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

[czarek]

Necro sounds good but its pretty filled with dk and warlock. Necro should be smth between both. There could be also rune master, spell braker. I wish to see cloth geared tank class.

[Ielenia]

In your opinion.

No. Chen never being a monk until MoP is a fact.

How is that relevant to Necromancers and DKs?

Again, how is that relevant at all?

Because it's the exact same situation. You said "dks do everything necromancers can, therefore they are necromancers". Well, "priests can do everything paladins can, therefore they are paladins." The death knight class is no more the necromancer class, as paladins are the priest class.

Do we have a class that uses Necromancy in all of its specs, yes or no?

No, we do not. Now your turn: do we have a class that uses holy magic in all of its aspects, yes or no?

A handful of people, certainly.

Moving the goalposts as always. First you say "if death knights weren't the necromancer class, we would have people asking for necromancers." And when faced with the fact people are indeed asking for a necromancer class, now it's "it's just a small number". Guess what: the number of people asking for your class is also "a handful of people, certainly."

As I said, there will always be people who want more than what's being offered, even if what they want is already in the game.

Like those wanting to play a tech class, despite what's already offered in the game?

Yes, because Priests balance Holy magic with Shadow magic, and is the only class to do so.

So priests are a-ok to exist despite paladins using all aspects of holy magic already because they do something paladins cannot? So if necromancers can do something that death knights cannot-- like, say, poison magic-- then they'll be "a-okay" too?

We encountered the first 4 inside titan facilities. Fel Reavers and Doomwalkers had nothing to do with the Titans. I'm talking about an entity that takes Titan technology and proceeds to attack us with it without us venturing into those facilities.

Oh, you mean Sargeras? Who utilized Titan technology for the Legion? It's speculated that the Legion ships are Titan technology.

Not at all.

Once again you move to goalposts. Your argument against the necromancer class was a dictionary definition, therefore you opened the door to use dictionary definitions against the tinker class.

I'm simply saying that if you believe the argument that the Tinker is just an engineer, then back it up with evidence like I have with the necromancer and DK.

"Like you have"? You mean you stating opinions as fact, making up things that don't exist, and twisting evidence? Well, sorry, we're not as dishonest as you are. But we have been giving evidence for ages. The simple fact you accuse us of not giving you evidence shows that you just dismiss everything we write in favor of your headcanons.

Again, do we have a class that is utilizing Necromantic magic in all of its specializations? Yes or no.

Do we have a class that uses holy magic in all of its aspects, yes or no?

[Teriz]

No. Chen never being a monk until MoP is a fact.

Nah, it's an opinion.

Because it's the exact same situation. You said "dks do everything necromancers can, therefore they are necromancers". Well, "priests can do everything paladins can, therefore they are paladins." The death knight class is no more the necromancer class, as paladins are the priest class.

This is Paladin;
HHH

This is Priest;
HHH

There is no school of magic that Necromancers use that DKs don't use. Thus, any ability dreamed up for Necromancers can go into the DK class.

No, we do not. Now your turn: do we have a class that uses holy magic in all of its aspects, yes or no?

Which is false. Blood uses Necromancy, Frost uses Necromancy, and Unholy uses Necromancy. The entire DK class is built around Necromancy.

Like those wanting to play a tech class, despite what's already offered in the game?

Really? What class is built around technology?

So priests are a-ok to exist despite paladins using all aspects of holy magic already because they do something paladins cannot? So if necromancers can do something that death knights cannot-- like, say, poison magic-- then they'll be "a-okay" too?

No, because a poison spec serves no purpose except to create a difference between DKs and Necromancers, and it actually retards the theme of the latter. Think about it; There's a good reason why Priests have a shadow spec; It reflects the concepts and themes of Old Gods which makes sense for the thematic of the class.

Why would Necromancers have a poison spec beyond simply as a tool to be different than DKs? The entire purpose of alchemic poison among the scourge was to develop a plague, and DKs already use plagues via magic, so that entire thematic is covered.

Oh, you mean Sargeras? Who utilized Titan technology for the Legion? It's speculated that the Legion ships are Titan technology.

Fair enough, but I'm talking about the titan technology we encounter in their facilities, not possible corrupted titan technology that the Legion is using.

Once again you move to goalposts. Your argument against the necromancer class was a dictionary definition, therefore you opened the door to use dictionary definitions against the tinker class.

I used the dictionary definition because you said that a Necromancer is not someone who uses Necromancy, but that's exactly what they are. The old english definition of a Tinker is kind of useless in regards to the name of the technology hero in WoW. I mean obviously the Tinker hero in WC3 isn't simply repairing something or selling utensils.

Necromancers in WoW on the other hand are obviously using Necromancy.

"Like you have"? You mean you stating opinions as fact, making up things that don't exist, and twisting evidence? Well, sorry, we're not as dishonest as you are. But we have been giving evidence for ages. The simple fact you accuse us of not giving you evidence shows that you just dismiss everything we write in favor of your headcanons.

So that would mean that you don't have the statement from Blizzard saying they took the ideas surrounding the Tinker hero and placed them in the engineering profession correct?

Do we have a class that uses holy magic in all of its aspects, yes or no?

I would need Blizzard's listing of Holy magic in all of its aspects like they did for Necromancy. Please provide it.

