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

[ClassicPeon]

Game needs more mail/cloth ranged classes.

it has to fit within those parameters.

Cnat just keep making plate/leather melee

[Aggressive]

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my Dragonsworn concept.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, the lack of a Necromancer class being introduced in Shadowlands, and Blizzard saying that DKs are WoW's death class should have driven the point home for a lot of people.

Unfortunately it didn't.

I am sorry. But when people thought (or think) of necromancer, they think of a cloth wearer who is throwing plague like dots and calling up skeletons and things from dead. I doubt Blizzards so called and tired version of necromancer (DK) is quenching anyone's thirst for the necromancer class. As usual Blizz tries to give us what they want instead of what we want. And their version and take on what a class should be is a slap in the faces of those who really want the real thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Game needs more mail/cloth ranged classes.

it has to fit within those parameters.

Cnat just keep making plate/leather melee

THIS 800%. I would LOVE to see a caster class added to the game instead of another melee class.

[Teriz]

Game needs more mail/cloth ranged classes.

it has to fit within those parameters.

Cnat just keep making plate/leather melee

I would argue that we need another Physical Ranged class more. We need another such class to fill up the 3rd mail armor slot, and to compete with Hunters for guns/bows.

[MCMLXXXII]

Maybe they add an extra spec to every class. If it's Dragon isles up next, an dragon based spec to every class.

[Huntaer]

I think 1 thing we can all agree on is that it should wear mail.

[Ielenia]

Again, WC3 abilities have been transferred to WoW repeatedly, and WC3 abilities are still abilities created by Blizzard, which puts them above abilities that fans create.

So what? Even if I granted you everything you wrote above... so what? None of that changes the fact that the ability I designed is mechanically identical to your personal concept of the WC3 ability pocket factory.

Something you keep refusing to address and keep trying to move goalposts and add red herrings to avoid having to face that fact.

There's no need for me to address mechanical differences between Pocket Factory and your concept because your concept doesn't exist. There's no point in comparing an actual ability to a made up one.

Neither does your concept of "pocket factory" exist in WoW.

That wasn't the link you previously posted.

This is my paragraph in its entirety, only bolding up what you claim I did not post:

Naxxrammas was full of them DKs, remember? Also one in Scholomance. As for pandaren monk, I wonder why you felt the need to add that specific description there, despite you claiming that 'monks' already existed in WoW before, and pointing at many examples already present in the game before MoP. Also, that doesn't change the fact that you cannot produce any example of a monk using mist magic or summoning celestial beasts.

And if you still want to lie that this wasn't the link I posted, you are free to go back to my original post and see how there are no edits at all in there. Although I find it really hard to believe you somehow missed it considering the two links are basically right next to each other.

So you're saying a DK using a Vampiric weapon isn't an example of them using Blood magic?

I'm saying that, by your logic, that is not sufficient evidence considering we never see this "vampiric weapon" doing any "vampirism". This is your logic, Teriz. You keep demanding to see necromancers actually using poison, then that same argument, to be valid, needs to also apply equally to all classes in the game. So I'll ask you again: where are the examples of death knights using blood and frost magic, before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion?

Also this entire line of argument is silly. If you're creating a class based on Necromancy, isn't Blood and Frost obvious choices, especially given the Undead faction in WC3?

No. No, it's not. And this is just you trying to move the goalposts. You were the one who kept using this demand "show me necromancers using poison" against the idea of a hypothetical necromancer playable class having a poison spec, and now you're trying to move away from that and hope I forget about it because it's been demonstrated that this argument of you is completely bogus.

Such as?

Priests and paladins, for one.

In terms of the scourge it is.

Again, no, it's not. The Scourge isn't changing terms. Poisons are very different than diseases.

Yes, it was established in Warcraft that mages using fire magic can lead to demonic magic. I'm not seeing your point here.

No, it has not been established. Why don't you show me the lore quote that says that "fire magic leads to demonic magic".

That would be because the purpose of the Warlock class was to take the place of a Necromancer class. Thus, Warlock mechanics are pretty much the same as what you'd find in a necromancer class. That similarity is by design.

You can't do that with the Tinker's mechanics because no class was purposely put into the game in place of a Tinker/Technology class.

... And then you have the arrogance of mocking me by calling my arguments "headcanon". Are you for real? Are you really going to pass your personal opinion as fact, here? Not to mention that the whole point of my argument flew over your head, and I highly suspect it was because you ducked out of the way.

