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

[Ielenia]

I'm looking forward to the end of this expansion. The death/undead/necromancy themes are dull and annoying.

Thankfully you seem to be in the minority, considering how well-received this expansion has been.

[Teriz]

Why are people so hung up upon "it allready exists ingame"?

Because the last thing the class lineup needs is more of the same.

We have the following specs which are either partially or entirely shadow-based;

Blood
Unholy
Shadow
Affliction
Demonology
Destruction
Havoc
Vengeance
Sublety

Do we really need more? We've explored every aspect of Shadow magic, from the Old Gods, to Necromancy, to Demons, we've hit all of it. Adding another shadow spec would simply be redundant, and the user base wants something new. Something that isn't going to take from existing classes, and something that doesn't feel like it's an existing class with a few extra spells to make it appear different.

You're right, Tinker would be different, and unlike another shadow-based class, it would actually give the class lineup something it doesn't have; A class themed around technology; a theme that exists in abundance in WoW but players can't fully partake in it. I think after this dark, dank, gritty expansion, the majority of players are going to want something different.

Also I'd happily take a Dragon-based class based on this character as well. That would be something different too.

[Ielenia]

We've explored every aspect of Shadow magic, from the Old Gods, to Necromancy, to Demons, we've hit all of it.

Except we haven't. Shadowlands itself has shown how there's a lot more to necromancy than what we thought there were. Oozes, constructs, the fact that necromancy itself is not 'evil' as people thought, etc.

It's never "done". Nothing is ever "done". There's always room to expand and improve on concepts. To say "it's done" is to admit you either have no imagination, or refuse to think about it.

[Teriz]

Except we haven't. Shadowlands itself has shown how there's a lot more to necromancy than what we thought there were.

Oozes

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Unholy_Mutation

constructs

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=280428...sh-monstrosity
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=288853/raise-abomination

the fact that necromancy itself is not 'evil' as people thought, etc.

We have Death Knights to show us that Necromancy isn't evil.

It's all been done already.

[Ielenia]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Unholy_Mutation

Never explored, until now. One singular ability is not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the types of oozes and similar creations.

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=280428...sh-monstrosity
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=288853/raise-abomination

Never explored, until now. Two singular abilities are not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the constructs in Maldraxxus, and the reason for their existing.

We have Death Knights to show us that Necromancy isn't evil.

It's all been done already.

Death knights did not show us at all that necromancy isn't evil. People still revile necromancy.

[Teriz]

Never explored, until now. One singular ability is not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the types of oozes and similar creations.


Never explored, until now. Two singular abilities are not "we have explored everything there is about it". Look at all the constructs in Maldraxxus, and the reason for their existing.

If Blizzard wants to "explore" those concepts, why wouldn't they just give Death Knights more of those abilities since they already have them or had them in the past. Why create an entirely new class just for discarded DK abilities?

Death knights did not show us at all that necromancy isn't evil. People still revile necromancy.

They're heroes and champions of their factions who use Necromancy. That's exactly what they're doing.

[Ielenia]

If Blizzard wants to "explore" those concepts, why wouldn't they just give Death Knights

Because the death knights already have enough concepts of their own. Give them more and their specs become bloated and unfocused. The death knight's frost spec, for example, has one concept it focus on: frost magic. The warlock's destruction spec is focused on one concept: fire magic. The monk's mistweaver spec is focused on one concept: mist healing. And so on and so forth.

Sure, most classes have 'secondary concepts' but they're not focused upon, they're actually barely touched and don't really affect in nothing the original concept. For example, destruction warlocks have chaos magic, but they're not the focus of the spec. Blood death knights have bone magic, but they're not the focus of the spec.

Piling on more and more concepts into a spec, even if they technically fit, thematically, is a disservice for the class and spec because it robs concept identity and focus. To have an idea of how it would work, imagine if all three of the death knight specs were merged into a single one. One single spec that has blood, frost and unholy magic. And your priority rotation has abilities of frost, blood and unholy. The spec itself would be a mess of concepts mashed together, having them all but focused on none. That erodes identity.

more of those abilities since they already have them or had them in the past.

