Page 6 of 338 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
16
56
106
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Dark Ranger seems like a no brainer since everyone would flock to it to play their own mini-Sylvanas just like everyone wanted to be mini-Arthas or mini-Illidan and would probably bring in quite the revenue for Blizzard.
    Shadowlands would have been the perfect time for it but alas it didn't happen; now I have the feeling that it probably missed the boat, just like other requested things like Ogres for the Horde did back when WoD seemed like the perfect time for them.

    Necromancers and Runemasters are old school Warcraft rpg classes which both were highly requested at some point but kinda fell out of fashion right now.
    Necromancers still have people rooting for them even after these years but Warlocks and Death Knights make them very redudant, Runemasters, on the other hand, haven't being relevant in a decade or so and have been pretty much forgotten by the modern community.

    Wardens, Blademasters and Spellbreakers also pop up from time to time but their scope is even more limited and would probably require a lot of work to create their own strong identity gameplay wise.

    A Dragon class, despite not having strong roots in lore, could work and would probably capture the attention of many people.
    By drawing powers from the different Dragon aspects it should be easy enough to imagine a unique skillset for it to make it stand out from other classes.

    Then there is Tinker.
    A technology and alchemy based class in the Warcraft setting could esily work and would surely stand out without too much trouble, not much to add here.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbrand View Post
    ...
    First of all, I don't like obvious answers. Because something completely new would be better option, but players just don't have imagination to suggest something better, than some cliche classes.

    Second thing - I hate that "gameplay >> class fantasy" concept. I.e. when Blizzard say, that amount of good game mechanics is limited and therefore they should keep amount of classes minimal in order to make them unique. Classes aren't about gameplay. They're about class fantasy. When you play Hunter, you imagine, that you're Hunter. When you play Mage, you imagine, that you play Mage.

    Therefore what I want to say, is what we need and what we don't need.

    We need:
    Mail class with ranged spec

    We don't need:
    Rogue 4.0, i.e. another melee leather class

    I don't care about Wow 11.0, if it's not solo-MMO. No half-measures - just perfect xpack.

  3. #103
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    If they add an entire new class, the most logical choice, based on lore, what's in the game already, and what gaps there are is very much the class people call "Tinker". I personally very much doubt the class will be called that - I think that'll be the name of one of the specs of the class (probably a ranged DPS spec involving temporary pets).

    So I think that's by far the most likely. They've done some amazing visual design and artwork for mechanical stuff in BfA, in Mechagon and the associated dungeons, so they've clearly got the talent and a base to work from. I'd expect them to have three specs, tank/healer/DPS, mail wearer, though I could also see tank/dps/dps or similar.

    Dragon Knight or similar is not really something much covered in lore. I'd expect a dragon-themed borrowed power system or the like rather than a class, though it's not impossible.

    Spellbreaker isn't enough to build a class on, despite some valiant fan attempts. Same for Dark Ranger - it's just not enough for a class - a spec, sure. Blademaster likewise, would be a spec, not a class. If you could somehow unify Warden, Dark Ranger and Spellbreaker, which would require some drastic new lore, you might be able to get a class out of that.

    Bard could be an entire class, but they're so rare in WoW lore that I think it's unlikely. Indeed the only reason it might ever happen is that, unlike most suggestions other than Tinkers, it would fit a different aesthetic/fantasy niche to existing classes.
    Last edited by Eurhetemec; 2020-11-17 at 11:50 AM.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  4. #104
    I am conflicted about classes in general.

    Some times I want for instance Hunter to get a 4th "Dark Ranger" spec that is similar to the MoP Survival hunter.

    Other times, I am frustrated I have too MANY specs on hybrids. For instance, I don't enjoy playing a tank so I mostly avoid maining classes that has a tank spec available even if I don't intend to main that spec, as it is inevitable at some point, they will ask me to switch to tank spec for some situation. This is one of the main reasons I main a Shaman is because they DON'T have a Tank spec, and people suggesting 4th spec Tank for Shaman gives me nightmares.

    Instead of going the "make classes have more baseline same abilities" route, what if the classes just split? I dunno, I know many would be mad but I think it would be more fun. That way we had a whole bunch of alts to level etc. If each class only had 1 spec it would also be much easier for Blizzard to introduce new classes. They probably struggeled a lot trying to find a 3rd spec for DH.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    so a destro lock?
    pretty sure theres enough spells themed around shadow/fel/fire to go around for 2 specs. They don't even need to invent new spells. Theres litteraly hundreds of spells cast by various demonic bosse sin the game already.
    None of us really changes over time. We only become more fully what we are.