I'll repeat: themes do not bring "unique gameplay". To say they do is to claim that those themes have unique mechanics that can only be used for that theme, and that theme alone. And that is false.

[Neuroticaine]

It's a shame they didn't do a Necromancer class, Shadowlands would of been the perfect opportunity.

I'm of the camp that the Necromancer would be too difficult to make unique and interesting. I've yet to see a concept that impressed me. We already have 2 dark spellcasters that are dot/drain heavy, we already have a heavy minion based spellcaster, plus a necromantic elements of Unholy DK, even though it's melee.

I'd be more interested in some sort of Blood or Water based spellcaster, both of which would have the opportunity to have a healer spec as well.

[Z3ROR]

My idea would be that every class gets an arch type that's superior to the regular class. Each class spec defines the way how this arch type is played.

Death knight ➜ Necromancer
Demon Hunter ➜ Watcher
Druid ➜ Archdruid
Hunter ➜ Beast Rider
Mage ➜ Archmage
Monk ➜ Master Monk
Paladin ➜ Cavalier
Priest ➜ Archbishop
Rogue ➜ ??? (Can't think of something here)
Shaman ➜ Spirit Walker
Warlock ➜ Wakener
Warrior ➜ Champion

[Teriz]

So what? Even if I granted you everything you wrote above... so what? None of that changes the fact that the ability I designed is mechanically identical to your personal concept of the WC3 ability pocket factory.

Like I said, an ability created by Blizzard carries more weight in this discussion than an ability created by you (or me for that matter).

Neither does your concept of "pocket factory" exist in WoW.

The point of this conversation is a Tinker class being brought into WoW. If that is the case, then its WC3 abilities will be translated along with it.

This is my paragraph in its entirety, only bolding up what you claim I did not post:

And if you still want to lie that this wasn't the link I posted, you are free to go back to my original post and see how there are no edits at all in there. Although I find it really hard to believe you somehow missed it considering the two links are basically right next to each other.

Then I misread your link. My mistake.

I'm saying that, by your logic, that is not sufficient evidence considering we never see this "vampiric weapon" doing any "vampirism". This is your logic, Teriz. You keep demanding to see necromancers actually using poison, then that same argument, to be valid, needs to also apply equally to all classes in the game. So I'll ask you again: where are the examples of death knights using blood and frost magic, before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion?

Actually Death Pact was a vampiric spell, since it drained life and healed the DK. In WotLK it was a Blood spell;

https://wotlk.evowow.com/?spell=48743

No. No, it's not. And this is just you trying to move the goalposts. You were the one who kept using this demand "show me necromancers using poison" against the idea of a hypothetical necromancer playable class having a poison spec, and now you're trying to move away from that and hope I forget about it because it's been demonstrated that this argument of you is completely bogus.

Well then hopefully Death Pact being a Blood spell with Vampiric attributes makes you feel better.

Priests and paladins, for one.

Where are the Paladin shadow abilities? Where are the weapons-based Priest abilities?

Again, no, it's not. The Scourge isn't changing terms. Poisons are very different than diseases.

What do you mean the Scourge isn't a "changing term"?

No, it has not been established. Why don't you show me the lore quote that says that "fire magic leads to demonic magic".

Though still members of the Alliance, the Blood Elves have begun to turn to the darkest parts of magic, abandoning the water and frost spells of the Kirin Tor for the fire and heat of what some people fear to be Demonic magic. Attacks land and air units.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/human...loodmage.shtml

... And then you have the arrogance of mocking me by calling my arguments "headcanon". Are you for real? Are you really going to pass your personal opinion as fact, here? Not to mention that the whole point of my argument flew over your head, and I highly suspect it was because you ducked out of the way.

I'll repeat: themes do not bring "unique gameplay". To say they do is to claim that those themes have unique mechanics that can only be used for that theme, and that theme alone. And that is false.

Warlocks being the replacement for Necromancers isn't head canon. When Blizzard was creating WoW classes, they purposely avoided making a Necromancer class because of Everquest, and instead made the Warlock class. This is why Warlocks have Necromancer mainstays like Drain Life, Life Tap, and Curse.

I think I've demonstrated multiple times how that statement is not false.

[Firebert]

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my Dragonsworn concept.

With a lack of healers and tanks in WoW they won't create a class with three DPS specs even if they could also Tank or Heal.

[Teriz]

With a lack of healers and tanks in WoW they won't create a class with three DPS specs even if they could also Tank or Heal.

My Dragonsworn concept contains 2 healing specs.

[Firebert]

My Dragonsworn concept contains 2 healing specs.

