1. #5321
    Pandaren Monk bryroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,941
    Next Class will be Dark Rangers. Sorry Tinker fans.

  2. #5322
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeenith View Post
    wow, so take everything that was done to survival, turn it to 11 and make it much worse for half the playable classes....
    No way, I think what they did with Survival sucked and there's more room for improvement to turn it into a Rexxar-like class and the Primal class from the Warcraft RPG.

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Primal

    Primals are those warriors who revel in their bestial rage and give into it completely. As they slowly take on an increasingly beast-like appearance, they also gain powerful and violent abilities.[1] Primals believe that every creature is inhabited by a dark, primeval essence. They hold to the notion that each and every living soul is haunted by a beastly force, and that those who accept this fact can eventually ascend to another level of existence - one that is more primitive, but also more connected to nature and the animal kingdom. Though very few can fathom the existence of this whimsical force, primeval characters strive to unlock its secrets. They call this pristine essence "the beast within". Primals believe that once someone has accepted the beast within himself, he must learn not to suppress it — as most civilized folks were brought up to do. Indeed, the character must welcome it into his heart and soul in order to call upon it in times of need. Thus, primals can tap this essence and channel the instincts, strength, and fury only the beast within can provide.

    Survival Hunter has a long way to go before fulfilling that fantasy but it's on the right track. Outlaw Rogue is a perfect example of a boring class with no character reimagined as something very interesting, and I rarely see anyone complain about Outlaw Rogue and wish for the old Combat spec to come back. Other classes could benefit big time from the same treatment.

  3. #5323
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    The Demon Hunter can wield swords and axes.
    And, i didn't mean by abilities. I meant by weapon types which, they can already wield:
    Weapon types: Axe, Bow, Crossbow, Dagger, Scythe, Sword.



    I didn't mean just them. Those are the ones listed.
    But, i don't wanna see a Tauren Dark Ranger. Would you? they are not agile, in the least.
    Giving everyone everything just ruins lore and immersion. Look at how ridiculous Gnome and Vulpera Death Knights are.
    I want races with a ranger or necromancy background.



    I gave you more examples than Forsaken Hunters, which you chose to disregard. -_-

    No, not a class. A spec.
    Whether it is alongside Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch, or alongside Warden.

    Giving it to everybody is not wise, either.



    Well, their necromancy comes from their undead natures:
    "after being raised into undeath by Arthas Menethil, Sylvanas found herself out of touch with the wilds, which was replaced by necromancy, making her a dark ranger."

    Otherwise, they would be just Rangers.
    Though, this one seems quite alive:




    Not necessarily.
    A Hunter would be a Ranger, who is more in touch with the wilds.
    Nobody? how about the countless other Dark Rangers?



    Sorry to burst our bubble, but that was an April Fools.
    Though, last time, they joked about having necklaces on your character, and we did get them as customization.



    No, not at all.
    Look at my class concept, page 108.
    There's much more than just the 4 WC3 abilities.



    As much as Dragonsworn sounds innovative, Blizzard has yet to add a new class from the RPG.
    Integrate it into one (Necromancer/Runemaster), maybe. But, not base it on it.



    The guy lacks imagination and does not count on Blizzard to do their thing.
    The company, literally, produced Mistweaver, Windwalker and Vengeance specs out of their ass.
    Sea Witch is even less likely to happen because that's a Naga only thing. And the Naga are still enemies of both factions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bryroo View Post
    Next Class will be Dark Rangers. Sorry Tinker fans.
    No it really won't be. Dark Ranger has barely enough unique and interesting things about it to make it a spec let alone an entire class.

  4. #5324
    Quote Originally Posted by bryroo View Post
    Next Class will be Dark Rangers. Sorry Tinker fans.
    We need a cloth class because there hasn't been any and as much as i want a tinker i think the next one will be necromancer because of the simple fact that is way more popular than the others and blizz wants money plus it could fit with the shadowlands thematic for future buildup.
    Last edited by Soimu; 2021-04-07 at 05:17 AM.

