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

[Ielenia]

Who is to say that a Void Elf Warrior isn't a Riftblade (or whatever they're called)? That would be no different than Draenei Paladins being called Vindicators, and Blood Elf Paladins being called Blood knights.

There's a huge difference because, as demonstrated by the Riftrunners island expedition team, they use void magic. And yet you don't see vindicators and blood knights using anything other than holy magic, do you?

The Tinker has a very specific set of abilities that aren't found in engineering, so yeah not really the same case here.

Arguable. Highly, highly arguable. I'll do the same thing you did when I first mentioned the Riftrunners, and point out similarities: the mech riding? Sky golem. Pocket factory? Goblin bomb dispenser. And the riftrunners also have a specific set of abilities that aren't found in the classes, either, mind you.

For all we know, "Riftblade" is just a title for a Void Elf Warrior.

Gee, now that sounds familiar:

Other than that, it doesn't really mean anything to disprove the idea that "tinker" and "engineer" are not synonyms.

Tinkers and engineers, in the lore, are basically one and the same, basically being synonyms of each other.

Nothing in the lore has shown the name 'tinker' and 'engineer' to be anything other than synonymous to each other.

You have yet to show that 'engineer' and 'tinker' aren't synonyms, considering everything in the lore so far points that there are the same.

You have yet to prove to us that, in WoW, 'tinker' is not a synonym for 'engineer', despite all the clues that they indeed may be just synonyms.

in WoW, 'tinker' seems more like a synonym for 'engineer' than anything else.

All arguments you refused to accept. Of course, the difference here is that we actually see the Riftrunners doing different things from the lore warrior and priest, while we haven't seen tinkers do anything different from engineers, in the lore.

Engineering isn't a class.

And now you're moving goalposts. Your argument was that the "flavor text does not affect gameplay", and I've proven it does, because the engineering profession is part of the gameplay. You never said anything about "player class".

Yeah, but ALL NPCs are not profession engineers, which is what I was talking about.

There is no such thing as "profession engineer" in lore. They're all engineers.

Wouldn't someone who uses Necromancy (like Death Knights) be a Necromancer?

So how exactly are they fundamentally different?

If you're going to laser-focus on a SINGLE ASPECT of the whole, of course they're "the same". But the same thing can be done for all classes: paladins and warriors are the same, because both are sword-and-board melee users who can also use a two-handed weapon for offense. Mages and warlocks are the same because both are spellcasters who rain powerful magic on their foes from afar. Rogues and monks are the same because both are agile, quick fighters. Etc, etc.

Amazing how a few elite Necromancers became a "huge Azerothian party marching into the Shadowlands". That's straw man number 2 for you.

And that's a lie from you. A few death knights went into Shadowlands for being connected to Bolvar. To introduce a necromancer class in this expansion means completely altering the storyline connecting to the death knights, as it would mean sidelining the class almost completely.

In the end, the point is that the theme of this expansion is death and the dead,

No, the theme of this expansion is afterlife. It's a rather subtle difference that either you cannot understand, or refuse to.

LoL! Yeah, sure it doesn't.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

And I noticed how you completely removed and did not address the actual meat of the argument, of how the polls here wildly differ from the census data.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, i would like that very much as a Goblin Tinker. it would add so much flavor to the RP aspect of the class, and distinguish between the Gnomish and Goblin approaches.

Sure. If you like the idea of a playable class' abilities misfiring, all the power to you. The problem here is that Teriz cherry-picks what "flavor text" is lore and what isn't, to suit his needs.

- - - Updated - - -

Krick is a Necromancer who utilizes poison: https://www.wowhead.com/npc=36477/kr...es;mode:normal. He also uses an arcane spell. And just incase you're still unsure about him, his description literally says: The diminutive necromancer Krick oversees the workers in the Pit of Saron. From atop the ghastly Ick, he can safely throw poison, explosives and dark magic at his enemies. From this vantage point, he has also learned dark secrets of Icecrown Citadel that could topple the Lich King.

Other Necromancers who use either nature, fire, or other schools of magic that you were looking for Teriz:

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=166615/m...ncer#abilities
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=28889/ac...ncer#abilities
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=146833/n...urer#abilities
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=31096/sc...ncer#abilities
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=118472/f...ncer#abilities
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Heigan_the_Unclean

I'd also argue that Grand Widow Faerlina could be categorized as a Necromancer since she uses the spell Frenzy, and is one of the high-ranking members of the Cult of the Damned. Cult of the Damned lore tells us that "Kel’Thuzad personally appoints officials and leaders for the Cult, looking for people both talented in espionage and in pursuing the dark art of necromancy." She also casts a Poison Bolt Volley

Oh, those are a lot of NPCs I forgot. Thanks for the info, dude.

