1. #1241
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I pretty much agree. As I said, it's rather interesting that the Goblin Tinker and Alchemist just happen to be the last 2 heroes from WC3 without abilities in the class lineup while Blizzard was steadily building up a Tinker class concept throughout BFA. I mean, it could be a huge coincidence, but given the background of the other three expansion classes, I don't think it is.
    The time for Tinker is long overdue. I really wish they'd just make it the next class already. I don't care if they make it exclusive to Goblins and Gnomes, I don't care if it ends up having two specs only like Demon Hunters, just make it happen!

  2. #1242
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,806
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    To the point that feels like Teriz getting $ for each 100 times he says "Tinker", he attacks any idea of Alchemy spec in any other fan-concept since its threatens his own concept of Tinker who must be the only one to have access to Alchemy.
    Actually it doesn't threaten the Tinker concept at all. The Tinker concept doesn't need Alchemy, since the technology concept can cover medical technology. We already have Skaggit from Island Expeditions summoning Healbots, and Engineers from Siege of Orgrimmar using Healing Spray. I'm just pointing out that the Alchemy hero from WC3 is the version more likely headed for class inclusion, and it is far more fitting in a Tinker class.

    BTW, obviously it is the Necromancer concepts that NEED alchemy in order to be viable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by VinceVega View Post
    Heavens dude. I am not saying death knights don't use necromancy. They obviously do. But just because they use the same magic doesn't mean they are the same with everyone who uses necromancy. KaeltThuzad is not called a deakth knight no?

    What you are doing is nitpicking on semantics. You know exactly whta everyone is telling you.

    Also you quoted out of a disputed section where there are NO references.
    While Kel'thuzad isn't a DK, the Death Knight class has his thematics, and the general concepts of the WC3 Lich hero (shared with Frost Mages).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post
    Necromancers using poison magic exists in WoW. Please point to the Death Knight in game that uses poison magic. Not even the Lich King uses poison. Your reach is comical.
    Look at the pillars of Necromancy, and you'll notice that poison isn't mentioned at all. Like I said, poison and alchemy were used by the Scourge in order to develop a plague. DKs already summon plagues through magic, but obviously we've established that whatever a Necromancer can do, the DK should also be able to do as well, since like the Necromancer, the DK uses Necromancy.

    Your opinion and you'd be wrong. Two classes share holy magic, two classes share fel magic, why you think this couldn't apply to necromantic magic is so silly.
    Because the DK thoroughly covers the Necromancer concept. You just want to play a DK as a pure spell caster. The problem is that the Warlock covers that play style, despite summoning a different type of minion. I mean we could either make Unholy ranged, or give Warlocks a glyph that turns their minions into the undead, and the Necromancer fan concept is fulfilled.

    We were talking about Warlocks and Necromancers here. And by virtually do the same thing I mean, most classes have a DoT, all spell casters have some kind of direct damage nuke, all spell casters have some kind of instant cast blast spell, all spell casters have some kind of AoE damage spell. The mechanics are the same, the themes and class concepts are what separates them. Warlocks and Necromancers wouldn't share the same armor type, roles, magic types, pets, themes, class concepts, etc. They don't even have to share the 'Shadow' school anymore if Necromancers were given Shadowfrost spells, which no class no longer possesses.
    Just because you label it Shadowfrost doesn't mean that the player would instantly notice they're playing another Frost Mage. Again, Gameplay trumps lore. You can call it whatever you want, but what matters is how the player is interpreting what they're playing. This is the main issue with this entire argument. You believe that slapping a poison label on a DoT somehow makes it fundamentally different than a Death Knight disease or a Warlock Afflicition. However, when a player uses those abilities, they're going to be instantly reminded of a Warlock. Heck, I experienced that when I first played a Death Knight.

    Now you're tacking on Shadowfrost. So once again, the player is going to be thinking this class is nothing more than a copy and paste of existing classes, and frankly they would be largely correct.


    Right, and the literal definition of Shaman is "a person [human] regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of good and evil spirits, especially among some peoples of northern Asia and North America. Typically such people enter a trance state during a ritual, and practice divination and healing."

