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

[Triceron]

I never implied Blizzard would copy the concept of the FF dragoon or Dragonknight from ESO, my point is that "Dragon-Knight" is a concept that transcends any particular piece of media and has been interpreted differently in multiple ways, at it's base level it's "fights using draconic or dragon-evoking abilities " Those games and settings have different takes on what a dragon-class would be in relation to it's setting, Dragoon's are dragon hunter's who's fighting style is meant to counter dragons, Dragonknights use the setting's asia equivalent (akavir) ancient martials art, both are different takes on the same concept (Dragon-Knight), Warcraft's take would be no different since these tropes naturally have to recontextualized to fit their specific settings in Warcraft's case the "Dragon-Knight" concept could be recontextualized to be a Mortal sworn into the service of the Dragonflights or it could also be a Dragon who takes a mortal form.

I think this is a pretty strong archetype as well. The Dragon Knight in DOTA2 is very iconic, and practically in similar vein of how Warcraft heroes were designed if we consider the DOTA Allstars version would have fit in perfectly as a Warcraft 3 Hero. A mortal knight that has martial abilities themed on Draconic abilities and an ultimate ability to turn into a Dragon; that's practically the same fantasy as what we'd expect from a Dragonsworn class.



I'd personally prefer them to be able to use 2H Polearms in one hand and a shield in the other, like a Lancer or a Dragoon. Those are the type of fantasy 'Dragon Knight' concepts I like the most.

[Imperator4321]

I think this is a pretty strong archetype as well. The Dragon Knight in DOTA2 is very iconic, and practically in similar vein of how Warcraft heroes were designed if we consider the DOTA Allstars version would have fit in perfectly as a Warcraft 3 Hero. A mortal knight that has martial abilities themed on Draconic abilities and an ultimate ability to turn into a Dragon; that's practically the same fantasy as what we'd expect from a Dragonsworn class.



I'd personally prefer them to be able to use 2H Polearms in one hand and a shield in the other, like a Lancer or a Dragoon. Those are the type of fantasy 'Dragon Knight' concepts I like the most.

I'm not a huge fan of the archetype (guess i just don't like dragons enough for it to really wow me) but i think a WoW Dragonsworn works as a reinterpretation of it most "Dragon-Knights" (as in evokes the image of or uses the abilities of dragons) i see in fiction tend to be either:

1. Dragon Hunters who steal or gain their power (i.e Dragoon, DOTA Dragon Knight, Divinity II Dragon Slayer/Knight)
2. Uses abilities that evoke dragons or dragon-like powers without any other relation (i.e ESO Dragonknights, Dragoons again depending on the final fantasy game)
3. Dragon Riders (i.e Dragon riders from the inheritance cycle, Targaryans from A Song of Ice and Fire)

Only example i can think of "gains power from alliegance/pact with dragons" would be the various dragon covenants from the Dark Souls games and i guess the Dragon Cult/Draugr from the Elder Scrolls.

[Teriz]

That doesn't sound like a reason considering Paladins in Warcraft 3, and by extension in Vanilla were heavily influenced by the Diablo 2 Paladin, the master of Auras. The Paladin class had the widest selection of auras by far compared to any other class, which may have had only one or two. This of course changed over time, but the connection to Diablo character influence was pretty clear.

That really has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The person I was quoting was asking me why I don't consider the Diablo character in HotS to be similar to the dragon-based Warcraft characters in terms of being playable examples of a concept. There's a host of reasons why that is the case, and Xul being a diablo character is one of them. Besides, there's already a melee Necromancer in WoW.

Why would a Warlock infringe on a new spellcaster class that uses Necromancy and Poisons? Warlocks use Fel Magic while Necromancers do not.

Because Warlocks utilize a wide variety of Necromancer abilities like life drains, afflictions and curses. While Necromancers don't do fel, they do Shadow magic, and Warlocks have an entire spec dedicated to Shadow magic that would be infringed upon by a Necromancer class. Remove Destruction and change the demonic summons into undead summons, and you have a Necromancer.

