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

[Triceron]

brewmaster wasnt really a monk/monk spec until MoP

Yes but the lore for the Brewmaster is forever tied as an aspect of the Monk class now.

Just like when they decided to give Frost and Blood to DK's, that forever changes what a DK is identified as. Those abilities would likely be applied in retrospect, with Arthas and co having powers over Frost and Blood during War3, just not represented directly in the game as it was back then. The lore doesn't really make a distinction to say Brewmasters aren't Monks at a certain point in time, or that DK's couldn't use Frost at X point in time. It all just gets retroactively applied, unless there is specific lore saying otherwise.

We even have lore now that does this like Shadow Hunters, Farseers, Spirit Walkers and the like all being lumped together as Shaman. Even though they are not specifically a Shaman back then, they are considered different types of Shaman now in retrospect. Another example is Priests using Shadow; even in WC3 the neutral Troll 'Shadow Priests' only used Holy magic; now lore explains all having access to real shadow magic.

[Katchii]

And as I said before, we had multiple monks from multiple races before MoP.

Source

To be fair, that’s a Brewmaster, not a Monk.

And is obviously where they found at least some inspiration for the Monk class...hence the Monk Brewmaster Specialization.

There were Blood Elf, Undead, Draenei, and Gnome Monks before MoP.

Source, specifically one that shows they are martial artists and related to the class.

Ah semantics. Gotcha.

Pot...meet kettle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_po...e_kettle_black

[baskev]

For me its what is WoW missing. And what is wrong.

Now as far as gear goes. We need a other mail class.

As far as what we are missing. we have a bunch of melee ( some need fixing) and a bunch of ranged dps ( pretty much always same classes on top).
Tanks and healers ( need fixing/same on top).
I would rather see a better attempt to fix classes then add them. But that is not what this thread is about.

So lets look. ( taking a very basic look so do not get your panties in a twist when i say something you do not like)

we have class wise:
- 5 heals
- 6 tanks
- 10 melee
- 12 ranged

so a other paladin type class heal+tank+ melee would make more sense.


Lets look into the specs.
Heals we have:
1 shield healer
2 big heals healers
1 low hp healer
1 hot healer
1 mittigation/soften blow healer

Tanks:
1 big hp
1 mittegation
3 dps
2 all around

melee:
pretty much everything


So i would say heal wise to compete with healers ( and options) either a cross of 2 of the following healing specs: disc, resto druid, resto shaman.
Tank wise, maybe a tank who functions more like a off tank. Aoe focused, and maybe have some damage mittigation for the whole raid.

Melee, this is a hard one. no clue.

Fantasy asspect. we have a lot of live, nature, elements, corruption, demon, holy etc. Or pure power classes. What we lack is technology , a other death class could be nice. Or something out of the box a sonic race ( like the mantid) who draw their power from something new.

So , so far we have a mail wearing hero, with aeo focussed/damage for raid reduction tank. with healing that is less focussed on raw healing. But more softening the blow healing.

What class should it be? that is up to blizz and their skill or lack off ( depending on who you are asking). of story telling.


For me it could be the following things ( all mail classes)( in no order at all):

Necromancers: death themed. The healing could be like bone shields etc. Tank and dps could have more add control. You could even make dps a class that is more about you keeping buffs etc up on your "pet(s)" then dps on the boss.

Tinkerer: could use gadets for all the things. Look at that scoundrel class from star wars the old republic game.

Mantid class: take on of their specializations and turn it into a class theme. Like using sonic spells for shields etc.


But again, i rather see them fixing things correctly. Have not played all classes a lot yet. But for my druid ( main for 16 years). My most played spec in recent years is moonkin. and this new eclips form feels like a step backwards.

[Traveler Voltin]

Source



And is obviously where they found at least some inspiration for the Monk class...hence the Monk Brewmaster Specialization.



Source, specifically one that shows they are martial artists and related to the class.



Pot...meet kettle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_po...e_kettle_black

"Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk

[username993720]

"Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk

Were they using Pandaren martial arts, with Pandaria's August Celestials, brewing and mistweaving?

