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

[TheRevenantHero]

No, it won't.
It's something you're telling yourself.



See? you're combining characters from different games. Turalyon was a Warcraft 2 unit, not 3. Alleria is a Warcraft 2 unit, not 3. Garona is a Warcraft 1 unit, not 3. Khadgar is a Warcraft 2 unit, not 3. And, you can't even relate the Priest.



Meaningless. The Demon Hunter, originally, comes from WC3. So, whether you take inspiration from HotS or Hearthstone for its abilities is non-relevant. You can't expect them to just rely on a unit with 4 total abilities.



You do need to know, so you can have an argument. Anyway, it isn't really crucial, because in the end its based on the Pandaren Brewmaster. This thing doesn't exist in outside sources, other than Po in Kung Fu Panda.



Of course there would be general elements of the Monk in popular culture. They didn't invent the class, you know. But, the special thing about it is its Pandaren-exclusivity that you can't, really, relate to anything else.



I've seen. And, it is indeed based on real-world Martial Arts. Even the Notes and Trivia mentions Drunken Monkey Fist. I'm not blind. But, you can't just claim that they used, entirely, outside sources for the class. In the end of it all, you can strongly associate it with the Pandaren Brewmaster of WC3. saying otherwise would be, really, foolish.



They've considered Dance Studio, as well. Don't expect to see it anytime soon.



Oh, it doesn't?

the brewmasters of Pandaria have emerged from the bamboo forests of their ancestors to bring their unique fighting style (and robust ales) to the highest bidder.

Drunken Brawler (Passive)
Gives a percent chance to avoid attacks and a 10% chance to deal additional damage.



https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Eredar_warlock#Warlock



Now you're just making things up.
Warlock is not a Mage title. It's a class. Eredar are famous for having Warlocks. They were the first, actually, if i remember correctly.



https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Old...ers_and_allies

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dar...the_Dark_Horde

Do you, really, not remember these guys?:




Nah.. they are just vampiric Blood elves.
Venthyr are based on the original Nosferatu vampires and mythology of the vampire creature. Read some of their notes:

"The appearance and themes of the venthyr seem mainly inspired by Dracula and its adaptations.
The name "venthyr" is similar to the Ventrue, a prominent vampire clan from Vampire: The Masquerade. It's also similar to a number of Eastern European names for vampires or vampire-like creatures, such as Dhamphir.
Specific Venthyr are references to real-world vampire myths or franchises".



No, not everyone. That's why rangers are from groups like the Farstriders or Sentinels. Learn a thing or two.



Didn't make this up:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Ranger



There are different types of Rangers. One delves into necromancy and is called a Dark Ranger. The other into Void, called Ren'dorei Ranger:





Actually, i do. Because you're talking from a none-lore point of view.



It's not my idea, it's lore.



It's called the Venthyr covenant abilities and soulbinds.

Venthyr require anima to continue existing like literally every other denizen of the Shadowlands. If they became playable, Blizzard would literally be throwing away the most important element of the expansion. So yes, if covenant races became playable, Blizzard would be shitting all over the lore they JUST established in Shadowlands. Because anima doesn't exist outside the Shadowlands.

[Maxilian]

It's not my idea, it's lore.

Nothing exclude another race from becoming a Dark Ranger, the only thing that limited it were the trainers

[Polybius]

Venthyr require anima to continue existing like literally every other denizen of the Shadowlands. If they became playable, Blizzard would literally be throwing away the most important element of the expansion. So yes, if covenant races became playable, Blizzard would be shitting all over the lore they JUST established in Shadowlands. Because anima doesn't exist outside the Shadowlands.

Meh. Denizens of the Shadowlands have always traversed to Azeroth (e.g. Kyrian, loa, Drust, etc.). They've already taken on important roles in the cosmic war (i.e. Necrolords). Anima is inherently in souls, so it's not dependent on the Shadowlands.

[Teriz]

/snip

Your general assertion is correct.

The original WoW classes are combinations of multiple classes and units. The Warlock for example is largely a class that took multiple demonic abilities from various heroes and units and combined it into a class. Shaman took multiple abilities from multiple Shaman units and combined them into a class.

The expansion classes took a slightly different route. They've been based entirely on individual hero characters dating back to WC3, and the class is introduced in expansions heavily themed around the expansions they were released in.

As it currently stands, the only class concepts that match the previous inclusions are Dark Ranger and the Tinker. Dark Ranger is in a rather precarious position due to Sylvanas' situation in the current expansion, and Nathanos (and Dark Rangers in general) being heavily tied to the Hunter class.

The Tinker is in a rather strong position due to Gazlowe now being the leader of the Goblin race within the Horde, and that Tinker abilities still remain outside the class line up, and there are a lot of Tinker abilities.