[Imperator4321]

That really has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The person I was quoting was asking me why I don't consider the Diablo character in HotS to be similar to the dragon-based Warcraft characters in terms of being playable examples of a concept. There's a host of reasons why that is the case, and Xul being a diablo character is one of them. Besides, there's already a melee Necromancer in WoW.

My point wasn't that Xul is a blueprint for a Necromancer class my point was that if something needs to in "playable form in any of Blizzard's video games" the fact that Xul and the Diablo 2/3 Necromancers use poison abilities is a playable form of a poison-using necromancers and is therefore fair game for the concept being translated into WoW.

Because Warlocks utilize a wide variety of Necromancer abilities like life drains, afflictions and curses. While Necromancers don't do fel, they do Shadow magic, and Warlocks have an entire spec dedicated to Shadow magic that would be infringed upon by a Necromancer class. Remove Destruction and change the demonic summons into undead summons, and you have a Necromancer.

And Holy Paladins and Holy Priests are holy light-using healers they are differentiated by Fantasy (Paladin vs Priest/Cleric) and Gameplay (Frontline healer vs Generalist Healer) along with the differences in their respective base classes (mind powers, melee abilities, blessings, dispels, ect). Both Shadow Priests and Affliction Warlocks are shadow-based spellcasters who use damage over time effects they are different in themes, fantasy and gameplay enough to be seperate.

Necromancers and Warlocks despite similarities (dark magic spellcasters) are different in themes and fantasy (undeath vs demonic, hellfire vs poison/bone, shadow/fel magic vs death magic)

[Teriz]

Mortals being in the service of or gaining power from Dragon isn't new in Warcraft, the RPG had the Dragonsworn, Drakonid's are former mortals empowered by the dragonflights and lore can always been changed or altered.

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

A dragon-class doesn't literally have to be a dragon to have those characters represent them, Arthas is on a entirely different level of power from a standard Death Knight (being the Lich King who can control the entire scourge), Illidan is on a entirely different level of power from a standard demon hunter (permanently being a demon), I don't see why Wrathion, Alexstraza, Chromie, Ysera, ect can't represent a mortal dragonsworn-esque class since as actual dragons they represent an entirely much higher level of power than for instance a Mortal who say can only temporary manifest draconic abilities/traits, and lore can always be changed or new things introduced to allow for things such as mortals being aligned with multiple dragonflights, mortals taking on dragon forms, ect.

Again they certainly could, but why would they when there is the option to allow the player to play an actual dragon akin to those characters? Of course you wouldn't be as powerful as they are, but you would be the same type of creature.

The ironic thing about your argument is that you're asking for something that is the exact same thing as I'm requesting only with a lore difference. You want a Human character who can breathe fire out of his mouth, transform his hand into a dragon paw and swipe someone, or sprout wings out of his back and fly around. I'm asking for a dragon character who can disguise themselves as a human and transform into a dragon to perform the dragon characteristics. Mechanically it's quite similar, but the difference is that Blizzard actually created a playable version of what I'm requesting and has never produced a playable version of what you're requesting.

Dragons passing on their power to mortals is also much more fitting with the story and lore that we've been presented so far, cataclysm expansion literally ends with Alexstrasza saying that the Dragon aspects have fulfilled their "great purpose" to Azeroth and that Mortals are Azeroth's guardians now ("age of mortals"), a class whose entire thing is "you are literally a dragon" would conflict with that, BFA even continued this by having the aspects empower the heart of azeoth, and by extension mortals with power instead of using it themselves, if we get a Dragon Isle expansion wouldn't a Hero Class who are mortals empowered by the combined flights make more sense with the Dragon aspects story as it's been so far than a Dragon taking on a mortal guise? (of course this fading of the dragonflights could also be reversed as a story beat which could lead to the "dragon in guise of mortal" angle working

No, because we actually have multiple characters who are dragons who take on a mortal disguise. It's something that we've seen quite often. Wrathion, Kalecgos, Rhea, etc. Can you point to an existing lore character in WoW that embodies the class concept you're talking about?

