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

[Traveler Voltin]

By my logic i mean among the all new classes introduced there hasn't been a cloth one and necro fits, dark ranger no but considering how fcked up wow lore is blizz could find a way i guess.

mail has 2 classes.
cloth has 3.

cloth can wait.

[TheRevenantHero]

Do you have to quote the whole thing everytime?

It's happening. Trust me.
They expanded The Priestess of the Moon fantasy and gameplay in Battle for Azeroth, with the Night Warrior. Now, they also dual-wields glaives in melee combat. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We know, almost, nothing about the Night Warrior gameplay and abilities. In Heroes of the Storm, Tyrande is a Healer with healing capabilities. And, of course, there are the lunar spells. So, it's more than just a Hunter.

HotS is irrelevant since it's not a Warcraft game. Also, Night Warrior has nothing to do with Priestess of the Moon since all night elves that were at Darkshore received the blessing no matter what class they were. Priestess of the Moon is highly unlikely to happen for that exact reason. Night Warrior also isn't a class, it's essentially an enchantment that empowers whoever takes on the mantle. AFAIK nobody gained new spells when becoming a Night Warrior.

Glaives have absolutely nothing to do with it as well since in the lore warglaives are the signature weapon of any night elf that fights in melee combat instead of ranged. So saying "It's happening. Trust me." is exceptionally dishonest since I very much doubt you work for Blizzard and therefore can't say things like that with absolute certainty.

[Triceron]

As for the Runemaster:
"The runemaster was considered as a playable class in classic World of Warcraft but was scrapped early in development. According to John Staats, runemasters were replaced by druids, while according to Kevin Jordan they were replaced by warlocks in the role of a "freak class" that differed from standard RPG tropes".

So, even they couldn't, really, decide what it is.

Sure, they were scrapped pretty early in the process so there wasn't too much developed. We do know about tidbits about the concept, including what we have from the RPG books which further fleshed out the potential concept and gave us some concept art that from that era (Samwise' 2003/4 Runemaster drawings)

But to simply say they couldn't decide what it is would be slightly missing the bigger picture. Let me help you out here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...3rk/?context=3

Were there any races or classes that were considered but had to be scrapped for time, or expansion thematic reasons?

Bo Bell: Several classes were scrapped early. The one big one that broke my heart was the Runemaster.

Alas it was killed along with several others that I can’t recall.

Remember that at first we were going up against EQ and they had something like 15 and 23 classes. We got a lot of grief (and there were lots of internal arguments about) only have 9 classes & 6 races.

Runemaster sounds like it would have been awesome. Do you remember much about what kind of abilities or playstyle it would have? ( Healer, DPS? ) Or did the planning not even get that far?

Bo Bell: At that point all of the classes were just paper designs, so we never got to play with them.

I really wish I could remember some of the others. Oh wait! Necromancer was one!

And Deathknights, but they did those eventually. =)

Alexander Brazie (Xelnath): Necromancer, Runemaster and Death Knight - all got rolled together into DK.
Demon Hunter, Monk - eventually showed up (even tho I tried to poach demon hunter into Warlock, that didn't last)

https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...le-For-Azeroth

What was the Runemaster class?
Runemasters were basically just a name. It might have been an idea for a hybrid buffing class.

We can see that the Runemaster was meant to be a (likely melee) hybrid buff/support class, similar to the Druid's role. We see that it was compared to Druid and Warlock, two non-standard spellcaster type classes with plenty of utility. We see the Runes resource mechanic being adopted by the Death Knight. We see this exact concept in the Tabletop RPG. I think even if Blizzard didn't have a concrete picture of what a Runemaster was going to be, there's plenty to gather here of what it could have been had they chosen to develop more on it.

I was wondering what the original hunter class implementation was like. We know they originally used focus instead of mana but by the time they were ready for public testing this had already been changed so we never got to experience that initial design. I've also read that they regained focus only while standing and that the amount of focus contributed to damage, is that true?

Bo Bell: You pretty much played the earliest designs of Hunter if you played at launch.

Hunters were the last class added and they barely made it in.

