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

[TheRevenantHero]

But Hunters, Monks, and DKs can all do what their WC3 hero counterparts could do.



He doesn’t need to be. Gazlowe was the Tinker hero from WC3, and Gazlowe in HotS has some of the Tinkers abilities and features from WC3 like the claw pack.



The clawpack is not an item, it’s an attribute of the concept, and like I said, it’s a lore difference between the Tinker hero and the engineering profession. No different than Demon Hunters and their Warglaives and Blindfolds, Brewmasters and their Staves and brews, or Death Knights and their Runeblades and Death Chargers. This is yet another fact.

But guess what? Gazlowe isn't called a tinker in HotS. So you are spewing conjecture and nothing more. And saying the clawpack isn't an item is hands down one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's a fucking item. It's not a spell or anything. It's built and can break. Therefore, it's a fucking item. There is absolutely nothing supporting your comments about tinkers and engineers being different in lore. Demon hunters have a REASON to wear blindfolds in the lore. Brews aren't really a big lore thing considering EVERYONE can drink them. And when it comes to death knights and their runeblades there is A LOT of lore behind. Comparing tinkers to a demon hunter's blindfolds or a death knight's runeblades is you grasping at straws and it's utterly asinine.

[username993720]

That’s why I didn’t specifically mention the main characters, and I did say “seem to be”. The rest of the people seem to rely more on their spell-casting and don’t come off as... brutes. They’re snobby spell-casters, who come off as not ever wanting to overexert themselves.

Regardless, even if they wouldn’t qualify as a vampire class/race, in your opinion, I’d still like to see it in WoW. We don’t have to agree, so no need to get defensive and argumentative. This kind of casual conversation doesn’t require it lol

I'm not attacking you.

I, also, would like to see Venthyr become playable.

I just believe you need to ground your class suggestion in lore - like Blood Wizards, for example.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they're designed after Blood DKs, even down to their drinking of "blood".

Like if you're worried about them being brutes, make a skinny blood or Void elf DK and you won't be big and stocky at all. You'll be essentially a vampire knight.

Nope. wait for Venthyr.

That's the purview of the Inscription profession.


Saying a bard is a crafting profession that makes instruments is saying an athlete is a crafting profession that makes the training equipment they use.

Well, not only one class can buff other players, if you know what i mean. the reason i suggested it, is because music is known to uplift spirits, get people into a trance or inspire them in battle.

I'm just making suggestions. what if, by any chance, he happens to be a Kul Tiran, with Jack of all Trades, so he's pretty much proficient, a little bit, in everything.

There is quite literally not a single piece of lore that backs up that they use necromancy. Those articles typically require citations. There is no citation for that.

There absolutely ARE male and female models for the Withered. My points about male and female models stands. Venthyr would be a truly shit edition to playable races.

I like that you make statements, without even trying to back up your arguments
Why don't you start by proving, lore-wise, that they use shadow magic, and then determine which kind of shadow magic they use, that is not necromancy.

First of all, they don't need citation, otherwise it would have shown [Citation Needed].

Second of all, i just showed you two Dark Ranger abilities, from Warcraft 3, that are necromancy. one is turning units into undead, and the other leeches life from the enemy. But, of course, you prefer to ignore it and just proclaim "I'm right!". you sound like Teriz. you need to backup your arguments with lore, otherwise it doesn't mean shit.

Dark Ranger
Level 100 Marksmanship hunter talent
Passive
Your attacks now have a chance to summon a Dark Minion. The Dark Minion will taunt and attack your current target.

From the Legion Alpha. Dark Minions, as i already established, are undead creatures.

"The Forsaken's Banshee Queen, Sylvanas Windrunner, was a hunter/ranger during her lifetime and after being raised into undeath by Arthas Menethil found herself out of touch with the wilds, which was replaced by necromancy, making her a dark ranger which would later be taken up by others in the Forsaken."

The reason Dark Ranger use necromancy is because they are comprised of Undead races. once being raised into undeath, they combine the hunter skills they had in life with the necromancy of their undead natures.

They are not Void related or Fel related. they are not aberration creatures or demonic creatures. they are undead.

Saying they don't use necromancy is like saying Priestesses of the Moon don't use moon abilities, they just use Arcane. you have to distinguish what kind of arcane, exactly. are they like an arcane mage or like a balance druid (the answer is obvious, don't even try).


Show me another model.

One again, you just proclaim "my point still stands". please explain why and what do you mean. i just told you that not every male and female models would become playable. they need to be on a playable model standard. but, again, you disregard my answers.

Saying they are shit is completely your opinion, and your opinion alone. I know many players who would like to play a Vampire, especially considering they are a mythological creature, missing from the playable races plethora.

It absolutely is NOT. Blizzard hasn't created a concept for tinker in WoW. Stop being dishonest about that fact. The tinker you constantly talk about is a concept you cobbled together from one hero unit, one character from HotS, and various engineering items that you refuse to acknowledge because they don't have the same names as the spells you list.

Eh, just like Death Knight, Monk (pandaren brewmaster) and Demon Hunter? Monk was, literally, based on a single Pandaren Brewmaster hero unit, from Warcraft 3. no appearance in WoW, no nothing.