[Katchii]

"Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk

Fair. The class is not based on these NPCs though. My statement is that the class as it was implemented is inherently and directly tied to Pandaren and Pandaren culture.

I'll concede that Monks existed prior to MoP, though.

[Triceron]

"Even before their formal introduction as a playable class in Mists of Pandaria, several monk NPCs and mobs already existed, albeit with different gear and abilities than those playable now. Examples of such old-school monks include the gnome Lefty, the blood elf Eramas Brightblaze, Condemned Monks, Scarlet Monks, Crimson Monks (now Risen Monks), Auchenai Monks, and Argent Monks. Note that some of them have been updated since, but pictures of their older appearances are still archived on their respective pages."

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Monk

Yes but 'Monk' is a general term used, while the Monk Class is something more specific to the Brewmasters and the Pandaren culture.

Just like 'Demon Hunter' isn't just your typical Hunter who happens to like killing demons, or how the Death Knight class is different than say the Warcraft 2 Death Knights that were more like Warlocks/Necromancers.

[Teriz]

Chimaera shot is based on the two-headed Chimaera beast. that's why it is split between Frost and Nature damage.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a magical arrow.

the Beastmaster mimics animals and Survival description was animal-venom user. Arcane Shot is an exception, and is probably based on the Ranger. Serpent sting meshes with Survival using animal venom. Dark Arrow is a Dark Ranger ability. and the fire damage is Explosives and or Exotic munition (Searing arrows) of the Priestess of the Moon. So, no. Throwing together a mishmash of abilities from different classes into one spec does not pass as being one of them. Hunter abilities that are magical should only be venom-based, animal-based, wilds-based, explosives-based or trap-based. not Necromancy-based, not Lunar-based nor Sea-based.

And Binding Shot, Resonating Arrow, and Flayed Shot? Those are all magical arrow abilities as well.

You're the biggest demagogue i've ever seen. when i say it, i'm wrong. when you say it, you're right. You were adamant against Dark Rangers using Banshee abilities, but now it is fine that a hunter will have a Banshee-based shot, a Warlock having a Banshee-based curse and a Priest having Banshee like scream, apparitions and mind control?

Again, an arrow that silences targets isn't a "Banshee ability". It's a Hunter/Ranger ability. Just like Chimera Shot isn't a "Chimera ability".

You seem to be forgetting that the Discipline mostly uses shadow abilities from the shadow spec, and that its description does not mention shadow. It doesn't matter if warriors use magic or not. you like to underestimate the importance of classes. so, glyphs will be used to give them holy appearances and we'll get rid of the Paladin class.

I didn't forget it, which is why I originally said that about half of the Priest class' abilities are shadow, and that separates them greatly from the Paladin class.

It's also redundant to have Balance Druid, Mages, Priests, Shamans and Warlocks. they are meant to do the same thing: fight at ranged. You keep forgetting about Life Drain, Charm, Banshee's Curse, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Mind Control, Possession, Starfall, Light of Elune, Lunar Flare, Shadowstalk, Elune's chosen, Forked Lightning, Mana Shield and Tornado. it's not just about arrows with magical effects on them. There's no reason to have a weapon user like the enhancement shaman also casting Lightning Bolt, or a weapon wielding paladin also casting Holy Shock. See? your logic is flawed.

Actually no. The fact that they use different schools of magic makes them non-redundant. However, a bow user that can also cast long distance spells is very redundant.

Who are you to decide which are better for the Hunter class? and who, exactly, are better suited to be hunters, if i may ask?

I never said that. I said that when people look to roll a Hunter, they'll choose races they view as more fitting than a Gnome or Goblin. Elven races being the prime choice due to lore and Warcraft media.

[Triceron]

I didn't forget it, which is why I originally said that about half of the Priest class' abilities are shadow, and that separates them greatly from the Paladin class.

It's the same separation that would exist between a (Dark) Ranger and a Hunter.

A Paladin doesn't use shadow because they *choose* not to. Shadow is explained as a side of light, therefore a Paladin is absolutely able to tap into Shadow. They simply choose not to, much as a Mage could be a Warock if they used Fel magic but they choose not to.

