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

[username993720]

There's also the issue of allied races now. So if you give Humans mechs, does that mean the Kul'Tiras Humans get mechs too? What about Orcs? If you give Mag'har mechs does that mean that Baseline Orcs get mechs as well? Does everyone get Shredders and Mekkatorque's mech, or does every single race in the game get their own mech to fit their race? See how ridiculous this becomes?

I simply don't see that happening. Again, Blizzard has built this up over time and made it apparent which races are using mechs and which races are not.

"Kor'kron Shredders are shredders that are used by Kor'kron Machinists in Siege of Orgrimmar. Kor'kron Machinists are orcs seen in the Siege of Orgrimmar."

"Iron Reaver is a boss in the Hellfire Citadel in Tanaan Jungle. After being defeated during the Hellfire Assault, Siegemaster Mar'tak pilots the Iron Reaver to show intruders the true power of Gul'dan's Horde. Siegemaster Mar'tak is an orc located at the Iron Bulwark in Hellfire Citadel. She returns in the next encounter directly afterwards as the one piloting the Iron Reaver."

"Omega Buster is a Mechagon Reaver used by King Mechagon in the fight at the end of Operation: Mechagon."

"Lightforged Warframes are Lightforged draenei in warframes located on Krokuun."

No Vulpera.

Humans being able to be Paladins do not extend to Kul Tirans. Kul Tirans being able to be Druids and Shamans do not extend to Stormwind Humans. Orcs being able to be Warlocks do not extend to Mag'har Orcs. Mag'har Orcs being able to be Priests does not extend to Green Orcs.

[Traveler Voltin]

Tinker vs Necromancer vs Dark Ranger and with Blizzard saying that no class concept matches the theme of shadows, death, Sylvanas, and the undead, does that mean that Dark Rangers and Necromancers are done as possible classes in WoW.

if blizzard had not come out and said that Death knight is the necromancer class then they could room to argue. but they dont and just refuse to listen. (also to get necromancer warlocks and death knights would get punished.)

Dark Ranger is a different story. Can it happen? maybe. is it going to happen? probably not.

would a dark ranger be interesting to play? yes but i think it would be the same route as demon hunter. only 2 specs

[Ielenia]

They certainly could, but I believe they're only going to that with Vulpera.

As long as you admit you have nothing to back up that belief other than your bias toward short-stature races.

Well the difference being that the Riftrunners are utilizing abilities present in existing classes. The Tinker teams were not. In fact their abilities largely came from HotS.

Please show me where Consume Shadows, Shadow Infusion, Void Barrier, Void Collapse, Voidbolt, Arc Blade, Arcane Charge, Rift Blade, Open Unstable Rift, Rift Shard, Shadowy Sabers, Summon Shadowy Rift and Summon Voidling exist in the presently existing classes.

Magic isn't the same as technology. With technology, there's a very clear difference between the Artificers of the Lightforged and the Nightborne, and the Tinkers of the Goblins and Gnomes. Gazlowe for example has a Flamethrower, while Orelis has a light-based beam cannon. Their technology looks different, and if we expand upon those concepts we're going to get very different outcomes in terms of abilities and concept.

And the mages in the Horde team use fire magic, and the mages in the Alliance team use frost magic. It's a clear difference.

But again, the Claw Pack is canon lore,

Is it canon lore? Then how come no character whatsoever, gnome, goblin or otherwise, has been seen using a "claw pack" in over fifteen years of World of Warcraft, in a story in which technology continued to advance, to the point of putting entire cities in small boxes... but nothing about a "claw pack".

The very basis of destruction is the combination of fire and shadow, which makes sense because demonic magic is a combination of fire and shadow magic. In order to justify a necromancer class utilizing poison, you have to show it as a pretty major source of magic within Necromancer ranks, and I simply don't see that.

So what? You're talking about "magic type", not "magic concept", when you talk about "dealing shadow damage" or "dealing nature damage". I'm sorry, but you can't flip-flop between definitions when it suits you.

But the entire Shadow spec does.

The entire blood spec of the death knight is about blood and vampirism, but it has bone spells which have nothing to do with the concept of vampirism.