He doesn’t need to be. Gazlowe was the Tinker hero from WC3, and Gazlowe in HotS has some of the Tinkers abilities and features from WC3 like the claw pack.

Actually, Gazlowe, in Warcraft 3, was called Engineer Gazlowe, and he used the Goblin Sapper Model: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Engineer_G..._III)#Reforged

But, it could have been an oversight, or he might have advanced since then, because Vol'jin, who was always depicted in WoW as a Shadow Hunter, was a Witch Doctor in Warcraft 3: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Vol'jin_(W...t_III)#Classic

Plus, you've got Dr. Boom, who might have been depicted as a Sapper in WoW TBC, but in Hearthstone "Dr. Boom is referred to as a tinker in The Scientist | Hearthstone short promoting Hearthstone: Rise of Shadows."

No they are NOT a lore hero lmao. It was just a name for a unit in WC3. And also, the character in HotS isn't even called a tinker. So that disproves your little assumption. And no. What you described is what YOU have been doing in this entire thread. The fact that I'm not the only one making the point that there is absolutely nothing different between engineer and tinker shows that you're the one sticking their fingers in their ears. As for the claw pack, there is no lore for it. Just one item in game. That doesn't suddenly become important lore and certain doesn't separate them from engineer. Tinkers and engineers, from a lore standpoint, are the same thing.

A Hero unit. not just a unit. get your facts straight: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Warcraft_III_heroes

"Few would consider the diminutive goblin tinkers fighters, but what they lack in height, they more than make up in mechanical cunning."

"When the Heroes of the Storm development team first designed Gazlowe (or Tinker, as he was initially called) the game was completely different than it is now."

https://heroesofthestorm.gamepedia.com/Gazlowe

Gazlowe's appearance in Heroes of the Storm is, definitely, an extension of the Warcraft 3 Hero unit "Goblin Tinker".

Once again, you are spreading misinformation, and not backing up your statements.

Every DK can't do what Arthas can do. Every hunter can't do what Sylvanas does, since dark rangers are just glorified hunters. Every hunter can't do what Rexxar does. Every monk can't do what Chen does. I don't need to go on.

But the point is, he's not called a tinker at all. Which means you can't call him a tinker for sure and that it's only you making assumptions as usual.

And Paladins are just glorified Priests. Demon Hunters are just glorified Warlocks. i don't need to go on.

The idea is not to do, exactly, 1:1 ratio, 100% copy, of the hero related to the specific class. the idea is to base, or take inspiration, from it.

It is 100% your concept, not Blizzard's. Because there is no playable tech class in WoW.

It's not his concept. Tinkers go back to Warcraft 3, and even as far as the RPG sources.

[Teriz]

But guess what? Gazlowe isn't called a tinker in HotS.

Nor does he need to be. His abilities and attributes speak for themselves.

And saying the clawpack isn't an item is hands down one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's a fucking item. It's not a spell or anything. It's built and can break. Therefore, it's a fucking item. There is absolutely nothing supporting your comments about tinkers and engineers being different in lore. Demon hunters have a REASON to wear blindfolds in the lore. Brews aren't really a big lore thing considering EVERYONE can drink them. And when it comes to death knights and their runeblades there is A LOT of lore behind. Comparing tinkers to a demon hunter's blindfolds or a death knight's runeblades is you grasping at straws and it's utterly asinine.

The only thing asinine is you not seeming to know what an item in WC3 or WoW is. An item is something in your inventory that you bought, picked up, or crafted. An item is something you can consume, discard, or sell. The Clawpack fits none of those properties.

[Ielenia]

Actually there were Warlock creeps (Eredar and Stormreaver), and the Warlock class pulled numerous abilities from multiple heroes, including Demonic ones like the Pit Lord, and Dread Lord, demonic related heroes like the Blood Mage and the Demon Hunter.

But they're creeps. Weren't you the one who said something about HERO units? Hell, even rogues don't have a rogue unit in Warcraft 3.

Except you're comparing throwing dice 12 times to a team of video game developers following the same formula over and over again over the course of 16 years.

You seriously don't see a difference?

There is no difference because you're comparing trends. And, if you bothered to check the correlations I linked, you'd see that those correlations are not "one dice vs a group of people". Using your logic, you're saying that it's a fact the number of divorces in Maine are influenced by how much margarine the population consumes, for example. Or that the more the US spends in space technology, the more suicides it causes.

It has one ability different than the Warrior. The ability where they flip behind someone and hits them could work in the Warrior class.

No, it cannot, because the warrior concept is not one to engage an enemy from the back.

I have no issue with mentions from unimportant NPCs, but you used a profession quest. People call you by your class in quests unrelated to your class. For example, that walk you took with Anduin in Stormwind when he was a child. He mentions your class and what he knows about it.

It's still a quest within the game and therefore it is lore. You're attempting to de-canonize that quest and add caveats after the fact only show how dishonest you are.

And that proves that standard Stormwind guards are the same as Warriors how exactly?

It shows that guards have the same training as warriors.

Again, it's not vastly different themes. Pirate, Assassin, Thief, Rogue can be interchangeable terms.