    Real world definitions doesn't strictly apply with in-game classes.
    Well Blizzard put the Necromancer concept into the Death Knight class, so there's that as well...

    Cool story, but they don't have it so its not relevant. You also ignored the "alchemy bombs, poison sprays, gasses, burning chemicals, poison puddles" part of my response.
    I actually mentioned all of those.

    Alchemy Bombs: Reanimator, Blood Boil
    Poison Spray/Gasses: Abomination, Epidemic, Bursting Sores, Unholy Blight,
    Burning Chemicals: Unholy Pact
    Poison Puddles: Death and Decay, Defile

    Again, the disease concept within the DK class takes care of most of this.

    They're still using shadow magic. So according to you, Priests are redundant and unnecessary now that Paladins are going to be using shadow magic for an entire expansion. There's NOTHING that virtually separates them anymore in Shadowlands. WTH Blizzard!!!!
    One temporary ability doesn't equal almost 2 shadow-based specs.

    How are you incapable of seeing the hypocrisy you spew over and over? Necromancers with a full designed class concept would also do things "fundamentally different" from DKs.
    Based on the pillars of Necromancy, please explain how they would be fundamentally different?

    This is getting ridiculous. Blizzard put the Necromancer concept into the Death Knight class, so for Blizzard they have their Necromancer class. This is proven by the lack of a new Necromancer class in Shadowlands, so all this talk of poison or alchemy being a wedge from which to create a unique necromancer is simply nonsense.

  3. #1243
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,869
    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    DKs are necromancers. They use necromancy, have spells that raises dead and commands the undead. That is literal necromancy.
    Paladins are priest. They use holy magic, have spells that heal others and they protect their allies. That is literal holy magic.

    See how that argument does work, considering the priest class just got rendered moot by it?

    People don't realize that we don't need another generic caster that is not unique at all.
    We don't need anything. We don't need a necromancer just like we don't need a tech class. We don't need another class. But we want it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    Or a priest. Anduin is not a paladin.
    You do the Maw intro quest in which you walk around with Anduin, Jaina, Thrall and Baine? As usual, if you see another player in the same quest, NPC followers are replaced by generic NPCs, like Jaina is replaced by a "Kirin Tor mage". Anduin, though? He is replaced by a "Stormwind paladin".
    "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...

  4. #1244
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    BTW, obviously it is the Necromancer concepts that NEED alchemy in order to be viable.
    Absolutely not. A necromancer poison spec could be entirely magical based. They could also have a ranged spec that deals entirely with bone projectiles, and ripping out the bones of their enemies. They could have a spec that deals primarily spectral damage. My Undeath Necromancer spec concept has a spell inspired by the Banshee WC3 Possession spell, where the Necromancer's soul hijacks an enemy's body, causing them harm from within. Besides the Blood Healing spec, they could have a ranged Blood DPS spec. The options go on and on.

  5. #1245
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,869
    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    What are you even on about?

    https://wowwiki.fandom.com/wiki/Magic_schools_(lore)

    Necromancy[9] — Study of magic involving the dead. Not used by mages, but basics taught to understand their enemies.
    NPCs can do anything, players have to abide both gameplay and lore.

    So if DK uses necromancy magic he is in fact necromancer.
    A couple things wrong there: the part of the link you provided shows "necromancy" as part of the arcane school of magic. And also, by looking at it, paladins and priests are the same because of Light magic.
    "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...

  6. #1246
    Pandaren Monk ThatsOurEric's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post
    Thank you very much for looking it over. You do realize there are many similarities between Priests/Paladins and Warlocks/Demon Hunters?
    Yes. However, Priests both are different classes mechanically, as well as lore-wise. Same goes for Warlocks and Demon Hunters.

    Why should Necromancers/Death Knights be the exception to the rule?
    Because all the core abilities of the Necromancer, which would obviously be grabbing influence from Diablo knowing Blizzard,
    as well as the class identity, theme, etc., are found in the Death Knight.

