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

[AthranThom]

Class i want to see added (need a better name for it though):


Battlemage
Armor: Mail
Roles: mdps(Spellblade), rdps(Arcane Archer),tank(Spellbreaker), heal(Chronomancy)
Weapons: sword/glaive+staff, bow, sword/glaive+shield, staff
Themes: Titans, Arcane, Enchantment, Anti-magic, Frostfire(i miss frostfire bolt), Shadow(Arcane-based), Time magic, basically anything to do with arcane other than the three standard schools

Mechanic/Theme Ideas:
Spellbreaker: Absorbing magic damage and using it to either mitigate physical damage or attacking
Spellblade: Frostfire Marks applied on targets allowing for extra damage and other effects on melee attacks
Arcane Archer: Enchanted Arrows/Ammo giving different effects to certain abilities.I.E Arcane Arrows doing extra dmg, Rimebound Arrows debilitating(Slow, root etc), Black Arrows applying dots and life steal.
Chronomancer: Shielding healer, applies temporal shield to ally so that any attacks done to him/her heals them instead of damages them etc

- - - Updated - - -

It might be cool to change their Fel Rush to a disengage that marks the target for, say, 60 seconds. You leap back, do your ranged combo, then hit the button again to bring you back to the original target, regardless of LOS or range. Make it like Illidan's ult in HotS.

yeah pretty much what came to my mind too

[LemonDemonGirl]

Poach from FFXIV and go full Red Mage with it. Or, you know, literally give them the old transformation Demonology spec that was removed to make room for Demon Hunter, but never rematerialized. Name it Chaos after their old damage type and call it a day.

In any case, you can argue about "overlap" until you're red in the face, but it's all moot when classes are homogenized as they are. We have combo points and we have builder/spenders and very little outside of that in terms of variable gameplay. Just add another skin on the already creatively-bereft options and it's a done deal.

My assumption is that they didn't want to devote the art resources for a third demon form.

Maybe they could also 'use' their Glaives to cast spells somehgow? And the Demon Form would be much thinner than the other two, and be colored more of a dark purple?

[draugril]

Maybe they could also 'use' their Glaives to cast spells somehgow? And the Demon Form would be much thinner than the other two, and be colored more of a dark purple?

Or lean into the original aesthetic more - just a demonic void.

[Jonnusthegreat]

What unit are you referring to?

So, when they decided to make World of Warcraft, they sat around and said "We need to make some classes. We can use some Hero unit as direct representation, like say, the Paladin. We can use non hero units like the Priest or the Druid to make classes too. We can invent brand new stuff that really wasn't in WC3, like the Warlock. We can mash a bunch of units together to make new, more generic classes like the Warrior and the Mage. Really, we have tons of options!"

Later on...

"Well now we have a series of intricate rules we have to follow when adding a new class. Obviously we can't just add what we want, or try and create something new. We need to follow the rules!"

Really?

He's referring to the Warlock unit.

I spent 5 seconds googling it for you.

[jellmoo]

He's referring to the Warlock unit.

I spent 5 seconds googling it for you.

Okay, let me try again then.

Here is the Priest. We can see abilities like Heal, Dispel Magic and Inner Fire which form the basis for abilities of the Priest class in WoW.
Here is the Paladin. We can see abilities like Holy Light, Devotion Aura and Divine Shield which form the basis for abilities of the Paladin class in WoW.
Here is the Archmage, Blood Mage and Sorceress. We can see abilities like Blizzard, Water Elemental, Flamestrike, Slow, Invisibility and Polymorph which form the basis for abilities of the Mage class in WoW.

Please direct me to the Warlock unit that does the same.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Okay, let me try again then.

Here is the Priest. We can see abilities like Heal, Dispel Magic and Inner Fire which form the basis for abilities of the Priest class in WoW.
Here is the Paladin. We can see abilities like Holy Light, Devotion Aura and Divine Shield which form the basis for abilities of the Paladin class in WoW.
Here is the Archmage, Blood Mage and Sorceress. We can see abilities like Blizzard, Water Elemental, Flamestrike, Slow, Invisibility and Polymorph which form the basis for abilities of the Mage class in WoW.

