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

[Triceron]

I personally think it should be a Form, and mostly because of the fantasy of playing as a Tinker.

I wouldn't want to be playing a Tech master who fires rockets and shoots lasers from a humanoid character base holding a gun; that's already the fantasy of a Hunter with Engineering. The robot is the main aspect of it, so it should be front-and-center as a central feature. It's not like the Demon Hunter who has a powerful form but is otherwise still very awesome in their humanoid form; the Tinker doesn't really have a power fantasy without the Mech.

Same with Tanking role. I don't see the point of the Mech Suit simply being a cooldown while tanking in humanoid form. I don't see them Shield tanking like Warriors or Paladins, and I don't think the technology should be assumed like they have invisible 'Magnetic Deflector systems' or anything like that; it should be tanking in a giant mech like everyone wants out of a proper Tech class.

Anything less than the mech form would be too bland in my opinion; no different than considering a regular Tanking class with Engineering profession transmogs and tools for support.

[AngerFork]

I for one think the mech would be powerfull and need to be a cooldown.
if your char is never seen much under the mech, then what armor class are you going to be ? a robe ? leather? what's the use of mail if you're never outside ?

Arguably, this is already the case for Druids. What does the armor type matter when you spend the entire fight as a Bear, or an Owl, or a Cat? But even beyond that, it does come down to where mech suits make sense. A mech suit feels like a weird sort of thing to have for healing, it would be better to build healing bots and/or mix healing chemicals instead. Tanking on the other hand, a mech suit seems almost a necessity for tanking and simply bringing it in for 30 seconds for it to disappear again would feel wrong. It could operate in a similar setup to D.Va in this case where you could have it break apart after damage making the tank resort to DPSing while waiting for the suit to be used again.

as far as Dark Ranger & Necromancer, I find them unsuffisent as full class, and usefull to combine the 2 into a death dealer ranged class with ranger weapons, agi build, as a Dark Ranger; or a magic user, many summon controller, as a Necromancer. and as such there are many artworks of mail wearing necromancers, it'd fit well. hell even diablo 2& 3 necromancer have mail looking armors.

The problem I see here is that the two are very different in what they use and how they attack. Traditionally, a Necromancer uses staves and the like to raise the dead to fight. It would feel weird for this character to have a crossbow. Same with a Dark Ranger and a staff. The other problem I see with this idea is that it is adding two ranged DPS specs without any seeming spot for a Tank/Heal spec. Given how we already seem to be lacking Tanks/Heals, adding a pure DPS class feels like something that will be worse rather than better for WoW.

[razorpax]

I don’t think it’s being purposely difficult to point out something that Blizzard has never done for a class before. We already have to consider mechs, summonable robots, turrets, and other general devices having to have their own art assets. Now on top of that would be differing weapon styles as well with unique animations. Seems like quite a lot tbh.

Nope
The reskins would have the same animations

Again you seem to have this idea blizzard hasn’t pulled off reskins

[Unbelievable]

And that would be the iteration of Black Arrow would be the one that summons undead beasts.



I said "better", I never said it was a good idea. And yes, an ability that stuns on auto-attack is too powerful for WoW.



It would certainly have been easier. However, the difference is that Warlock would never be a melee-based agility character, and Night Elves couldn't be Warlocks, so yeah, there were some barriers there. With Dark Rangers and Hunters, the play style for the Dark Ranger already exists in the Hunter class. The only thing the Hunter class is missing nowadays is a few shadow arrow abilities.



You can't say that Goblin Mortar was put in as a replacement for an ability that didn't exist yet.

Also it's a rather dumb thing to say when the ability exists in WoW anyway.



Uh, Enchanters can enchant weapons with frost, arcane, and fire as well.

What's the difference for the Tinker lore wise? They build different types/more advanced forms of technology than the profession does.



So all Gnomes are engineers? I don't think so. That racial only implies that their race is super intelligent so they have a bit easier time with engineering than other races would.



https://www.wowhead.com/spell=148085/healing-spray
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261739/xplodium-charge
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=276851...goblin-defense
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261752/deth-lazor
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=136109/cluster-rocket
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261788/grav-o-bomb-3000
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261516/rock-it-turret




The point is that a Witch Doctor adds nothing to the class lineup not covered by a Warlock, a Shaman, or a Shadow Priest.



That doesn't make the Night Elves Japanese dude.....



So what.




Nor does it need to. The entire point of the Blademaster is a master of the blades. You don't really need Mirror Image for that. Besides you couldn't have it anyway, because it's a Mage ability, and Stealth is a Rogue ability, and having those abilities would cause issues within the Warrior class.



https://www.wowhead.com/spell=148085/healing-spray
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261739/xplodium-charge
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=276851...goblin-defense
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261752/deth-lazor
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=136109/cluster-rocket
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261788/grav-o-bomb-3000
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=261516/rock-it-turret


No it doesn't.

Nice try at demeaning. But, the version a Dark Ranger would have is a skeletal minion.

How is it better, yet too powerful at the same time? if it is better, than it would have been in game instead of the WC3 version. and the one in-game wasn't OP.

You still had Blood elves as Warlocks, and the Metamorphosis did enough of a good job at portraying the Demon Hunter fantasy (according to your broken-ass logic). You forget to mention that Hunters are not spellcasters, do not use necromancy or manipulation and there isn't an undead high elf. So, no. having only ranged thematic does not cover the playstyle, just like the Demon Hunter case.

I didn't say the Goblin Mortar was added as a replacement. I said it can, theoretically, have been used as a replacement, since it covered the functionality. After you said nothing can replace the Xplodium Charge.

Notice how you said enchant. They can't do more magical stuff than that in lore. Unlike the mage, who can use Abjuration, Conjuration, Illusion, transmutation and evocation.

Then, show me where it says, in lore, that they build different/more advanced stuff than the Engineer.

"Engineering Specialization is a defining characteristic of gnome culture, and gnome creations such as the Deeprun Tram regularly make life easier and (more or less) safer for the Alliance's citizens."

These Wowhead links aren't lore. I need you to direct me to a lore page that specifies Tinker abilities.

"The point is that a Demon Hunter adds nothing to the class lineup not covered by a Warlock, a Rogue, or a Priest."

Are you having reading-comprehension difficulties? you said that "Japan doesn't exist in WoW" (which, is a stupid sentence in itself). I just showed you how wrong you were. Alongside the Ninja and Samurai themes in the Warcraft universe. The issue is that you are not lore oriented, or Warcraft oriented at all. Otherwise, you have known Warcraft draws inspiration from mythologies and cultures, including Japanese ones. Saying a Samurai doesn't have a place in Warcraft is, literally, the most idiotic thing someone can say, and your "So What" sentence just confirms it:

"A ninja (忍者, Japanese pronunciation: [ɲiꜜɲdʑa]) or shinobi (忍び, [ɕinobi]) was a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan."

I'm not surprised, though, because i don't expect you to be very knowledgeable.

-_- The point of a Blademaster is being a Samurai. We do need Mirror Image, because that's a Blademaster ability. "Couldn't have it anyway" is the same argument for Demon Hunters not having Metamorphosis because it is in the Warlock class. It's Windwalk, not Stealth. and the Rogue doesn't have ownership over this mechanic. Of course it would cause issues in the Warrior class, because it does not belong in it - like the whole entire Blademaster concept.

Yes, it does:
Rocket Boots
Dimensional Ripper
Overcharged Capacitors
Wormhole Generator
Discombobulation
World Enlarger
Explosive Sheep

If there were a Tinker class or even a Dark Ranger class that might not be the case, but since there's no new class, I'm less interested in playing right now.

Did i read right? if there was a Dark Ranger you would have re-subscribed? You do realize it destroys your whole argument against them and that i'm gonna use it from now on?

Your particular case is 'If there was a Tinker class I'd still be playing' but what about considering Bard, Necromancer, Dark Ranger or any other class being asked for? Do you think there are zero people in the same position as you but regarding some other class being asked for?

That's called 'egocentrism' - the inability to see other people's desires. He, clearly, has it.

On the other hand, if they want a magical archer class, there is the Hunter class. If they want a shadowy assassin who can fight from range, Rogues might be right up their alley.

Good thing it does not answer any of the class concepts.

as far as Dark Ranger & Necromancer, I find them unsuffisent as full class, and usefull to combine the 2 into a death dealer ranged class with ranger weapons, agi build, as a Dark Ranger; or a magic user, many summon controller, as a Necromancer. and as such there are many artworks of mail wearing necromancers, it'd fit well. hell even diablo 2& 3 necromancer have mail looking armors.

That's because you haven't seen my Ranger concept, combing the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch.

I personally think it should be a Form, and mostly because of the fantasy of playing as a Tinker.

I wouldn't want to be playing a Tech master who fires rockets and shoots lasers from a humanoid character base holding a gun; that's already the fantasy of a Hunter with Engineering. The robot is the main aspect of it, so it should be front-and-center as a central feature. It's not like the Demon Hunter who has a powerful form but is otherwise still very awesome in their humanoid form; the Tinker doesn't really have a power fantasy without the Mech.

Same with Tanking role. I don't see the point of the Mech Suit simply being a cooldown while tanking in humanoid form. I don't see them Shield tanking like Warriors or Paladins, and I don't think the technology should be assumed like they have invisible 'Magnetic Deflector systems' or anything like that; it should be tanking in a giant mech like everyone wants out of a proper Tech class.

Anything less than the mech form would be too bland in my opinion; no different than considering a regular Tanking class with Engineering profession transmogs and tools for support.

Do you realize how powerful it would be? having a metal mech suit would increase you armor and damage by 1000% and would render the Tinker's Claw Pack useless. It can be seen as the Demon Hunter equivalence in size and boost. They don't walk around in it all the time.

[Teriz]

The canon clearly states that Tinkers are primarily composed of Gnomes and Goblins, not exclusively. Just as Arthas's Death Knights (the ones we play as) are primarily human, Demon Hunters are mostly Night Elves (the Blood Elven ones were nearly wiped out), Cenarion Circle Druids are mostly Night Elves and Tauren, Pandaren martial arts-using Monks are mostly Pandaren, etc. It's quite clear that some races are more inclined towards a class and/or profession than others. Majority does not equal exclusivity.

Why don't we discuss the gameplay implications of a Tinker class, rather the canonical? That's more fun.

WC3 Tinker abilities:
- Pocket Factory, the cornerstone ability for a mech-summoner spec
- Cluster Rockets, ranged AOE nuke that may inspire an artillery spec
- Robo-Goblin[Form], this is where we put the mech suit, yeah?

I wouldn't count out Engineering Upgrade. I could see that as a talent that simply improves your quality of life. I actually see Pocket Factory also being a DPS ability. I see the DPS spec as being more based around turrets and robotic summons, whereas the tanking spec uses more AoE abilities and explosives.

Don't forget HoTS abilities as well;

-Rock-it Turret: Cornerstone of ranged DPS spec
-Deth Lazor: Expedition team used it as a Tank weapon. HotS recently added the ability to heal by using it, making that seemingly more likely.
-Xplodium Charge: Another tank ability, seemingly used for control purposes. I could even see a talent where this is passively launched in combat.
-Grav-O-Bomb 3000: Explosive that pulls targets in. Again, seemingly a tank ability for mob control, but I can see DPS using this too.
-Robo Goblin Shield: Gives a shield and movement boost. Probably class wide cool down
-Salvager: Nice utility spell that brings your abilities back on line faster and restores resources. I see this as a class wide passive
-EZ PZ Dimensional Ripper: More than likely a tank cooldown


I would also add the Goblin Alchemist hero's abilities from WC3 to this as well, because they simply fit;

-Healing Spray: Healing spec
-Adrenaline Bomb (formerly Chemical Rage): Pretty much a Bloodlust variant
-Acid Bomb: DPS or Tank ability. Probably tanking
-Transmute: I could see this become a ray or beam (Transmutation Beam), and be an insta-kill in the same vein as Death Touch or Execute.

Then we also have the Expedition Team abilities:

-Shock Baton: class wide CC
-Cutting Laser: DPS ability
-Healbot: Healing/DPS spec
-Arachnobomb: DPS spec
-Turbocharged: Tank utility passive unless all specs use mechs
-Flamethrower: Tank/DPS ability
-Discharge: Tank AoE

I think with those abilities alone, you have the skeleton of as class.

Mech suit: Cooldown or toggleable?

Mechanized utility pack (like the one Gazlowe uses from Heroes of the Storm and so on): More or less an aesthetic option for the class, right? Or should it be an ability as well?

Now the Claw Pack issue is one that is really boggling my mind because I think it could go either way. The more elegant way to do it is just give every spec a mech and bypass the Claw Pack altogether, that way the mech-based abilities like Turbo charged can be streamlined.

However, Blizzard has kept their class concepts VERY close to their WC3 and HotS iterations, and the Claw Pack appears in every iteration of the Tinker hero, so I don't see Blizzard abandoning it. They would probably find a way to incorporate it. How? I have no idea.

It's important to note that the Claw Pack COMPLETELY alters the potential play style of this class concept versus a mech-only version. With the mech only version you have concepts like eject, self destruct, parking, etc. the would just make no sense with a claw pack. However, the Claw Pack offers the option of having a Tinker without a constant mech, and maybe even having the mech as a cooldown instead of a permanent aspect.

If I were developing the class, the mech suit would be toggleable, there would be no mechanized utility pack, and each spec would have a mech. IMO, that's the best way to do it.

One interesting tidbit to keep in mind is that throughout BFA you saw examples of Blizzard using interesting mechanics for mech-users. For example Gazlowe and Exarch Orelis had the ability to continue fighting after their mechs had been destroyed. Mech Jockeys and Gazlowe both had the Activate Mech ability where they hopped into mechs. Mech Jockeys had the ability to eject from their mechs before they were destroyed. Because of that, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tinker is mech-focused.

- - - Updated - - -

I personally think it should be a Form, and mostly because of the fantasy of playing as a Tinker.

I wouldn't want to be playing a Tech master who fires rockets and shoots lasers from a humanoid character base holding a gun; that's already the fantasy of a Hunter with Engineering. The robot is the main aspect of it, so it should be front-and-center as a central feature. It's not like the Demon Hunter who has a powerful form but is otherwise still very awesome in their humanoid form; the Tinker doesn't really have a power fantasy without the Mech.

Same with Tanking role. I don't see the point of the Mech Suit simply being a cooldown while tanking in humanoid form. I don't see them Shield tanking like Warriors or Paladins, and I don't think the technology should be assumed like they have invisible 'Magnetic Deflector systems' or anything like that; it should be tanking in a giant mech like everyone wants out of a proper Tech class.

Anything less than the mech form would be too bland in my opinion; no different than considering a regular Tanking class with Engineering profession transmogs and tools for support.

I actually agree with all of this. Go big or don't bother.

[Unbelievable]

If I were developing the class, the mech suit would be toggleable, there would be no mechanized utility pack, and each spec would have a mech. IMO, that's the best way to do it.

Then, you shit on the whole claw pack concept you have been rambling about for 150 pages. That's shitting on the Goblin Tinker in WC3 and HotS that you stick so closely to.

It just comes to show how two-faced you are. One moment it is the most important thing in the Tinker, the other it isn't, even, worth implementing.

[Imperator4321]

Blizzard has been, consistently, adding classes from Warcraft 3. The Death Knight, the Pandaren Brewmaster (Monk) and the Demon Hunter. You just don't seem to notice it. When they break that pattern, you'd have a point.

While they took WC3 classes and expanded them, they kept them consistent within the established theme of those WC3 heroes (death magic, pandaren culture, demonic magic), unlike your ranger concept which mashes 3 unrelated wc3 heroes together due to a tenuous relation of using bows, being elves and using (different forms of) magic.

They are missing from the Priest, not only visually but, also name-wise abilities, which might have associated them with Moon or Loa worshipping. The Priest racials have been absent from the game since Cataclysm. Moreover, those priest NPCs fill the same role as Demonology and Affliction Warlocks did for the Demon Hunter and Death Knights. They supplemented the Metamorphosis and necromantic themes, until the addition of those classes.

the lack of visual represntation of Loa or Elune within priest spells is not a indication that they aren't worshipping Elune or Loa, the fact that they included spells like starshards, elunes grace, hex of weakness and shadowguard in vanilla shows that they considered Night Elf and Troll priests to be Elune and Loa priests respectively, those were removed because of balancing concerns not due to Elune/Loa worship not being related to light/shadow that priests use. the fact that Talanji and prelates explicitly use the "light of the loa/rezan" or Elune beings linked the holy light through things like the tears of elune reviving the Lights heart, Elune/Loa power is not as unique as you think it is.

Then, you don't read between the lines. Showing Tyrande with new weapon types (Glaives) and Sylvanas using daggers, chains, Banshee form, Blast, vault and invisibility are there to hint at, potential, Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon abilities/weapon types and hype us up.

Summon Skeleton — Summons 1 Skeleton to aid the caster in battle for 30 sec.
alongside:
Drain Life — Drains health from an enemy over 5 sec., transferring it to the caster.
Shadow Bolt — Hurls a bolt of dark magic at an enemy, inflicting Shadow damage.

So, yeah. They were trying to imply Death Knights as being some kind of Warlocks.
You, also, have to take into consideration that the times are different. They might have just re-used abilities back then, but now they also give it flavorful names

the themes of warlocks (fel, shadow and other forms of "dark" magic) has nothing to do with the theme of what a Death Knight is which is a fallen hero/anti-paladin, theres of a minor link in that warlocks have minor spells that evoke necromancy (siphon life, drain life, phantom singularity, haunt) but outside of summon skeleton there little there that tells me they were communicating Death Knights as reflavored warriors/warlocks.

Meanwhile showing dark rangers using Hunter ability and reflavored Hunter style abilities (shot-type abilties & pet revival) does communicate (to me at least) that what i'm seeing is just a reflavored Hunter with abilities to match the "undead/necromancy using hunter" thing Dark Rangers have. same way Zandalari prelates in throne of Thunder used paladin style abilities with names like "seal of the Loa", "judgement of the loa" and "light of the loa" to communicate that they are reflavored loa worshipping Paladins

If Mana Burn is inconsequential and the absorption of Demon Hunter identity into the Warlock was unsuccessful then, having Black Arrow once was inconsequential and the absorption of Dark Ranger into the Hunter is unsuccessful.

Mana burn is inconsequential because nothing about damaging a target based on mana is explicetly tied to the Demon Hunter archtype or thematic identity (shadowy warrior a uses demomic magic/becomes a demon) and Meta being forced onto the Warlock identity was something we know was done at the behest and insistence of a warlock dev who was a little overzealous (and was later fired for "creative differences"), we have no indication Black Arrow was removed from Hunters because the spell didn't fit the Hunter identity maybe it was, maybe it's because it was a terrible talent, maybe theres a dev at Blizzard who wanted Hunters to absorb the Dark Ranger identity same way that Warlock dev wanted to absorb the demon hunter identity, who knows.

Tidesages are a recent addition. They haven't been a part of the lore as long as the other classes mentioned. However, i wouldn't mind them actually being incorporated into the game, gameplay-wise. I think the addition of a Sea Witch would contribute a lot to that aspect.

my point was that Tidesages like Priestess of the Moon, Dark Ranger, Sea Witch, Blademaster, Witch Doctors, Shadow Hunters, ect are NPC classes they use a multitude of abilities from other classes, or reflavored versions of those classes abilities to better fit their specific theme (moonlight based holy spells or necromancy based hunter abilities for instance) but while they are a unique archetype in universe, what they do is split so much thematically and ability wise between multiple classes that adding them as an entirely seperate class isn't possible without damaging the identity of those existing classes (this is why i support class skins it allows these specific themes to become more visible without damaging a classes identity such as a more loa/spirit flavored shaman skin, or a elune flavored priest skin, or a dark ranger hunter skin.)

Yes, you can have Witch Doctors playable, if they incorporate those aspects into a Shadow Hunter class. Just like the Demon Hunter had to incorporate aspects of the Warlock, Rogue and Priest.

And how do you add Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters without negatively impacting the unique identity of the Shaman class? Totems unlike mana burn or evasion are not inconsequential abilities that only serve to inform their gameplay attributes, Totems are part of what makes shamans unique in the class line-up and giving Totems/Wards to Witch Doctors/Shadow Hunters would negatively impact the Shamans identity, same with the "walking the line of dark and light" which has become the priests identity in WoW, the game and setting have evolved since WC3 and classes like Witch Doctor, Shadow Hunter, Priestess of the Moon, Blademaster, ect got absorbed into the identities of the various core classes, is it unfortunate for those that really liked those specific archetypes and thematics? yes and i do sympathize but I also recognize that those classes simply cannot be implimented into WoW without negatively affecting what currently have.

The Hunter had much more "explosive expert" identity in Legion, when they based the Survival spec on Guerilla warfare (which, is what Junkrat, basically, is). Having abilities like Wildfire Bomb, Hi-explosive Trap, Explosive Shot, Dragonsfire Grenade, Sticky Bomb, Steel Trap, Caltrops and more. What i'm suggesting is moving it to the Marksmanship spec.

Junkrat is not based on "Guerilla Warfare" hes based on demolitionists and the gameplay archetype of a area denial specialist (grenades, traps, explosives). Caltrops and Steel Trap aren't "explosives" those are just traps (one is freaking bear trap one of the most iconic hunting traps in the world), explosives are a minor part of the Hunters identity they round out their theme of being crafty fighters who use tools like venoms, traps and (alchemical) bombs to bring foes down.

"Elven rangers are elite archers turning to nature for aid, befriending animals. Some of them possess minor druidic abilities, as Vereesa Windrunner was able to use the "language of the trees, of all plants", and sense a plant's emotions and history through touch".

I'm not sure you get what exactly a "ranger" is here, a Ranger is someone who protects a stretch of land, typically wilderness, the Blood Elf Farstriders are Rangers, the Night elf Sentinels are Rangers, the Draenei Rangari are rangers, their connection the the land, kinship with animals, and skills with bows makes them Hunters by class not "Rangers" Hunters also already have minor magical abilities due to their connection to the wilds & beasts.

The Ranger is the basic, nature aspect of the three classes. While Dark Rangers lost their ability to commune with nature, using necromancy instead, Priestess of the Moon use lunar aspects, given their worship of Elune, and Sea Witches use the sea, due to their transformation into nagas. Priestess of the Moon can still be seen using Spirit beast (owl) and the Dark Ranger replaced this aspect with undead creatures. As you can see, there's a magical aspect to the Ranger, as Vereesa could use nature magic. Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that the Ranger abilities and appearance were distributed to those 3 classes, exactly:
Scout, Trushot Aura and Starfall were given to the Priestess of the Moon, and Cold Arrows were given to the Sea Witch, while the appearance was given to Sylvanas. Why give them the Ranger abilities and appearance if they have nothing in common with it?
The Dark Ranger has the Ranger name in it, Tyrande has these talents in HotS:
Ranger
Sentinel pierces the first hero hit. Its width is increased by 25% and deals up to 250% more damage based on distance traveled.

Ranger's Mark
Basic Attacks reduce the cooldown of Hunter's Mark by 1 second. Basic Attacks against marked targets reduce the cooldown of Lunar Flare by 3 seconds.

so, if you missed them in my last comments, here they are. There's absolutely, no reason to associate her with Ranger talents if she's no Ranger at all. So, now that you see that Priestess is just in name, the Sea Witch, also knows as Priestess of the Tides, is a Ranger as well.

Tyrande is a "Ranger" because she leads the Sentinels (same way Sylvanas is "ranger" because she protected the wilds of quel'thalas) who are Rangers who protect the lands of Darnasus (their "range"), yesTyrande due to her profession qualifies as a "ranger" but "ranger" is just another name from the archetype that is part of the Hunters identity (adventurers who are connected to the wilderness & beasts).

Currently, the basic Ranger might be in the Hunter class. But, i'm suggesting they remove it in favor of a Ranger class (containing the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch) and redesigning the Hunter as Beastmaster, Sapper and Headhunter. That way, there's no overlap.

So you are advocating that core aspects of the Hunters identity (their connection the wilds, nature magical abilities, master marksmen) be removed in order to make way for this "ranger" class which has the same base theme but with thematically divorced specs (necromancy, holy moon magic and sea magic.) while replacing the Hunter specs you took with a thematically divorced spec (a military sapper/demolitions expert in a class called "hunter")

Let me show you how the Ranger divide into these 3 specs is like other classes in game:
Base class: Ranger (magic-using bow wielder)
Specializations: Necromancy, Lunar, Water.
Mage: Magic user.
Specializations: Arcane, Fire, Frost.
Death Knight: Death magic user.
Specialization: Blood, Frost, Death.
Druid: Nature class.
Specializations: celestial, physical, plant.
Monk: Martial Artist.
Specializations: alcohol, Mists, Physical.

And let me inform you how unlike your Ranger class the specs of all those classes thematically resonate with the overall theme/identity of the class

Mages: Arcane magic user, Specs use different expressions of arcane magic, volatile and unstable fire magic (fire), cool and control based frost magic (frost) and the ebb and flow of arcane magic (arcane)
Death Knight: Death Magic user: specs use different forms of magic related to the Scourge, vampiric blood magic (blood), frozen winds of northrend (frost), and the plague of undeath/necromancy (unholy)
Druid: Nature Magic user uses magic related to the natural world it's flora (restoration), fauna (feral & guardian) and natural cycles (balance)
Monk: Uses various techniques/abilities related to Pandaren culture the mists of Pandaren (mistweaver), Pandaren brews (brewmaster) and Pandaren martial arts (Windwalker)

despite the differences all these specs relate back to a core thematic identity, what does your Ranger have? Elves? Bows? "Magic"? these are all superfluous or surface level aspects of them and Necromancy, Elune and Sea Magic in no way relate back to one another to form a cohesive identity.

At the base, it will still be a Ranger: Master Archer. The difference between the ridiculous examples you've given with the Paladin and Death Knight and Spellbreaker, or the Mage, Priest and Warlock is that they are not different types of each other. A Paladin's variations are Vindicator, Blood Knight and Sunwalker. a Spellbreaker is a type of Blood elven Warrior. Mage's variations are Archmage, Blood Mage and Arcanist. A Priest's variations are Cleric, Anchorite and Cultist. On the other hand, the Ranger's variations are exactly what i pointed out: the Dark Ranger (a Ranger delving into necromancy), Priestess of the Moon (a Ranger using Lunar magic), and a Sea Witch (a Ranger using sea magic). at the base, they are all Rangers. They are just delving into different types of magics (different specializations, like the Mage's 3 magic schools).

My "ridiculous example" used the exact same logic you used, i took 3 seperate WC3 units made a tenuous connection between paladins, death knights and spellbreakers based on a based on minor details, that they were all melee fighters who used magical abilities and claimed they were all variations of the same base concept (a magic wielding "Knight") while ignoring the differences in magic used, thematic identity (a paladin vs an antipaladin vs a anti magic warrior), same way you took a fallen ranger, a priestess of a moon goddess and a witch of the tides and claimed they were variations of the same concept (a magic using "Ranger") while ignoring thematic identities and types of magic used.

That's being hypocritical. You are just a Teriz 2.0, pushing your Necromancer class (instead of a Tinker) and dismissing other ideas.

Insects, Corpses, Constructs and Bone are already represented in the Death Knight:

Unholy Blight
Level 56 death knight talent
1.5 min cooldown
Instant
Surrounds the Death Knight with a vile swarm of unholy insects for 10 sec, stinging all enemies within 10 yards every 1 sec, infecting them with Blood Plague and Frost Fever.

Raise Dead
30 yd range
Instant 2 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 12
Raises a ghoul to fight by your side. You can have a maximum of one ghoul at a time. Lasts 1 min.

Control Undead
1 Rune / -10 Runic Power 30 yd range
1.5 sec cast
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 37
Dominates the target undead creature up to level 38, forcing it to do your bidding for 5 min.

Apocalypse
Melee Range
Instant 1.5 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
Requires level 19
Requires Melee Weapon
Bring doom upon the enemy, dealing (50% of Attack power)% Shadow damage and bursting up to 4 Festering Wounds on the target.

Summons an Army of the Dead ghoul for 15 sec for each burst Festering Wound.

Dark Transformation
100 yd range
Instant 1 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
Requires level 32
Your ghoul deals (44.73% of Attack power) Shadow damage to 5 nearby enemies and transforms into a powerful undead monstrosity for 15 sec.

Granting them 100% energy and the ghoul's abilities are empowered and take on new functions while the transformation is active.

Army of the Dead
1 Rune / -10 Runic Power
Instant cast 8 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
Requires level 44
Summons a legion of ghouls who swarms your enemies, fighting anything they can for 30 sec.

Reanimation PvP Talent
Tank Specs – Row 1 PvP Talent
1 Rune / -10 Runic Power 40 yd range
Instant cast
Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
Requires level 20
Reanimates a nearby corpse, summoning a zombie with 5 health for 20 sec to slowly move towards your target.

If it reaches your target, it explodes stunning all enemies within 6.5 yards for 3 sec and dealing 10% of enemies health in Shadow damage.

Raise Abomination PvP Talent
Tank Specs – Row 1 PvP Talent
Replaces Army of the Dead
40 yd range
Instant 1.5 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
Requires level 45
Raises an Abomination for 25 sec which wanders and attacks enemies near where it was summoned, applying Festering Wound when it melees targets, and affecting all those nearby with Virulent Plague.

Bonestorm
Talent
10 to 100 Runic Power
Instant cast 1 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Blood)
Requires level 50
A whirl of bone and gore batters up to 8 nearby enemies, dealing (19.65% of Attack power) Shadow damage every 1 sec, and healing you for 3% of your maximum health every time it deals damage (up to 15%). Lasts 1 sec per 10 Runic Power spent.

Bone Shield
Instant
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 23
Surrounds you with a barrier of whirling bones, increasing Armor by (70 * Strength / 100)

Each melee attack against you consumes a charge. Lasts 30 sec or until all charges are consumed.

Yet, my ideas are bad and unoriginal?
You don't even have anything other than Poison and spiders (which, can be a glyph).

I guess you didn't see my Hunter, Shaman, Warrior and Rogue class concepts, resolving the issues of borrowing abilities:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...e/page111#2202

You just took half of the abilities that define a Death Knight and put them in your Necromancer concept. Talking about irony...
You're quick to criticize other class ideas and dismiss them, while your own are half-assed, stolen from another class and aren't even that detailed or impressive.
Nice to see that, now that the Demon Hunter is in game, the Warlock's Metamorphosis wasn't fitting. How convenient...

Unholy Death Knights are themed around zombies/ghouls and plague/disease not insects and constructs the only abilities there that evoke those concepts are unholy blight and raise abomination, a talent and a pvp talent hardly core aspects of their identity.

Blood Death Knights are themed around Blood and Vampyric abilities, "bone" based abilities are minor part of that.

My idea was more a musing/thought not a serious concept and it was more centered around themes/visuals than specific abilities that a Necromancy could be heavily themed around using corpses, flesh, bone, constructs and insects to make it more distinct from Death knights while still sharing a connection to the Scourge (the nerubians/spider wing & construct/abomination wing instead of the Lich/frostworms, Blight/Zombies and Blood/Vampirism that went into the Death Knight class).

[Triceron]

Do you realize how powerful it would be? having a metal mech suit would increase you armor and damage by 1000% and would render the Tinker's Claw Pack useless. It can be seen as the Demon Hunter equivalence in size and boost. They don't walk around in it all the time.

You're looking at it as though the mechanic *has* to be a 1000% damage boost.

You should look at it as if it were a *form* that the class mechanics are built around. No different than saying 'if Druids turn into a bear their health armor and damage would be boosted by 1000%' Well yes because a Druid's humanoid form is technically worthless, just as what my idea of a Tinker would be.

IMO there should be no standard 'Claw Pack' Tinker at all. It's the Mech suit or bust. I don't particularly think there is a reason for Tinkers to be fighting outside of a Mech Suit at all, and all armor would just be for display just as a Druid's Humanoid visuals are only good for *maybe* one spec out of all their gameplay.

As I said, I don't see Tinkers doing anything particularly interesting in their basic humanoid forms. Anything we already want that's tech-based for humanoids is already provided in Engineering.

[Unbelievable]

You're looking at it as though the mechanic *has* to be a 1000% damage boost.

You should look at it as if it were a *form* that the class mechanics are built around. No different than saying 'if Druids turn into a bear their health armor and damage would be boosted by 1000%' Well yes because a Druid's humanoid form is technically worthless, just as what my idea of a Tinker would be.

IMO there should be no standard 'Claw Pack' Tinker at all. It's the Mech suit or bust. I don't particularly think there is a reason for Tinkers to be fighting outside of a Mech Suit at all, and all armor would just be for display just as a Druid's armor visuals are only good for *maybe* one spec out of all their gameplay.

Also, I don't buy into the Tinker with Claw Pack concept at all. I think it's absolutely needless addition, and secondary to the main point of anyone's idea of a Tech-based class; the Mechs. Even if not the mechs, most people would associate Tinkers with Turret-based gameplay, and that doesn't need a Claw Pack to work either.

As I said, I don't see Tinkers doing anything particularly interesting in their basic humanoid forms. Anything we already want that's tech-based for humanoids is already provided in Engineering.

Yet, a bear hide and fur is not as close to a full metallic suit. That's like wearing Plate armor, with extra layering.

[AngerFork]

You're looking at it as though the mechanic *has* to be a 1000% damage boost.

You should look at it as if it were a *form* that the class mechanics are built around. No different than saying 'if Druids turn into a bear their health armor and damage would be boosted by 1000%' Well yes because a Druid's humanoid form is technically worthless, just as what my idea of a Tinker would be.

IMO there should be no standard 'Claw Pack' Tinker at all. It's the Mech suit or bust. I don't particularly think there is a reason for Tinkers to be fighting outside of a Mech Suit at all, and all armor would just be for display just as a Druid's armor visuals are only good for *maybe* one spec out of all their gameplay.

Also, I don't buy into the Tinker with Claw Pack concept at all. I think it's absolutely needless addition, and secondary to the main point of anyone's idea of a Tech-based class; the Mechs. Even if not the mechs, most people would associate Tinkers with Turret-based gameplay, and that doesn't need a Claw Pack to work either.

As I said, I don't see Tinkers doing anything particularly interesting in their basic humanoid forms. Anything we already want that's tech-based for humanoids is already provided in Engineering.

I agree with most of this. Blizz can set the mech suit form to whatever bonuses they want, it doesn't have to be 100%. Also, there is no reason for a Tanking Tinker to ever be without a mech suit.

But I'm not sure I agree as much on healing or DPS Tinkers. Healing-wise, there's a lot of stuff you might want to do out of a mech suit. Build healing bots, mix healing chemicals, stuff like that. Healing within a bot feels like it would be weird and like you couldn't get the level of detail you want.

DPSing, I could see that either way. A mech suit would be great for blasting enemies, but I feel you'd lose a lot of turret-style play if you did that. A Tinker might be in a suit, or could be like Torbjorn in Overwatch. Both I feel would add something new to the game. Either way, this is where the Claw Pack could be a neat cooldown. Close up, it could work as a massive melee attack. From a range, it could be a megablaster style cooldown (though I suppose that would be more gun pack than claw pack).

[Triceron]

Yet, a bear hide and fur is not as close to a full metallic suit. That's like wearing Plate armor, with extra layering.

So are you talking about lore or are you talking about game mechanics?

Because a Bear Druid can obtain higher Armor stat than any Warrior could due to its unique mechanics. A full plate-wearing Warrior, Paladin and DK has less Armor stat than a Bear. Think about that.

- - - Updated - - -

But I'm not sure I agree as much on healing or DPS Tinkers. Healing-wise, there's a lot of stuff you might want to do out of a mech suit. Build healing bots, mix healing chemicals, stuff like that. Healing within a bot feels like it would be weird and like you couldn't get the level of detail you want.

Healing is probably the only one that I'd be okay with outside a Mech suit, for obvious reasons. For that I can see them relying more on Healing Drones or Healing Turrets; whatever gadgets they have at their disposal. I don't think a full suit is necessary for that, and I'm not married to having the forms be relevant to this spec.

I'm still against having a Claw pack however, unless it's purely visual like what we have with the Covenant back pieces.

[Katchii]

As I said, I don't see Tinkers doing anything particularly interesting in their basic humanoid forms. Anything we already want that's tech-based for humanoids is already provided in Engineering.

Tinker's could pretty easily be interesting in their base humanoid form though. The concept behind them is their use of engineering "gadgets" in battle, that can include all KINDS of things, not just mech suits. Mech suits would give them a much better chance of surviving conflicts that were up on your face, like a Druid in Bear form, but they still have the ability to make ranged gadgets that can dish out damage, or even heal, and use those in their base humanoid form.

I think it would be pretty cool to be a bomb tossing, flamethrower using, gun toting, murder bot controlling, genius who stands at the back of the group just raining mechanical death while the tank goes and punches people in the face with their mechsuit.

[AngerFork]

Healing is probably the only one that I'd be okay with outside a Mech suit, for obvious reasons. For that I can see them relying more on Healing Drones or Healing Turrets; whatever gadgets they have at their disposal. I don't think a full suit is necessary for that, and I'm not married to having the forms be relevant to this spec.

I'm still against having a Claw pack however, unless it's purely visual like what we have with the Covenant back pieces.

The more I think on it, the more I agree on the claw pack. It's more of a melee thing and a Melee DPS Tinker just doesn't feel right when thinking on abilities. I do still want the gun pack as a DPS cooldown, but that can be done in far different ways than a Claw Pack.

[Triceron]

The more I think on it, the more I agree on the claw pack. It's more of a melee thing and a Melee DPS Tinker just doesn't feel right when thinking on abilities. I do still want the gun pack as a DPS cooldown, but that can be done in far different ways than a Claw Pack.

I think a Gun-pack is fine, kinda like Tinker in DOTA2. It's just that as a concept, if we're going to go that route we might as well skip the half-measure and go full blown mech suit DPS. I mean Blizzard has to do the same amount of work just to implement a DPS mech as a cooldown ability, might as well just make that the standard and double down on having all the abilities integrated into this system instead of into a separate Gun-pack. Just my personal opinion, I'm not arguing against a Claw pack either way I just personally don't see much reason to keep it if the Tinker would be just as viable in 3 specs without it.

[Teriz]

Then, you shit on the whole claw pack concept you have been rambling about for 150 pages. That's shitting on the Goblin Tinker in WC3 and HotS that you stick so closely to.

Just because I’m not a fan of the concept doesn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge that it’s a major part of Tinker lore. Further based on past class implementations, the claw pack has a good chance of being brought in simply because of its history with the concept.

Also if we’re discussing Tinker lore (which we were) you have to acknowledge the claw pack as part of that lore.

It just comes to show how two-faced you are. One moment it is the most important thing in the Tinker, the other it isn't, even, worth implementing.

It only appears two-faces because you weren’t listening to what I was saying. My Tinker concept shows what style Tinker I prefer.

- - - Updated - - -

The more I think on it, the more I agree on the claw pack. It's more of a melee thing and a Melee DPS Tinker just doesn't feel right when thinking on abilities. I do still want the gun pack as a DPS cooldown, but that can be done in far different ways than a Claw Pack.

If they go Claw Pack the Tinker will be restrained to Goblins and Gnomes and their allied races. I don’t see a situation where Blizzard makes Claw Packs for Draenei and Orcs.

It should be noted that the reason they used Claw Packs in the first place was to make Goblins easier to see on RTS maps.

[AngerFork]

I think a Gun-pack is fine, kinda like Tinker in DOTA2. It's just that as a concept, if we're going to go that route we might as well skip the half-measure and go full blown mech suit DPS. I mean Blizzard has to do the same amount of work just to implement a DPS mech as a cooldown ability, might as well just make that the standard and double down on having all the abilities integrated into this system instead of into a separate Gun-pack. Just my personal opinion, I'm not arguing against a Claw pack either way I just personally don't see much reason to keep it if the Tinker would be just as viable in 3 specs without it.

I'm not fully opposed to Mech Suit DPS, but I do wonder how that would feel different than the classes we already have in place. It's in a mech and using technology, but play-wise how is that different from any of the other ranged DPS classes? If it feels different somehow with the mech suit, it could be a ton of fun.

Where I see DPS is somewhat more of a turret/bot style game setup, kind of like Skaggit in Islands. Building bombs and other bots, setting up turrets for a range of attacks, where half of your DPS comes from enhancing and upgrading abilities rather than just blasting lasers from a suit. The suit would still be fun, I'd just be sad to lose perhaps a unique play-style compared to other WoW classes already in place. And the new classes we've had so far have all had a unique element not seen in WoW to that point on introduction, so Tinkers or whatever comes next should follow suit.

[Imperator4321]

It should be noted that the reason they used Claw Packs in the first place was to make Goblins easier to see on RTS maps.

Couldn't that also be the reason it's never shown up outside of isometric RTS & MOBA games? because a giant robot backpack would look awkward as hell in any other perspective even on a dimunitive race like Gnomes & Goblins

[AngerFork]

If they go Claw Pack the Tinker will be restrained to Goblins and Gnomes and their allied races. I don’t see a situation where Blizzard makes Claw Packs for Draenei and Orcs.

It should be noted that the reason they used Claw Packs in the first place was to make Goblins easier to see on RTS maps.

I could see it as a cooldown for all races, but maybe not as an always on sort of thing. That would allow for either A) believably using the same asset if needed, and B) the ability to make it large without worrying about doors and the like. They could still customize the asset if wanted, but it wouldn't be as awkward as a full mech suit shared by all races.

Though to the discussion above, there's enough Tinker toys and they don't seem likely to be melee (save for tanks) that I'm not sure claw packs are needed.

[Triceron]

Couldn't that also be the reason it's never shown up outside of isometric RTS & MOBA games? because a giant robot backpack would look awkward as hell in any other perspective even on a dimunitive race like Gnomes & Goblins

This is actually the primary reason I'm against the Claw back. It's visual clutter that is mostly unnecessary, considering our camera is over-the shoulder of our characters. I feel like Wings are acceptable because they're not as distracting as lasers and spell effects coming from that source; and any Wing animations are usually there just to accent any bigger ability/movement in play, not as the direct source of your attacks.

And the Claw Packs as they are sized in WC3 and Heroes are overly huge. Gazlowe's is easily more than double his entire height and size.

[Imperator4321]

This is actually the primary reason I'm against the Claw back. It's visual clutter that is mostly unnecessary, considering our camera is over-the shoulder of our characters. I feel like Wings are acceptable because they're not as distracting as lasers and spell effects coming from that source; and any Wing animations are usually there just to accent any bigger ability/movement in play, not as the direct source of your attacks.

And the Claw Packs as they are sized in WC3 and Heroes are overly huge. Gazlowe's is easily more than double his entire height and size.

Yeah Blizzard doesn't add things that are constantly attached to the player model like that, Demon Hunter wings only come out when using certain abilities/transformed, Monks aren't carrying around kegs, it would be visually distracting if DH's constantly had their wings visible/moving with the model.

Not to mention that kind of diegetic visuals aren't something Blizzard does either, saying a Tinker to justify their abilities (rockets, turrets, robots, ect) needs a claw pack around to be where the abilities comes from is like saying paladins need visible librams or Monks need their kegs constantly visible, it's more likely the Tinker would simply pull their rockets, turrets, robots ect out of the same pocket dimension that Hunters are getting their traps and bombs, that rogues are getting their single shot pistols from or Monks are getting their kegs from, theres a certain level of acceptable breaks from what "makes sense" when it comes to how class visuals work

Not to mention that Claw-packs just don't have cool factor that mechs have, in fact i'd say they have the opposite effect due to being a rock-em-sock-em robot attached to a backpack thats twice the size of the user, they just look silly even in the exagerrated style of WoW

I'm pretty sure the way the camera is placed behind Gnome/Goblin models would also cause problems if the claw-pack used a similar scale as Gazlowe's in HotS/WC3