For the obvious reasons. Every new class added since launch has been melee.

It's a shame they didn't do a Necromancer class, Shadowlands would of been the perfect opportunity.