    As for your second point, Alchemy and Necromancy go hand in hand in WoW lore, and there are instances of Necromancers utilizing alchemy. I suggest you read into it.
    I'm well aware of that fact thanks.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love more classes, I just don't see this one being possible for the above reasons,
    and what I have already posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swnem View Post
    Noooo, it is nothing alike. I love dragoon and i dislike Demon hunter. They have different weapons and different sources for their power. Their attacks don't look anything alike. The only thing i can see them having in common is the retreat skill. Except it's a setup attack for the DH and it's just a mobility option for the Dragoon. If you are gonna say acrobatic, just about most melee classes can fit. You could have said rogue or monk as well. "acrobatic" is not a class fantasy.
    No other class in the game is as mobile or acrobatic as the Demon Hunter. They have several attack animations for their abilities
    that give them far more movement than any melee class has, even Monks. So you are 100% wrong in saying "most melee classes
    can fit" there.

    Yes, acrobatic is not a class fantasy. But in Final Fantasy, no other class presents itself in that way more than the Dragoon, their
    abilities aside, is what makes them unique. Given how the Demon Hunters are presented, that would not be the case here.

    Mesmer is another egregious example you gave. Mesmer is nothing like Shadow priest.
    It really isn't, as your ignorant bias shows.

    Mesmer's use psychic based abilities. Shadow Priests use psychic based abilities. Although Mesmers use
    illusionary skills (which are covered by Arcane Mages), they also use psychic attacks, which guess what?
    Shadow Priests use.

    You whole post is taking way too many liberties like this. I can only assume it being ignorance of the source material and generalizing. You cannot make a compelling case like that to those that know the source material.
    Eh, it's more the case that you're way too biased to give any sort of meaningful rebuttal, and your
    own ignorance to what's already in WoW is very evident. I suggest learning more about the game
    for yourself, as you clearly need it.

  7. #1247
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    That's not evidence of anything. And again: poison has nothing to do with diseases.
    What do you think they were making in Scholomance? Their entire goal was to create the Plague of Undeath, and while they were creating that, they developed a variety of poisons and toxins.

    That is literally the exact same case with priests and paladins: both are utilizing holy magic from the Light.
    Paladins don't use shadow magic.

    One reason: lore.
    Which is altered when gameplay needs to be changed. I.e. Night Elf Mages or Warlocks and Metamorphosis.

    And no lore is given to justify those changes, because it doesn't matter.

    Where they were making the plague of undeath.

    Except you literally did:
    Saying that Gameplay overrides Lore isn't saying that Story doesn't matter period.

    And necromancers could use poison magic, which death knights do not. Seriously, it's such a simple concept.
    I don't see poison listed anywhere in the description of Necromancy.

  8. #1248
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,869
    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    1. Blizzard already considered necromancer as clother ranged spellcaster
    2. Blizzard incorporated this idea into DK
    3. Lore does not impose restrictions on what/who/when can be necromancer.
    4. Lore does not impose restrictions on what "class" can cast which spells.
    5. DK has couple abilities taken from "ranged spellcaster necromancers".
    Point #1: Doesn't stop Blizzard from considering it again.
    Point #2: Blizzard also incorporated the demon hunter into the warlock class.
    Point #3: Lore does not impose restriction on "what/who/when" can be a tinker, but that did not stop certain people from saying it is "gnome/goblin" only.
    Point #4: And yet paladins and priests are still their own separate class. Mages and warlocks are their own separate class.
    Point #5: Paladins have a lot of abilities taken from "ranged spellcaster priests." like "Word of Glory", "Flash of Light" and "Lay on Hands".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Look at the pillars of Necromancy,
    There is no such thing as "pillars of necromancy". This is a concepted you literally invented. It exists nowhere in the lore but in your own head.
    "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...

  9. #1249
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Point #2: Blizzard also incorporated the demon hunter into the warlock class.
    Blizzard never officially announced that they incorporated the DH into the Warlock class.

    They did so with the Death Knight and the Necromancer.

  10. #1250
    They must reduce classes, not add more.
    To avoid this prepetual imbalance each class must have 3 specs available: 1 PvE dps, 1 PvE healer or tank and 1 for PvP only.

