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

[Teriz]

You mean despite the fact that they have different names and are completely different units in the RTS games?

Yes, because the WoW class system is fundamentally different than WC3 units. In addition, Necromancers exist alongside DKs in lore, but they can’t coexist within the class system due to significant overlap.

Warlocks pretty much supplanted Necromancers in the “dark caster” department. Affliction is pretty much a Necromancer spec with abilities like Phantom Singularity, Haunt, Soulstone, Healthstone, Drain Life, Life Tap, Drain Soul, Curses, Soulwell, Vile Taint, and Deathbolt.

Curious, where have you seen any polls where Rangers were amongst even the top 5 asked for classes?

Not polls, individuals asking for the class in threads.

[Triceron]

Yes, because the WoW class system is fundamentally different than WC3 units. In addition, Necromancers exist alongside DKs in lore, but they can’t coexist within the class system due to significant overlap.

Says the person who said Demon Hunters would never exist alongside Warlocks, then had to change it to 'as long as Warlocks had Metamorphosis' once proven completely wrong. Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Not polls, individuals asking for the class in threads.

Which isn't popular demand, is it?

[Teriz]

Says the person who said Demon Hunters would never exist alongside Warlocks, then had to change it to 'as long as Warlocks had Metamorphosis' once proven completely wrong. Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Uh, it was metamorphosis that made Warlicks too similar to Demon Hunters.

Which isn't popular demand, is it?

Which wasn’t my point. My point was that some people will never be satisfied and continuously ask for stuff already in the game. That doesn’t mean that Blizzard needs to or will oblige them.

[Triceron]

Uh, it was metamorphosis that made Warlicks too similar to Demon Hunters.

Which was just one of a half dozen other reasons like

- We already have a Fel magic user
- What would Demon Hunters do that Warlocks couldn't
- Warlocks are practically Demon Hunters already
- Demon Hunters have all their abilities used by other classes
- Too much overlap with existing classes
- Too confusing having two 'Hunters'

Pretty much the same excuses being used now. None mattered in the end, all those arguments were invalidated.

Which wasn’t my point. My point was that some people will never be satisfied and continuously ask for stuff already in the game. That doesn’t mean that Blizzard needs to or will oblige them.

Your point applies to anything. They don't need to make new expansions to oblige players either, look at Classic, people will pay for static old content too. Doesn't mean they will stop and ignore the fans who want more content.

Everything they do to oblige players is for the sake of making money. Supply and demand. Simple as that. Necromancer is in high demand, there should be no confusion on why Necromancers are still relevant to the topic of new classes.

[AzureMage]

So where is the playable version of this in the video games?

I'm just going to clarify this, I don't share your view that something needs to have shown up in WC3 as some sort of prerequisite or prior condition for it to be included in WoW, WC3 is 2 decades old at this point, I honestly doubt even half the playerbase of WoW came from WC3, It's not unimportant to the franchise but it's not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't something that belongs in WoW, I believe Classes can be based primarily on recognized fantasy archetypes because WoW is part of a genre and genres have archetypes like the kung fu monk, music playing bards and undead raising necromancers (who are generally treated as a seperate archetype from dark knights/anti-paladins which the Death Knight class represents) how they are contexualized into WoW's setting is additional fluff and lore which can be invented for the sake of adding more variety or adding context, such as the addition of the San'layn in Wrath of the Lich King to add more context to blood manipulating vampiric Blood Spec for Death Knights, or the eponymous Mists of Pandaria to add context for Monks who heal by manipulating mists.

Adding to this I think the reaction Monks and Pandaren got when MoP is revealed shows that being a playable part of WC3 isn't something majority of the fanbase cares about or considers important, the Pandaren were canon to Warcraft's setting ever since the Frozen Throne, they also showed up in the RPG yet even now people still say that the Pandaren were easter eggs that Blizzard took too far, which while incorrect (that was only true in Reign of Chaos) does show that being a canon part of WC3 didn't make people any more receptive to the Pandaren or Monks.

I'm saying that it being filtered through the Pandaren Brewmaster makes the class unique among monk classes in fantasy games. That's the point.

The Monk class is not a Drunken Boxer/Zuì Quán practicioner (the archetype the Pandaren Brewmaster takes after) outside of the Brewmaster spec, it ceases to be that archetype when you are a Windwalker or Mistweaver, the rest of it's abilities are either mystical (Chi, Mists, Celestials) or Martial Arts (Fists of Fury, Rising Sun Kick, Tiger's palm) both of which are concepts common to fantasy Monks, Fantasy Monks have always had Mystical (Ki/Chi) and Martial Arts and have always incorperated common Kung Fu tropes and archetypes (including the Drunken Boxer) into it, the WoW Monk class is not a unique spin on a Monk, all Blizzard did was contextualize common Monk class tropes as part of Pandaren culture who are already inspired by chinese culture, they didn't put a new spin or even a new coat of paint on a class already based on Kung Fu Tropes by contexualizing as a part of the fantasy counterpart to the culture that inspired those tropes in the first place.