[Nightmare Queen]

It doesn't change the fact that the San'layn are more a 'true vampire' than the Venthyr. Venthyr don't suck blood, San'layn do. San'layn are literally 'born' from being bitten. Venthyr just... are born out of souls. And more.

Exactly. We just need there to be 'San'Layn' (probably not 'true' ones but eh) that aren't elves, and 'feral' ones that attack other races and turn them into vampires

[shoc]

I actually do want Sanlayn, though BFA put my hopes for it down into the ground, and I also understand the dislike of people for another Elf race.

- - - Updated - - -



Well we don't have any case of something like this, the closer we could have gotten with this were the DK, the vampirism showed so far is not "contagious" like the one in Skyrim.

I mean... Lycanthropy (worgens) fall more into that category than the Sanlayn vampirism.

Note: I kind of wanted a NE Worgen AR based on the art made by fans shown along time ago.


(But only with that Worgen look and not that NE look)

At the very least I think this would be an awesome Balance Druid form.

[Ielenia]

Your general assertion is correct.

The original WoW classes are combinations of multiple classes and units. The Warlock for example is largely a class that took multiple demonic abilities from various heroes and units and combined it into a class. Shaman took multiple abilities from multiple Shaman units and combined them into a class.

The expansion classes took a slightly different route. They've been based entirely on individual hero characters dating back to WC3, and the class is introduced in expansions heavily themed around the expansions they were released in.

As it currently stands, the only class concepts that match the previous inclusions are Dark Ranger and the Tinker. Dark Ranger is in a rather precarious position due to Sylvanas' situation in the current expansion, and Nathanos (and Dark Rangers in general) being heavily tied to the Hunter class.

The Tinker is in a rather strong position due to Gazlowe now being the leader of the Goblin race within the Horde, and that Tinker abilities still remain outside the class line up, and there are a lot of Tinker abilities.

Death knights are also a combination of multiple units. And, I'll repeat this once again: this idea of "we need WC3 heroes" is just a load of baloney because the runemaster was a runner-up for an expansion class. If "we need WC3 heroes" was indeed a requirement, the runemaster would never even be considered a possibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. We just need there to be 'San'Layn' (probably not 'true' ones but eh) that aren't elves, and 'feral' ones that attack other races and turn them into vampires

It's off-topic, so I won't say much, but there is a san'layn in Stormheim who seems to have infected a bunch of human pirates, turning them into vampires. West of Runewood, if memory serves.

[Teriz]

Death knights are also a combination of multiple units. And, I'll repeat this once again: this idea of "we need WC3 heroes" is just a load of baloney because the runemaster was a runner-up for an expansion class. If "we need WC3 heroes" was indeed a requirement, the runemaster would never even be considered a possibility.

Runemaster being a possible class was always a dubious story to me. Consider that Death Knights had lore around runes in WC3, and they always had necromantic ties. Thus the idea that they had three classes (Runemasters, Necromancers, and Death Knights) and went with a class that just happened to be able to merge all three concepts under one hood was always a little too convenient. I would argue that that story was completely made up, and merely created to throw people off the idea that Blizzard always intended the WoW expansion classes to be nothing more than WC3 heroes that they weren't able to use when they created the original 9 classes.

It wouldn't be the first time Blizzard purposely misled their audience when it comes to classes.

[Ielenia]

Runemaster being a possible class was always a dubious story to me.

Are you actually calling foul on what the developers said, just because it contradicts your narrative? Really?

Consider that Death Knights had lore around runes in WC3, and they always had necromantic ties. Thus the idea that they had three classes (Runemasters, Necromancers, and Death Knights) and went with a class that just happened to be able to merge all three concepts under one hood was always a little too convenient.

Or perhaps they decided to go with one class but take some ideas from the other concepts to make the idea they've decided to go with be more robust.

I would argue that that story was completely made up

Ugh. You are dismissing what the developers said because it doesn't fit your narrative.

It wouldn't be the first time Blizzard purposely misled their audience when it comes to classes.

Just stop and think about it for a second: why would Blizzard lie about that? What reason would they have? How would they benefit from such a lie? It makes absolutely no sense to lie about that.

[Teriz]

Are you actually calling foul on what the developers said, just because it contradicts your narrative? Really?

I'm merely asking in what scenario do you have a WotLK expansion and your three choices are DK, Runemaster, and Necromancer and you DON'T go with the DK.

Or perhaps they decided to go with one class but take some ideas from the other concepts to make the idea they've decided to go with be more robust.

But those ideas from the other concepts were already wrapped up in the DK concept long before WotLK came around. Again, DKs had concepts from both Runemasters and Necromancers, so in what scenario do you go with those options when you have the more popular concept that encapsulates your other concepts?

