1. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No, the Monk concept was never tied just to Pandaren.
    The Monk class as it was implemented is inherently, directly tied to Pandaren and Pandaren culture.

    There was no Monk hero in WC3
    You're dirty, terrible liar.

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pandaren_B...(Warcraft_III)

    and we had multiple Monk NPCs in WoW before MoP who were not Pandaren.
    Which monks are you referring to?

    If it's the ones in Scarlet Monastery....you do understand there is a very profound difference between strictly religious monks and monks that practice martial arts, right? Don't conflate the two. The same way you insist on not conflating Engineering with Tinkers.

    If you're going to bring up Brother Korloff specifically, he wasn't introduced until MoP.

    You're fucking delusional, arguing in horribly bad faith and being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

    Uh, how is it objectively false when you just admitted that the spec is designed NOT to use pets? Doesn't that mean that you CAN play a Marksmanship Hunter without a pet active?
    Because you stated:
    Uh, Marksmanship Hunter has no pet,
    That's not true. There is a difference between CHOOSING to not use a pet, and not being able to at all.

  2. #622
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Except poison. But even if I conceded this "every school of necromancy" thing, that would still be an irrelevant argument. Because one can create a necromancer concept with "frost", "unholy" and "blood" that plays drastically different than a death knight. Just like you could make a melee class with "arcane", "fire" and "frost" specs and still play vastly different than a mage.
    You seriously don’t see a problem with a Necromancer class having the same schools as the DK class?


    To say the death knight is the necromancer class in WoW is saying the warlock was the demon hunter class in WoW before Legion.
    The difference is that Blizzard said they folded the Necromancer concept into the DK class.

    It doesn't change the point. The image still needs to be registered to avoid art theft.
    By Wei, not by Blizzard.


    Because:
    That's really up for debate.
    I’m talking about Wei’s image, not that one.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    The Monk class as it was implemented is inherently, directly tied to Pandaren and Pandaren culture.
    And as I said before, we had multiple monks from multiple races before MoP.

    To be fair, that’s a Brewmaster, not a Monk.


    Which monks are you referring to?

    If it's the ones in Scarlet Monastery....you do understand there is a very profound difference between strictly religious monks and monks that practice martial arts, right? Don't conflate the two. The same way you insist on not conflating Engineering with Tinkers.

    If you're going to bring up Brother Korloff specifically, he wasn't introduced until MoP.

    You're fucking delusional, arguing in horribly bad faith and being incredibly intellectually dishonest.
    There were Blood Elf, Undead, Draenei, and Gnome Monks before MoP.


    Because you stated:

    That's not true. There is a difference between CHOOSING to not use a pet, and not being able to at all.
    Ah semantics. Gotcha.

  3. #623
    brewmaster wasnt really a monk/monk spec until MoP
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  4. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    that is a different game set in a different universe. so why are you even bringing him up?
    Because he's, clearly, inspired by a Dwarf and he's clearly an Engineer.

    They could draw inspiration from him for a 3rd, dwarven-inspired, Tinker spec.

    "Tinkers are most commonly found among the dwarves, gnomes, and goblins as they produce rifles, zeppelins, and other technological innovations currently found on Azeroth. With their general disinterest in technology, night elves, orcs and tauren are the least likely to be tinkers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The Hunter class shoots arrows imbued with Frost/Nature power, Arcane Power, Poison, and in the past has shot arrows with Shadow and Fire magic. Wailing Arrow is merely an arrow that has a silencing effect, and Hunters have had arrows that silence targets as well.

    But they weren't, so it's a moot point to make.

    Now you're getting it.

    Yeah, you seem to be missing the fact that there are shadow abilities within Discipline as well. Also Warriors don't use magic, so no they couldn't just merge with Warriors.

    Always have been.

    Explosive Shot and Wildfire Bomb are not in the same spec within the Hunter class. Also there is a VAST difference between profession items and class abilities. So much so that it is laughable to say that what a profession does is enough to substitute for a class. If you attempted to DPS with Engineering items, your group or raid would boot you and probably ban you.

