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

[ymirsson]

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......

If you wouldn't switch between understanding things "literally" and "figuratively" in the span of a goblins attention span, you could almost be a user to be taken seriously.

[Ielenia]

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.

And all it does is to evidence that a hypothetical void class' melee spec would be a mixture of physical and void damage. And "consume shadows" does not exist in the current class line-up. It belongs to a warlock's summon. That's like saying 'growl', 'bite' and other similar abilities are hunter abilities because they're used by their pets.

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.

Your argument is negated by the existence of Kul'Tiran druids. Their entire lore is about the death side of the cycle of life, and yet none of their abilities' graphic reflects that. The treants the kul'tiran moonkin summons are not made of wicker. Their spells still have the 'life' theme on them.

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.

It's not "just flavor text". It is lore. You're literally cherry-picking, here. If the flavor text says that the "tinker technology" has a chance to misfire, then it has a chance of misfire, and therefore it's unfit to be used for a playable class unless a big retcon is made to remove this "misfire" thing.

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....

Because you started with this by saying that "both poison and diseases deal nature damage therefore the death knight already has access to that magic type therefore the necromancer's can't have it". You're the one that started with "class has X-ability or Y-spell-type therefore your class can't have it."

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

"Multiple"? I counted three. That's hardly "multiple".

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

But not the "theme" you're looking for. The theme of Shadowlands is not "death" as in "necromancer" or "death knight". It's afterlife.

- - - Updated - - -

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

That's rather childish.

I'd say it's rather childish to assume that the tinker is what the community wants, don't you think?

[Teriz]

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 the definition of mecha i'd consider the Iron Reaver to be one, 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.

Actually it never says who actually built the Iron Reaver, just that an Orc pilots it. In the end, I'm just not seeing the Mag'har as a technological race. They seem more along the lines of if someone else builds it for us, we'll use it.

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).

Yeah again, it just seems more along the lines of if its there and we find it useful, we'll use it, instead of them actually building tech. If they were riding Robotic wolves or piloting some iron reavers, I'd take their consideration way more seriously.

With all that said, if Blizzard gave them IH technology and made them a race in the tech class, it wouldn't bother me. I just find it a bit unlikely.

[Imperator4321]

Actually it never says who actually built the Iron Reaver, just that an Orc pilots it. In the end, I'm just not seeing the Mag'har as a technological race. They seem more along the lines of if someone else builds it for us, we'll use it.



Yeah again, it just seems more along the lines of if its there and we find it useful, we'll use it, instead of them actually building tech. If they were riding Robotic wolves or piloting some iron reavers, I'd take their consideration way more seriously.

With all that said, if Blizzard gave them IH technology and made them a race in the tech class, it wouldn't bother me. I just find it a bit unlikely.

The encounter journal for the Iron Reaver says "The schematics for the Iron Reaver were found in the workshop of Blackfuse himself after the fall of Orgrimmar, drawing inspiration from the mighty constructs of the Legion and designed to be the nefarious goblin's masterwork. The project was completed after his death, and represents the pinnacle of the Iron Horde's military might."

It was designed by a Goblin but built on Draenor, while it doesn't say specifically if was goblins from the blackfuse company or iron horde engineers but given the blackrock foundry was staffed entirely by orcs i'd say theres a decent chance many of the builders of the Iron Reaver were orcs.

Being taught how also isn't something that precludes a race, Dwarves were taught how to wield the light by humans, Night Elves taught the Tauren how to be Druids, Pandaren taught everyone about being a Monk. the Mag'har have been using this technology for 33 years, thats a entire generation of mag'har who would have grown up surrounded by this technology (especially if they were from the Blackrock clan) i'd say thats perfectly fine justification for a technology class to be given to them

[Teriz]

And all it does is to evidence that a hypothetical void class' melee spec would be a mixture of physical and void damage. And "consume shadows" does not exist in the current class line-up. It belongs to a warlock's summon. That's like saying 'growl', 'bite' and other similar abilities are hunter abilities because they're used by their pets.