  5. #5325
    Quote Originally Posted by Soimu View Post
    We need a cloth class because there hasn't been any
    By your own logic "we need" another mail ranged weapon class, the two lowest represented things in the game. Since we all know it wont be tinker, dark ranger fits the bill. I guess it could be bard, but that doesn't really feel like a fit for wow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Nah nah, see... I live by one simple creed: You might catch more flies with honey, but to catch honeys you gotta be fly.

  6. #5326
    Quote Originally Posted by oplawlz View Post
    By your own logic "we need" another mail ranged weapon class, the two lowest represented things in the game. Since we all know it wont be tinker, dark ranger fits the bill. I guess it could be bard, but that doesn't really feel like a fit for wow.
    By my logic i mean among the all new classes introduced there hasn't been a cloth one and necro fits, dark ranger no but considering how fcked up wow lore is blizz could find a way i guess.
    Last edited by Soimu; 2021-04-07 at 05:28 AM.

  7. #5327
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yet RPG-based classes have been in consideration since WoW Alpha.

    We know for a fact that Runemaster was a runner up in consideration as a 'non-typical Spellcaster', a spot which went to the Warlock.

    Kevin Jordan:



    Dragonsworn are fairly well established in the community. People know what this is, even if we don't have a formal class or unit in any game to represent it. It's a pretty straight-forward concept.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comment...venturers_are/

    Blizzard has yet to do a lot of things, and it's just a matter of time if they do.
    I like that that they mention the Tauren Chieftain, the Mountain King, the Orc Berserker, but not the Blademaster when talking about the Warrior class.
    A note to sygfreyd.

    As for the Runemaster:
    "The runemaster was considered as a playable class in classic World of Warcraft but was scrapped early in development. According to John Staats, runemasters were replaced by druids, while according to Kevin Jordan they were replaced by warlocks in the role of a "freak class" that differed from standard RPG tropes".

    So, even they couldn't, really, decide what it is.

    And, I didn't talk about Vanilla classes, but new ones.
    Moreover, consideration is one thing. Implementing them is another. You can see how they were considered for a Hero class, but were replaced by the Death Knight and, eventually, integrated into it (and into the Monk).

    The community is not Blizzard.
    They, also, have a Bard concept in mind. Doesn't, really, mean it is, potentially, viable.
    Though, Allied races and customization was a community idea. So, i don't rule that out, completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by choom View Post
    I would rather see some of the other classes fleshed out and improved, where they are otherwise kind of boring.

    Warrior: Make Gladiator Stance actually work, so that Sword and Board DPS is viable.

    Shaman: Enhancement reimagined as Earthwarder, a Tank spec. Elemental reimagined as a hybrid melee/ranged spec. Think Avengers' Thor.

    Monk: Allow Windwalker Monk to use 2-Hand Weapons, and reimagined as Blademaster.

    Rogue: Assassination turned into a Ranged Spec that can use Bows, Crossbows and Guns and reimagined as Dark Ranger.

    Hunter: Survival Hunter can Dual Wield one handed weapons. Can use any Pet as a Mount.

    Mage: Arcane turned into a Healing Spec and reimagined as Chronomancy.

    Druid: Allow Druids to copy the appearance of NPC Beasts to use as Shapeshift forms similar to Hunter Pet Taming.

    Death Knight: Unholy reimagined as a Staff Wielding Ranged DPS aka Necromancer.
    Hell to the no.
    Cosmetic option, maybe.

    Warrior - i agree with Gladiator stance being a thing. Two-handed weapon while wielding a shield is missing.

    Shaman - Enhancement should be Far Seer/Shaman (Thrall/Rehgar) units based, not a tank.
    As for Elemental, i agree with adding melee to it. Not so much as in Thor, but things like Lava Lash (that should be a main-hand attack) and Flametongue.

    Monk - still do think Blademaster should be its own thing, despite the similarities.

    Rogue - Dark Ranger should be its own thing. Leave Assassination as a poison master.

