Originally Posted by
Eurhetemec
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.