Please direct me to the Warlock unit that does the same.

Already did, let me do it again. We can see abilities like Fire Bolt and Cripple which formed a basis for similar spells in WoW.

[BB8]

Class i want to see added (need a better name for it though):


Battlemage
Armor: Mail
Roles: mdps(Spellblade), rdps(Arcane Archer),tank(Spellbreaker), heal(Chronomancy)
Weapons: sword/glaive+staff, bow, sword/glaive+shield, staff
Themes: Titans, Arcane, Enchantment, Anti-magic, Frostfire(i miss frostfire bolt), Shadow(Arcane-based), Time magic, basically anything to do with arcane other than the three standard schools

Mechanic/Theme Ideas:
Spellbreaker: Absorbing magic damage and using it to either mitigate physical damage or attacking
Spellblade: Frostfire Marks applied on targets allowing for extra damage and other effects on melee attacks
Arcane Archer: Enchanted Arrows/Ammo giving different effects to certain abilities.I.E Arcane Arrows doing extra dmg, Rimebound Arrows debilitating(Slow, root etc), Black Arrows applying dots and life steal.
Chronomancer: Shielding healer, applies temporal shield to ally so that any attacks done to him/her heals them instead of damages them etc

- - - Updated - - -



yeah pretty much what came to my mind too

Nice.... I would create a char...
Maybe three ... one for each spec.

[jellmoo]

Already did, let me do it again. We can see abilities like Fire Bolt and Cripple which formed a basis for similar spells in WoW.

No. You didn't. Please direct me to the info on the unit. Like I did. For example, here's the info on Blizzard:

Blizzard Calls down waves of freezing ice shards that damage units in a target area.

Level	Duration	Cooldown	Mana Cost	Range	Area of Effect	Allowed Targets	Effect	Hero Level Req
1	6 sec.	6 sec.	75	80	20	N/A	6 waves at 30 damage each, 150 max damage	1
2	8 sec.	6 sec.	75	80	20	N/A	8 waves at 40 damage each, 200 max damage	3
3	10 sec.	6 sec.	75	80	20	N/A	10 waves at 50 damage each, 250 max damage	5

Please do the same for, say, this Firebolt. Or better yet, please direct me to the spells that Warlocks in WoW cast that are derived from those abilities. Please show me the unit that Blizzard used for inspiration when it came to developing a class in World of Warcraft.

[Jonnusthegreat]

No. You didn't. Please direct me to the info on the unit. Like I did. For example, here's the info on Blizzard:

Blizzard Calls down waves of freezing ice shards that damage units in a target area.

Level	Duration	Cooldown	Mana Cost	Range	Area of Effect	Allowed Targets	Effect	Hero Level Req
1	6 sec.	6 sec.	75	80	20	N/A	6 waves at 30 damage each, 150 max damage	1
2	8 sec.	6 sec.	75	80	20	N/A	8 waves at 40 damage each, 200 max damage	3
3	10 sec.	6 sec.	75	80	20	N/A	10 waves at 50 damage each, 250 max damage	5

Please do the same for, say, this Firebolt. Or better yet, please direct me to the spells that Warlocks in WoW cast that are derived from those abilities. Please show me the unit that Blizzard used for inspiration when it came to developing a class in World of Warcraft.

I believe in you.

[Triceron]

No. You didn't. Please direct me to the info on the unit. Like I did. For example, here's the info on Blizzard:

Please do the same for, say, this Firebolt. Or better yet, please direct me to the spells that Warlocks in WoW cast that are derived from those abilities. Please show me the unit that Blizzard used for inspiration when it came to developing a class in World of Warcraft.

If anything, the Warlock class is most likely based on the Warcraft 1 unit of the same name.