    Magic and Physical ranged is redundant because they're meant to do the same thing; Fight at ranged. There's no reason to have a bow user also casting bolts of frost magic. It would make far more sense to just have the bow user shoot arrows imbued with frost magic, which is what the Hunter class already does.

    Class specs tend to not be separated based on individual lore characters.
    Chimaera shot is based on the two-headed Chimaera beast. that's why it is split between Frost and Nature damage. the Beastmaster mimics animals and Survival description was animal-venom user. Arcane Shot is an exception, and is probably based on the Ranger. Serpent sting meshes with Survival using animal venom. Dark Arrow is a Dark Ranger ability. and the fire damage is Explosives and or Exotic munition (Searing arrows) of the Priestess of the Moon. So, no. Throwing together a mishmash of abilities from different classes into one spec does not pass as being one of them. Hunter abilities that are magical should only be venom-based, animal-based, wilds-based, explosives-based or trap-based. not Necromancy-based, not Lunar-based nor Sea-based.

    You're the biggest demagogue i've ever seen. when i say it, i'm wrong. when you say it, you're right. You were adamant against Dark Rangers using Banshee abilities, but now it is fine that a hunter will have a Banshee-based shot, a Warlock having a Banshee-based curse and a Priest having Banshee like scream, apparitions and mind control?

    You seem to be forgetting that the Discipline mostly uses shadow abilities from the shadow spec, and that its description does not mention shadow. It doesn't matter if warriors use magic or not. you like to underestimate the importance of classes. so, glyphs will be used to give them holy appearances and we'll get rid of the Paladin class.

    Thank goodness Blizzard doesn't follow your advices. we wouldn't have Demon Hunters, Death Knight or Monk classes. and you would probably replace all classes with the Tinker.

    I don't care if they are in the same spec or not. just switch specs all the time. that should do it. Of course there is a vast difference between a profession and a class. But, i'm gonna disregard your claim and say deal with it. also, it's not about DPS meters. it's about the fantasy and theme. and in that department, you are covered because i said so.

    It's also redundant to have Balance Druid, Mages, Priests, Shamans and Warlocks. they are meant to do the same thing: fight at ranged. You keep forgetting about Life Drain, Charm, Banshee's Curse, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Mind Control, Possession, Starfall, Light of Elune, Lunar Flare, Shadowstalk, Elune's chosen, Forked Lightning, Mana Shield and Tornado. it's not just about arrows with magical effects on them. There's no reason to have a weapon user like the enhancement shaman also casting Lightning Bolt, or a weapon wielding paladin also casting Holy Shock. See? your logic is flawed.

    Yes it is. Frost Death Knight being based on Arthas/Lich King. Havoc Demon Hunter being based on Illidan. Restoration Druid being based on Malfurion/Cenarius. Fire mages being based on Kael'thas. Frost mages being based on the Antonidas/Jaina. Brewmaster Monk being based on Chen Stormstout. Holy Paladins being based on Uther. Enhancement Shamans being based on Thrall/Drek'thar/Rehgar. Besides, i've mentioned them as examples, due to them having characters in Heroes of the Storm, that Blizzard can draw upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If you want to play as a Hunter, why would you roll a Goblin? There are other races that simply fit those classes better, and they have the lore characters to back that up.
    Because the Hunter has explosives, that's why. Although, i would admit, they are lacking in that department and i would like to see more explosive-based abilities, like the Sapper has and like Junkrat uses.

    Who are you to decide which are better for the Hunter class? and who, exactly, are better suited to be hunters, if i may ask?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    Welcome to "Who's Class Idea is it Anyway?" where everything's made up and the points don't matter!

    Nobody's ideas for a new class should be "attacked" right? Conversely, don't expect that nobody will criticize your idea that doesn't even make sense. Sorry, friends, but things like Rangers, Sea Witches and Priestesses of the Moon are redundant. The Hunter, Shaman and Priest respectively fill those archetypes to Blizzard's satisfaction.