Also, I'd say 'welcome to the conversation', but I'm not sure that's a good thing for you. :P

BTW, I'm thinking in remaking my concept to incorporate some oozes to my poison spec, too.

[Teriz]

Because you know better then Blizzard what they can and can not do, surely. Is it your actual skull that is that thick, or are you in a mech suit?

1. Because Blizzard has already stated that the Necromancer concept is within the Death Knight class.
2. Because Blizzard has created melee based Necromancers in the past.
3. Because Blizzard has stated that a new class must fit the theme of an expansion.

[Diaphin]

+1 for creativity

For real, though. the Mechanical threat is possible. they didn't just add it for the laughs, you know. just like Chromie's Deaths scenario is hinting at her involvement in the future.

Yeah, but how likely is that any Blizzard Worker would step on the stage of Blizzcon 2021 and announce that the next expansion it will be you fighting against the thread of robot squirrels and cyber midgets under the glorious leadership of the balding small guy who has a beard which looks similar to the kind of beards southern generals in the civil war would have. I know that the US had bad worker protection laws, but the problem is that they couldn't make the expansion on the basis of it probably being against all worker protection laws to force somebody on the stage with such an announcement.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Because Blizzard has already stated that the Necromancer concept is within the Death Knight class.
2. Because Blizzard has created melee based Necromancers in the past.
3. Because Blizzard has stated that a new class must fit the theme of an expansion.

Again, isn't three an argument against Tinkers? I mean, goblins and gnomes are so insignificant that Mechagons entire story came without a single cinematic. Was Mechagon even in the 8.2 trailer?

[username993720]

Yes. I would say a physical ranged class would be the best way to go. A class that actually competes with the Hunter.

Those racials don't mean much if this is how their racial leader is depicted in a mech;

Are you kidding me? all this time you argued for no Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon, Sea Witch, but you advocate for a physical ranged class that will compete with the hunter? how will the argument of 'being too similar' not apply this time?

Those racials are hinting at a potential race/class combination. that's why they are there.

Yeah, but how likely is that any Blizzard Worker would step on the stage of Blizzcon 2021 and announce that the next expansion it will be you fighting against the thread of robot squirrels and cyber midgets under the glorious leadership of the balding small guy who has a beard which looks similar to the kind of beards southern generals in the civil war would have. I know that the US had bad worker protection laws, but the problem is that they couldn't make the expansion on the basis of it probably being against all worker protection laws to force somebody on the stage with such an announcement.

You may never know. we didn't expect an expansion based on Pandaren, we didn't expect to go to alternate Draenor, we didn't expect a 2nd legion invasion expansion, we didn't expect a faction war expansion and we didn't expect a 2nd death-themed expansion.

It could totally be World of Warcraft: Mechanization. and would be death robots trying to convert us into mechanical beings.

They did announce Diablo Immortal for mobile phones, after all.

[Teriz]

There's a huge difference because, as demonstrated by the Riftrunners island expedition team, they use void magic. And yet you don't see vindicators and blood knights using anything other than holy magic, do you?

Aren't Riftfunners all Void Elves? Wouldn't a Void Elf utilize Void magic by default?

Arguable. Highly, highly arguable. I'll do the same thing you did when I first mentioned the Riftrunners, and point out similarities: the mech riding? Sky golem. Pocket factory? Goblin bomb dispenser. And the riftrunners also have a specific set of abilities that aren't found in the classes, either, mind you.

Bladestorm, Pummel, Heroic Leap, and Thunder Clap are all warrior abilities though.

All arguments you refused to accept. Of course, the difference here is that we actually see the Riftrunners doing different things from the lore warrior and priest, while we haven't seen tinkers do anything different from engineers, in the lore.

Well not really, since we're talking about Void Elf Warriors and a Void Elf Priest. Again, lore wise a Void Elf warrior will have Void abilities by default.

And now you're moving goalposts. Your argument was that the "flavor text does not affect gameplay", and I've proven it does, because the engineering profession is part of the gameplay. You never said anything about "player class".

We were talking about classes though, not a crafting profession. It's not even established that professions are part of your character's lore.

There is no such thing as "profession engineer" in lore. They're all engineers.

Actually there is, because there's a clear lore difference between the engineering profession, the Goblin Tinker hero, Mekkatorque's Gnome tech, Blackfuse's Goblin tech, Nightborne tech, Scourge/Forsaken/Goblin biotech, Titan tech, and Draenei tech. We as players interact with the engineering profession through the WoW profession system. There are things in one that doesn't exist in the others.