One or two abilities of a certain type does not mean the class has "ownership" of that entire concept, nor does it mean said concept has been explored.

Why create an entirely new class just for discarded DK abilities?

Read above: because the death knight already has enough concepts of their own.

They're heroes and champions of their factions who use Necromancy. That's exactly what they're doing.

That is not the same thing. Even with death knights, necromancy is still reviled.

[Teriz]

/snip.

Yeah, not getting into another pointless discussion about Necromancers. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[pacotaco]

I'll say it once again, Dark Ranger would be a perfect Rogue spec.

Not really. DR are a mix of rogue, hunter and necromancers

[Teriz]

Not really. DR are a mix of rogue, hunter and necromancers

Yeah, which is pretty much a Forsaken or Void Elf Hunter. Think Blizzard is looking for something more original for future classes that patches up the holes in the class lineup instead of simply a class that mix and matches existing classes.

A little off topic, but man that D4 Rogue reveal was underwhelming.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, not getting into another pointless discussion about Necromancers. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

As much as you try to avoid it, Teriz, it's a fact: "Why not simply give those concepts to the death knight instead of a new class?" Because of bloat.

For example: remember when the death knight was introduced? Their rotations were heavily similar: Icy Touch, Plague Strike, Blood Strike, always applying the same diseases (frost fever, blood plague) and differing only in their spec's signature abilities: blood DKs would use Death Strike using 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, frost DKs would use Obliterate that used 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, and unholy DKs would use Scourge Strike, that used 1 unholy rune. Nowadays? None of those specs have similar rotations, and they even have their own diseases.

Which is why any argument that says "just tack on this concept to the death knight" is not only D.O.A. but also shows a lack of understanding about how classes are structured and designed.

[Teriz]

As much as you try to avoid it, Teriz, it's a fact: "Why not simply give those concepts to the death knight instead of a new class?" Because of bloat.

For example: remember when the death knight was introduced? Their rotations were heavily similar: Icy Touch, Plague Strike, Blood Strike, always applying the same diseases (frost fever, blood plague) and differing only in their spec's signature abilities: blood DKs would use Death Strike using 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, frost DKs would use Obliterate that used 1 frost and 1 unholy runes, and unholy DKs would use Scourge Strike, that used 1 unholy rune. Nowadays? None of those specs have similar rotations, and they even have their own diseases.

Which is why any argument that says "just tack on this concept to the death knight" is not only D.O.A. but also shows a lack of understanding about how classes are structured and designed.

That's not a reason. Note that I said "If Blizzard wants to do it". In other words, if Blizzard wants a spec to "explore" undead oozes and constructs, you place it in the class that handles Necromancy. That would be the DK class. Unholy Mutation is an example of Blizzard wanting to explore oozes within the class lineup. Ghoulish Monstrosity is an example of exploring undead constructs. Again, you don't create an entirely new class to explore those concepts when you already have an existing class that can do it. It's the same with people who want a Witch Doctor class, seemingly ignoring that there's a shaman class you can stick those concepts into. If you Blizzard wants to explore such concepts, they can place those concepts in that class.

The fact that you believe that such an argument is DOA and is a misunderstanding of how classes are structured is laughable.

[Alkizon]

choom
I'll say it once again, Dark Ranger would be a perfect Rogue spec.

This is completely different archetype, this representative is obvious hybrid and doesn't fit into traditional class differentiation (a fortiori WoW's rogues; not to mention, if they want to add full-fledged "range" to D4, which only one there currently is DH, and which is much closer in archetype to DR than what they showed in the video), but, strictly speaking, this is only a small part of its problem. You forgetting that THIS is a full-fledged class there (in D4), but here (in WoW) THIS is pieces of idiocy.