    There is no need for an entirely new class (except for Bards, come at me). Class skins are better options, they will allow the fulfillment of most fantasies without creating "class bloat," something that many people already believe is plaguing the game. That idea is nothing new, of course, as there are class skin threads to begin with. But this thread has sparked the same old tired argument of which class would be best to add and people will never agree.

    Some quick and obvious Class Skin ideas:

    Tinker - Hunter. They can tame mech-beasts already, with a proper class skin they could "hack" all sorts of mechs. The various nature and beast themed abilities can be replaced with technologically-oriented variants.

    Necromancer - Warlock. Demons are replaced with undead, Fire and Fel replaced with Frost, Shadow and Death (which happens to often look fairly similar to Fel, funny) as needed.

    Priestess of the Moon - Priest. Besides the aesthetic change of Holy becoming Lunar, in this example mechanical changes would also take place. Priests can use bows and the following spells will be replaced:
    - Shadow Word: Pain becomes Searing Arrows, which functions essentially the same as in WC3. While active, auto-shots do additional Radiant damage at the cost of mana. Ideally the damage and cost comes to be roughly equal to that of Shadow Word: Pain.
    - Mind Vision becomes Scout. You can freely switch between control of your character and the summoned Owl Scout, which is perhaps akin to Eye of Kilrogg.

    Trueshot Aura and Starfall exist already in Hunter and Druid, respectively. Priestess of the Moon could fit for those classes as well. The Priestess of the Moon are an organization and so they would have members with different strengths and weaknesses. Thus a Priestess of the Moon class skin could be applied to multiple classes, perhaps all of them, even. After all you can essentially make this work just by adding lunar magic effects to spells and abilities. Therefore, the aforementioned Priest spell changes for the Priestess of the Moon skin would be nice, but they aren't necessary.

    Using the Priestess of the Moon as an example, many if not all of the missing class fantasies in World of Warcraft can be fulfilled by aesthetic changes and rare mechanical changes.
    I was about to say how i disagree with you. but, at least you propose solutions, rather than just say "never ever" and "be satisfied with what you got", like Teriz says.

    I will, however, say i disagree with you because Priestess of the Moon, Dark Rangers and Sea Witches are not properly represented within those classes (giving just a few abilities, here and there, does not answer the fantasy). Same way as Shadow Hunters being misrepresented through the Shaman class, Blademasters through the Warrior class, Wardens though the Rogue class, Tinker through the Engineering profession and Alchemist through the Alchemist Profession. same way Warlocks didn't satisfy the fantasy of Demon Hunters with the Metamorphosis ability, or Death Knights with the Death Coil ability. same with rogues wielding fist weapons not answering the fantasy of a Monk.

    The thing about Bards is: 1. They are not a Warcraft 3 hero unit (like Blizzard added up until now) and 2. using guitars and rock n' roll is out of the fantasy of WoW. Yet, if they were to use medieval instruments, and abilities similar to the sound elemental, Murmur, then i would accept them as either a profession, a spec or a class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    To be fair, that’s a Brewmaster, not a Monk.
    Really? you dense mother****** -_-

    Brewmaster: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Brewmaster

    Pandaren Brewmaster: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pandaren_brewmaster

    Learn the difference. one concocts alcoholic beverages, the other combines it with martial arts.

    "During these dark times (slavery), many pandaren tried to lift the spirits of their beleaguered brothers and sisters. They were the storytellers, the brewmasters, and the healers who helped knit their oppressed society together in the midst of darkness".

    "Because they had no weapons, they trained common people to fight with their unarmed fists and feet. They mastered the use of positive energy - or 'chi' - to empower themselves. These unarmed resistance fighters would become the first monks."

    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    brewmaster wasnt really a monk/monk spec until MoP
    No shit, Sherlock. The Monk class was not added until Mists of Pandaria.
    Last edited by username993720; 2020-11-25 at 07:04 PM.

  5. #625
    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    brewmaster wasnt really a monk/monk spec until MoP
    Yes but the lore for the Brewmaster is forever tied as an aspect of the Monk class now.