[Teriz]

if blizzard had not come out and said that Death knight is the necromancer class then they could room to argue. but they dont and just refuse to listen. (also to get necromancer warlocks and death knights would get punished.)

Dark Ranger is a different story. Can it happen? maybe. is it going to happen? probably not.

would a dark ranger be interesting to play? yes but i think it would be the same route as demon hunter. only 2 specs

The Dark Ranger nail in the coffin for me is Blizzard saying that no class fits the theme of an expansion where a Dark Ranger is the main character, Death is the main theme, and one of the plot lines is the Forsaken under new leadership. I mean if this expansion doesn’t fit for a Dark Ranger, what type of expansion would?

[ymirsson]

The Dark Ranger nail in the coffin for me is Blizzard saying that no class fits the theme of an expansion where a Dark Ranger is the main character, Death is the main theme, and one of the plot lines is the Forsaken under new leadership. I mean if this expansion doesn’t fit for a Dark Ranger, what type of expansion would?

10.0, where sylvanas dies and gives up the secrets of her trade.

[Ielenia]

Tinker vs Necromancer vs Dark Ranger and with Blizzard saying that no class concept matches the theme of shadows, death, Sylvanas, and the undead, does that mean that Dark Rangers and Necromancers are done as possible classes in WoW.

Blizzard literally has never said that. They said they didn't have any class concept that fit the story being told. That's a huge difference.

[Imperator4321]

Well again, what is "successful"? As I explained in another post, our perception of "popular" may not be Blizzard's perception of popular. For example, I'm sure many in this thread would think that Necromancer or Dark Ranger are no-brainers and Blizzard would implement such classes if the opportunity arose without much consideration. However they clearly had that chance in Shadowlands, and there's no Necromancer or Dark Ranger class.

The other side of this is the Monk class which gets consistently trotted out as an example of a failed class concept. I have never heard Blizzard express any regret about bringing the Monk class into the game, and they continue to heavily support it. Heck, I would argue that the Monk class gets more support than some other classes. So people calling the Monk class a "failure" are merely projecting their opinions without any evidence of that coming from Blizzard.

Now, let's look at Goblins, Gnomes and Tinkers. If we look at WoW over the last few expansions one thing to notice is the rise of Goblin and Gnome characters in the game piloting mechs and using technology. This came to a crescendo in BFA reaching its apex with Mechagon. So if Blizzard thinks this concept is a failure, why are they continuously bombarding us with images of Goblins and Gnomes inside mechs and building this concept up? Even if their plan was to not make a class around this, showcasing Goblins and Gnomes doing stuff outside of the norm is off-putting and distracting for the general theme of the game world. Wouldn't be easier to show Mekkatorque with a gun and a mechanical pet to give players the impression that he's simply a Hunter instead of putting him inside a mech and giving players the impression that he is something outside of the class lineup? And yeah, Mekkatorque isn't even close to the only example.

In short, Blizzard's actions kind of go against what you're suggesting here, and it's having an impact. My posts aren't the reason when a new class thread pops up, the majority of people choose the Tinker every time. They choose Tinker because of what Blizzard has shown them in game, and its something quite different than what they're seeing in the profession and the class lineup.

I don't know what Blizzard's design process is, I can only make judgments and assumptions based on the them being a company interested in profit which requires they engage new players and retain current players with content that is appealing. My argument against elements of your class concept is based on the idea that a Gnome and Goblin (and their allied races) exclusive class would be against that idea and wouldn't be appealing for a vast majority of the playerbase.

Your argument about how Tinkers, Goblins and Gnomes are becoming more prominent in game is also flawed because the same argument could be made to say that Dark Rangers were going to become a class since they became more prominent in Legion and in BFA, with Sylvanas and Nathanos becoming major characters, Dark Ranger NPC's being prominent in the war campaigns and the darkshore warfront and a death themed expansion looming and yet we didn't get a dark ranger class, just because an something is a prominent part of a single patch's content doesn't mean it's a proof of class getting into the game.