You're speaking absurds, here. You're saying that Jack Sparrow is "the same thing" as Ezio? "Pirate" is not an interchangeable term for thief or assassin. Those are completely different terms. Blizzard uses specific terms for 'thief' or 'assassin', otherwise each and every class in this game is a thief and an assassin.

No, it deals with death, and specializes in death magic. Shadowlands is the realm of death, and that is the theme of this expansion per Blizzard.

The entire thematic of the expansion is the afterlife. And the necromancer concept does not deal with the afterlife.

Like I said, we're 12 for 12 with a class concept that has the exact same background as the previous 12. If you want to stick your head in the sand and say it's a coincidence, that's your prerogative.

It's not "sticking head in sand". It's about being honest and not claiming something as fact when we have no way of confirming it as fact. Let me ask you something: if I toss a 20-sided dice twelve times, is it possible to get the exact same result twelve times in a row, without the dice being loaded?

Again, the Claw Pack is directly mentioned in WC3's lore description of the Tinker hero. That makes it canon lore, and is another line of separation between it and the engineering profession, since it isn't available there (like all Tinker abilities).

The goblin tinker's ability malfunctions is also part of the WC3's lore description of the unit. By your logic, that makes it canon lore, but you constantly try to de-canonize it. By that logic, I can "de-canonize" the claw pack, considering we never, ever, ever saw it in World of Warcraft in all of its 16 years, but we have seen technology malfunctions since day one.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not his concept. Tinkers go back to Warcraft 3, and even as far as the RPG sources.

It is his concept, because, again, there is no tech class in WoW. He may have based his concept on the WC3 unit, but it is still his concept.

[Teriz]

But they're creeps. Weren't you the one who said something about HERO units? Hell, even rogues don't have a rogue unit in Warcraft 3.

Let's clarify; Every class in WoW has varying degrees of influence from the heroes and units of WC3. Every WoW class has had abilities taken from one or more WC3 heroes. The expansion classes continued this trend.

There is no difference because you're comparing trends. And, if you bothered to check the correlations I linked, you'd see that those correlations are not "one dice vs a group of people". Using your logic, you're saying that it's a fact the number of divorces in Maine are influenced by how much margarine the population consumes, for example. Or that the more the US spends in space technology, the more suicides it causes.

Not even close. I'm saying that a video game development team is using heroes and concepts from a game they consider a prequel to develop classes for a game they consider a sequel. And we have examples of them using those heroes and concepts in every single class they have created for said sequel over the span of almost 2 decades. That example isn't even close to the examples you're using.

No, it cannot, because the warrior concept is not one to engage an enemy from the back.

They flip over the enemy and attack them from behind. It isn't like a Rogue who sneaks up on you and uses Ambush.

It's still a quest within the game and therefore it is lore. You're attempting to de-canonize that quest and add caveats after the fact only show how dishonest you are.

It's contained within the profession, so I would say it isn't lore, since professions are optional content not correlated with the general story of the game.

It shows that guards have the same training as warriors.

Then why do the guards not have the same abilities as the warrior class?

You're speaking absurds, here. You're saying that Jack Sparrow is "the same thing" as Ezio? "Pirate" is not an interchangeable term for thief or assassin. Those are completely different terms. Blizzard uses specific terms for 'thief' or 'assassin', otherwise each and every class in this game is a thief and an assassin.

The Assassin's Creed series has used Pirates and Thieves as subjects in their games. Jack Sparrow is a thief a Rogue, and arguably an Assassin as well. So yes, a class called a "Rogue" can easily contain the themes of Pirate, Assassin, and Thief.

The entire thematic of the expansion is the afterlife. And the necromancer concept does not deal with the afterlife.

Blizzard disagrees. Further Necromancers use death magic, so it's rather bizarre to say that Necromancers don't deal with death, since they utilize death magic. Even if we want to play your game and say that Necromancers better fit the undead, Sylvanas, the Lich King, and Death Knights are major characters in this expansion, and they're undead.

It's not "sticking head in sand". It's about being honest and not claiming something as fact when we have no way of confirming it as fact. Let me ask you something: if I toss a 20-sided dice twelve times, is it possible to get the exact same result twelve times in a row, without the dice being loaded?

Developers creating classes, designing abilities, and pulling concepts from previous games to add to successive games in the same franchise is not the same thing as tossing a dice or flipping a coin. You're talking about chance, I'm talking about purposeful design.

The goblin tinker's ability malfunctions is also part of the WC3's lore description of the unit. By your logic, that makes it canon lore, but you constantly try to de-canonize it. By that logic, I can "de-canonize" the claw pack, considering we never, ever, ever saw it in World of Warcraft in all of its 16 years, but we have seen technology malfunctions since day one.

I'm not de-canonizing anything. I'm merely pointing out that technology mis-firing and being unreliable is flavor text when it comes to gameplay, which is why the Goblin Tinker hero in WoW and HotS never misfired or had a technology failure, yet the Claw pack was clearly present at all times.

[Ielenia]

Let's clarify; Every class in WoW has varying degrees of influence from the heroes and units of WC3. Every WoW class has had abilities taken from one or more WC3 heroes. The expansion classes continued this trend.