A Hunter can be explained as being different from Rangers not because they are unable to use magic, but because they choose not to specialize in it. Using a few magical abilities is very different from being masters of it. Just like if you took Engineering, would you consider that the same as a Tinker class? Probably not.

[Teriz]

It's the same separation that would exist between a (Dark) Ranger and a Hunter.

A Paladin doesn't use shadow because they *choose* not to. Shadow is explained as a side of light, therefore a Paladin is absolutely able to tap into Shadow. They simply choose not to, much as a Mage could be a Warock if they used Fel magic but they choose not to.

A Hunter can be explained as being different from Rangers not because they are unable to use magic, but because they choose not to specialize in it. Using a few magical abilities is very different from being masters of it. Just like if you took Engineering, would you consider that the same as a Tinker class? Probably not.

It goes beyond a personal choice. If a Paladin uses Shadow magic, they're no longer considered Paladin.

If a Hunter masters magical abilities, they are no longer Hunters, they are Mages.

I don't understand what you mean by "taking Engineering". Engineering is a profession without abilities and serves a completely different purpose in the game.

[qwerty123456]

It goes beyond a personal choice. If a Paladin uses Shadow magic, they're no longer considered Paladin.

If a Hunter masters magical abilities, they are no longer Hunters, they are Mages.

I don't understand what you mean by "taking Engineering". Engineering is a profession without abilities and serves a completely different purpose in the game.

There is no difference between engineering items and abilities lorewise.

[Teriz]

There is no difference between engineering items and abilities lorewise.

You mean other than the Tinker's abilities not existing in Engineering at all?

[Katchii]

You mean other than the Tinker's abilities not existing in Engineering at all?

No, he's saying that, based on Tinker lore they build items to use them, the items don't magically appear out of thin air. So any WoW Tinker "ability" that could be implemented that is based on them building an item to use, would be no different, lore wise, than an Engineer that builds an item that you have to manually click to activate.

In both situations the person is building an item and then using it, the difference between the two would only be game play mechanics because a class abilities activate instantly (or activate the "cast time" or "channel") and don't require anything more than a single button press.

[Triceron]

It goes beyond a personal choice. If a Paladin uses Shadow magic, they're no longer considered Paladin.

If a Hunter masters magical abilities, they are no longer Hunters, they are Mages.

A Hunter that utilize magical abilities is a Ranger. We already have that distinction within Warcraft lore.

Rangers have some magical affinity. They are master scouts, marksmen and survivalists, but beyond that, the Elven rangers we know of are adept at using magic as well. Lorthemar and Halduron both show this. Alleria's lore now explains that she's had centuries of experience using magic as well. Then there's even Warcraft 3 showing us that Rangers had magical abilities like Jenella Deemspring and Sylvanas Windrunner herself. Even Vereesa has Arcane abilities.

The term 'Hunter' is just a loose description for them being Archers, just as 'Warrior' is applied generally to any melee combatant. We have very clear distinctions of subsets of this that aren't typical amongst Hunters, and have traditionally simply been lumped in together for the sake or generalization. This is because there is no distinct class separating them in lore, and frankly none needs to be. Something like the Unseen Path already takes in both Hunters and Rangers alike; but they're still pretty clear on making that distinction and referring to the Dark Rangers as Dark Rangers, and the Farstriders as Rangers. It doesn't mean they are one and the same though, just as there are subtle differences between Demon Hunters and Warlocks. They can be very similar, but they are not the same. Keep in mind that the Warlocks having achieved Metamorphosis in lore still stands, since the Green Fire questline lore has not been retconned.

I don't understand what you mean by "taking Engineering". Engineering is a profession without abilities and serves a completely different purpose in the game.

Sure, in game. Not in lore. It is effectively the same thing in lore right now. If Blizzard decides to separate the Tinker as its own class, then they need to do so before any distinction is actually made. Right now, there is none; they are literally interchangeable titles for Engineers.