[HoopyFrood]

I'm surprised they didn't make a Necromancer in Shadowlands even though we have too many dark-themed classes. Instead they baked potential spells into Covenants. I hope they ditch it to expand the Talent system to accomodate system spells, or to focus on a new class and keep the balance of classes.

Assuming the Dragon Isle is the next story focus, Dragonsworn is a strong candidate. It may end up as a character system instead. They really need to realize players want archetypes and not borrowed powers.

It's interesting to see where they will go with the borrowed power and the seemingly "season" based class mechanics. It feels like it's coming to a critical juncture where they could either go full bore with new classes at the expense of overlap, or a heavier borrowed power type expansion approach where we get heavy theming with existing classes.

[Ielenia]

Again, only because we already had a class that fit the theme of the expansion.

Wrong. The death knights don't fit the Shadowlands expansion because, like necromancers, they are not about the afterlife. Evidence of that is how death knights have little to no presence in the expansion whatsoever. They have zero presence outside Oribos, and even then their presence is downright minimal.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, it's an opinion.

No. It's a fact. Chen was never called a monk, never performed any Asian-style martial arts, and never belonged to any temple.

This is Paladin;
HHH

This is Priest;
HHH

This is death knight:
NNN

This can be the necromancer:
NNN

There is no school of magic that Necromancers use that DKs don't use.

Poison magic. Plus the healer aspect of blood magic is up for grabs. As well as a spec fully dedicated to bone magic, considering death knights only 'dabble' in those abilities.

Thus, any ability dreamed up for Necromancers can go into the DK class.

Just like all frost magic dreamed up for death knights could go into the mage class?

Which is false. Blood uses Necromancy, Frost uses Necromancy, and Unholy uses Necromancy. The entire DK class is built around Necromancy.

False? The death knight does not have a dedicated bone magic spec. The death knight's blood spec does not cover the "healer" aspect. The death knight does not have a poison spec. All parts of necromancy. Whereas paladins do cover all aspects of holy magic presented so far.

Really? What class is built around technology?

I never said "class". I said "offered in the game". And technology is already offered in the game to highly customize your character through engineering and transmog. Again: it's a case of "people wanting more than what is offered" which you cast in a negative light.

No, because a poison spec serves no purpose except to create a difference between DKs and Necromancers,

Like the priest's shadow spec's purpose is just to create a difference between priests and paladins.

and it actually retards the theme of the latter.

I love the purposely condescending choice of words. Care to explain?

Think about it; There's a good reason why Priests have a shadow spec;

Sure. Its purpose is to create a difference between paladins and priests.

It reflects the concepts and themes of Old Gods which makes sense for the thematic of the class.

You do know that the priest only got the "themes and concepts of Old Gods" much later in its life, right? What you're doing is saying that the purpose for the warlock's demonology spec is to house the concepts and themes of becoming a demon.

Why would Necromancers have a poison spec beyond simply as a tool to be different than DKs?

Because:
• We have a necromancer school that teaches alchemic poison to necromancer acolytes.
• Grand Widow Faerlina is a real thing that exists.
• The spider wing in Naxxramas is a real thing that exists.
• Maldraxxus has oozes, spiders and poisons.

The entire purpose of alchemic poison among the scourge was to develop a plague, and DKs already use plagues via magic, so that entire thematic is covered.

Poison =/= disease.

Fair enough, but I'm talking about the titan technology we encounter in their facilities, not possible corrupted titan technology that the Legion is using.

And now you're moving goalposts again. "Corrupted Titan technology". Okay, show me that "corrupted titan technology" is inferior to Titan technology.

I used the dictionary definition because you said that a Necromancer is not someone who uses Necromancy,

I never said that. I said you dishonestly define "necromancer" solely by the fact they use necromancy. Which is wrong.

So that would mean that you don't have the statement from Blizzard saying they took the ideas surrounding the Tinker hero and placed them in the engineering profession correct?

Combining "moving the goalposts" and "bait-and-switching" now, Teriz? We have been presenting evidence that tinkers and engineers are just synonym of each other for ages, now, directly from the game.

I would need Blizzard's listing of Holy magic in all of its aspects like they did for Necromancy. Please provide it.

We have it. It's called "the game". The same source of which you're using to claim that "DKs cover all of necromancy".

[TheRevenantHero]

Nah, it's an opinion.



This is Paladin;
HHH

This is Priest;
HHH

There is no school of magic that Necromancers use that DKs don't use. Thus, any ability dreamed up for Necromancers can go into the DK class.



Which is false. Blood uses Necromancy, Frost uses Necromancy, and Unholy uses Necromancy. The entire DK class is built around Necromancy.



Really? What class is built around technology?




No, because a poison spec serves no purpose except to create a difference between DKs and Necromancers, and it actually retards the theme of the latter. Think about it; There's a good reason why Priests have a shadow spec; It reflects the concepts and themes of Old Gods which makes sense for the thematic of the class.

Why would Necromancers have a poison spec beyond simply as a tool to be different than DKs? The entire purpose of alchemic poison among the scourge was to develop a plague, and DKs already use plagues via magic, so that entire thematic is covered.