If the Monk class was a Drunken Boxer/Zui Quan martial artist regardless of spec (they healed/dps and tanked using alcohol) then yeah it would be a unique spin on a Monk but it's not that it's a fairly stock take on a martial artist class, same way the Paladin is a stock take on a Paladin class.

Again, where is this concept currently in WoW? The Dragon concept I'm discussing is embodied in Wrathion and countless other characters. What WoW character embodies this dragon knight you speak of? My point is that Blizzard would never introduce a class into WoW that has zero presence in the Warcraft universe, regardless of its presence in other games.

Lets talk archetypes again, they have existed in the modern fantasy genre for decades and one of them is the "Dragon-Knight" which can gone under a number of names but at it's core the concept is that of a character whos appearance and/or abilities relate to dragons, this has been interpreted in a number of ways such as a dragonslayer go gains or steals their power (Dragon-Knight in DOTA), dragonriders who bond with their mounts (dragonriders in the inheritance cycle), warriors who simply use dragonlike armor/weapons/powers (Dragonknights in ESO), could be a non-dragon blessed with the powers of one (such as Dragonborn in elder scrolls), how the archetype is translated into WoW is fluff/lore and ultimately doesn't really do much to change the archetype because at it's core it's still a character with Draconic powers regardless of if it's a mortal blessed by the dragonflights/aspects or a member of the dragonflights taking mortal form, I don't think one has any more precedence over the other, because we have instances of the dragonflights blessing mortals with their powers and we have instances of Dragons taking mortal form to fight.

But again, Xul is not a warcraft Necromancer, so what he does is moot.

So now the rules have changed again, what happened to "any playable form in any of Blizzard's video games? " now it's exclusive to depictions in Warcraft or Warcrtaft characters, if something to be part of a WoW class needs to be in a Warcraft game in some "playable form" where did the Mists, Chi, or August Celestials in WoW's monk come from? the Pandaren Brewmaster doesn't use any of those, he uses alchohol (Breath of Fire, Drunken Haze, Drunken Brawler) and elementalism (Storm, Earth, Fire) the entire basis of the Mistweaver class comes from lore that was invented in Mists of Pandaria (the eponymous Mists that shrouded the continent), there is more basis for Poison magic spec Necromancers than there ever was for Mist healing monks from how other Playable Blizzard Necromancers utilize poison and NPC necromancers like Krick use poison.

[Teriz]

Which was just one of a half dozen other reasons like

- We already have a Fel magic user
- What would Demon Hunters do that Warlocks couldn't
- Warlocks are practically Demon Hunters already
- Demon Hunters have all their abilities used by other classes
- Too much overlap with existing classes
- Too confusing having two 'Hunters'

Pretty much the same excuses being used now. None mattered in the end, all those arguments were invalidated.

Again, the key issue was metamorphosis. Without metamorphosis the Demon Hunter concept unravels completely. You can carve out a Demon Hunter class with metamorphosis, which is what they did, but without it, DHs were DOA. That isn't the situation with DKs and Necromancers. DKs have had necromancer abilities since they entered WoW, and Blizzard themselves stated that they took necromancer ideas and put them in the DK class (along with the entire scourge faction from WC3, which in of itself is necromancer-based). Further, the necromancer concept in of itself never states that a necromancer NEEDS to be a frail spell caster, and in fact Blizzard has created melee-based necromancers in other games (as have other RPG makers).

So yeah, this isn't even close to the same situation.

Your point applies to anything. They don't need to make new expansions to oblige players either, look at Classic, people will pay for static old content too. Doesn't mean they will stop and ignore the fans who want more content.

Everything they do to oblige players is for the sake of making money. Supply and demand. Simple as that. Necromancer is in high demand, there should be no confusion on why Necromancers are still relevant to the topic of new classes.

Your example really doesn't line up with what we're talking about here. You're arguing that Blizzard needs to address a group of fans that demand a necromancer class despite Blizzard pretty much having a necromancer in the DK class. You're expanding that argument to say that Blizzard doesn't need to make expansions to appease fans either, which is true, but really isn't the same argument. There's a host of reasons for Blizzard to make more WoW expansions because expansions appeal to pretty much everyone inside and outside the WoW user base and increases the power of the Warcraft franchise and of course makes Blizzard money.

The only reason for Blizzard to make a necromancer class is to appease a vocal group of players because for whatever reason WoW's take on the Necromancer class isn't satisfying for vocal group of players. You say that the necromancer is in high demand, based on what exactly? Where are you getting information for that conclusion from? Forum posts? If we're going to base it on that, the Tinker and the Dragonsworn class are far more popular and in demand.

