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

[Traveler Voltin]

so what you want is not a ranger, just some mess of a class that looks like a ranger.

[Teriz]

And I explained that the Ranger class we're given doesn't actually have to be Banshees or Undead to use Dark Ranger powers. They don't have to ascend to that level in the same way a DK doesn't have to become a Dreadlord to have a Blood spec or become a Lich to use Frost powers. It's a spec that utilizes the abilities of a Dark Ranger.

Then you're not talking about a Warcraft Dark Ranger, because the Warcraft Dark Rangers are just Undead Hunters. There is that oddball Sylvanas, but she'll probably be dead by the end of this expansion.

For that matter we don't need a playable Beastmaster class with throwing axes if we have a Beastmastery spec on a class that already inhabits the full theme of what a Beastmaster is. For the Dark Ranger, a Hunter's fantasy is simply too shallow, much like how the Warlock or Rogue didn't fit the fantasy of a Demon Hunter. Just giving them Black Arrows would not be enough to satisfy the flavour of being a Dark Ranger that has access to magical powers. A new class that is built around the use of magic and bows would.

You're missing a very important point; Blizzard themselves established two fundamental facts about the Dark Ranger; 1. Sylvanas was never able to replicate her unique abilities and powers with other Dark Rangers, and 2. You could be a Hunter/Ranger without Sylvanas' abilities and still be a Dark Ranger. This is a departure from Illidan and the Illidari or the Arthas and the Death Knights for example who all very clearly shared their powers way before they were ever introduced as a class.

Nathanos, Aya, Cleo, etc. don't have Sylvanas' abilities at all, yet they're still Dark Rangers. It appears that the only requirement to be considered a DR is to be undead and to be able to use a bow.

"I’ll also add that when we’re making those choices for classes and races and things like that, a lot of it’s informed by setting and story,” said Kubit. And looking at the setting of the Shadowlands, there wasn’t a class that jumped out like the Demon Hunter did in the past with Legion for example. So a lot of our focus is more on building the world of the Shadowlands.”

They said a lot of it is informed by the setting and story; there is no *only* used or implied in the statement.

We were also told there were no plans for a Demon Hunter class once as well. What the team says and what the team does are two different things. I don't base the fate of the Tinker on Ghostcrawler's previous statements on whimsy either. These are all fairly meaningless, all things considered. If they never made a statement on the Demon Hunter class, I'd be inclined to take their word more seriously.

And the point remains; They had the setting and the story for a Dark Ranger and Necromancer inclusion, yet they weren't included. When you have an expansion with the themes of death, the afterlife, necromancy, shadow magic, etc. (even having a Dark Ranger in the opening cinematic and being one of the main characters of the expansion) and the Dark Ranger or the Necromancer don't "jump out at you" as a viable class, that's pretty much the death knell for those concepts.

No pun intended.

[username993720]

so what you want is not a ranger, just some mess of a class that looks like a ranger.

How would you call it then?

[Katchii]

I don't know. that's what i've read for over 20 pages.

That's because that's what Teriz twisted the argument into. That's not the argument that was being made at that time.

That's why I walked away, because the discussion became twisted and distorted and derailed (again...every fucking thread about new classes ends up this way) into Teriz describing what can and can't be allowed, or should or should not be allowed.

Here is where things started getting a bit heated:

None of that even comes close to proving that the class is guaranteed to have "unique gameplay". The class could be entirely focused on "mechanisms", as you put it, but play the exact same as a druid. Or a hunter. Or whatever other class.

Themes are nothing more than "coats of paint" for the classes. If we took the warlock class, and reskinned all the minions from demons to undead, renamed all the abilities and changed the graphics and names of many if not all of their abilities, but kept the gameplay the exact same, would it not be a "necromancer" class despite it being the exact same gameplay as the warlock? If we took the paladin class, and reskinned and renamed all of their abilities to look like fire, frost and arcane magic, but kept the gameplay the exact same... would it not be a "warrior mage" class? That has been my whole point all around: a theme, by itself, does not grant or guarantee any "unique gameplay" whatsoever, as everything you call "unique gameplay" could be given to almost any other class concept in the game by adapting it to the class' theme.

Like I said: it's fine if you prefer tinker over any and all the others class ideas, but let's not make up falsehoods, especially about "unique gameplay".

It may have started a little before this, but that's where it started going off the rails, because shortly after that is when Teriz jumped in.

[Teriz]

Teriz is, apparently, no better. insisting that a Dark Ranger does not have a place in the game, when it is clearly a hero unit with lacking representation, is ridiculous.