In other words, you're moving the goalposts. Because you have always said hero units from Warcraft 3, before:

Not likely, since like the Death Knight, Brewmaster, and Demon Hunter before it, the Tinker is a hero concept from WC3.

Further, having "tech abilities" isn't the only requirement for a Tinker class. A Tinker class sort of needs the abilities of the Tinker hero, as all previous classes of the WC3 hero concepts did.

No, I'm simply saying that the Tinker is from the same pedigree as every other WoW class inclusion (i.e. the WC3 hero), and if the rules applied to those hero concepts, there's no reason to not believe they wouldn't apply to the Tinker (and Goblin Alchemist) as well.

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.

None of those are hero characters.

we have a related hero unit from WC3 (and HotS) with open abilities.

You explicitly claimed a WC3 hero is required for the creation of an expansion class

Based on all of the other expansion classes, they are.

Artificer wasn't a hero unit from WC3.....

it would be odd for the Tinker and Alchemist to be the lone WC3 heroes with zero class representation among the WC3 hero units.

Yeah, that's totally up there with a WC3 hero unit and major lore character.

If the Tinker concept didn't have a WC3 and HotS hero, and multiple major lore figures to support its concept, you'd have a point. Since it does, you don't.

The Bard does worst in these types of polls because there's no lore hero from WC3 or WoW itself for the concept to latch onto.

There are more. Pages upon pages of you using specifically hero units from Warcraft 3, dating all the way back to 2014.

Not even close. I'm saying that a video game development team is using heroes and concepts from a game they consider a prequel to develop classes for a game they consider a sequel. And we have examples of them using those heroes and concepts in every single class they have created for said sequel over the span of almost 2 decades. That example isn't even close to the examples you're using.

And all that is still nothing but correlation. Nothing but a trend. If you want to prove as a fact that for a concept to be realized into WoW as a playable class, you need Blizzard's word on it, because they're the only ones that can tell for sure.

They flip over the enemy and attack them from behind. It isn't like a Rogue who sneaks up on you and uses Ambush.

In other words, not part of the warrior concept.

It's contained within the profession, so I would say it isn't lore, since professions are optional content not correlated with the general story of the game.

You do know that the overwhelming majority of quests in this game are optional, right? Back in BfA, I leveled my Alliance character from 110 to 120 without ever setting foot in Drustvar. Does that mean that the whole story of Drustvar is not canon, then? The point is: it's a quest, it's canon lore.

You are now not only wanting to gatekeep fan class concepts, but now you want to gatekeep lore. And then you still have the audacity to deny the fact you're acting as if you speak for Blizzard.

Then why do the guards not have the same abilities as the warrior class?

Just because they don't display any abilities doesn't mean they don't have them.

The Assassin's Creed series has used Pirates and Thieves as subjects in their games. Jack Sparrow is a thief a Rogue, and arguably an Assassin as well. So yes, a class called a "Rogue" can easily contain the themes of Pirate, Assassin, and Thief.

You're using the word "assassin" as if it means "he kills people". By that logic, all the present classes are assassins since they all kill people.

Blizzard disagrees.

They do agree. If you read their description of the expansion without an agenda, without bias, you'd see that.

Developers creating classes, designing abilities, and pulling concepts from previous games to add to successive games in the same franchise is not the same thing as tossing a dice or flipping a coin. You're talking about chance, I'm talking about purposeful design.

No, you're talking about mandatory rules for class creation. If you want to claim that

I'm not de-canonizing anything. I'm merely pointing out that technology mis-firing and being unreliable is flavor text when it comes to gameplay, which is why the Goblin Tinker hero in WoW and HotS never misfired or had a technology failure, yet the Claw pack was clearly present at all times.

"I'm not de-canonizing anything. I'm just de-canonizing what goes against my narrative". That is literally what you just said. Also:

It's contained within the profession, so I would say it isn't lore

That is literally you de-canonizing the quests.

[username993720]

But they're creeps. Weren't you the one who said something about HERO units? Hell, even rogues don't have a rogue unit in Warcraft 3.

It is his concept, because, again, there is no tech class in WoW. He may have based his concept on the WC3 unit, but it is still his concept.

Archimonde and Gul'dan are campaign Warlock heroes.

The Hunter is, somewhat, of a tech class in WoW. There wasn't a Death Knight class until WotLK; there wasn't a Monk class until a MoP; and there wasn't a Demon Hunter class until Legion.

Again, it's not vastly different themes. Pirate, Assassin, Thief, Rogue can be interchangeable terms.

I wouldn't say that. An Assassin, a Pirate or a Ninja are different iterations of the Rogue, but they are different enough to constitute different specializations.

Let's clarify; Every class in WoW has varying degrees of influence from the heroes and units of WC3. Every WoW class has had abilities taken from one or more WC3 heroes. The expansion classes continued this trend.

I don't know about that. but, i do know every class, that has been added, was from the Warcraft 3 heroes.

[Teriz]

In other words, you're moving the goalposts. Because you have always said hero units from Warcraft 3, before:

There are more. Pages upon pages of you using specifically hero units from Warcraft 3, dating all the way back to 2014.