You can be both a Hunter and an Engineer. Or you can simply infer it as a Tinker since that is an alternative name for Engineer. Just like your Paladin can be a Vindicator or your Shaman can be a Farseer or Spirit Walker. There are no distinctions made between these titles.

The name 'Tinker' does not have any distinction in WoW beyond being another name for Engineer. If a distinction is to be made, then it must be one driven by WoW lore. As far as we know from Warcraft 3 and prior, the Tinker Hero is literally a representation of a Goblin mastering the Engineering Profession. That is how the lore works. Gameplay can say otherwise but it's no different than us not having Farseers playable yet we know exactly what they are in lore. I'm not even talking about gameplay abilties, I'm talking strictly about what the lore tells us.

[Traveler Voltin]

No, he's saying that, based on Tinker lore they build items to use them, the items don't magically appear out of thin air. So any WoW Tinker "ability" that could be implemented that is based on them building an item to use, would be no different, lore wise, than an Engineer that builds an item that you have to manually click to activate.

In both situations the person is building an item and then using it, the difference between the two would only be game play mechanics because a class abilities activate instantly (or activate the "cast time" or "channel") and don't require anything more than a single button press.

its also not realistic for raiding and doing dungeons. or anything really.
I want tinkers but not they way teriz thinks they should be.

[Teriz]

No, he's saying that, based on Tinker lore they build items to use them, the items don't magically appear out of thin air. So any WoW Tinker "ability" that could be implemented that is based on them building an item to use, would be no different, lore wise, than an Engineer that builds an item that you have to manually click to activate.

In both situations the person is building an item and then using it, the difference between the two would only be game play mechanics because a class abilities activate instantly (or activate the "cast time" or "channel") and don't require anything more than a single button press.

Well actually that's false. An engineer is utilizing a profession trade, while a Tinker would be an adventurer using their inventions for combat. Also there's no indication that a Tinker has to build everything they use. If a Tinker has pocket factory for example, they could just mass produce whatever device they need for a mission. So while an Engineer needs to get materials to craft a Flame turret for example, a Tinker could utilize a pocket factory that simply mass produces the turret for him.

We also should recognize that based on gameplay conventions, the Tinker is producing superior gadgets to the profession engineer. Again indicating that an engineer is a trained hobbyist, while the Tinker is an exceptional genius more than likely born with the gift of invention.

- - - Updated - - -

A Hunter that utilize magical abilities is a Ranger. We already have that distinction within Warcraft lore.

Where?

Rangers have some magical affinity. They are master scouts, marksmen and survivalists, but beyond that, the Elven rangers we know of are adept at using magic as well. Lorthemar and Halduron both show this. Alleria's lore now explains that she's had centuries of experience using magic as well. Then there's even Warcraft 3 showing us that Rangers had magical abilities like Jenella Deemspring and Sylvanas Windrunner herself. Even Vereesa has Arcane abilities.

Uh, Hunters also have magical affinity as well. You're truly splitting hairs here.

The term 'Hunter' is just a loose description for them being Archers, just as 'Warrior' is applied generally to any melee combatant. We have very clear distinctions of subsets of this that aren't typical amongst Hunters, and have traditionally simply been lumped in together for the sake or generalization. This is because there is no distinct class separating them in lore, and frankly none needs to be. Something like the Unseen Path already takes in both Hunters and Rangers alike; but they're still pretty clear on making that distinction and referring to the Dark Rangers as Dark Rangers, and the Farstriders as Rangers. It doesn't mean they are one and the same though, just as there are subtle differences between Demon Hunters and Warlocks. They can be very similar, but they are not the same. Keep in mind that the Warlocks having achieved Metamorphosis in lore still stands, since the Green Fire questline lore has not been retconned.

Uh no again. Hunter is literally a synonym for Ranger in pretty much any RPG context. There's zero chance Blizzard is going to create a Ranger class when they very clearly view the Hunter class as the Ranger class in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a Tinker in the game or in the lore that is *not* an Engineer? No, there is not. They are all Engineers. And quite frankly, there is no lore making a distinction that says Engineers are not Tinkers either; it's ambiguous right now just like there is no difference between 'Vindicator' and 'Paladin'. If there is any distinction to be made, then it has to be explicit, the way we know Warlocks are different from Demon Hunters or Hunters from Priestess of the Moon.