Said Tinkers, Goblins and Gnomes were also entirely side content with very little relation to the main story of BFA with the only Mekkatorque being prominent in a single raid where he wasn't even the main antagonist which was Jaina/Rastakhan.

The logic behind it is rather simple; Your least popular races are your least popular races because they have no class that fits their racial lore. You give them a class that players can connect to those races with, and you'll get more people playing those races.

Pandaren have an entire class themed around them yet that race and that class are consistently low in terms of players, Night Elves and Blood Elves were already popular within their own factions before being given exclusive access to demon hunters, Giving Gnomes and Goblins an exclusive class when they are unpopular would be a risky design decision at best, they aren't unpopular because they lack a class themed around them they are unpopular because they are comedic relief in both visual design and in personality, people don't want to play comic relief, they want a power fantasy thats relatable/attractive thats why Humans, Night Elves and Blood Elves are the most popular races in their respective factions.

Genuinely consider what most players will probably think if they hear that a new Tinker class is Gnome/Goblin/Mechagnome/Vulpera exclusive, I highly doubt people will think "mechs? cool i'll definitely make a Tinker!" it would be "Really? a class for midgets? what is Blizzard thinking" same way people saw monks and didn't think "Martial artist? cool i'll make a one" it was "Kung Fu Panda class? what is Blizzard thinking" and Monks weren't exclusive to Pandaren like your hypothetical Tinker is so it would probably be met with even more disdain than Monks were.

I will say that given the timing of those mounts being dropped in WoW, it is very likely that Blizzard brought them in to make players comfortable with seeing Mechs in the game. However, I see pretty much zero chance of a Tinker or a Mech class being as widespread racially as the Monk class. It's simply how Blizzard has been building up the concept since MoP, and its been built up in a very limited fashion among a very limited set of races (Unlike Monks who appeared in a wide variety of races before MoP).

I could also argue that the introduction of the heavily industrialized Iron Horde and the Warframe using Lightforged Draenei were created to introduce the concept of non-Gnome and Goblin technology so the concept wouldn't alien when the Tinker class gets races that aren't Gnomes and Goblins.

I've also not been arguing for Tinker being as widespread as Monks. I've only suggested races that have shown aptitude for technology in some form i'm not suggesting Night Elves, Tauren, Trolls, Worgen get Tinker because it doesn't really fit them thematically or lore wise.

[Teriz]

Please show me where Consume Shadows, Shadow Infusion, Void Barrier, Void Collapse, Voidbolt, Arc Blade, Arcane Charge, Rift Blade, Open Unstable Rift, Rift Shard, Shadowy Sabers, Summon Shadowy Rift and Summon Voidling exist in the presently existing classes.

Here's Void Bolt;

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=205448/void-bolt

Arcane Charge is just Charge. Arc Blade sounds like a Demon Hunter ability from HotS.

The rest of their abilities are Warrior and Shadow Priest ability, though one NPC has original abilities, but those abilities could easily be placed in the Shadow Priest spec.

And the mages in the Horde team use fire magic, and the mages in the Alliance team use frost magic. It's a clear difference.

And a Mage using a different school or magic is different than machinists using two entirely different types of technology.

Is it canon lore? Then how come no character whatsoever, gnome, goblin or otherwise, has been seen using a "claw pack" in over fifteen years of World of Warcraft, in a story in which technology continued to advance, to the point of putting entire cities in small boxes... but nothing about a "claw pack".

Because Blizzard hasn't implemented it into WoW. However, according to Blizzard everything that appears in their games are canon lore unless retconned. That especially includes WC3/Reforged because it's a direct prequel to WoW. The Claw Pack is mentioned in the lore of the Tinker hero, so yeah its lore.

So what? You're talking about "magic type", not "magic concept", when you talk about "dealing shadow damage" or "dealing nature damage". I'm sorry, but you can't flip-flop between definitions when it suits you.

Okay but the point still stands. You can't just attribute random magic types to a concept and say that suddenly this class concept is different than an existing class. Also it should be noted that Destruction's use of Fire and Shadow magic isn't the only reason that Warlocks are very different than Mages.