Finally you're ignoring the huge downside of Blizzard obliging a necromancer class; Death Knight and Warlock players who will obviously lose abilities to this new necromancer class. There are Warlock players who are still bitter about losing metamorphosis to Warlocks. Imagine that bitterness magnified because Death Knights would be forced to lose abilities they've had since WotLK to facilitate to what's going to amount to another Warlock class with undead minions instead of demonic minions.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just going to clarify this, I don't share your view that something needs to have shown up in WC3 as some sort of prerequisite or prior condition for it to be included in WoW, WC3 is 2 decades old at this point, I honestly doubt even half the playerbase of WoW came from WC3, It's not unimportant to the franchise but it's not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't something that belongs in WoW, I believe Classes can be based primarily on recognized fantasy archetypes because WoW is part of a genre and genres have archetypes like the kung fu monk, music playing bards and undead raising necromancers (who are generally treated as a seperate archetype from dark knights/anti-paladins which the Death Knight class represents)

Adding to this I think the reaction Monks and Pandaren got when MoP is revealed shows that being a playable part of WC3 isn't something majority of the fanbase cares about or considers important, the Pandaren were canon to Warcraft's setting ever since the Frozen Throne, they also showed up in the RPG yet even now people still say that the Pandaren were easter eggs that Blizzard took too far, which while incorrect (that was only true in Reign of Chaos) does show that being a canon part of WC3 didn't make people any more receptive to the Pandaren or Monks.

What about the reaction to Demon Hunters? They came from WC3 as well, and in fact are an older concept than the Pandaren were. Demon Hunters were introduced into WoW as a class only 4 years ago.

Also its not only about WC3, we now have HotS as well, and Blizzard is clearly pulling abilities and concepts from the WC characters in that game as well.

The point is that the lack of a playable version of your "dragon knight" concept is problematic, because that would mean that Blizzard has never created such a concept in Warcraft. So that really begs the question; If they have never created this concept, why would they suddenly create this concept? This is especially a bizarre situation when you consider that they already have a dragon concept that is recognizable to players, is playable in HotS, and has popular lore characters attached to it. Again, why start from square 1 with a generic concept when you can start from square 50 with a unique concept that your fanbase recognizes, is distinctly Blizzard, and very different than anything else on the RPG market?

Again, a no-brainer.

Lets talk archetypes again, they have existed in the modern fantasy genre for decades and one of them is the "Dragon-Knight" which can gone under a number of names but at it's core the concept is that of a character whos appearance and/or abilities relate to dragons, this has been interpreted in a number of ways such as a dragonslayer go gains or steals their power (Dragon-Knight in DOTA), dragonriders who bond with their mounts (dragonriders in the inheritance cycle), warriors who simply use dragonlike armor/weapons/powers (Dragonknights in ESO), could be a non-dragon blessed with the powers of one (such as Dragonborn in elder scrolls), how the archetype is translated into WoW is fluff/lore and ultimately doesn't really do much to change the archetype because at it's core it's still a character with Draconic powers regardless of if it's a mortal blessed by the dragonflights/aspects or a member of the dragonflights taking mortal form, I don't think one has any more precedence over the other, because we have instances of the dragonflights blessing mortals with their powers and we have instances of Dragons taking mortal form to fight.

Again, why would Blizzard borrow from someone else's dragon warrior concept when they already have one?

So now the rules have changed again, what happened to "any playable form in any of Blizzard's video games? " now it's exclusive to depictions in Warcraft or Warcrtaft characters, if something to be part of a WoW class needs to be in a Warcraft game in some "playable form" where did the Mists, Chi, or August Celestials in WoW's monk come from? the Pandaren Brewmaster doesn't use any of those, he uses alchohol (Breath of Fire, Drunken Haze, Drunken Brawler) and elementalism (Storm, Earth, Fire) the entire basis of the Mistweaver class comes from lore that was invented in Mists of Pandaria (the eponymous Mists that shrouded the continent), there is more basis for Poison magic spec Necromancers than there ever was for Mist healing monks from how other Playable Blizzard Necromancers utilize poison and NPC necromancers like Krick use poison.

Blizzard took the Pandaren Brewmaster concept and expanded it, and yeah that makes it a rather unique take on the Monk concept. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if its some sort of gotcha. I'm not aware of too many monk concepts where there's a dedicated healing spec that manipulates mists, or multiple specs create unique brews that empower their abilities. If anything, the Monk class proves my point; That Blizzard will utilize their own concepts and designs over simply borrowing generic concepts from other games. Yeah they used the general Monk archetype to a point, but the Pandaren Brewmaster theme is present in the entire class.

However, the Monk is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

In the end, you're conflating two arguments here and are frankly confusing yourself;

1. You're arguing that Blizzard could simply borrow a generic dragon class concept from outside of Warcraft and make a class completely based on that generic concept ignoring their existing dragon concept.