Yes, note I was talking about expansion classes when I was talking about WC3 heroes. The classic classes are more of a mix, but they ALL contain WC3 abilities and attributes from various heroes and units.

And all that is still nothing but correlation. Nothing but a trend. If you want to prove as a fact that for a concept to be realized into WoW as a playable class, you need Blizzard's word on it, because they're the only ones that can tell for sure.

We don't need Blizzard to say it because they've been doing it for almost 20 years. Again, we're 12 for 12. That isn't some correlation, it is obvious that WC3 is factored heavily into the class design. This is especially the case with the expansion classes which are all tied to specific lore characters.

In other words, not part of the warrior concept.

Where does it state that a Warrior can flip behind an opponent and slash them?

You do know that the overwhelming majority of quests in this game are optional, right? Back in BfA, I leveled my Alliance character from 110 to 120 without ever setting foot in Drustvar. Does that mean that the whole story of Drustvar is not canon, then?

Yes they are, however they are part of the general story, because regardless of if you take the world quests or not, the hero/champion has supposedly ventured through those areas. Again, professions are time sinks and optional content completely. You can go through WoW and do all of its relevant content, do all the raids, fight all the bosses, meet all the major characters, become a leader of a class, venture into the death realm, etc. and NEVER pick up a profession.

Just because they don't display any abilities doesn't mean they don't have them.

I'm confident that they don't have them. Again, it's like comparing Captain America to a mall cop.

You're using the word "assassin" as if it means "he kills people". By that logic, all the present classes are assassins since they all kill people.

I'm using the word assassin as it means what it means. A pirate ambushing a ship or port and massacring people is just as much an assassin as some Ninja sneaking up on someone and stabbing them in the back.

They do agree. If you read their description of the expansion without an agenda, without bias, you'd see that.

You mean where they literally describe the Shadowlands the realm of the dead?

No, you're talking about mandatory rules for class creation. If you want to claim that

I never said it was mandatory. I said that it is purposeful design, not a flip of a coin, or some dice roll. That points to (at the very least) the possibility that a WC3 influence is required for every new WoW class.

That is literally you de-canonizing the quests.

Profession quests. I've already discussed why that is.

[ymirsson]

I'm using the word assassin as it means what it means. A pirate ambushing a ship or port and massacring people is just as much an assassin as some Ninja sneaking up on someone and stabbing them in the back.

I can hardly live with the fact that you jack off to tinker talk and try to bend all lore and gameplay around your urges, but please refrain from mutilating language and words unrelated to your obsession too.

An assassin and a pirate are two distinct things. A person can be one or both, but neither is every assassin a pirate nor is every pirate an assassin.

Thats like saying a tinker and an engineeer are always the same.

[Teriz]

I don't know about that. but, i do know every class, that has been added, was from the Warcraft 3 heroes.

WoW classes and the source of their WC3 abilities:

Death Knight: DK, Lich, Dreadlord, Necromancer, Crypt lord, Banshee, Gargoyle
Demon Hunter: Demon Hunter
Druid: Keeper of the Grove, Druid of the Claw, Druid of the Talon, PotM, Crypt Lord
Hunter: Rexxar, PotM, Dark Ranger, Archer, Huntress, Sea Witch
Mage: Archmage, Bloodmage, Sorceress, Lich, Sea Witch, Warden
Monk: Brewmaster
Paladin: Paladin
Priest: Priest, Demon Hunter
Rogue: Warden, Demon Hunter, Blademaster, Rogue (creep), Assassin (creep)
Shaman: Far Seer, Spirit Walker, Orc Shaman, Troll Witch Doctor, Shadow Hunter, Tauren Chieftain
Warlock: Pit Lord, Blood Mage, Dreadlord, Demon Hunter, Fire Lord, Warlock (Creep)
Warrior: Blademaster, Mountain King, Tauren Chieftain, Footman,

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff. That said, the Tinker and the Alchemist remain the only two WC3 heroes not on this list.

[Ielenia]

Yes, note I was talking about expansion classes when I was talking about WC3 heroes. The classic classes are more of a mix, but they ALL contain WC3 abilities and attributes from various heroes and units.

Doesn't change the fact that this is a rule that exists nowhere but in your own head, as I've said multiple times. Over and over you failed to provide a statement from Blizzard saying that "Warcraft 3 units are required for WoW class creation".

Not to mention that, for anyone with even an inkling of a desire to be honest, this very idea seems nonsensical and needlessly restrictive.

We don't need Blizzard to say it

Yes, we do, if you want to claim as fact that we need a WC3 hero unit to create a class in WoW.

Where does it state that a Warrior can flip behind an opponent and slash them?

Nowhere. Hence why it's not part of the warrior concept.

Yes they are,

Not by your logic. You said that because "professions are optional" then, guess what: leveling through Drustvar is also optional, then by your logic that means that the Drustvar storyline is non-canon.

The point being: this another example of you speaking for Blizzard and trying to de-canonize parts of the lore.

I'm confident that they don't have them.

You're welcome to your opinion. Doesn't make it fact, though.

Again, it's like comparing Captain America to a mall cop.