    Just like when they decided to give Frost and Blood to DK's, that forever changes what a DK is identified as. Those abilities would likely be applied in retrospect, with Arthas and co having powers over Frost and Blood during War3, just not represented directly in the game as it was back then. The lore doesn't really make a distinction to say Brewmasters aren't Monks at a certain point in time, or that DK's couldn't use Frost at X point in time. It all just gets retroactively applied, unless there is specific lore saying otherwise.

    We even have lore now that does this like Shadow Hunters, Farseers, Spirit Walkers and the like all being lumped together as Shaman. Even though they are not specifically a Shaman back then, they are considered different types of Shaman now in retrospect. Another example is Priests using Shadow; even in WC3 the neutral Troll 'Shadow Priests' only used Holy magic; now lore explains all having access to real shadow magic.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-25 at 07:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  6. #626
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And as I said before, we had multiple monks from multiple races before MoP.
    Source

    To be fair, that’s a Brewmaster, not a Monk.
    And is obviously where they found at least some inspiration for the Monk class...hence the Monk Brewmaster Specialization.

    There were Blood Elf, Undead, Draenei, and Gnome Monks before MoP.
    Source, specifically one that shows they are martial artists and related to the class.

    Ah semantics. Gotcha.
    Pot...meet kettle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_po...e_kettle_black

  7. #627
    For me its what is WoW missing. And what is wrong.

    Now as far as gear goes. We need a other mail class.

    As far as what we are missing. we have a bunch of melee ( some need fixing) and a bunch of ranged dps ( pretty much always same classes on top).
    Tanks and healers ( need fixing/same on top).
    I would rather see a better attempt to fix classes then add them. But that is not what this thread is about.

    So lets look. ( taking a very basic look so do not get your panties in a twist when i say something you do not like)

    we have class wise:
    - 5 heals
    - 6 tanks
    - 10 melee
    - 12 ranged

    so a other paladin type class heal+tank+ melee would make more sense.


    Lets look into the specs.
    Heals we have:
    1 shield healer
    2 big heals healers
    1 low hp healer
    1 hot healer
    1 mittigation/soften blow healer

    Tanks:
    1 big hp
    1 mittegation
    3 dps
    2 all around

    melee:
    pretty much everything


    So i would say heal wise to compete with healers ( and options) either a cross of 2 of the following healing specs: disc, resto druid, resto shaman.
    Tank wise, maybe a tank who functions more like a off tank. Aoe focused, and maybe have some damage mittigation for the whole raid.

    Melee, this is a hard one. no clue.

    Fantasy asspect. we have a lot of live, nature, elements, corruption, demon, holy etc. Or pure power classes. What we lack is technology , a other death class could be nice. Or something out of the box a sonic race ( like the mantid) who draw their power from something new.

    So , so far we have a mail wearing hero, with aeo focussed/damage for raid reduction tank. with healing that is less focussed on raw healing. But more softening the blow healing.

    What class should it be? that is up to blizz and their skill or lack off ( depending on who you are asking). of story telling.


    For me it could be the following things ( all mail classes)( in no order at all):

    Necromancers: death themed. The healing could be like bone shields etc. Tank and dps could have more add control. You could even make dps a class that is more about you keeping buffs etc up on your "pet(s)" then dps on the boss.

    Tinkerer: could use gadets for all the things. Look at that scoundrel class from star wars the old republic game.

    Mantid class: take on of their specializations and turn it into a class theme. Like using sonic spells for shields etc.


    But again, i rather see them fixing things correctly. Have not played all classes a lot yet. But for my druid ( main for 16 years). My most played spec in recent years is moonkin. and this new eclips form feels like a step backwards.

  8. #628
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Source



    And is obviously where they found at least some inspiration for the Monk class...hence the Monk Brewmaster Specialization.



    Source, specifically one that shows they are martial artists and related to the class.



    Pot...meet kettle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_po...e_kettle_black
    "Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  9. #629
    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    "Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk
    Were they using Pandaren martial arts, with Pandaria's August Celestials, brewing and mistweaving?

  10. #630
    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    "Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk
    Fair. The class is not based on these NPCs though. My statement is that the class as it was implemented is inherently and directly tied to Pandaren and Pandaren culture.

