1. #421
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I'm enamoured with the "Dragonsworn."
    I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my Dragonsworn concept.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaver View Post
    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.

  2. #422
    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.

  3. #423
    Hopefully a caster of some sort. For the obvious reasons. Every new class added since launch has been melee.

  4. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuroticaine View Post
    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.

  5. #425
    Game needs more mail/cloth ranged classes.

    it has to fit within those parameters.

    Cnat just keep making plate/leather melee

  6. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my Dragonsworn concept.

    - - - Updated - - -



    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.

    I am sorry. But when people thought (or think) of necromancer, they think of a cloth wearer who is throwing plague like dots and calling up skeletons and things from dead. I doubt Blizzards so called and tired version of necromancer (DK) is quenching anyone's thirst for the necromancer class. As usual Blizz tries to give us what they want instead of what we want. And their version and take on what a class should be is a slap in the faces of those who really want the real thing.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    Game needs more mail/cloth ranged classes.

    it has to fit within those parameters.

    Cnat just keep making plate/leather melee

    THIS 800%. I would LOVE to see a caster class added to the game instead of another melee class.
    Shadow deserves nothing, the same as Fire Mages.

  7. #427
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    Game needs more mail/cloth ranged classes.

    it has to fit within those parameters.

    Cnat just keep making plate/leather melee
    I would argue that we need another Physical Ranged class more. We need another such class to fill up the 3rd mail armor slot, and to compete with Hunters for guns/bows.

  8. #428
    Epic! Hansworst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Schiedam, the Netherlands
    Posts
    1,686
    Maybe they add an extra spec to every class. If it's Dragon isles up next, an dragon based spec to every class.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  9. #429
    The Lightbringer Huntaer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sanctuary
    Posts
    3,527
    I think 1 thing we can all agree on is that it should wear mail.
    ___________( •̪●) --(FOR THE ALLIANCE!)
    ░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
    ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
    I███████████████████].
    ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...

  10. #430
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    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.
    So what? Even if I granted you everything you wrote above... so what? None of that changes the fact that the ability I designed is mechanically identical to your personal concept of the WC3 ability pocket factory.

    Something you keep refusing to address and keep trying to move goalposts and add red herrings to avoid having to face that fact.

    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.
    Neither does your concept of "pocket factory" exist in WoW.

    That wasn't the link you previously posted.
    This is my paragraph in its entirety, only bolding up what you claim I did not post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    And if you still want to lie that this wasn't the link I posted, you are free to go back to my original post and see how there are no edits at all in there. Although I find it really hard to believe you somehow missed it considering the two links are basically right next to each other.

    So you're saying a DK using a Vampiric weapon isn't an example of them using Blood magic?
    I'm saying that, by your logic, that is not sufficient evidence considering we never see this "vampiric weapon" doing any "vampirism". This is your logic, Teriz. You keep demanding to see necromancers actually using poison, then that same argument, to be valid, needs to also apply equally to all classes in the game. So I'll ask you again: where are the examples of death knights using blood and frost magic, before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion?

    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. No, it's not. And this is just you trying to move the goalposts. You were the one who kept using this demand "show me necromancers using poison" against the idea of a hypothetical necromancer playable class having a poison spec, and now you're trying to move away from that and hope I forget about it because it's been demonstrated that this argument of you is completely bogus.

    Such as?
    Priests and paladins, for one.

    In terms of the scourge it is.
    Again, no, it's not. The Scourge isn't changing terms. Poisons are very different than diseases.

    Yes, it was established in Warcraft that mages using fire magic can lead to demonic magic. I'm not seeing your point here.
    No, it has not been established. Why don't you show me the lore quote that says that "fire magic leads to demonic magic".

    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.
    ... And then you have the arrogance of mocking me by calling my arguments "headcanon". Are you for real? Are you really going to pass your personal opinion as fact, here? Not to mention that the whole point of my argument flew over your head, and I highly suspect it was because you ducked out of the way.

    I'll repeat: themes do not bring "unique gameplay". To say they do is to claim that those themes have unique mechanics that can only be used for that theme, and that theme alone. And that is false.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Lastgope View Post
    It's a shame they didn't do a Necromancer class, Shadowlands would of been the perfect opportunity.
    I'm of the camp that the Necromancer would be too difficult to make unique and interesting. I've yet to see a concept that impressed me. We already have 2 dark spellcasters that are dot/drain heavy, we already have a heavy minion based spellcaster, plus a necromantic elements of Unholy DK, even though it's melee.

    I'd be more interested in some sort of Blood or Water based spellcaster, both of which would have the opportunity to have a healer spec as well.

  12. #432
    Pit Lord Zeror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Europe
    Posts
    2,366
    My idea would be that every class gets an arch type that's superior to the regular class. Each class spec defines the way how this arch type is played.