And, coincidentally enough, both Captain America and a military soldier have the exact same training. Also, a city guard is not the same thing as a mall cop. False equivalence.

I'm using the word assassin as it means what it means. A pirate ambushing a ship or port and massacring people is just as much an assassin as some Ninja sneaking up on someone and stabbing them in the back.

You literally just described the general meaning of the word "assassin", because a warrior rampaging into a small town and massacring people "is just as much an assassin" as a pirate ambushing a ship or port and massacring people. Or a paladin massacring a town. Or a warlock. Or a mage. Etc, etc.

You mean where they literally describe the Shadowlands the realm of the dead?

And necromancers and death knights aren't about "the realm of the dead". They're about the undead. Raising dead corpses and animating them. They're not about the afterlife, which is what the Shadowlands is about. Priests and shamans are much more about the "realm of the dead" and the afterlife for their relationship with the spirits of the dead.

I never said it was mandatory.

You act as if they are every time you accuse someone else's fan class concept of "not having a WC3 hero".

Profession quests. I've already discussed why that is.

None of that changes the fact that, again, it's literally you de-canonizing quests. It doesn't matter if it's a profession quest, a class quest, a race quest, a faction quest, or just a plain quest. All quests are canon lore. You're cherry-picking just like you cherry-pick the WC3 flavor texts.

[Teriz]

Doesn't change the fact that this is a rule that exists nowhere but in your own head, as I've said multiple times. Over and over you failed to provide a statement from Blizzard saying that "Warcraft 3 units are required for WoW class creation".

It exists in reality as well, since there is facts and evidence to back it up.

Not to mention that, for anyone with even an inkling of a desire to be honest, this very idea seems nonsensical and needlessly restrictive.

Not really. Considering that the WC3 heroes are based on major lore figures, a class based on those heroes gives the class concept a leg up over a class concept not steeped in Warcraft lore and history. It also makes classes distinctly "Warcraft" and not similar to classes in other games. The Monk class being patterned after Chen Stormstout being one such example.

Yes, we do, if you want to claim as fact that we need a WC3 hero unit to create a class in WoW.

Again, no we don't. If Blizzard has done that in every single case with no deviation, then it's OBVIOUS that that's what they're doing.

Nowhere. Hence why it's not part of the warrior concept.

Well, if you want to believe that Blizzard is working on a Riftrunner class, you're free to believe that delusion.

Not by your logic. You said that because "professions are optional" then, guess what: leveling through Drustvar is also optional, then by your logic that means that the Drustvar storyline is non-canon.

And the lore states that the champion went through Drustvar and eliminated the threat and that was partially what led to Kul'tiras rejoining the alliance in the 4th war. So yeah, it's canon. The champion being an amateur engineer who builds unreliable junk for some coin is not.

And, coincidentally enough, both Captain America and a military soldier have the exact same training. Also, a city guard is not the same thing as a mall cop. False equivalence.

Yeah, and Captain America also had superpowers which allowed him to develop skills and abilities far beyond the common soldier. He also trained with those new abilities and powers in ways that common soldiers could not.

You literally just described the general meaning of the word "assassin", because a warrior rampaging into a small town and massacring people "is just as much an assassin" as a pirate ambushing a ship or port and massacring people. Or a paladin massacring a town. Or a warlock. Or a mage. Etc, etc.

These semantics are getting silly. Again, A Pirate, an Assassin, and a Thief all fit under the Rogue label thematically. That's the point.

And necromancers and death knights aren't about "the realm of the dead". They're about the undead. Raising dead corpses and animating them. They're not about the afterlife, which is what the Shadowlands is about. Priests and shamans are much more about the "realm of the dead" and the afterlife for their relationship with the spirits of the dead.

Then why do they both use death magic?

You act as if they are every time you accuse someone else's fan class concept of "not having a WC3 hero".

Well again, Blizzard is 12 for 12. It stands to reason that the next class is going to follow the pattern of the previous 12 classes (which is ALL of them btw). We also have two WC3 heroes remaining with none of their abilities present in the class lineup. So it stands to reason that that's where they would pull the next class from.

[username993720]

WoW classes and the source of their WC3 abilities:

Death Knight: DK, Lich, Dreadlord, Necromancer, Crypt lord, Banshee, Gargoyle
Demon Hunter: Demon Hunter
Druid: Keeper of the Grove, Druid of the Claw, Druid of the Talon, PotM, Crypt Lord
Hunter: Rexxar, PotM, Dark Ranger, Archer, Huntress, Sea Witch
Mage: Archmage, Bloodmage, Sorceress, Lich, Sea Witch, Warden
Monk: Brewmaster
Paladin: Paladin
Priest: Priest, Demon Hunter
Rogue: Warden, Demon Hunter, Blademaster, Rogue (creep), Assassin (creep)
Shaman: Far Seer, Spirit Walker, Orc Shaman, Troll Witch Doctor, Shadow Hunter, Tauren Chieftain
Warlock: Pit Lord, Blood Mage, Dreadlord, Demon Hunter, Fire Lord, Warlock (Creep)
Warrior: Blademaster, Mountain King, Tauren Chieftain, Footman,

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff. That said, the Tinker and the Alchemist remain the only two WC3 heroes not on this list.