Of the Cloth casters we have in the game right now, all three can be sourced to Warcraft 1. Priest is the Cleric unit, the typical healer archetype. Mage is obviously the Conjuror, the Arcane/Elemental magic specialist. Warlock is the Warlock, summoner of demons and dark magic user.

From there they flavoured the archetypes with WC3 abilities and new ones created for the new classes.

[jellmoo]

I believe in you.

Are you saying that you cannot provide this information?

- - - Updated - - -

If anything, the Warlock class is most likely based on the Warcraft 1 unit of the same name.

Of the Cloth casters we have in the game right now, all three can be sourced to Warcraft 1. Priest is the Cleric unit, the typical healer archetype. Mage is obviously the Conjuror, the Arcane/Elemental magic specialist. Warlock is the Warlock, summoner of demons and dark magic user.

From there they flavoured the archetypes with WC3 abilities and new ones created for the new classes.

And I wouldn't disagree with that. Because clearly there wasn't an equivalent unit in WC3 like say the Priest, Paladin or Druid had.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Are you saying that you cannot provide this information?

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you are literally ignoring facts given to you and being deliberately dense so you can 'win' in your mind. You are not worth my time. You were shown the warlock, and given two links (since one wasn't enough), and now you want a third. Hilarious, even though it's disappointing.

[username993720]

Yes, because potential means viability.

Can anyone really say *any* class is off the table? If Blizzard wanted to make Slavemaster, they could surprise us out of left field and do so. Can you say with complete certainty that they wouldn't make it? No, without any evidence against the class concept, you couldn't.

It'll be like discussing the possibility of a flying pink elephant being behind you everytime you're not looking (that can't be captured or proved by any scientific tool). Could you say for 100% it's not there?
Doesn't matter, the discussion is irrelevant.

All we can discuss are the merits of the possibilities of having them. And despite what patterns you see with Themes or Gameplay or Warcraft 3 Heroes, we don't actually have insight into what they consider a viable or non-viable pick. All we have to go off of are statements the devs have made regarding post-mortem picks of classes.

That's why it's called speculation. That is not just based on "oooh, i want that".

Even the current PR speak they do is not reliable. When asked about a Tinker, Ghostcrawler poses whether they would be too whimsical. Well, is this denying the Tinker? Not at all, he's simply addressing part of the Tinkers merits. Or what about when a CM literally said 'No we do not have plans for Demon Hunter right now'? Well, we know in retrospect they *did* plan it, as the time of those statements would have had Legion as a potential expansion planned, with all the classes lined up on the shortlist, including the Demon Hunter. Yet they couldn't just reveal that in a twitter/blue post, so of course we can only take what they say in regards to new classes with a grain of salt. There is no reliable way to *deny* any class concept as a potential class, because every precedent that was used against Demon Hunters had been broken.

That's the thing about PR. You have to provide an answer to appease the crowd, but not reveal anything.

As for my own evaluations, I'm simply pointing at popularity and demand as *one of many* factors that should all be considered. They aren't designing new classes in a box where only the right Warcraft 3 hero will fit. We know for a fact that's not how they consider new classes. We know for a fact they can and will take a WC3 Hero concept and simply attribute it as a *spec* of a more broad-range class; the Brewmaster as a Monk. We know they considered the Necromancer as a different entity from the Death Knight as a class unto itself. We know they would even consider concepts outside of Warcraft itself, like Runemasters and Rogues, which have no formal equivalent in the RTS games and rather have a more generic 'RPG' archetype background.

The Monk is still based on the Brewmaster of WC3, after all. The entire concept is chinese, there aren't any other types of Monks in it. Maybe, if there's a race name (Pandaren) before the profession (Brewmaster), it is just going to end up as a spec, inside a class. I'll have to look into that. Problem is, they changed Goblin Tinker/Alchemist to just Tinker/Alchemist and Tauren Chieftain ain't coming. Only left with the Naga Sea Witch to test this theory. We'll have to see...