  11. #1251
    Dear Teriz, you need to chill. Its been 2 years since you been on this train. Its fine being passionate about something but jeez dude making walls of text just about every post is ridiculous. You just say the same things over and over, while yes multiple people do say the same things to you. Please reflect on yourself. Is it really worth the time spent on the forums? Im saying this to help you bro.

    Tinkers are fine. Necromancers are fine. Any other class they decide to make or not, at the end of the day, will be fine.
    DRAGONFLIGHT BETA CLUB

  12. #1252
    Pandaren Monk Paladin885's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    'MERICA!
    Posts
    1,892
    the only way a necromancer would work is for it to be like a priest when compared to a paladin. Paladins share the same holy spells as priest do and also do holy dmg. Death knights can use "necro" magic spells and disease/shadow damage. Therefore, a necromancer would have to be a cloth wearing ranged spell class that can do death & decay, raise dead, and have necrotic themed spells/DoTs. Maybe even a spec that allows them to use dark magic to heal by ways of either sucking life out of themselves or their enemy to heal a target. Maybe even sacrifice an undead pet as a "lay on hands" spell.

  13. #1253
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Usernameforforums View Post
    Is it really worth the time spent on the forums?
    Yes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Masterpd85 View Post
    the only way a necromancer would work is for it to be like a priest when compared to a paladin. Paladins share the same holy spells as priest do and also do holy dmg.
    The only way for a Necromancer to work would be to redesign the Death Knight and Warlock classes by removing multiple abilities and concepts and dumping those old abilities and concepts into the "new" Necromancer class.

  14. #1254
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    What do you think they were making in Scholomance? Their entire goal was to create the Plague of Undeath, and while they were creating that, they developed a variety of poisons and toxins.
    And? It's still them learning alchemy and learning poison. That doesn't mean poison and diseases are one and the same.

    Paladins don't use shadow magic.
    That's irrelevant, because we're talking about two separate classes having severe thematic overlap, which is the case of paladins and priests considering both have 100% overlap with the Holy theme. Literally half of the priest class is Holy.

    And for as much as you accuse me of "ignoring things", I'll repeat again something you literally have been ignoring too: the reason saying "paladins don't use shadow magic" is irrelevant, is because that argument is easily circumvented by giving the hypothetical necromancer class access to a spell type that the death knights do not. For example: poison.

    Which is altered when gameplay needs to be changed. I.e. Night Elf Mages or Warlocks and Metamorphosis.

    And no lore is given to justify those changes, because it doesn't matter.
    Uh, we literally have lore to explain night elf mages:
    "Since the Shattering of the world, a group of Highborne known as the Shen'dralar successfully appealed to Tyrande Whisperwind to be allowed to make a return to kaldorei society. After the Sundering, the night elves had outlawed arcane magic on the pain of death. However, some time before the Cataclysm a Highborne archmage named Mordent Evenshade sought an audience with Tyrande and proposed to set aside long-standing differences and to combine resources, skills and numbers to prepare the wider night elven race for the challenges it faces. Despite the doubts of certain Sentinels, this proposal was accepted. The Shen'dralar were allowed a cautious return among their kaldorei brethren, with some young night elves being trained by them to become new night elven mages, and, conversely, some of the Highborne taking up the druidic arts or being initiated into Elune's priesthood, major societal changes that marked the first steps towards reconciliation between the Highborne and wider night elven society."

    As for warlocks losing metamorphosis, while no outright lore has been given, didn't the "green fire" warlock quest heavily imply that turning into a demon like that leads to insanity?

    Saying that Gameplay overrides Lore isn't saying that Story doesn't matter period.
    You literally said it didn't matter when you said that story is tertiary to an RPG.

    I don't see poison listed anywhere in the description of Necromancy.
    It is also listed anywhere in the description of the death knights, but that didn't stop you from saying death knights have access to it. Double-standards much?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Blizzard never officially announced that they incorporated the DH into the Warlock class.
    So what? Weren't you the advocate of "obvious things", that we don't need Blizzard to outright say anything when we have "obvious things"? I mean, that's basically your response to when I say that "we have no proof that WC3 units are required to make new WoW classes".