Death Knight: Unholy Blight supposed to be Locust Swarm? Gargoyle supposed to be Summon Gargoyle?
Also, there is the Warcraft 2 Death Knight.
Demon Hunter: Archimonde's Rain of Chaos ability was given to the Demon Hunter.
Druid: Insect Swarm supposed to be Locust Swarm?
The Tauren Warrior's Pulverize ability was given to the Druid.
The Mountain King's Bash, somewhat, became a Druid ability.
Hunter: Archer's hide is the Night elven Shadowmeld, Elune's Grace was a Night elf priest racial ability and mount hippogryph is not a class ability.
Naga sea witch's Frost Arrows supposed to be Exotic Munitions?
Mage: you forgot Blademaster's Mirror Image and Spellbreaker's Spell Steal.
The Dreadlord's Sleep ability was, originally, meant to be a Mage ability (but, was replaced with Polymorph).
Also, there is the Warcraft 2 Mage.
Paladin: also, there is the Warcraft 2 Paladin's Exorcism ability.
Priest: you forgot Spellbreaker's Feedback ability and the Dark Ranger Silence ability.
Warcraft 2 Death Knight's Touch of Darkness became a shadow priest artifact trait.
Rogue: which Blademaster ability was given to the Rogue? Critical Strike?
The Rogue and Assassin Creeps' ability Hide is actually Shadowmeld (but, i can see the inspiration).
The Assassin creep Envenomed Weapon is not a Rogue ability (but i can see the inspiration).
Shaman: shamans don't use any of the Witch Doctor's ward abilities (but, i can see the inspiration).
Warcraft 1 Conjurer's Elemental Blast was given to the Shaman.
Warlock: Stormreaver Warlock's Animate Dead and Monsoon are not Warlock abilities.
Eredar Warlock's Finger of Pain, Mana Shield and Bash are not Warlock abilities.
The Necromancer's Cripple was given to the Doomguard pet.
Also, there is the Warcraft 2 Ogre-Mage's Eye of Kilrogg ability.
Warrior: Footman's Defend ability is not a Warrior ability (but, i can see the inspiration).
Warcraft 2 Death Knight's Whirlwind became a warrior ability.

[Army Dreamer]

Dark ranger.

[Teriz]

Death Knight: Unholy Blight supposed to be Locust Swarm? Gargoyle supposed to be Summon Gargoyle?
Also, there is the Warcraft 2 Death Knight.
Demon Hunter: Archimonde's Rain of Chaos ability was given to the Demon Hunter.
Druid: Insect Swarm supposed to be Locust Swarm?
The Tauren Warrior's Pulverize ability was given to the Druid.
Hunter: Archer's hide is the Night elven Shadowmeld, Elune's Grace was a Night elf priest racial ability and mount hippogryph is not a class ability.
Naga sea witch's Frost Arrows supposed to be Exotic Munitions?
Mage: you forgot Blademaster's Mirror Image and Spellbreaker's Spell Steal.
The Dreadlord's Sleep ability was, originally, meant to be a Mage ability (but, was replaced with Polymorph).
Also, there is the Warcraft 2 Mage.
Paladin: also, there is the Warcraft 2 Paladin's Exorcism ability.
Priest: you forgot Spellbreaker's Feedback ability and the Dark Ranger Silence ability.
Warcraft 2 Death Knight's Touch of Darkness became a shadow priest artifact trait.
Rogue: which Blademaster ability was given to the Rogue? Critical Strike?
The Rogue and Assassin Creeps' ability Hide is actually Shadowmeld (but, i can see the inspiration).
The Assassin creep Envenomed Weapon is not a Rogue ability (but i can see the inspiration).
Shaman: shamans don't use any of the Witch Doctor's ward abilities (but, i can see the inspiration).
Warcraft 1 Conjurer's Elemental Blast was given to the Shaman.
Warlock: Stormreaver Warlock's Animate Dead and Monsoon are not Warlock abilities.
Eredar Warlock's Finger of Pain, Mana Shield and Bash are not Warlock abilities.
The Necromancer's Cripple was given to the Doomguard pet.
Also, there is the Warcraft 2 Ogre-Mage's Eye of Kilrogg ability.
Warrior: Footman's Defend ability is not a Warrior ability (but, i can see the inspiration).
Warcraft 2 Death Knight's Whirlwind became a warrior ability.

Thanks for the clarification. And yeah, Locust Swarm was turned into insect swarm for Druids, while Unholy Blight behaved like the WC3 ability.

Wind Walk is the ancestor of Stealth. Even coming out of stealth and dealing high damage come from it.

[Ethas]

The Tinker class is the one concept that wouldn't be a cheap copy of other classes, yet you find it a "boring non-fantasy concept" that shouldn't be implemented.

Yeah, that makes sense....

It won’t because it has to be one otherwise great Blizzard math people can’t balance this game. So no.

[Ielenia]

It exists in reality as well, since there is facts and evidence to back it up.

Do you know the difference between a "trend" and a "rule"?

Not really.