I'm trying to get you to understand that the Dark Ranger in the Warcraft class lineup is just an undead Hunter, and Sylvanas is a unique character that Blizzard clearly had no intention to expand as a class concept in of herself. The fact that a Dark Ranger class didn't "jump out" to the development team as a viable class option when you have expansion about death and Sylvanas as a major character (to the point that she's in the opening cinematic) should make that crystal clear to people.

[Traveler Voltin]

How would you call it then?

A mess. its 3 concepts that dont fit together at all.

[Triceron]

Then you're not talking about a Warcraft Dark Ranger, because the Warcraft Dark Rangers are just Undead Hunters. There is that oddball Sylvanas, but she'll probably be dead by the end of this expansion.

There are multiple groups of Death Knights, there are multiple groups of Demon Hunters, there are multiple groups of Monks.

There doesn't need to be one group of Dark Rangers. As I explained, a core class of Rangers that simply source the powers of a Dark Ranger would suffice. A Monk is able to portray a Brewmaster without the Brewmaster itself being a full class on its own.

A Dark Ranger doesn't have to be associated as the undead hunters if it were built as a spec. I mean, you seem to have no problem asserting the Hunters could be Dark Rangers despite the fact that there's only one Undead race in the game and a dozen or so that aren't.

You're missing a very important point; Blizzard themselves established two fundamental facts about the Dark Ranger; 1. Sylvanas was never able to replicate her unique abilities and powers with other Dark Rangers, and 2. You could be a Hunter/Ranger without Sylvanas' abilities and still be a Dark Ranger. This is a departure from Illidan and the Illidari or the Arthas and the Death Knights for example who all very clearly shared their powers way before they were ever introduced as a class.

Dark Ranger is so far ambiguously defined. It exists all in name and title; and little else in terms of actual identity.

It can be defined and redefined however Blizzard wishes to. I mean if we're honest, Demon Hunters never had Horn or Wings available to them; that was unique to Illidan. Suddenly playable Demon Hunters gave us both.

And that's pretty much what a Ranger class could be. It's similar to how Death Knights tap into Blood and Frost when the ones in Warcraft 3 were exclusively Unholy. They tap into those new powers through their Runeblades. Ranger, by extension, would be a core class of magical bow users that can choose to source their powers. The unifying theme is as I described; magical spellcasters that choose to use bows.

It's little different than a Hunter not being a true Beastmaster, but effectively represent that class through having Beastmastery and being a core class that fits the Beastmaster identity.

And the point remains; They had the setting and the story for a Dark Ranger and Necromancer inclusion, yet they weren't included. When you have an expansion with the themes of death, the afterlife, necromancy, shadow magic, etc. (even having a Dark Ranger in the opening cinematic and being one of the main characters of the expansion) and the Dark Ranger or the Necromancer don't "jump out at you" as a viable class, that's pretty much the death knell for those concepts.

That's because they chose to explore other elements of Shadowlands that wasn't just skeletons and Necromancy. If Shadowlands were completely Maldraxxus themed, then sure you have an argument. But let's face it - what does a Dark Ranger or Necromancer have anything to do with the other 3 zones? Nothing, really. They don't fit thematically at all.

And that's why we have Covenants instead. It's a way to embrace Necromantic powers on top of those that would be provided by the other 3 themes.

Wrath, Pandaria and Legion were all easy and straight forward and simple themes. Shadowlands is being designed more like Cataclysm where there's a whole bunch of smaller storylines and themes to explore that are all bridged by Deathwing/Old God shenanigans. If we look at Cataclysm, there isn't any one class that would fit that expansion either. Even if you shoved Tinkers in there due to their connection to the Goblins, it would be very loosely connected. Hell, Tinkers could have even been added in BFA since it had Mechagon. This is the same with Dark Ranger and Necromancer. It doesn't fit with the direction they decided to take with Shadowlands.

It would fit if they didn't add in Bastion, Ardenweald and Revendreth; but arguably that would be a less interesting expansion.

As for future potential, there's still plenty left. Shadowlands is an infinite realm of possibilities and we're only exploring the main 4 this expansion. We don't know what's in store with the story in the future.

And as I've said many times, Class Skins would be able to introduce all these themes using existing lore and locations and don't have to be strongly tied to any particular expansion if they choose to go in this direction. It simply works like Allied Races, and it would open much more customization without gameplay or theme bloat.