Pandaren culture and history is mostly just references to chinese culture and history with the serial numbers filed off, they have a great wall to keep out invaders, Lei Shen is based on Qin Shi Huang, their martial arts & philosophy are based on real world martial arts/philosophy like tai-chi, zuì quán, Heihuquan, being panda people is obviously reference to the panda being china's national animal, their names and language are also obviously inspired by china, the Pandaren Brewmaster is a blatant take on the Drunken Boxer (even his use of a quarterstaff and actually being drunk is a thing in chinese literature related to fictional drunken boxer's like Wu Song), the August Celestials are literally the four cardinal guardians with a few minor changes (black tortoise swaped for black ox, azure dragon swapped for jade dragon)

You're saying that they filted a common fantasy class who's style is already inspired by Kung Fu tropes and East Asian martial arts (and has been like that since Advanced Dungeons and Dragons added them in the 70's) by filtering it through a fictional race who are also mostly inspired by chinese culture? and are literally anthropomorphic pandas who are China's national animal, the Monk class is not an original take on a Monk class, it's pretty stock at it's core.

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.

That's the point, they took a premise and expanded it, regardless of what was previously there or if it fit the original concept such as turning a Drunken Boxer into a general martial arts class, or a Anti-Paladin into a general "dark knight" class

No, they took the premise and put a Blizzard spin on it as well as expanded it. Again every WoW class has a very distinct Blizzard flavor, especially the expansion classes. This is why you had a Bard concept on the forum that everyone thought looked nice but didn't fit the game. This is because Blizzard only introduces a class that has significant presence in the WoW universe. The problem with your dragon knight concept is that it has even less of a presence than the Monk class did before its implementation in MoP (because it's nonexistent in WoW or Warcraft games in general).

I never implied Blizzard would copy the concept of the FF dragoon or Dragonknight from ESO, my point is that "Dragon-Knight" is a concept that transcends any particular piece of media and has been interpreted differently in multiple ways, at it's base level it's "fights using draconic or dragon-evoking abilities " Those games and settings have different takes on what a dragon-class would be in relation to it's setting, Dragoon's are dragon hunter's who's fighting style is meant to counter dragons, Dragonknights use the setting's asia equivalent (akavir) ancient martials art, both are different takes on the same concept (Dragon-Knight), Warcraft's take would be no different since these tropes naturally have to recontextualized to fit their specific settings in Warcraft's case the "Dragon-Knight" concept could be recontextualized to be a Mortal sworn into the service of the Dragonflights or it could also be a Dragon who takes a mortal form.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

My point wasn't that Xul is a blueprint for a Necromancer class my point was that if something needs to in "playable form in any of Blizzard's video games" the fact that Xul and the Diablo 2/3 Necromancers use poison abilities is a playable form of a poison-using necromancers and is therefore fair game for the concept being translated into WoW.

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

And Holy Paladins and Holy Priests are holy light-using healers they are differentiated by Fantasy (Paladin vs Priest/Cleric) and Gameplay (Frontline healer vs Generalist Healer) along with the differences in their respective base classes (mind powers, melee abilities, blessings, dispels, ect). Both Shadow Priests and Affliction Warlocks are shadow-based spellcasters who use damage over time effects they are different in themes, fantasy and gameplay enough to be seperate.

Necromancers and Warlocks despite similarities (dark magic spellcasters) are different in themes and fantasy (undeath vs demonic, hellfire vs poison/bone, shadow/fel magic vs death magic)

And Shadow Priests utilize abilities taken from Old Gods while Warlocks utilize abilities taken from Demons. The problem is that when Blizzard designed the Warlock class they purposely incorporated concepts from traditional necromancers like curses and life drain in order to create a full Warlock class.

In all seriousness if you ignore the Destruction spec and simply replaced demons with undead minions in the Affliction and Demonology spec, what would be the difference between a Warlock and a Necromancer? What key Necromancer abilities would the Warlock class be missing?