2. Repeatedly using Xul as a counter-argument to a completely unrelated discussion that really has nothing to do with the primary argument here; Blizzard using generic concepts instead of using concepts they have developed themselves.

Here's the deal; ALL of the WoW classes were available in playable form before they became WoW classes. Every. Single. One. The reason I'm asking you to provide an example of a playable version of the Dragon Knight you describe is because there isn't one, which is problematic for your argument given the history of WoW classes. Again, the huge question is why would Blizzard need to borrow concepts from DotA or D&D for decidedly generic Dragon classes when they have an existing dragon class concept that is

1. Popular
2. Unique
3. An integral part of WoW's lore
4. In playable form via HotS

?????

[Triceron]

Further, the necromancer concept in of itself never states that a necromancer NEEDS to be a frail spell caster, and in fact Blizzard has created melee-based necromancers in other games (as have other RPG makers).

You're right, the Necromancer doesn't need to be... A Death Knight. Your argument throughout is that it would inly be a Death Knight, when your explanation here makes it clear that a Necromancer can have different themes and mechanics derived from other games and sources.

Just as much as you are trying to make a case they are too similar and would be even more similar if they were melee, theres more than enough to build an entirely new identity such as how Monks were presented with Mistweaving and Windwalking.

Heck, most people who are talking about Necromancers are even expecting a Heal spec out of it, which makes sense since Necromancers are support casters in the RTS and usually mirror the Priestly healer units.

Your example really doesn't line up with what we're talking about here. You're arguing that Blizzard needs to address a group of fans that demand a necromancer class

I think you are misunderstanding.

There is no need for Blizzard to appease any group. They get final say on any decision. This is why we don't have a new class this expansion.

The point I make is in direct response to you claiming that there is no reason for a Necromancer class. I am presenting a very significant reason - popular demand. This is the sole reason the Demon Hunter is playable today despite all the reasons you used previously to dismiss it.

Blizzard didn't have to make a Demon Hunter playable at all. They chose to.

So what reason would they have to make a class that has very limited unique mechanics, only 2 specs worth of gameplay, that has very simplified mechanics, that is exclusive to 2 races, wears leather yet again, and takes away gameplay from other classes?

To please fan demand. To sell more copies of the game. Period.

There are Warlock players who are still bitter about losing metamorphosis to Warlocks. Imagine that bitterness magnified because Death Knights would be forced to lose abilities

You mean how they lost all these necromantic abilities in order for Covenants to provide necromantic abilities for all classes? Oh wait, they were able to make completely new necromantic abilities that didn't infringe on DK gameplay, go figure!

Your argument amounts to DKs play like Warlocks since you are comparing the Necromancer directly to both classes. Your argument would imply that DKs having minions directly takes away from the Warlocks unique Summoner theme. Your argument implies Warlocks can be DKs because they both use Necromancy.

You just don't realize how baseless and invalid those arguments are because you're hyper focused on dismissing the Necromancer while using arguments like 'Warlocks already use Necromancy' and 'Another class that uses Necromancy would take things away from the Death Knight' are in direct conflict with one another. Your argument invalidates itself on the basis of the game already showing clear precedent for none of that mattering.

If Blizzard was really worried about what fans felt, then Pandarens and Gnomes would have been removed from the game long ago. That's the argument you're making here.

[Teriz]

You're right, the Necromancer doesn't need to be... A Death Knight. Your argument throughout is that it would inly be a Death Knight, when your explanation here makes it clear that a Necromancer can have different themes and mechanics derived from other games and sources.

Yeah, that was never my argument. My argument is that Blizzard chose to make their Necromancer concept the DK class. The fact that there is a vocal group of people who don't agree with that decision is rather irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

Just as much as you are trying to make a case they are too similar and would be even more similar if they were melee, theres more than enough to build an entirely new identity such as how Monks were presented with Mistweaving and Windwalking.

Heck, most people who are talking about Necromancers are even expecting a Heal spec out of it, which makes sense since Necromancers are support casters in the RTS and usually mirror the Priestly healer units.

Yes, using the same thematics as the Death Knight tanking spec; Using Blood magic to heal.

I think you are misunderstanding.

There is no need for Blizzard to appease any group. They get final say on any decision. This is why we don't have a new class this expansion.

Again you're confusing what Blizzard the company wants and what a group of vocal fans want. It's not the same thing. Blizzard the company makes new expansions because they want to further the franchise. Blizzard more than likely is not going to create another WoW necromancer class because a group of people don't like Death Knights.

The point I make is in direct response to you claiming that there is no reason for a Necromancer class. I am presenting a very significant reason - popular demand. This is the sole reason the Demon Hunter is playable today despite all the reasons you used previously to dismiss it.

Blizzard didn't have to make a Demon Hunter playable at all. They chose to.

So what reason would they have to make a class that has very limited unique mechanics, only 2 specs worth of gameplay, that has very simplified mechanics, that is exclusive to 2 races, wears leather yet again, and takes away gameplay from other classes?