Ugh. You are dismissing what the developers said because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Just stop and think about it for a second: why would Blizzard lie about that? What reason would they have? How would they benefit from such a lie? It makes absolutely no sense to lie about that.

Perhaps the same reason they lied about having "no plans" for the Demon Hunter class in early 2015, only to announce the Demon Class in August of the same year.

Or how Blizzard denied that Mists of Pandaria was the next expansion, only to announce Mists of Pandaria as the next expansion a few months later.

[Maxilian]

It's off-topic, so I won't say much, but there is a san'layn in Stormheim who seems to have infected a bunch of human pirates, turning them into vampires. West of Runewood, if memory serves.

Out of interest, i looked this out, and it this happen but it was not a San'layn but a Vrykul vampire that got woken up by the Human pirates.

Fun Fact: The Vrykul were original designed as a vampiric race in WRATH but they changed it in the end for the more "Viking" theme

Note: Also the group of Pirates are still alive, so we could end up with more Vampires in the future.

[draugril]

That's a mite paranoid.

[Triceron]

Perhaps the same reason they lied about having "no plans" for the Demon Hunter class in early 2015, only to announce the Demon Class in August of the same year.

Or how Blizzard denied that Mists of Pandaria was the next expansion, only to announce Mists of Pandaria as the next expansion a few months later.

Wouldn't make sense when you consider all the devs talking about Runemaster being considered for Vanilla, and even being a frontrunner that simply lost its place to the Warlock. John Staats even mentions it's a concept he really wanted to see in the game, which seems to be absolutely confirmed by being considered again in Wrath.

Otherwise there's literally no reason to mention Runemasters at all as a potential hero, considering we know 'it was a name on a page' at the point when they cut it, yet by the time of Wrath they actually had mechanics designed or at least conceptualized which were on 'the cutting room floor'.

You can't have mechanics on the cutting room floor if you're implying they never considered the Runemaster in the first place. And if not the Runes mechanic, what exactly would the Runemaster have provided the DK and why even bother mentioning it? There's no reason to lie about a Runemasters. Wrath of the Lich King is the first time we even heard about this class, and the information we got from John Staats AMA came years later to confirm that it was real.

I don't see the point in assuming they lied about it existing. I mean, it's the opposite of Occam's Razor. Why lie about a complex fictional backstory for exploring some unused concept when it's just easier to say "We always knew the Death Knight was the one we wanted" and leave out the Necromancer and Runemaster concepts completely. I mean, should we assume that the Mongrel Horde explanation was a complex lie as well? No reason to, since we know that's how their development works. They explore plenty of different concepts and pick the strongest one, and support it with stuff off the cutting room floor when necessary. And sometimes we get to learn about all the things that got cut, sometimes we don't.

[Teriz]

Wouldn't make sense when you consider all the devs talking about Runemaster being considered for Vanilla, and even being a frontrunner that simply lost its place to the Warlock. John Staats even mentions it's a concept he really wanted to see in the game, which seems to be absolutely confirmed by being considered again in Wrath.

Otherwise there's literally no reason to mention Runemasters at all as a potential hero, considering we know 'it was a name on a page' at the point when they cut it, yet by the time of Wrath they actually had mechanics designed or at least conceptualized which were on 'the cutting room floor'.

You can't have mechanics on the cutting room floor if you're implying they never considered the Runemaster in the first place. And if not the Runes mechanic, what exactly would the Runemaster have provided the DK and why even bother mentioning it? There's no reason to lie about a Runemasters. Wrath of the Lich King is the first time we even heard about this class, and the information we got from John Staats AMA came years later to confirm that it was real.

I don't see the point in assuming they lied about it existing. I mean, it's the opposite of Occam's Razor. Why lie about a complex fictional backstory for exploring some unused concept when it's just easier to say "We always knew the Death Knight was the one we wanted" and leave out the Necromancer and Runemaster concepts completely. I mean, should we assume that the Mongrel Horde explanation was a complex lie as well? No reason to, since we know that's how their development works. They explore plenty of different concepts and pick the strongest one, and support it with stuff off the cutting room floor when necessary. And sometimes we get to learn about all the things that got cut, sometimes we don't.

Again, in what scenario do you go with the Runemaster over the DK class when you can place the Runemaster concept within the DK class? Further, we have never seen anything of the Runemaster concept beyond a mention. Where's the concept art? What were some possible Runemaster abilities? Was it going to be like the version in the RPG? That would seem rather odd considering that the Runemaster NPCs in WoW are nothing like their RPG counterparts.

Which also begs the question; Why would a Runemaster lose it's place to the Warlock? Shouldn't that be the Necromancer, since Warlocks and Necromancers are conceptually very similar?

