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

[Triceron]

Again, why would Blizzard create an entirely new class just because of a lack of poisons? Especially when the main purpose of having a Necromancer is to have a class that does dark magic and raises the undead which is frankly what the DK class does. Your argument literally makes no sense.

Supply and demand.

Do you not recognize that fans legitimately ask for a Necromancer class?

Again, we're not talking about whether it'd likely happen or whether there's even a sensible place for Necromancers. We're talking about what makes sense, and the main purpose of a Necromancer class is to fulfill a Necromancer class fantasy which players are asking for. Poisons and Necromancy is all within that theme that fans recognize. Death Knights and Warlocks have never fulfilled or replaced that demand, and this needs to be acknowledged considering the same niche arguments were used against Demon Hunters and we know clearly that being a niche concept does not get in the way of them becoming a new playable class.

The argument I present makes perfect sense. Where is your confusion?

[Traveler Voltin]

people do not think poison when it comes to necromancer they think plague, spreading death, and summoning hordes of undead minions.

[Teriz]

Supply and demand.

Do you not recognize that fans legitimately ask for a Necromancer class?

I do, and I also recognize that a Necromancer fan has the option to play a Death Knight or a Warlock.

Again, we're not talking about whether it'd likely happen or whether there's even a sensible place for Necromancers. We're talking about what makes sense, and the main purpose of a Necromancer class is to fulfill a Necromancer class fantasy which players are asking for. Poisons and Necromancy is all within that theme that fans recognize. Death Knights and Warlocks have never fulfilled or replaced that demand, and this needs to be acknowledged considering the same niche arguments were used against Demon Hunters and we know clearly that being a niche concept does not get in the way of them becoming a new playable class.

In what way does a Death Knight or a Warlock not satisfy a player's fantasy of poison or Necromancy? Warlocks and DKs both have abilities that deal damage over time, both summon various dark minions, and both utilize shadow magic. You're seriously going to argue that someone is clamoring for a Necromancer class because a DoT is ticking shadow damage instead of nature damage, or because a Death Knight is fighting in melee range instead of from 40 yards away?

And if someone has an issue with fighting in melee range, you're telling me that they have to have a skeleton protecting them instead of a demon?

Laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

people do not think poison when it comes to necromancer they think plague, spreading death, and summoning hordes of undead minions.

Exactly. In fact the entire poison theme of the scourge was based on creating an artificial plague and spreading that plague. Death Knights did one better and had magic-based diseases instead.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Not ever person wants to play a DEAD character who was once raised to be a puppet for the Lich King. Nor do they want to play a death magic user that is basically an anti Paladin. As for Necromancers summoning hordes of undead, I say make them temporary like how the Necromancer class in ESO has them

[Traveler Voltin]

Not ever person wants to play a DEAD character who was once raised to be a puppet for the Lich King. Nor do they want to play a death magic user that is basically an anti Paladin. As for Necromancers summoning hordes of undead, I say make them temporary like how the Necromancer class in ESO has them

demonology warlock.

army of the undead for death knights.

massively overlap there.

[Teriz]

Not ever person wants to play a DEAD character who was once raised to be a puppet for the Lich King. Nor do they want to play a death magic user that is basically an anti Paladin. As for Necromancers summoning hordes of undead, I say make them temporary like how the Necromancer class in ESO has them

Have you played a DK or a Warlock in this expansion?

With All will serve you will have 2 minions with you at all times. Apocalypse can give you up to 4 additional ghouls every 1.5 minutes and they last for 15 seconds. If you take the PvP talent Reanimator, you can spam an exploding zombie. You can summon a gargoyle every 3 minutes that lasts for 30 seconds. You have Army of the Dead, or you can opt for Summon Abomination which will summon an Abomination every 1.5 seconds.

Or....

You can roll a Demonology Warlock and have a horde of Imps, a Fel Guard or Voidwalker defending you, you can summon a Demonic Tyrant that will empower your summoned demons, you can passively generate a variety of demons via Inner Demon, and even beyond that you have a wide variety of demonic summons like Dreadstalkers, Bile Bombers, Vilefiends, etc. There's plenty of times where you'll have literally a demonic army fighting for you.