[username993720]

I'm trying to get you to understand that the Dark Ranger in the Warcraft class lineup is just an undead Hunter, and Sylvanas is a unique character that Blizzard clearly had no intention to expand as a class concept in of herself. The fact that a Dark Ranger class didn't "jump out" to the development team as a viable class option when you have expansion about death and Sylvanas as a major character (to the point that she's in the opening cinematic) should make that crystal clear to people.

If they were merely Undead Hunters, they wouldn't be a Warcraft 3 Hero Unit, a Heroes of the Storm playable character (Sylvanas), they wouldn't have their own unique and distinct abilities, they wouldn't have a distinct outfit and they wouldn't introduce a whole regiment of them during BFA (Night elf).

What about Priestesses of the Moon? or Sea Witches? are they merely Night elf/Naga hunters?

What about Shadow Hunters? are they merely Troll Shamans? are Blademasters merely Orc Warriors? are Wardens merely Night elf Rogues? are Tinkers merely Goblin/Gnome Hunters? are Alchemist simply a Rogue with Alchemy?

- - - Updated - - -

A mess. its 3 concepts that dont fit together at all.

Really?







You don't see any similarities?

"Rangers were eventually cancelled as a hero unit. Most of their abilities were given to the Priestess of the Moon instead, and their model was reused for the in-game appearances of Sylvanas Windrunner and Jennalla Deemspring. Shandris Feathermoon uses a night elf version of the Ranger. When the The Frozen Throne expansion was released, Cold Arrows was given to Naga Sea Witches, renamed to Frost Arrows and given a new icon."

[GreenJesus]

I think an Arcane warrior would be pretty cool. Would sort of take parts of Spellbreaker, Warden, and Conjurer.

[Teriz]

There are multiple groups of Death Knights, there are multiple groups of Demon Hunters, there are multiple groups of Monks.

And the Death Knights we play as are based on the WC3 hero unit which is heavily tied to the Lich King with Arthas being the archetypal hero. The Monk class we play as is based on the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster hero with Chen being the archetypal hero. Obviously if there is to be a Dark Ranger class, it's going to be based on Sylvanas.

There doesn't need to be one group of Dark Rangers. As I explained, a core class of Rangers that simply source the powers of a Dark Ranger would suffice. A Monk is able to portray a Brewmaster without the Brewmaster itself being a full class on its own.

A Dark Ranger doesn't have to be associated as the undead hunters if it were built as a spec. I mean, you seem to have no problem asserting the Hunters could be Dark Rangers despite the fact that there's only one Undead race in the game and a dozen or so that aren't.

I'm simply saying that Forsaken Hunters are essentially Dark Rangers. That is backed by the lore.

Dark Ranger is so far ambiguously defined. It exists all in name and title; and little else in terms of actual identity.

It can be defined and redefined however Blizzard wishes to. I mean if we're honest, Demon Hunters never had Horn or Wings available to them; that was unique to Illidan. Suddenly playable Demon Hunters gave us both.

You're comparing cosmetics to the definition of a class. We know exactly what a Dark Ranger is, and what people want out of a Dark Ranger class. Let's not attempt to make this more complex than it really is.

That's because they chose to explore other elements of Shadowlands that wasn't just skeletons and Necromancy. If Shadowlands were completely Maldraxxus themed, then sure you have an argument. But let's face it - what does a Dark Ranger or Necromancer have anything to do with the other 3 zones? Nothing, really. They don't fit thematically at all.

The layout of the game world has nothing to do with the essential theme of the expansion. Northrend had everything from Dragons flying over Nexuses to Grizzly Hills to Gundrak, it didn't change the fact that the final showdown was going to be in Ice Crown against the Lich king. In Shadowlands despite the Fae and Bastion areas, there's no doubt that the final showdown is going to be in some gothic castle with us fighting Sylvanas.

Death Knights didn't even start in Northrend. The point was that WotLK was an expansion about the Lich King, the titular Death Knight, and Shadowlands is going to be about Sylvanas the titular Dark Ranger. The fact that there is no Dark Ranger class when we have the theme, the archetypal character, and the expansion count in place is the proverbial nail in the coffin.

- - - Updated - - -

If they were merely Undead Hunters, they wouldn't be a Warcraft 3 Hero Unit, a Heroes of the Storm playable character (Sylvanas), they wouldn't have their own unique and distinct abilities, they wouldn't have a distinct outfit and they wouldn't introduce a whole regiment of them during BFA (Night elf).

What about Priestesses of the Moon? or Sea Witches? are they merely Night elf/Naga hunters?