The point was that the Tinkers in the Island Expedition teams were using 0 abilities from the class lineup.

Your argument is negated by the existence of Kul'Tiran druids. Their entire lore is about the death side of the cycle of life, and yet none of their abilities' graphic reflects that. The treants the kul'tiran moonkin summons are not made of wicker. Their spells still have the 'life' theme on them.

So you're comparing a non-wicker treant to differences between Naaru tech and Goblin tech?

It's not "just flavor text". It is lore. You're literally cherry-picking, here. If the flavor text says that the "tinker technology" has a chance to misfire, then it has a chance of misfire, and therefore it's unfit to be used for a playable class unless a big retcon is made to remove this "misfire" thing.

So then why is it fit to be a hero unit in a RTS or a MOBA game? It doesn't misfire or fail in those games either.

Because you started with this by saying that "both poison and diseases deal nature damage therefore the death knight already has access to that magic type therefore the necromancer's can't have it". You're the one that started with "class has X-ability or Y-spell-type therefore your class can't have it."

Yeah you're conflating arguments. I said that there's no school of magic that your proposed Necromancer uses that the DK doesn't use. Unlike Paladins who have zero Shadow abilities versus Priests who have a lot of Shadow abilities.

"Multiple"? I counted three. That's hardly "multiple".

Three is multiple, and I'm sure there's more.

But not the "theme" you're looking for. The theme of Shadowlands is not "death" as in "necromancer" or "death knight". It's afterlife.

You mean the world you go to after you die where the arbiter of death judges your soul and determines where you spend eternity? There's even an entire section of this afterlife dedicated to Necromancy, and to breach this plane, Sylvanas had to destroy the Lich King's crown. The various sections of the Shadowlands are even called the realms of death.

Sure seems like a lot of death themes to me, and to anyone else not being purposely obtuse.

I'd say it's rather childish to assume that the tinker is what the community wants, don't you think?

That's what all the evidence shows.

- - - Updated - - -

The encounter journal for the Iron Reaver says "The schematics for the Iron Reaver were found in the workshop of Blackfuse himself after the fall of Orgrimmar, drawing inspiration from the mighty constructs of the Legion and designed to be the nefarious goblin's masterwork. The project was completed after his death, and represents the pinnacle of the Iron Horde's military might."

It was designed by a Goblin but built on Draenor, while it doesn't say specifically if was goblins from the blackfuse company or iron horde engineers but given the blackrock foundry was staffed entirely by orcs i'd say theres a decent chance many of the builders of the Iron Reaver were orcs.

I really think that Goblins built it with the help of Orcs. Further, I have seen nothing built since that suggests that Orcs are capable of building mechs on their own.

Being taught how also isn't something that precludes a race, Dwarves were taught how to wield the light by humans, Night Elves taught the Tauren how to be Druids, Pandaren taught everyone about being a Monk. the Mag'har have been using this technology for 33 years, thats a entire generation of mag'har who would have grown up surrounded by this technology (especially if they were from the Blackrock clan) i'd say thats perfectly fine justification for a technology class to be given to them

Yeah, I would argue that they weren't even taught. They were just given schematics and they followed them. And even that is suspect because the Blackfuse company appeared to be the main ones overseeing the construction of various works with Orcs providing the muscle behind it.

[Diaphin]

That's what all the evidence shows.

Polls on non-official forums are still not evidence. You should seriously learn how polls and hard data works. You can argue once Blizzard conducts an official poll on their official website. Like they did with the new mount.

[Teriz]

Polls on non-official forums are still not evidence. You should seriously learn how polls and hard data works. You can argue once Blizzard conducts an official poll on their official website. Like they did with the new mount.

Polls, forum posts, general community reactions, etc.

I mean beyond your personal opinion, where is your evidence that people despise the idea of a Tinker class? You really can't use present population numbers, or how Monks did, because neither one of those are much of an indicator of anything.

[loras]

Ooh i just had the best idea:
How about the PEON CLASS!

