1. #5061
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'm really interested in how this could play into healing. The idea of a Summoner/Healer hybrid is really exciting and fresh to me. I mean sure Priest has shadowfiend and Druid sometimes gets Treants, but we haven't gotten a dedicated Healer type that plays off of minions.
    FFXIV has a healer summoner with the Scholar Job, they summon faeries who autoheal allies + a few command abilities, not quite sure how else it operates beyond that.

    Although apparently there is a meme/joke that it's a DPS job since it has a decent damage toolkit + the pet does healing for you

    As for how that could affect a Necromancer healer, perhaps the spirits are autohealers (akin to healing stream totems) but the necromancer has a few command abilities either AOE or Single target that either reduce the spirits remaining duration or expend them so it's a choice between consistent or a AOE/large heal. (might add it bit too much resource management there, since your managing skeletons + corpses + spirits)

    Or they summon different types of spirits from corpses who preform different functions (single target, aoe, buff/debuff).
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-20 at 12:29 AM.

  2. #5062
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because items are fundamentally different than abilities, and a profession can’t take the place or function of a class.
    They aren't really. They have the same mechanics. The only difference is number tunings.

    Beyond cosmetics, what’s the difference between a DK under Lichborne casting Howling Blast or Death Coil?
    Death coil is single-target, howling blast is AoE.
    Death coil is shadow damage, howling blast is frost damage.
    Death coil is affected by Unholy spec passives, howling blast is affected by Frost spec passives.

    An ability that damages an enemy but heals an ally? What’s the difference between that and Death Coil?
    You do know that we have many abilities in the game that do the same, right? Your problem here is that you're not just looking at the ability itself in isolation, you're looking at a single characteristic of the ability in isolation while ignoring all the rest.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That's a rather meaningless distinction in this case. I'm talking about individual abilities.
    But individual abilities looked at in isolation are meaningless. What matters is how those abilities interact with each other and with the class' passives. Which is why the distinction between 'melee gameplay' and 'ranged gameplay' is important.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    https://www.wowhead.com/spell=49039/lichborne

    The tooltip says they become undead.
    You do know that death knights are already undead by default, right?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  3. #5063
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    FFXIV has a healer summoner with the Scholar Job, they summon faeries who autoheal allies + a few command abilities, not quite sure how else it operates beyond that.
    Haven't really played that game, but definitely sounds interesting.

    I did play GW2 and mained a Necromancer. There was a heal spec, but it played more around the use of Auras and AoE heals rather than any real Summoner style gameplay.

    I think that's why it's really interesting to me, because the potential is all there and set up for a Summoner/Healer style but it's not really something done in another game before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  4. #5064
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Haven't really played that game, but definitely sounds interesting.

    I did play GW2 and mained a Necromancer. There was a heal spec, but it played more around the use of Auras and AoE heals rather than any real Summoner style gameplay.

    I think that's why it's really interesting to me, because the potential is all there and set up for a Summoner/Healer style but it's not really something done in another game before.
    Elder Scrolls Online also has a Necromancer class with a summoner/corpse mechanic I believe every class in that game can Tank/Heal/DPS since weapons (including healing staves) and class abilities are seperate and every class has a tanking, damage and support/heal skill tree, think theres room for interesting mechanics since summoning as the primary mechanic is only really seen in Unholy and Demonology both dps specs.

    Another nice thing BFA and Shadowlands gave us is a variety of lich models, a Necromancer class could certainly have a Lich transformation perhaps with a unique look based on spec.

    Bone Necromancers would get the classic/standard bony lich


    Anima/Soul Necromancer could get a more spectral version akin to Margrave sindane


    Poison/Plague is a bit more open, could be plague/slime coated (something similar to margrave stradama?), have insects surrounding them or maybe something similar to the troll lich model with it's webs and jars


    Theres also room for a variety of options regarding your normal summons, skeletons (including different races skeletons), maldraxxus skeletons, small constructs, slime skeletons, zombies. Ghouls should probably be avoided due to how Ghouls being unholy's main summon (especially since a large number ghouls gets created by army of the dead/apocalypse)
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-20 at 01:24 AM.