While surrounded by your minions you drain life from enemies and send that life energy into your main demon. Meanwhile you're both using Soul Leach to protect yourselves. All the while using abilities like Drain Life, Dark Pact, Soulstone, Hearthstones, etc. that wouldn't be out of place in a Necromancer's spell book.

Again, Necromancer fans have two very strong choices.

[Revamp Man]

I've always wanted Bard but I doubt it will happen

it would be nice
kinda like disc priest but buffing allies instead of healing

[Triceron]

I do, and I also recognize that a Necromancer fan has the option to play a Death Knight or a Warlock.

In what way does a Death Knight or a Warlock not satisfy a player's fantasy of poison or Necromancy? Warlocks and DKs both have abilities that deal damage over time, both summon various dark minions, and both utilize shadow magic. You're seriously going to argue that someone is clamoring for a Necromancer class because a DoT is ticking shadow damage instead of nature damage, or because a Death Knight is fighting in melee range instead of from 40 yards away?

In the same way Covenants with Necromancy abilities doesn't satisfy a Necromancer class.

That you personally are satisfied that a DK fulfills a Necromancer fantasy is your personal views on this. You were also fine with Warlocks filling in for the Demon Hunter at one point, so we know where your personal opinions lie in this matter. Yet I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about popular demand and how Blizzard has responded in kind by providing a playable class.

All the arguments that you have brought up so far are invalidated by the existence of the Paladin and Demon Hunter classes, which have become a precedent for niche class concepts that have gameplay and thematic overlap with existing classes.

What reason do we have for a Paladin class to exist alongside Priests and Warriors? Because we needed a Holy Warrior class? No, not really. There's only one reason - because fans want to play as this iconic Warcraft hero. The Demon Hunter's design is absolutely crystal clear that potential new classes aren't exclusive to concepts that bring in completely unique or innovative ideas.

That is the only reason necessary for any class to exist, and the Demon Hunter existing despite having mechanics shared amongst existing classes and the entire theme of Demon Metamorphosis being used by the Warlock.

You're seriously going to argue that someone is clamoring for a Necromancer class because a DoT is ticking shadow damage instead of nature damage

I think you mean nature instead of shadow damage, but not quite sure. And no, clamoring is the wrong word considering the example of Necromancers using Poison is in direct reply to your assertion that they have no differences to Death Knights in the use of Necromancy and would only otherwise use Unholy magic. A precedent for a different subtheme is what is being presented, not the basis for which a Necromancer would be playable.

The Class Fantasy of a Necromancer which Blizzard defines and presents to us is what people want to see. There are plenty of fan creations we can talk about if you wish to hone in on any specific example, and everyone of them has differentiated itself enough from simply being a Warlock or a Death Knight.

And if someone has an issue with fighting in melee range, you're telling me

? I said nothing about melee. So no, I wouldn't be telling you anything regarding melee.

Are you confusing me with others again?

[Teriz]

In the same way Covenants with Necromancy abilities doesn't satisfy a Necromancer class.

So you're pretending that a Death Knight or a Warlock has absolutely nothing to do with Necromancy or its abilities? You're going to pretend that those abilities have "tack-on" Necromantic abilities instead of core abilities that they've had for years that are standard Necromancer abilities in other games?

That you personally are satisfied that a DK fulfills a Necromancer fantasy is your personal views on this. You were also fine with Warlocks filling in for the Demon Hunter at one point, so we know where your personal opinions lie in this matter. Yet I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about popular demand and how Blizzard has responded in kind by providing a playable class.

It isn't about being satisfied, it's about recognizing that there is a Necromancer class in the game and another class that is extremely close to the concept. The fact that there are people out there not satisfied with WoW's version of the necromancer doesn't change that fact.

All the arguments that you have brought up so far are invalidated by the existence of the Paladin and Demon Hunter classes, which have become a precedent for niche class concepts that have gameplay and thematic overlap with existing classes.

The difference being that there is nothing that a Necromancer can do that a Death Knight couldn't do ability wise. Demon Hunters will never get summonable minions and Paladins will never get a shadow spec.