And this here reinforces my own personal beliefs above. Blizzard doesn't have to have a 100% working-as-intended concept in the game so long as they have it playable; Hunter didn't get Focus until Cata, Warlocks demonology was flipflopped a half dozen ways before settling to an actual Summoner spec, Death Knight had its 3-Tank 3-DPS specs completely gutted because it just didn't work out, etc.

The bigger picture to see is that for whatever reason, the designers felt it key to pare it down to 9 classes, and that limited what could be put in the game. We know Necromancer and Death Knight were both on the table, we know Demon Hunters were on the list from the start, we know Runemasters were planned even if they had no WC3 unit/hero counterpart, we know they weren't setting out to make a 1:1 translation of Mountain Kings and Chieftains into WoW, and most importantly that the Hunter class itself barely made it into the game.

We have to look at the big picture here when framing why the Runemaster was cut, and not just presume that it was because Blizzard had no idea what it was. The fact it was a runner-up pick for Wrath and that it was a fully fleshed-out concept in the TTRPG complete with official Samwise Didier concept art from around 2003-4 kind of shows that there's more to the concept than we really know here. I mean, consider that Runemaster was still on the table for Wrath as a runner up class to be picked, despite Druid and Warlock already being in the game. It shows they still valued the merits of the concept, much moreso than say a Bard or a Tinker which still today gets no real mentions of whether they even considered these concepts in the past.

And, I didn't talk about Vanilla classes, but new ones.
Moreover, consideration is one thing. Implementing them is another. You can see how they were considered for a Hero class, but were replaced by the Death Knight and, eventually, integrated into it (and into the Monk).

Runemaster would be the ideal Monk Class Skin.
- Unarmed Fighting style? Check
- Hybrid roles? Check
- Elemental powers? Check

Slap on some glowing tattoo customizations, new talents, unarmed weapon transmogs and a retheme of abilities with new FX, and we have ourselves playable Runemasters.

[draugril]

I mourn the entire support role along with Runemaster.

[Kithelle]

By my logic i mean among the all new classes introduced there hasn't been a cloth one and necro fits, dark ranger no but considering how fcked up wow lore is blizz could find a way i guess.

There hasn't been a mail one either (only 2 mail vs 3 cloth)...tinker can fit every niche there has been little to none of added to the game while also being totally unique. It has more to add than any other class I can think of.

[username993720]

HotS is irrelevant since it's not a Warcraft game. Also, Night Warrior has nothing to do with Priestess of the Moon since all night elves that were at Darkshore received the blessing no matter what class they were. Priestess of the Moon is highly unlikely to happen for that exact reason. Night Warrior also isn't a class, it's essentially an enchantment that empowers whoever takes on the mantle. AFAIK nobody gained new spells when becoming a Night Warrior.

Glaives have absolutely nothing to do with it as well since in the lore warglaives are the signature weapon of any night elf that fights in melee combat instead of ranged. So saying "It's happening. Trust me." is exceptionally dishonest since I very much doubt you work for Blizzard and therefore can't say things like that with absolute certainty.

Of course it is relevant.
Where do you think they came up with some of the abilities and visuals for the Demon Hunter?

It is, mostly, associated with Tyrande. An attempt to re-envision the Priestess of the Moon. It is, a power associated with Elune. and Priestess of the Moon is, strongly, associated with Elune. For that matter, it didn't empower Malfurion. It is not a class, yet. But, it definitely tries to build up on the PotM. Them never gaining new abilities is irrelevant, as classes are barely well represented before their addition.

Warglaives are the Demon Hunter weapon.
Moonglaives are the Sentinel's weapon.
Umbra crescents are the Warden's weapon.
Tyrande dual-wielding two unique-looking glaives does not fall into any of those categories and had nothing to do with the Priestess of the Moon, up until now. It is, clearly, an attempt to expand upon the concept.

I might be wrong, but according to their patterns and my analysis, it is, highly, likely.