    I'll concede that Monks existed prior to MoP, though.
    Last edited by Katchii; 2020-11-25 at 07:45 PM.

  11. #631
    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    "Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk
    Yes but 'Monk' is a general term used, while the Monk Class is something more specific to the Brewmasters and the Pandaren culture.

    Just like 'Demon Hunter' isn't just your typical Hunter who happens to like killing demons, or how the Death Knight class is different than say the Warcraft 2 Death Knights that were more like Warlocks/Necromancers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  12. #632
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Chimaera shot is based on the two-headed Chimaera beast. that's why it is split between Frost and Nature damage.
    Which doesn't change the fact that it is a magical arrow.

    the Beastmaster mimics animals and Survival description was animal-venom user. Arcane Shot is an exception, and is probably based on the Ranger. Serpent sting meshes with Survival using animal venom. Dark Arrow is a Dark Ranger ability. and the fire damage is Explosives and or Exotic munition (Searing arrows) of the Priestess of the Moon. So, no. Throwing together a mishmash of abilities from different classes into one spec does not pass as being one of them. Hunter abilities that are magical should only be venom-based, animal-based, wilds-based, explosives-based or trap-based. not Necromancy-based, not Lunar-based nor Sea-based.
    And Binding Shot, Resonating Arrow, and Flayed Shot? Those are all magical arrow abilities as well.

    You're the biggest demagogue i've ever seen. when i say it, i'm wrong. when you say it, you're right. You were adamant against Dark Rangers using Banshee abilities, but now it is fine that a hunter will have a Banshee-based shot, a Warlock having a Banshee-based curse and a Priest having Banshee like scream, apparitions and mind control?
    Again, an arrow that silences targets isn't a "Banshee ability". It's a Hunter/Ranger ability. Just like Chimera Shot isn't a "Chimera ability".

    You seem to be forgetting that the Discipline mostly uses shadow abilities from the shadow spec, and that its description does not mention shadow. It doesn't matter if warriors use magic or not. you like to underestimate the importance of classes. so, glyphs will be used to give them holy appearances and we'll get rid of the Paladin class.
    I didn't forget it, which is why I originally said that about half of the Priest class' abilities are shadow, and that separates them greatly from the Paladin class.

    It's also redundant to have Balance Druid, Mages, Priests, Shamans and Warlocks. they are meant to do the same thing: fight at ranged. You keep forgetting about Life Drain, Charm, Banshee's Curse, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Mind Control, Possession, Starfall, Light of Elune, Lunar Flare, Shadowstalk, Elune's chosen, Forked Lightning, Mana Shield and Tornado. it's not just about arrows with magical effects on them. There's no reason to have a weapon user like the enhancement shaman also casting Lightning Bolt, or a weapon wielding paladin also casting Holy Shock. See? your logic is flawed.
    Actually no. The fact that they use different schools of magic makes them non-redundant. However, a bow user that can also cast long distance spells is very redundant.

    Who are you to decide which are better for the Hunter class? and who, exactly, are better suited to be hunters, if i may ask?
    I never said that. I said that when people look to roll a Hunter, they'll choose races they view as more fitting than a Gnome or Goblin. Elven races being the prime choice due to lore and Warcraft media.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2020-11-25 at 07:58 PM.

  13. #633
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I didn't forget it, which is why I originally said that about half of the Priest class' abilities are shadow, and that separates them greatly from the Paladin class.
    It's the same separation that would exist between a (Dark) Ranger and a Hunter.

    A Paladin doesn't use shadow because they *choose* not to. Shadow is explained as a side of light, therefore a Paladin is absolutely able to tap into Shadow. They simply choose not to, much as a Mage could be a Warock if they used Fel magic but they choose not to.

    A Hunter can be explained as being different from Rangers not because they are unable to use magic, but because they choose not to specialize in it. Using a few magical abilities is very different from being masters of it. Just like if you took Engineering, would you consider that the same as a Tinker class? Probably not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  14. #634
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's the same separation that would exist between a (Dark) Ranger and a Hunter.