    Hunter - More like Beast Mastery, so that it will be closer to Rexxar. The mount thing doesn't concern me.

    Arcane - Not a healing spec. More time spells, yes. But, an Arcanist through and through.

    Druid - Cosmetic. I don't mind.

    Death Knight - No. The Runeblade is an essential part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    Shaman earth-sand based tank , and that would allow to separate Elemental shaman(fire and lava) from Enhancement shaman (wind and lightening).
    Nailed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by choom View Post
    No way, I think what they did with Survival sucked and there's more room for improvement to turn it into a Rexxar-like class and the Primal class from the Warcraft RPG.

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Primal

    Primals are those warriors who revel in their bestial rage and give into it completely. As they slowly take on an increasingly beast-like appearance, they also gain powerful and violent abilities.[1] Primals believe that every creature is inhabited by a dark, primeval essence. They hold to the notion that each and every living soul is haunted by a beastly force, and that those who accept this fact can eventually ascend to another level of existence - one that is more primitive, but also more connected to nature and the animal kingdom. Though very few can fathom the existence of this whimsical force, primeval characters strive to unlock its secrets. They call this pristine essence "the beast within". Primals believe that once someone has accepted the beast within himself, he must learn not to suppress it — as most civilized folks were brought up to do. Indeed, the character must welcome it into his heart and soul in order to call upon it in times of need. Thus, primals can tap this essence and channel the instincts, strength, and fury only the beast within can provide.

    Survival Hunter has a long way to go before fulfilling that fantasy but it's on the right track. Outlaw Rogue is a perfect example of a boring class with no character reimagined as something very interesting, and I rarely see anyone complain about Outlaw Rogue and wish for the old Combat spec to come back. Other classes could benefit big time from the same treatment.
    Survival shouldn't be Rexxar-like or Primal inspired. It should be Headhunter/Berserker type.
    Leave Rexxar to the Beast Mastery spec.
    Primal describes more of a Beast Mastery than anything - with being so wild that you turn animalistic (animal mimicry - aspect of the [...]).
    It could even be called a Druidic thing.
    Survival should have never been a Ranger archetype. They should take that out, to make room for a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Sea Witch is even less likely to happen because that's a Naga only thing. And the Naga are still enemies of both factions.

    No it really won't be. Dark Ranger has barely enough unique and interesting things about it to make it a spec let alone an entire class.
    And the Monk was a Pandaren-tied class.
    I don't see a reason to add Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon, but no Sea Witch. That would be a waste.
    And things like animosity are not a problem. We have allied with races like the Mogu, who were always hostile.

    Your opinion.
    Same would have been said about the Demon Hunters. And its right to the point that they only got 2 specs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soimu View Post
    We need a cloth class because there hasn't been any and as much as i want a tinker i think the next one will be necromancer because of the simple fact that is way more popular than the others and blizz wants money plus it could fit with the shadowlands thematic for future buildup.
    Doubt.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  8. #5328
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I like that that they mention the Tauren Chieftain, the Mountain King, the Orc Berserker, but not the Blademaster when talking about the Warrior class.
    A note to sygfreyd.

    As for the Runemaster:
    "The runemaster was considered as a playable class in classic World of Warcraft but was scrapped early in development. According to John Staats, runemasters were replaced by druids, while according to Kevin Jordan they were replaced by warlocks in the role of a "freak class" that differed from standard RPG tropes".

    So, even they couldn't, really, decide what it is.

    And, I didn't talk about Vanilla classes, but new ones.
    Moreover, consideration is one thing. Implementing them is another. You can see how they were considered for a Hero class, but were replaced by the Death Knight and, eventually, integrated into it (and into the Monk).

    The community is not Blizzard.
    They, also, have a Bard concept in mind. Doesn't, really, mean it is, potentially, viable.
    Though, Allied races and customization was a community idea. So, i don't rule that out, completely.



    Hell to the no.
    Cosmetic option, maybe.

    Warrior - i agree with Gladiator stance being a thing. Two-handed weapon while wielding a shield is missing.