To please fan demand. To sell more copies of the game. Period.

It wasn't popular demand that got the Demon Hunter in the game. Blizzard themselves stated that they planned to release the DH class in TBC, but they weren't able to. Thus they waited until Legion to reintroduce the class. It really had nothing to do with popular demand, and everything to do with Blizzard wanting the class in the game.

I mean look at Shadowlands; Why is there no new Necromancer class if there's such a huge public demand? This very expansion disproves your entire argument.

[Triceron]

Yes, using the same thematics as the Death Knight tanking spec; Using Blood magic to heal.

Or unholy magic, which is what the RTS games used for support. Like you said, there's plenty of RPG and Warcraft lore material to source through that isn't bound by 'Blood magic to heal'. Even the Fungal experiments in Naxxramas created a lifeform that had incredible regenerative properties.

You're only focused on Blood magic to heal 'just like DK's as a means to dismiss the possibility of a Necromancer class, which is an invalid argument. There's no point in making that assumption that Blood Magic would be the only Necromantic way to heal others. We have plenty of Unholy and Alchemical sources of healing in the game.

Again you're confusing what Blizzard the company wants and what a group of vocal fans want. It's not the same thing. Blizzard the company makes new expansions because they want to further the franchise. Blizzard more than likely is not going to create another WoW necromancer class because a group of people don't like Death Knights.

Again, you're confusing the argument by applying it to the Death Knight. Necromancer class would be fueled by fan demand, not appeasing a dislike for Death Knights. It's that simple.

Even if it were added as a Class skin of the Warlock, this would be appeasing Necromancer demand. It has nothing to do with a Death Knight. I am absolutely clear on addressing the fan demand, not your absurd twisted reality that Necromancy is mutually exclusive to DK's and it's a 'take it or leave it' situation. You already tried this with the Warlock and failed miserably.

It wasn't popular demand that got the Demon Hunter in the game. Blizzard themselves stated that they planned to release the DH class in TBC, but they weren't able to.

Didn't really stop you from making arguments that Warlocks took all the room and making baseless claims that there was too much overlap for a DH to be released, did it?

Necromancer was planned since Vanilla as well. And just because elements of its gameplay got used by the Death Knight doesn't mean the class concept is gone - this EXACT thing happened with the Demon Hunter having its gameplay elements used by the Warlock.

To be honest, the gameplay of Melee and Ranged Caster are so different that I don't see there being any need to remove any DK summon abilities in order to have a Necromancer class. The Warlock already exists and shows that there's room for multiple Summoner types in the game.

We don't have a Summoner class that can be a Healer. We don't have a Spellcaster class that masters in Poisons and Alchemy. We don't have Scourge representation for Spiders. There's plenty of material that is left untapped to play with. And none of this has to do with infringing on DK's or Warlocks, considering they can absolutely bridge in these concepts as well without it impacting any other class. We already have DK's with Frost spells and Mages using Necromantic abilities in the game, I honestly don't see you bitching a storm about this.

[Teriz]

Or unholy magic, which is what the RTS games used for support. Like you said, there's plenty of RPG and Warcraft lore material to source through that isn't bound by 'Blood magic to heal'. Even the Fungal experiments in Naxxramas created a lifeform that had incredible regenerative properties.

You're only focused on Blood magic to heal 'just like DK's as a means to dismiss the possibility of a Necromancer class, which is an invalid argument. There's no point in making that assumption that Blood Magic would be the only Necromantic way to heal others. We have plenty of Unholy and Alchemical sources of healing in the game.

Where in that description of the Necromancer from Blizzard's ultimate guide was "fungal experiments" or"Alchemy" mentioned in any capacity? That isn't a Warcraft necromancer.

Again, you're confusing the argument by applying it to the Death Knight. Necromancer class would be fueled by fan demand, not appeasing a dislike for Death Knights. It's that simple.

Where do you think this "demand" is coming from? It's coming from "fans" who don't like the Death Knight for whatever reason, simple as that.

Even if it were added as a Class skin of the Warlock, this would be appeasing Necromancer demand. It has nothing to do with a Death Knight. I am absolutely clear on addressing the fan demand, not your absurd twisted reality that Necromancy is mutually exclusive to DK's and it's a 'take it or leave it' situation. You already tried this with the Warlock and failed miserably.

Except Necromancer fans don't want a class skin, they want a separate class completely. They have stated this many times, even going so far as pretending that a Necromancer class that pretty does exactly the same thing as a DK class wouldn't impede on Death Knight players, which is nonsense.

Also necromancy isn't exclusive to Death Knights. There are necromancy abilities in the Warlock class as well.

Didn't really stop you from making arguments that Warlocks took all the room and making baseless claims that there was too much overlap for a DH to be released, did it?