Oops.

But yes, I don't believe a Dragonsworn class will include any DPS specs.

[Ielenia]

Like I said, an ability created by Blizzard carries more weight in this discussion than an ability created by you (or me for that matter).

And none of that matters because what was being discussed is the mechanical similarities between two fan-made abilities, this "pocket factory" that you created, and the druid ability I created.

The point of this conversation is a Tinker class being brought into WoW.

No, it's not the point. It never was, either. The whole point of this conversation is this claim that "themes bring unique gameplay", which has been shown to be false. I've said that numerous times, already, here, here, here, here, here, here and let's not forget the original post that you replied to, here, so you cannot claim ignorance of what was being discussed.

Then I misread your link. My mistake.

Ok. Then we're back to the original question: show me death knights using blood and frost magic before the Wrath expansion.

Actually Death Pact was a vampiric spell, since it drained life and healed the DK. In WotLK it was a Blood spell;

https://wotlk.evowow.com/?spell=48743

I'm sorry, but it doesn't say "blood" there. Remember you stated that Atonement is a "physical" spell because it's written "physical" in the school. Also, "vampirism" is not necessarily blood magic. Otherwise we have the shadow priest using blood magic since it has not one, but two vampiric spells.

Well then hopefully Death Pact being a Blood spell with Vampiric attributes makes you feel better.

Even if I granted you Death Pact (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) you're still missing death knights using frost abilities.

Where are the Paladin shadow abilities? Where are the weapons-based Priest abilities?

Both heavily overlap in the Holy Light theme.

What do you mean the Scourge isn't a "changing term"?

I said that the Scourge didn't use "poison" and "disease" interchangeably. Poison is very different than disease. That's like saying a sword is the same thing as a warhammer.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/human...loodmage.shtml

Yeah, it doesn't say that at all. People's superstitions about fire magic coming from demons doesn't mean fire magic leads to demon magic.

Warlocks being the replacement for Necromancers isn't head canon. When Blizzard was creating WoW classes, they purposely avoided making a Necromancer class because of Everquest, and instead made the Warlock class.

Prove it. Show me when Blizzard said that. Until then, this is nothing but you passing opinions as fact.

I think I've demonstrated multiple times how that statement is not false.

You haven't. Every time you tried to demonstrate that, I've demonstrated how it's false. Themes do not bring "unique gameplay" because any and all gameplay can be given to almost every other class in this game.

[Shadowferal]

If I recall, I thought that the "Bronze" dragonsworn might be a bit op in Teriz's writeup.

[Hadriker]

My idea would be that every class gets an arch type that's superior to the regular class. Each class spec defines the way how this arch type is played.

Death knight ➜ Necromancer
Demon Hunter ➜ Watcher
Druid ➜ Archdruid
Hunter ➜ Beast Rider
Mage ➜ Archmage
Monk ➜ Master Monk
Paladin ➜ Cavalier
Priest ➜ Archbishop
Rogue ➜ ??? (Can't think of something here)
Shaman ➜ Spirit Walker
Warlock ➜ Wakener
Warrior ➜ Champion

This is always something i would like to see. something similar to class halls except anyone can join. Then you get access to a spec or 2 depending on the base class.

Like say a mage joins the warrior hall and has access to an eldritch knight spec. IF they join their own class hall they get access to a spec or specs similar to what you wrote.

I'm sure it would be a balancing nightmare, but it would be fun as hell.

[Teriz]

And none of that matters because what was being discussed is the mechanical similarities between two fan-made abilities, this "pocket factory" that you created, and the druid ability I created.

Uh, I didn't create Pocket Factory.

No, it's not the point. It never was, either. The whole point of this conversation is this claim that "themes bring unique gameplay", which has been shown to be false. I've said that numerous times, already, here, here, here, here, here, here and let's not forget the original post that you replied to, here, so you cannot claim ignorance of what was being discussed.

Funny, because this entire thing began with you saying that Tinkers wouldn't bring any new mechanics or gameplay into the game. Then it somehow morphed into new themes bringing in new gameplay and new mechanics. In either case, since the Tinker will bring new gameplay and mechanics into the game, I'm not seeing the argument here.

[quote]Ok. Then we're back to the original question: show me death knights using blood and frost magic before the Wrath expansion.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't say "blood" there. Remember you stated that Atonement is a "physical" spell because it's written "physical" in the school. Also, "vampirism" is not necessarily blood magic. Otherwise we have the shadow priest using blood magic since it has not one, but two vampiric spells.

