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

[Triceron]

Well, the Warcraft 3 blood mage hero unit (the one where the thing with verdant spheres began) is, lore-wise, said that their fire magic comes from demonic sources, so it technically makes sense to give it to the warlocks?

Their fire magic did not come from demonic sources.

They siphon energy from demons, but back then this was implied that it was simply converted into Mana (as there was no specific Fel/Arcane magic division back then). Demons just happened to be a magical source of energy, like an elemental creature. It's kinda like how the TBC intro showed that Elf turning that mana wyrm into a little pool of mana/arcane energy.

However the fire magic they cast is still purely arcane magic. One thing to note - Blood Elf eyes were not green in Warcraft 3. This was a TBC retcon, and even then it doesn't imply that the magic they use is Fel just because their eyes turned green. All of their racials were still Arcane based, and so are Kael's abilities in TBC.

[Teriz]

And back in TBC, you could not only get Illidan's famous warglaives, but also his famous blindfold as a leather headpiece.

In other words: hunters getting Sylvanas' quiver means absolutely nothing.

The difference being that only Hunters can equip the bow and the quiver and use Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire.....

[Cosmic Janitor]

This is how I see it.

Knowing that the Warlock class was still designed by Xelnath at this point, and he was the sole mad genius behind the Warlock's getting _everything cool_ despite it not totally fitting their identity, I can see how the Verdant Spheres ended up getting there.

Looking at the way warlocks started out in vanilla the whole fire theme wasn't particularily strong to begin with. I mean even in TBC when they finally got a fire nuke it was rarely actually used and most people just sacrificed their pet and spammed shadowbolt. Kael was certainly never summoning voidwalkers and imps.

[Triceron]

Warlocks themselves are Mage archetypes. In the playable Warlock's case, they're just Mages with a little demonic spice sprinkled on... which is precisely what Kael'thas and literally all Blood Elf Mages were for awhile. But yeah, again, the playable Warlock's myopic focus on the demonic aspect of their class fantasy does detract from that fantasy, given that they should be exploring powers beyond demons, particularly after the Legion's defeat.

I totally get that, but to me it'd be like the disconnect between Balance Druid and Priestess of the Moon concepts. The Balance Druid is modelled with POTM elements in mind like use of Moon magic and Starfall, but not enough to use a bunch of owl-based abilities or turning full blown night warrior.

[Eosia]

Then you should know the answer to that is yes, players do want more classes, and there is no hard or soft cap to that limit.

Go look at the {{ currentClassSpecPlayersAreBitchingAbout }} forums and see if your answer really is yes. I see more people wanting to developers to focus on the already too many specs in the game. Sure that complaining comes with every expansion and patch, but ever since Legion it has been A LOT louder.

[Ielenia]

But where are Cho and Bronzebeard's Bardic abilities? where are such abilities for Cho and Brann?

Classes are not defined by abilities. They're defined by their concepts. Blizzard does not define their classes by specific abilities, so why do you insist otherwise?

Yet the TTRPG had DKs, DHs, and Brewmasters/Monks....

Repeating and emphasizing what you ignored:

Yeah. First, the TRPGs were not created by Blizzard. Second, WoW was not created inspired in the TRPGs.

Both are instead inspired in the Warcraft franchise, but they are not related. And by the way, the TTRPG also has the necromancer and the death knight as separate classes. Food for thought.

If someone says that every WoW expansion class has had a hero attached to it, using a class concept that was never made into a class as a counter example doesn't really work.

Again, it works perfectly. Because, again I'll repeat because you ignored it, the runemaster was one of the three runner-ups for expansion class, meaning it beat other popular concepts like demon hunter and tinker.

It reinforces the idea that your claim is just coincidence, especially when you consider that Blizzard took a non-monk hero and converted into a monk for the class.

- - - Updated - - -

Their fire magic did not come from demonic sources.

They siphon energy from demons, but back then this was implied that it was simply converted into Mana (as there was no specific Fel/Arcane magic division back then). Demons just happened to be a magical source of energy, like an elemental creature. It's kinda like how the TBC intro showed that Elf turning that mana wyrm into a little pool of mana/arcane energy.