  6. #106
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,116
    I am not a tinker fan, so I will say: Dark Ranger

    Altho I like the spellbreaker idea.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    If they add an entire new class, the most logical choice, based on lore, what's in the game already, and what gaps there are is very much the class people call "Tinker". I personally very much doubt the class will be called that - I think that'll be the name of one of the specs of the class (probably a ranged DPS spec involving temporary pets).

    So I think that's by far the most likely. They've done some amazing visual design and artwork for mechanical stuff in BfA, in Mechagon and the associated dungeons, so they've clearly got the talent and a base to work from. I'd expect them to have three specs, tank/healer/DPS, mail wearer, though I could also see tank/dps/dps or similar.

    Dragon Knight or similar is not really something much covered in lore. I'd expect a dragon-themed borrowed power system or the like rather than a class, though it's not impossible.

    Spellbreaker isn't enough to build a class on, despite some valiant fan attempts. Same for Dark Ranger - it's just not enough for a class - a spec, sure. Blademaster likewise, would be a spec, not a class. If you could somehow unify Warden, Dark Ranger and Spellbreaker, which would require some drastic new lore, you might be able to get a class out of that.

    Bard could be an entire class, but they're so rare in WoW lore that I think it's unlikely. Indeed the only reason it might ever happen is that, unlike most suggestions other than Tinkers, it would fit a different aesthetic/fantasy niche to existing classes.
    I always like the posts were some one tries to dismiss certain class ideas, but it all falls flat when it is countered by saying: A Dh is a lock and rogue so we wont get them. We still got Dh as a class. Its kinda pointless to try to look for the so called obvious reasons why a certain class wont be made. If the story lends itself/ demand or blizzard wants to, then we get them anyway.

    Remember how every one said monk would never be a class cus of diablo.. and here we are.

    Not enough to pull from is another weak argument.. I mean New abillities and lore can be created it happens all the time so anything is possible realy. Tinker, dark ranger, shadow hunter , spellbreaket and necromancer. If there is enough demand. I am not so scared for overlapp that already happends alot and in the end every class is doing the same, but doing it differently.

    If players can create an entire new blood healing tree with even less to pull from or a fully fletched necromancer spec then blizz can do the same.

    We could also look purely at the visual appeal of certain archtypes and the old glyph system would be a perfect way to add in new skins or replace certain abillities with a cosmetic alternative. Arcane shot--> Dark arrow for example.
    Last edited by Alanar; 2020-11-17 at 12:35 PM.

  7. #107
    AS long as it is different to the first three they made - so not a tank/melee.

    I'd like them to make a healer/ranged hero class - be their first one.

    Challenge Mode : Play WoW like my disability has me play:
    You will need two people, Brian MUST use the mouse for movement/looking and John MUST use the keyboard for casting, attacking, healing etc.
    Briand and John share the same goal, same intentions - but they can't talk to each other, however they can react to each other's in game activities.
    Now see how far Brian and John get in WoW.


  8. #108
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Bwonsamdi the Dead View Post
    How do people make fake classes like this? Is there a template somewhere?

    Also, why can Gnomes and Goblins be them?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'd also replace Worgen with Night Elf, since there's some Nelf Dark Rangers ingame now
    Ye it was made couple years ago, darkshore happends in the meantime and goblins and worgen dont make much sense, I would say night elves and humans maybe.

  9. #109
    Mmm I would like it to have some shadowhunter in it, that's all I would ask for

  10. #110
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,869
    Necromancer would be my first pick, with bard coming a close second.

    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    Tinker, the only concept that is unique in both gameplay and lore.
    You have no idea how "unique" the tinker class' gameplay is because the class does not exist. No one does. It's fine if you personally prefer a class over all the other options, but let's not make up falsehoods.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  11. #111
    I could see specs being added in the future, but I very much doubt classes will appear.
    Spell breaker for Warrior as a magic focused tank.
    Shadow hunter for shaman as a ranged bow user with various shaman utility.
    Dark Ranger for Rogue, ranged shadow with a limited stealth setup.
    Warden for Hunter, traps, no or limited pet use, basically a melee marksman.