[Froggy]

I've always wanted Bard but I doubt it will happen

[Triceron]

That really has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The person I was quoting was asking me why I don't consider the Diablo character in HotS to be similar to the dragon-based Warcraft characters in terms of being playable examples of a concept. There's a host of reasons why that is the case, and Xul being a diablo character is one of them. Besides, there's already a melee Necromancer in WoW.

If that's what you were interpretting, then I'd say you should probably read again, otherwise I believe you're the one who is making points that have nothing with what was being discussed.

Xul was brought up as an example of an archetype of a Necromancer that uses Bone and Poison abilities, an archetype that would fit in expanding the Warcraft Necromancer's identity. This would fit considering we have those Poison and Bone connections through Naxxramas and Scholomance, through the use of alchemical Plagues, through magical means of spreading Poisons, through creatures that are imbued with the effects of Blight, through creating magical and alchemical waves of poisonous Plague to splash on their opponents. The mechanics may not be exactly the same, but the archetype and themes are.

None of this has anything to do with a Necromancer being melee, considering the example was directly associated to the use of Poisons, not for the use of melee combat. Melee has nothing to do with what you should be discussing.

Because Warlocks utilize a wide variety of Necromancer abilities like life drains, afflictions and curses. While Necromancers don't do fel, they do Shadow magic

Necromancers don't do fel, that's the only thing that matters. Fel magic is not a part of their identity. This doesn't impact the Warlock whatsoever considering the Warlock has full mastery over all things related to summoning demons.

Asserting that you could change one class to another is irrelevant. You aren't even addressing the idea of Necromancers using Poisons in this argument, you're jumping straight to a completely separate concept of turning one class into another. Class Skins are a different discussion, and definitely not what Imperator was talking about.

A Necromancer that is themed on using shadow-based Necromancy and Poisons would be absolutely thematic to Warcraft, and some of the abilities could easily be influenced by other Blizzard games like Diablo and HOTS' Necromancers. None of these abilities operate the way Warlocks do.


Aside from this, we already have examples of Necromancer NPCs who command the use of poison abilities.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Krick_and_Ick

The diminutive necromancer Krick oversees the workers in the Pit of Saron. From atop the ghastly Ick, he can safely throw poison, explosives and dark magic at his enemies. From this vantage point, he has also learned dark secrets of Icecrown Citadel that could topple the Lich King.

Poison Nova — Krick orders Ick to unleash a poison nova, inflicting 15600 Nature damage and an additional 13650 Nature damage over 21 sec. to all players within 15 yards.

[TheRevenantHero]

That really has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The person I was quoting was asking me why I don't consider the Diablo character in HotS to be similar to the dragon-based Warcraft characters in terms of being playable examples of a concept. There's a host of reasons why that is the case, and Xul being a diablo character is one of them. Besides, there's already a melee Necromancer in WoW.



Because Warlocks utilize a wide variety of Necromancer abilities like life drains, afflictions and curses. While Necromancers don't do fel, they do Shadow magic, and Warlocks have an entire spec dedicated to Shadow magic that would be infringed upon by a Necromancer class. Remove Destruction and change the demonic summons into undead summons, and you have a Necromancer.

Necromancers EXCLUSIVELY use death magic. They don't touch the Void at all and therefore don't use shadow magic.

[Teriz]

If that's what you were interpretting, then I'd say you should probably read again, otherwise I believe you're the one who is making points that have nothing with what was being discussed.

Xul was brought up as an example of an archetype of a Necromancer that uses Bone and Poison abilities, an archetype that would fit in expanding the Warcraft Necromancer's identity. This would fit considering we have those Poison and Bone connections through Naxxramas and Scholomance, through the use of alchemical Plagues, through magical means of spreading Poisons, through creatures that are imbued with the effects of Blight, through creating magical and alchemical waves of poisonous Plague to splash on their opponents. The mechanics may not be exactly the same, but the archetype and themes are.