Sure, they were scrapped pretty early in the process so there wasn't too much developed. We do know about tidbits about the concept, including what we have from the RPG books which further fleshed out the potential concept and gave us some concept art that from that era (Samwise' 2003/4 Runemaster drawings)

But to simply say they couldn't decide what it is would be slightly missing the bigger picture. Let me help you out here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...3rk/?context=3




https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...le-For-Azeroth


We can see that the Runemaster was meant to be a (likely melee) hybrid buff/support class, similar to the Druid's role. We see that it was compared to Druid and Warlock, two non-standard spellcaster type classes with plenty of utility. We see the Runes resource mechanic being adopted by the Death Knight. We see this exact concept in the Tabletop RPG. I think even if Blizzard didn't have a concrete picture of what a Runemaster was going to be, there's plenty to gather here of what it could have been had they chosen to develop more on it.



And this here reinforces my own personal beliefs above. Blizzard doesn't have to have a 100% working-as-intended concept in the game so long as they have it playable; Hunter didn't get Focus until Cata, Warlocks demonology was flipflopped a half dozen ways before settling to an actual Summoner spec, Death Knight had its 3-Tank 3-DPS specs completely gutted because it just didn't work out, etc.

The bigger picture to see is that for whatever reason, the designers felt it key to pare it down to 9 classes, and that limited what could be put in the game. We know Necromancer and Death Knight were both on the table, we know Demon Hunters were on the list from the start, we know Runemasters were planned even if they had no WC3 unit/hero counterpart, we know they weren't setting out to make a 1:1 translation of Mountain Kings and Chieftains into WoW, and most importantly that the Hunter class itself barely made it into the game.

We have to look at the big picture here when framing why the Runemaster was cut, and not just presume that it was because Blizzard had no idea what it was. The fact it was a runner-up pick for Wrath and that it was a fully fleshed-out concept in the TTRPG complete with official Samwise Didier concept art from around 2003-4 kind of shows that there's more to the concept than we really know here. I mean, consider that Runemaster was still on the table for Wrath as a runner up class to be picked, despite Druid and Warlock already being in the game. It shows they still valued the merits of the concept, much moreso than say a Bard or a Tinker which still today gets no real mentions of whether they even considered these concepts in the past.



Runemaster would be the ideal Monk Class Skin.
- Unarmed Fighting style? Check
- Hybrid roles? Check
- Elemental powers? Check

Slap on some glowing tattoo customizations, new talents, unarmed weapon transmogs and a retheme of abilities with new FX, and we have ourselves playable Runemasters.

I know what a Runemaster is.
A Monk with runes.
The rune aspect was integrated into the Death Knight and the martial arts was integrated into the Monk.
As for the Necromancer, we all know what it is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the Death Knight.

Take the apothecary for example. It was an RPG class. It won't be introduced as a class of its own, but it could, definitely, be integrated into the Alchemist.

[Ielenia]

I know what a Runemaster is.
A Monk with runes.
The rune aspect was integrated into the Death Knight and the martial arts was integrated into the Monk.
As for the Necromancer, we all know what it is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the Death Knight.

We all know what a demon hunter is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the warlock class (pre-Legion).

Not to mention that logic also eliminates the warrior class, since we have a class that does what the warrior can do (fighting in heavy armor, two-handed weapons or sword-and-shield) which is the paladin, and dual-wielding was given to rogues. Or vice-versa: the paladin is unnecessary because we have the warrior to fight with heavy armor, two-handed weapons and sword-and-shield, and the priest class for healing.

[username993720]

We all know what a demon hunter is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the warlock class (pre-Legion).

Not to mention that logic also eliminates the warrior class, since we have a class that does what the warrior can do (fighting in heavy armor, two-handed weapons or sword-and-shield) which is the paladin, and dual-wielding was given to rogues. Or vice-versa: the paladin is unnecessary because we have the warrior to fight with heavy armor, two-handed weapons and sword-and-shield, and the priest class for healing.

I know what you strive for. Playable necromancers. But, Blizzard never added a basic Warcraft 3 unit as a class. They integrate them into Heroic ones. So, while the Demon Hunter was a Hero unit, the Necromancer wasn't. Let alone the Runemaster, who's an RPG class.

[tankbug]

I'd like to see an axe/spear throwing class like the Troll Berserkers.

[username993720]

I'd like to see an axe/spear throwing class like the Troll Berserkers.