I think you mean nature instead of shadow damage, but not quite sure. And no, clamoring is the wrong word considering the example of Necromancers using Poison is in direct reply to your assertion that they have no differences to Death Knights in the use of Necromancy and would only otherwise use Unholy magic. A precedent for a different subtheme is what is being presented, not the basis for which a Necromancer would be playable.

In all truth there really is no difference. Disease performs exactly the same function that poison would. In terms of Warlocks, their various DoT abilities also function exactly like Poison DoTs would. In short, Poison as a concept would add no new gameplay mechanics to the class, and in all honest would play exactly like a Warlock currently plays. It should also be noted that no one rolls a Necromancer for poison or DoTs, they roll a Necromancer to be a master over vile minions, which Death Knights and Warlocks already do just fine.

The Class Fantasy of a Necromancer which Blizzard defines and presents to us is what people want to see.

And we got the class fantasy in 2008.

[Triceron]

So you're pretending that a Death Knight or a Warlock has absolutely nothing to do with Necromancy or its abilities? You're going to pretend that those abilities have "tack-on" Necromantic abilities instead of core abilities that they've had for years that are standard Necromancer abilities in other games?

The only thing that involves pretending is trying to pass off Death Knights and Warlocks as Necromancers. No matter what, you can't change the Death Knight or Warlock's class identity into a Necromancer. I mean, look at Covenants right now, has the open use of Necromancy satisfied the demand for a Necromancer class?

We need to be clear on why the Necromancer is even talked about. If you can't even understand this simple reason, then all of your arguments will remain invalid. All of them.

You are making arguments that do not address the main and only reason why any class should be playable - and that's satisfying a demand to play a specific class fantasy.

It isn't about being satisfied, it's about recognizing that there is a Necromancer class in the game and another class that is extremely close to the concept.

And they will never actually be Necromancers, which invalidates the argument. Again, Blizzard completely acknowledges a difference, and the Warlocks having Metamorphosis and all of the Demon Hunter's abilities would not have been able to satisfy the actual Class Fantasy of a Demon Hunter. We're not talking about what you can pretend to be, we're talking about actual classes you can play as.

The difference being that there is nothing that a Necromancer can do that a Death Knight couldn't do ability wise.

Yet the reason why anyone wants a Necromancer class isn't about what a Necromancer can do that is different from a Death Knight. Again, your reasonings don't actually address the primary function of any class - to fulfill a specific class fantasy.

Death Knights would only become Necromancers if Blizzard specifically creates a Necromancer spec for them that fulfills the fantasy, much like how Brewmaster is a Monk spec that fulfills the fantasy of being a Brewmaster. I mean, you can circle around and praise Warlocks for summoning minions and Unholy spec for popping up ghouls with PVP talents, but at the end of the day I'm not the one you need to convince here. I'm not the one asking for a Necromancer class. I don't care about Necromancers being playable, since I'm fine with them being reskins of Warlocks. What needs to be addressed is whether that satisfies the public expectation and demands for the Necromancer class fantasy.

Like I said, your arguments will be invalid because I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm not talking about personal opinions on what you or I think a Warlock or Death Knight represents. I'm talking about the fact that you will never be able to satisfy or silence a demand for Necromancers with circular reasoning (ie, Death Knights are already Necromancers because they use Necromancy) because it doesn't address the fact that people want to play as a Necromancer, and not a substitute that 'does the same things'.

If we want to talk about satisfying the demand of a Necromancer class, then we have to address the class fantasy first. I personally think we can do this by making it a Warlock Class Skin. Others may feel differently, and want to see this as a properly implemented Necromancer spec for an existing class. This way, we would be properly addressing the Necromancer class fantasy in different ways.

However if you are adamant at using arguments that Death Knights can already do what Necromancers would do, or saying that Necromancers have no unique attributes different from a DK, then you're not addressing the class fantasy, not addressing the demand, and assuming that the actual class fantasy doesn't matter to the population that is showing an active demand to play as a Necromancer class. And frankly, who are you convincing by saying this? The only ones who would agree with you are the people who aren't interested in a Necromancer class in the first place. You invalidate your own argument by not addressing the Necromancer Class fantasy.