  5. #5065
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by The Council View Post
    different game different rules.
    the reaching is real.
    I'm looking forward to the end of this expansion. The death/undead/necromancy themes are dull and annoying.

  6. #5066
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I'm looking forward to the end of this expansion. The death/undead/necromancy themes are dull and annoying.
    Thankfully you seem to be in the minority, considering how well-received this expansion has been.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  7. #5067
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by VinceVega View Post
    Why are people so hung up upon "it allready exists ingame"?
    Because the last thing the class lineup needs is more of the same.

    We have the following specs which are either partially or entirely shadow-based;

    Blood
    Unholy
    Shadow
    Affliction
    Demonology
    Destruction
    Havoc
    Vengeance
    Sublety

    Do we really need more? We've explored every aspect of Shadow magic, from the Old Gods, to Necromancy, to Demons, we've hit all of it. Adding another shadow spec would simply be redundant, and the user base wants something new. Something that isn't going to take from existing classes, and something that doesn't feel like it's an existing class with a few extra spells to make it appear different.

    You're right, Tinker would be different, and unlike another shadow-based class, it would actually give the class lineup something it doesn't have; A class themed around technology; a theme that exists in abundance in WoW but players can't fully partake in it. I think after this dark, dank, gritty expansion, the majority of players are going to want something different.

    Also I'd happily take a Dragon-based class based on this character as well. That would be something different too.

  8. #5068
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    We've explored every aspect of Shadow magic, from the Old Gods, to Necromancy, to Demons, we've hit all of it.
    Except we haven't. Shadowlands itself has shown how there's a lot more to necromancy than what we thought there were. Oozes, constructs, the fact that necromancy itself is not 'evil' as people thought, etc.

    It's never "done". Nothing is ever "done". There's always room to expand and improve on concepts. To say "it's done" is to admit you either have no imagination, or refuse to think about it.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  9. #5069
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Except we haven't. Shadowlands itself has shown how there's a lot more to necromancy than what we thought there were.

    Oozes
    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Unholy_Mutation

    constructs
    https://www.wowhead.com/spell=280428...sh-monstrosity
    https://www.wowhead.com/spell=288853/raise-abomination

    the fact that necromancy itself is not 'evil' as people thought, etc.
    We have Death Knights to show us that Necromancy isn't evil.

    It's all been done already.

  10. #5070
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Never explored, until now. One singular ability is not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the types of oozes and similar creations.

    Never explored, until now. Two singular abilities are not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the constructs in Maldraxxus, and the reason for their existing.

    We have Death Knights to show us that Necromancy isn't evil.

    It's all been done already.
    Death knights did not show us at all that necromancy isn't evil. People still revile necromancy.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  11. #5071
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Never explored, until now. One singular ability is not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the types of oozes and similar creations.


    Never explored, until now. Two singular abilities are not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the constructs in Maldraxxus, and the reason for their existing.
    If Blizzard wants to "explore" those concepts, why wouldn't they just give Death Knights more of those abilities since they already have them or had them in the past. Why create an entirely new class just for discarded DK abilities?


    Death knights did not show us at all that necromancy isn't evil. People still revile necromancy.
    They're heroes and champions of their factions who use Necromancy. That's exactly what they're doing.

  12. #5072
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If Blizzard wants to "explore" those concepts, why wouldn't they just give Death Knights
    Because the death knights already have enough concepts of their own. Give them more and their specs become bloated and unfocused. The death knight's frost spec, for example, has one concept it focus on: frost magic. The warlock's destruction spec is focused on one concept: fire magic. The monk's mistweaver spec is focused on one concept: mist healing. And so on and so forth.

    Sure, most classes have 'secondary concepts' but they're not focused upon, they're actually barely touched and don't really affect in nothing the original concept. For example, destruction warlocks have chaos magic, but they're not the focus of the spec. Blood death knights have bone magic, but they're not the focus of the spec.