    Shaman - Enhancement should be Far Seer/Shaman (Thrall/Rehgar) units based, not a tank.
    As for Elemental, i agree with adding melee to it. Not so much as in Thor, but things like Lava Lash (that should be a main-hand attack) and Flametongue.

    Monk - still do think Blademaster should be its own thing, despite the similarities.

    Rogue - Dark Ranger should be its own thing. Leave Assassination as a poison master.

    Hunter - More like Beast Mastery, so that it will be closer to Rexxar. The mount thing doesn't concern me.

    Arcane - Not a healing spec. More time spells, yes. But, an Arcanist through and through.

    Druid - Cosmetic. I don't mind.

    Death Knight - No. The Runeblade is an essential part of it.



    Nailed it.



    Survival shouldn't be Rexxar-like or Primal inspired. It should be Headhunter/Berserker type.
    Leave Rexxar to the Beast Mastery spec.
    Primal describes more of a Beast Mastery than anything - with being so wild that you turn animalistic (animal mimicry - aspect of the [...]).
    It could even be called a Druidic thing.
    Survival should have never been a Ranger archetype. They should take that out, to make room for a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch.



    And the Monk was a Pandaren-tied class.
    I don't see a reason to add Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon, but no Sea Witch. That would be a waste.
    And things like animosity are not a problem. We have allied with races like the Mogu, who were always hostile.

    Your opinion.
    Same would have been said about the Demon Hunters. And its right to the point that they only got 2 specs.



    Doubt.
    I don't see Priestess of the Moon happening either because there actually is nothing unique about them. In WC3 they were literally just hunters who could cast Starfall.

  9. #5329
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I don't see Priestess of the Moon happening either because there actually is nothing unique about them. In WC3 they were literally just hunters who could cast Starfall.
    Do you have to quote the whole thing everytime?

    It's happening. Trust me.
    They expanded The Priestess of the Moon fantasy and gameplay in Battle for Azeroth, with the Night Warrior. Now, they also dual-wields glaives in melee combat. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We know, almost, nothing about the Night Warrior gameplay and abilities. In Heroes of the Storm, Tyrande is a Healer with healing capabilities. And, of course, there are the lunar spells. So, it's more than just a Hunter.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  10. #5330
    Quote Originally Posted by Soimu View Post
    By my logic i mean among the all new classes introduced there hasn't been a cloth one and necro fits, dark ranger no but considering how fcked up wow lore is blizz could find a way i guess.
    mail has 2 classes.
    cloth has 3.

    cloth can wait.
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  11. #5331
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Do you have to quote the whole thing everytime?

    It's happening. Trust me.
    They expanded The Priestess of the Moon fantasy and gameplay in Battle for Azeroth, with the Night Warrior. Now, they also dual-wields glaives in melee combat. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We know, almost, nothing about the Night Warrior gameplay and abilities. In Heroes of the Storm, Tyrande is a Healer with healing capabilities. And, of course, there are the lunar spells. So, it's more than just a Hunter.
    HotS is irrelevant since it's not a Warcraft game. Also, Night Warrior has nothing to do with Priestess of the Moon since all night elves that were at Darkshore received the blessing no matter what class they were. Priestess of the Moon is highly unlikely to happen for that exact reason. Night Warrior also isn't a class, it's essentially an enchantment that empowers whoever takes on the mantle. AFAIK nobody gained new spells when becoming a Night Warrior.

    Glaives have absolutely nothing to do with it as well since in the lore warglaives are the signature weapon of any night elf that fights in melee combat instead of ranged. So saying "It's happening. Trust me." is exceptionally dishonest since I very much doubt you work for Blizzard and therefore can't say things like that with absolute certainty.

  12. #5332
    I don't have much faith behind them making another class anymore, there isn't much to pick from that isnt gimmicky, or already existing within the game in some form. Not that, that'll stop them, evidence being DH.

    But none the less, I'm more inclined to believe that they could be planning to give some classes an additional spec, not all at once, but maybe next xpac we give 3 classes a new spec.