And if I am not being clear enough, the Necromancer class fantasy is not about abilities or gameplay mechanics. It's literally about playing a Class or Spec or Reskin that is literally called 'Necromancer' with all the lore and flavour to accompany that specific identity. Again, the class fantasy of a Brewmaster boils down to the Monk having a literal spec called 'Brewmaster'. If that tanking spec were the exact same as it is now and simply called 'Drunk Fighting' Monk spec, then people would not recognize that as an official "Brewmaster" as it existed in Warcraft 3. Player demand would then decide whether a separate official "Brewmaster" class should be considered. It needs an official recognition to marry the concepts being presented. This is why for the longest time no one would have considered a Warlock to be a "Demon Hunter" even if Demonology spec completely represented what Demon Hunter's abilities and mechanics. It was not enough to satisfy the expectations of a Demon Hunter class fantasy, and this is reflected by the high volume of demand for an actual Demon Hunter class. Yet if we look at Hunters having Beastmastery spec, even if this is not an official Beastmaster Class, players are generally happy with this representing them and there is no popular demand for a separate Beastmaster class.

Popular demand is what ultimately decides whether a certain class fantasy should be considered to be developed into its own class.

[Teriz]

The only thing that involves pretending is trying to pass off Death Knights and Warlocks as Necromancers. No matter what, you can't change the Death Knight or Warlock's class identity into a Necromancer. I mean, look at Covenants right now, has the open use of Necromancy satisfied the demand for a Necromancer class?

This is a Necromancer in Warcraft;

Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts[2][3] or the black arts)[4] the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead.[5] Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death. Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed.[6] Necromancers are the enemies of life itself, and all hands are raised against them. Some of the worst evils in Azeroth's history have been perpetrated by necromancers, and they deserve their malevolent reputation. Few things are as abhorrent and horrifying as necromancy.[5]

By all means, find something in that description that doesn't apply to Death Knights.

And btw, that description comes from the Ultimate Visual Guide, which is official.

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/st...e-visual-guide

Once you get past this, we can continue.

- - - Updated - - -

In the end, here's the point; We have a definition of what a Necromancer is in Warcraft and WoW, and it fits the Death Knight perfectly. Despite that, Blizzard still gave players the option to experience standard Necromancer style gameplay with the Warlock class. What some wayward fans on the internet desire is irrelevant, and that fact was only reinforced by the lack of a Necromancer class making an appearance in Shadowlands; An expansion so designed for Necromancers that they gave necromancer abilities to each class.

[Triceron]

By all means, find something in that description that doesn't apply to Death Knights.
Once you get past this, we can continue.

Well there's nothing to get past.

Your question doesn't address Necromancers. Your question addresses Death Knights.

Are we talking about Death Knights, or are we talking about Necromancers? So you are correct, until you decide which you actually want to talk about, there's nothing to continue to. I'm not interested in talking about what applies or does not apply to Death Knights. We already have a Death Knight class.

In the end, here's the point; We have a definition of what a Necromancer is in Warcraft and WoW, and it fits the Death Knight perfectly.

So why doesn't everyone recognize the Death Knight as a sufficient representation of Necromancers the way we all recognize a Hunter as sufficiently representing Beastmasters? Why is this concept still being considered on the polls for new classes?

[Teriz]

Well there's nothing to get past.

Your question doesn't address Necromancers. Your question addresses Death Knights.

Are we talking about Death Knights, or are we talking about Necromancers? So you are correct, until you decide which you actually want to talk about, there's nothing to continue to. I'm not interested in talking about what applies or does not apply to Death Knights. We already have a Death Knight class.

According to that description, Death Knights and Necromancers are one and the same. Which makes sense as Necromancers are merely practitioners of necromancy, which is what DKs do.

So why doesn't everyone recognize the Death Knight as a sufficient representation of Necromancers the way we all recognize a Hunter as sufficiently representing Beastmasters? Why is this concept still being considered on the polls for new classes?