While Warlocks had metamorphosis and it's associated abilities it wasn't baseless, especially considering it had to be removed in order for Demon Hunters to become a WoW class.

Necromancer was planned since Vanilla as well. And just because elements of its gameplay got used by the Death Knight doesn't mean the class concept is gone - this EXACT thing happened with the Demon Hunter having its gameplay elements used by the Warlock.

To be honest, the gameplay of Melee and Ranged Caster are so different that I don't see there being any need to remove any DK summon abilities in order to have a Necromancer class. The Warlock already exists and shows that there's room for multiple Summoner types in the game. Necromancers can simply rely on different mechanics of summoning, such as an Auto-chess style of minion generation and manipulation.

Except the gameplay isn't all that different. When I play an Unholy DK and pull with Clawed Shadows or Epidemic, the mob charges into melee range and attempts to attack me. The exact same thing happens when I'm playing as a mage, or as a Warlock. The only difference is that as a DK I can smash them with a sword and hit them with instant cast spells while my pet is gnawing on them. In groups I can alternate between melee and range at will, especially as Unholy, which probably explains why its top DPS right now.

Interesting that the necromancer spec is the best in the game right now isn't it?

I also disagree that there's multiple ways to summon. Given how much Blizzard has struggled balancing the Demonology spec since Legion, the idea that they could simply make ANOTHER caster summoning spec as if it was easy is laughable.

[Triceron]

Where in that description of the Necromancer from Blizzard's ultimate guide was "fungal experiments" or"Alchemy" mentioned in any capacity? That isn't a Warcraft necromancer.

Er....

What? Why are you talking about the Ultimate Guide which is already proven to have inconsistencies, mistakes, and has information that has been retconned by WoW itself?

https://wow.gamepedia.com/World_of_W...e_Visual_Guide

All of the information I've provided is from the latest canonical source you can find - the game itself.

Where do you think this "demand" is coming from? It's coming from "fans" who don't like the Death Knight for whatever reason, simple as that.

LOL

I mean if that's the case, then all Tinker fans are people who hate Necromancers and don't want them possibly being added in the game because it infringes on their own personal wants for a Tinker class. Sound about right to you?

Tinkers and Necromancers are both in demand because fans want to see these made into classes. Any hatred over another class concept is as pointless to debate as people who have hatred over Pandaren and Gnomes. Do you think that the Gnome hatred contributes to the lack of a Tinker class? I don't think Blizzard considers this a factor at all. There's plenty of other legitimate reasons to not have a Tinker class. Fans hating Gnomes isn't one of them.

Also necromancy isn't exclusive to Death Knights. There are necromancy abilities in the Warlock class as well.

And it is also available to Necromancers, as well as every class in the game in Shadowlands.

Death Knights need not worry.

Except the gameplay isn't all that different. When I play an Unholy DK and pull with Clawed Shadows or Epidemic, the mob charges into melee range and attempts to attack me. The exact same thing happens when I'm playing as a mage, or as a Warlock.

Not if you have a tanking pet. Seems like you've never played a Warlock before.

I also disagree that there's multiple ways to summon.

So you disagree that DK and Warlock both have an ability to summon? Odd.

[Nightmare Queen]

You're right, the Necromancer doesn't need to be... A Death Knight. Your argument throughout is that it would inly be a Death Knight, when your explanation here makes it clear that a Necromancer can have different themes and mechanics derived from other games and sources.

You mean how they lost all these necromantic abilities in order for Covenants to provide necromantic abilities for all classes? Oh wait, they were able to make completely new necromantic abilities that didn't infringe on DK gameplay, go figure!

Your argument amounts to DKs play like Warlocks since you are comparing the Necromancer directly to both classes. Your argument would imply that DKs having minions directly takes away from the Warlocks unique Summoner theme. Your argument implies Warlocks can be DKs because they both use Necromancy.

Blizzard can make a Necromancer class work, and stuff like that is proof that they can. Even if they have to totally make one up from scratch

[Teriz]

Er....

What? Why are you talking about the Ultimate Guide which is already proven to have inconsistencies, mistakes, and has information that has been retconned by WoW itself?

https://wow.gamepedia.com/World_of_W...e_Visual_Guide

And that doesn't make it any less official.

All of the information I've provided is from the latest canonical source you can find - the game itself.

Which also has consistency issues. BTW, while the ultimate guide isn't perfect, none of the consistency issues involves the Necromancer.

LOL

I mean if that's the case, then all Tinker fans are people who hate Necromancers and don't want them possibly being added in the game because it infringes on their own personal wants for a Tinker class. Sound about right to you?

Nope, since the Tinker has nothing to do with Necromancers. Tinker fans want a technology-based class. Necromancer fans want to ignore the existing necromancer class. Which once again begs the question; Why would anyone think that Blizzard would cater to their desires?