Blood is part of Shadow magic, so that's not surprising. However, if you look near the top, Death Pact is part of the Blood specialization.

Even if I granted you Death Pact (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) you're still missing death knights using frost abilities.

Which they got from Lichs, which makes sense due to their connection to the Lich King.

Both heavily overlap in the Holy Light theme.

Not really. Paladin is pure Holy while Priest is a balance between Holy and Shadow. Its not really the same thing. It's like saying that Druid and Shaman are the same because they share Nature themes.

I said that the Scourge didn't use "poison" and "disease" interchangeably. Poison is very different than disease. That's like saying a sword is the same thing as a warhammer.

I'm saying that the entire point of "poison" and "toxins" in places like Scholomance is to create a plague. DKs already use plagues.

Yeah, it doesn't say that at all. People's superstitions about fire magic coming from demons doesn't mean fire magic leads to demon magic.

Okie dokie.

Prove it. Show me when Blizzard said that. Until then, this is nothing but you passing opinions as fact.

I have no desire to dig for that quote, but if you look at Warlocks, Death Knights, and the lack of a Necromancer class in Shadowlands, it makes sense.

You haven't. Every time you tried to demonstrate that, I've demonstrated how it's false. Themes do not bring "unique gameplay" because any and all gameplay can be given to almost every other class in this game.

All you've demonstrated is that you can twist any class concept to utilize any mechanic. That really doesn't disprove the argument because once again, a Tinker would add unique mechanics and gameplay to the game mainly thanks to its theme. That is an indisputable fact.

[Diaphin]

My bet probably would be a Dark Ranger class, if Sylvanas isn't killed off this expansion. Alternatively I don't think there isn't that much left. Wardens maybe, but I don't think Maiev is a big enough character to generate the necessary hype. Historically, new classes did the best during their introduction and created the most hype when they were tied to a popular lore character, Arthas with Death Knights and Illidan with Demon Hunters. Monks who were tied to Chen Stormstout who was more of a bonus joke character in TFT didn't really garner any enthusiasm or hype at all during release. I think theme is important as well. DKs and DHs are tied not only to the two biggest names in WoW but also to two of the most popular forces, scourge and demons. Again, Monks with their focus on the superficially more whimsical Pandaren culture didn't do well during their release, neither did they generate much enthusiasm and hype for the upcoming expansion.

I see Tinker being often thrown around, but I honestly can't see it work. It simply lacks a very popular and well known Lore Hero to tie them towards. I mean, I would put Gallywix on the same level of Chen and nobody I know actually knew who the gnome leader was before being killed off in a raid. And like Monks, it isn't really tied to really hype inducing theme of the game. Worse are the ideas to race restrict them to the least popular races in the game, from people who simply don't understand general player bases and how the Demon Hunter was as successful as he was. I think even without race restrictions the class would have a harder time compared to DKs and DHs, due to being tied to the aesthetics of less popular races. It certainly dragged Monks down that all their animations and initial sets were designed with Pandaren in mind. Something like Necromancer maybe on the basis of it being dark and age and a dragon-related class if it is advertized with the aspects, but even that I can't see that much honestly.

Thats really why the only class working out I can see is Dark Ranger, because the theme is popular enough and it has Sylvanas to tie the class to, who is probably the only character left around the level of popularily of Arthas and Illidan. I wouldn't use Shadowlands not introducing a class use as an argument either. It is obvious that the unpruning and class design took up more ressources this expansion than probably any expansion before, so the devs probably didn't considered it viable to creat a new class, when they had to work on fixing the rather ill-received class design in BfA as well as the whole Covenant system.

Outside of Dark Ranger, I feel like with the lack of heroes who could be the poster child of said classes, blizzard should probably focus on better borrowed power systems, as those won't go away, fixing issues with existing classes as well as possible slowly introducing new specs. I mean, look at the current state of Survival Hunters, it is a joke and it won't ever be better until they make it ranged again because why should you ever even bring a melee hunter when it had ranged specs, one of them being the most mobile in the entire game.

[Swnem]

Maybe they add an extra spec to every class. If it's Dragon isles up next, an dragon based spec to every class.

That is not a realistic expectation. They will not add the equivalent of 4 new classes to the game at once. You would get 3 at best and the others would have to wait for future expansions, which i don't think would feel good.

What could happen in those lines are class skins. So, the same mechanics but a different visual.
For example, demonology warlock as a necromancer skin with undead instead of demons and different animations for the spells.

[Ielenia]

Uh, I didn't create Pocket Factory.