None of this has anything to do with a Necromancer being melee, considering the example was directly associated to the use of Poisons, not for the use of melee combat. Melee has nothing to do with what you should be discussing.

Naxxramas and Scholomance is scourge. We have a class based on the scourge and that is Death Knights. DKs don't do poisons because they do disease which serves the same function and purpose.

Why would Blizzard create an entirely new class just because of poisons?

Necromancers don't do fel, that's the only thing that matters. Fel magic is not a part of their identity. This doesn't impact the Warlock whatsoever considering the Warlock has full mastery over all things related to summoning demons.

Affliction Warlocks don't do fel either. They're masters of shadow magic.

Asserting that you could change one class to another is irrelevant. You aren't even addressing the idea of Necromancers using Poisons in this argument, you're jumping straight to a completely separate concept of turning one class into another. Class Skins are a different discussion, and definitely not what Imperator was talking about.

A Necromancer that is themed on using shadow-based Necromancy and Poisons would be absolutely thematic to Warcraft, and some of the abilities could easily be influenced by other Blizzard games like Diablo and HOTS' Necromancers. None of these abilities operate the way Warlocks do.

Again, why would Blizzard create an entirely new class just because of a lack of poisons? Especially when the main purpose of having a Necromancer is to have a class that does dark magic and raises the undead which is frankly what the DK class does. Your argument literally makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Necromancers EXCLUSIVELY use death magic. They don't touch the Void at all and therefore don't use shadow magic.

Gameplay wise they're all the same thing.

[Triceron]

Again, why would Blizzard create an entirely new class just because of a lack of poisons? Especially when the main purpose of having a Necromancer is to have a class that does dark magic and raises the undead which is frankly what the DK class does. Your argument literally makes no sense.

Supply and demand.

Do you not recognize that fans legitimately ask for a Necromancer class?

Again, we're not talking about whether it'd likely happen or whether there's even a sensible place for Necromancers. We're talking about what makes sense, and the main purpose of a Necromancer class is to fulfill a Necromancer class fantasy which players are asking for. Poisons and Necromancy is all within that theme that fans recognize. Death Knights and Warlocks have never fulfilled or replaced that demand, and this needs to be acknowledged considering the same niche arguments were used against Demon Hunters and we know clearly that being a niche concept does not get in the way of them becoming a new playable class.

The argument I present makes perfect sense. Where is your confusion?

[The Council]

people do not think poison when it comes to necromancer they think plague, spreading death, and summoning hordes of undead minions.

[Teriz]

Supply and demand.

Do you not recognize that fans legitimately ask for a Necromancer class?

I do, and I also recognize that a Necromancer fan has the option to play a Death Knight or a Warlock.

Again, we're not talking about whether it'd likely happen or whether there's even a sensible place for Necromancers. We're talking about what makes sense, and the main purpose of a Necromancer class is to fulfill a Necromancer class fantasy which players are asking for. Poisons and Necromancy is all within that theme that fans recognize. Death Knights and Warlocks have never fulfilled or replaced that demand, and this needs to be acknowledged considering the same niche arguments were used against Demon Hunters and we know clearly that being a niche concept does not get in the way of them becoming a new playable class.

In what way does a Death Knight or a Warlock not satisfy a player's fantasy of poison or Necromancy? Warlocks and DKs both have abilities that deal damage over time, both summon various dark minions, and both utilize shadow magic. You're seriously going to argue that someone is clamoring for a Necromancer class because a DoT is ticking shadow damage instead of nature damage, or because a Death Knight is fighting in melee range instead of from 40 yards away?

And if someone has an issue with fighting in melee range, you're telling me that they have to have a skeleton protecting them instead of a demon?

Laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

people do not think poison when it comes to necromancer they think plague, spreading death, and summoning hordes of undead minions.

Exactly. In fact the entire poison theme of the scourge was based on creating an artificial plague and spreading that plague. Death Knights did one better and had magic-based diseases instead.

