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

[Revamp Man]

Dragon slayer class:
Once the old gods were defeated Wrathion was concerned about the planets defense and decided to team up with the other flights to train a force that has the strength of the aspects and in doing so has discovered new troubles on the once lost dragon isles including a new clutch of protodrakes and the rumored return of the biggest threat the dragons faced...Galakrond. The rumors only strengthened by the missing remains in northrend

4 specs

Base abilities:
Dragon breath: breathe a 15yd cone dealing damage based on your spec generates 15 draconic fury
Wing blast: form wings if draconic magic and knock enemies in front of you back 15yds
Dragon claw: slash at a target dealing physical damage and leaving a DoT. Generates 10 draconic fury
Dragon scales: cover your body in scales reducing the damage you take by X%

Dragon force: 100 draconic energy. Empowers your abilities for 20s adding specific secondary abilities based on spec.

Specs:

Black dragon: tank. Generates fury if attacked while using a defensive.
Shield of the warder: 50 fury empowers your draconic scales to reduce damage by X% more dealing aoe damage when struck. If used during dragon force the duration and reduction is doubled.

Blue dragon: ranged dps. Replaces melee abilities with a ranged equivalent.

Spellweave: steals a beneficial magic effect from your target and spreads to up to 5 allies. Can target allies.

Mana surge: 30 fury. Deals damage and increases each consecutive use up to X%. When used during dragon force increases the max % damage bonus and reduces fury cost by 15

Green dragon: healer

Dreamers gift: restores resources to the allies within range

Nature’s roar: generates a large healing zone summoning dream copies of the player that copy the spells cast on injured allies. During dragon force the duration and amount of copies are doubled

Red dragon: melee dps

Sword horn: charges the enemy stunning and leaving aoe and a dot.

Roaring slash: 50 fury. Consumes all of your dots increasing damage for each one. During dragon force damage is increased and Deals AoE damage


Bronze: due to the disappearance of the bronze aspect the flight is too busy too offer extensive training but has allowed Chromie to train the slayers in the ability to warp time and reverse death

my hero
also another time warp and battle rez would be legit

[Teriz]

Not to be trite, but who cares if it's an ability or not? To the guy that was dreaming about playing a mounted Death Knight since WC3 days, it doesn't matter in the least. We can't just dismiss it out of hand and say "well, it wasn't an actual ability, so your desire to fulfill that fantasy isn't valid".

Obviously Blizzard cared, which is why Mages and Shaman also didn't get that attribute. So when DKs entered WoW in WotLK the precedent had been set.

Honestly I have yet to hear many complain about the DK not being able to be mounted at all times.

Sorry to interrupt, but we haven't.

We have. Again look at the WC3, HotS, and TTRPG character. It is a consistent theme utilized over and over again. Further, the precedent set by previous class implementations shows that Blizzard brings in the expansion classes rather close to their WC3 concept. So while the DK didn't get to be mounted at all times (because it wasn't an ability), it still got the undead horse. It also got ALL of its WC3 abilities. Once again, one of the Tinker's WC3 abilities is permanent mech form.

Let's assume that Tinkers do get a Mech though. Just for this scenario. Now imagine what they do from, say, levels 1 to 5, before they get their first mech.

Is it really a stretch to think that a Tinker might not be tossing a bomb at any enemy?

No, because the Tinker's bombs come from their mechs. Further if they have a permanent mech form, a bomb toss from their "caster" mode wouldn't make much sense. Not saying it's out of the realm of possibility, but I see the caster mode having more laser and shielding abilities than explosive abilities.

Absolute agreement. For a Tinker, it could absolutely just pop up in a spellbook, and next thing they're in a mech. And Engineers are obviously doing it very differently, investing a ton of in game time and resources in order to create their mechs. No argument there.