If you're going to laser-focus on a SINGLE ASPECT of the whole, of course they're "the same". But the same thing can be done for all classes: paladins and warriors are the same, because both are sword-and-board melee users who can also use a two-handed weapon for offense. Mages and warlocks are the same because both are spellcasters who rain powerful magic on their foes from afar. Rogues and monks are the same because both are agile, quick fighters. Etc, etc.

Uh no. Paladins use Magic. Warriors don't use magic. Mages utilize an entirely different set of magic than Warlocks.

Death Knights and Necromancers use the same school of magic, and do the exact same thing.

And that's a lie from you. A few death knights went into Shadowlands for being connected to Bolvar. To introduce a necromancer class in this expansion means completely altering the storyline connecting to the death knights, as it would mean sidelining the class almost completely.

You're acting like Blizzard didn't create/write/plot out this expansion. Are you saying it's impossible to write in a Necromancer class in storyline involving death, Death Knights, the Lich King, Shadowlands, etc?

No, the theme of this expansion is afterlife. It's a rather subtle difference that either you cannot understand, or refuse to.

Oh I understand it completely; You're using semantics in an effort to ignore reality. You have fun with that.

Here's what Blizzard's lead narrative designer says about the theme of this expansion;

Many people think of as the end of life, but it's really more of a cosmic force. A place like the Firelands has several creatures that are made of Fire, born of Fire magic; the Shadowlands is the realm of Death, and so there are creatures born of that power as well.

It's a new place, somewhere we haven't seen before, and the first foray into one of the realms on the cosmology chart. They want a mix of brand new stuff rooted in familiar concepts. Death's influence has been felt on Azeroth for some time, but Shadowlands shows the more primal origins of it. For example, the Val'kyr were an integral part of both the Lich King's power and Odyn's in the Halls of Valor, and they want to show the origins of that in a much grander way. Similarly, the Scourge and Maldraxas - we get to see where the power of the Scourge comes from, but there are differences in the way that power is used in the Shadowlands. Classic images of death from films and books helped them to create the gothic horror vibe of Revendreth. The whole team gets together to talk about things they want to express, and then boil them down to cool distinctive ideas which they can use to add to the universe of World of Warcraft.

Demons are born of the Twisting Nether; normally, a demon killed on Azeroth or otherwise outside of its home realm will go back to the Twisting Nether, eventually coalesce, and come back. Sargeras tried to shortcut that process by using Argus as a resurrection engine to speed up that process. That same principle applies to other creatures of various realms (Shadow, Light, Fire, etc). The Shadowlands is specifically for mortal beings to go through the process of Death.

https://www.wowhead.com/news=296091/...the-lost-codex

- - - Updated - - -

Again, isn't three an argument against Tinkers? I mean, goblins and gnomes are so insignificant that Mechagons entire story came without a single cinematic. Was Mechagon even in the 8.2 trailer?

Yes, it was in the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKsOfD52yvU

[Traveler Voltin]

since the DEATH themed expansion did not introduce Necromancer or Dark ranger(since Blizzard logic says Death knight is the necromancer class). classes seem to have to fit the same theme of the expansion they are introduced.

how would you introduce them? how would you do another death expansion to fit them in?

[ymirsson]

1. Because Blizzard has already stated that the Necromancer concept is within the Death Knight class.
2. Because Blizzard has created melee based Necromancers in the past.
3. Because Blizzard has stated that a new class must fit the theme of an expansion.

If you think those are arguments capable of stopping a new class if Blizzard wills it, i have this nice mechanized bridge to sell you.

I hope blizzard adds a driveable mech suit in the future, with combat capabilities, in the engineering profession.

[Teriz]

If you think those are arguments capable of stopping a new class if Blizzard wills it, i have this nice mechanized bridge to sell you.

I hope blizzard adds a driveable mech suit in the future, with combat capabilities, in the engineering profession.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you think my argument is about something preventing Blizzard from doing something.

My argument is that those are all actions Blizzard has done themselves to indicate that they already have a Necromancer in WoW and have no desire to create another one. And again, the BIGGEST one is to bring out a death-themed expansion and say that NO new class concept fits the theme of said expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

since the DEATH themed expansion did not introduce Necromancer or Dark ranger(since Blizzard logic says Death knight is the necromancer class). classes seem to have to fit the same theme of the expansion they are introduced.

how would you introduce them? how would you do another death expansion to fit them in?

Exactly. Consider that Blizzard could have even introduced a new type of Necromancer that actually embodies the different realms of death found in the Shadowlands. Not only would that be different from Death Knights, it would be a rather unique Necromancy concept, since it still revolves around the general concept, but expands it far beyond the Scourge or Blood Troll concept of Necromancy.