    That would give the "free" content for the next 4 xpacs also, before they have done a full cycle of all classes.


    Although, theres 0 evidence pointing towards this, I just don't foresee a new class. Community favorite being Tinker really nails that point home, as it seems so devoid of hype that I'm near certain it would get the same treatment as monks did. Mockery and low play rate.
    Last edited by Fluxoz; 2021-04-07 at 02:58 PM.

  13. #5333
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    As for the Runemaster:
    "The runemaster was considered as a playable class in classic World of Warcraft but was scrapped early in development. According to John Staats, runemasters were replaced by druids, while according to Kevin Jordan they were replaced by warlocks in the role of a "freak class" that differed from standard RPG tropes".

    So, even they couldn't, really, decide what it is.
    Sure, they were scrapped pretty early in the process so there wasn't too much developed. We do know about tidbits about the concept, including what we have from the RPG books which further fleshed out the potential concept and gave us some concept art that from that era (Samwise' 2003/4 Runemaster drawings)

    But to simply say they couldn't decide what it is would be slightly missing the bigger picture. Let me help you out here:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...3rk/?context=3

    Were there any races or classes that were considered but had to be scrapped for time, or expansion thematic reasons?

    Bo Bell: Several classes were scrapped early. The one big one that broke my heart was the Runemaster.

    Alas it was killed along with several others that I can’t recall.

    Remember that at first we were going up against EQ and they had something like 15 and 23 classes. We got a lot of grief (and there were lots of internal arguments about) only have 9 classes & 6 races.
    Runemaster sounds like it would have been awesome. Do you remember much about what kind of abilities or playstyle it would have? ( Healer, DPS? ) Or did the planning not even get that far?

    Bo Bell: At that point all of the classes were just paper designs, so we never got to play with them.

    I really wish I could remember some of the others. Oh wait! Necromancer was one!

    And Deathknights, but they did those eventually. =)

    Alexander Brazie (Xelnath): Necromancer, Runemaster and Death Knight - all got rolled together into DK.
    Demon Hunter, Monk - eventually showed up (even tho I tried to poach demon hunter into Warlock, that didn't last)
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...le-For-Azeroth
    What was the Runemaster class?
    Runemasters were basically just a name. It might have been an idea for a hybrid buffing class.
    We can see that the Runemaster was meant to be a (likely melee) hybrid buff/support class, similar to the Druid's role. We see that it was compared to Druid and Warlock, two non-standard spellcaster type classes with plenty of utility. We see the Runes resource mechanic being adopted by the Death Knight. We see this exact concept in the Tabletop RPG. I think even if Blizzard didn't have a concrete picture of what a Runemaster was going to be, there's plenty to gather here of what it could have been had they chosen to develop more on it.

    I was wondering what the original hunter class implementation was like. We know they originally used focus instead of mana but by the time they were ready for public testing this had already been changed so we never got to experience that initial design. I've also read that they regained focus only while standing and that the amount of focus contributed to damage, is that true?

    Bo Bell: You pretty much played the earliest designs of Hunter if you played at launch.

    Hunters were the last class added and they barely made it in.
    And this here reinforces my own personal beliefs above. Blizzard doesn't have to have a 100% working-as-intended concept in the game so long as they have it playable; Hunter didn't get Focus until Cata, Warlocks demonology was flipflopped a half dozen ways before settling to an actual Summoner spec, Death Knight had its 3-Tank 3-DPS specs completely gutted because it just didn't work out, etc.

    The bigger picture to see is that for whatever reason, the designers felt it key to pare it down to 9 classes, and that limited what could be put in the game. We know Necromancer and Death Knight were both on the table, we know Demon Hunters were on the list from the start, we know Runemasters were planned even if they had no WC3 unit/hero counterpart, we know they weren't setting out to make a 1:1 translation of Mountain Kings and Chieftains into WoW, and most importantly that the Hunter class itself barely made it into the game.