Would be the Survival Hunter if Blizzard got their shit together and discarded this whole Ranger nonsense for the spec.

[jellmoo]

I know what you strive for. Playable necromancers. But, Blizzard never added a basic Warcraft 3 unit as a class. They integrate them into Heroic ones. So, while the Demon Hunter was a Hero unit, the Necromancer wasn't. Let alone the Runemaster, who's an RPG class.

What about the Priest? Heck, the Warlock isn't a WC3 unit at all. Clearly they don't have a hard and fast rule about what classes they are willing to adapt for WoW.

[Triceron]

I know what you strive for. Playable necromancers. But, Blizzard never added a basic Warcraft 3 unit as a class. They integrate them into Heroic ones. So, while the Demon Hunter was a Hero unit, the Necromancer wasn't. Let alone the Runemaster, who's an RPG class.

Er, now you're playing with Teriz level logic. You can't use your own confirmation bias to decide what Blizzard can do based on what Blizzard has or has not done.

Runemaster was not a hero or a unit and was runner up for Hero class in Wrath. You seem to play ignorant here just to satisfy your argument.

I mean, why even bother making the unit/hero distinction? Druid, Priest and Shaman were translated from units in WC3, and are standing toe-to-toe alongside Paladins, which were the only 'Hero' translated directly into WoW.

[AthranThom]

I know i might be popping in kind of suddenly here, but triceron is right. WC3 units and heroes and what have you have no correlation with what classes are added to the game.

It only seems that way because the classes that have been added have "some" connection to them. However they actual reasons they were chosen was popularity,expansion connection, lore in that order. It just so happened that the most popular choices where also the ones that had some connection to WC3 and all that stuff.

Wotlk was always gonna be DK or Necro. It went DK cause Arthas.

Mists was always gonna be Monk cause well... duh.

Legion was DH cause there is no other class connected to the Legion lore beside warlocks and they already in the game. Also edgelordiness is always a plus for WoW classes lol.

For SL the only reason we did not get Necromancers imo is that they are prbly considering not adding any more classes at all. Sucks i know but its a possibility
EDIT:corrections

[Triceron]

Take the apothecary for example. It was an RPG class. It won't be introduced as a class of its own, but it could, definitely, be integrated into the Alchemist.

Why take this as an example? No one is asking for an Apothecary class. You're using an example that has no real established identity outside of WoW. Who is asking for an Apothecary?

And by what measure are you applying that it could 'be integrated into the Alchemist'? Why not an Alchemist spec out of an Apothecary class?

It's the same as the Blademaster, where the name is practically interchangeable between Warriors and Monks and as its own class. You could have a Warrior with a Blademaster integrated into it, you could have a Monk with Blademaster integrated into it, or we could have a Blademaster with Warrior and Monk themes integrated into it. We've literally seen examples of Warlock with Demon Hunter themes directly added to it, through an entire spec as well as a glyph that allowed a different demonic tanking form.

The Apothecary is simply an identity that exists in WoW through the Forsaken, and we have little to go on beyond that. Yet in all honesty, the Apothecary concept has no more or less to it than the Goblin Alchemist of WC3, which has just as little identity to it. They're all represented in the game through the Alchemy profession. You could have an Apothecary class with Alchemist themes in it, or an Alchemit with Apothecary themes in it. I don't see what makes you think one has any more chance of being a class than the other; either way neither the Alchemist or Apothecary would likely be made into a class since they're both pretty low tier concepts on the list of possible classes.

I mean even when the Tinker is talked about, people already associate it having its own Alchemist/Chemist healing subspec within it, so an Alchemy hero is even less likely.

[draugril]

Eh, if you got creative enough with the Mirror Images and Windwalking, you could make a pretty unique and tricky Blademaster.

But WoW's current team isn't creative enough to make that work.

[Imperator4321]

Would be the Survival Hunter if Blizzard got their shit together and discarded this whole Ranger nonsense for the spec.