But that's from a mechanics level. From an in game perspective, what does this look like? What does Farmer Joe think when he sees two mechs roll up to his farm, and from each one springs a Gnome with a wrench to do whatever Gnomish repairs they do. One is a Tinker and one is an Engineer. From the perspective of the inhabitants of Azeroth, what's the difference between the two?

Well if we're talking about Reeves, he isn't going to see it because you can't summon Reeves outside of the broken isles. If its the Sky Golem, the farmer would see a Janky mess with sparks popping out of it, and the overall machine looking like it was going to fall apart. A Tinker's mech should be more like Mekkatorque's, where there is no jankiness, no screws popping out, and the machine looking like it was built by a skilled engineer instead of a hobbyist.

Then here's the thing that we are disagreeing on: In your opinion, the essence of Gazlowe is a dude in a mech. For my money, the essence of Gazlowe is a clever guy that can improvise pieces of tech that handle a massive variety of situations. Could it include a mech? Sure. Maybe. Does it need to? Nah. No more than Demon Hunters needed to be in Demon Form all the time.

(side note: I would be incredibly surprised to see Gazlowe used in any wide scale merchandising or advertising. Like, super surprised.

Well you're thinking of the character in of itself. I'm talking about Gazlowe's association with the Tinker. When he's associated with the Tinker, he gets shown with the "half" mech he had from HotS. He also has his own Goblin Shredder in WoW. My overall point here is simply that if Blizzard introduces the Tinker class, Gazlowe is going to be the lore figure attached to it. Now, how much Blizzard pushes that remains to be seen. I could definitely see a Gazlowe Tinker statue made, and some promotional art for whatever expansion the Tinker releases in.

We also shouldn't discount Blizzard's art team, who are amazing at what they do.

The thing is, I think this is an example of the human brain finding patterns and running with them. I mean, the team that designed and built the core classes is not the same as the one that built the Death Knight, which is not the same as the one that built the Monk, which is not the same as the one that built the Demon Hunter, which won't be the same as whatever the next class built is. WC3 absolutely has fans, no doubt. But that fanbase has been thoroughly eclipsed by people who are fans of WoW. People that probably never touched WC3. And WoW has a longer and richer history than all of the RTS titles combined.

And it absolutely makes a ton of sense that WoW classes we're heavily, heavily influenced by WC3. But, I think that a key difference we're running into is that they just don't need to do that anymore. The world building is done. The core of the game is there. They can still absolutely go back to the well and take inspiration from WC3. For sure. But they really don't have to at this point. WoW is way bigger now.

Well you're looking at it as something that Blizzard doesn't need anymore. Blizzard more than likely views it as a gold mine they can keep mining until the resource runs dry. I mean consider what we have with the Tinker; We have the general design. We have over a dozen abilities. We have a general structure of a three spec class. You could design this class in your sleep, because very little needs to be done to make it a "Warcraft concept". It's been a Warcraft concept for years now, and it has no overlapping abilities with the existing class lineup. You can even attach it to a known character. I mean, it's a no brainer.

I mean at this point, why would you stop using a winning formula? Especially when you have another candidate from the same pedigree ready to drop whenever you're ready to do so?

[razorpax]

my hero
also another time warp and battle rez would be legit

With m+ the utility is very useful

[Unbelievable]

Not viable.



No one is forcing you to post in this thread.

That's why i said it's not satisfying to you.
The element of a Tinker using a mech is there.

I can see that you are getting tired of this, as well. Otherwise, you wouldn't have missed one of my replies to you and only quote one paragraph in a comment of mine.

When we consider that reality, yeah you're going to have a class piloting a machine they built that mass produces explosives and launches those explosives at enemies. Unlike the profession where they have to scavenge for materials, construct an inferior explosive, and toss it at their target.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Cooldown: 0 seconds
Regenerate 1 Scrap every 4 seconds. Destroyed Rock-It! Turrets drop 1 Scrap, which can be picked up.

Superior Schematics
Rock-It! attack up to 2 additional enemies for 60% damage and have 50% increased Basic Attack range.