    Those are the big OG fantasy jobs missing from the game. I also think there might be room for a Druid based around Druids of the Pack/Scythe. There may be space for a sentinel/priestess of elune melee priest.

    Tinker would need its own class, which ironically puts it as more likely and less likely to happen. I’m not a big fan of the concept, either way you spin it as a mech class or a turret class it just doesn’t fit the wow fantasy.

    If we get another class, it’s likely going to be from left field and be a one off for the expansion, like Monk.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by StillMcfuu View Post
    I could see specs being added in the future, but I very much doubt classes will appear.
    Spell breaker for Warrior as a magic focused tank.
    Shadow hunter for shaman as a ranged bow user with various shaman utility.
    Dark Ranger for Rogue, ranged shadow with a limited stealth setup.
    Warden for Hunter, traps, no or limited pet use, basically a melee marksman.

    Those are the big OG fantasy jobs missing from the game. I also think there might be room for a Druid based around Druids of the Pack/Scythe. There may be space for a sentinel/priestess of elune melee priest.

    Tinker would need its own class, which ironically puts it as more likely and less likely to happen. I’m not a big fan of the concept, either way you spin it as a mech class or a turret class it just doesn’t fit the wow fantasy.

    If we get another class, it’s likely going to be from left field and be a one off for the expansion, like Monk.
    Honestly starting to hate it when people say Tinker "Doesn't fit the WoW fantasy" because it's a straight up lie, Robots, motorcycles, tanks, actual Mechs, they've all been in WoW since the early days of Vanilla to Wrath, stop acting like your the highest authority on what the WoW fantasy is, your NOT, Blizz put Mechs and Turrets in the game so they are part of the WoW fantasy

  13. #113
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    I always like the posts were some one tries to dismiss certain class ideas, but it all falls flat when it is countered by saying: A Dh is a lock and rogue so we wont get them. We still got Dh as a class. Its kinda pointless to try to look for the so called obvious reasons why a certain class wont be made. If the story lends itself/ demand or blizzard wants to, then we get them anyway.
    Maybe read my post, instead of reading other people's posts, and then attributing what they said to me?

    I mean, wild idea, right? DH is interesting because they had just barely enough to make a class out of it (I say this as a DH main). Even with that, they were only able to come up with two specs, and a ton of what DHes do just had to be created out of thin air (rather than drawing from lore or bosses or the like), and DHes have notably fewer abilities than other classes.

    The problem with DHes was never "Rogue + Warlock", don't lie and say I said that. The problem with DH was "pretty thin stuff to base it on". But that was a lot more than any of the others I mentioned have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    Remember how every one said monk would never be a class cus of diablo.. and here we are.
    No, I don't remember that. I remember a few people saying that but most people dismissing them, because WoW had already shown interest in a Monk-type character via early concepts with the rune-puncher or whatever it was called.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    Not enough to pull from is another weak argument.. I mean New abillities and lore can be created it happens all the time so anything is possible realy. Tinker, dark ranger, shadow hunter , spellbreaket and necromancer. If there is enough demand. I am not so scared for overlapp that already happends alot and in the end every class is doing the same, but doing it differently.

    If players can create an entire new blood healing tree with even less to pull from or a fully fletched necromancer spec then blizz can do the same.

    We could also look purely at the visual appeal of certain archtypes and the old glyph system would be a perfect way to add in new skins or replace certain abillities with a cosmetic alternative. Arcane shot--> Dark arrow for example.
    I agree with this to some extent.

    But couldn't isn't the same as will. So far, all the classes Blizzard has introduced for WoW (including the originals), have extremely strong identities. That doesn't mean they don't share aesthetics or concepts with another class, but it does mean the core concept is a really solid one, which isn't particularly similar to the core concept of another class (and being overly reductive here just causes confusion, though people love to do it).

    There are also issues like whether a class fills a new "class fantasy". More than some MMOs (particularly ones of the era WoW originated in), WoW is very much about class fantasy, class feel. Similarity isn't really the issue here, rather, does the class represent a fantasy that's not really possible to play in WoW right now? Some proposed classes meet this, others don't.