Fair enough, but I'm talking about the titan technology we encounter in their facilities, not possible corrupted titan technology that the Legion is using.



I used the dictionary definition because you said that a Necromancer is not someone who uses Necromancy, but that's exactly what they are. The old english definition of a Tinker is kind of useless in regards to the name of the technology hero in WoW. I mean obviously the Tinker hero in WC3 isn't simply repairing something or selling utensils.

Necromancers in WoW on the other hand are obviously using Necromancy.



So that would mean that you don't have the statement from Blizzard saying they took the ideas surrounding the Tinker hero and placed them in the engineering profession correct?



I would need Blizzard's listing of Holy magic in all of its aspects like they did for Necromancy. Please provide it.

Necromancers tap into the plane of Death and use mana to do it. Death knights use runic power to channel necromantic energy granted to them by their vampiric runeblades. Necromancers are actively drawing from Death magic while death knights are more using necromancy via murdering living things for that power.

[Teriz]

Wrong. The death knights don't fit the Shadowlands expansion because, like necromancers, they are not about the afterlife. Evidence of that is how death knights have little to no presence in the expansion whatsoever. They have zero presence outside Oribos, and even then their presence is downright minimal.

Again, Maldraxxus is the birthplace of Necromancy. Revendreth is the birthplace of Blood magic. The Maw is pretty much the hell of WoW, and carries themes of death and torment, which is Death Knight's existence in a nutshell. That's 3/5 of Shadowlands right there. Death Knights' "presence" is really irrelevant.

No. It's a fact. Chen was never called a monk, never performed any Asian-style martial arts, and never belonged to any temple.

Then why did Blizzard make him a Monk?

This is death knight:
NNN

This can be the necromancer:
NNN


Poison magic. Plus the healer aspect of blood magic is up for grabs. As well as a spec fully dedicated to bone magic, considering death knights only 'dabble' in those abilities.

Poison magic isn't part of necromantic magic, per Blizzard.

Just like all frost magic dreamed up for death knights could go into the mage class?

Frost spec came from the Lich which is a Necromantic theme.

False? The death knight does not have a dedicated bone magic spec. The death knight's blood spec does not cover the "healer" aspect. The death knight does not have a poison spec. All parts of necromancy. Whereas paladins do cover all aspects of holy magic presented so far.

It doesn't need a dedicated Bone magic spec, it wears heavy armor, and the Blood spec does have a healer aspect, but its geared towards tanking instead of healing groups. And nowhere did Blizzard mention poison as an aspect of Necromancy.

I never said "class". I said "offered in the game". And technology is already offered in the game to highly customize your character through engineering and transmog. Again: it's a case of "people wanting more than what is offered" which you cast in a negative light.

I cast it in a negative light because we have a Necromancer class and people want essentially a ranged version of the exact same class. People who want a technology class rightfully point out that a profession does not come close to offering what a class offers.

Like the priest's shadow spec's purpose is just to create a difference between priests and paladins.

Uh no. The spec's purpose is to represent the Old Gods. A priest would worship both the gods of the light and the gods of the darkness.

I love the purposely condescending choice of words. Care to explain?

Simple; You put a poison spec into the class in order to differentiate it from the DK, purposely omitting actual concepts like a Lich spec, or a disease spec because DKs already have those abilities and you're attempting to make the necromancer different for the sake of difference. Instead you end up weakening and cheapening the entire concept.

Not to mention the overlap with other classes in the lineup that use Poison.

Because:
• We have a necromancer school that teaches alchemic poison to necromancer acolytes.
• Grand Widow Faerlina is a real thing that exists.
• The spider wing in Naxxramas is a real thing that exists.
• Maldraxxus has oozes, spiders and poisons.


Poison =/= disease.

Again, Poison magic is not mentioned as a school of Necromantic magic.

And now you're moving goalposts again. "Corrupted Titan technology". Okay, show me that "corrupted titan technology" is inferior to Titan technology.

Where did I say it was inferior? I said that it was different.

I never said that. I said you dishonestly define "necromancer" solely by the fact they use necromancy. Which is wrong.

But that is what a Necromancer is; A person who uses Necromancy.

We have it. It's called "the game". The same source of which you're using to claim that "DKs cover all of necromancy".

No, my source is the Ultimate Visual Guide which lays out Necromancy concisely. You said you have something similar for Holy. Where is it?

- - - Updated - - -

Necromancers tap into the plane of Death and use mana to do it. Death knights use runic power to channel necromantic energy granted to them by their vampiric runeblades. Necromancers are actively drawing from Death magic while death knights are more using necromancy via murdering living things for that power.

So we should create an entirely new class because of a resource variance?

[Revamp Man]

Because they only give that power through your service to them. If you're not serving them, why would they keep giving you power?
.

because maybe...just maybe...you keeping the power and thus keeping the tools to protect azeroth which is the goal of the aspects and their flights.....well maybe you being able to do that with their power would mean they wouldnt take it back

but your right because obviously the dragons wouldnt want us to be able to defend azeroth

[Ielenia]

Again, Maldraxxus is the birthplace of Necromancy. Revendreth is the birthplace of Blood magic. The Maw is pretty much the hell of WoW, and carries themes of death and torment, which is Death Knight's existence in a nutshell. That's 3/5 of Shadowlands right there. Death Knights' "presence" is really irrelevant.