The entire blood spec of the death knight is about blood and vampirism, but it has bone spells which have nothing to do with the concept of vampirism.

Bone has nothing to do with blood and vampirism? Seriously? Flesh, Blood, and Bone are all related to each other. Why is it far fetch for something to consume flesh, drink the blood, and use the bone as weaponry and armor?

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard literally has never said that. They said they didn't have any class concept that fit the story being told. That's a huge difference.

Here's what they said;

“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.”

https://www.polygon.com/interviews/2...ll-human-dwarf

Setting is literally the theme of a story.

The theme of a story can be conveyed using characters, setting, dialogue, plot, or a combination of all of these elements.

BTW, the main characters of this story is a Dark Ranger, The Lich King, and the Arbiter of Death.

[Ielenia]

Here's Void Bolt;

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=205448/void-bolt

Arcane Charge is just Charge. Arc Blade sounds like a Demon Hunter ability from HotS.

The rest of their abilities are Warrior and Shadow Priest ability, though one NPC has original abilities(1), but those abilities could easily be placed in the Shadow Priest spec(2).

1) So you found one ability, and then likened some to somewhat similar abilities, since the Warrior charge does not deal arcane damage, for example, because they "do similar things", but if I were to liken a supposed "missile" attack from a tech class to the mage's fireball because both are projectiles that deal fire damage on impact... you wouldn't agree, would you?
2) That wasn't your argument, though. You're moving goalposts. You said, and I quote:

Well the difference being that the Riftrunners are utilizing abilities present in existing classes.

And save for one singular ability, you couldn't place any ability from the Riftrunners into the existing classes, without having to change them.

And a Mage using a different school or magic is different than machinists using two entirely different types of technology.

It's the exact same thing. Both require different studies, lore-wise, and both are mechanically the same, in terms of class design.

Because Blizzard hasn't implemented it into WoW. However, according to Blizzard everything that appears in their games are canon lore unless retconned. That especially includes WC3/Reforged because it's a direct prequel to WoW. The Claw Pack is mentioned in the lore of the Tinker hero, so yeah its lore.

Except I have you on record saying that the "flavor text" from WC3 can be dismissed as just "flavor text":

"Goblins are known for their mechanical expertise and clever, though sometimes peculiar, inventions, and the Tinker is certainly no exception. With his Claw-Pack/Hammer-Tank combo, the Tinker's ingenuity is undeniable. Though his parts may sometimes fail and the occasional explosion does occur, the spirit and enthusiasm of this Hero are never diminished. There truly is more to the Goblin Tinker than meets the eye!"
Sounds like "misfires", "failures" and "explosions" is par for the course for the tinker, doesn't it?

Sounds more like flavor text since the hero's abilities never failed in WC3 or HotS, and wouldn't fail in WoW, yet profession items do have a chance to fail or stop working.

You mention HotS and WC3, but the flavor text of WC3 AND how technology is portrayed in WoW shows about the very real possibilities of technology failing. Either flavor text matters or it does not. You can't have it both ways, Teriz.

Okay but the point still stands. You can't just attribute random magic types to a concept and say that suddenly this class concept is different than an existing class. Also it should be noted that Destruction's use of Fire and Shadow magic isn't the only reason that Warlocks are very different than Mages.

And, again, you're moving goalposts. Because your argument was not "there's more to warlocks than just fire magic". It was "the warlock's fire spec also deals shadow damage".

Bone has nothing to do with blood and vampirism? Seriously? Flesh, Blood, and Bone are all related to each other. Why is it far fetch for something to consume flesh, drink the blood, and use the bone as weaponry and armor?

Yes, it does not. Because blood magic and vampirism are about blood, not bones. Blood and bone are only tangentially related for both being part of a living being's body.

Here's what they said;

https://www.polygon.com/interviews/2...ll-human-dwarf

Setting is literally the theme of a story.

Your quote literally agrees with me: it's the story, not the theme.

[Teriz]

I don't know what Blizzard's design process is, I can only make judgments and assumptions based on the them being a company interested in profit which requires they engage new players and retain current players with content that is appealing. My argument against elements of your class concept is based on the idea that a Gnome and Goblin (and their allied races) exclusive class would be against that idea and wouldn't be appealing for a vast majority of the playerbase.