Now you can be classily classless while fighting in a class war against other classes! While having absolutely no class at all!

Red garb optional, moustache mandatory.

[Diaphin]

Polls, forum posts, general community reactions, etc.

I mean beyond your personal opinion, where is your evidence that people despise the idea of a Tinker class? You really can't use present population numbers, or how Monks did, because neither one of those are much of an indicator of anything.

Not saying that people despise the idea of Tinkers. Just saying that with the prior new classes in mind, Dark Rangers has all the traits of a successful class. You enter entitled nerd rage aka the Quartering (google it, its fun) whenever somebody dares to mention that they woul prefer a different class. What I'm saying is that a goblin/gnome restricted Tinker would certainly, absolutely be such a failure that I bet that activision would for once actually intervene with the shit Blizzard is up to.

The Tinker as a concept probably would be fine if it is open to all or at least the popular races. I think it could boost the numbers of Gnomes and Goblins, never denied that, but I don't think that gnomes and goblins would be enough to boost the number of Tinkers close to other classes. Look at Monks, Pandaren Monks are the most played combination but most Monks are not Pandaren. I just say that it is very likely that the class would start off weaker than a Dark Ranger and creat less hype and more controversy at the beginning. Again, you fully ignore my argument that if we look at which classes did well in the past, Dark Rangers would make the best pick because they can easily emulate the successes of Death Knights and Demon Hunters. And again, you are so hellstuck on your argument that in the current lore, Dark Rangers don't have Sylvanas skillsets that it does make you look atypical. Yeah, we are fully aware of the fact. Still, if Blizzard ever includes a dark Ranger class, you can bet that they can do the most iconic stuff Sylvanas can do. Because Blizzard is designing their new classes after iconic heroes, just look at how Demon Hunters suddenly turned from being normal Night Elves with tattoos and blindfolds with Illidan being the one exception to potentially all looking like Illidan with less wings and hooves but even more demonic skin. Blizzard seems to understand that with classes like this, the fantasy of the most iconic hero of the class really sells it.

Tinker restricted to gnomes and goblins would absolutely be a major desaster, just be real here, we know very well which races appeal the most to mass audiences and those two are the exact opposite of anything appealing to the masses. With the exception of female Gnomes, those are hella cute but the male ones are just fugly. Going the same route as DKs and Monks on the other hand probably would be less successful, but do more or less fine depending on how silly the class is and how good it plays. Brewmaster monks became fairly popular over the years after all.

The problem is still expansion. I mean, a gnome/goblin expansion sounds hella unlikely.

[Traveler Voltin]

here is a suggestion.
Goblin and gnomes get tinker first. then an expansion or 2 later then more races can become tinkers.

[kaelix1]

Not sure what to say about tinkers, it's not like i don't want to but in wow vers in my opinion, only goblins/gnomes fit that class well, having another class that is bound to two races only its, not something I want(and let's be honest, gnome/goblin are not that popular race wise)

BUT i know one thing, the next class need

1-at least one spec to be a range dps
2-healing spec
3-mail gear

I would love a class with 1 healer spec and 2 range dps spec

[Teriz]

Not saying that people despise the idea of Tinkers. Just saying that with the prior new classes in mind, Dark Rangers has all the traits of a successful class. You enter entitled nerd rage aka the Quartering (google it, its fun) whenever somebody dares to mention that they woul prefer a different class. What I'm saying is that a goblin/gnome restricted Tinker would certainly, absolutely be such a failure that I bet that activision would for once actually intervene with the shit Blizzard is up to.

Again, we have no idea how Blizzard views something as a success or failure. Blizzard's view is the only one that matters because they're privy to numbers we don't see, which is population numbers, attrition rates, retention rates, profit vs development cost, etc. Since Blizzard has never stated that they view Monks as a failure, I'm inclined to believe that they don't view them as a failure. I would also be inclined to believe that they don't share your view on what is successful and not successful class concept wise. Why? Because we have an expansion focused on Sylvanas and death, in an expansion due for a new class, and there's no Dark Ranger to be seen.