It is very relevant because we're then forced to ask "if they are so relevant, why aren't they participating around in Shadowlands?"

Then why did Blizzard make him a Monk?

Maybe perhaps they wanted to use the only pandaren character that exists in the lore, and decided to link him to the class as well to give him some more recognition and "reason to be there"? It's possible.

Poison magic isn't part of necromantic magic, per Blizzard.

Scholomance, Naxxramas and Maldraxxus beg to differ.

Frost spec came from the Lich which is a Necromantic theme.

It is still frost magic. I'll repeat: howling blast, remorseless winter, avalanche, glacial advance, frostwyrm's fury... none of those abilities and more would not look out of place in the frost mage's repertoire whatsoever.

It doesn't need a dedicated Bone magic spec, it wears heavy armor,

Not the same thing. It is a fact that the death knight does not have a focus on bone magic, which leaves that concept up for grabs for another class.

and the Blood spec does have a healer aspect,

It's a tanking spec, therefore it does not cover the healer concept. The fact it can self-heal is meaningless, otherwise the priest's Holy spec should not exist because the paladin has a prot spec.

And nowhere did Blizzard mention poison as an aspect of Necromancy.

As I said earlier: Scholomance, Naxxramas and Maldraxxus beg to differ.

I cast it in a negative light because we have a Necromancer class

We don't. We have a class that uses necromancy, but we don't have a necromancer class.

and people want essentially a ranged version of the exact same class.

Blatantly false and a dishonest misrepresentation of what the necromancer fans really want. And what makes this dishonest is that you have been faced many times over with that fact, yet you refuse to admit to your own mistake.

Uh no. The spec's purpose is to represent the Old Gods. A priest would worship both the gods of the light and the gods of the darkness.

It was never that purpose until it was reworked to resemble Old Gods. They didn't have "insanity" as a resource until Legion. It was just a 'generic shadow spec' for a good part of its initial life.

Simple; You put a poison spec into the class in order to differentiate it from the DK,

No, I put it there because it's an aspect of necromancy. Plus it's a magic type that lacks exploration.

purposely omitting actual concepts like a Lich spec, or a disease spec because DKs already have those abilities

Necromancers do not need a lich spec nor do they need a disease spec.

and you're attempting to make the necromancer different for the sake of difference.

No, I'm making the necromancer how I would like to play it.

Instead you end up weakening and cheapening the entire concept.

I didn't "weaken" or "cheapen" the "entire concept" at all, as my own class concept thread shows, but thank you for your opinion.

Not to mention the overlap with other classes in the lineup that use Poison.

What's the problem? We have overlap with classes using fire, frost, nature and holy. What's the problem with two classes sharing a poison theme? Not to mention one class' use of poison is mostly just to coat weapons and throw poison bombs, whereas the necromancer would be actually casting magic.

Again, Poison magic is not mentioned as a school of Necromantic magic.

Again: Scholomance, Naxxramas and Maldraxxus beg to differ.

Where did I say it was inferior? I said that it was different.

You're implying it's inferior because you dismiss it for being "corrupted". It's still powerful technology well beyond the Azerothians' level.

But that is what a Necromancer is; A person who uses Necromancy.

The necromancer is also a light-robed, spellcaster, ranged character, for one. Of which the death knight is neither.

No, my source is the Ultimate Visual Guide which lays out Necromancy concisely. You said you have something similar for Holy. Where is it?

My source is called "World of Warcraft".

[Teriz]

because maybe...just maybe...you keeping the power and thus keeping the tools to protect azeroth which is the goal of the aspects and their flights.....well maybe you being able to do that with their power would mean they wouldnt take it back

but your right because obviously the dragons wouldnt want us to be able to defend azeroth

Why would they need you to keep the power when they have the power themselves? Why wouldn’t they simply use their numerous agents and/or fellow dragons who can disguise themselves as mortals and have draconic power naturally to do your job instead?

I’m just not seeing the purpose of a class that is essentially the lackey of another character.

[Revamp Man]

Why would they need you to keep the power when they have the power themselves? Why wouldn’t they simply use their numerous agents and/or fellow dragons who can disguise themselves as mortals and have draconic power naturally to do your job instead?

I’m just not seeing the purpose of a class that is essentially the lackey of another character.

you mean like death knights
or demon hunters


maybe because a mortal having their power means they have more fighting power
why make foot soldiers when you have commanders??? oh yeah man power

why make 5 cahracters instead of one...oh wait are you telling me that azeroth normally has to deal with wars on multiple fronts?? the antagonists dont attack one zone at a time??

[TheRevenantHero]

Again, Maldraxxus is the birthplace of Necromancy. Revendreth is the birthplace of Blood magic. The Maw is pretty much the hell of WoW, and carries themes of death and torment, which is Death Knight's existence in a nutshell. That's 3/5 of Shadowlands right there. Death Knights' "presence" is really irrelevant.



Then why did Blizzard make him a Monk?



Poison magic isn't part of necromantic magic, per Blizzard.




Frost spec came from the Lich which is a Necromantic theme.




It doesn't need a dedicated Bone magic spec, it wears heavy armor, and the Blood spec does have a healer aspect, but its geared towards tanking instead of healing groups. And nowhere did Blizzard mention poison as an aspect of Necromancy.