That's assuming that the vast majority of WoW consumers wouldn't purchase an expansion revolving around Gnomes and Goblins, we simply don't know that to be the case. Goblins and Gnomes have been part of Warcraft since its inception, and from all accounts people like those characters. Also related media like Gnomes vs Goblins and the Boomsday Project in Hearthstone were very popular expansions. Taliesin's video about a possible Tinker class got about 90% likes versus 10% dislikes. The Tinker concept dominates pretty much every class poll I've seen on this forum. Further, an argument could be made that people don't play those races because no class really matches up with what those races are portrayed as doing in the game.

Further if the goal is to appeal to new players, wouldn't a class that uses a theme nonexistent in the current class lineup entice new players to the game?

Your argument about how Tinkers, Goblins and Gnomes are becoming more prominent in game is also flawed because the same argument could be made to say that Dark Rangers were going to become a class since they became more prominent in Legion and in BFA, with Sylvanas and Nathanos becoming major characters, Dark Ranger NPC's being prominent in the war campaigns and the darkshore warfront and a death themed expansion looming and yet we didn't get a dark ranger class, just because an something is a prominent part of a single patch's content doesn't mean it's a proof of class getting into the game.

Said Tinkers, Goblins and Gnomes were also entirely side content with very little relation to the main story of BFA with the only Mekkatorque being prominent in a single raid where he wasn't even the main antagonist which was Jaina/Rastakhan.

Well let's compare Dark Rangers and Tinkers in terms of build up; In BFA Sylvanas was raising undead Night Elves as Night Warriors. It's important to note that none of the Night Warriors had Sylvanas' Banshee powers. They, like the Forsaken variety of Dark Rangers, were just undead Hunters with shadow-arrow abilities. So where's the build up for a Dark Ranger class exactly? If anything, Blizzard is reiterating the point that the only Dark Ranger in WoW with Banshee powers is Sylvanas. So yeah while Sylvanas got top billing in BFA and Shadowlands, the Dark Rangers and Night Warriors really didn't. Even now in Shadowlands with Nathanos now pretty much "dead" there's not really anything to separate Dark Rangers from your standard Hunter.

Let's look at Tinkers; In BFA you have Mekkatorque in his mech taking a more prominent role within the Alliance, becoming a raid boss, getting severely injured, and in the process of trying to help him, we find Mechagon. By the end, Mekkatorque becomes the King of all Gnomes, and actually has some sort of Tony Stark style Arc Reactor in his chest. For the Goblins, you have the Gob Squad piloting a mech in Zandalar, you have the retaking of Kezan with a Dungeon full of Mech pilots, you have Gallywix demanding a new mech to be able to stand toe-to toe with Mekkatoque, you have Gazlowe helping Gnomes in Mechagon and becoming the new Goblin leader in the horde, and to top it all off you have Island Expedition teams where both groups are using the Tinker's abilities from HotS.

So despite not being main characters, Blizzard really pushed the Tinker concept rather hard in BFA showing them as a unique concept with lots of foundations in place for it to be a future WoW class.

I should also note that Blizzard also pushed Lightforged Draenei's mech theme as well. I didn't realize it, but there were a lot of instances in BFA where the LF Draenei were using their mechs as a weapon of the leaders of the Lightforged military. This was the case in both Alternate Draenor when we rescued the Mag'har, and in baseline Azeroth where the Lightforged Draenei were protecting alliance interests. So that does give some evidence that Blizzard could be pushing for a technology class concept beyond just Goblins and Gnomes.

Pandaren have an entire class themed around them yet that race and that class are consistently low in terms of players, Night Elves and Blood Elves were already popular within their own factions before being given exclusive access to demon hunters, Giving Gnomes and Goblins an exclusive class when they are unpopular would be a risky design decision at best, they aren't unpopular because they lack a class themed around them they are unpopular because they are comedic relief in both visual design and in personality, people don't want to play comic relief, they want a power fantasy thats relatable/attractive thats why Humans, Night Elves and Blood Elves are the most popular races in their respective factions.