However the fire magic they cast is still purely arcane magic. One thing to note - Blood Elf eyes were not green in Warcraft 3. This was a TBC retcon, and even then it doesn't imply that the magic they use is Fel just because their eyes turned green. All of their racials were still Arcane based, and so are Kael's abilities in TBC.

I'm not talking about the TBC blood elves. I'm talking about the blood mage unit from Warcraft 3.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference being that only Hunters can equip the bow and the quiver and use Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire.....

And any class that can wield a bow (rogue and warrior) can also get equip the quiver AND the bow. Notice the lack of "class: hunter" requirements, so saying "only hunters can equip it" is a lie.

Also, rogues could use Evasion which was a demon hunter ability.

[Triceron]

Go look at the {{ currentClassSpecPlayersAreBitchingAbout }} forums and see if your answer really is yes. I see more people wanting to developers to focus on the already too many specs in the game. Sure that complaining comes with every expansion and patch, but ever since Legion it has been A LOT louder.

Yes, and the vast majority of people who want a new class wouldn't be coming to forums to bitch about the lack of new classes.

Forums are always going to be the echochamber of the discontent, not the wishful thinkers who wouldn't mind seeing something new and cool.

Demand does not always appear in the form of criticism on the forums. I mean, how much demand do you see here for a Dragonsworn? Practically zero since it's almost never talked about, and rarely lasts discussion in this forums. Yet on reddit, a simple Dragonsworn post got 8.3k upvotes showing support for the concept. You'd never see that amount of participation here. New Class polls tend to have less than 500 participants on average.

Also, just complaining about having too many specs in the game doesn't actually negate the demand for new/more classes, any more than people saying there's too many cars on the road doesn't negate the demand for new cars. Pretty sure car companies aren't gonna stop future operations just because of the people who think there's too many cars on the road.

Blizzard's business and the marketting and sales of WoW depends on presenting new and big features for the game. Classes are going to be a part of that conversation. Whether we get new classes in the future depends on whether Blizzard sees marketable value in pursuing. Based on their interviews for Shadowlands and why they didn't add a new class, it seems that a new class is still on the table. They said no class happened to (in their response) fit the story and setting of Shadowlands as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion. So we have a rough indication that we could get a new class if it fits the particular story and setting they want to tell in the future.

[Teriz]

Classes are not defined by abilities. They're defined by their concepts. Blizzard does not define their classes by specific abilities, so why do you insist otherwise?

Classes are absolutely defined by their abilities. Hence why people are currently writing off the Dark Ranger class because Hunters got their abilities, or how Demon Hunter didn't enter the game until Warlocks lost metamorphosis. Chen, Arthas, and Illidan all had unique abilities that they had BEFORE the debut of their respective classes. Why can't we do the same for the Bard concept?

Repeating and emphasizing what you ignored:

Both are instead inspired in the Warcraft franchise, but they are not related. And by the way, the TTRPG also has the necromancer and the death knight as separate classes. Food for thought.

All of which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a history of no substantial Bard concept anywhere in Warcraft. The lack of Bard characters and the lack of Bard lore even in noncanonical sources is quite telling.

Again, it works perfectly. Because, again I'll repeat because you ignored it, the runemaster was one of the three runner-ups for expansion class, meaning it beat other popular concepts like demon hunter and tinker.

It reinforces the idea that your claim is just coincidence, especially when you consider that Blizzard took a non-monk hero and converted into a monk for the class.

And irrelevant once again. The Runemaster was never an actual WoW class, thus what it had and doesn't have means nothing. The only examples that matter are the ACTUAL expansion classes, and they ALL had hero characters with unique abilities that were translated into their eventual classes.

- - - Updated - - -

Classes are not defined by abilities. They're defined by their concepts. [URL="https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/game/classes"]Blizzard does not define their classes
And any class that can wield a bow (rogue and warrior) can also get equip the quiver AND the bow. Notice the lack of "class: hunter" requirements, so saying "only hunters can equip it" is a lie.

They can equip the bow and the quiver, but they won't get the Dark Ranger abilities. Only Hunters get those.

That says quite a lot.

[uuuhname]

I mean, I don't see how there can be a debate, it should be a caster/support class of some sort. the game has enough melee classes.