What about Shadow Hunters? are they merely Troll Shamans? are Blademasters merely Orc Warriors? are Wardens merely Night elf Rogues? are Tinkers merely Goblin/Gnome Hunters? are Alchemist simply a Rogue with Alchemy?

The heroes are based completely on Sylvanas. You need to look at what a Dark Ranger is in WoW. In WoW, Dark Rangers are still heavily tied to Sylvanas, but they don't have Banshee abilities and are just essentially Hunters. Heck, Sylvanas even created Dark Rangers, and they're still just undead Hunters. Nathanos is the Dark Ranger trainer, and he's just a Hunter. This is why the Hunter class had Black Arrow for so long; To represent the Forsaken influence on the Hunter class.

The Priestess of the Moon's abilities were divided between Hunters and Druids. In WoW they're NE Priests, nothing more nothing less. Naga aren't a playable race, so whatever they are is pretty inconsequential. Their abilities were divided between multiple classes, and as an unplayable race, their heroes really don't have an effect on the class system.

Shadow Hunters entire toolkit save one ability went to the Shaman class. In WoW they're some weird combo of Hunter and Shadow Priest. Blademasters are Orc Warriors, Wardens are pretty much NE Rogues. None of the Tinker's abilities went to the Hunter class, so they aren't Hunters. The same applies to the Goblin Alchemist and Rogues.

In fact out of all of those, the only WC3 heroes without abilities in any existing class is the Goblin Tinker and Goblin Alchemist. That's something to think about.

[Triceron]

And the Death Knights we play as are based on the WC3 hero unit which is heavily tied to the Lich King with Arthas being the archetypal hero. The Monk class we play as is based on the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster hero with Chen being the archetypal hero. Obviously if there is to be a Dark Ranger class, it's going to be based on Sylvanas.

DK is based on multiple heroes; DK Lich and Dreadlord.

How is that different than what I say here, with a Ranger based on POTM, Sea Witch and Dark Ranger?

Dark Ranger as a class can be represented in the same way that the Brewmaster is through the Monk. Chen doesn't Mistweave or dual wield weapons, but Monks expand on those themes with other specs. It makes sense that Chen is therefore a Monk. Just as it would make sense that Dark Rangers and Priestess of the Moon could both be Rangers.

I'm simply saying that Forsaken Hunters are essentially Dark Rangers. That is backed by the lore.

Sure, old lore.

Paladins were Priests once too.

You're comparing cosmetics to the definition of a class. We know exactly what a Dark Ranger is, and what people want out of a Dark Ranger class. Let's not attempt to make this more complex than it really is.

We know exactly what a Dark Ranger is, sure.

But we know nothing about a Dark Ranger playable class. There's quite a difference just like we could say we knew everything about a Death Knight but knew nothing about how it would have manifested itself as a playable class. There was much more and different theme to a DK than simply being 'based on WC3'; which includes the use of Blood and Frost magic and the Runic Power system that never existed in Warcraft before. We didn't know every one of them had the ability to summon Sindragosa either.

Death Knights didn't even start in Northrend. The point was that WotLK was an expansion about the Lich King, the titular Death Knight, and Shadowlands is going to be about Sylvanas the titular Dark Ranger. The fact that there is no Dark Ranger class when we have the theme, the archetypal character, and the expansion count in place is the proverbial nail in the coffin.

The same way Illidan dying in TBC was the nail in the coffin for Demon Hunters, right?

Tell me again how right you were about Demon Hunters, please. I'd love to hear how you think Illidan's death in TBC was the proverbial nail in the coffin for Demon Hunters.

[Teriz]

A mess. its 3 concepts that dont fit together at all.

Yup. The lack of cohesiveness in that concept is pretty insane.

But the most ironic part is that if you mesh all of that together, you're still not getting a class that's much different from the existing Hunter class.

- - - Updated - - -

DK is based on multiple heroes; DK Lich and Dreadlord.

How is that different than what I say here, with a Ranger based on POTM, Sea Witch and Dark Ranger?

The DK, Lich, and Dreadlord were all in the same faction in WC3, and they're all tied together by lore. Dark Rangers, PotMs, and Sea Witches were not.

Dark Ranger as a class can be represented in the same way that the Brewmaster is through the Monk. Chen doesn't Mistweave or dual wield weapons, but Monks expand on those themes with other specs. It makes sense that Chen is therefore a Monk. Just as it would make sense that Dark Rangers and Priestess of the Moon could both be Rangers.

Okay, but since we're building a Monk class, obviously you're getting a healing spec and dual weapon usage. You're talking about building a Ranger class when we already have a Ranger class that over the course of 16 years has been doing exactly what you're proposing this new class to be doing.