    Well, by your logic, considering they gave the demon hunter concept's most iconic feature to the warlocks, then that means Blizzard incorporated the demon hunter into the warlock class, and, again by your logic, we don't need Blizzard to outright say it because "it's obvious".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Usernameforforums View Post
    Dear Teriz, you need to chill. Its been 2 years since you been on this train.
    Two years? He's been at it for least almost ten years.
    "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...

  15. #1255
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And? It's still them learning alchemy and learning poison. That doesn't mean poison and diseases are one and the same.
    It means that the entire concept of Alchemy/poisons within the Scourge is in the service of developing a disease, which is why DKs got diseases.

    That's irrelevant
    Priests having a shadow spec is irrelevant when your argument is that Priests and Paladins are the same via holy magic?

    Okay then.

    Gotcha, so in other words when a gameplay change occurs, Blizzard can just write a paragraph and justify it.

    And you guys think lore matters more than gameplay because...... ?

    You literally said it didn't matter when you said that story is tertiary to an RPG.
    Yes, actually playing the game is far more important to me than reading what the story is.

    It is also listed anywhere in the description of the death knights, but that didn't stop you from saying death knights have access to it. Double-standards much?
    Not really. I just said that anything the Necromancer could do, the Death Knight would be able to do as well.

    So what? Weren't you the advocate of "obvious things", that we don't need Blizzard to outright say anything when we have "obvious things"? I mean, that's basically your response to when I say that "we have no proof that WC3 units are required to make new WoW classes".
    Yeah, you're confused again. When it comes to classes, I'm pointing out that multiple occurrences over multiple years kind of removes the need for us to hear it officially from Blizzard. We know what they're doing at that point.

    In the case of Death Knights and Necromancers, Blizzard made it quite clear verbally and gameplay wise that they were using the Necromancer concept for the DK class. They never did that with Demon Hunters and Warlocks, which makes the DK situation seem far more "fixed".

    Also the lack of a new Necromancer class and the expansion of Necromancer concepts in the DK class kind of confirms this.

  16. #1256
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Jesus christ... that's even before Monks were added to the game.

    Say.... how come you are so open and liberal about new classes being added to the game yet, you were so against Demon Hunters getting new races in the Lore Forum thread?

  17. #1257
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And? It's still them learning alchemy and learning poison. That doesn't mean poison and diseases are one and the same.


    That's irrelevant, because we're talking about two separate classes having severe thematic overlap, which is the case of paladins and priests considering both have 100% overlap with the Holy theme. Literally half of the priest class is Holy.

    And for as much as you accuse me of "ignoring things", I'll repeat again something you literally have been ignoring too: the reason saying "paladins don't use shadow magic" is irrelevant, is because that argument is easily circumvented by giving the hypothetical necromancer class access to a spell type that the death knights do not. For example: poison.


    Uh, we literally have lore to explain night elf mages:
    "Since the Shattering of the world, a group of Highborne known as the Shen'dralar successfully appealed to Tyrande Whisperwind to be allowed to make a return to kaldorei society. After the Sundering, the night elves had outlawed arcane magic on the pain of death. However, some time before the Cataclysm a Highborne archmage named Mordent Evenshade sought an audience with Tyrande and proposed to set aside long-standing differences and to combine resources, skills and numbers to prepare the wider night elven race for the challenges it faces. Despite the doubts of certain Sentinels, this proposal was accepted. The Shen'dralar were allowed a cautious return among their kaldorei brethren, with some young night elves being trained by them to become new night elven mages, and, conversely, some of the Highborne taking up the druidic arts or being initiated into Elune's priesthood, major societal changes that marked the first steps towards reconciliation between the Highborne and wider night elven society."

    As for warlocks losing metamorphosis, while no outright lore has been given, didn't the "green fire" warlock quest heavily imply that turning into a demon like that leads to insanity?


    You literally said it didn't matter when you said that story is tertiary to an RPG.


    It is also listed anywhere in the description of the death knights, but that didn't stop you from saying death knights have access to it. Double-standards much?

    - - - Updated - - -


    So what? Weren't you the advocate of "obvious things", that we don't need Blizzard to outright say anything when we have "obvious things"? I mean, that's basically your response to when I say that "we have no proof that WC3 units are required to make new WoW classes".