    For example, Dark Ranger doesn't meet this. As you seem to admit, Dark Ranger is more a bundle of aesthetics than it is a class. Blademaster doesn't meet this. Blademaster is just an Arms or Fury warrior who is transmogged right and maybe with a couple of new glyphs (Heroic Leap into Wind Walk, for example). A number of other proposed classes don't meet this for similar reasons.

    Spellbreaker is a slightly different issue, in that's an extreme obscure thing lore-wise, now, in 2020 (less so in 2004), and doesn't fit with any common characters people "wish they could play" in WoW. On top of that, it's hard to imagine an expansion in WoW's future that would benefit from a Spellbreaker class, thematically. I sort of agree that, if it's thematically right, Blizzard could put work hard and create an entire class out of something pretty flimsy (though I'd say Spellbreaker is more flimsy than DH, and less well-known, lore-wise, by a lot). So that's just really unlikely, even by your logic.

    Necromancer could happen, but I personally think it's unlikely, again by your own "suits the expansion" logic. Shadowlands would have potentially suited some kind of Necromancer, and I doubt any expansion in the next few years will be as death-centric, so it's unlikely to be of interest to Blizzard. On top of that, Blizzard has done the some of very best Necromancers in gaming (I would argue) in Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. Don't get confused. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do one in WoW. It means they would want to do one really well, though, so it didn't constantly get negative comparisons with their previous games (I can't remember if D4 also has a Necro, which would be even more pressure to get it right). So it's not so much "DKs already do this" (sure, they do, but only in the same way Warlocks cover some DH ground), as "no appropriate expansion", and "high standard to get right".

    One thing other thing with Necros is that I don't think Blizzard want to add pet classes which add tons of pets into the mix, especially not semi-permanent ones, which I think acts as a constraint on their design. On the other hand, we meets Necros constantly in the lore, and there's absolutely tons to draw from.

    So I think your "appropriate expansion" angle is actually what most makes Necros unlikely, in the next few years.

    Dragon Knight might meet your "appropriate expansion" angle, but they're non-existent in the lore, and don't particularly meet some unfulfilled player fantasy.

    Warden is in a similar position to where Demon Hunter was (quite well-known, major lore character appears with some frequency), so they could happen I think, but only if they expansion called for it. I would not actually be shocked if this was the next class, because of the stuff going on with Tyrande. On the other hand, I don't think WoW is going to launch another "elf-only" class, so it'd be some broader take on Wardens.

    Tinker is, on the other hand, perhaps even more common in lore (just not with that name) than Necro, represents a largely new fantasy (only partially covered by a tradeskill), and it's a pretty common fantasy in games and media generally (the manic inventor/engineer with the their robots, bombs, power-armour and so on), and could fit easily into an expansion without requiring major interaction with the lore to represent them appearing (Tinker-types are frequently on the player's side, where as Necromancers almost never are). They also have a strong new aesthetic. So I think they're highly likely.

    Bard meets the "new fantasy" angle, and indeed it's a common fantasy from RPGs (tabletop, MMO, and CRPG, hell even JRPG), and they'd have a very clear and distinct aesthetic. However, as I noted, they're barely present in WoW lore, and it's hard to imagine an expansion which would conceptually need them. They could fit in to virtually any expansion, but given their lack of lore presence, I just think it's really unlikely.

    Personally I'd prefer a Bard or Warden, but I think Tinker is by far the most likely (albeit probably with another name).

    After saying all that, I think new specs or sub-specs are more likely than new classes, because they'd be a hell of a lot easier to develop and balance than an entire new class.
    Last edited by Eurhetemec; 2020-11-17 at 02:59 PM.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  14. #114
    Stood in the Fire BB8's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In a galaxy far far away
    Posts
    490
    I would love to see a Dragonsworn. Lorewise very possible and unique too.

    Tinkerer seems plausible though I am not a fan of technology.

    Then furthermore I would like to see a witch class, with blood magic, void magic and bone magic. Could be healer, ranged dps and tank in this order.
    Edit: Sea witch could be a spec too.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Psykho View Post
    Honestly starting to hate it when people say Tinker "Doesn't fit the WoW fantasy" because it's a straight up lie, Robots, motorcycles, tanks, actual Mechs, they've all been in WoW since the early days of Vanilla to Wrath, stop acting like your the highest authority on what the WoW fantasy is, your NOT, Blizz put Mechs and Turrets in the game so they are part of the WoW fantasy
    Not really mate. Mounts are cosmetics, they mean nothing, I literally ride around on Deathwing.
    Turrets don’t really exist, let alone a single character running and throwing them all over the place. Etc etc.