[Teriz]

I mean, I don't see how there can be a debate, it should be a caster/support class of some sort. the game has enough melee classes.

What about physical ranged?

[uuuhname]

What about physical ranged?

well I would assume the class has a DPS spec along with a healing spec.

[draugril]

Demand does not always appear in the form of criticism on the forums. I mean, how much demand do you see here for a Dragonsworn? Practically zero since it's almost never talked about, and rarely lasts discussion in this forums. Yet on reddit, a simple Dragonsworn post got 8.3k upvotes showing support for the concept. You'd never see that amount of participation here. New Class polls tend to have less than 500 participants on average.

That gives me hope. Honestly, what intrigues me about the Dragonsworn concept the most is what a blank slate it is. The developers could make a class based on what WoW currently is, rather than something mired in expectations originating in 20 year old games. It could be literally anything - freeform development. And while I'm not the biggest fan of WoW's current iteration, I'm open to seeing the full potential of this iteration realized.

[Diaphin]

Agree, that being said I would play the hell out of a Dark ranger or warden.

I dont care single bit about tinkers.

I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.

[Alanar]

I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.

Il take it. I mean I realy like this.

I realy like your idea of sira as a warden and not the night elf warden. I feel like 2 dps and 1 tank would be bit more suitable imo. I dont see a healing spec being very fitting here and would like the dk idea of 2 dps and 1 tank spec.

[Teriz]

Er, why?

Rogues getting Glaives of Azzinoth and Warlocks geting Metamorphosis didn't scratch Demon Hunters off the list. These are effects are tied to a weapon. Weapons tend to last for maybe half an expansion, and get replaced pretty quickly by the time the next expansion arrives. These aren't even End Tier Legendary weapons, these are high-end drops for a mid-tier raid, like Druid of the Flame staff from Firelands that lets you turn into a flaming kitty. I loved that staff, but it got replaced way too quickly. Wasn't even useful by the time Deathwing raid arrived.

I mean even if these were incorporated into actual spells in the Hunter, we might have more of a talking point. But seeing how Black Arrow and Metamorphosis were treated, I probably still wouldn't go as far as saying we have playable Dark Rangers.

I do regard this as a much more elegant way to have Hunters be able to RP as a Dark Ranger though. If there's any way to implement Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire into the Hunter class, this is much better than just straight up shoe-horning it into the class where it doesn't really fit. As I see it, with these items it will help sate the demand for playable Dark Rangers for the duration of the expansion. I think Blizzard would have to do more to keep this relevant into the future, like with glyphs or talents to keep them in play.

All good points, but don’t be surprised if Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire are in the Hunter class next expansion.

[Eosia]

Yes, and the vast majority of people who want a new class wouldn't be coming to forums to bitch about the lack of new classes.

No. They go to other forums for that. But you can also look at the YouTubers/Twitch Streamers (as a whole, not just Bellular, Preach, etc.)

Forums are always going to be the echochamber of the discontent, not the wishful thinkers who wouldn't mind seeing something new and cool.

Blizzard's business and the marketting and sales of WoW depends on presenting new and big features for the game. Classes are going to be a part of that conversation.

Yeah. Because it makes really good business sense to put out a product where a chunk of the features are crap. And they just so happen to be the ones you want.

[Triceron]

Yeah. Because it makes really good business sense to put out a product where a chunk of the features are crap. And they just so happen to be the ones you want.

Aside from the scathing sarcasm, I agree that good business should put out a good product and not crap features.

That being said, I don't see how that would affect new classes unless we are to automatically assume that any new class will be a crap feature. If anything, it just means Blizzard should be more careful in planning a new class so that it doesn't fall into that trap, that's all. I don't think any of the classes we have so far have been considered crap features, even with balance issues in mind.

- - - Updated - - -

All good points, but don’t be surprised if Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire are in the Hunter class next expansion.

I hope they do manage to fit it, because they sound like very promising additions. I wouldn't mind having some of the Covenant abilities we have make their way into certain classes too, albeit modified to fit the theme of the class better.

[Ielenia]

Classes are absolutely defined by their abilities.