All that remains for me is to remind about inconsistency of "specialization" in Blizzard's execution, and this is it of what you're trying to appeal, when speaking about possibility of such concept. Another class - undoubtedly, specialization - in no case, because then it'd be necessary to expand mechanics of entire class (each "specialization") for its full functioning and balance. Full class! Not specialization! That's the only way how it could be done, we have already argued about this (not with you, but) somewhere... right here. There are a-a-all answers.

Forget about specializations, forget about such nonsense:

choom
I think most realistically we could think about Blizzard replacing/overhauling existing specs to align with a desired class fantasy.

1. Survival Hunter reworked again, into Shadow Hunter. Not much changes, but the Loa and naturalist theme could be more explicit.

2. A Warlock spec reworked into Necromancer, a Summoner Tank spec. We don't need two Fire Mages, or Affliction is kind of boring, and Tanking with an Abom is different enough from Demo Lock.

3. Mistweaver Monk gains a bunch of Bard skills based on hope and inspiring songs and Chi-ji shit. The more I think about Bard being worked into Monk healing the more I like.

4. Sub or Assassination Rogue getting reworked into Dark Ranger. They are not meaningfully different from one another and Rogues getting a ranged spec would be dope.

each of these concepts will be "defective stump within framework of these classes", while they have right and potential for full developed ones:

As for range weapon, this has already been discussed above, they had it and should have remained such. So if they'd add one-handed pistol as third slot weapon, and ability to use it for any rogue - it's another matter. But, firstly, they likely won't do it already, and secondly, if they'd did it during old mechanics, then implementation itself would be very poor, in comparison with all possibilities that pirate theme can offer. It's foolish to waste them for the sake of "only one pistol's shot". Even players can offer much more stuff, but then it will go beyond rogue class. Simple.

This was said about "pirate" part, but it's completely true for this case as well.

pacotaco
Not really. DR are a mix of rogue, hunter and necromancers

There is nothing rogues' in DR and full-fledged hunters' too, they're more of "agile mind-ed shadow mage", all its weapons are defective in themselves, but they are enchanted, magic is its weapon... but they aren't necromancers either, there are some common elements that intersect, but these are attacking and protecting spells, and not a full-fledged life/death force manipulation (for the same reason DK can't act as full-fledged necromancer). And when I mention these classes, I speak precisely for their literal mechanics, for their concept, and not for specific weapon or its use. You better forget already about these idiotic boundaries, that devs have drawn for their convenience here and there without any logic (narrow/tied scope in terms of weapons/specs'abilities/armor and other stuff, this is frank narrow-mindedness). All this was cut under auspices of balance, but in the end nothing like that happened, which indicates completely different nature of such phenomenon.

Teriz
The boundaries are there for class balance and diversity. If you remove those boundaries the classes begin to bleed together and become pointless. There's nothing idiotic about them, and the game is better because we have them.

I'm talking about boundaries between specializations, I'm talking about tied of using even simplest abilities by only specific weapons, I'm talking about idiots, who decided that they can shove 10 others into one class.

imo it was clearly enough indicated

If you appeal specifically to them, when talking about balance and need for separation, then I have a lot to tell you, but outside scope of this topic, if you're talking about boundaries between classes, then I'm completely solidary with this and apparently there was some misunderstanding. But! I repeat, saying "class", I mean set of certain mechanics available to any of its representatives - just like that. Bordering degree is determined only by player's choice within whole class, but not by role of this spec in some PvE encounter/any external "obligatory in devs' opinion" stylistics.

- you decide to give some mechanic to one of specs ⇒ you're giving it to the whole class -

[Teriz]

I speak precisely for their literal mechanics, for their concept, and not for specific weapon or its use. You better forget already about these idiotic boundaries, that devs have drawn for their convenience here and there without any logic (narrow/tied scope in terms of weapons/abilities/armor and other stuff, this is frank narrow-mindedness). All this was cut under auspices of balance, but in the end nothing like that happened, which indicates completely different nature of such phenomenon.