Genuinely consider what most players will probably think if they hear that a new Tinker class is Gnome/Goblin/Mechagnome/Vulpera exclusive, I highly doubt people will think "mechs? cool i'll definitely make a Tinker!" it would be "Really? a class for midgets? what is Blizzard thinking" same way people saw monks and didn't think "Martial artist? cool i'll make a one" it was "Kung Fu Panda class? what is Blizzard thinking" and Monks weren't exclusive to Pandaren like your hypothetical Tinker is so it would probably be met with even more disdain than Monks were.

Again, the Goblin/Gnome piloting a mech concept is already in place in WoW itself. Do you have any evidence that the majority of players dislike the idea? All the evidence I have seen is rather positive, and people are interested because its something different than what is currently offered in the class lineup. Also we should really point out what happened in 2012 with the Monk class. The Pandaren Monk came out of nowhere and people really had no idea what to make of it. Yeah, you got those "Kung Fu panda" comparisons because Blizzard never really established that there was a Pandaren race from WC3. What Blizzard probably should have done was have Chen pop up in Cataclysm or even earlier to get people used to the idea of a race of Pandaren in the game world and then introduce the Pandaren Monk class.

If you notice, Blizzard has been slowly introducing players to the concept of a Gnome or Goblin piloting a mech and fighting inside it for multiple expansions. I still remember posters saying that it was "cool" to see Mekkatorque on Broken Shore blasting a demon in the face inside his mech suit. Thus if they do release a Tinker class with a Gnome or Goblin piloting it, the community won't be blindsided by it because they've been seeing that concept in WoW for years.

In short, what happened with Monks really wouldn't apply to the Tinker.

I could also argue that the introduction of the heavily industrialized Iron Horde and the Warframe using Lightforged Draenei were created to introduce the concept of non-Gnome and Goblin technology so the concept wouldn't alien when the Tinker class gets races that aren't Gnomes and Goblins.

And that is a possibility as well. Especially in the case of the Draenei war frames. The level of push for that concept within the LF Draenei has been very surprising. I'm not too sure about Iron Horde though. There was never a mech built exclusively by the IH orcs, and when we returned to rescue the Mag'har, they apparently had abandoned most of the IH tech left behind.

I would say if there is to be another Horde race using tech like the Draenei, it would be the Nightborne. They're machinists are even called Artificers as well.

I've also not been arguing for Tinker being as widespread as Monks. I've only suggested races that have shown aptitude for technology in some form i'm not suggesting Night Elves, Tauren, Trolls, Worgen get Tinker because it doesn't really fit them thematically or lore wise.

Agreed. I would add Humans, Blood Elves, Kul'Tirans, and quite a few other races to that list as well.

[Unholyground]

Since the next expansion is most definitely going to be Dragon oriented it is likely going to be Dragon Knight.

[loras]

Holy batballs you two (Teriz and lelenia) should just kiss already, with this much back-and-forth'ing you could write entire books every other week.

[Teriz]

1) So you found one ability, and then likened some to somewhat similar abilities, since the Warrior charge does not deal arcane damage, for example, because they "do similar things", but if I were to liken a supposed "missile" attack from a tech class to the mage's fireball because both are projectiles that deal fire damage on impact... you wouldn't agree, would you?
2) That wasn't your argument, though. You're moving goalposts. You said, and I quote:

And save for one singular ability, you couldn't place any ability from the Riftrunners into the existing classes, without having to change them.

Uh, the Warrior Riftrunner also has Bladestorm, Heroic Leap, Pummel, and Thunder Clap. The other character has Blink, Slow, and Consume Shadows. All of those abilities are in the class lineup.

It's the exact same thing. Both require different studies, lore-wise, and both are mechanically the same, in terms of class design.

Eh, I would disagree that Magi-tech is the same as Mechanical Tech. In terms of class design I have no doubt that Blizzard would simply have the Draenei using Magi-tech and it would entirely be aesthetics. However those aesthetics determines the look and feel.