All Tinkers are engineers. All engineers are not Tinkers. I thought we've been through this already.

Also there is a very clear lore distinction, and there's a very obvious gameplay distinction. That's all you really need to justify a class inclusion.

[Katchii]

Well actually that's false. An engineer is utilizing a profession trade, while a Tinker would be an adventurer using their inventions for combat.

Just...stop.

No one is talking about your mostly headcannon differences between someone called an Engineer and someone called a Tinker.

Also there's no indication that a Tinker has to build everything they use. If a Tinker has pocket factory for example, they could just mass produce whatever device they need for a mission. So while an Engineer needs to get materials to craft a Flame turret for example, a Tinker could utilize a pocket factory that simply mass produces the turret for him

.

The point being, any gadget a Tinker uses, they had to build at some point in time. Even if it's something that can build something else. Pocket Factories don't just magically appear out of thin air.

Which means, that lore wise, they had tools, materials, etc.. and put it together. Which is exactly how an engineer would put something together....even if per your annoyingly exhausting repetitive insistence that "EnGiNeErS ArE NoThInG LiKe my PrCiOuS TiNkErs..." and engineers build inferior items.

We also should recognize that based on gameplay conventions, the Tinker is producing superior gadgets to the profession engineer. Again indicating that an engineer is a trained hobbyist, while the Tinker is an exceptional genius more than likely born with the gift of invention.

The quality of the gadgets have fuck all to do with this concept.

[Teriz]

Just...stop.

No one is talking about your mostly headcannon differences between someone called an Engineer and someone called a Tinker.

So you think that there are no lore implications for a class where you can't change, have to play, and if you delete your class your entire character goes with it, and a profession where it's totally optional, you can pick up two at a time and drop whenever you want to? What Mekkatorque, Blackfuse, and Gazlowe is is clearly different than an Elf cobbling together scraps to make a pair of goggles in Goldshire.

The point being, any gadget a Tinker uses, they had to build at some point in time. Even if it's something that can build something else. Pocket Factories don't just magically appear out of thin air.

Which means, that lore wise, they had tools, materials, etc.. and put it together. Which is exactly how an engineer would put something together....even if per your annoyingly exhausting repetitive insistence that "EnGiNeErS ArE NoThInG LiKe my PrCiOuS TiNkErs..." and engineers build inferior items.

So if they're the same, where are the Tinker abilities within the profession? That's the point, because it wouldn't take much for Blizzard to just put a toy in Engineering called "Pocket Factory" and call it a day. However they never did that, indicating that the Tinker is fundamentally different than the profession.

The quality of the gadgets have fuck all to do with this concept.

Wouldn't the quality of the gadget indicate the intellect and skill of the machinist creating/building the gadget? In other words, if the engineer is building a rickety mess that is prone to misfiring, and the Tinker is building a highly functioning machine that doesn't misfire and works perfectly, wouldn't that mean that the Tinker is the vastly superior builder?

[Triceron]

All Tinkers are engineers. All engineers are not Tinkers.

Where is the proof for this in WoW lore?

Can you prove there is a distinction? Because as far as we know, there is no specific classification for what a Tinker does that makes them different from Engineers.

If we say they invent, we already know Engineers also invent. If we say they build their own machines whereas a Engineer doesn't, then that's not sustained by lore, it's simply headcanon. There is no source of lore that makes a distinction that says 'Not all Engineers are Tinkers' because we don't know what the framework is.

I mean by all means, it could be a racial epitome, like Vindicator is used for Draenei Paladins or Blood Knight for Blood Elf Paladins. There is no lore that says otherwise.

[Katchii]

SNIP

You're seriously the most aggravating poster ever. Stop moving goalposts and changing the argument. No one is talking about whatever the fuck you're going on about here.

Do Tinkers build their own inventions, using actual materials and tools, and whatnot at any point in time? Yes or No?