    Well, by your logic, considering they gave the demon hunter concept's most iconic feature to the warlocks, then that means Blizzard incorporated the demon hunter into the warlock class, and, again by your logic, we don't need Blizzard to outright say it because "it's obvious".

    - - - Updated - - -


    Two years? He's been at it for least almost ten years.
    Meant to have an “at least”, been reading their post since 2018 and we had a discussion last year.
    DRAGONFLIGHT BETA CLUB

  18. #1258
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Look at the pillars of Necromancy, and you'll notice that poison isn't mentioned at all. Like I said, poison and alchemy were used by the Scourge in order to develop a plague. DKs already summon plagues through magic, but obviously we've established that whatever a Necromancer can do, the DK should also be able to do as well, since like the Necromancer, the DK uses Necromancy.
    You're only further proving my point.

    "It's not part of the pillars of Necromancy" (as if such a thing exists)
    "Poison and alchemy were used to develop a plague" (yet we see Necromancers using poison for the sole purpose of POISONING).

    Necromancers can also cast Arcane, Fire, and Shadowfrost spells, in addition to Poison spells. DKs cannot do any of that despite your claim that "whatever a Necromancer can do, DKs should be able to do as well".....when they don't.

    Because the DK thoroughly covers the Necromancer concept. You just want to play a DK as a pure spell caster. The problem is that the Warlock covers that play style, despite summoning a different type of minion. I mean we could either make Unholy ranged, or give Warlocks a glyph that turns their minions into the undead, and the Necromancer fan concept is fulfilled.
    The DK covers the Necromancer concept as much as Paladins cover the Priest concept. They don't because all 4 are separate classes. "But Shadow!!!!"....but Poison, alchemy, bone projectiles, spectral spells, dark healer spec, and on and on and on. The bottom-line is, the Necromancer class concept doesn't yet exist in WoW, and neither Warlocks nor DKs can take that place, anymore than a Paladin can take over for a Priest.

    Just because you label it Shadowfrost doesn't mean that the player would instantly notice they're playing another Frost Mage. Again, Gameplay trumps lore. You can call it whatever you want, but what matters is how the player is interpreting what they're playing. This is the main issue with this entire argument. You believe that slapping a poison label on a DoT somehow makes it fundamentally different than a Death Knight disease or a Warlock Afflicition. However, when a player uses those abilities, they're going to be instantly reminded of a Warlock. Heck, I experienced that when I first played a Death Knight.
    I'm assuming you meant "wouldn't**** instantly notice they're playing another Frost Mage." And no, my Undeath and Chemical specs play nothing like Affliction locks, Frost DKs, or Frost Mages. If I was able to do that, then so can Blizzard.

    Well Blizzard put the Necromancer concept into the Death Knight class, so there's that as well...
    DKs are not ranged, light-armored spell casters, so no...The Necromancer concept wasn't put in the DK class - only necromancy was.

    I actually mentioned all of those.

    Alchemy Bombs: Reanimator, Blood Boil
    Poison Spray/Gasses: Abomination, Epidemic, Bursting Sores, Unholy Blight,
    Burning Chemicals: Unholy Pact
    Poison Puddles: Death and Decay, Defile

    Again, the disease concept within the DK class takes care of most of this.
    NONE of what you mentioned is the same as any of what I said because DISEASE does not cover the Poison/Alchemy theme. Spells you deem similar mechanically (really sad attempt btw), does not equal an entire theme or concept not seen in DKs. Just like how you would argue that a Tinker's turret is not the same as a Shaman's totem, even though they may do similar things mechanically. In that...the machine/gadget theme is not covered by the tribal/primitive theme, and the disease/plague theme isn't covered by the poison/alchemy theme.

    One temporary ability doesn't equal almost 2 shadow-based specs.
    So now it's not just shadow that separates Priests and Paladins according to you, but the number of Shadow spells! Teriz: Goalpost-------------->

    Based on the pillars of Necromancy, please explain how they would be fundamentally different?
    Nothing needs to be based on the "pillars of Necromancy." I've already established that Necromancers are capable of doing things differently from DKs. A fully designed Necromancer class would only make that difference stronger.