[Bwonsamdi the Dead]

Not ever person wants to play a DEAD character who was once raised to be a puppet for the Lich King. Nor do they want to play a death magic user that is basically an anti Paladin. As for Necromancers summoning hordes of undead, I say make them temporary like how the Necromancer class in ESO has them

[The Council]

Not ever person wants to play a DEAD character who was once raised to be a puppet for the Lich King. Nor do they want to play a death magic user that is basically an anti Paladin. As for Necromancers summoning hordes of undead, I say make them temporary like how the Necromancer class in ESO has them

demonology warlock.

army of the undead for death knights.

massively overlap there.

[Teriz]

Not ever person wants to play a DEAD character who was once raised to be a puppet for the Lich King. Nor do they want to play a death magic user that is basically an anti Paladin. As for Necromancers summoning hordes of undead, I say make them temporary like how the Necromancer class in ESO has them

Have you played a DK or a Warlock in this expansion?

With All will serve you will have 2 minions with you at all times. Apocalypse can give you up to 4 additional ghouls every 1.5 minutes and they last for 15 seconds. If you take the PvP talent Reanimator, you can spam an exploding zombie. You can summon a gargoyle every 3 minutes that lasts for 30 seconds. You have Army of the Dead, or you can opt for Summon Abomination which will summon an Abomination every 1.5 seconds.

Or....

You can roll a Demonology Warlock and have a horde of Imps, a Fel Guard or Voidwalker defending you, you can summon a Demonic Tyrant that will empower your summoned demons, you can passively generate a variety of demons via Inner Demon, and even beyond that you have a wide variety of demonic summons like Dreadstalkers, Bile Bombers, Vilefiends, etc. There's plenty of times where you'll have literally a demonic army fighting for you.

While surrounded by your minions you drain life from enemies and send that life energy into your main demon. Meanwhile you're both using Soul Leach to protect yourselves. All the while using abilities like Drain Life, Dark Pact, Soulstone, Hearthstones, etc. that wouldn't be out of place in a Necromancer's spell book.

Again, Necromancer fans have two very strong choices.

[zantheus1993]

I've always wanted Bard but I doubt it will happen

it would be nice
kinda like disc priest but buffing allies instead of healing

[Triceron]

I do, and I also recognize that a Necromancer fan has the option to play a Death Knight or a Warlock.

In what way does a Death Knight or a Warlock not satisfy a player's fantasy of poison or Necromancy? Warlocks and DKs both have abilities that deal damage over time, both summon various dark minions, and both utilize shadow magic. You're seriously going to argue that someone is clamoring for a Necromancer class because a DoT is ticking shadow damage instead of nature damage, or because a Death Knight is fighting in melee range instead of from 40 yards away?

In the same way Covenants with Necromancy abilities doesn't satisfy a Necromancer class.

That you personally are satisfied that a DK fulfills a Necromancer fantasy is your personal views on this. You were also fine with Warlocks filling in for the Demon Hunter at one point, so we know where your personal opinions lie in this matter. Yet I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about popular demand and how Blizzard has responded in kind by providing a playable class.

All the arguments that you have brought up so far are invalidated by the existence of the Paladin and Demon Hunter classes, which have become a precedent for niche class concepts that have gameplay and thematic overlap with existing classes.

What reason do we have for a Paladin class to exist alongside Priests and Warriors? Because we needed a Holy Warrior class? No, not really. There's only one reason - because fans want to play as this iconic Warcraft hero. The Demon Hunter's design is absolutely crystal clear that potential new classes aren't exclusive to concepts that bring in completely unique or innovative ideas.

That is the only reason necessary for any class to exist, and the Demon Hunter existing despite having mechanics shared amongst existing classes and the entire theme of Demon Metamorphosis being used by the Warlock.

You're seriously going to argue that someone is clamoring for a Necromancer class because a DoT is ticking shadow damage instead of nature damage

I think you mean nature instead of shadow damage, but not quite sure. And no, clamoring is the wrong word considering the example of Necromancers using Poison is in direct reply to your assertion that they have no differences to Death Knights in the use of Necromancy and would only otherwise use Unholy magic. A precedent for a different subtheme is what is being presented, not the basis for which a Necromancer would be playable.