Sure, old lore.

Paladins were Priests once too.

No, that would be current lore.

We know exactly what a Dark Ranger is, sure.

But we know nothing about a Dark Ranger playable class. There's quite a difference just like we could say we knew everything about a Death Knight but knew nothing about how it would have manifested itself as a playable class. There was much more and different theme to a DK than simply being 'based on WC3'; which includes the use of Blood and Frost magic and the Runic Power system that never existed in Warcraft before.

Here's the thing; If Blizzard is going to bring a Dark Ranger class into the game, they're going to base it on what the community recognizes it as. They're not going to throw a monkey wrench into it and bring out some random concept that doesn't mirror what people expect the Dark Ranger class to be, and people expect it to be a playable clone of Sylvanas. Look at Demon Hunters for example, that class mirrored Illidan to the core with almost zero deviation. They even ripped Metamorphosis from Warlocks and retconned lore left and right to shoehorn them into the game.

The same way Illidan dying in TBC was the nail in the coffin for Demon Hunters, right?

Tell me again how right you were about Demon Hunters, please. I'd love to hear how you think Illidan's death in TBC was the proverbial nail in the coffin for Demon Hunters.

I do believe I said that the only way Demon Hunters can enter WoW is if Blizzard removes Metamorphosis from the Warlock class, and encroach on the design space of multiple existing classes. Warlocks got their abilities removed, Demon Hunters only got 2 specs, and now people feel that the game has too many melee classes and gag at the thought of another new class entering the game that takes abilities from existing classes.

I would say I was quite correct about the Demon Hunter class. Further it's important to note that the situation with Illidan is far different than Blizzard saying that no class jumped out to them as a good fit for Shadowlands when Sylvanas was in the opening cinematic kicking Bolvar's butt.

[Ielenia]

Yes. your idea. you've been arguing about it for over 20 pages. how these classes can, mechanically, fill the role of a tinker. "just make shaman totems turrets and druidic forms mechanical" reminds you something?

Congratulations. You have proved, beyond shadow of doubt, that you never cared to understand my arguments, if you truly believe that is what I have been arguing for.

As my last response to you here, I'll let you know that "class skins" or "cosmetic classes" like you put it, was never my argument, and I even said this:

I don't like the idea of "class skins" for the reason reason I'm not a fan of fair skins options on the void elves: it's not the "real deal". Sure, the class called "necromancer" and I'm summoning skeleton minions... but, in a manner of speaking, in the end it's just a warlock that forgot to take off his halloween costume.

- - - Updated - - -

i will never understand why Ielenia hates Tinkers so much.

I don't. I "hate" disingenuous people who engage in double-standards by giving concessions to their own favored concepts while denying the same courtesy to other people's fan concepts, and misrepresent other people's arguments, even after being told so and explained to how they were misrepresenting others.

- - - Updated - - -

One; Both games are made by Blizzard.

Both games being made by Blizzard is irrelevant, because those games have different mechanics and rules.

Two: I can give you a long list of abilities that did get translated one to one into WoW.

And even if your list was twice as long as mine, it still wouldn't have mattered. Because the fact that a list of abilities that changed when ported to WoW exists is enough proof that any claim that any WC3 ability would be ported over, as-is, to WoW, is rendered false.

Why would Blizzard call a character a Lich and that character no have frost powers?

Probably because he is not a lich, despite the name?

I'm denying the Necromancer having a poison spell caster because nothing indicates that Necromancers use poison-based magic. An alchemist tossing vials full of poison at people is not a Necromancer using poison-based magic.

Aside from a NECROMANCER school with a a classroom full of NECROMANCER students are being taught alchemy by someone who favors POISON and fire. Which, you know, is canon lore.

What happened in WotLK is quite relevant.

No, it's completely irrelevant because I'm asking you to show me a death knight USING frost magic before the Wrath expansion. Something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate, which indicates your demands to see a necromancer actually using poison is bogus.

Entirely in your head (canon).

You're calling official lore "head canon". Just wanted to point that out.

Thank you. That makes whatever Professor Slate was doing even less of a Necromancer ability.

And frost was never a death knight ability.

Actually various members of the Illidari could enter and exist Metamorphosis. The Demon Hunter hero from WC3 could also do it. That just appears to be junky lore that doesn't match the gameplay.