Tinker restricted to gnomes and goblins would absolutely be a major desaster, just be real here, we know very well which races appeal the most to mass audiences and those two are the exact opposite of anything appealing to the masses. With the exception of female Gnomes, those are hella cute but the male ones are just fugly. Going the same route as DKs and Monks on the other hand probably would be less successful, but do more or less fine depending on how silly the class is and how good it plays. Brewmaster monks became fairly popular over the years after all.

As I said before, the issue with Goblin and Gnome appeal is quite simple. Within the game and Warcraft media, Gnomes and Goblins are portrayed like this;





Class-wise we get nothing even close to that.

The problem is still expansion. I mean, a gnome/goblin expansion sounds hella unlikely.

Undermine is a very real possibility, considering its history.

[Diaphin]

Again, we have no idea how Blizzard views something as a success or failure. Blizzard's view is the only one that matters because they're privy to numbers we don't see, which is population numbers, attrition rates, retention rates, profit vs development cost, etc. Since Blizzard has never stated that they view Monks as a failure, I'm inclined to believe that they don't view them as a failure. I would also be inclined to believe that they don't share your view on what is successful and not successful class concept wise. Why? Because we have an expansion focused on Sylvanas and death, in an expansion due for a new class, and there's no Dark Ranger to be seen.

It is not my fault that you don't seem to have any community interactions with the exception of your strange little polls with god nows how many sock puppets.

As I said before, the issue with Goblin and Gnome appeal is quite simple. Within the game and Warcraft media, Gnomes and Goblins are portrayed like this;





Class-wise we get nothing even close to that.

And yet I bet a majority of people would take all of this and rather play it with an appealing player model. I would argue that the majority of players care about models first and the lore second. Not to forget that this is your perception of these races, as a member of the small minority of people who think balding midgets with the beards of slavery defending civil war generals are cool (female gnomes are cool, especially as punkrock warlocks though) or Goblins, which I personally associate with pretty gross stuff due to other fantasy franchises. Most of the playerbase probably views them as jokes due to them serving mostly as comic relief and jokes. I mean, even Mechagon himself came off as pretty pathetic whenever he wasn't in some cool machine.


Seriously, I think Blizzards biggest mistake was to make the gnome leader a guy. Gnome guys are just pathetic and ugly in every aspect. The girls tend to be cute and sometimes even kinda cool. I mean, the two gnome character I actually remember are Jainas apprentice and this spy lady from Tanaris.

Undermine is a very real possibility, considering its history.

How so? Why would anyone would want to pay 80 bucks to visit the lands of Goblins? Sounds more like side countent for a mega dungeon.

[Ielenia]

The point was that the Tinkers in the Island Expedition teams were using 0 abilities from the class lineup.

And that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if all their abilities are unique, or just the majority of them. You're pointing at the Island Expedition team and saying no other class behaves that way. Neither does any class behave like the Riftrunners.

So you're comparing a non-wicker treant to differences between Naaru tech and Goblin tech?

Learn the difference between an example and the entirety of one's argument. I used the 'summon treant' as an example. The argument is about how "life" and "death" are completely different themes, but the Thornspeakers, who are the 'death' side of the druidic cycle of life, have the exact same graphics as the 'life' magic that the other druids have.

So then why is it fit to be a hero unit in a RTS or a MOBA game? It doesn't misfire or fail in those games either.

Well, as far as I know, WoW is neither a RTS or a MOBA game. And, again, goblin and gnome technologic creations, in WoW, have been shown to be susceptible to failures and misfires.

Yeah you're conflating arguments. I said that there's no school of magic that your proposed Necromancer uses that the DK doesn't use. Unlike Paladins who have zero Shadow abilities versus Priests who have a lot of Shadow abilities.

Venthir gives paladins a shadow ability. And, again, having one melee ability that deals nature damage because it deals "plague damage" (which isn't nature magic) does not mean that the death knight "has access to that magic type".

Three is multiple, and I'm sure there's more.