    Death knight ➜ Necromancer
    Demon Hunter ➜ Watcher
    Druid ➜ Archdruid
    Hunter ➜ Beast Rider
    Mage ➜ Archmage
    Monk ➜ Master Monk
    Paladin ➜ Cavalier
    Priest ➜ Archbishop
    Rogue ➜ ??? (Can't think of something here)
    Shaman ➜ Spirit Walker
    Warlock ➜ Wakener
    Warrior ➜ Champion

  13. #433
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    So what? Even if I granted you everything you wrote above... so what? None of that changes the fact that the ability I designed is mechanically identical to your personal concept of the WC3 ability pocket factory.
    Like I said, an ability created by Blizzard carries more weight in this discussion than an ability created by you (or me for that matter).

    Neither does your concept of "pocket factory" exist in WoW.
    The point of this conversation is a Tinker class being brought into WoW. If that is the case, then its WC3 abilities will be translated along with it.


    This is my paragraph in its entirety, only bolding up what you claim I did not post:

    And if you still want to lie that this wasn't the link I posted, you are free to go back to my original post and see how there are no edits at all in there. Although I find it really hard to believe you somehow missed it considering the two links are basically right next to each other.
    Then I misread your link. My mistake.

    I'm saying that, by your logic, that is not sufficient evidence considering we never see this "vampiric weapon" doing any "vampirism". This is your logic, Teriz. You keep demanding to see necromancers actually using poison, then that same argument, to be valid, needs to also apply equally to all classes in the game. So I'll ask you again: where are the examples of death knights using blood and frost magic, before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion?
    Actually Death Pact was a vampiric spell, since it drained life and healed the DK. In WotLK it was a Blood spell;

    https://wotlk.evowow.com/?spell=48743

    No. No, it's not. And this is just you trying to move the goalposts. You were the one who kept using this demand "show me necromancers using poison" against the idea of a hypothetical necromancer playable class having a poison spec, and now you're trying to move away from that and hope I forget about it because it's been demonstrated that this argument of you is completely bogus.
    Well then hopefully Death Pact being a Blood spell with Vampiric attributes makes you feel better.


    Priests and paladins, for one.
    Where are the Paladin shadow abilities? Where are the weapons-based Priest abilities?

    Again, no, it's not. The Scourge isn't changing terms. Poisons are very different than diseases.
    What do you mean the Scourge isn't a "changing term"?

    No, it has not been established. Why don't you show me the lore quote that says that "fire magic leads to demonic magic".
    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


    ... And then you have the arrogance of mocking me by calling my arguments "headcanon". Are you for real? Are you really going to pass your personal opinion as fact, here? Not to mention that the whole point of my argument flew over your head, and I highly suspect it was because you ducked out of the way.

    I'll repeat: themes do not bring "unique gameplay". To say they do is to claim that those themes have unique mechanics that can only be used for that theme, and that theme alone. And that is false.
    Warlocks being the replacement for Necromancers isn't head canon. When Blizzard was creating WoW classes, they purposely avoided making a Necromancer class because of Everquest, and instead made the Warlock class. This is why Warlocks have Necromancer mainstays like Drain Life, Life Tap, and Curse.

    I think I've demonstrated multiple times how that statement is not false.

  14. #434
    Legendary! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Essex-ish
    Posts
    6,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my Dragonsworn concept.
    With a lack of healers and tanks in WoW they won't create a class with three DPS specs even if they could also Tank or Heal.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/T/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/0/1 | Mafia: 1/6/0/7 | TPR: 0/4/1/5
    SK: 0/1/0/1 | VT: 2/5/2/7 | Cult: 1/0/0/1

  15. #435
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    With a lack of healers and tanks in WoW they won't create a class with three DPS specs even if they could also Tank or Heal.
    My Dragonsworn concept contains 2 healing specs.

  16. #436
    Legendary! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Essex-ish
    Posts
    6,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    My Dragonsworn concept contains 2 healing specs.
    Oops.

    But yes, I don't believe a Dragonsworn class will include any DPS specs.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/T/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/0/1 | Mafia: 1/6/0/7 | TPR: 0/4/1/5
    SK: 0/1/0/1 | VT: 2/5/2/7 | Cult: 1/0/0/1

  17. #437
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Like I said, an ability created by Blizzard carries more weight in this discussion than an ability created by you (or me for that matter).
    And none of that matters because what was being discussed is the mechanical similarities between two fan-made abilities, this "pocket factory" that you created, and the druid ability I created.

    The point of this conversation is a Tinker class being brought into WoW.
    No, it's not the point. It never was, either. The whole point of this conversation is this claim that "themes bring unique gameplay", which has been shown to be false. I've said that numerous times, already, here, here, here, here, here, here and let's not forget the original post that you replied to, here, so you cannot claim ignorance of what was being discussed.

    Then I misread your link. My mistake.
    Ok. Then we're back to the original question: show me death knights using blood and frost magic before the Wrath expansion.

    Actually Death Pact was a vampiric spell, since it drained life and healed the DK. In WotLK it was a Blood spell;

    https://wotlk.evowow.com/?spell=48743
    I'm sorry, but it doesn't say "blood" there. Remember you stated that Atonement is a "physical" spell because it's written "physical" in the school. Also, "vampirism" is not necessarily blood magic. Otherwise we have the shadow priest using blood magic since it has not one, but two vampiric spells.