    This is getting ridiculous. Blizzard put the Necromancer concept into the Death Knight class, so for Blizzard they have their Necromancer class. This is proven by the lack of a new Necromancer class in Shadowlands, so all this talk of poison or alchemy being a wedge from which to create a unique necromancer is simply nonsense.
    It's not proven in the lack of a new Necromancer class in Shadowlands. That's your opinion.
    Last edited by Amunrasonther; 2020-12-03 at 03:11 PM.

  19. #1259
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Amunrasonther View Post
    You're only further proving my point.

    "It's not part of the pillars of Necromancy" (as if such a thing exists)
    "Poison and alchemy were used to develop a plague" (yet we see Necromancers using poison for the sole purpose of POISONING).

    Necromancers can also cast Arcane, Fire, and Shadowfrost spells, in addition to Poison spells. DKs cannot do any of that despite your claim that "whatever a Necromancer can do, DKs should be able to do as well".....when they don't.
    Random NPCs don't indicate what a class should and should not be able to do. I mean one of the original Four Horsemen could cast Meteor. Does that mean that DKs can use fire spells? Nope!


    The DK covers the Necromancer concept as much as Paladins cover the Priest concept. They don't because all 4 are separate classes. "But Shadow!!!!"....but Poison, alchemy, bone projectiles, spectral spells, dark healer spec, and on and on and on. The bottom-line is, the Necromancer class concept doesn't yet exist in WoW, and neither Warlocks nor DKs can take that place, anymore than a Paladin can take over for a Priest.
    Since Blizzard put the Necromancer concept into the DK class, that isn't the case.

    I'm assuming you meant "wouldn't**** instantly notice they're playing another Frost Mage." And no, my Undeath and Chemical specs play nothing like Affliction locks, Frost DKs, or Frost Mages. If I was able to do that, then so can Blizzard.
    The Warlock version of Metamorphosis plays nothing like the Demon Hunter version of Metamorphosis. Blizzard removed it anyway.

    DKs are not ranged, light-armored spell casters, so no...The Necromancer concept wasn't put in the DK class - only necromancy was.
    Nope;

    The necromancer class was one of three front runners to becoming the first hero class released with Wrath of the Lich King, however, the ideas surrounding them were incorporated into the death knight.
    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

    NONE of what you mentioned is the same as any of what I said because DISEASE does not cover the Poison/Alchemy theme. Spells you deem similar mechanically (really sad attempt btw), does not equal an entire theme or concept not seen in DKs. Just like how you would argue that a Tinker's turret is not the same as a Shaman's totem, even though they may do similar things mechanically. In that...the machine/gadget theme is not covered by the tribal/primitive theme, and the disease/plague theme isn't covered by the poison/alchemy theme.
    What sounds more like a Necromancer? Tossing an Alchemic bomb at a target, or sending an exploding Zombie at a target? Your Necromancer concept does one, and the DK does the other.

    So now it's not just shadow that separates Priests and Paladins according to you, but the number of Shadow spells! Teriz: Goalpost -------------------->
    Yeah, because that one Paladin spell is gone after Shadowlands. The Priest Shadow spec isn't going anywhere.

    Nothing needs to be based on the "pillars of Necromancy." I've already established that Necromancers are capable of doing things differently from DKs. A fully designed Necromancer class would only make that difference stronger.
    Except that's literally how Blizzard structures the Necromancer concept, which is why Death Knights are structured exactly like it.

    It's not proven in the lack of a new Necromancer class in Shadowlands. That's your opinion.
    Blizzard stated that a new class must match the theme of its expansion. Blizzard says that NO class concept fit the theme of Shadowlands, and instead gave every class a Necromancer ability, and expanded the Necromancer theme in the DK class.

    The writing is on the wall.

  20. #1260
    I would still prefer additional specs for every class with another role added to all pure DPS classes. I also created them all and have a list in previous posts that are pretty well thought out.
    Lead Game Designer

    YouTube Channel

    https://www.youtube.com/@Nateanderthal

Posting Permissions

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