    We have to look at the big picture here when framing why the Runemaster was cut, and not just presume that it was because Blizzard had no idea what it was. The fact it was a runner-up pick for Wrath and that it was a fully fleshed-out concept in the TTRPG complete with official Samwise Didier concept art from around 2003-4 kind of shows that there's more to the concept than we really know here. I mean, consider that Runemaster was still on the table for Wrath as a runner up class to be picked, despite Druid and Warlock already being in the game. It shows they still valued the merits of the concept, much moreso than say a Bard or a Tinker which still today gets no real mentions of whether they even considered these concepts in the past.

    And, I didn't talk about Vanilla classes, but new ones.
    Moreover, consideration is one thing. Implementing them is another. You can see how they were considered for a Hero class, but were replaced by the Death Knight and, eventually, integrated into it (and into the Monk).
    Runemaster would be the ideal Monk Class Skin.
    - Unarmed Fighting style? Check
    - Hybrid roles? Check
    - Elemental powers? Check

    Slap on some glowing tattoo customizations, new talents, unarmed weapon transmogs and a retheme of abilities with new FX, and we have ourselves playable Runemasters.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-07 at 04:19 PM.
    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.

  14. #5334
    I mourn the entire support role along with Runemaster.

  15. #5335
    Elemental Lord Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Soimu View Post
    By my logic i mean among the all new classes introduced there hasn't been a cloth one and necro fits, dark ranger no but considering how fcked up wow lore is blizz could find a way i guess.
    There hasn't been a mail one either (only 2 mail vs 3 cloth)...tinker can fit every niche there has been little to none of added to the game while also being totally unique. It has more to add than any other class I can think of.
    #WithoutRespectWeReject

  16. #5336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    HotS is irrelevant since it's not a Warcraft game. Also, Night Warrior has nothing to do with Priestess of the Moon since all night elves that were at Darkshore received the blessing no matter what class they were. Priestess of the Moon is highly unlikely to happen for that exact reason. Night Warrior also isn't a class, it's essentially an enchantment that empowers whoever takes on the mantle. AFAIK nobody gained new spells when becoming a Night Warrior.

    Glaives have absolutely nothing to do with it as well since in the lore warglaives are the signature weapon of any night elf that fights in melee combat instead of ranged. So saying "It's happening. Trust me." is exceptionally dishonest since I very much doubt you work for Blizzard and therefore can't say things like that with absolute certainty.
    Of course it is relevant.
    Where do you think they came up with some of the abilities and visuals for the Demon Hunter?

    It is, mostly, associated with Tyrande. An attempt to re-envision the Priestess of the Moon. It is, a power associated with Elune. and Priestess of the Moon is, strongly, associated with Elune. For that matter, it didn't empower Malfurion. It is not a class, yet. But, it definitely tries to build up on the PotM. Them never gaining new abilities is irrelevant, as classes are barely well represented before their addition.

    Warglaives are the Demon Hunter weapon.
    Moonglaives are the Sentinel's weapon.
    Umbra crescents are the Warden's weapon.
    Tyrande dual-wielding two unique-looking glaives does not fall into any of those categories and had nothing to do with the Priestess of the Moon, up until now. It is, clearly, an attempt to expand upon the concept.

    I might be wrong, but according to their patterns and my analysis, it is, highly, likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Sure, they were scrapped pretty early in the process so there wasn't too much developed. We do know about tidbits about the concept, including what we have from the RPG books which further fleshed out the potential concept and gave us some concept art that from that era (Samwise' 2003/4 Runemaster drawings)

    But to simply say they couldn't decide what it is would be slightly missing the bigger picture. Let me help you out here:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...3rk/?context=3




    https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...le-For-Azeroth


    We can see that the Runemaster was meant to be a (likely melee) hybrid buff/support class, similar to the Druid's role. We see that it was compared to Druid and Warlock, two non-standard spellcaster type classes with plenty of utility. We see the Runes resource mechanic being adopted by the Death Knight. We see this exact concept in the Tabletop RPG. I think even if Blizzard didn't have a concrete picture of what a Runemaster was going to be, there's plenty to gather here of what it could have been had they chosen to develop more on it.