Because people will ignore logic in order to pursue what they want. It's the reason we have people wanting a Ranger class despite Hunters being rangers and Blizzard literally calling Hunters rangers in their description. This situation is no different with people ignoring Blizzard themselves saying they put the Necromancer concept into the DK class, gave the DK the necromancer's abilities, and wrote up descriptions like the one above to give people Blizzard's definition of a necromancer which matches the DK's point by point.

All that matters is what Blizzard identifies as a necromancer. You will never get everyone to agree on everything, and what people say on the internet is of little consequence. Again, this is why there was no necromancer class for Shadowlands despite polls like that one or the numerous posts on the topic. To Blizzard, there's already a necromancer class in WoW.

[Triceron]

According to that description, Death Knights and Necromancers are one and the same.

You mean despite the fact that they have different names and are completely different units in the RTS games?

It's the reason we have people wanting a Ranger class despite Hunters being rangers and Blizzard literally calling Hunters rangers in their description.

Curious, where have you seen any polls where Rangers were amongst even the top 5 asked for classes?

Popular demand is not defined by whatever niche you're equating to between Rangers and Hunters. Honestly, I haven't seen a high demand for a distinction at all.

If we are talking about distinguishing the concepts between Ranger and Hunter, then sure we can talk about that. If you are suggesting there is a significant demand for Rangers as their own class though, I find that difficult to believe. Demand is not just anyone wanting a concept, it's in recognition of the general community. Necromancers people ask for, Rangers have little-to-no demand.

[Teriz]

You mean despite the fact that they have different names and are completely different units in the RTS games?

Yes, because the WoW class system is fundamentally different than WC3 units. In addition, Necromancers exist alongside DKs in lore, but they can’t coexist within the class system due to significant overlap.

Warlocks pretty much supplanted Necromancers in the “dark caster” department. Affliction is pretty much a Necromancer spec with abilities like Phantom Singularity, Haunt, Soulstone, Healthstone, Drain Life, Life Tap, Drain Soul, Curses, Soulwell, Vile Taint, and Deathbolt.

Curious, where have you seen any polls where Rangers were amongst even the top 5 asked for classes?

Not polls, individuals asking for the class in threads.

[Triceron]

Yes, because the WoW class system is fundamentally different than WC3 units. In addition, Necromancers exist alongside DKs in lore, but they can’t coexist within the class system due to significant overlap.

Says the person who said Demon Hunters would never exist alongside Warlocks, then had to change it to 'as long as Warlocks had Metamorphosis' once proven completely wrong. Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Not polls, individuals asking for the class in threads.

Which isn't popular demand, is it?

[Teriz]

Says the person who said Demon Hunters would never exist alongside Warlocks, then had to change it to 'as long as Warlocks had Metamorphosis' once proven completely wrong. Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Uh, it was metamorphosis that made Warlicks too similar to Demon Hunters.

Which isn't popular demand, is it?

Which wasn’t my point. My point was that some people will never be satisfied and continuously ask for stuff already in the game. That doesn’t mean that Blizzard needs to or will oblige them.

[Triceron]

Uh, it was metamorphosis that made Warlicks too similar to Demon Hunters.

Which was just one of a half dozen other reasons like

- We already have a Fel magic user
- What would Demon Hunters do that Warlocks couldn't
- Warlocks are practically Demon Hunters already
- Demon Hunters have all their abilities used by other classes
- Too much overlap with existing classes
- Too confusing having two 'Hunters'

Pretty much the same excuses being used now. None mattered in the end, all those arguments were invalidated.

Which wasn’t my point. My point was that some people will never be satisfied and continuously ask for stuff already in the game. That doesn’t mean that Blizzard needs to or will oblige them.

Your point applies to anything. They don't need to make new expansions to oblige players either, look at Classic, people will pay for static old content too. Doesn't mean they will stop and ignore the fans who want more content.

Everything they do to oblige players is for the sake of making money. Supply and demand. Simple as that. Necromancer is in high demand, there should be no confusion on why Necromancers are still relevant to the topic of new classes.

[Imperator4321]

So where is the playable version of this in the video games?