Overcharged Capacitors (crafting reagent)
Gazlowe gains 5% Spell Power for each active Rock-It! Turret, up to a maximum of 15%. Dealing Basic Attack damage extends the duration of Rock-It! Turrets by 1.25 seconds.

It's Raining Scrap
Reduce the Scrap cost of Turrets by 1. Regain 2 Scrap for every Scrap pickup.

*Cough* *Cough*

No, because the Tinker's bombs come from their mechs. Further if they have a permanent mech form, a bomb toss from their "caster" mode wouldn't make much sense. Not saying it's out of the realm of possibility, but I see the caster mode having more laser and shielding abilities than explosive abilities.

Well if we're talking about Reeves, he isn't going to see it because you can't summon Reeves outside of the broken isles. If its the Sky Golem, the farmer would see a Janky mess with sparks popping out of it, and the overall machine looking like it was going to fall apart. A Tinker's mech should be more like Mekkatorque's, where there is no jankiness, no screws popping out, and the machine looking like it was built by a skilled engineer instead of a hobbyist.

Are you telling me a Tinker can't use Rocket Cluster, Xplodium Charge and Grav-O-Bomb 3000 without a mech?

An Engineer is not a Hobbyist. Otherwise, Gazlowe would be categorized as a Hobbyist.
What you described above is the difference between Goblin tech and Gnomish tech, not an Engineer and a Tinker. While Goblins tech tends to fall apart and quiver, quite often, as can be seen with the Goblin shredder, Gnomish tech tends to be more professionally made. Applying this as the difference between an Engineer and a Tinker is manipulation at its best.

[Revamp Man]

With m+ the utility is very useful

i would totally reroll from monk if the class played like this lol

[Teriz]

That's why i said it's not satisfying to you.
The element of a Tinker using a mech is there.

No, it's not satisfying period. The Reeves Combat module requires weeks to acquire the materials to construct, and once you construct it, you can only use it on Broken Isles. However, even there you can't use Reeves for questing because the quest giver won't recognize you and you can't loot corpses. Also once the duration ends there's a 30 minute cool down. Finally you can't use it for dungeons or raids.

Supposedly there's some trick where you can use it for PvP, but yeah, not viable.

Unlike say, you being a Forsaken Hunter and having a skeletal dog and being a Nathanos-style Dark Ranger, or you being a Void Elf Hunter and being a Sylvanas style Dark Ranger. Those are perfectly viable options that people don't like because it isn't exactly the way they want it.

I can see that you are getting tired of this, as well. Otherwise, you wouldn't have missed one of my replies to you and only quote one paragraph in a comment of mine.

Your paragraphs say the exact same thing over and over again. I consider it trimming the fat.

Are you telling me a Tinker can't use Rocket Cluster, Xplodium Charge and Grav-O-Bomb 3000 without a mech?

That would be correct.

An Engineer is not a Hobbyist. Otherwise, Gazlowe would be categorized as a Hobbyist.
What you described above is the difference between Goblin tech and Gnomish tech, not an Engineer and a Tinker. While Goblins tech tends to fall apart and quiver, quite often, as can be seen with the Goblin shredder, Gnomish tech tends to be more professionally made. Applying this as the difference between an Engineer and a Tinker is manipulation at its best.

A warrior learning engineering is.

Also Blackfuse and Gazlowe's shredder move nothing like the sky golem. They move more like the Lightforged Warframe. The Sky Golem's animations are purposely skewed to give the appearance of a poorly built mech.

[Ielenia]

That would be correct.

Nice headcanon.

A warrior learning engineering is.

Nice headcanon. Oh wait. You're saying it's a fact? In that case, where's the official statement saying that the professions are just hobbies?

Not to mention that the simple name of the feature defeats your claim, since, y'know, since it's called PROFESSION and not "hobby".

[Teriz]

Nice headcanon.

In WC3 and HotS Cluster Rockets, Grav-O Bomb, and Xplodium charge launched from the mech.