Discarding the "Ranger" aspects of the Hunter class is like discarding the "berserker/barbarian" aspects of the warrior class, the Hunter class is fundamentally based on the Ranger archetype (traps, beast-mastery, archery, tracking) just like how the WoW Warrior class is partially based on the Barbarian archetype (furry warrior, rage resource). "Rangers" have existed the fantasy genre as a class/archetype since Dungeons and Dragons (and even earlier since the D&D Ranger is based on characters like Aragorn) the WoW Hunter is just Blizzards interpretation of that archetype.

[Triceron]

Eh, if you got creative enough with the Mirror Images and Windwalking, you could make a pretty unique and tricky Blademaster.

But WoW's current team isn't creative enough to make that work.

This is pretty much my biggest concern.

The way the classes are designed today are so homogenized to maintain their 'ideal balance' system that we're running into a creative dead-end. Every new class has to fit the paradigm, and it's just gonna end up eating itself because they can't expand outwards to new ideas or concepts without having them break the system or simply not work at all.

It's why I think the Class Skin system is going to be the next biggest hope for all things Class related. They can't create a dozen new classes, but they could definitely create a dozen new set of talents to modify existing classes into new ones.

[draugril]

This is pretty much my biggest concern.

The way the classes are designed today are so homogenized to maintain their 'ideal balance' system that we're running into a creative dead-end. Every new class has to fit the paradigm, and it's just gonna end up eating itself because they can't expand outwards to new ideas or concepts without having them break the system or simply not work at all.

It's why I think the Class Skin system is going to be the next biggest hope for all things Class related. They can't create a dozen new classes, but they could definitely create a dozen new set of talents to modify existing classes into new ones.

Yep. WoW has become so paint-by-numbers lately, it's pretty disheartening. We truly need a shake-up for the next expansion, not just another reset for another round on the same treadmill. But this isn't the team that can make that happens - or is even interested in doing so. We'll get our gear reset, our manipulative narrative, our 4 leveling zones + 1 endgame, our 4 leveling dungeons + 4 endgame, a new raid, a newly branded artifact power grind, and they'll call it an expansion. They'll make it pretty, cover it in Light, Void, and/or Dragons, but it'll be precisely the same game we've been playing since Legion.

They don't innovate anymore. And the burnout, which was once refreshed by a new expansion, is just carrying over now because they're not trying to evolve their game.

[Imperator4321]

It's why I think the Class Skin system is going to be the next biggest hope for all things Class related. They can't create a dozen new classes, but they could definitely create a dozen new set of talents to modify existing classes into new ones.

While I do like the idea like for example allowing Subtlety rogues to double down on shadow clone stuff akin to how Maiev and Wardens are depicted, I think there a definite balance issues with that concept, for instance adding Blademaster stuff to the warrior class runs into issues since the warrior class is balanced around not having stealth so adding a wind walk ability to them could run into issues where the overall balance of the class is affected.

Expanding current class/spec limitations could be another route, allowing warglaivesto be used by Rogues, Shamans and Hunters, throwing weapons for Hunters, allowing options for being ranged or melee for the likes of Survival Hunter, Subtlety/Assassination Rogues, while these could have balance issues I think it could be interesting to allow more options within a class in terms of weapon selection and range/melee position (ranged survival already technically exists due to the unpruning but certain abilities like kill shot are locked behind two handed melee weapons).

[jellmoo]

While I do like the idea like for example allowing Subtlety rogues to double down on shadow clone stuff akin to how Maiev and Wardens are depicted, I think there a definite balance issues with that concept, for instance adding Blademaster stuff to the warrior class runs into issues since the warrior class is balanced around not having stealth so adding a wind walk ability to them could run into issues where the overall balance of the class is affected.

This could be worked through in a similar way as Gladiator Stance was. Offer trade offs. Perhaps the "Baldemaster" gets a variation of stealth, though he has a reduction in armor and takes additional damage. Perhaps he gains a version of Mirror Image but loses access to Charge. The skin could function as a form of class kits that existed in Balder's Gate. You gain bonuses and new abilities in one area, but weaknesses and loss of ability in others to compensate.

I say this as somebody that loved the fucl out of Gladiator Stance, but we have to acknowledge that Blizzard seems to have felt that this was too much work for a single class, so it's entirely likely that they wouldn't want to approach this for multiple classes at once.