I'm just going to clarify this, I don't share your view that something needs to have shown up in WC3 as some sort of prerequisite or prior condition for it to be included in WoW, WC3 is 2 decades old at this point, I honestly doubt even half the playerbase of WoW came from WC3, It's not unimportant to the franchise but it's not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't something that belongs in WoW, I believe Classes can be based primarily on recognized fantasy archetypes because WoW is part of a genre and genres have archetypes like the kung fu monk, music playing bards and undead raising necromancers (who are generally treated as a seperate archetype from dark knights/anti-paladins which the Death Knight class represents) how they are contexualized into WoW's setting is additional fluff and lore which can be invented for the sake of adding more variety or adding context, such as the addition of the San'layn in Wrath of the Lich King to add more context to blood manipulating vampiric Blood Spec for Death Knights, or the eponymous Mists of Pandaria to add context for Monks who heal by manipulating mists.

Adding to this I think the reaction Monks and Pandaren got when MoP is revealed shows that being a playable part of WC3 isn't something majority of the fanbase cares about or considers important, the Pandaren were canon to Warcraft's setting ever since the Frozen Throne, they also showed up in the RPG yet even now people still say that the Pandaren were easter eggs that Blizzard took too far, which while incorrect (that was only true in Reign of Chaos) does show that being a canon part of WC3 didn't make people any more receptive to the Pandaren or Monks.

I'm saying that it being filtered through the Pandaren Brewmaster makes the class unique among monk classes in fantasy games. That's the point.

The Monk class is not a Drunken Boxer/Zuì Quán practicioner (the archetype the Pandaren Brewmaster takes after) outside of the Brewmaster spec, it ceases to be that archetype when you are a Windwalker or Mistweaver, the rest of it's abilities are either mystical (Chi, Mists, Celestials) or Martial Arts (Fists of Fury, Rising Sun Kick, Tiger's palm) both of which are concepts common to fantasy Monks, Fantasy Monks have always had Mystical (Ki/Chi) and Martial Arts and have always incorperated common Kung Fu tropes and archetypes (including the Drunken Boxer) into it, the WoW Monk class is not a unique spin on a Monk, all Blizzard did was contextualize common Monk class tropes as part of Pandaren culture who are already inspired by chinese culture, they didn't put a new spin or even a new coat of paint on a class already based on Kung Fu Tropes by contexualizing as a part of the fantasy counterpart to the culture that inspired those tropes in the first place.

If the Monk class was a Drunken Boxer/Zui Quan martial artist regardless of spec (they healed/dps and tanked using alcohol) then yeah it would be a unique spin on a Monk but it's not that it's a fairly stock take on a martial artist class, same way the Paladin is a stock take on a Paladin class.

Again, where is this concept currently in WoW? The Dragon concept I'm discussing is embodied in Wrathion and countless other characters. What WoW character embodies this dragon knight you speak of? My point is that Blizzard would never introduce a class into WoW that has zero presence in the Warcraft universe, regardless of its presence in other games.

Lets talk archetypes again, they have existed in the modern fantasy genre for decades and one of them is the "Dragon-Knight" which can gone under a number of names but at it's core the concept is that of a character whos appearance and/or abilities relate to dragons, this has been interpreted in a number of ways such as a dragonslayer go gains or steals their power (Dragon-Knight in DOTA), dragonriders who bond with their mounts (dragonriders in the inheritance cycle), warriors who simply use dragonlike armor/weapons/powers (Dragonknights in ESO), could be a non-dragon blessed with the powers of one (such as Dragonborn in elder scrolls), how the archetype is translated into WoW is fluff/lore and ultimately doesn't really do much to change the archetype because at it's core it's still a character with Draconic powers regardless of if it's a mortal blessed by the dragonflights/aspects or a member of the dragonflights taking mortal form, I don't think one has any more precedence over the other, because we have instances of the dragonflights blessing mortals with their powers and we have instances of Dragons taking mortal form to fight.

But again, Xul is not a warcraft Necromancer, so what he does is moot.

