Anemo: traveler, Sucrose
Pyro: Yanfei, Amber, diluc, xiangling, thoma, Xinyan, Bennett
Geo: Noelle, Ningguang, Yun Jin, Gorou
Hydro: Barbara, Zingqiu, Ayato
Cyro: Shenhe, Kaeya, Chongyun, Diona, Ayaka, Rosaria
Electro: Fischl, Lisa, Miko, Kujou, Raiden, Razor
No amount of your semantics will change the facts here. Priests and Warlocks are VERY. different from each other. Necromancers and Death Knights are clearly not. This is why you have to use whataboutisms instead of dealing with the root of why there will be no Necromancer class. Feel free to believe whatever you like, but the facts are the facts.
- - - Updated - - -
You’re utilizing a lore similarity that isn’t a gameplay reality. Priests players can’t transform their priests into Paladins, and Priests use an entire school of magic that Paladins don’t touch. Thus even in lore, every Priest isn’t going to be able, or desire to become a Paladin. 2/3 of the Priest specs use Shadow magic in some capacity.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, but Necromancy would have to be a major theme to facilitate a Necromancer class. Like in the current expansion which didn’t bring us a Necromancer.
Which has nothing to do with my point. Paladins were originally Priests that one day said "Aw shit, we gots to do something about dem Orcs. Let's grab some armor and weapons and kick ass with da Light!"
I'm not arguing anything about in game mechanics. Just that saying that Priests and Paladins are somehow super different isn't quite true since one used to be, quite literally, the other.
Again, that has nothing to do with the class. The class is a healing class that combines Shadow damage and holy healing magic. That lore tidbit has nothing to do with the priest’s purpose in the class lineup.
It’s the same as Mages becoming Warlocks in lore. That really has nothing to do with a discussion arguing for another class that uses demonic magic and demon pets.
Of course it does. If you make an argument that Class Concept A is too similar to Current Class B, people are going to naturally compare it current classes that share Lore similarities.
But you're arguing that the classes are different mechanically, so it's okay, as though two additionally similar concepts (let's say Death Knight and Necromancer) wouldn't also be different mechanically.
All I'm saying is that Priests have a direct connection to Paladins thematically.
But they’re not similar thematically. Priest merges shadow and holy magic. Paladins are pure holy Warriors. Meanwhile, a Death Knight is a Necromancer, since a Necromancer is simply someone who practices Necromancy, which is exactly what a DK does.
It isn’t lore that prevents another Necromancer class, it’s gameplay.
Says the guy who loves to employ semantics and dishonest double-standards in his arguments. You literally tried to redefine the word "build" many pages ago.
And so would necromancers and death knights. One is a melee character, the other is a ranged character. One wears plate, the other wears cloth. One uses primarily weapon strikes, the other uses exclusively magic attacks. Those three facts alone debunk any and all claims that DKs and necromancers would play the same.Priests and Warlocks are VERY. different from each other.
Demonstrably false.Necromancers and Death Knights are clearly not.
Demonstrating how your arguments are bogus because they invalidate existing classes is not "whataboutism".This is why you have to use whataboutisms
And you know that just like you knew "the next class is going to be tinker" for the last several years, right? Once again, opinions as fact, by Teriz™.instead of dealing with the root of why there will be no Necromancer class.
Of which you have very little, despite your claims. Of course, many of your so-called "facts" are nothing but opinions and headcanons.the facts are the facts.
But it doesn't matter. It's still similarities. If "specialization similarity" doesn't matter, only "class similarity" does, you're basically saying two specs can be carbon-copies of another class' two specs, as long as the third spec is different. Which would make your necromancer concept (blood spec, frost spec, unholy spec) a valid class considering the blood spec would be healing, instead of tanking.
And then there are the other stuff you... I'll be generous and say you forgot to answer:
And so would necromancers and death knights. One is a melee character, the other is a ranged character. One wears plate, the other wears cloth. One uses primarily weapon strikes, the other uses exclusively magic attacks. Those three facts alone debunk any and all claims that DKs and necromancers would play the same.
Demonstrably false.Necromancers and Death Knights are clearly not.
Demonstrating how your arguments are bogus because they invalidate existing classes is not "whataboutism".This is why you have to use whataboutisms
And you know that just like you knew "the next class is going to be tinker" for the last several years, right? Once again, opinions as fact, by Teriz™.instead of dealing with the root of why there will be no Necromancer class.
Of which you have very little, despite your claims. Of course, many of your so-called "facts" are nothing but opinions and headcanons.the facts are the facts.
And that would be a straw man. There are no specs that are “carbon copies” of each other. Further, saying that the difference between specialization vs class similarity “doesn’t matter” is an utterly ridiculous statement to make. There’s a massive difference, and it’s why you might see a few specs share spells, but entire classes not being similar to each other.
It was an example of how your argument allows for two specs of this hypothetical class be literal carbon-copies of another class, as long as the third spec is different, since, like you pointed out, spec similarities don't matter. Only class similarity does. After all, if only 2/3 of a class is similar to another, then the class as a whole is not similar to another.