No, they're not. It's the other way around: abilities are defined by the classes' concepts.

Hence why people are currently writing off the Dark Ranger class because Hunters got their abilities,

The only people fixated on abilities are the ones dismissing the concept. That says a lot, considering that's the only thing many of the anti-dark ranger can cling to, and it and shows how abilities aren't this "main pre-req" that you claim it is.

or how Demon Hunter didn't enter the game until Warlocks lost metamorphosis.

We can write that off as coincidence, though. For example: how do you know that the process went like this: "We are not happy with the demonology warlock." -> "we should revert it back into being a summoner spec instead of what it is today." -> metamorphosis is removed -> "The demon hunter really fits the story we're telling in this expansion." -> demon hunter is decided to become the next class -> is given metamorphosis.

It's a fact that both warlocks and demon hunters could've had metamorphosis, considering how wildly different the two skills are. Literally their only similarity is "turn into a demon".

Chen, Arthas, and Illidan all had unique abilities that they had BEFORE the debut of their respective classes. Why can't we do the same for the Bard concept?

You still have to prove why it matters. We had zero runemaster abilities, and yet the concept almost became a full playable class twice.

All of which is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. You are using the TRPG as some sort of "source of inspiration" for classes in WoW, and I pointed out how the TRPG lists off the necromancer as a separate class from the death knight, which you claim to be "one and the same".

What is relevant is that we have a history of no substantial Bard concept anywhere in Warcraft.

Neither we have any substantial runemaster concept anywhere within Warcraft. And yet the class almost made it to become an actual, realized player class.

The lack of Bard characters and the lack of Bard lore even in noncanonical sources is quite telling.

And what it tells is: "all of that is irrelevant", and people have explained that to you countless times. You're deliberately ignoring the Runemaster who almost became a class not only once but twice.

And irrelevant once again. The Runemaster was never an actual WoW class, thus what it had and doesn't have means nothing.

It doesn't matter it was never realized into a class. And you know why? Because if all that stuff you claim are requirements for a concept to actually be a class in WoW was indeed required, then the runemaster concept would never even be considered in the first place, much less be one of the three runner-ups.

What you're doing there is akin to a movie production company hosting a casting call for a certain role, and requiring specific characteristics-- in this example, a tall, black, thin woman-- but letting a short, white, fat man be one of the three runner-ups for the role.

They can equip the bow and the quiver, but they won't get the Dark Ranger abilities. Only Hunters get those.

That says quite a lot.

Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.

[Triceron]

That gives me hope. Honestly, what intrigues me about the Dragonsworn concept the most is what a blank slate it is. The developers could make a class based on what WoW currently is, rather than something mired in expectations originating in 20 year old games. It could be literally anything - freeform development. And while I'm not the biggest fan of WoW's current iteration, I'm open to seeing the full potential of this iteration realized.

I'm very open to the idea of Dragonsworn because it simply makes sense. We have Dragon Isles coming up, Dragons are by far a central figure to the Warcraft lore and universe, and their powers and theme are relatively untapped by the classes.

However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system. There are some things that I see in my mind that work better if they approached it as a Covenant system, like splitting each Dragonflight into their own subfaction instead of dividing them up into specs. It'd be difficult to explain how one class has access to all dragonflight powers without it being a case of 'borrowed power' too, since usually Dragonsworn in lore would be followers of just one Dragonflight. It's too early to tell right now, since we know nothing about what they would do with Dragon Isles and how it fits with the overall story.

[Eosia]

That being said, I don't see how that would affect new classes unless we are to automatically assume that any new class will be a crap feature. If anything, it just means Blizzard should be more careful in planning a new class so that it doesn't fall into that trap, that's all. I don't think any of the classes we have so far have been considered crap features, even with balance issues in mind.

They will ALWAYS fall into that trap. Otherwise Shadow Priests would not have been complaining in BfA. BM Hunters would not be complaining now. They do NOT spend the time and resources the way they should. A former employee spilled the beans on Reddit in a subreddit for a game under Microsoft. Accountants now make more than developers. Ion can plan an awesome feature with the team but the accounts can shoot it down or hobble him. Say he plans on assigning 4 devs a month to do it. He might get 2 devs and a week.