The Class Fantasy of a Necromancer which Blizzard defines and presents to us is what people want to see. There are plenty of fan creations we can talk about if you wish to hone in on any specific example, and everyone of them has differentiated itself enough from simply being a Warlock or a Death Knight.

And if someone has an issue with fighting in melee range, you're telling me

? I said nothing about melee. So no, I wouldn't be telling you anything regarding melee.

Are you confusing me with others again?

[Teriz]

In the same way Covenants with Necromancy abilities doesn't satisfy a Necromancer class.

So you're pretending that a Death Knight or a Warlock has absolutely nothing to do with Necromancy or its abilities? You're going to pretend that those abilities have "tack-on" Necromantic abilities instead of core abilities that they've had for years that are standard Necromancer abilities in other games?

That you personally are satisfied that a DK fulfills a Necromancer fantasy is your personal views on this. You were also fine with Warlocks filling in for the Demon Hunter at one point, so we know where your personal opinions lie in this matter. Yet I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about popular demand and how Blizzard has responded in kind by providing a playable class.

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.

All the arguments that you have brought up so far are invalidated by the existence of the Paladin and Demon Hunter classes, which have become a precedent for niche class concepts that have gameplay and thematic overlap with existing classes.

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.

I think you mean nature instead of shadow damage, but not quite sure. And no, clamoring is the wrong word considering the example of Necromancers using Poison is in direct reply to your assertion that they have no differences to Death Knights in the use of Necromancy and would only otherwise use Unholy magic. A precedent for a different subtheme is what is being presented, not the basis for which a Necromancer would be playable.

In all truth there really is no difference. Disease performs exactly the same function that poison would. In terms of Warlocks, their various DoT abilities also function exactly like Poison DoTs would. In short, Poison as a concept would add no new gameplay mechanics to the class, and in all honest would play exactly like a Warlock currently plays. It should also be noted that no one rolls a Necromancer for poison or DoTs, they roll a Necromancer to be a master over vile minions, which Death Knights and Warlocks already do just fine.

The Class Fantasy of a Necromancer which Blizzard defines and presents to us is what people want to see.

And we got the class fantasy in 2008.

[Triceron]

So you're pretending that a Death Knight or a Warlock has absolutely nothing to do with Necromancy or its abilities? You're going to pretend that those abilities have "tack-on" Necromantic abilities instead of core abilities that they've had for years that are standard Necromancer abilities in other games?

The only thing that involves pretending is trying to pass off Death Knights and Warlocks as Necromancers. No matter what, you can't change the Death Knight or Warlock's class identity into a Necromancer. I mean, look at Covenants right now, has the open use of Necromancy satisfied the demand for a Necromancer class?

We need to be clear on why the Necromancer is even talked about. If you can't even understand this simple reason, then all of your arguments will remain invalid. All of them.

You are making arguments that do not address the main and only reason why any class should be playable - and that's satisfying a demand to play a specific class fantasy.

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.

And they will never actually be Necromancers, which invalidates the argument. Again, Blizzard completely acknowledges a difference, and the Warlocks having Metamorphosis and all of the Demon Hunter's abilities would not have been able to satisfy the actual Class Fantasy of a Demon Hunter. We're not talking about what you can pretend to be, we're talking about actual classes you can play as.

The difference being that there is nothing that a Necromancer can do that a Death Knight couldn't do ability wise.

Yet the reason why anyone wants a Necromancer class isn't about what a Necromancer can do that is different from a Death Knight. Again, your reasonings don't actually address the primary function of any class - to fulfill a specific class fantasy.