Tinkers and Necromancers are both in demand because fans want to see these made into classes. Any hatred over another class concept is as pointless to debate as people who have hatred over Pandaren and Gnomes. Do you think that the Gnome hatred contributes to the lack of a Tinker class? I don't think Blizzard considers this a factor at all. There's plenty of other legitimate reasons to not have a Tinker class. Fans hating Gnomes isn't one of them.

And once again, there's already a Necromancer class using the Necromancer's WC3 abilities in WoW. There is no technology class in WoW using the Tinker hero's abilities. Necromancer fans want a necromancer because Blizzard's necromancer class doesn't measure up to their standards, while Tinker fans want a WoW technology class.

The two examples are not remotely driven by the same thing.

And it is also available to Necromancers, as well as every class in the game in Shadowlands.

Death Knights need not worry.

There's a difference between every class getting a necromancer ability as an expansion feature, and another dedicated Necromancer class.

Not if you have a tanking pet. Seems like you've never played a Warlock before.

You do know that not every Warlock pet tanks right?

So you disagree that DK and Warlock both have an ability to summon? Odd.

DK is melee based, Warlock is ranged base. You're advocating for another ranged summoner, which Blizzard has experienced balance struggles with via demonology.

Which begs another question; Why do we need another undead summoner spec?

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard can make a Necromancer class work, and stuff like that is proof that they can. Even if they have to totally make one up from scratch

How does Blizzard make a Necromancer class work without effecting the Death Knight or Warlock classes?

And please don't say it wouldn't, because that would be a blatantly false statement.

[Ielenia]

It isn't about being satisfied, it's about recognizing that there is a Necromancer class in the game and another class that is extremely close to the concept. The fact that there are people out there not satisfied with WoW's version of the necromancer doesn't change that fact.

And yet... paladins and priests exist.

The difference being that there is nothing that a Necromancer can do that a Death Knight couldn't do ability wise. Demon Hunters will never get summonable minions and Paladins will never get a shadow spec.

And there is nothing paladins can do that paladins can't. Not to mention that this argument of yours becomes invalid when you point out that there other things that necromancers could do that death knights cannot, like using poison magic.

In all truth there really is no difference. Disease performs exactly the same function that poison would.

This argument is nonsensical. Magic dots perform the exact same as a curse dot. And yet we have fire mages and affliction warlocks.

In terms of Warlocks, their various DoT abilities also function exactly like Poison DoTs would.

Again: this argument is nonsensical. The Shadow priest dots function exactly like the warlock's dots do. And yet both exist.

In short, Poison as a concept would add no new gameplay mechanics to the class,

Because you're thinking in terms of the most simplistic type of gameplay: "this is a dot", "this is direct damage", etc, and fail to see that it's not the abilities themselves that give unique gameplay to a class, but the interactions between the abilities and the passives of a given class. Which is why both Shadow priests and Affliction warlocks can be heavy shadow-dot-based specs: because their abilities interact in different ways. That is why we can have frost DKs and frost mages: because their abilities interact in different ways. That is why we can have affliction warlocks and fire mages: because their abilities interact in different ways.

and in all honest would play exactly like a Warlock currently plays.

You? Honest? That's a laugh. Especially since you're making an assertion of fact that you have no way of knowing because the necromancer class does not exist yet.

And we got the class fantasy in 2008.

The class is also a light-armored spellcaster, not a heavy-armored melee character. So, no, we haven't gotten the class fantasy we want, yet.

- - - Updated - - -

According to that description, Death Knights and Necromancers are one and the same.

No. They are not the same. Being similar does not mean "the same".

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because the WoW class system is fundamentally different than WC3 units. In addition, Necromancers exist alongside DKs in lore, but they can’t coexist within the class system due to significant overlap.

This is demonstrably false in so many levels, and demonstrated as such, many times over too, in fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the gameplay isn't all that different. When I play an Unholy DK and pull with Clawed Shadows or Epidemic, the mob charges into melee range and attempts to attack me. The exact same thing happens when I'm playing as a mage, or as a Warlock. The only difference is that as a DK I can smash them with a sword and hit them with instant cast spells while my pet is gnawing on them.

Where as as a mage or warlock or necromancer, you would instead move away from the mob, usually by rooting it, slowing it, or fearing it.

Interesting that the necromancer spec is the best in the game right now isn't it?

You mean the death knight's unholy spec. And it's because the majority of the damage is done by the pets, that can stay attacking the target when the death knight has to move away from the boss.

I also disagree that there's multiple ways to summon. Given how much Blizzard has struggled balancing the Demonology spec since Legion, the idea that they could simply make ANOTHER caster summoning spec as if it was easy is laughable.

We have the warlock, the hunter and the death knight. Do you honestly think it'd be such a insurmountable undertaking to bring forth a fourth summoner class? I mean, I have one lined up in my sig that plays differently than what we got.

- - - Updated - - -

How does Blizzard make a Necromancer class work without effecting the Death Knight or Warlock classes?