That happened only in multiplayer campaigns, and as everyone knows, multiplayer campaigns are not lore. In the official campaign, Illidan could never turn into a demon, and was only able to do so after taking in the power of the Skull of Gul'dan, and the metamorphosis was permanent.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to get you to understand that the Dark Ranger in the Warcraft class lineup is just an undead Hunter, and Sylvanas is a unique character that Blizzard clearly had no intention to expand as a class concept in of herself.

Ah, so now you're blatantly gatekeeping.

[Triceron]

The DK, Lich, and Dreadlord were all in the same faction in WC3, and they're all tied together by lore. Dark Rangers, PotMs, and Sea Witches were not.

And you've been connecting the Priestess of the Moon, Dark Ranger and Beastmaster all to the Hunter class. They weren't tied together by lore either.

Okay, but since we're building a Monk class, obviously you're getting a healing spec and dual weapon usage. You're talking about building a Ranger class when we already have a Ranger class that over the course of 16 years has been doing exactly what you're proposing this new class to be doing.

We've never had a Ranger class. We have a Hunter class.

I didn't propose another Hunter class. That's something you've been inferring, so I'd agree that it is completely bogus.

Here's the thing; If Blizzard is going to bring a Dark Ranger class into the game, they're going to base it on what the community recognizes it as.

No, they're going to do whatever makes sense in their internal design for a new class.

No one would have recognized a Death Knight that was using Blood and Frost powers any time prior to Wrath of the Lich King. No one would have imagined Tauren and Gnome Death Knights. These are all unfamiliar aspects that the community has come to accept over time.

I would say I was quite correct about the Demon Hunter class. Further it's important to note that the situation with Illidan is far different than Blizzard saying that no class jumped out to them as a good fit for Shadowlands when Sylvanas was in the opening cinematic kicking Bolvar's butt.

Sylvanas kicking butt was very cool, but it's clear that they chose not to go in this direction just as they chose not to add a Demon Hunter class back in TBC and instead focus on class design and tweaking the balance.


So what about this nail in the coffin? Why do we still have Demon Hunters if Illidan was dead in TBC?

[Teriz]

Both games being made by Blizzard is irrelevant, because those games have different mechanics and rules.

We're not talking about the games, we're talking about the abilities. Abilities from WC3 have been translated to WoW with the same mechanics and rules.

And even if your list was twice as long as mine, it still wouldn't have mattered.

Uh, my list could be twice as short as yours and it proves my point and completely disproves yours.

Probably because he is not a lich, despite the name?

What makes him not a Lich exactly?

Aside from a NECROMANCER[/FONT][/SIZE][/U][/B] school with a a classroom full of NECROMANCER[/SIZE][/U][/B] students are being taught alchemy by someone who favors POISON[/FONT][/SIZE][/U][/B] and fire. Which, you know, is canon lore.

This is a prime example of head canon. You're filling in the blanks with nothing to back up anything you are posting. What if the professor isn't teaching the Necromancers alchemy? What if he's not teaching them at all and he's just there to break up the monotony of players fighting a bunch of spell casters? You would think a character so pivotal as to justify an entire class having a poison spec, you would think he would be more than just a minor boss character with next to zero lore.

No, it's completely irrelevant because I'm asking you to show me a death knight USING frost magic before the Wrath expansion. Something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate, which indicates your demands to see a necromancer actually using poison is bogus.

And frost was never a death knight ability.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the creator of Death Knights in WC3 and WoW;



Gee, I wonder how they ended up with Frost abilities.....

That happened only in multiplayer campaigns, and as everyone knows, multiplayer campaigns are not lore. In the official campaign, Illidan could never turn into a demon, and was only able to do so after taking in the power of the Skull of Gul'dan, and the metamorphosis was permanent.

These characters had Metamorphosis in Black Temple as well;

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=21171/alandien#abilities
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=21164/netharel#abilities
https://www.wowhead.com/npc=21168/theras#abilities

Ah, so now you're blatantly gatekeeping.

Someone needs to have standards around these parts.

- - - Updated - - -

And you've been connecting the Priestess of the Moon, Dark Ranger and Beastmaster all to the Hunter class. They weren't tied together by lore either.

They're not tied together. Their disparate abilities were dumped into the Hunter class. There isn't specs dedicated to each type of hero, it's all mashed together to form the cohesive Hunter class theme.

We've never had a Ranger class. We have a Hunter class.

Blizzard disagrees, as shown by how they describe the Survival spec.

Sylvanas kicking butt was very cool, but it's clear that they chose not to go in this direction just as they chose not to add a Demon Hunter class back in TBC and instead focus on class design and tweaking the balance.