    Piling on more and more concepts into a spec, even if they technically fit, thematically, is a disservice for the class and spec because it robs concept identity and focus. To have an idea of how it would work, imagine if all three of the death knight specs were merged into a single one. One single spec that has blood, frost and unholy magic. And your priority rotation has abilities of frost, blood and unholy. The spec itself would be a mess of concepts mashed together, having them all but focused on none. That erodes identity.

    more of those abilities since they already have them or had them in the past.
    One or two abilities of a certain type does not mean the class has "ownership" of that entire concept, nor does it mean said concept has been explored.

    Why create an entirely new class just for discarded DK abilities?
    Read above: because the death knight already has enough concepts of their own.

    They're heroes and champions of their factions who use Necromancy. That's exactly what they're doing.
    That is not the same thing. Even with death knights, necromancy is still reviled.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  13. #5073
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    /snip.
    Yeah, not getting into another pointless discussion about Necromancers. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  14. #5074
    Quote Originally Posted by choom View Post


    I'll say it once again, Dark Ranger would be a perfect Rogue spec.
    Not really. DR are a mix of rogue, hunter and necromancers

  15. #5075
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post
    Not really. DR are a mix of rogue, hunter and necromancers
    Yeah, which is pretty much a Forsaken or Void Elf Hunter. Think Blizzard is looking for something more original for future classes that patches up the holes in the class lineup instead of simply a class that mix and matches existing classes.

    A little off topic, but man that D4 Rogue reveal was underwhelming.

  16. #5076
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yeah, not getting into another pointless discussion about Necromancers. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
    As much as you try to avoid it, Teriz, it's a fact: "Why not simply give those concepts to the death knight instead of a new class?" Because of bloat.

    For example: remember when the death knight was introduced? Their rotations were heavily similar: Icy Touch, Plague Strike, Blood Strike, always applying the same diseases (frost fever, blood plague) and differing only in their spec's signature abilities: blood DKs would use Death Strike using 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, frost DKs would use Obliterate that used 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, and unholy DKs would use Scourge Strike, that used 1 unholy rune. Nowadays? None of those specs have similar rotations, and they even have their own diseases.

    Which is why any argument that says "just tack on this concept to the death knight" is not only D.O.A. but also shows a lack of understanding about how classes are structured and designed.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  17. #5077
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    As much as you try to avoid it, Teriz, it's a fact: "Why not simply give those concepts to the death knight instead of a new class?" Because of bloat.

    For example: remember when the death knight was introduced? Their rotations were heavily similar: Icy Touch, Plague Strike, Blood Strike, always applying the same diseases (frost fever, blood plague) and differing only in their spec's signature abilities: blood DKs would use Death Strike using 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, frost DKs would use Obliterate that used 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, and unholy DKs would use Scourge Strike, that used 1 unholy rune. Nowadays? None of those specs have similar rotations, and they even have their own diseases.

    Which is why any argument that says "just tack on this concept to the death knight" is not only D.O.A. but also shows a lack of understanding about how classes are structured and designed.
    That's not a reason. Note that I said "If Blizzard wants to do it". In other words, if Blizzard wants a spec to "explore" undead oozes and constructs, you place it in the class that handles Necromancy. That would be the DK class. Unholy Mutation is an example of Blizzard wanting to explore oozes within the class lineup. Ghoulish Monstrosity is an example of exploring undead constructs. Again, you don't create an entirely new class to explore those concepts when you already have an existing class that can do it. It's the same with people who want a Witch Doctor class, seemingly ignoring that there's a shaman class you can stick those concepts into. If you Blizzard wants to explore such concepts, they can place those concepts in that class.

    The fact that you believe that such an argument is DOA and is a misunderstanding of how classes are structured is laughable.