Thus, it stands to reason that in class form, you also would only be able to use those abilities in mech form (or if the claw pack is used).

Nice headcanon. Oh wait. You're saying it's a fact? In that case, where's the official statement saying that the professions are just hobbies?

Considering that you can drop them at any point, have multiples of them at once, and don't even need to pick one up at all in the first place to progress in the game, it's safe to say that that's exactly what they are.

[Ielenia]

In WC3 and HotS Cluster Rockets, Grav-O Bomb, and Xplodium charge launched from the mech.

And those games are not WoW. In WC3 and HotS, my orc warrior can use mirror image and go invisible. In HotS, my paladin takes on a spiritual form once killed to continue helping my team.

None of that can be done in WoW.

Thus, it stands to reason...

... that what you have is headcanon.

Considering...

Stop right there. The name of the feature is "PROFESSION", not "hobby". You're literally trying to re-define words and terms to fit your narrative. Again.

[Teriz]

And those games are not WoW. In WC3 and HotS, my orc warrior can use mirror image and go invisible. In HotS, my paladin takes on a spiritual form once killed to continue helping my team.

That would be a Blademaster, not a Warrior. Also I have no idea what hero you're talking about. If you're talking about Uther, the Paladin was already in WoW long before HotS came out.

Stop right there. The name of the feature is "PROFESSION", not "hobby". You're literally trying to re-define words and terms to fit your narrative. Again.

Obviously profession means something different in WoW than it does in the real world. That wouldn't be the first time that's happened, along with you placing far more importance on professions than you should.

[Ielenia]

That would be a Blademaster, not a Warrior. Also I have no idea what hero you're talking about. If you're talking about Uther, the Paladin was already in WoW long before HotS came out.

The whole point is that the way HotS classes play out is different and therefore non-canon to the WoW game. Therefore you pointing at Gazlowe in HotS is meaningless.

Obviously profession means something different in WoW than it does in the real world.

The only "obvious" thing here is you attempting to redefine words and terms to fit your narrative.

[Teriz]

The whole point is that the way HotS classes play out is different and therefore non-canon to the WoW game. Therefore you pointing at Gazlowe in HotS is meaningless.

Except the way the HotS Tinker concept plays is similar to the way the WC3 Tinker hero plays, and we have both WC3 and HotS Tinker abilities in WoW. In addition, we have the precedent of how the previous expansion classes were implemented, which were all rather close to their WC3 and HotS iterations.

Thus calling it "meaningless" is purely your opinion, and an ignorant opinion at that.

The only "obvious" thing here is you attempting to redefine words and terms to fit your narrative.

I'm merely placing the word in its proper context in WoW.

[Ielenia]

Except the way the HotS Tinker concept plays is similar to the way the WC3 Tinker hero plays,

And Samuro plays similarly to the blademaster in WC3. But both play very differently than the warrior class we have in WoW.

Thus calling it "meaningless" is purely your opinion,

It's amazing how much you lack self-awareness, because you not only dismiss other people's arguments as "opinions", but also use your own opinions as facts, here.

an ignorant opinion at that.

Drive-in movie theater projects can't project this hard...

I'm merely placing the word in its proper context in WoW.

You're not. You're making a redefinition that has no basis in the lore. It's based solely in your narrative.

[Teriz]

And Samuro plays similarly to the blademaster in WC3. But both play very differently than the warrior class we have in WoW.

Because the Warrior class is not completely based on the Blademaster concept. The Blademaster concept was divided into multiple classes.

You're not. You're making a redefinition that has no basis in the lore. It's based solely in your narrative.

I'm just going by how the profession operates within WoW; An unimportant timesink that your character doesn't need to engage in.

[Ielenia]

I'm just going by how the profession operates within WoW; An unimportant timesink that your character doesn't need to engage in.

Once again, you're conflating gameplay and lore. Gameplay is not lore, and lore is not gameplay.