    Maybe you should stop pretending that tinker is the greatest idea ever or shoe horning it into every aspect of the game. It exists in a niche within the game. To me it would be distracting to have a ton of little robots and what not running around, it sounds like when you join a pug and everyone is playing with their toys no one gives a shit about, so half the player are spamming trains and the other half are hastily clicking their neural silencer. And having that extend into combat sounds awful.

    But ultimately it’s my opinion, just as you have your opinion. You may think they fit, good for you.
    I don’t think they fit, it sounds like a techno horror wonderland and I don’t think Blizz can pull it off without it being a joke. They barely did it with monks and pandas, and those are the 2 least popular things in the game (outside of gnomes and goblins).

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    Leak said that new class starts with "D" , will of D is a sign of new era that gonna bring us new adventures.

    So make your choice:
    1) Doom Knight
    2) Dread Knight
    3) Dragon Knight
    4) Devil Knight
    5) Dark Knight


    OP, i hope we gonna get our Dark Ranger.
    https://screenrant.com/world-warcraf...%20Shadowlands.

    Wut the...?

    World of Warcraft's eighth expansion, Shadowlands, is still available for pre-purchase, and comes in three different packages that each include early access to the new class Hell Knight and an exclusive wandering ancient mount, with the other versions including a flying mount, new quest, and cosmetic items exclusive to pre-purchasers.
    ----

    Umm...bemused and confused.

  17. #117
    Mail wearing tinker with tank/healer/ranged dps specs, no need for more classes after that imo fills the last big existing thematic gap needing a whole new class. They could then focus on adding a fourth specs to fitting classes instead, like earth shaman tank, some sort of spellbreaker/gladiator spec for warriors, possibly pet tank specs for warlock/hunter if they could make that work, ranged monk spec so you have a spec for all 4 celestials, maybe chronomancer mage, etc...

  18. #118
    Field Marshal jpch's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Darnassus
    Posts
    56
    Night Warrior and Dark Rangers.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    https://screenrant.com/world-warcraf...%20Shadowlands.

    Wut the...?

    World of Warcraft's eighth expansion, Shadowlands, is still available for pre-purchase, and comes in three different packages that each include early access to the new class Hell Knight and an exclusive wandering ancient mount, with the other versions including a flying mount, new quest, and cosmetic items exclusive to pre-purchasers.
    ----

    Umm...bemused and confused.
    404 Page Not Found. Are you sure they didn't just screw up and delete it?

  20. #120
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    Maybe read my post, instead of reading other people's posts, and then attributing what they said to me?

    I mean, wild idea, right? DH is interesting because they had just barely enough to make a class out of it (I say this as a DH main). Even with that, they were only able to come up with two specs, and a ton of what DHes do just had to be created out of thin air (rather than drawing from lore or bosses or the like), and DHes have notably fewer abilities than other classes.

    The problem with DHes was never "Rogue + Warlock", don't lie and say I said that. The problem with DH was "pretty thin stuff to base it on". But that was a lot more than any of the others I mentioned have.



    No, I don't remember that. I remember a few people saying that but most people dismissing them, because WoW had already shown interest in a Monk-type character via early concepts with the rune-puncher or whatever it was called.



    I agree with this to some extent.

    But couldn't isn't the same as will. So far, all the classes Blizzard has introduced for WoW (including the originals), have extremely strong identities. That doesn't mean they don't share aesthetics or concepts with another class, but it does mean the core concept is a really solid one, which isn't particularly similar to the core concept of another class (and being overly reductive here just causes confusion, though people love to do it).

    There are also issues like whether a class fills a new "class fantasy". More than some MMOs (particularly ones of the era WoW originated in), WoW is very much about class fantasy, class feel. Similarity isn't really the issue here, rather, does the class represent a fantasy that's not really possible to play in WoW right now? Some proposed classes meet this, others don't.

    For example, Dark Ranger doesn't meet this. As you seem to admit, Dark Ranger is more a bundle of aesthetics than it is a class. Blademaster doesn't meet this. Blademaster is just an Arms or Fury warrior who is transmogged right and maybe with a couple of new glyphs (Heroic Leap into Wind Walk, for example). A number of other proposed classes don't meet this for similar reasons.