  18. #5078
    Brewmaster Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,251
    choom
    I'll say it once again, Dark Ranger would be a perfect Rogue spec.
    This is completely different archetype, this representative is obvious hybrid and doesn't fit into traditional class differentiation (a fortiori WoW's rogues; not to mention, if they want to add full-fledged "range" to D4, which only one there currently is DH, and which is much closer in archetype to DR than what they showed in the video), but, strictly speaking, this is only a small part of its problem. You forgetting that THIS is a full-fledged class there (in D4), but here (in WoW) THIS is pieces of idiocy.

    All that remains for me is to remind about inconsistency of "specialization" in Blizzard's execution, and this is it of what you're trying to appeal, when speaking about possibility of such concept. Another class - undoubtedly, specialization - in no case, because then it'd be necessary to expand mechanics of entire class (each "specialization") for its full functioning and balance. Full class! Not specialization! That's the only way how it could be done, we have already argued about this (not with you, but) somewhere... right here. There are a-a-all answers.

    Forget about specializations, forget about such nonsense:
    choom
    I think most realistically we could think about Blizzard replacing/overhauling existing specs to align with a desired class fantasy.

    1. Survival Hunter reworked again, into Shadow Hunter. Not much changes, but the Loa and naturalist theme could be more explicit.

    2. A Warlock spec reworked into Necromancer, a Summoner Tank spec. We don't need two Fire Mages, or Affliction is kind of boring, and Tanking with an Abom is different enough from Demo Lock.

    3. Mistweaver Monk gains a bunch of Bard skills based on hope and inspiring songs and Chi-ji shit. The more I think about Bard being worked into Monk healing the more I like.

    4. Sub or Assassination Rogue getting reworked into Dark Ranger. They are not meaningfully different from one another and Rogues getting a ranged spec would be dope.
    each of these concepts will be "defective stump within framework of these classes", while they have right and potential for full developed ones:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    As for range weapon, this has already been discussed above, they had it and should have remained such. So if they'd add one-handed pistol as third slot weapon, and ability to use it for any rogue - it's another matter. But, firstly, they likely won't do it already, and secondly, if they'd did it during old mechanics, then implementation itself would be very poor, in comparison with all possibilities that pirate theme can offer. It's foolish to waste them for the sake of "only one pistol's shot". Even players can offer much more stuff, but then it will go beyond rogue class. Simple.
    This was said about "pirate" part, but it's completely true for this case as well.

    pacotaco
    Not really. DR are a mix of rogue, hunter and necromancers
    There is nothing rogues' in DR and full-fledged hunters' too, they're more of "agile mind-ed shadow mage", all its weapons are defective in themselves, but they are enchanted, magic is its weapon... but they aren't necromancers either, there are some common elements that intersect, but these are attacking and protecting spells, and not a full-fledged life/death force manipulation (for the same reason DK can't act as full-fledged necromancer). And when I mention these classes, I speak precisely for their literal mechanics, for their concept, and not for specific weapon or its use. You better forget already about these idiotic boundaries, that devs have drawn for their convenience here and there without any logic (narrow/tied scope in terms of weapons/specs'abilities/armor and other stuff, this is frank narrow-mindedness). All this was cut under auspices of balance, but in the end nothing like that happened, which indicates completely different nature of such phenomenon.

    Teriz
    The boundaries are there for class balance and diversity. If you remove those boundaries the classes begin to bleed together and become pointless. There's nothing idiotic about them, and the game is better because we have them.
    I'm talking about boundaries between specializations, I'm talking about tied of using even simplest abilities by only specific weapons, I'm talking about idiots, who decided that they can shove 10 others into one class.

    imo it was clearly enough indicated

    If you appeal specifically to them, when talking about balance and need for separation, then I have a lot to tell you, but outside scope of this topic, if you're talking about boundaries between classes, then I'm completely solidary with this and apparently there was some misunderstanding. But! I repeat, saying "class", I mean set of certain mechanics available to any of its representatives - just like that. Bordering degree is determined only by player's choice within whole class, but not by role of this spec in some PvE encounter/any external "obligatory in devs' opinion" stylistics.