Because they weren't ready to make a DH class back then. They never said they didn't have a class concept that didn't match the theme of the TBC expansion.

So what about this nail in the coffin? Why do we still have Demon Hunters if Illidan was dead in TBC?

Because that's lore, and Blizzard can twist lore anyway they see fit. However, when they say that no class fits an expansion revolving around Sylvanas and involving various aspects of Death and the Afterlife that's a nail in the coffin.

[username993720]

The heroes are based completely on Sylvanas. You need to look at what a Dark Ranger is in WoW. In WoW, Dark Rangers are still heavily tied to Sylvanas, but they don't have Banshee abilities and are just essentially Hunters. Heck, Sylvanas even created Dark Rangers, and they're still just undead Hunters. Nathanos is the Dark Ranger trainer, and he's just a Hunter. This is why the Hunter class had Black Arrow for so long; To represent the Forsaken influence on the Hunter class.

The Priestess of the Moon's abilities were divided between Hunters and Druids. In WoW they're NE Priests, nothing more nothing less. Naga aren't a playable race, so whatever they are is pretty inconsequential. Their abilities were divided between multiple classes, and as an unplayable race, their heroes really don't have an effect on the class system.

Shadow Hunters entire toolkit save one ability went to the Shaman class. In WoW they're some weird combo of Hunter and Shadow Priest. Blademasters are Orc Warriors, Wardens are pretty much NE Rogues. None of the Tinker's abilities went to the Hunter class, so they aren't Hunters. The same applies to the Goblin Alchemist and Rogues.

In fact out of all of those, the only WC3 heroes without abilities in any existing class is the Goblin Tinker and Goblin Alchemist. That's something to think about.

Just like Death Knights are based on Arthas, Demon Hunters are based on Illidan, Monks are based on Chen, Paladins are based on Uther, Druids are based on Malfurion/Cenarius, Mages are based on Jaina/Antonidas (frost) and Kael'thas (fire), Warriors are based on Muradin and Cairne, and Hunters are based on Rexxar (Beastmaster). There are always representatives.

Don't take WoW as an example. before Death Knights were added, we only had Death Coil as a representative ability (Warlock). before Demon Hunters we had Mana Burn for priests, Immolation and Metamorphosis for Warlocks and Evasion for Rogues. Monks had none and were considered a joke. Apparently, there's no reason to add them. just let players half-ass play them as either of these classes, being content with one ability and just call it the day.

Black arrow was added before forsaken hunters were introduced in cataclysm. it was added in Wrath.

So, a Night elf Priest is enough to convey the Priestess of the Moon class? do tell me how many priest abilities are those of the Priestess of the Moon. Their representation was so lacking, they had to give priest racial abilities to the different races.

as i've mentioned above, the Demon Hunter abilities was divided among the Priest, Warlock and Rogue. it didn't prevent it from becoming a playable class, did it?

In World of Warcraft terms, different shadow hunters have been seen as variants of hunters, shaman, rogues, or priests.
While shadow hunters primarily use glaives, they have also been seen with bows and polearms, weapons usable by hunters, and many have been depicted wearing hunter-variant mail. Some have also been seen with animal pets, such as the panthers in Zul'Gurub which tail behind Gurubashi Shadow Hunters. Vol'jin mentions in Shadows of the Horde that he once had a pet that died.
[Healing Wave] and [Hex] were Warcraft III shadow hunter abilities that were given to shaman (though the shadow hunter spell functioned more like [Chain Heal], another shaman spell). [Vol'jin's Serpent Totem] is a shaman-exclusive toy that summons a serpent ward similar to those used by shadow hunters in Warcraft III. Vol'jin has also been called a shaman, but this could have been an oversight.
Vol'jin and other shadow hunter NPCs have also used shadow priest abilities throughout World of Warcraft, such as [Shadow Word: Pain], something not part of the Warcraft III unit's skill set.
Some shadow hunter NPCs have been seen using rogue abilities, and have been depicted wearing rogue leather armor. They've also been seen in different places using either the rogue's variant of [Stealth], or the hunter's variant of [Camouflage].

Their representation is all over the place. it is lacking. you can't just expect players to be happy with an ability here and there.

Remind me again about how i can use Mirror Image and Windwalk as an orc Warrior. and while at it, show me how i can wield an umbral crescent as a Night elf Rogue and use Blink and Vengeance.