It simply seems rather odd that you supposedly had three choices, and the choice you went with was conveniently able to incorporate the other two concepts, whereas the other two concepts couldn't incorporate the DK.

The point? To make their future class selection process seemingly more complicated than it actually is.

[AzureMage]

Again, in what scenario do you go with the Runemaster over the DK class when you can place the Runemaster concept within the DK class? Further, we have never seen anything of the Runemaster concept beyond a mention. Where's the concept art? What were some possible Runemaster abilities? Was it going to be like the version in the RPG? That would seem rather odd considering that the Runemaster NPCs in WoW are nothing like their RPG counterparts.

I can't find the original Blizzcast where it was discussed but according to engadget

"There were three front runners for the hero class to appear in LK:"

• "Necromancer, a ranged caster with corpse explode and such. Some of this ended up getting incorporated into Death Knight"
• " Rune master: "think rogue or monk type character"
• "And, of course, Death Knight."

according to the wiki "It was envisioned as a rogue- or monk-type melee class who wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers."

We can infer or assume that runes, runic power and runeforging or something similar are the mechanics that the Death Knight class absorbed.

Which also begs the question; Why would a Runemaster lose it's place to the Warlock? Shouldn't that be the Necromancer, since Warlocks and Necromancers are conceptually very similar?

It simply seems rather odd that you supposedly had three choices, and the choice you went with was conveniently able to incorporate the other two concepts, whereas the other two concepts couldn't incorporate the DK.

The point? To make their future class selection process seemingly more complicated than it actually is.

"Our original goal for the 9 classes we settled on was to bring in all the hero classes from the Warcraft RTS games. We also wanted them to be open ended concepts so that various races could attach to it and make it their own. For example, we didn't set out to make the Dwarven Mountain King, Tauren Chieftain and Orc Berserker. We made the Warrior, so that any of those could become a reality based on other choices made by the player (race, weapons, etc., note that this was before talents were dreamed up).

After we had the basics covered, we also wanted to have a freak class that was unusual and different from the standard RPG tropes. It came down to two choices. The Warlock and the Runemaster. Warlock KO'd Runemaster! :P" - Kevin Jordan

"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." -Bo Bell

[Triceron]

Again, in what scenario do you go with the Runemaster over the DK class when you can place the Runemaster concept within the DK class?.

The scenario where the devs consider a whole bunch of different concepts at once, and choose the best one.

Do you really think they only consider one thing at a time and do absolutely zero exploration of concepts when considering the *first ever* new playable Class for WoW?


https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...Dev-Interviews

Gamona.de
- The expansion will release next year.
- Demon Hunter has been considered since Wrath of the Lich King.

Based on post-mortem information, we even know Demon Hunter was on the table in Wrath.

Necromancer and Runemaster were not the *only* ones alongside the DK. They were the only ones mentioned because they had mechanics absorbed into the DK's kit. We're learning ever-so-slowly that there were more concepts being considered back then, and we're just not aware that they were until we get information about them.

Of course, they're not going to talk about all of their cut content since some of it still has relevance for the future, like how any news on Demon Hunters was kept a complete secret until Legion.

[TheRevenantHero]

Exactly. We just need there to be 'San'Layn' (probably not 'true' ones but eh) that aren't elves, and 'feral' ones that attack other races and turn them into vampires

If they're not elves, they're not san'layn.

[Teriz]

The scenario where the devs consider a whole bunch of different concepts at once, and choose the best one.

You ever stop to consider why the "best choice" has been consistently concepts expanded from WC3?

Necromancer and Runemaster were not the *only* ones alongside the DK. They were the only ones mentioned because they had mechanics absorbed into the DK's kit.

If I remember that story correctly, Runemaster, Necromancer, and Death Knights were the "finalists".

Finalists in an expansion that was about the Lich King.

[Triceron]

You ever stop to consider why the "best choice" has been consistently concepts expanded from WC3?

If I remember that story correctly, Runemaster, Necromancer, and Death Knights were the "finalists".

Finalists in an expansion that was about the Lich King.

Yes. Runemaster was a finalist. Guess what concepts the Runemaster beat out? Demon Hunter. Dark Ranger. Brewmaster.

Runemaster wasn't a WC3 unit or hero, so I don't have to consider that the devs had any particular bias towards expanding WC3 concepts over any other RPG archetype.

I think considering the Bard as an April Fools joke is indicative of that too, since they could have gone with any number of obscure WC3 references.

[Teriz]

Yes. So why do you find it dubious that Runemaster was a finalist? Because it wasn't a WC3 concept?

I find it dubious because the Death Knight had both the Runemaster and Necromancer concept ingrained within it in WC3, yet amazingly those related concepts were supposedly in the running to be individual classes. Again, a little too convenient considering the same scenario couldn't happen if the other two choices were chosen instead.