    - you decide to give some mechanic to one of specs ⇒ you're giving it to the whole class -
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2021-06-25 at 06:29 AM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  19. #5079
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    I speak precisely for their literal mechanics, for their concept, and not for specific weapon or its use. You better forget already about these idiotic boundaries, that devs have drawn for their convenience here and there without any logic (narrow/tied scope in terms of weapons/abilities/armor and other stuff, this is frank narrow-mindedness). All this was cut under auspices of balance, but in the end nothing like that happened, which indicates completely different nature of such phenomenon.
    The boundaries are there for class balance and diversity. If you remove those boundaries the classes begin to bleed together and become pointless. There's nothing idiotic about them, and the game is better because we have them.

  20. #5080
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That's not a reason. Note that I said "If Blizzard wants to do it". In other words, if Blizzard wants a spec to "explore" undead oozes and constructs, you place it in the class that handles Necromancy. That would be the DK class. Unholy Mutation is an example of Blizzard wanting to explore oozes within the class lineup. Ghoulish Monstrosity is an example of exploring undead constructs. Again, you don't create an entirely new class to explore those concepts when you already have an existing class that can do it. It's the same with people who want a Witch Doctor class, seemingly ignoring that there's a shaman class you can stick those concepts into. If you Blizzard wants to explore such concepts, they can place those concepts in that class.

    The fact that you believe that such an argument is DOA and is a misunderstanding of how classes are structured is laughable.
    I just gave you a reason why this isn't really feasible, Teriz. The Death Knight class is already set in its concepts, and to add more to the class means removing the focus of the class' current specs. It doesn't matter that the death knight class has one or two abilities that belong to this foreign concept. That does not mean the class has "ownership" of the concept to the point that "all abilities of this concept should go to the death knight class".

    Rogues and monks being able to create potions does not preclude the inclusion of a class with a spec focused on alchemy. Just like death knights having one bone spell and one ooze ability does not preclude a class having a spec focused on bone magic, or ooze minion managing.

    And the death knight specs having one or two abilities that are off their specs' central concept is fine, because it doesn't affect the spec's focus on its concept. Frost being able to use Death Strike or summon a ghoul in nothing detracts from the spec's central theme, which is frost. The death knight's frost spec remans still, first and foremost, a spec centered around the use of frost magic.

    To have a class explore a concept, it means making one of its specs focus of it. And that means having said spec either share its focus with its original theme, or replace the theme altogether. And Blizzard has shown that they don't like doing that: the druid's Feral spec had two focus: tank and DPS, bear and cat, making the spec not only excel on either, but lack on both. What did they do? They split the spec in two, making the Feral spec focus on cat DPS, and created the Guardian spec to focus on bear tanking. The survival hunter: focus on both melee and ranged. What did Blizzard do? Remove the melee components of the spec at first, and later on remove ALL the ranged components of the spec and replace it all with pure melee attributes.

    And then we have the death knight: all three of its specs not only shared their focus with both DPS and Tanking, which was removed one expansion later, but all three specs had the same focus in terms of themes: all three specs had minion management, all three specs dealt with the same 2 diseases, and had almost the same rotation. Today? Blood is only about blood, Frost is only about frost, and Unholy is only about unholy, each having their own abilities, rotation and diseases.

    With all of that in mind, it's easy to see why saying "just pile this concept onto the death knight instead of giving it to a new class." is not a sound argument to make because doing so causes bloat in the class, leaving it unfocused. I mean, why do you think we have warlocks and mages as separate classes? Blizzard could have easily just made a single spellcaster class by putting all of those concepts together. It would still be a 'mage' class because fel magic and demon summon magic is still magic, and mages deal with magic, but we would end up with a class that has no specialization, as it would do "a little bit of everything" instead of having its specs be focused on a concept and do "a lot out of a few."

    Which is what would happen if we just piled the concepts of "bone magic", "blood healer", "poison magic", etc., into the death knight class. It would muddle the specs' identities, as they would no longer be able to focus on a single concept like they do today, and therefore end up losing their identity.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

Posting Permissions

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