I cast it in a negative light because we have a Necromancer class and people want essentially a ranged version of the exact same class. People who want a technology class rightfully point out that a profession does not come close to offering what a class offers.




Uh no. The spec's purpose is to represent the Old Gods. A priest would worship both the gods of the light and the gods of the darkness.



Simple; You put a poison spec into the class in order to differentiate it from the DK, purposely omitting actual concepts like a Lich spec, or a disease spec because DKs already have those abilities and you're attempting to make the necromancer different for the sake of difference. Instead you end up weakening and cheapening the entire concept.

Not to mention the overlap with other classes in the lineup that use Poison.



Again, Poison magic is not mentioned as a school of Necromantic magic.




Where did I say it was inferior? I said that it was different.




But that is what a Necromancer is; A person who uses Necromancy.



No, my source is the Ultimate Visual Guide which lays out Necromancy concisely. You said you have something similar for Holy. Where is it?

- - - Updated - - -



So we should create an entirely new class because of a resource variance?

It would be no different than priests and paladins.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they need you to keep the power when they have the power themselves? Why wouldn’t they simply use their numerous agents and/or fellow dragons who can disguise themselves as mortals and have draconic power naturally to do your job instead?

I’m just not seeing the purpose of a class that is essentially the lackey of another character.

If my race was sterile and on the brink of extinction, I'd much rather pass my power on to mortals who can still breed rather than going off adventuring myself.

[Triceron]

Wouldn't those encrypted messages be an example of a hint of a major incoming plot, especially since they occur over multiple expansions?

Yes, but it is an easter egg.

Blizzard hasn't acted on an easter egg since Mists of Pandaria, and that entire expansion was tailored for two reasons - their impression that fans really liked Pandaren due to fan reception of Chen and the Brewmasters; and to pander to China which where WoW was starting to grow (and in the west, starting to decline). They missed the mark on quite a few things unfortunately.

Garrosh didn't appear in WoW until TBC. We just learned about the Jailer in Shadowlands, and the only reason he has deep roots is because of Sylvanas' actions. Once again we're just in 9.02. Whose to say Blizzard won't continue seeding this villain in upcoming patches?

As I said, every MAJOR villain was well established before we saw them. Whether it was an RTS lore villain (Deathwing, Sargeras), a character turned major villain (Garrosh, Sylvanas) or mysterious figure seeded in the plot (N'zoth, Jailer, Void Lords)

There is no Mechanical villain that fits the bill.

If your argument is that they can create it, then it's a non-argument because they can create anything. Like I said, your argument applies to a Mechanical Major villain just as much as it would a Murloc Major Villain. Could Blizzard create a Murloc Major Villain in the game? Yes, they could. It doesn't mean they will though.

We should be framing the context of major villains to the ongoing greater narrative. Why would this character be a _major_ villain as opposed to a regular villain like Lei Shen and Xavius? There's simply no answer to that because a Mechanical villain has no roots in the current greater narrative. The ones you're pulling from are purely easter eggs material, great for regular villains but not enough to design an entire Expansion setting and story around.

And like I said, it's all a matter of seeding this villain in upcoming patches and possibly expansions. Why would Blizzard be incapable of doing that? You continuously act like a simple process is some major roadblock when most of it simply comes down to writing.

If nothing has been seeded then you don't have an argument. I'm not talking about what Blizzard can do, because they can do anything.

I've been asking what possible links Tinkers have to said villain, and so far your only conclusion is that a Technological Villain should be addressed by a Technological class, even though there's nothing special about this Class when Technology is a theme already being addressed by major NPCs, our own Engineering profession, and the potential for Engineering Covenants like Blingtron factions or the Tinkers Unions.

DKs, Monks and Demon Hunters all had direct connections to their settings and story. You haven't actually shown any connection between Tinkers and supposed Titan tech or Blingtron Army villain, which is what I'm pointing out. I haven't said Tinkers are impossible to be added, I'm saying I see no connection here to the Setting and Story you've presented, much like I don't see the connection between Necromancers and Shadowlands' Setting and Story.

Actually 3/5s. Revendreth is the birthplace and origin of Blood magic. The Maw also fits strongly with the Death Knight's theme of death and torment. The only aspects that are outside of the Death Knight concept is Ardenwald and Bastion.

They only cover 1/4th of the themes. Necromancers of the Cult of the Damned/WC3 don't actually use Blood magic, despite your belief. You are right that the Death Knights do use Blood magic and are themed with Torment. Necromancers not so much, because their whole focus is animacy and immortality. They aren't so much interested in inflicting Pain and Suffering, since the whole goal of the Cult of the Damned is to be free of those constraints through death and undeath.

The Maw is also something beyond what any mortal would tap into, and it's the same macguffin that's uber-powering Sylvanas right now. The Cult of the Damned may work for the major agents within the Maw and ally with the Mawsworn, but the Necromancy being used by Necromancers aren't drawn from the Maw itself. It's still the standard Necromancy we know it to be.

Because it's an energy source that isn't going away given how it's described in BFA.

It already went away with Shadowlands. You'd think if it's so powerful they could bring some with them into the Shadowlands, no?