The boundaries are there for class balance and diversity. If you remove those boundaries the classes begin to bleed together and become pointless. There's nothing idiotic about them, and the game is better because we have them.

[Ielenia]

That's not a reason. Note that I said "If Blizzard wants to do it". In other words, if Blizzard wants a spec to "explore" undead oozes and constructs, you place it in the class that handles Necromancy. That would be the DK class. Unholy Mutation is an example of Blizzard wanting to explore oozes within the class lineup. Ghoulish Monstrosity is an example of exploring undead constructs. Again, you don't create an entirely new class to explore those concepts when you already have an existing class that can do it. It's the same with people who want a Witch Doctor class, seemingly ignoring that there's a shaman class you can stick those concepts into. If you Blizzard wants to explore such concepts, they can place those concepts in that class.

The fact that you believe that such an argument is DOA and is a misunderstanding of how classes are structured is laughable.

I just gave you a reason why this isn't really feasible, Teriz. The Death Knight class is already set in its concepts, and to add more to the class means removing the focus of the class' current specs. It doesn't matter that the death knight class has one or two abilities that belong to this foreign concept. That does not mean the class has "ownership" of the concept to the point that "all abilities of this concept should go to the death knight class".

Rogues and monks being able to create potions does not preclude the inclusion of a class with a spec focused on alchemy. Just like death knights having one bone spell and one ooze ability does not preclude a class having a spec focused on bone magic, or ooze minion managing.

And the death knight specs having one or two abilities that are off their specs' central concept is fine, because it doesn't affect the spec's focus on its concept. Frost being able to use Death Strike or summon a ghoul in nothing detracts from the spec's central theme, which is frost. The death knight's frost spec remans still, first and foremost, a spec centered around the use of frost magic.

To have a class explore a concept, it means making one of its specs focus of it. And that means having said spec either share its focus with its original theme, or replace the theme altogether. And Blizzard has shown that they don't like doing that: the druid's Feral spec had two focus: tank and DPS, bear and cat, making the spec not only excel on either, but lack on both. What did they do? They split the spec in two, making the Feral spec focus on cat DPS, and created the Guardian spec to focus on bear tanking. The survival hunter: focus on both melee and ranged. What did Blizzard do? Remove the melee components of the spec at first, and later on remove ALL the ranged components of the spec and replace it all with pure melee attributes.

And then we have the death knight: all three of its specs not only shared their focus with both DPS and Tanking, which was removed one expansion later, but all three specs had the same focus in terms of themes: all three specs had minion management, all three specs dealt with the same 2 diseases, and had almost the same rotation. Today? Blood is only about blood, Frost is only about frost, and Unholy is only about unholy, each having their own abilities, rotation and diseases.

With all of that in mind, it's easy to see why saying "just pile this concept onto the death knight instead of giving it to a new class." is not a sound argument to make because doing so causes bloat in the class, leaving it unfocused. I mean, why do you think we have warlocks and mages as separate classes? Blizzard could have easily just made a single spellcaster class by putting all of those concepts together. It would still be a 'mage' class because fel magic and demon summon magic is still magic, and mages deal with magic, but we would end up with a class that has no specialization, as it would do "a little bit of everything" instead of having its specs be focused on a concept and do "a lot out of a few."

Which is what would happen if we just piled the concepts of "bone magic", "blood healer", "poison magic", etc., into the death knight class. It would muddle the specs' identities, as they would no longer be able to focus on a single concept like they do today, and therefore end up losing their identity.

[Teriz]

Rogues and monks being able to create potions does not preclude the inclusion of a class with a spec focused on alchemy. Just like death knights having one bone spell and one ooze ability does not preclude a class having a spec focused on bone magic, or ooze minion managing.

And this just shows you don't understand the topic at hand. Of course an alchemy class wouldn't be completely impeded by a Rogue or Monk because alchemy isn't the main aspect of either of those classes. It's a sub theme in Monks and a minor theme in Rogues. The DK class is entirely based on Necromancy. So yes, another class entirely based on Necromancy would be a problem.