It doesn't matter if classes share similarities, big or small. A class concept of a light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting inherently plays differently than a class concept of a heavy-armored, melee character who most of their attacks rely on weapon swings. Those two class concepts will never have the same gameplay. That is an undisputable fact.Further, saying that the difference between specialization vs class similarity “doesn’t matter” is an utterly ridiculous statement to make. There’s a massive difference, and it’s why you might see a few specs share spells, but entire classes not being similar to each other.
Likewise: a spec that is based on tanking inherently plays different than a spec based on healing, regardless if they share the same theme. Otherwise, it's like saying the priest's holy spec "plays the same" as the paladin's prot spec.
Priests have 2 specs that are different than Paladins, and frankly the weapon/armor based magic of Paladins differs highly from the style of Holy magic employed by Priests. However, for the sake of argument, I will say they share 1 specialization similarity, and that's because of the nature of healing in WoW where healing specs have to follow a similar spell set up in order to be competitive and viable.
There would be no Necromancer spec different than the DK class. Even if we ignore Blizzard viewing red spells in healing specs to be problematic, you still have blood in a spec utilized for healing. However in this case instead of blood magic being used on themselves to heal so that the necromancer can tank, this version would heal the group instead (which the DK has been able to do in past iterations of WoW). In addition, you would almost be required to utilize Kel'thuzad since he is the only major Necromancer legacy character in WoW and that would force a Frost spec of sorts, and obviously you're going to want an Unholy style spec that raises minions.
So yeah, Necromancer specs: Blood, Frost, Unholy. Just like the DK class.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, I never advocated for that at all. I said that you can't tell the difference between a spec similarity and a class similarity. In other words you're arguing about how Affliction Lock and SPriests are similar when the actual issue here is that the entire Necromancer class would be similar to the DK class, which is why it probably won't be implemented.
Okay? And Necromancers could have 1 spec similar to Death Knights and 2 specs that are different. What exactly is the difference here?
Why... Why on earth would Blizzard use the same specs as the Death Knight? No really, why can't they make other specs? Let's go with Bone, Poison and Undead. Or Curses, Disease and Alchemy. There is zero reason that they would ever just use Death Knight specs and there's no reason that they can't make up other ones.There would be no Necromancer spec different than the DK class. Even if we ignore Blizzard viewing red spells in healing specs to be problematic, you still have blood in a spec utilized for healing. However in this case instead of blood magic being used on themselves to heal so that the necromancer can tank, this version would heal the group instead (which the DK has been able to do in past iterations of WoW). In addition, you would almost be required to utilize Kel'thuzad since he is the only major Necromancer legacy character in WoW and that would force a Frost spec of sorts, and obviously you're going to want an Unholy style spec that raises minions.
So yeah, Necromancer specs: Blood, Frost, Unholy. Just like the DK class.
If they can make Priests and Paladins different enough from one another to be separate class, there is absolutely no reason that they can't make Necromancers and Death Knights different enough to be separate classes.
And that premise is demonstrably false, as I already explained:
Light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting: necromancer.
Heavy-armored, melee character who relies mostly on weapon swings: death knight.
- - - Updated - - -
Or better yet: Blood Ritual, Construct and Poison. Which are the specs of the new necromancer concept I'm slowly writing up.
How? The capabilities of WoW Necromancers are quite clear, and they're pretty much aligned 1:1 with Death Knights.
Because they purposely put the Necromancer concept into the DK class back in WotLK. People don't want to accept that, but that's exactly what happened. In other words, Blizzard's design for the Necromancer class IS the DK class.Why... Why on earth would Blizzard use the same specs as the Death Knight? No really, why can't they make other specs? Let's go with Bone, Poison and Undead. Or Curses, Disease and Alchemy. There is zero reason that they would ever just use Death Knight specs and there's no reason that they can't make up other ones.
Also Warlocks use curses. Necromancers don't use poison in WoW, that would be Diablo. DKs already do Bone, Disease, and Undead.
Alchemy isn't magic, and based on the Alchemist hero from WC3, that concept belongs more with the Tinker class than any Necromancer concept.
So yeah that's that.
You're acting as if Priests and Paladins are one in the same, like Priests are just ranged Paladins. That has never been the case in the history of Warcraft.If they can make Priests and Paladins different enough from one another to be separate class, there is absolutely no reason that they can't make Necromancers and Death Knights different enough to be separate classes.
And yeah there is a reason they can't make Necromancers and DKs different; DKs are necromancers. A necromancer is simply someone who uses necromancy, which is exactly what the DK does.
- - - Updated - - -
In short, you're stating that the only difference is one wear cloth and is a spell caster, while the other is a heavily armored battle-mage. Which is irrelevant because it isn't stated anywhere that a Necromancer MUST be a cloth-wearing spell caster, and there are examples of Blizzard creating melee Necromancers.
What you describe isn't enough of a difference to justify them as two separate classes. It's literally the difference between an Elemental and Enhancement Shaman.
Last edited by Teriz; 2021-02-08 at 12:46 AM.