- - - Updated - - -

If my race was sterile and on the brink of extinction, I'd much rather pass my power on to mortals who can still breed rather than going off adventuring myself.

This is a strong point because we have another instance of inherited power to mortal champions - the Guardians of Tirisfal. That's a major story hook that can be used.

[Revamp Man]

major tech villain possibilities are

king mechagon who is dead
titan keepers who are freed from corruption
malfunctioning titan creations which since BfA have all been fixed

a villain like ultron or skynet would be really powerful...except for the fact that both of those required things that WoW doesnt have like sophisticated networks which outside of the titan tech which nobody has really been able to crack and we have the creator of on speed dial just in case.

the enemy would have to be on par with other threats and unless its the size of the sword in silithus we have already defeated equal constructs

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but it is an easter egg.

Blizzard hasn't acted on an easter egg since Mists of Pandaria, and that entire expansion was tailored for two reasons - their impression that fans really liked Pandaren due to fan reception of Chen and the Brewmasters; and to pander to China which where WoW was starting to grow (and in the west, starting to decline). They missed the mark on quite a few things unfortunately.



As I said, every MAJOR villain was well established before we saw them. Whether it was an RTS lore villain (Deathwing, Sargeras), a character turned major villain (Garrosh, Sylvanas) or mysterious figure seeded in the plot (N'zoth, Jailer, Void Lords)

There is no Mechanical villain that fits the bill.

If your argument is that they can create it, then it's a non-argument because they can create anything. Like I said, your argument applies to a Mechanical Major villain just as much as it would a Murloc Major Villain. Could Blizzard create a Murloc Major Villain in the game? Yes, they could. It doesn't mean they will though.



If nothing has been seeded then you don't have an argument. I'm not talking about what Blizzard can do, because they can do anything.

I've been asking what possible links Tinkers have to said villain, and so far your only conclusion is that a Technological Villain should be addressed by a Technological class, even though there's nothing special about this Class when Technology is a theme already being addressed by major NPCs, our own Engineering profession, and the potential for Engineering Covenants like Blingtron factions or the Tinkers Unions.

DKs, Monks and Demon Hunters all had direct connections to their settings and story. You haven't actually shown any connection between Tinkers and supposed Titan tech or Blingtron Army villain, which is what I'm pointing out. I haven't said Tinkers are impossible to be added, I'm saying I see no connection here to the Setting and Story, much like I don't see the connection between Necromancers and Shadowlands' Setting and Story.



They only cover 1/4th of the themes. Necromancers of the Cult of the Damned/WC3 don't actually use Blood magic, despite your belief. You are right that the Death Knights do use Blood magic and are themed with Torment. Necromancers not so much, because their whole focus is animacy and immortality. They aren't so much interested in inflicting Pain and Suffering, since the whole goal of the Cult of the Damned is to be free of those constraints through death and undeath.

The Maw is also something beyond what any mortal would tap into, and it's the same macguffin that's uber-powering Sylvanas right now. The Cult of the Damned may work for the major agents within the Maw and ally with the Mawsworn, but the Necromancy being used by Necromancers aren't drawn from the Maw itself. It's still the standard Necromancy we know it to be.



It already went away with Shadowlands. You'd think if it's so powerful they could bring some with them into the Shadowlands, no?

- - - Updated - - -



This is a strong point because we have another instance of inherited power to mortal champions - the Guardians of Tirisfal. That's a major story hook that can be used.

the dragons passing on power to a mortal is legit Alodi 2.0 and i love it

[TheRevenantHero]

Yes, but it is an easter egg.

Blizzard hasn't acted on an easter egg since Mists of Pandaria, and that entire expansion was tailored for two reasons - their impression that fans really liked Pandaren due to fan reception of Chen and the Brewmasters; and to pander to China which where WoW was starting to grow (and in the west, starting to decline). They missed the mark on quite a few things unfortunately.



As I said, every MAJOR villain was well established before we saw them. Whether it was an RTS lore villain (Deathwing, Sargeras), a character turned major villain (Garrosh, Sylvanas) or mysterious figure seeded in the plot (N'zoth, Jailer, Void Lords)

There is no Mechanical villain that fits the bill.

If your argument is that they can create it, then it's a non-argument because they can create anything. Like I said, your argument applies to a Mechanical Major villain just as much as it would a Murloc Major Villain. Could Blizzard create a Murloc Major Villain in the game? Yes, they could. It doesn't mean they will though.



If nothing has been seeded then you don't have an argument. I'm not talking about what Blizzard can do, because they can do anything.

I've been asking what possible links Tinkers have to said villain, and so far your only conclusion is that a Technological Villain should be addressed by a Technological class, even though there's nothing special about this Class when Technology is a theme already being addressed by major NPCs, our own Engineering profession, and the potential for Engineering Covenants like Blingtron factions or the Tinkers Unions.

DKs, Monks and Demon Hunters all had direct connections to their settings and story. You haven't actually shown any connection between Tinkers and supposed Titan tech or Blingtron Army villain, which is what I'm pointing out. I haven't said Tinkers are impossible to be added, I'm saying I see no connection here to the Setting and Story, much like I don't see the connection between Necromancers and Shadowlands' Setting and Story.