You created the way in which this ability would appear in WoW, considering it does not exist in the game. Any and all mechanics and functionality you give to it are only your creation, not Blizzard's.

Funny, because this entire thing began with you saying that Tinkers wouldn't bring any new mechanics or gameplay into the game. Then it somehow morphed into new themes bringing in new gameplay and new mechanics. In either case, since the Tinker will bring new gameplay and mechanics into the game, I'm not seeing the argument here.

You are blatantly lying. From the beginning, my arguments regarding the claim that "mechanical theme bring unique gameplay" have been about how themes do not bring "unique gameplay".

Blood is part of Shadow magic, so that's not surprising. However, if you look near the top, Death Pact is part of the Blood specialization.

But not all shadow magic is blood magic. Also, Atonement is part of the Discipline specialization, but you still don't consider it a holy ability. Or even a shadow ability.

Which they got from Lichs

Liches are not death knights. Try again. You are demanding to see necromancers actually using poison magic, so be honest here and answer your own argument: show me death knights using frost magic before the Wrath expansion.

Not really. Paladin is pure Holy while Priest is a balance between Holy and Shadow.

Doesn't change the fact that they overlap on the holy theme. Especially since you still accuse necromancers and death knights "overlapping" even if we grant necromancers a poison spec.

I'm saying that the entire point of "poison" and "toxins" in places like Scholomance is to create a plague. DKs already use plagues.

Even if I grant you that, why can't it be expanded upon?

I have no desire to dig for that quote, but if you look at Warlocks, Death Knights, and the lack of a Necromancer class in Shadowlands, it makes sense.

In other words, you have nothing to back up that claim, because that quote likely does not exist. This is your modus-operandi, Teriz: you make lots of claims, but when backed against the wall to prove your claims, you get overly defensive, doing everything EXCEPT providing evidence for your claims.

All you've demonstrated is that you can twist any class concept to utilize any mechanic. That really doesn't disprove the argument because once again, a Tinker would add unique mechanics and gameplay to the game mainly thanks to its theme. That is an indisputable fact.

I dispute that fact, because, as it's been said by not just be, but by others too, themes do not bring "unique gameplay".

[Teriz]

My bet probably would be a Dark Ranger class, if Sylvanas isn't killed off this expansion. Alternatively I don't think there isn't that much left. Wardens maybe, but I don't think Maiev is a big enough character to generate the necessary hype. Historically, new classes did the best during their introduction and created the most hype when they were tied to a popular lore character, Arthas with Death Knights and Illidan with Demon Hunters. Monks who were tied to Chen Stormstout who was more of a bonus joke character in TFT didn't really garner any enthusiasm or hype at all during release. I think theme is important as well. DKs and DHs are tied not only to the two biggest names in WoW but also to two of the most popular forces, scourge and demons. Again, Monks with their focus on the superficially more whimsical Pandaren culture didn't do well during their release, neither did they generate much enthusiasm and hype for the upcoming expansion.

I think the very fact that Chen Stormstout was used shows that Blizzard is willing to use mid-tier lore characters as archetypes for classes. Further, I have never heard from Blizzard that monks were a failure, so people believing that Pandaren monks were some sort of misfire is purely speculation on their part.

I see Tinker being often thrown around, but I honestly can't see it work. It simply lacks a very popular and well known Lore Hero to tie them towards. I mean, I would put Gallywix on the same level of Chen and nobody I know actually knew who the gnome leader was before being killed off in a raid. And like Monks, it isn't really tied to really hype inducing theme of the game. Worse are the ideas to race restrict them to the least popular races in the game, from people who simply don't understand general player bases and how the Demon Hunter was as successful as he was. I think even without race restrictions the class would have a harder time compared to DKs and DHs, due to being tied to the aesthetics of less popular races. It certainly dragged Monks down that all their animations and initial sets were designed with Pandaren in mind. Something like Necromancer maybe on the basis of it being dark and age and a dragon-related class if it is advertized with the aspects, but even that I can't see that much honestly.

Actually the Tinker lore character would be Gazlowe, and I would argue that Gazlowe is about as popular as Chen Stormstout. As for hype, the demand for the Tinker rose sharply when people saw Mekkatorque in his battle suit on Broken Shore. Tinker wins pretty much every class poll, and even in this thread the majority of posters were naming Tinker as the class that should be implemented next.

While I do think that wanting to emulate a lore character is important for some players, I also believe that many players just want something different. The Tinker offers that, and the Dark Ranger really doesn't.