I'll repeat for truth: you are redefining terms with zero evidence in the lore, based on nothing but your own narrative.

[jellmoo]

Obviously Blizzard cared, which is why Mages and Shaman also didn't get that attribute. So when DKs entered WoW in WotLK the precedent had been set.

Honestly I have yet to hear many complain about the DK not being able to be mounted at all times.

So you think that Blizzard's approach to class design will be that anything that is an ability needs to be 100% brought in and anything else doesn't matter? That seems like a rather weird approach. And I have no idea how many people are put off by DKs not being mounted (Mages or Shamans too for that matter). I do imagine that some people are though, and for them that was a sucky thing.

We have. Again look at the WC3, HotS, and TTRPG character. It is a consistent theme utilized over and over again. Further, the precedent set by previous class implementations shows that Blizzard brings in the expansion classes rather close to their WC3 concept. So while the DK didn't get to be mounted at all times (because it wasn't an ability), it still got the undead horse. It also got ALL of its WC3 abilities. Once again, one of the Tinker's WC3 abilities is permanent mech form.

You have come to this conclusion for yourself, which is fine. More power to you for that. But that doesn't make it anywhere near an objective fact. I just don't agree. I don't think that what was present in WC3, HotS or anything else actually has any real bearing on class design in the way you seem to think it does. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fact. It's just my opinion. For all I know Blizzard has a book in their office titled "Class Design Requirements" that lists all those sources and says that anything they had to WoW must follow that. No idea. I just don't think so. At the end of the day all we have are opinions, which means we haven't really established anything.

No, because the Tinker's bombs come from their mechs. Further if they have a permanent mech form, a bomb toss from their "caster" mode wouldn't make much sense. Not saying it's out of the realm of possibility, but I see the caster mode having more laser and shielding abilities than explosive abilities.

In your class fantasy, sure. In my class fantasy, they toss bombs at their enemy. In your class fantasy they have a permanent mech. In my class fantasy they do not. Until Blizzard actually makes a Tinker class, we don't know what a Tinker actually is or does.

Well if we're talking about Reeves, he isn't going to see it because you can't summon Reeves outside of the broken isles. If its the Sky Golem, the farmer would see a Janky mess with sparks popping out of it, and the overall machine looking like it was going to fall apart. A Tinker's mech should be more like Mekkatorque's, where there is no jankiness, no screws popping out, and the machine looking like it was built by a skilled engineer instead of a hobbyist.

Again, that's supposition. Also, suppose Farmer joe is now Farmer Thogg, Orc farmer and it's two Goblins he's seeing, each in a mech. One is a Sky Golem, one is a Tinker mech. Both look janky with sparks and what not, because goblin aesthetic. Famer Thogg is going to have no idea which dude is a Tinker and which is an engineer.

Well you're thinking of the character in of itself. I'm talking about Gazlowe's association with the Tinker. When he's associated with the Tinker, he gets shown with the "half" mech he had from HotS. He also has his own Goblin Shredder in WoW. My overall point here is simply that if Blizzard introduces the Tinker class, Gazlowe is going to be the lore figure attached to it. Now, how much Blizzard pushes that remains to be seen. I could definitely see a Gazlowe Tinker statue made, and some promotional art for whatever expansion the Tinker releases in.

We also shouldn't discount Blizzard's art team, who are amazing at what they do.

Okay, let's imagine that Gazlowe is the lore figure attached Could that not just as easily be presented as a guy with a claw pack instead of a guy with a mech? Couldn't that be the image of the playable Tinker?

But I don't see Gazloe getting anything like the Sylvanas, Arthas or Illidan treatment. As far as lore characters go, he just isn't anywhere that level of popularity. He could get the Chen Stormstout treatment, but without a brand new land to also showcase in that way, I would be very surprised.