Death Knights would only become Necromancers if Blizzard specifically creates a Necromancer spec for them that fulfills the fantasy, much like how Brewmaster is a Monk spec that fulfills the fantasy of being a Brewmaster. I mean, you can circle around and praise Warlocks for summoning minions and Unholy spec for popping up ghouls with PVP talents, but at the end of the day I'm not the one you need to convince here. I'm not the one asking for a Necromancer class. I don't care about Necromancers being playable, since I'm fine with them being reskins of Warlocks. What needs to be addressed is whether that satisfies the public expectation and demands for the Necromancer class fantasy.

Like I said, your arguments will be invalid because I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm not talking about personal opinions on what you or I think a Warlock or Death Knight represents. I'm talking about the fact that you will never be able to satisfy or silence a demand for Necromancers with circular reasoning (ie, Death Knights are already Necromancers because they use Necromancy) because it doesn't address the fact that people want to play as a Necromancer, and not a substitute that 'does the same things'.

If we want to talk about satisfying the demand of a Necromancer class, then we have to address the class fantasy first. I personally think we can do this by making it a Warlock Class Skin. Others may feel differently, and want to see this as a properly implemented Necromancer spec for an existing class. This way, we would be properly addressing the Necromancer class fantasy in different ways.

However if you are adamant at using arguments that Death Knights can already do what Necromancers would do, or saying that Necromancers have no unique attributes different from a DK, then you're not addressing the class fantasy, not addressing the demand, and assuming that the actual class fantasy doesn't matter to the population that is showing an active demand to play as a Necromancer class. And frankly, who are you convincing by saying this? The only ones who would agree with you are the people who aren't interested in a Necromancer class in the first place. You invalidate your own argument by not addressing the Necromancer Class fantasy.

And if I am not being clear enough, the Necromancer class fantasy is not about abilities or gameplay mechanics. It's literally about playing a Class or Spec or Reskin that is literally called 'Necromancer' with all the lore and flavour to accompany that specific identity. Again, the class fantasy of a Brewmaster boils down to the Monk having a literal spec called 'Brewmaster'. If that tanking spec were the exact same as it is now and simply called 'Drunk Fighting' Monk spec, then people would not recognize that as an official "Brewmaster" as it existed in Warcraft 3. Player demand would then decide whether a separate official "Brewmaster" class should be considered. It needs an official recognition to marry the concepts being presented. This is why for the longest time no one would have considered a Warlock to be a "Demon Hunter" even if Demonology spec completely represented what Demon Hunter's abilities and mechanics. It was not enough to satisfy the expectations of a Demon Hunter class fantasy, and this is reflected by the high volume of demand for an actual Demon Hunter class. Yet if we look at Hunters having Beastmastery spec, even if this is not an official Beastmaster Class, players are generally happy with this representing them and there is no popular demand for a separate Beastmaster class.

Popular demand is what ultimately decides whether a certain class fantasy should be considered to be developed into its own class.

[Teriz]

The only thing that involves pretending is trying to pass off Death Knights and Warlocks as Necromancers. No matter what, you can't change the Death Knight or Warlock's class identity into a Necromancer. I mean, look at Covenants right now, has the open use of Necromancy satisfied the demand for a Necromancer class?

This is a Necromancer in Warcraft;

Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts[2][3] or the black arts)[4] the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead.[5] Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death. Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed.[6] Necromancers are the enemies of life itself, and all hands are raised against them. Some of the worst evils in Azeroth's history have been perpetrated by necromancers, and they deserve their malevolent reputation. Few things are as abhorrent and horrifying as necromancy.[5]

By all means, find something in that description that doesn't apply to Death Knights.

And btw, that description comes from the Ultimate Visual Guide, which is official.

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/st...e-visual-guide

Once you get past this, we can continue.

- - - Updated - - -

In the end, here's the point; We have a definition of what a Necromancer is in Warcraft and WoW, and it fits the Death Knight perfectly. Despite that, Blizzard still gave players the option to experience standard Necromancer style gameplay with the Warlock class. What some wayward fans on the internet desire is irrelevant, and that fact was only reinforced by the lack of a Necromancer class making an appearance in Shadowlands; An expansion so designed for Necromancers that they gave necromancer abilities to each class.