Either way, three is irrelevant. Because the shaman has more than three fire spells, but that did not stop the fire mages and destruction warlocks from existing. So three bone spells in the death knight repertoire would not prevent another class from having bone spells, or worse, a bone-based spec.

You mean the world you go to after you die where the arbiter of death judges your soul and determines where you spend eternity? There's even an entire section of this afterlife dedicated to Necromancy, and to breach this plane, Sylvanas had to destroy the Lich King's crown. The various sections of the Shadowlands are even called the realms of death.

Sure seems like a lot of death themes to me, and to anyone else not being purposely obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. If you did not notice, a necromancer class would not fit the story being told.

That's what all the evidence shows.

A sample of a sample is not evidence, especially considering how biased this particular platform is toward gnomes and goblins.

[ymirsson]

Ooh i just had the best idea:
How about the PEON CLASS!

Now you can be classily classless while fighting in a class war against other classes! While having absolutely no class at all!

Red garb optional, moustache mandatory.

Dont forget the boot to be had!

[Teriz]

It is not my fault that you don't seem to have any community interactions with the exception of your strange little polls with god nows how many sock puppets.

Again, evidence versus your non-evidence.

And yet I bet a majority of people would take all of this and rather play it with an appealing player model. I would argue that the majority of players care about models first and the lore second. Not to forget that this is your perception of these races, as a member of the small minority of people who think balding midgets with the beards of slavery defending civil war generals are cool (female gnomes are cool, especially as punkrock warlocks though) or Goblins, which I personally associate with pretty gross stuff due to other fantasy franchises. Most of the playerbase probably views them as jokes due to them serving mostly as comic relief and jokes. I mean, even Mechagon himself came off as pretty pathetic whenever he wasn't in some cool machine.

Yeah, it's not my perception at all, it's actually how Goblin and Gnome lore characters are portrayed in the game, and how Blizzard portrays them. Thus when you roll a Goblin or Gnome and there's no class to actually live out that portrayal, you more than likely won't play as that race. I know that I personally have no serious Goblin or Gnome character, and that's mainly because no existing class really encompasses their racial lore.

How so? Why would anyone would want to pay 80 bucks to visit the lands of Goblins? Sounds more like side countent for a mega dungeon.

Because it's old school WoW lore, that's why. Like Pandaria, just because it's populated by a race you personally hate, doesn't mean that the questing, the story, and the atmosphere can't be entertaining and interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

And that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if all their abilities are unique, or just the majority of them. You're pointing at the Island Expedition team and saying no other class behaves that way. Neither does any class behave like the Riftrunners.

Yeah, I would say that a NPC who is made up of about 60% Warrior abilities is going to operate like a Warrior. The same applies to the NPC who has quite a few Shadow Priest abilities and a hijacked Priest ability.

Learn the difference between an example and the entirety of one's argument. I used the 'summon treant' as an example. The argument is about how "life" and "death" are completely different themes, but the Thornspeakers, who are the 'death' side of the druidic cycle of life, have the exact same graphics as the 'life' magic that the other druids have.

Yeah, but again you're comparing one ability to the very clear differences between two schools of technology in WoW.

BTW that Life and Death junk with the Kul'tiran Druid is another example of flavor text.

Well, as far as I know, WoW is neither a RTS or a MOBA game. And, again, goblin and gnome technologic creations, in WoW, have been shown to be susceptible to failures and misfires.

Yeah, but wouldn't the same argument apply to those games as well? Again, its just flavor text that doesn't mean anything within actual gameplay. I mean Druids in lore don't kill other living creatures. Does that mean that Druid players don't get the generic quests where they kill beasts by the truckload to get some random item? Of course not. It's just a bunch of junk to make your character class seem more interesting.

Venthir gives paladins a shadow ability. And, again, having one melee ability that deals nature damage because it deals "plague damage" (which isn't nature magic) does not mean that the death knight "has access to that magic type".