Check my concept and you'll find out how. It's not hard, really.

And please don't say it wouldn't, because that would be a blatantly false statement.

Why? Only you can make blatantly false statements? And on top of that, your statement, right there, is "blatantly false". Demonstrably so.

[Teriz]

And yet... paladins and priests exist.


And there is nothing paladins can do that paladins can't. Not to mention that this argument of yours becomes invalid when you point out that there other things that necromancers could do that death knights cannot, like using poison magic.

Shadow magic, which Priests have an entire spec dedicated to, and Paladins will never have beyond an a feature in a Necromancer-based expansion that mysteriously is absent of a new Necromancer class.

In the end, according to Blizzard, Necromancers don’t use poison magic, and there’s no new Necromancer class in shadowlands because DKs cover the concept completely. This is also why Blizzard expanded the DK concept in Shadowlands instead. Every class got a Necromancer ability, DK got more Necromancer concepts, and we’re steeped in the history of death magic and Necromancy in WoW, yet there’s no new Necromancer class....

Due to these facts, there’s no reason to continue this discussion.

[arkanon]

Due to these facts, there’s no reason to continue this discussion.

Does that go for Tinker as well? Are you ending your discussion on that subject? Or just the ones you dont like? You just stamp your feet and say "not talking about this anymore, please get back to making this all about me"

Seems kind of strange.

[Teriz]

Does that go for Tinker as well? Are you ending your discussion on that subject? Or just the ones you dont like? You just stamp your feet and say "not talking about this anymore, please get back to making this all about me"

Seems kind of strange.

There’s no technology class in the game using the Tinker’s abilities from WC3 and/or HotS, and there’s no statement from Blizzard saying they took the ideas of the Tinker and placed them in class X, so no.

[arkanon]

There’s no technology class in the game using the Tinker’s abilities from WC3 and/or HotS, so no.

Due to Blizzard never even once hinting they have even given a seconds thought to a Tinker class, unfortunately, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Sorry mate, I'm confident you will find something else to obsess over, but this is now at an end.

[Teriz]

Due to Blizzard never even once hinting they have even given a seconds thought to a Tinker class, unfortunately, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Sorry mate, I'm confident you will find something else to obsess over, but this is now at an end.

The Island Expedition team and the Goblin and Gnome characters on Exiles Reach would be examples of such hints.

[Triceron]

And that doesn't make it any less official.

You're right. It just makes it irrelevant.

Nope, since the Tinker has nothing to do with Necromancers. Tinker fans want a technology-based class. Necromancer fans want to ignore the existing necromancer class. Which once again begs the question; Why would anyone think that Blizzard would cater to their desires?

Necromancers have nothing to do with Death Knights. That's the bottom line.

To cater to a Necromancer class demand is to cater to Necromancer fans. That you're equating it to Death Knights is purely conjecture, since it's absolutely clear that they are not the same concepts at all.

You're trying to prove something that is absolutely clearly invalidated by Blizzard themselves. Death Knights aren't the Necromancer class.

And once again, there's already a Necromancer class using the Necromancer's WC3 abilities in WoW.

Nope, there isn't. If there was a Necromancer class, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There's a difference between every class getting a necromancer ability as an expansion feature, and another dedicated Necromancer class.

Yes, and the point I make is that these arguments are overall irrelevant to the dedicated Necromancer class. They're not actually about a Necromancer class, they're all about Covenants or Death Knights. None of these things are mutually exclusive to Necromancy and what it a Necromancer class would represent.

You do know that not every Warlock pet tanks right?

And not every Warlock has summons. And not every Death Knight has summons.

I'll give you one guess where Necromancers can be different.

DK is melee based, Warlock is ranged base. You're advocating for another ranged summoner, which Blizzard has experienced balance struggles with via demonology.

Which begs another question; Why do we need another undead summoner spec?

Why do we need any new class?

To appease the demand for it.

The question all comes down to whether or not Blizzard deems that demand sufficient. There is no question as to whether or not it is legitimate, we already know it is considering they actively planned to create a Necromancer class in the game at one point in time. We are not privvy to their industry secrets to know if they would plan one again in the future, in one form or another. The Death Knight is clearly one aspect of the Necromancer, but we know it is not the Necromancer in the same way we knew the Warlock had everything unique about a Demon Hunter, yet ended up not representing the Demon Hunter whatsoever in the end.

Look at the Demon Hunter class today. Would you honestly say that this entire class is nothing more than a Warlock spec? Would you go into the Demon Hunter subforums today and say their class is completely irrelevant because they could have been playing Warlocks instead? There's a place for the Demon Hunter class in the game, it's that simple.

If any of the arguments that you presented here and now actually applied, then we would never have been able to get the Demon Hunter class. Your arguments are invalid because a Demon Hunter class exists despite the same arguments you are using right now.