    And this here reinforces my own personal beliefs above. Blizzard doesn't have to have a 100% working-as-intended concept in the game so long as they have it playable; Hunter didn't get Focus until Cata, Warlocks demonology was flipflopped a half dozen ways before settling to an actual Summoner spec, Death Knight had its 3-Tank 3-DPS specs completely gutted because it just didn't work out, etc.

    The bigger picture to see is that for whatever reason, the designers felt it key to pare it down to 9 classes, and that limited what could be put in the game. We know Necromancer and Death Knight were both on the table, we know Demon Hunters were on the list from the start, we know Runemasters were planned even if they had no WC3 unit/hero counterpart, we know they weren't setting out to make a 1:1 translation of Mountain Kings and Chieftains into WoW, and most importantly that the Hunter class itself barely made it into the game.

    We have to look at the big picture here when framing why the Runemaster was cut, and not just presume that it was because Blizzard had no idea what it was. The fact it was a runner-up pick for Wrath and that it was a fully fleshed-out concept in the TTRPG complete with official Samwise Didier concept art from around 2003-4 kind of shows that there's more to the concept than we really know here. I mean, consider that Runemaster was still on the table for Wrath as a runner up class to be picked, despite Druid and Warlock already being in the game. It shows they still valued the merits of the concept, much moreso than say a Bard or a Tinker which still today gets no real mentions of whether they even considered these concepts in the past.



    Runemaster would be the ideal Monk Class Skin.
    - Unarmed Fighting style? Check
    - Hybrid roles? Check
    - Elemental powers? Check

    Slap on some glowing tattoo customizations, new talents, unarmed weapon transmogs and a retheme of abilities with new FX, and we have ourselves playable Runemasters.
    I know what a Runemaster is.
    A Monk with runes.
    The rune aspect was integrated into the Death Knight and the martial arts was integrated into the Monk.
    As for the Necromancer, we all know what it is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the Death Knight.

    Take the apothecary for example. It was an RPG class. It won't be introduced as a class of its own, but it could, definitely, be integrated into the Alchemist.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-07 at 05:18 PM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  17. #5337
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,189
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I know what a Runemaster is.
    A Monk with runes.
    The rune aspect was integrated into the Death Knight and the martial arts was integrated into the Monk.

    As for the Necromancer, we all know what it is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the Death Knight.
    We all know what a demon hunter is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the warlock class (pre-Legion).

    Not to mention that logic also eliminates the warrior class, since we have a class that does what the warrior can do (fighting in heavy armor, two-handed weapons or sword-and-shield) which is the paladin, and dual-wielding was given to rogues. Or vice-versa: the paladin is unnecessary because we have the warrior to fight with heavy armor, two-handed weapons and sword-and-shield, and the priest class for healing.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  18. #5338
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    We all know what a demon hunter is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the warlock class (pre-Legion).

    Not to mention that logic also eliminates the warrior class, since we have a class that does what the warrior can do (fighting in heavy armor, two-handed weapons or sword-and-shield) which is the paladin, and dual-wielding was given to rogues. Or vice-versa: the paladin is unnecessary because we have the warrior to fight with heavy armor, two-handed weapons and sword-and-shield, and the priest class for healing.
    I know what you strive for. Playable necromancers. But, Blizzard never added a basic Warcraft 3 unit as a class. They integrate them into Heroic ones. So, while the Demon Hunter was a Hero unit, the Necromancer wasn't. Let alone the Runemaster, who's an RPG class.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  19. #5339
    I'd like to see an axe/spear throwing class like the Troll Berserkers.
    Mother pus bucket!

  20. #5340
    Quote Originally Posted by tankbug View Post
    I'd like to see an axe/spear throwing class like the Troll Berserkers.
    Would be the Survival Hunter if Blizzard got their shit together and discarded this whole Ranger nonsense for the spec.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

Posting Permissions

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