    A Paladin doesn't use shadow because they *choose* not to. Shadow is explained as a side of light, therefore a Paladin is absolutely able to tap into Shadow. They simply choose not to, much as a Mage could be a Warock if they used Fel magic but they choose not to.

    A Hunter can be explained as being different from Rangers not because they are unable to use magic, but because they choose not to specialize in it. Using a few magical abilities is very different from being masters of it. Just like if you took Engineering, would you consider that the same as a Tinker class? Probably not.
    It goes beyond a personal choice. If a Paladin uses Shadow magic, they're no longer considered Paladin.

    If a Hunter masters magical abilities, they are no longer Hunters, they are Mages.

    I don't understand what you mean by "taking Engineering". Engineering is a profession without abilities and serves a completely different purpose in the game.

  15. #635
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It goes beyond a personal choice. If a Paladin uses Shadow magic, they're no longer considered Paladin.

    If a Hunter masters magical abilities, they are no longer Hunters, they are Mages.

    I don't understand what you mean by "taking Engineering". Engineering is a profession without abilities and serves a completely different purpose in the game.
    There is no difference between engineering items and abilities lorewise.

  16. #636
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    There is no difference between engineering items and abilities lorewise.
    You mean other than the Tinker's abilities not existing in Engineering at all?

  17. #637
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You mean other than the Tinker's abilities not existing in Engineering at all?
    No, he's saying that, based on Tinker lore they build items to use them, the items don't magically appear out of thin air. So any WoW Tinker "ability" that could be implemented that is based on them building an item to use, would be no different, lore wise, than an Engineer that builds an item that you have to manually click to activate.

    In both situations the person is building an item and then using it, the difference between the two would only be game play mechanics because a class abilities activate instantly (or activate the "cast time" or "channel") and don't require anything more than a single button press.

  18. #638
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It goes beyond a personal choice. If a Paladin uses Shadow magic, they're no longer considered Paladin.

    If a Hunter masters magical abilities, they are no longer Hunters, they are Mages.
    A Hunter that utilize magical abilities is a Ranger. We already have that distinction within Warcraft lore.

    Rangers have some magical affinity. They are master scouts, marksmen and survivalists, but beyond that, the Elven rangers we know of are adept at using magic as well. Lorthemar and Halduron both show this. Alleria's lore now explains that she's had centuries of experience using magic as well. Then there's even Warcraft 3 showing us that Rangers had magical abilities like Jenella Deemspring and Sylvanas Windrunner herself. Even Vereesa has Arcane abilities.

    The term 'Hunter' is just a loose description for them being Archers, just as 'Warrior' is applied generally to any melee combatant. We have very clear distinctions of subsets of this that aren't typical amongst Hunters, and have traditionally simply been lumped in together for the sake or generalization. This is because there is no distinct class separating them in lore, and frankly none needs to be. Something like the Unseen Path already takes in both Hunters and Rangers alike; but they're still pretty clear on making that distinction and referring to the Dark Rangers as Dark Rangers, and the Farstriders as Rangers. It doesn't mean they are one and the same though, just as there are subtle differences between Demon Hunters and Warlocks. They can be very similar, but they are not the same. Keep in mind that the Warlocks having achieved Metamorphosis in lore still stands, since the Green Fire questline lore has not been retconned.

    I don't understand what you mean by "taking Engineering". Engineering is a profession without abilities and serves a completely different purpose in the game.
    Sure, in game. Not in lore. It is effectively the same thing in lore right now. If Blizzard decides to separate the Tinker as its own class, then they need to do so before any distinction is actually made. Right now, there is none; they are literally interchangeable titles for Engineers.

    You can be both a Hunter and an Engineer. Or you can simply infer it as a Tinker since that is an alternative name for Engineer. Just like your Paladin can be a Vindicator or your Shaman can be a Farseer or Spirit Walker. There are no distinctions made between these titles.