Well you're looking at it as something that Blizzard doesn't need anymore. Blizzard more than likely views it as a gold mine they can keep mining until the resource runs dry. I mean consider what we have with the Tinker; We have the general design. We have over a dozen abilities. We have a general structure of a three spec class. You could design this class in your sleep, because very little needs to be done to make it a "Warcraft concept". It's been a Warcraft concept for years now, and it has no overlapping abilities with the existing class lineup. You can even attach it to a known character. I mean, it's a no brainer.

I mean at this point, why would you stop using a winning formula? Especially when you have another candidate from the same pedigree ready to drop whenever you're ready to do so?

They've emptied that mine though. Everything and so much more that was in that mine has been taken and tossed into WoW itself. They really don't need to go back to it, considering how much more time and effort has gone into WoW than into WC3.

Now I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there's a ton of potential to grab stuff from WC3 to add to a new class. I think it does make sense as the ideas there are good ones that could work as a foundation for a tech class. I just don't think they have to, and that they can take a hard look at the tech they've already implemented into WoW and use that to build a class around.

[Teriz]

So you think that Blizzard's approach to class design will be that anything that is an ability needs to be 100% brought in and anything else doesn't matter? That seems like a rather weird approach. And I have no idea how many people are put off by DKs not being mounted (Mages or Shamans too for that matter). I do imagine that some people are though, and for them that was a sucky thing.

I believe Blizzard's approach in terms of the mounted heroes was that all classes should be on foot, and out of combat they can mount. Seems like a smart way to do balance. Considering I've never seen a thread petitioning for DKs to be permanently mounted, I would say it was a wise design decision.

You have come to this conclusion for yourself, which is fine. More power to you for that. But that doesn't make it anywhere near an objective fact. I just don't agree. I don't think that what was present in WC3, HotS or anything else actually has any real bearing on class design in the way you seem to think it does. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fact. It's just my opinion. For all I know Blizzard has a book in their office titled "Class Design Requirements" that lists all those sources and says that anything they had to WoW must follow that. No idea. I just don't think so. At the end of the day all we have are opinions, which means we haven't really established anything.

Well these are the last three WoW expansion classes;



Why would Blizzard suddenly abandon their design structure when they get to this one;


??

In your class fantasy, sure. In my class fantasy, they toss bombs at their enemy. In your class fantasy they have a permanent mech. In my class fantasy they do not. Until Blizzard actually makes a Tinker class, we don't know what a Tinker actually is or does.

Death Knights got their ultimate ability which was an AoE raise undead ability, Monks got their ultimate where they split into three elemental forms, and Demon Hunters got their ultimate ability where they temporarily turned into a demon.

Why wouldn't the Tinker get their ultimate ability of permanently piloting a mech?

Again, that's supposition. Also, suppose Farmer joe is now Farmer Thogg, Orc farmer and it's two Goblins he's seeing, each in a mech. One is a Sky Golem, one is a Tinker mech. Both look janky with sparks and what not, because goblin aesthetic. Famer Thogg is going to have no idea which dude is a Tinker and which is an engineer.

But again, Gazlowe's shredder isn't janky with sparks flying. The GMOD, AMOD, and Crowd Pummeler aren't janky with sparks flying either.

Okay, let's imagine that Gazlowe is the lore figure attached Could that not just as easily be presented as a guy with a claw pack instead of a guy with a mech? Couldn't that be the image of the playable Tinker?

The claw pack transforms into a mech. They're one in the same.

But I don't see Gazloe getting anything like the Sylvanas, Arthas or Illidan treatment. As far as lore characters go, he just isn't anywhere that level of popularity. He could get the Chen Stormstout treatment, but without a brand new land to also showcase in that way, I would be very surprised.

Which actually makes sense, since the Tinker class would likely start from level 1 just like Monks. As for new land, you'd probably be looking at Undermine.

They've emptied that mine though. Everything and so much more that was in that mine has been taken and tossed into WoW itself. They really don't need to go back to it, considering how much more time and effort has gone into WoW than into WC3.