So now the rules have changed again, what happened to "any playable form in any of Blizzard's video games? " now it's exclusive to depictions in Warcraft or Warcrtaft characters, if something to be part of a WoW class needs to be in a Warcraft game in some "playable form" where did the Mists, Chi, or August Celestials in WoW's monk come from? the Pandaren Brewmaster doesn't use any of those, he uses alchohol (Breath of Fire, Drunken Haze, Drunken Brawler) and elementalism (Storm, Earth, Fire) the entire basis of the Mistweaver class comes from lore that was invented in Mists of Pandaria (the eponymous Mists that shrouded the continent), there is more basis for Poison magic spec Necromancers than there ever was for Mist healing monks from how other Playable Blizzard Necromancers utilize poison and NPC necromancers like Krick use poison.

[Teriz]

Which was just one of a half dozen other reasons like

- We already have a Fel magic user
- What would Demon Hunters do that Warlocks couldn't
- Warlocks are practically Demon Hunters already
- Demon Hunters have all their abilities used by other classes
- Too much overlap with existing classes
- Too confusing having two 'Hunters'

Pretty much the same excuses being used now. None mattered in the end, all those arguments were invalidated.

Again, the key issue was metamorphosis. Without metamorphosis the Demon Hunter concept unravels completely. You can carve out a Demon Hunter class with metamorphosis, which is what they did, but without it, DHs were DOA. That isn't the situation with DKs and Necromancers. DKs have had necromancer abilities since they entered WoW, and Blizzard themselves stated that they took necromancer ideas and put them in the DK class (along with the entire scourge faction from WC3, which in of itself is necromancer-based). Further, the necromancer concept in of itself never states that a necromancer NEEDS to be a frail spell caster, and in fact Blizzard has created melee-based necromancers in other games (as have other RPG makers).

So yeah, this isn't even close to the same situation.

Your point applies to anything. They don't need to make new expansions to oblige players either, look at Classic, people will pay for static old content too. Doesn't mean they will stop and ignore the fans who want more content.

Everything they do to oblige players is for the sake of making money. Supply and demand. Simple as that. Necromancer is in high demand, there should be no confusion on why Necromancers are still relevant to the topic of new classes.

Your example really doesn't line up with what we're talking about here. You're arguing that Blizzard needs to address a group of fans that demand a necromancer class despite Blizzard pretty much having a necromancer in the DK class. You're expanding that argument to say that Blizzard doesn't need to make expansions to appease fans either, which is true, but really isn't the same argument. There's a host of reasons for Blizzard to make more WoW expansions because expansions appeal to pretty much everyone inside and outside the WoW user base and increases the power of the Warcraft franchise and of course makes Blizzard money.

The only reason for Blizzard to make a necromancer class is to appease a vocal group of players because for whatever reason WoW's take on the Necromancer class isn't satisfying for vocal group of players. You say that the necromancer is in high demand, based on what exactly? Where are you getting information for that conclusion from? Forum posts? If we're going to base it on that, the Tinker and the Dragonsworn class are far more popular and in demand.

Finally you're ignoring the huge downside of Blizzard obliging a necromancer class; Death Knight and Warlock players who will obviously lose abilities to this new necromancer class. There are Warlock players who are still bitter about losing metamorphosis to Warlocks. Imagine that bitterness magnified because Death Knights would be forced to lose abilities they've had since WotLK to facilitate to what's going to amount to another Warlock class with undead minions instead of demonic minions.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just going to clarify this, I don't share your view that something needs to have shown up in WC3 as some sort of prerequisite or prior condition for it to be included in WoW, WC3 is 2 decades old at this point, I honestly doubt even half the playerbase of WoW came from WC3, It's not unimportant to the franchise but it's not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't something that belongs in WoW, I believe Classes can be based primarily on recognized fantasy archetypes because WoW is part of a genre and genres have archetypes like the kung fu monk, music playing bards and undead raising necromancers (who are generally treated as a seperate archetype from dark knights/anti-paladins which the Death Knight class represents)

Adding to this I think the reaction Monks and Pandaren got when MoP is revealed shows that being a playable part of WC3 isn't something majority of the fanbase cares about or considers important, the Pandaren were canon to Warcraft's setting ever since the Frozen Throne, they also showed up in the RPG yet even now people still say that the Pandaren were easter eggs that Blizzard took too far, which while incorrect (that was only true in Reign of Chaos) does show that being a canon part of WC3 didn't make people any more receptive to the Pandaren or Monks.