They only cover 1/4th of the themes. Necromancers of the Cult of the Damned/WC3 don't actually use Blood magic, despite your belief. You are right that the Death Knights do use Blood magic and are themed with Torment. Necromancers not so much, because their whole focus is animacy and immortality. They aren't so much interested in inflicting Pain and Suffering, since the whole goal of the Cult of the Damned is to be free of those constraints through death and undeath.

The Maw is also something beyond what any mortal would tap into, and it's the same macguffin that's uber-powering Sylvanas right now. The Cult of the Damned may work for the major agents within the Maw and ally with the Mawsworn, but the Necromancy being used by Necromancers aren't drawn from the Maw itself. It's still the standard Necromancy we know it to be.



It already went away with Shadowlands. You'd think if it's so powerful they could bring some with them into the Shadowlands, no?

- - - Updated - - -



This is a strong point because we have another instance of inherited power to mortal champions - the Guardians of Tirisfal. That's a major story hook that can be used.

Exactly. There's a reason the players are the ones with the power. Because the people giving them power don't want to risk dying. Because if they die, there goes all of their power and knowledge. It's better to imbue adventurers to be the pawns on the chess board.

[Ielenia]

This is a strong point because we have another instance of inherited power to mortal champions - the Guardians of Tirisfal. That's a major story hook that can be used.

Didn't Thrall also get the powers of Aspect of Earth during Cataclysm, or am I misremembering things?

[Triceron]

Didn't Thrall also get the powers of Aspect of Earth during Cataclysm, or am I misremembering things?

People rumored this, but it was never officiated. He acted as a stand-in for the Aspect of the Earth but never adopted any powers beyond the ones he already had. He was presented the title of 'Earth Warder' because of his dedication to protecting Azeroth, a position that was supposed to be held by Neltharion. Thrall didn't actually gain any aspect powers or Draconic power buffs, he was simply the one who ended up channeling their powers through the Demon Soul, since Dragons are unable to use the power of the Demon Soul themselves.

Aspect of the Earth and Earthwarder were treated more as titles in Cataclysm. It was a temporary title that wasn't carried forth after Cataclysm.

[Teriz]

It would be no different than priests and paladins.

Priests use Shadow magic. Paladins use weapon and armor-based holy magic.

DKs cover necromancy. So yeah, it would be different.

If my race was sterile and on the brink of extinction, I'd much rather pass my power on to mortals who can still breed rather than going off adventuring myself.

You mean like Wrathion does constantly? Isn't it because of Wrathion that we'll find the Dragon Isles?

Also if this group is so vital, why have we never seen them in WoW? Dragons have been in this state since the end of Cataclysm.

[TheRevenantHero]

Priests use Shadow magic. Paladins use weapon and armor-based holy magic.

DKs cover necromancy. So yeah, it would be different.



You mean like Wrathion does constantly? Isn't it because of Wrathion that we'll find the Dragon Isles?

Also if this group is so vital, why have we never seen them in WoW? Dragons have been in this state since the end of Cataclysm.

Two of the priests use the Light just like how all paladin specs wield the Light.

...I was talking about dragons. They're sterile and will eventually go extinct. So it'd be likely they'd imbue a mortal with a portion of their power so as to be their emissary in the world, hence creating the Dragonsworn class. Dragons will not be playable and we would instead get a draconic themed class that every race can go for.

And just because DKs have necromancy doesn't mean there can't be a full necromancer class. Because by that logic, time to remove Frost spec from DKs because mages already do it. Time to make priests shadow only since paladins already have Light. Time to remove Destruction spec from warlocks since mages already use fire magic. See how incredibly ridiculous that sounds? Necromancers would be wielding necromancy far more differently than DKs because they'd be tapping straight into death magic and use mana. DKs use runic magic and derive their necromantic powers from killing living things rather than tapping into death magic. You're literally proving that necromancers can happen with your priest comparison. Necromancer would just be DKs in light armor and focus on a ranged role. And finally, as mentioned by Ielenia, necromancers could easily make one of their specs Poison. Boom. Necromancers are now different from DKs because of one spec just like how you are saying priests and paladins are vastly different purely because priests have shadow magic as one of their specs.

[Teriz]

Yes, but it is an easter egg.

Blizzard hasn't acted on an easter egg since Mists of Pandaria, and that entire expansion was tailored for two reasons - their impression that fans really liked Pandaren due to fan reception of Chen and the Brewmasters; and to pander to China which where WoW was starting to grow (and in the west, starting to decline). They missed the mark on quite a few things unfortunately.

Here's a list of Easter Eggs in BFA;
https://warcraft.blizzplanet.com/blo...ure-references

If you're talking about Easter Eggs as in hints of future content, you had multiple references to the Demon Hunter in MoP before their eventual release in Legion. In Legion you had the two castaways from Kul Tiras and Zandalar, and the hooded doomsayer in 7.3 with a map of Kul Tiras on his outfit. There were also hints of the Shadowlands in BFA as well. So no, Blizzard hasn't stopped with the Easter Eggs.

As I said, every MAJOR villain was well established before we saw them. Whether it was an RTS lore villain (Deathwing, Sargeras), a character turned major villain (Garrosh, Sylvanas) or mysterious figure seeded in the plot (N'zoth, Jailer, Void Lords)

There is no Mechanical villain that fits the bill.