Now I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there's a ton of potential to grab stuff from WC3 to add to a new class. I think it does make sense as the ideas there are good ones that could work as a foundation for a tech class. I just don't think they have to, and that they can take a hard look at the tech they've already implemented into WoW and use that to build a class around.

They don't have to, but why would you abandon a concept that's prime for implementation that seems desired by the user base (just look what people went through to get Reeves for example]. Especially when you consider that the alternative amounts to nothing more than a supped up Hunter tossing bombs.

[Ielenia]

Why would Blizzard suddenly abandon their design structure when they get to this one;

You haven't proven yet that Blizzard has a "design structure" yet. All you have is an opinion, and your opinion is rejected by many.

[Unbelievable]

No, it's not satisfying period. The Reeves Combat module requires weeks to acquire the materials to construct, and once you construct it, you can only use it on Broken Isles. However, even there you can't use Reeves for questing because the quest giver won't recognize you and you can't loot corpses. Also once the duration ends there's a 30 minute cool down. Finally you can't use it for dungeons or raids.

Supposedly there's some trick where you can use it for PvP, but yeah, not viable.

Unlike say, you being a Forsaken Hunter and having a skeletal dog and being a Nathanos-style Dark Ranger, or you being a Void Elf Hunter and being a Sylvanas style Dark Ranger. Those are perfectly viable options that people don't like because it isn't exactly the way they want it.



Your paragraphs say the exact same thing over and over again. I consider it trimming the fat.



That would be correct.




A warrior learning engineering is.

Also Blackfuse and Gazlowe's shredder move nothing like the sky golem. They move more like the Lightforged Warframe. The Sky Golem's animations are purposely skewed to give the appearance of a poorly built mech.

I didn't talk about what you can, or can't, do with Reaves combat module. I talked, strictly, about elements. Since it is a mech, and it is usable, then the Engineering profession covers that Element, as well.

That wouldn't be correct, unless you consider Claw Pack a mech. Because when you were talking about a mech, you referred to the Robo-Goblin, not Claw pack.

"Gnomish technology is not quite as prone to malfunction as goblin technology, and gnomes tend to produce devices that have more specialized and unusual effects."

"Goblin tinkers differ from their gnomish counterparts. Goblins enjoy instant gratification. They work on an invention until it sort of, kind of functions, then they move on to another one. They get a thrill when they finish something, even if "finishing" means that it works properly one out of ten times."

That would be a Blademaster, not a Warrior.

I thought you considered them the same.
I'm gonna hold onto that line

[Teriz]

You haven't proven yet that Blizzard has a "design structure" yet. All you have is an opinion, and your opinion is rejected by many.

Rejected on the basis of denialism. Nothing more, nothing less.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't talk about what you can, or can't, do with Reaves combat module. I talked, strictly, about elements. Since it is a mech, and it is usable, then the Engineering profession covers that Element, as well.

You didn't need to, I did it for you. Saying that Reeves is a suitable stand in for a Tinker with a mech is an absurd statement, because the Reeves is non viable on multiple levels.

That wouldn't be correct, unless you consider Claw Pack a mech. Because when you were talking about a mech, you referred to the Robo-Goblin, not Claw pack.

Yes, you can consider Claw Packs a type of mech. However, the Tinker in WC3 and early iterations of HotS allowed the Claw Pack to transform into a mech.

"Gnomish technology is not quite as prone to malfunction as goblin technology, and gnomes tend to produce devices that have more specialized and unusual effects."

"Goblin tinkers differ from their gnomish counterparts. Goblins enjoy instant gratification. They work on an invention until it sort of, kind of functions, then they move on to another one. They get a thrill when they finish something, even if "finishing" means that it works properly one out of ten times."

Lore bits that mean diddly squat when it comes to class mechanics. Also once again, we have multiple examples of Goblin mechs that are nowhere near as janky or badly built as the Sky Golem.

I thought you considered them the same.
I'm gonna hold onto that line

They aren't the same, but Warriors (and Rogues) take their design space in the class lineup.