What about the reaction to Demon Hunters? They came from WC3 as well, and in fact are an older concept than the Pandaren were. Demon Hunters were introduced into WoW as a class only 4 years ago.

Also its not only about WC3, we now have HotS as well, and Blizzard is clearly pulling abilities and concepts from the WC characters in that game as well.

The point is that the lack of a playable version of your "dragon knight" concept is problematic, because that would mean that Blizzard has never created such a concept in Warcraft. So that really begs the question; If they have never created this concept, why would they suddenly create this concept? This is especially a bizarre situation when you consider that they already have a dragon concept that is recognizable to players, is playable in HotS, and has popular lore characters attached to it. Again, why start from square 1 with a generic concept when you can start from square 50 with a unique concept that your fanbase recognizes, is distinctly Blizzard, and very different than anything else on the RPG market?

Again, a no-brainer.

Lets talk archetypes again, they have existed in the modern fantasy genre for decades and one of them is the "Dragon-Knight" which can gone under a number of names but at it's core the concept is that of a character whos appearance and/or abilities relate to dragons, this has been interpreted in a number of ways such as a dragonslayer go gains or steals their power (Dragon-Knight in DOTA), dragonriders who bond with their mounts (dragonriders in the inheritance cycle), warriors who simply use dragonlike armor/weapons/powers (Dragonknights in ESO), could be a non-dragon blessed with the powers of one (such as Dragonborn in elder scrolls), how the archetype is translated into WoW is fluff/lore and ultimately doesn't really do much to change the archetype because at it's core it's still a character with Draconic powers regardless of if it's a mortal blessed by the dragonflights/aspects or a member of the dragonflights taking mortal form, I don't think one has any more precedence over the other, because we have instances of the dragonflights blessing mortals with their powers and we have instances of Dragons taking mortal form to fight.

Again, why would Blizzard borrow from someone else's dragon warrior concept when they already have one?

So now the rules have changed again, what happened to "any playable form in any of Blizzard's video games? " now it's exclusive to depictions in Warcraft or Warcrtaft characters, if something to be part of a WoW class needs to be in a Warcraft game in some "playable form" where did the Mists, Chi, or August Celestials in WoW's monk come from? the Pandaren Brewmaster doesn't use any of those, he uses alchohol (Breath of Fire, Drunken Haze, Drunken Brawler) and elementalism (Storm, Earth, Fire) the entire basis of the Mistweaver class comes from lore that was invented in Mists of Pandaria (the eponymous Mists that shrouded the continent), there is more basis for Poison magic spec Necromancers than there ever was for Mist healing monks from how other Playable Blizzard Necromancers utilize poison and NPC necromancers like Krick use poison.

Blizzard took the Pandaren Brewmaster concept and expanded it, and yeah that makes it a rather unique take on the Monk concept. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if its some sort of gotcha. I'm not aware of too many monk concepts where there's a dedicated healing spec that manipulates mists, or multiple specs create unique brews that empower their abilities. If anything, the Monk class proves my point; That Blizzard will utilize their own concepts and designs over simply borrowing generic concepts from other games. Yeah they used the general Monk archetype to a point, but the Pandaren Brewmaster theme is present in the entire class.

However, the Monk is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

In the end, you're conflating two arguments here and are frankly confusing yourself;

1. You're arguing that Blizzard could simply borrow a generic dragon class concept from outside of Warcraft and make a class completely based on that generic concept ignoring their existing dragon concept.

2. Repeatedly using Xul as a counter-argument to a completely unrelated discussion that really has nothing to do with the primary argument here; Blizzard using generic concepts instead of using concepts they have developed themselves.

Here's the deal; ALL of the WoW classes were available in playable form before they became WoW classes. Every. Single. One. The reason I'm asking you to provide an example of a playable version of the Dragon Knight you describe is because there isn't one, which is problematic for your argument given the history of WoW classes. Again, the huge question is why would Blizzard need to borrow concepts from DotA or D&D for decidedly generic Dragon classes when they have an existing dragon class concept that is

1. Popular
2. Unique
3. An integral part of WoW's lore
4. In playable form via HotS

?????