Except I have you on record saying that the "flavor text" from WC3 can be dismissed as just "flavor text":

You mention HotS and WC3, but the flavor text of WC3 AND how technology is portrayed in WoW shows about the very real possibilities of technology failing. Either flavor text matters or it does not. You can't have it both ways, Teriz.

Yes, because you can't have a class where the abilities have a chance to fail and misfire. So yes, that is flavor text. Gazlowe's devices don't misfire or fail in HotS, and the WC3 Tinker's abilities didn't fail or misfire in WC3.

And, again, you're moving goalposts. Because your argument was not "there's more to warlocks than just fire magic". It was "the warlock's fire spec also deals shadow damage".

Because you were saying that Elemental Shaman, Fire Mages, and Destructo Locks are all the same because they use fire magic, seemingly ignoring that Shaman and Warlock specs aren't only based around fire magic. Then you expanded it to try to give credence to the tired argument about poison-based Necromancers....

Yes, it does not. Because blood magic and vampirism are about blood, not bones. Blood and bone are only tangentially related for both being part of a living being's body.

Then why are there multiple bone-based abilities within the Blood spec of DK?

Your quote literally agrees with me: it's the story, not the theme.

He says SETTING. Setting is part of the theme along with Characters and plot.

[ProphetFlume]

Not a tinkerer so that the guy who would write essays and bet his house mortgage the next class would be tinker and demon hunters would never happen can stew more.

[ymirsson]

Since the next expansion is most definitely going to be Dragon oriented it is likely going to be Dragon Knight.

definitely why?

[Teriz]

Not a tinkerer so that the guy who would write essays and bet his house mortgage the next class would be tinker and demon hunters would never happen can stew more.

Miss out on a new class that gives the community everything they want just to spite me?

That's rather childish.

[Unholyground]

definitely why?

It is going to be another Azeroth revamp and Dragon Isles has been on the radar for some time which would fit well into a Light is evil expansion.

[ymirsson]

It is going to be another Azeroth revamp and Dragon Isles has been on the radar for some time which would fit well into a Light is evil expansion.

And this in turn is definite why exactly?

[Teriz]

10.0, where sylvanas dies and gives up the secrets of her trade.

Except there is no secret to her trade. Arthas turned her into a Banshee. When the Lich King's power waned, her Banshee form somehow found her dead body and she reconnected with it, combining banshee abilities with ranger abilities.

Blizzard hasn't shown that process to be replicable, which is why Shadowlands would have been a perfect opportunity for her to use her powers to raise a new cadre of powered up Dark Rangers to help her accomplish her schemes.

Oh well......

[Imperator4321]

And that is a possibility as well. Especially in the case of the Draenei war frames. The level of push for that concept within the LF Draenei has been very surprising. I'm not too sure about Iron Horde though. There was never a mech built exclusively by the IH orcs, and when we returned to rescue the Mag'har, they apparently had abandoned most of the IH tech left behind.

I would say if there is to be another Horde race using tech like the Draenei, it would be the Nightborne. They're machinists are even called Artificers as well.



Agreed. I would add Humans, Blood Elves, Kul'Tirans, and quite a few other races to that list as well.

The Iron Horde built the Iron Reaver boss fight in Hellfire Citadel, the encounter journal specifically says design was made by siegecrafter blackfuse. While some would debate mechs vs mecha i'd consider them to be the same principle (humanoid piloted robot) just different sizes, it's not too much of a stretch to say the concept of smaller version would be out there for the Mag'har to build to especially given how much the industrial technology defined the visuals of the Iron Horde.

I also rewatched the recruitment scenario for the Mag'har, throughout the camp there are several Iron Horde war machines and a section of the scenario involves getting on a turret which can launch "iron lightseekers" (iron stars) at the Lightbound army, so yes the Iron Horde were still using their technology 30 years (from their perspective) after the events of WoD, the nazmir invasion also has the horde using a airship that is a iron horde design (this could just be a case of reused assets however).

I'd say any Race except the Worgen, Night Elves, Trolls, Zandalari, Worgen, Pandaren, Tauren and Highmountain Tauren could feasibly have it.