Yeah, and that's an expansion-specific ability that won't survive this expansion. As for the poison based Necromancer spec, you're free to believe its likely if you wish.

Either way, three is irrelevant. Because the shaman has more than three fire spells, but that did not stop the fire mages and destruction warlocks from existing. So three bone spells in the death knight repertoire would not prevent another class from having bone spells, or worse, a bone-based spec.

Three fire spells didn't stop the fire mage and destruction warlocks from existing because the Shaman is fundamentally different than Warlocks and Mages. Necromancers are not fundamentally different than Death Knights.

I'm not being obtuse. If you did not notice, a necromancer class would not fit the story being told.

Any death-based class would fit the setting and story of this expansion, which is why Death Knights for example are getting quite a bit of spotlight in this expansion. I mean, are you really going to argue that a Necromancer class that uses concepts from the Shadowland realms wouldn't work, or that the factions couldn't bring in Necromancers to help better navigate the realms of death?

A sample of a sample is not evidence, especially considering how biased this particular platform is toward gnomes and goblins.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean that people here are biased. The simple fact of the matter is that when you lay the facts on the table, people simply prefer the fact that Tinker is a concept that doesn't rely on taking concepts from existing classes and taking that concept and creating a class with only 2 specs. In other words, they don't want a repeat of what happened with Warlocks and Demon Hunters.

[KayRule]

Tinker. Tinker is the only real missing class.

You could invent new stuff like Bard or a Dragon-based class or something, but Tinker is the only existing one not in.

Necromancer, Dark Ranger, Warden, etc. are already mechanically in with Warlocks/DK, Hunter and Rogues.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, I would say that a NPC who is made up of about 60% Warrior abilities is going to operate like a Warrior. The same applies to the NPC who has quite a few Shadow Priest abilities and a hijacked Priest ability.

It only indicates that one of the hypothetical class' specs would be a mixture of physical and void abilities. Despite having abilities loaned from the warrior, it's obvious he is not a warrior because warriors do not use void magic. Just like the death knights in Naxxramas had a mixture of warrior and warlock abilities.

Yeah, but again you're comparing one ability

I am not "comparing one ability". It's just one mere example of the differences.

BTW that Life and Death junk with the Kul'tiran Druid is another example of flavor text.

No, it's not just "flavor text". It's actual canon lore. Lore that Blizzard opted to represent solely through the druid forms.

Yeah, but wouldn't the same argument apply to those games as well? Again, its just flavor text that doesn't mean anything within actual gameplay.

Technology has been shown to malfunction and misfire, even in the gameplay level, with the engineering profession items having a chance to misfire.

I mean Druids in lore don't kill other living creatures.

I think you forgot all the druid quests that require you to kill living creatures, and even in Ardenweald they ask you to kill "living" creatures.

Yeah, and that's an expansion-specific ability that won't survive this expansion.

So? Did you forget that many "expansion-specific" abilities and traits have survived their expansions? Warriors still have Warbreaker, for example. Also, it's still lore that the paladin is using a shadow ability.

As for the poison based Necromancer spec, you're free to believe its likely if you wish.

Same to you with your tinker class.

Three fire spells didn't stop the fire mage and destruction warlocks from existing because the Shaman is fundamentally different than Warlocks and Mages. Necromancers are not fundamentally different than Death Knights.

This "difference" you claim to be so "fundamental" is actually meaningless, because three abilities does not give a class "ownership" of a whole theme. Otherwise, you better believe that the hunter has the "ownership" of the tech theme for having three or so tech-based abilities. On top of that, both paladins and priests have actual HOLY healing specs. All the evidence is stacked up against you, in this regard.

Any death-based class would fit the setting and story of this expansion, which is why Death Knights for example are getting quite a bit of spotlight in this expansion.

No. It wouldn't. Because it would mean the Shadowlands' races actually coming into Azeroth and setting their home there, to allow necromancers to be trained BEFORE going into the Shadowlands. And the story does not have Shadowland races settling down on Azeroth prior to the heroes going to Shadowlands.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean that people here are biased.