If your argument is that they can create it, then it's a non-argument because they can create anything. Like I said, your argument applies to a Mechanical Major villain just as much as it would a Murloc Major Villain. Could Blizzard create a Murloc Major Villain in the game? Yes, they could. It doesn't mean they will though.

We should be framing the context of major villains to the ongoing greater narrative. Why would this character be a _major_ villain as opposed to a regular villain like Lei Shen and Xavius? There's simply no answer to that because a Mechanical villain has no roots in the current greater narrative. The ones you're pulling from are purely easter eggs material, great for regular villains but not enough to design an entire Expansion setting and story around.

Just because every major villain was established a certain way in the past doesn't mean that Blizzard would do future villains in that way.

If nothing has been seeded then you don't have an argument. I'm not talking about what Blizzard can do, because they can do anything.

Again, I would consider those encrypted messages to be examples of seeding by Blizzard.

I've been asking what possible links Tinkers have to said villain, and so far your only conclusion is that a Technological Villain should be addressed by a Technological class, even though there's nothing special about this Class when Technology is a theme already being addressed by major NPCs, our own Engineering profession, and the potential for Engineering Covenants like Blingtron factions or the Tinkers Unions.

DKs, Monks and Demon Hunters all had direct connections to their settings and story. You haven't actually shown any connection between Tinkers and supposed Titan tech or Blingtron Army villain, which is what I'm pointing out. I haven't said Tinkers are impossible to be added, I'm saying I see no connection here to the Setting and Story, much like I don't see the connection between Necromancers and Shadowlands' Setting and Story.

And nothing needs to be special about the class outside of it utilizing technology. The engineering profession, Major NPCs, and covenants don't replace what a class offers to gameplay and immersion for the player.

As for direct connections to the story, why would I need to know that? I'm not writing the story, I'm simply saying that a technology based expansion is possible.

They only cover 1/4th of the themes. Necromancers of the Cult of the Damned/WC3 don't actually use Blood magic, despite your belief. You are right that the Death Knights do use Blood magic and are themed with Torment. Necromancers not so much, because their whole focus is animacy and immortality. They aren't so much interested in inflicting Pain and Suffering, since the whole goal of the Cult of the Damned is to be free of those constraints through death and undeath.

There are Troll necromancers in who do use blood magic;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=139829/n...ncer#abilities

The Maw is also something beyond what any mortal would tap into, and it's the same macguffin that's uber-powering Sylvanas right now. The Cult of the Damned may work for the major agents within the Maw and ally with the Mawsworn, but the Necromancy being used by Necromancers aren't drawn from the Maw itself. It's still the standard Necromancy we know it to be.

So we have examples of Necromancers working with agents within the Maw, but you don't think they don't tap into it for any power whatsoever?

It already went away with Shadowlands. You'd think if it's so powerful they could bring some with them into the Shadowlands, no?

It's obviously powerful. That's established lore. It not being present in this expansion (since it doesn't take place on Azeroth) simply means it isn't a focus.

- - - Updated - - -

Two of the priests use the Light just like how all paladin specs wield the Light.

I'm talking about classes, not lore. Lore means little when it comes to class lineup and class balance.

For example, we have non-Pandaren Monks in lore. Do you think we'll ever get a non-pandaren Monk class since we already have a Pandaren-based Monk? Howabout Dark Shaman. Do you think we'll get a Dark Shaman class since they exist in lore and have different abilities than the standard shaman class?

The answer to both of those questions is no. And the same applies to the Necromancer class, since we already have Death Knights.

...I was talking about dragons. They're sterile and will eventually go extinct. So it'd be likely they'd imbue a mortal with a portion of their power so as to be their emissary in the world, hence creating the Dragonsworn class. Dragons will not be playable and we would instead get a draconic themed class that every race can go for.

Do you have an example from WoW, HotS, or WC3:R of this class concept? Dragons have been in this state for some time. Why have they never done this before?

And just because DKs have necromancy doesn't mean there can't be a full necromancer class. Because by that logic, time to remove Frost spec from DKs because mages already do it. Time to make priests shadow only since paladins already have Light. Time to remove Destruction spec from warlocks since mages already use fire magic. See how incredibly ridiculous that sounds? Necromancers would be wielding necromancy far more differently than DKs because they'd be tapping straight into death magic and use mana. DKs use runic magic and derive their necromantic powers from killing living things rather than tapping into death magic. You're literally proving that necromancers can happen with your priest comparison. Necromancer would just be DKs in light armor and focus on a ranged role. And finally, as mentioned by Ielenia, necromancers could easily make one of their specs Poison. Boom. Necromancers are now different from DKs because of one spec just like how you are saying priests and paladins are vastly different purely because priests have shadow magic as one of their specs.

Well, no. DKs have Frost spec because of the Lich, and are trained by Lichs in Archerus. Mages have Frost spec because of the Archmage from WC3 and Jaina Proudmoore. Priests have shadow magic due to the Old Gods.

Why would Necromancers have poison? The scourge used alchemical poisons to make plagues. Death Knights already have plagues. You think we should create a new class just so that necromancers can toss around poison? Rogues already do that.