    Spellbreaker is a slightly different issue, in that's an extreme obscure thing lore-wise, now, in 2020 (less so in 2004), and doesn't fit with any common characters people "wish they could play" in WoW. On top of that, it's hard to imagine an expansion in WoW's future that would benefit from a Spellbreaker class, thematically. I sort of agree that, if it's thematically right, Blizzard could put work hard and create an entire class out of something pretty flimsy (though I'd say Spellbreaker is more flimsy than DH, and less well-known, lore-wise, by a lot). So that's just really unlikely, even by your logic.

    Necromancer could happen, but I personally think it's unlikely, again by your own "suits the expansion" logic. Shadowlands would have potentially suited some kind of Necromancer, and I doubt any expansion in the next few years will be as death-centric, so it's unlikely to be of interest to Blizzard. On top of that, Blizzard has done the some of very best Necromancers in gaming (I would argue) in Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. Don't get confused. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do one in WoW. It means they would want to do one really well, though, so it didn't constantly get negative comparisons with their previous games (I can't remember if D4 also has a Necro, which would be even more pressure to get it right). So it's not so much "DKs already do this" (sure, they do, but only in the same way Warlocks cover some DH ground), as "no appropriate expansion", and "high standard to get right".

    One thing other thing with Necros is that I don't think Blizzard want to add pet classes which add tons of pets into the mix, especially not semi-permanent ones, which I think acts as a constraint on their design. On the other hand, we meets Necros constantly in the lore, and there's absolutely tons to draw from.

    So I think your "appropriate expansion" angle is actually what most makes Necros unlikely, in the next few years.

    Dragon Knight might meet your "appropriate expansion" angle, but they're non-existent in the lore, and don't particularly meet some unfulfilled player fantasy.

    Warden is in a similar position to where Demon Hunter was (quite well-known, major lore character appears with some frequency), so they could happen I think, but only if they expansion called for it. I would not actually be shocked if this was the next class, because of the stuff going on with Tyrande. On the other hand, I don't think WoW is going to launch another "elf-only" class, so it'd be some broader take on Wardens.

    Tinker is, on the other hand, perhaps even more common in lore (just not with that name) than Necro, represents a largely new fantasy (only partially covered by a tradeskill), and it's a pretty common fantasy in games and media generally (the manic inventor/engineer with the their robots, bombs, power-armour and so on), and could fit easily into an expansion without requiring major interaction with the lore to represent them appearing (Tinker-types are frequently on the player's side, where as Necromancers almost never are). They also have a strong new aesthetic. So I think they're highly likely.

    Bard meets the "new fantasy" angle, and indeed it's a common fantasy from RPGs (tabletop, MMO, and CRPG, hell even JRPG), and they'd have a very clear and distinct aesthetic. However, as I noted, they're barely present in WoW lore, and it's hard to imagine an expansion which would conceptually need them. They could fit in to virtually any expansion, but given their lack of lore presence, I just think it's really unlikely.

    Personally I'd prefer a Bard or Warden, but I think Tinker is by far the most likely (albeit probably with another name).

    After saying all that, I think new specs or sub-specs are more likely than new classes, because they'd be a hell of a lot easier to develop and balance than an entire new class.
    But there is no need to go over every single option and add in your personal/sources why it does or doesnt work. I mean its pointless. Like I said if the appeal/story/ requests are there there is enough reason to add it.

    I wasnt reading other comments per see to use the dh example. It doesnt matter what your own opinion is on the dh that it is thin for example. Almost all skills are new and not warcraft 3 material or what ever. These things get created. Sure there is always some kind of character that has a strong pressence with a class I agree. Dark ranger is no exception if that is ever implemented.

    Maybe you werent around or you missed it, but before mop Monk was a no go and would never be implemented same as dh the threads were around ALOT. Dh again was one of those discussions that it was just a rogue and a lock.. the dh class was 100% a fanservice thing and they wanted to add it.

    The glyph system is seperate from adding a class.
    The forums are full of experts who think and know how blizz works and I am getting tired of it, There is no perfect awnser for this and there are so many opinions that its just very hard to please everyone. The buttom line is if blizzard or the story lends itself on a spellbreaker then spellbreaker it is. We will see.

    Edit: on phone half of your post dissapeared I will get back to it.
    Last edited by Alanar; 2020-11-17 at 03:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

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