When the poll contradicts the census of the game, in which the majority of people said they LIKE gnomes and goblins, but the population census show that those are two of the least played races, yes, that shows bias in this forum.

[Teriz]

It only indicates that one of the hypothetical class' specs would be a mixture of physical and void abilities. Despite having abilities loaned from the warrior, it's obvious he is not a warrior because warriors do not use void magic. Just like the death knights in Naxxramas had a mixture of warrior and warlock abilities.

Void Elf Warriors do, which is exactly what those Riftrunners are.

I am not "comparing one ability". It's just one mere example of the differences.


No, it's not just "flavor text". It's actual canon lore. Lore that Blizzard opted to represent solely through the druid forms.

Lore can also be flavor text.

Technology has been shown to malfunction and misfire, even in the gameplay level, with the engineering profession items having a chance to misfire.

Yes, because profession tech is created by an amateur hobbyist. Obviously the tech of Blackfuse, Mekkatorque, or the Lightforged doesn't fail or misfire.

I think you forgot all the druid quests that require you to kill living creatures, and even in Ardenweald they ask you to kill "living" creatures.

Which is exactly my point.

So? Did you forget that many "expansion-specific" abilities and traits have survived their expansions? Warriors still have Warbreaker, for example. Also, it's still lore that the paladin is using a shadow ability.

It's lore that a Paladin is using a shadow ability in the shadowlands aka the realm of the dead. The rules don't really apply like they would in Azeroth.

This "difference" you claim to be so "fundamental" is actually meaningless, because three abilities does not give a class "ownership" of a whole theme. Otherwise, you better believe that the hunter has the "ownership" of the tech theme for having three or so tech-based abilities. On top of that, both paladins and priests have actual HOLY healing specs. All the evidence is stacked up against you, in this regard.

You're a bit confused here. The reason the Death Knight class has ownership of Bone abilities against a Necromancer class is because they're using the exact same theme and concept. And yes, its the exact same theme and concept because Blizzard purposely placed the Necromancer concept into the DK class.

No. It wouldn't. Because it would mean the Shadowlands' races actually coming into Azeroth and setting their home there, to allow necromancers to be trained BEFORE going into the Shadowlands. And the story does not have Shadowland races settling down on Azeroth prior to the heroes going to Shadowlands.

Uh what? I'm saying that in an expansion about the realm of death, any class that has death as a theme fits this expansion, hence why Death Knights are getting so much attention. What the heck are you talking about?

When the poll contradicts the census of the game, in which the majority of people said they LIKE gnomes and goblins, but the population census show that those are two of the least played races, yes, that shows bias in this forum.

You ever stop to think that people actually LIKE Gnomes and Goblins, but don't play them because they can't find a class that fits them? I'm one of those people.

- - - Updated - - -

Necromancer, Dark Ranger, Warden, etc. are already mechanically in with Warlocks/DK, Hunter and Rogues.

Pretty much.
Some folks are still in denial though.

[Imperator4321]

Pretty much.
Some folks are still in denial though.

I don't think it's fair to say "they're just in denial" I think most people know that gameplay wise a Necromancer overlaps heavily in terms of gameplay archetype with Warlocks and Death Knights (Summoning, DoT's, curses, ect) but a Necromancer and a Warlock do have different thematics despite both being dark spellcasters and a DK/Necromancer difference can be seen as similar to Paladin/Priest difference, plenty of people who ask for Necromancer do suggest ways they can be differentiated without just being a Warlock in a Death Knight skin.

Dark Rangers are strictly speaking just Hunters with a handful of unique abilities, they almost certainly couldn't exist as a class on their own due to lacking enough substance in terms of concept, but putting your Hunter in a dark themed transmog and having an undead pet doesn't nessessarily capture the feeling that a dark ranger inspires.

Same thing with a Warden, essentially just being rogues in plate with unique glaives, they obviously don't have enough to them to be an entire class but just being a night elf subtlety/assassination rogue doesn't nessessarily capture the look and feel of a Warden.