That really is the long and the short of it.

[Revamp Man]

And this just shows you don't understand the topic at hand. Of course an alchemy class wouldn't be completely impeded by a Rogue or Monk because alchemy isn't the main aspect of either of those classes. It's a sub theme in Monks and a minor theme in Rogues. The DK class is entirely based on Necromancy. So yes, another class entirely based on Necromancy would be a problem.

That really is the long and the short of it.

the dk class is as based on necromancy as the monk class is based on brews

[Ielenia]

And this just shows you don't understand the topic at hand. Of course an alchemy class wouldn't be completely impeded by a Rogue or Monk because alchemy isn't the main aspect of either of those classes. It's a sub theme in Monks and a minor theme in Rogues. The DK class is entirely based on Necromancy. So yes, another class entirely based on Necromancy would be a problem.

That really is the long and the short of it.

And the paladin is entirely based on holy magic, and yet priests exist. Warlocks are entirely based around demons, yet demon hunters exist. Warlocks even had the 'demon hunter' theme when they got the Metamorphosis spell, the DH's trademark ability.

And it's amazing how you ignored the actual main issue here that I lined up about concept bloat in classes to focus on that part alone. I knew you would zero-in on that, but I kept it for example's sake. Shadowlands has shown that there is more to necromancy than what the death knight has to offer. We knew as much already back in BfA with the introduction of blood trolls and their type of blood necromancy. Hell, we knew that already back in vanilla, even, with the existence of the Arachnid Quarter in Naxxramas.

I'll repeat: the death knight class cannot house those concepts because the class is already well-established with its own concepts: blood and tanking concepts, frost and melee dps concepts, and unholy and melee dps concepts. There is no room for more concepts to be tacked onto the class without causing bloat, or entirely replacing an old concept for a new one. Look how classes are designed today, Teriz. Each and every spec is basically self-contained and centered around its own central theme. A fire mage's rotation only uses fire abilities and cooldowns. An arms warrior's rotation only uses arms abilities and cooldowns. A blood death knights rotation only uses blood abilities and cooldowns. Adding more concepts to an already established class only serves to erode that identity. How do you think the Survival hunter would look and feel like if everything they have about melee was added to their original ranged spec, instead of replacing it? Why do you think the original Feral druid spec was split in two?

[Alkizon]

Ielenia
Why do you think the original Feral druid spec was split in two?

In fact, it happened because they decided to make things easier for themselves. In short, they didn't do it out of great intelligence. It was so that group search was organized by roles

By the way, taking this opportunity, I would like to spit at auto-search system in this case. Do you know why? Its check/setup is very dependent on attachment of role with spec ("customization" must clearly express role in order to pass its verification, but old system of "roles", as already mentioned, required rather effective "gear" check for this). There is big desire to say that it was for the sake of this rubbish that whole tomfoolery was started, since hybrids were "unsuitable"/interfered with similar system.

and since there was nothing to be attached to (it's difficult to write analysis for presence of certain items, role was asked primarily by character's gear, its characteristics, so just changed clothes could give different role and you may not be the best dd/t/h, but you have all mechanics for full-fledged rotation)

That is, any class was able to at least partially fulfill not only role assigned to it by devs, and therefore even "holy trinity" based encounters design didn't severely limit group as a whole (unbalanced from current point of view) abilities (also).

they forcibly tied specs to roles, and then, out of big joy, at the same time cut specialized classes. They sacrificed classes for specializations, and those, in turn, for roles where possible, and where wasn't - with imposed stylistics, hence all crazy raving that is happening now both in classes' design and in adequacy of each of their fantasy.