You can summon an explosive sheep as an engineer. BOOM! Clockwerk Goblin and Pocket Factory solved for Tinkers. You can use Goblin Rocket Launcher as an engineer. Ta Da! Cluster Rockets solved for Tinkers. Acquire the G.M.O.D mount. Shazam! Robo-Goblin solved for Tinkers! Healing Spray: "Sprays waves of healing mist that heals units in a target area". Monk abilities - Enveloping Mist: "Wraps the target in healing mists healing for X for over 6 sec"; Renewing Mist: "Surrounds the targer with healing mists, restoring X health over 20 sec; "Soothing Mist". Healing Spray solved for Alchemists. Shamans have Bloodlust. Solved Chemical Rage for Alchemists. Acid Bomb: "Hurls a flask of acid at a target. The flask breaks upon impact, splashing a powerful acid on nearby hostile units. Decreases armor; deals slightly less damage over time to nearby targets."
Rogue have Poison Bomb: "Envenom and Rupture have a 4% chance per combo point spent to smash a vial of poison at the target's location, creating a pool of acidic death that deals [(11% of Attack power) * 4] Nature damage over 2 sec to all enemies within it." Voila! solved Acid Bomb for Alchemists. Transmutation is a sub-skill of Alchemy. Hurray! i just solved transmute for Alchemists.

See? i can be petty and annoying as well. would you be satisfied with these lackluster representations?

Yup. The lack of cohesiveness in that concept is pretty insane.

But the most ironic part is that if you mesh all of that together, you're still not getting a class that's much different from the existing Hunter class.

Where is the lack of cohesiveness, exactly?

Sure, let's just cram these 3 potential classes/specializations into the Marksmanship Hunter, just by giving it a couple of abilities, and proclaim it's good enough -_-

[Triceron]

They're not tied together. Their disparate abilities were dumped into the Hunter class. There isn't specs dedicated to each type of hero, it's all mashed together to form the cohesive Hunter class theme.

Which is what would happen with a Ranger. The different identities would be mashed together to form a cohesive Ranger class that is part Divine caster, part Necromantic magic user and part Arcane magic user. It's little different than what Priests and Mages are already capable of.

Blizzard disagrees, as shown by how they describe the Survival spec.

Are you gonna try to argue that a Demon Hunter can't exist because the Hunter name is already taken too? I don't think that went too well for you.

Because they weren't ready to make a DH class back then. They never said they didn't have a class concept that didn't match the theme of the TBC expansion.

And they're not ready for any Dark Ranger or Necromancer class now. They explicitly said nothing jumped out for the theme of the expansion; and we're shown very clearly 4 different well-defined aspects of Death themes that aren't the typical Necromantic magic themes we would associate with Necromancers and Dark Rangers.

Because that's lore, and Blizzard can twist lore anyway they see fit. However, when they say that no class fits an expansion revolving around Sylvanas and involving various aspects of Death and the Afterlife that's a nail in the coffin.

Except the expansion doesn't only revolve around Sylvanas. It also revolves around the Jailer. The entire concept of the Shadowlands is built around him being a Primus. Sylvanas is just the macguffin; much like how Garrosh was for Warlords of Draenor or Gul'dan for Legion.

There isn't really anything Dark Ranger or Necromancer related to this. If they added Dark Rangers now, how would they fit in the story? How would Necromancers? Simple answer- they wouldn't. The story isn't about revenge or mastery over undeath; it's about Sylvanas attempting to break the whole cycle. We don't even know what that means yet.

Imagine if the story actually unfolds and Sylvanas has her way and changes the whole paradigm of life, death and undeath. That would be kind of anticlimactic introducing a new Necromantic class that suddenly got their powers taken away during the course of the expansion, wouldn't you think?

[TheRevenantHero]

I love how Teriz will say "just roll a death knight" in response to people asking for Necromancer but refuses to accept it when people say "just pick up engineering" in response to wanting a tinker class. The double standard is stifling. Also great how he says Blizzard can twist the lore to fit his ideas BUT refuses to believe that it's possible for lore to be changed so that any race can be a tinker.

[Traveler Voltin]

I love how Teriz will say "just roll a death knight" in response to people asking for Necromancer but refuses to accept it when people say "just pick up engineering" in response to wanting a tinker class. The double standard is stifling. Also great how he says Blizzard can twist the lore to fit his ideas BUT refuses to believe that it's possible for lore to be changed so that any race can be a tinker.

engineering is a profession not a class.
also blizzard has said DK is the necromancer class.

comparing apples to oranges.

[DrIvoRobotnik]

Necomancer: Anti-melee caster. Every class we have added to the game since launch has been melee, and 2 of them were made to be anti-casters. Lets balance that out shall we?