    The name 'Tinker' does not have any distinction in WoW beyond being another name for Engineer. If a distinction is to be made, then it must be one driven by WoW lore. As far as we know from Warcraft 3 and prior, the Tinker Hero is literally a representation of a Goblin mastering the Engineering Profession. That is how the lore works. Gameplay can say otherwise but it's no different than us not having Farseers playable yet we know exactly what they are in lore. I'm not even talking about gameplay abilties, I'm talking strictly about what the lore tells us.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-25 at 09:39 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  19. #639
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    No, he's saying that, based on Tinker lore they build items to use them, the items don't magically appear out of thin air. So any WoW Tinker "ability" that could be implemented that is based on them building an item to use, would be no different, lore wise, than an Engineer that builds an item that you have to manually click to activate.

    In both situations the person is building an item and then using it, the difference between the two would only be game play mechanics because a class abilities activate instantly (or activate the "cast time" or "channel") and don't require anything more than a single button press.
    its also not realistic for raiding and doing dungeons. or anything really.
    I want tinkers but not they way teriz thinks they should be.
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  20. #640
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    17,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    No, he's saying that, based on Tinker lore they build items to use them, the items don't magically appear out of thin air. So any WoW Tinker "ability" that could be implemented that is based on them building an item to use, would be no different, lore wise, than an Engineer that builds an item that you have to manually click to activate.

    In both situations the person is building an item and then using it, the difference between the two would only be game play mechanics because a class abilities activate instantly (or activate the "cast time" or "channel") and don't require anything more than a single button press.
    Well actually that's false. An engineer is utilizing a profession trade, while a Tinker would be an adventurer using their inventions for combat. Also there's no indication that a Tinker has to build everything they use. If a Tinker has pocket factory for example, they could just mass produce whatever device they need for a mission. So while an Engineer needs to get materials to craft a Flame turret for example, a Tinker could utilize a pocket factory that simply mass produces the turret for him.

    We also should recognize that based on gameplay conventions, the Tinker is producing superior gadgets to the profession engineer. Again indicating that an engineer is a trained hobbyist, while the Tinker is an exceptional genius more than likely born with the gift of invention.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    A Hunter that utilize magical abilities is a Ranger. We already have that distinction within Warcraft lore.
    Where?

    Rangers have some magical affinity. They are master scouts, marksmen and survivalists, but beyond that, the Elven rangers we know of are adept at using magic as well. Lorthemar and Halduron both show this. Alleria's lore now explains that she's had centuries of experience using magic as well. Then there's even Warcraft 3 showing us that Rangers had magical abilities like Jenella Deemspring and Sylvanas Windrunner herself. Even Vereesa has Arcane abilities.
    Uh, Hunters also have magical affinity as well. You're truly splitting hairs here.

    The term 'Hunter' is just a loose description for them being Archers, just as 'Warrior' is applied generally to any melee combatant. We have very clear distinctions of subsets of this that aren't typical amongst Hunters, and have traditionally simply been lumped in together for the sake or generalization. This is because there is no distinct class separating them in lore, and frankly none needs to be. Something like the Unseen Path already takes in both Hunters and Rangers alike; but they're still pretty clear on making that distinction and referring to the Dark Rangers as Dark Rangers, and the Farstriders as Rangers. It doesn't mean they are one and the same though, just as there are subtle differences between Demon Hunters and Warlocks. They can be very similar, but they are not the same. Keep in mind that the Warlocks having achieved Metamorphosis in lore still stands, since the Green Fire questline lore has not been retconned.
    Uh no again. Hunter is literally a synonym for Ranger in pretty much any RPG context. There's zero chance Blizzard is going to create a Ranger class when they very clearly view the Hunter class as the Ranger class in the game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Is there a Tinker in the game or in the lore that is *not* an Engineer? No, there is not. They are all Engineers. And quite frankly, there is no lore making a distinction that says Engineers are not Tinkers either; it's ambiguous right now just like there is no difference between 'Vindicator' and 'Paladin'. If there is any distinction to be made, then it has to be explicit, the way we know Warlocks are different from Demon Hunters or Hunters from Priestess of the Moon.
    All Tinkers are engineers. All engineers are not Tinkers. I thought we've been through this already.

    Also there is a very clear lore distinction, and there's a very obvious gameplay distinction. That's all you really need to justify a class inclusion.

Posting Permissions

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