I hate to disappoint you, but this is "new" system and due to its design features, it simply has no reason to demand anything. It's done this way, you now have exactly system that was laid down in MoP, only now you are being fed with "borrowed powers", which is tied to expansion, and in such way that it could seems in any sense "noticeable/influential/progressive", so basic part of your stuff is cut-off/returned/then-cut-off-more/returned-in-a-different-form cyclically... but basic system is the same = spec and its role exceeds everything
- - - -
spec is equated to class, and class ceases to exist, the only difference is that MoP had talents mainly "for the whole class", but passive part and some of abilities were given/already tied to spec; boundaries between classes "in thickness" didn't differ much from boundaries between specs, so their roles began to come to fore
- - - -
It simply doesn’t offer such "meaningful" choice (players could already conditionally change "classes" here, well, or whatever replaced them), nor depth of customization (it's not able to function in such conditions, specs were deprived of opportunities for the sake of their "greater separation"). Current system, which they are inserting, is simply trying to challenge leading role
- - - -
in perspective - remove it completely, imagine complete loss of entire toolkit/power except for couple of basic skills after each expansion and you will see right picture here specs (already as classes) have already lost everything for the sake of their roles, gameplay between roles in PvE differs rather conditionally, but now they will lose in favor of progress in expansion
- - - -
to replace it, and this causes a conflict (it won't replace one, since the whole system will fall apart then, but it wants).

Even easier - it was a Bi-i-ig mistake. For the same reason, original (WotLK) DK's concept was gorgeous, it was still on "old school" spirit

- He assumes that everyone chooses a piece of clothing depending on general characteristics he/she prefers for the own role (it could be even rogue tank/support, everything possible, gear is your role not you class, remember DKs from WotLK, that's why guardian/feral fills no problem in been at the same talent branch, but they changed/broke it).

Even DK, which appeared in WotLK (MoP monks weren't already), still confessed this "religion", because tanking/dd role completely depended on character RPG customization... but now... everything depends on chosen "spec" and no one care what player thinks about it (the whole "role" RPG part is integrated inside it and you can't change anything), we have only one opportunity to play - the way it was decided by Blizzard and nothing else (by the way, "gladiators" part was the only bright ray in dark realm of specs after "design cataclysm" that destroyed everything, but it was just an exception, and what became of them only proves my point). I'd call this: "MOBA mentality", but it won't be fair to game genre mentioned; in any case, this wasn't fully true for “first” DotA (much more depended on only possible customization there - collected items and their characteristics), but as for current - sorry, I'm not following latest trends in this direction, not a fan.

but their current state is "just a one-legged blind pirate compared to a competent brave captain".

Neither DK nor druids had problems until devs decided to "suddenly" add extra boundaries to them.

ps. I'm not going to defend nonsense that he carries, but in this case I can't agree with you either, I mean specifically on this part.

[Ielenia]

In fact, it happened because they decided to make things easier for themselves. In short, they didn't do it out of great intelligence. It was so that group search was organized by roles, and since there was nothing to be attached to (it's difficult to write analysis for presence of certain items, role was asked primarily by character's gear, its characteristics, so just changed clothes could give different role and you may not be the best dd/t/h, but you have all mechanics for full-fledged rotation), they forcibly tied specs to roles, and then, out of big joy, at the same time cut specialized classes.

Even easier - it was a Bi-i-ig mistake. For the same reason, original (WotLK) DK's concept was gorgeous, it was still on "old school" spirit

but their current state is "just a one-legged blind pirate compared to a competent brave captain".

Neither DK nor druids had problems until devs decided to "suddenly" add extra boundaries to them.

ps. I'm not going to defend nonsense that he carries, but in this case I can't agree with you either, I mean specifically on this part.

But it made balancing a problem. It also meant that feral druids and death knights of any spec had less choices to make regarding their spec's talent trees. On top of that, the death knights were a BEAST that dominated PvP and PvE because even tanks they would out-DPS practically everyone in the group, without much effort. Worse: frost tanks could EASILY out-AoE-threaten a protection paladin.

Perhaps you liked the way it used to be, and that's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make the old Feral druid or death knights 'better' than they are today.