But nope, no new class concept fit the theme of the death expansion. So, IMO it's time to move on to other class concepts.

[ymirsson]

The flaw in your reasoning is that you think my argument is about something preventing Blizzard from doing something.

My argument is that those are all actions Blizzard has done themselves to indicate that they already have a Necromancer in WoW and have no desire to create another one. And again, the BIGGEST one is to bring out a death-themed expansion and say that NO new class concept fit the theme of said expansion.

Yes, i heard you. Do you have anything useful to add?

[username993720]

since the DEATH themed expansion did not introduce Necromancer or Dark ranger(since Blizzard logic says Death knight is the necromancer class). classes seem to have to fit the same theme of the expansion they are introduced.

how would you introduce them? how would you do another death expansion to fit them in?

Not if you include a Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch alongside the Dark Ranger, it doesn't.

[Traveler Voltin]

Not if you include a Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch alongside the Dark Ranger, it doesn't.

they are no where close to the same theme and do not make sense together.

[username993720]

they are no where close to the same theme and do not make sense together.

Bows, magically imbued arrows and spells.

[Diaphin]

Yes, it was in the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKsOfD52yvU

Ah okay. Though you hope the fact that the entire story portion of the trailer as well as the short cinematic at the beginning focussing all around Nazjatar with just a few clips of Mechagon in between isn't a gotcha. It actually strengthens my point how much of an afterthought gnomes are. And really, not killing off Mekkatorque and replace him with a cool gnome character was probably a step in the wrong direction. Their lore would be immediately much more interesting if Kelsey Steelspark would be made their leader.

You may never know. we didn't expect an expansion based on Pandaren, we didn't expect to go to alternate Draenor, we didn't expect a 2nd legion invasion expansion, we didn't expect a faction war expansion and we didn't expect a 2nd death-themed expansion.

It could totally be World of Warcraft: Mechanization. and would be death robots trying to convert us into mechanical beings.

They did announce Diablo Immortal for mobile phones, after all.

So basically the biggest argument in favor is an appeal on Blizzard being tone deaf again?

[Depakote]

bad
10characters

[Traveler Voltin]

Bows, magically imbued arrows and spells.

they dont share a theme.
they are no where close to each other.

[Teriz]

Ah okay. Though you hope the fact that the entire story portion of the trailer as well as the short cinematic at the beginning focussing all around Nazjatar with just a few clips of Mechagon in between isn't a gotcha. It actually strengthens my point how much of an afterthought gnomes are. And really, not killing off Mekkatorque and replace him with a cool gnome character was probably a step in the wrong direction. Their lore would be immediately much more interesting if Kelsey Steelspark would be made their leader.

Why would Mechagon have more sway than Azshara and N’Zoth? If anything, Mechagon was yet another way for Blizzard to ease people into the idea of a tech class, and introduce Mechagnomes.

[username993720]

So basically the biggest argument in favor is an appeal on Blizzard being tone deaf again?

Nope. you asked why would they do it. i gave an example.

A Mechanical threat is both innovative and grounded in the story.

they dont share a theme.
they are no where close to each other.

Neither does a Holy Priest and a Shadow Priest. a Frost Mage and a Fire Mage. an Affliction Warlock and a Destruction Warlock.

They can all be different aspects of a Ranger. one uses Necromancy, the other Lunar and the third Sea.

[ymirsson]

Neither does a Holy Priest and a Shadow Priest. a Frost Mage and a Fire Mage. an Affliction Warlock and a Destruction Warlock.

They can all be different aspects of a Ranger. one uses Necromancy, the other Lunar and the third Sea.

But how do you convene all three aspects in a single character, lore wise? whats the ingame explanation? They might be mechanically close, but their cultural background is quite different. why would a sea witch also be a priestess of the moon?

[Teriz]

Nope. you asked why would they do it. i gave an example.

A Mechanical threat is both innovative and grounded in the story.

There’s also this;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/The_War

Which is happening in Outland and Azeroth.

[username993720]

But how do you convene all three aspects in a single character, lore wise? whats the ingame explanation? They might be mechanically close, but their cultural background is quite different. why would a sea witch also be a priestess of the moon?

Doesn't have to be. same class, different specializations. a Shadow priest could be a Void elf, a Forsaken Cultist of the Forgotten Shadow or a Shadowmoon orc. a Holy Priest could be a Human Cleric, a Draenei Anchorite or a Zandalari Confessor. there's nothing connecting between them, except being different specializations of the same class.