    Well then hopefully Death Pact being a Blood spell with Vampiric attributes makes you feel better.
    Even if I granted you Death Pact (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) you're still missing death knights using frost abilities.

    Where are the Paladin shadow abilities? Where are the weapons-based Priest abilities?
    Both heavily overlap in the Holy Light theme.

    What do you mean the Scourge isn't a "changing term"?
    I said that the Scourge didn't use "poison" and "disease" interchangeably. Poison is very different than disease. That's like saying a sword is the same thing as a warhammer.

    Yeah, it doesn't say that at all. People's superstitions about fire magic coming from demons doesn't mean fire magic leads to demon magic.

    Warlocks being the replacement for Necromancers isn't head canon. When Blizzard was creating WoW classes, they purposely avoided making a Necromancer class because of Everquest, and instead made the Warlock class.
    Prove it. Show me when Blizzard said that. Until then, this is nothing but you passing opinions as fact.

    I think I've demonstrated multiple times how that statement is not false.
    You haven't. Every time you tried to demonstrate that, I've demonstrated how it's false. Themes do not bring "unique gameplay" because any and all gameplay can be given to almost every other class in this game.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  18. #438
    If I recall, I thought that the "Bronze" dragonsworn might be a bit op in Teriz's writeup.

  19. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeror View Post
    My idea would be that every class gets an arch type that's superior to the regular class. Each class spec defines the way how this arch type is played.

    Death knight ➜ Necromancer
    Demon Hunter ➜ Watcher
    Druid ➜ Archdruid
    Hunter ➜ Beast Rider
    Mage ➜ Archmage
    Monk ➜ Master Monk
    Paladin ➜ Cavalier
    Priest ➜ Archbishop
    Rogue ➜ ??? (Can't think of something here)
    Shaman ➜ Spirit Walker
    Warlock ➜ Wakener
    Warrior ➜ Champion


    This is always something i would like to see. something similar to class halls except anyone can join. Then you get access to a spec or 2 depending on the base class.

    Like say a mage joins the warrior hall and has access to an eldritch knight spec. IF they join their own class hall they get access to a spec or specs similar to what you wrote.

    I'm sure it would be a balancing nightmare, but it would be fun as hell.

  20. #440
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And none of that matters because what was being discussed is the mechanical similarities between two fan-made abilities, this "pocket factory" that you created, and the druid ability I created.
    Uh, I didn't create Pocket Factory.


    No, it's not the point. It never was, either. The whole point of this conversation is this claim that "themes bring unique gameplay", which has been shown to be false. I've said that numerous times, already, here, here, here, here, here, here and let's not forget the original post that you replied to, here, so you cannot claim ignorance of what was being discussed.
    Funny, because this entire thing began with you saying that Tinkers wouldn't bring any new mechanics or gameplay into the game. Then it somehow morphed into new themes bringing in new gameplay and new mechanics. In either case, since the Tinker will bring new gameplay and mechanics into the game, I'm not seeing the argument here.

    [quote]Ok. Then we're back to the original question: show me death knights using blood and frost magic before the Wrath expansion.


    I'm sorry, but it doesn't say "blood" there. Remember you stated that Atonement is a "physical" spell because it's written "physical" in the school. Also, "vampirism" is not necessarily blood magic. Otherwise we have the shadow priest using blood magic since it has not one, but two vampiric spells.
    Blood is part of Shadow magic, so that's not surprising. However, if you look near the top, Death Pact is part of the Blood specialization.

    Even if I granted you Death Pact (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) you're still missing death knights using frost abilities.
    Which they got from Lichs, which makes sense due to their connection to the Lich King.

    Both heavily overlap in the Holy Light theme.
    Not really. Paladin is pure Holy while Priest is a balance between Holy and Shadow. Its not really the same thing. It's like saying that Druid and Shaman are the same because they share Nature themes.

    I said that the Scourge didn't use "poison" and "disease" interchangeably. Poison is very different than disease. That's like saying a sword is the same thing as a warhammer.
    I'm saying that the entire point of "poison" and "toxins" in places like Scholomance is to create a plague. DKs already use plagues.

    Yeah, it doesn't say that at all. People's superstitions about fire magic coming from demons doesn't mean fire magic leads to demon magic.
    Okie dokie.

    Prove it. Show me when Blizzard said that. Until then, this is nothing but you passing opinions as fact.
    I have no desire to dig for that quote, but if you look at Warlocks, Death Knights, and the lack of a Necromancer class in Shadowlands, it makes sense.

    You haven't. Every time you tried to demonstrate that, I've demonstrated how it's false. Themes do not bring "unique gameplay" because any and all gameplay can be given to almost every other class in this game.
    All you've demonstrated is that you can twist any class concept to utilize any mechanic. That really doesn't disprove the argument because once again, a Tinker would add unique mechanics and gameplay to the game mainly thanks to its theme. That is an indisputable fact.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •