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

[Teriz]

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

Well it also showed up in both tabletop RPGs, and they were canon when they were published.

[jellmoo]

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'm the opposite of this. I'd rather have a Tinker that uses weapons, bombs, gizmos, turrets and the like as a primary means of attack, with the mech suit being a cooldown more akin to Metamorphosis or possibly even Void Form. For me, the interest isn't the mech at all, it's playing something more like a professional Engineer. Something akin to the Engineer classes from either GW2 or Warhammer Online. Let them have an incredible toolkit of abilities and gizmos that can handle any given situation. For me, that is so much more interesting than being in a robot suit.

I think it also has the benefit of being less "in your face" when it comes to people who prefer Warcraft to fit into a more sword and sorcery style game. It's easier to ignore things that are already more common in game, like bombs and guns and other engineering gizmos, than it is to ignore a bunch of players firing lazors from their respective mechs.

[Teriz]

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.

Yeah, like I said going all Mech would be the most elegant way to do things. Cooler results for way less work than a claw pack would be. They could even use the current in-game mech animations with new skins and folks would go wild for it.

The only reason I can’t completely dismiss the idea of a claw pack is because Blizzard has been so doggedly faithful to the look of those old WC3 heroes that I could see them implementing it just because. For me personally, all mech for each spec. I believe the class should completely revolve around mech piloting.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it also has the benefit of being less "in your face" when it comes to people who prefer Warcraft to fit into a more sword and sorcery style game. It's easier to ignore things that are already more common in game, like bombs and guns and other engineering gizmos, than it is to ignore a bunch of players firing lazors from their respective mechs.

It would be easier to ignore if it’s limited to Goblins and Gnomes. That way it would be just looked upon as something those crazy Goblins and Gnomes do.

[jellmoo]

It would be easier to ignore if it’s limited to Goblins and Gnomes. That way it would be just looked upon as something those crazy Goblins and Gnomes do.

That would put a serious damper on my desire to play a Dwarf Tinker though.

[Teriz]

That would put a serious damper on my desire to play a Dwarf Tinker though.

Thing is if you spread it to Dwarves then you gotta spread it to a Horde race. Like if you spread it to Dwarves, then I suppose you spread it to Orcs, but then why not Humans? Well if Humans can pilot mechs then why not Forsaken? Well if Forsaken can do it then why not Worgen? Okay cool but if Worgen can do it, what about the Blood Elves? This keeps going back and forth until you get Warhammer in WoW, which is something I imagine Blizzard would want to avoid. I also believe spreading it to too many races cheapens the concept and goes out of bounds of the established world.

Keeping it Goblins and Gnomes (and their allied races) keeps things restrained, but also adds a level of mystique and prestige to the Goblin and Gnome races that they sorely need.

Also I believe that part of the reason you push mech-based Tinkers is that you want a layer of separation between the profession and the class. If you have a mech-less Tinker pulling gizmos out of its tiny butt, people are just going to say that this is a profession turned into a class, and greatly reduces its coolness factor. A class that allows you to pilot a mech is cool regardless of the race piloting it, and would provide a clear and immediate boundary from the profession (as it should).

[jellmoo]

Thing is if you spread it to Dwarves then you gotta spread it to a Horde race. Like if you spread it to Dwarves, then I suppose you spread it to Orcs, but then why not Humans? Well if Humans can pilot mechs then why not Forsaken? Well if Forsaken can do it then why not Worgen? Okay cool but if Worgen can do it, what about the Blood Elves? This keeps going back and forth until you get Warhammer in WoW, which is something I imagine Blizzard would want to avoid. I also believe spreading it to too many races cheapens the concept and goes out of bounds of the established world.

The flip side though is that there is no appreciable reason that Dwarves wouldn't be able to be a Tinker. Given their adoption of technology and their relationship with Gnomes, it would be a seriously weird omission for them not to have access to the class. While I get what you're saying, there also isn't an amazingly good reason that most races wouldn't be able to pick up the ins and outs of being a Tinker since Engineering is freely available. Race/Class restrictions are largely based on ideology or a particular class/race being time locked. With Tinkers, those restrictions really wouldn't apply. It would be incredibly arbitrary to say that all of these races don't want to learn how to pilot super powerful mechs for no real reason.

Keeping it Goblins and Gnomes (and their allied races) keeps things restrained, but also adds a level of mystique and prestige to the Goblin and Gnome races that they sorely need.

The thing is, if we include allied races, we run into the same problem. Assuming Mechagnomes have access to the class along with OG Gnomes, then you're stuck with no equivalent on the Horde side. I mean, unless we include Vulpera, but then we have tent dweling desert nomads having access to a tech based class with no real connection to Goblins, whereas the heavily tech using Dwarves who are best buddies with Gnomes not having access.

Also I believe that part of the reason you push mech-based Tinkers is that you want a layer of separation between the profession and the class. If you have a mech-less Tinker pulling gizmos out of its tiny butt, people are just going to say that this is a profession turned into a class, and greatly reduces its coolness factor. A class that allows you to pilot a mech is cool regardless of the race piloting it, and would provide a clear and immediate boundary from the profession (as it should).

I gotta disagree, but it's largely on personal reasons. I think mech piloting is cool, in a scifi setting, but less so in the Warcraft setting. I like the weird tech anachronistic thing were it's vaguely steampunk, but with wild and crazy stuff thrown in. Going full on mech, to me, shatters that fantasy. For example, I like the claw pack. It's weird, it's different, it's cool. It doesn't scream overtly sci fi, it's much more muted.

I get what you're saying about separating the profession from the class, but I think the overlap is actually a benefit in a way, since the prof has been largely meaningless for a really long time. I mean, if we add alchemy as a part of a Tinker class (say as a healing spec), we're going to run into that problem anyway.

[Unbelievable]

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.



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.



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



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.



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.)



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 in hope" 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.



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.



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.



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).



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



And let me inform you how unlike your Ranger class the specs of all those specs 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 supurflous 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.



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.



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).

You forget that Frost didn't exist in the WC3 Death Knight, Mistweaving and Windwalking didn't exist in the Pandaren Brewmaster and that Vengeance didn't exist in the Demon Hunter. If you told me you had them as spec concepts for these classes, before they were added, i would have told you that they are a mishmash of unrelated concepts. Just because you can't see it now, doesn't mean it isn't viable when they get added.

Those are Priest NPCs. What we argued for is that being present in the Priest class, if not in visuality, then at least in names. The Zandalari confessor is a viable priest, but it isn't a Shadow Hunter/Witch Doctor.

"(to me at least)" - glad to see it's subjective. You can't really compare 2004 amount of investment in NPCs and their abilities to a 2020 investment in NPCs and their abilities. Of course it would look minor to you. But, the fact is that it is the same case (like, giving Death Coil to Warlocks).

Actually, mana burning is an essential part of the Demon Hunter if it is one of the four abilities in the Warcraft 3 hero unit. They could have given it any other ability. blaming Metamorphosis on a dev doesn't help your case. We can blame the devs for pushing many things over the years (Sylvanas). Is it a mistake?

1. The Tidesage is not a WC3 hero. So, saying they are as much as likely as other WC3 heroes is incorrect.
2. thematic distribution happened with the Demon Hunter with Mana Burn being given to the Priest, Metamorphosis and Immolation to the Warlock and Evasion to the Rogue. That's 3 classes. And it still got added to the game. That just comes to show how that is not an issue, and that Blizzard adds classes no one expected to be playable (as Demon Hunters were regarded as Warlocks with a Metamorphosis or a Rogue with a Blindfold and Glaives of Azzinoth).
3. If you push for class skins, that also includes your Necromancer and Teriz's Tinker. So, take that into account.

Wards existing alongside Totems is possible.
Just like the Hunter, warlock and Death Knight all heavily use pets. Like Shamans and Mages call on Elementals. Rogues, Druids and Monks use Energy and combo points/Chi, and the share of bleeds. Warriors and Druids use rage. Warlocks and Demon Hunters use fel. Warlocks and Mages use fire. Mages and Death Knights use Frost. Death Knights and Warlocks sharing necrotic themes. Shamans and Monks using the elements. Priests and Paladins using the Holy Light to heal, shield and damage. The affliction Warlock and the Shadow priest being extremely similar in the past.

"the game and setting have evolved since WC3 and classes like Necromancer got absorbed into the identities of the Death Knight, is it unfortunate for those that really liked that specific archetype and thematic? yes and i do sympathize but I also recognize that this class simply cannot be implimented into WoW without negatively affecting what currently have." - works both ways, buddy

This identity is that of the Headhunter, which is a tracker who uses traps (and, i imagine, animal venom, as well, like in real-life). The only thing that doesn't belong is the explosives. That thematic was way more pronounced in Legion, and should be moved to the Marksmanship spec. By the way, your "bear trap" exists in the explosives-maniac Junkrat, and using "alchemical" bombs is only true if you take Wildfire Infusion.

You didn't add much to the Ranger that wasn't, already, known. You just focused on the general Ranger, rather than elven Ranger.
The Ranger does fit within the Hunter class, as it is very wilderness attuned. It's the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch that don't. That's why i'm suggesting removing the Ranger from the Hunter and adding a new class, because you can't, possibly, cram all 3 into the Hunter (aside the fact that they don't fit the wilderness or explosives theme).

Glad you can see that Tyrande is a Ranger. The thing is that the Hunter does not encompass the Lunar, Necromantic/manipulation, Water/Lightning themes that these classes posses. So, you can't just place them as part of the Hunter's Ranger theme.

Not exactly. The wilderness still stays with the Beastmaster. The Marksmanship is sharpshooter, instead of an archer. minor nature magic stays.
And yes, the Explosives expert does fit the Hunter, if you haven't noticed the Legion Hunter.

You just answered yourself with this:
"Monk: Uses various techniques/abilities related to Pandaren culture".

A class that is very race based (Pandaren), like the elven heritage that all 3 Rangers share in common.
3 specs that focus on 3 different things: brews, mists and lightning (like necromancy, lunar and sea).
The overall common aspect is the martial arts, like the archery of the Ranger.

I don't see you bashing Teriz for combining the Tinker and Alchemist heroes together. That shows how biased you are.

I, already, explained it. Paladins, Death Knights and Spellbreakers are not variations of one another. a Spellbreaker is not even a knight. It's not just taking their use of bows, like you use melee fighters. Otherwise, i would have used Rexxar (wields a bow in Hearthstone) and Vol'jin (wielded a Bow in WoW), as well. It's their elven Ranger heritage that combines them all together. And, they are all Warcraft III heroes, not 2 heroes and a base unit.

It's great to see that you argue for the minority of representation of bone, constructs and insects in the Death Knight class, yet you dismiss the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon, Sea Witch, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster and Warden as having all their thematics in the Hunter, Shaman, Warrior and Rogue classes, despite the lack of representation in their abilities. That's what i call being two-faced.

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.

If you're talking about player skill, then yes, a Bear could surpass a Warrior. But, at the end of the day, a Warrior is hardier Tank than a Druid.

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

- - - Updated - - -



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.

You're just using what suits you best at the moment. You're what's called an opportunist. The Claw pack served your argument for 150 pages. Now, that people actually discuss the Tinker concept, you throw it away to the trash, because it's of no use to you, at the moment. The next time you'd need it, it would suddenly be the most important thing in the Tinker, again.

How does what you prefer has anything to do with lore? the Tinker doesn't use both clas pack and robo-goblin? it's like me tossing an aspect of a Dark Ranger, just because i like another aspect better. That's not how class additions work. That doesn't go based on your personal preferences but, what's mostly being depicted.

You don't need to go that far, because Dwarves are a perfect size.

Thing is if you spread it to Dwarves then you gotta spread it to a Horde race. Like if you spread it to Dwarves, then I suppose you spread it to Orcs, but then why not Humans? Well if Humans can pilot mechs then why not Forsaken? Well if Forsaken can do it then why not Worgen? Okay cool but if Worgen can do it, what about the Blood Elves? This keeps going back and forth until you get Warhammer in WoW, which is something I imagine Blizzard would want to avoid. I also believe spreading it to too many races cheapens the concept and goes out of bounds of the established world.

Keeping it Goblins and Gnomes (and their allied races) keeps things restrained, but also adds a level of mystique and prestige to the Goblin and Gnome races that they sorely need.

Also I believe that part of the reason you push mech-based Tinkers is that you want a layer of separation between the profession and the class. If you have a mech-less Tinker pulling gizmos out of its tiny butt, people are just going to say that this is a profession turned into a class, and greatly reduces its coolness factor. A class that allows you to pilot a mech is cool regardless of the race piloting it, and would provide a clear and immediate boundary from the profession (as it should).

Except, that Dwarves are Tinkers in lore, unlike Vulpera. If you give it to Vulpera, you can give it to anyone, because in lore they aren't Tinkers.
Both your class concept and races don't follow lore but, your perception of cool.

[Xeenith]

so we have seen that vulperas are more proficient with alchemy than engineering, since there is already an overlap of concepts between the profession of engineer and tinker, why not add some alchemy to it ?

1st spec : mecha pilot, could be tank or dps depending on how it's done

2nd spec : inventor, use many gadget, have claw/gun pack CD, dps

3rd spec : sciencist, heal spec, use gun to disperse potions to heal and mixtures for attacks

[Ielenia]

But we already have the Tinker's WC3 and HotS' abilities represented in WoW, and they're actually abilities. For example;

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

And none of those appear in engineering.

The engineer can drop turrets, fight in mechs, launch rockets and bombs, and heal others. And more.

So why would we need to use items from engineering that have nothing to do with the Tinker's abilities when we have actual abilities in WoW currently that properly represent the Tinker concept?

"items" and "abilities" have zero difference in the lore when both do the same thing. Right-clicking an item with an "use: throw bomb" ability is the same thing as left-clicking an ability on your spellbook that says "throw bomb" in the lore.

Nor does it need to be, because Blizzard still pulls from that material. They even said they did in their non-canon statement;

You are not Blizzard. You cannot canonize anything. Therefore HotS and Hearthstone and the tabletop RPGs cannot be used as sources of canon information.

It's considered canon since it's a Blizzard published game. Blizzard has stated that all of its Warcraft games are canon in Warcraft.

I'll repeat: WC3 Reforged's canonicity is arguable due to the numerous inconsistencies to the actual lore of the franchise.

[Teriz]

The flip side though is that there is no appreciable reason that Dwarves wouldn't be able to be a Tinker. Given their adoption of technology and their relationship with Gnomes, it would be a seriously weird omission for them not to have access to the class. While I get what you're saying, there also isn't an amazingly good reason that most races wouldn't be able to pick up the ins and outs of being a Tinker since Engineering is freely available. Race/Class restrictions are largely based on ideology or a particular class/race being time locked. With Tinkers, those restrictions really wouldn't apply. It would be incredibly arbitrary to say that all of these races don't want to learn how to pilot super powerful mechs for no real reason.

Well sure there would be. For example, just because lots of people are engineers in the MCU doesn't mean that all those engineers can be Tony Stark/Iron Man for example.

And before people jump on me for using Iron Man as an example, this is Mekkatorque after Mechagon;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Spark_Reactor

That object on his chest is actually called the Spark Reactor, a homage to Iron Man.

The thing is, if we include allied races, we run into the same problem. Assuming Mechagnomes have access to the class along with OG Gnomes, then you're stuck with no equivalent on the Horde side. I mean, unless we include Vulpera, but then we have tent dweling desert nomads having access to a tech based class with no real connection to Goblins, whereas the heavily tech using Dwarves who are best buddies with Gnomes not having access.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll get people demanding that Dwarves, Orcs, and other races be allowed to be Tinkers, just like people beg Blizzard to make Draenei, Orcs, Humans, Nightborne, etc. to be Demon Hunters, and they haven't budged an inch. So with that said, I could totally see Blizzard bend lore to allow Vulpera into the Tinker class just to even things out.

I gotta disagree, but it's largely on personal reasons. I think mech piloting is cool, in a scifi setting, but less so in the Warcraft setting. I like the weird tech anachronistic thing were it's vaguely steampunk, but with wild and crazy stuff thrown in. Going full on mech, to me, shatters that fantasy. For example, I like the claw pack. It's weird, it's different, it's cool. It doesn't scream overtly sci fi, it's much more muted.

I'd agree with you if we simply didn't have so many examples of Goblins and Gnomes in mechs at this point. We have Mekkatorque's mech, we have Gazlowe's shredder, we have Gallywix in a mech, we fought Blackfuse's mech, etc. I think the community really wants a mech.

Also there's something really cool about a little character inside a big machine of death;



I mean, it's absolutely absurd, but seems incredibly fun to play at the same time.

I get what you're saying about separating the profession from the class, but I think the overlap is actually a benefit in a way, since the prof has been largely meaningless for a really long time. I mean, if we add alchemy as a part of a Tinker class (say as a healing spec), we're going to run into that problem anyway.

I'd give the healing spec a mech too. What's wrong with a medical/hospital mech?

- - - Updated - - -

The engineer can drop turrets, fight in mechs, launch rockets and bombs, and heal others. And more.

None of which is viable for anything other than goofing around, and none of them are Tinker abilities.

"items" and "abilities" have zero difference in the lore when both do the same thing. Right-clicking an item with an "use: throw bomb" ability is the same thing as left-clicking an ability on your spellbook that says "throw bomb" in the lore.

Except they don't do the same thing, and we have the actual abilities in the game.

Your literal argument here is that Goblin Mortar is actually the WoW version of Xplodium Charge from HotS when we actually have Xplodim Charge in WoW.

You are not Blizzard. You cannot canonize anything. Therefore HotS and Hearthstone and the tabletop RPGs cannot be used as sources of canon information.

I linked you to the literal statement from Blizzard, and gave you an example of a character they canonized from the RPGs after they were decolonized. We also have multiple HotS abilities in WoW now. The point is that just because they're not canon doesn't mean that Blizzard won't pull them into WoW.

I'll repeat: WC3 Reforged's canonicity is arguable due to the numerous inconsistencies to the actual lore of the franchise.

Until Blizzard says it's not canon, WC3:R is canon;

Canon
Everything released by Blizzard except mods and the table-top RPG is considered canon.[1] This includes games, novels, short stories, manga, and comics[1][2] as well as trailers and cinematics.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lore

- - - Updated - - -

so we have seen that vulperas are more proficient with alchemy than engineering, since there is already an overlap of concepts between the profession of engineer and tinker, why not add some alchemy to it ?

1st spec : mecha pilot, could be tank or dps depending on how it's done

2nd spec : inventor, use many gadget, have claw/gun pack CD, dps

3rd spec : sciencist, heal spec, use gun to disperse potions to heal and mixtures for attacks

That is a possibility honestly. I could see Tinker being a specialization within a larger technology class.

Also it sort of helps that the Goblin Alchemist hero used an ability called Healing Spray.

Something like this, but maybe not quite so on the nose?



- - - Updated - - -

You're just using what suits you best at the moment. You're what's called an opportunist. The Claw pack served your argument for 150 pages. Now, that people actually discuss the Tinker concept, you throw it away to the trash, because it's of no use to you, at the moment. The next time you'd need it, it would suddenly be the most important thing in the Tinker, again.

We were discussing lore differences between the Tinker and the Engineering profession. Obviously I would use the Claw Pack as a lore difference since it doesn't exist in the engineering profession, but is quite prevalent in the Tinker concept.

However, when we switch to a conversation about gameplay, I'm all about mechs, since I think a technology class is better served as a vehicle-based technology class.

How does what you prefer has anything to do with lore? the Tinker doesn't use both clas pack and robo-goblin? it's like me tossing an aspect of a Dark Ranger, just because i like another aspect better. That's not how class additions work. That doesn't go based on your personal preferences but, what's mostly being depicted.

Actually it does. The Claw Pack transforms into the mech, and the mech can transform back into the claw pack.

Except, that Dwarves are Tinkers in lore, unlike Vulpera. If you give it to Vulpera, you can give it to anyone, because in lore they aren't Tinkers.
Both your class concept and races don't follow lore but, your perception of cool.

Again, the problem is that every expansion class has had equal representation on both factions. If you pull in the Dwarves and Black Irons then you gotta pull in a horde equivalent, let's say Orcs. Well then people are going to want to know why Forsaken and Humans can be Tinkers since they use tech more often than Orcs. Well since Humans are Tinkers why aren't Kul Ti'rans? And on and on and on. Before you know it, everyone is piloting a mech in WoW and it's just weird.

Meanwhile, you can just snub Dwarves and keep it Goblin/Vulpera/Gnome/Mecha Gnome.

Simple.

[razorpax]

Well sure there would be. For example, just because lots of people are engineers in the MCU doesn't mean that all those engineers can be Tony Stark/Iron Man for example.

And before people jump on me for using Iron Man as an example, this is Mekkatorque after Mechagon;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Spark_Reactor

That object on his chest is actually called the Spark Reactor, a homage to Iron Man.




Yeah, I'm sure we'll get people demanding that Dwarves, Orcs, and other races be allowed to be Tinkers, just like people beg Blizzard to make Draenei, Orcs, Humans, Nightborne, etc. to be Demon Hunters, and they haven't budged an inch. So with that said, I could totally see Blizzard bend lore to allow Vulpera into the Tinker class just to even things out.



I'd agree with you if we simply didn't have so many examples of Goblins and Gnomes in mechs at this point. We have Mekkatorque's mech, we have Gazlowe's shredder, we have Gallywix in a mech, we fought Blackfuse's mech, etc. I think the community really wants a mech.

Also there's something really cool about a little character inside a big machine of death;



I mean, it's absolutely absurd, but seems incredibly fun to play at the same time.



I'd give the healing spec a mech too. What's wrong with a medical/hospital mech?

- - - Updated - - -



None of which is viable for anything other than goofing around, and none of them are Tinker abilities.



Except they don't do the same thing, and we have the actual abilities in the game.

Your literal argument here is that Goblin Mortar is actually the WoW version of Xplodium Charge from HotS when we actually have Xplodim Charge in WoW.



I linked you to the literal statement from Blizzard, and gave you an example of a character they canonized from the RPGs after they were decolonized. We also have multiple HotS abilities in WoW now. The point is that just because they're not canon doesn't mean that Blizzard won't pull them into WoW.




Until Blizzard says it's not canon, WC3:R is canon;



https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lore

- - - Updated - - -



That is a possibility honestly. I could see Tinker being a specialization within a larger technology class.

Also it sort of helps that the Goblin Alchemist hero used an ability called Healing Spray.

Something like this, but maybe not quite so on the nose?



- - - Updated - - -



We were discussing lore differences between the Tinker and the Engineering profession. Obviously I would use the Claw Pack as a lore difference since it doesn't exist in the engineering profession, but is quite prevalent in the Tinker concept.

However, when we switch to a conversation about gameplay, I'm all about mechs, since I think a technology class is better served as a vehicle-based technology class.



Actually it does. The Claw Pack transforms into the mech, and the mech can transform back into the claw pack.



Again, the problem is that every expansion class has had equal representation on both factions. If you pull in the Dwarves and Black Irons then you gotta pull in a horde equivalent, let's say Orcs. Well then people are going to want to know why Forsaken and Humans can be Tinkers since they use tech more often than Orcs. Well since Humans are Tinkers why aren't Kul Ti'rans? And on and on and on. Before you know it, everyone is piloting a mech in WoW and it's just weird.

Meanwhile, you can just snub Dwarves and keep it Goblin/Vulpera/Gnome/Mecha Gnome.

Simple.

Why limit it to some of the least played races and 2 allied races?

[Ielenia]

None of which is viable for anything other than goofing around, and none of them are Tinker abilities.

It doesn't matter. "Profession item" and "class ability" have no differences in the lore. And again, you said that the profession couldn't do those things (rockets, heal others, fight in mechs) but I've shown that they can. You're now moving the goalposts to "you cannot do it as well as a class can".

Except they don't do the same thing, and we have the actual abilities in the game.

These differences you speak of are little more than nitpicking in the lore. One doing more in-game damage than the other is just a game mechanic, not lore. Shooting a rocket is shooting a rocket. Fighting in a mech is fighting in a mech.

Your literal argument here is that Goblin Mortar is actually the WoW version of Xplodium Charge from HotS when we actually have Xplodim Charge in WoW.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is dishonest at its most blatant. Notice the shoddily constructed strawman. I never even mentioned the name "goblin mortar" nor have I ever equated it to xplodium charge.

Ever.

I linked you to the literal statement from Blizzard

And nowhere in that statement says "Heroes of the Storm is canon to WoW" or "Hearthstone is canon to WoW". It doesn't matter that a handful of abilities from HotS made it into WoW. Everything in those games, unless expressly stated otherwise by Blizzard, is not canon to WoW.

Until Blizzard says it's not canon, WC3:R is canon;

Unlike the original Warcraft 3 game, the Reforged version has been touched and altered by a third party: Lemon Sky Studios.

That puts the canonicity of the game in question, in lieu of the myriad of lore inconsistencies shown within the Reforged game.

[Teriz]

Why limit it to some of the least played races and 2 allied races?

Because you don't base a future class' success or population numbers on current population numbers. The goal of a new class is to bring people not currently playing the game into the game.

Also the class' aesthetics work best with those races.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter. "Profession item" and "class ability" have no differences in the lore. And again, you said that the profession couldn't do those things (rockets, heal others, fight in mechs) but I've shown that they can. You're now moving the goalposts to "you cannot do it as well as a class can".

Except even in the case of lore you're wrong because we have the Tinker abilities in WoW and they're not engineering items and those Tinker abilities which are in WoW aren't in the engineering profession. So on every side of the argument you're just spouting nonsense.

These differences you speak of are little more than nitpicking in the lore. One doing more in-game damage than the other is just a game mechanic, not lore. Shooting a rocket is shooting a rocket. Fighting in a mech is fighting in a mech.

That's head canon.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is dishonest at its most blatant. Notice the shoddily constructed strawman. I never even mentioned the name "goblin mortar" nor have I ever equated it to xplodium charge.

Ever.

Feel free to replace Goblin Mortar with any engineering item you want to claim is actually a Tinker ability. The same argument applies.

And nowhere in that statement says "Heroes of the Storm is canon to WoW" or "Hearthstone is canon to WoW". It doesn't matter that a handful of abilities from HotS made it into WoW. Everything in those games, unless expressly stated otherwise by Blizzard, is not canon to WoW.

Actually it does matter because that statement means that non-canon content can still be brought into WoW and be made canon. In short, your entire argument here is meaningless.

Unlike the original Warcraft 3 game, the Reforged version has been touched and altered by a third party: Lemon Sky Studios.

That puts the canonicity of the game in question, in lieu of the myriad of lore inconsistencies shown within the Reforged game.

Blizzard published the game, and it's Warcraft, so it's canon.

[jellmoo]

Well sure there would be. For example, just because lots of people are engineers in the MCU doesn't mean that all those engineers can be Tony Stark/Iron Man for example.

And before people jump on me for using Iron Man as an example, this is Mekkatorque after Mechagon;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Spark_Reactor

That object on his chest is actually called the Spark Reactor, a homage to Iron Man.

Well, except that's exactly the case with Iron Man, where you have his buddy War Machine in his own suit and his girlfriends Rescue in her own suit. Heck, we see War Monger in his own devised suit in the first Iron Man movie, and Whiplash in his own style of suit in the second.

In the case of WoW though, it's established that everyone can be an Engineer. Or at least every race in the game has members that are Engineers. These are people that build a variety of items that are ridiculously close to what a Tinker would do. Saying that they can do that but somehow can't be a Tinker is more than a little weird.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll get people demanding that Dwarves, Orcs, and other races be allowed to be Tinkers, just like people beg Blizzard to make Draenei, Orcs, Humans, Nightborne, etc. to be Demon Hunters, and they haven't budged an inch. So with that said, I could totally see Blizzard bend lore to allow Vulpera into the Tinker class just to even things out.

But then we're bending lore to allow a race with no ties at all to Tinkers to be one, and a race with tons of ties not to. It would be like if Blizzard had created Demon Hunters and made the playable races Night Elves and Tauren. Sure, they can do it, but it doesn't make any sense.

I'd agree with you if we simply didn't have so many examples of Goblins and Gnomes in mechs at this point. We have Mekkatorque's mech, we have Gazlowe's shredder, we have Gallywix in a mech, we fought Blackfuse's mech, etc. I think the community really wants a mech.

I mean, saying that the community wants mechs is a bit of an assumption. I know I'm not particularly enamored with the idea, and I can't imagine I'm alone in that. But it's not really a point to argue since I'm pretty much mostly voicing an opinion.

Also there's something really cool about a little character inside a big machine of death;



I mean, it's absolutely absurd, but seems incredibly fun to play at the same time.

And I agree with that. When the setting matches that expectation. You give me an adorable little penguin in a mech in a sci fi setting and I'm eating that up. But for my money, it's not really what I want to see in WoW. It's one of those things that feels like something I grudgingly accept in small does (like say, seeing the odd NPC every once in a while) where it remains exceptional. But as a class where I might see a veritable ton of mechs rolling around a zone? Ehhhhhh...

As mentioned, for my money, I want to play an inventor that whips out a flamethrower, toss a grenade, drops a rocket turret, jumps across the area with rocket boots, uses goggles to see dudes in stealth, uses a hologram to make a distraction... Essentially using tech to solve every problem. There's this point in the Goblin starting quest where some Orcs ask you to cut down a bunch of plants using tech in your tool belt and you pull out these blades and whirl around. That's what I want, only in a class.

I'd give the healing spec a mech too. What's wrong with a medical/hospital mech?

Nothing's wrong with it. It's just not what I'd want out of the class. Let me play an alchemist with potions, sprays, acids, transmutations... That sort of thing. To me, that's cool. Playing a mech healing people just isn't my cup of tea.

[Triceron]

If you're talking about player skill, then yes, a Bear could surpass a Warrior. But, at the end of the day, a Warrior is hardier Tank than a Druid.

No, I'm literally talking about game mechanics and how it reflects into the lore.

Bears have more raw Armor stats than Warriors. Their base stats add a bonus to their armor. Abilities like Ironfur boost that considerably on top of a higher base than Warriors or Paladins. This is all because Guardian Druids don't benefit from Parry and Block stats, and make up for it with higher base health and armor.

So if you're considering that a Tinker would have way more higher than a Plate-wearing Warrior, then that's just your own headcanon because Blizzard has already built in the idea that Guardian Druids have the highest base armor of all classes, or that the concept of Armor in WoW is not consistent to your real-life comparisons.

Also, realistically speaking, Plate armor is not all that strong as you think it is. A Rifle Bullet can pierce Plate Mail and kill the person wearing it, a Rifle Bullet will not stop a Bear.

[Teriz]

Well, except that's exactly the case with Iron Man, where you have his buddy War Machine in his own suit and his girlfriends Rescue in her own suit. Heck, we see War Monger in his own devised suit in the first Iron Man movie, and Whiplash in his own style of suit in the second.

Well to be fair, War Machine, Rescue, and War Monger wouldn't have operational suits if not for Stark. War Machine and Rescue's suits were both built by Stark. War Monger copied Stark's design, but still had to steal Stark's Arc Reactor to power it. Whiplash is on Stark's level of brilliance, so him being able to build a suit isn't surprising.

In the case of WoW though, it's established that everyone can be an Engineer. Or at least every race in the game has members that are Engineers. These are people that build a variety of items that are ridiculously close to what a Tinker would do. Saying that they can do that but somehow can't be a Tinker is more than a little weird.

I would argue that it isn't ridiculously close. Mekkatorque and Blackfuse for example are building stuff that the Engineering profession can't match. I would argue that the difference between Tinkers and engineering is the same difference as Mage and enchanting.

But then we're bending lore to allow a race with no ties at all to Tinkers to be one, and a race with tons of ties not to. It would be like if Blizzard had created Demon Hunters and made the playable races Night Elves and Tauren. Sure, they can do it, but it doesn't make any sense.

Eh I wouldn't go that far. Vulpera are nomads who were under the oppression of another race for generations. They were smart, adaptable and very good with alchemy. I think there's even some missions within Vol'dum where the Vulpera use technology. Anyway, those are qualities that could lead them to picking up technology very quickly if exposed to it.

Tauren despise fel/demonic magic, so there's zero chance of them becoming Demon Hunters.

And I agree with that. When the setting matches that expectation. You give me an adorable little penguin in a mech in a sci fi setting and I'm eating that up. But for my money, it's not really what I want to see in WoW. It's one of those things that feels like something I grudgingly accept in small does (like say, seeing the odd NPC every once in a while) where it remains exceptional. But as a class where I might see a veritable ton of mechs rolling around a zone? Ehhhhhh...

Well this is what we've had so far in WoW since MoP;




So it's easy to see why a lot of people are assuming mechs for a technology-based class.

Nothing's wrong with it. It's just not what I'd want out of the class. Let me play an alchemist with potions, sprays, acids, transmutations... That sort of thing. To me, that's cool. Playing a mech healing people just isn't my cup of tea.

Understood.

[Ielenia]

Except even in the case of lore you're wrong because we have the Tinker abilities in WoW and they're not engineering items and those Tinker abilities which are in WoW aren't in the engineering profession.

Again, abilities and items that perform an action are indistinguishable in the lore. You're using ability name and ability damage to create a distinction that simply does not exist outside of game mechanics. The action of throwing a bomb, launching a missile or piloting a mech have no difference whatsoever in the lore regardless if it came from a "tinker" or an engineer.

So on every side of the argument you're just spouting nonsense.

This is oh so very precious coming from you, the king of bad faith arguments and misrepresentations.

That's head canon.

It's basic logic. See the first quote above for the explanation.

Feel free to replace Goblin Mortar with any engineering item you want to claim is actually a Tinker ability. The same argument applies.

Your whole argument is a misrepresentation of mine. I never said the engineering profession abilities are 1:1 with the tinker abilities from WC3 and HotS.

Actually it does matter because that statement means that non-canon content can still be brought into WoW and be made canon.

And the reason it doesn't matter is because until said non-canon content is brought into WoW, it is not canon content.

Blizzard published the game, and it's Warcraft, so it's canon.

I'll repeat: Unlike the original Warcraft 3 game, the Reforged version has been touched and altered by a third party: Lemon Sky Studios. That puts the canonicity of the game in question, in lieu of the myriad of lore inconsistencies shown within the Reforged game.

[Teriz]

Again, abilities and items that perform an action are indistinguishable in the lore.

Head canon.

You're using ability name and ability damageto create a distinction that simply does not exist outside of game mechanics.

Head canon.

The action of throwing a bomb, launching a missile or piloting a mech have no difference whatsoever in the lore regardless if it came from a "tinker" or an engineer

And more Head canon.

Here's the point;

This is an HotS ability from the Tinker hero.

This is an example of that HotS ability translated into WoW. This ability does not exist in engineering whatsoever.

This is an example of a profession bomb that has absolutely nothing to do with the HotS/WoW ability I just posted.

Stop bringing up lore. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Your whole argument is a misrepresentation of mine. I never said the engineering profession items are 1:1 with the tinker abilities from WC3 and HotS.

Again, abilities and items that perform an action are indistinguishable in the lore.

And the reason it doesn't matter is because until said non-canon content is brought into WoW, it is not canon content.

One last time; Since all of that material has the potential to be moved into WoW, your entire canon vs non-canon argument is completely meaningless.

I'll repeat: Unlike the original Warcraft 3 game, the Reforged version has been touched and altered by a third party: Lemon Sky Studios. That puts the canonicity of the game in question, in lieu of the myriad of lore inconsistencies shown within the Reforged game.

And I'll repeat;

Which sources are canon and non-canon?
Canon
Everything released by Blizzard except mods and the table-top RPG is considered canon.[1] This includes games, novels, short stories, manga, and comics[1][2] as well as trailers and cinematics.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lore

Gee, I wonder who published Warcraft 3: Reforged.....

https://www.google.com/search?client...4dUDCAw&uact=5

[razorpax]

Because you don't base a future class' success or population numbers on current population numbers. The goal of a new class is to bring people not currently playing the game into the game.

Also the class' aesthetics work best with those races.

- - - Updated - - -



Except even in the case of lore you're wrong because we have the Tinker abilities in WoW and they're not engineering items and those Tinker abilities which are in WoW aren't in the engineering profession. So on every side of the argument you're just spouting nonsense.




That's head canon.



Feel free to replace Goblin Mortar with any engineering item you want to claim is actually a Tinker ability. The same argument applies.




Actually it does matter because that statement means that non-canon content can still be brought into WoW and be made canon. In short, your entire argument here is meaningless.



Blizzard published the game, and it's Warcraft, so it's canon.

How does it work with the fox race??

[Teriz]

How does it work with the fox race??

They're smart, adaptable, good with alchemy, and have limited lore due to being a new race.

Mechanics-wise they share the same skeleton as Goblins, so that makes development easier.