Yes, really. Because, if your arbitrary rule is true, any and all concepts that Blizzard comes up with but has no corresponding unit and/or ability in Warcraft 3, it means such a class would never get into WoW, regardless of how "awesome" it is or how well it fits within the franchise's lore. Again, it's needlessly restrictive.

Again, no we don't. If Blizzard has done that in every single case with no deviation, then it's OBVIOUS that that's what they're doing.

That's not how it works, Teriz. You're making a claim of fact in which we have no way to confirm unless Blizzard outright comes out and says so. You're implying causation when all you have is a correlation. And, as any honest person knows and is willing to admit it, correlation does not imply causation.

Well, if you want to believe that Blizzard is working on a Riftrunner class, you're free to believe that delusion.

"Delusion" is this complete strawman, considering I never said that "Blizzard is working on a Riftrunner class". This is once again another example of you being dishonest as you try to obfuscate.

And the lore states that the champion went through Drustvar and eliminated the threat and that was partially what led to Kul'tiras rejoining the alliance in the 4th war. So yeah, it's canon. The champion being an amateur engineer who builds unreliable junk for some coin is not.

It still doesn't change the fact that you are still trying to speak for Blizzard by de-canonize parts of the game and lore that do not agree with your narrative.

Yeah, and Captain America also had superpowers which allowed him to develop skills and abilities far beyond the common soldier. He also trained with those new abilities and powers in ways that common soldiers could not.

And the two still went through the same training.

These semantics are getting silly. Again, A Pirate, an Assassin, and a Thief all fit under the Rogue label thematically. That's the point.

You're the one playing semantics. Because the "assassin" theme that Blizzard used for the rogue is of the skulking rogue who stays in the shadows and ambushes their enemies when they least suspect it. And yet you use the generic term "assassin" which is basically the synonym for "murderer" when you described the pirate, a term that applies to ALL classes in the game.

Then why do they both use death magic?

They don't. They use necromancy. "Death magic" requires anima, which we don't have access to:
"Anima is the source that is drawn upon when using death magic. It is comparable to mana."

Well again, Blizzard is 12 for 12.

Congratulations, you have a trend. Nothing more, nothing less. But proved as a rule? Not at all. And, again, it doesn't change the fact that this is you speaking for Blizzard. Or trying to, at least.

[Traveler Voltin]

there will never be perfect balance.

[Felmourn]

Always and forever Bard.

[Teriz]

Do you know the difference between a "trend" and a "rule"?
Yes, really. Because, if your arbitrary rule is true, any and all concepts that Blizzard comes up with but has no corresponding unit and/or ability in Warcraft 3, it means such a class would never get into WoW, regardless of how "awesome" it is or how well it fits within the franchise's lore. Again, it's needlessly restrictive.

Which is your opinion. Given what we've seen of the WoW class lineup, they don't agree with your opinion, since every WoW class relates to WC3 heroes in varying ways.

That's not how it works, Teriz. You're making a claim of fact in which we have no way to confirm unless Blizzard outright comes out and says so. You're implying causation when all you have is a correlation. And, as any honest person knows and is willing to admit it, correlation does not imply causation.

Again, EVERY WoW class having this same quality confirms it. And we've already seen how you react to Blizzard confirming something, so please stop pretending that you would accept this even if they confirmed it.

"Delusion" is this complete strawman, considering I never said that "Blizzard is working on a Riftrunner class". This is once again another example of you being dishonest as you try to obfuscate.

So what have you been arguing about for the last several pages?

It still doesn't change the fact that you are still trying to speak for Blizzard by de-canonize parts of the game and lore that do not agree with your narrative.

If you're talking about professions, I don't need to de-canonize what isn't canon in the first place.

And the two still went through the same training.

You mean the training where they were taught to throw a shield and have it bounce back to them?

You're the one playing semantics. Because the "assassin" theme that Blizzard used for the rogue is of the skulking rogue who stays in the shadows and ambushes their enemies when they least suspect it. And yet you use the generic term "assassin" which is basically the synonym for "murderer" when you described the pirate, a term that applies to ALL classes in the game.

Looks like this went over your head. Again, an Assassin, a Pirate, and a Thief all works perfectly well within a Rogue thematic, because they're all Rogues.

They don't. They use necromancy. "Death magic" requires anima, which we don't have access to:
"Anima is the source that is drawn upon when using death magic. It is comparable to mana."

You just pull stuff out of your butt don't you?

Death is a cosmic force that holds sway over every living thing in the Great Dark Beyond. Acting as a counterbalance to life, it is an unavoidable force that breeds despair in mortal hearts and pushes everything towards a state of entropic decay and eventual oblivion. It manifests in the form of necromantic magic and is represented by the Shadowlands, the realm of the dead.[2]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Death

Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts[2][3] or the black arts)[4] the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead.[5] Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

Oh, who else uses Necromantic magic?

While all Death Knights have some ability to control and reanimate undead minions, an Unholy Death Knight has chosen to specialize necromantic magic, and their abilities should reflect that.

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-gb/ne...-class-updates


But don't worry, despite the fact that Blizzard has contradicted your arguments yet again, you'll continue to ignore it and continue arguing semantics.