There's plenty we can discuss when it comes to the merits of a class, and they aren't bound to whatever constraints you seem to be choosing to classify it all under. You've chosen to categorize certain ones that may have more merit than others, but you've gone so far down your own rabbit hole that you are regarding your own box as though everyone agrees with your standards. I'm simply bringing you back to reality and laying out the clear truth - there is no box except for what you decided to create for yourself. There are no patterns to glean which classes are 'more viable' than others. There is no evidence you have that can point to an Alchemist class being more worthy than an Apothecary.

For the time being, there is.
Though, they could always break it.
When it occurs, i'll probably go silent

All you have to base your ideas on is causation. 'The ground is wet is everytime it rains, therefore wet ground means it must have rained' only goes so far until you realize rain is not the only answer to the ground being wet. So what if Blizzard has so far only added new classes based on WC3 heroes? That doesn't mean that's the only thing they will add in the future, or the only classes they have ever had in consideration. You hadn't even considered that WC3 heroes were being picked because they were popular and in high demand. Arthas and Illidan are the two most popular characters in Warcraft, so of course they would be added. Demon Hunters were planned but simply never had the chance to appear. Pandaren were also highly in demand and were about to become playable in TBC, but were held back due to complications with China's rules around that time (https://games.no1geekfun.com/thats-w...rning-crusade/). It wasn't until MOP that they could officially make them playable, and so they packaged it all with a new Class to top it off.

I'd agree with you on Illidan and Arthas.
But, the Pandaren? They were, unanimously hated by the community. Unless we're considering chinese audience, as well. Because that expansion tried to cater to them, obviously.
Even with Illidan's popularity, many were against another 'Fel and Demonic' class.

Just because a concept didn't make it to become playable doesn't mean it's off the list. We see multiple concepts return in post-mortems. Demon Hunters, Pandarens, Runemasters; all had second chances with variable success. Some were cut, some were held back, some were changed completely; all due to different factors and none pointing directly at 'Warcraft 3 Hero' as a common reasoning. I don't see there being a point to adhering to the old, fallacious logic that new classes would only be derived from WC3.

The only explanation i can give is Runemasters being, mostly, unknown to the community with not any known character to associate it with.

As for Necromancer, i can only guess it was considered lesser in comparison to the Death Knight (basic vs Hero).

What unit are you referring to?

So, when they decided to make World of Warcraft, they sat around and said "We need to make some classes. We can use some Hero unit as direct representation, like say, the Paladin. We can use non hero units like the Priest or the Druid to make classes too. We can invent brand new stuff that really wasn't in WC3, like the Warlock. We can mash a bunch of units together to make new, more generic classes like the Warrior and the Mage. Really, we have tons of options!"

Later on...

"Well now we have a series of intricate rules we have to follow when adding a new class. Obviously we can't just add what we want, or try and create something new. We need to follow the rules!"

Really?

Stormreaver Warlock/Eredar Warlock.

Yes.

When you put it like that... it sounds awful.
But, that is, basically, my prediction.

And that is moving the goalposts, considering your claim was that Blizzard "would not add a Warcraft 3 unit as a class". And they have: the rogue glass did not come from any hero unit in WC3. The druid class came from the druid units. The warlock class came from no warcraft 3 unit. All three of them just took abilities from other units and heroes, but the concept themselves did not come from the hero units.

And then we have the runemaster concept, which did not come from anywhere in Warcraft 3, and was still one of the top 3 choices for a class in Wrath.

What did i just say? Expansion classes, not Vanilla ones.

By the way, there are Warlock units and Assassin creeps. But, that is not my point.

And yet, it still wasn't added. But, was integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes.

Okay, let me try again then.

Here is the Priest. We can see abilities like Heal, Dispel Magic and Inner Fire which form the basis for abilities of the Priest class in WoW.
Here is the Paladin. We can see abilities like Holy Light, Devotion Aura and Divine Shield which form the basis for abilities of the Paladin class in WoW.
Here is the Archmage, Blood Mage and Sorceress. We can see abilities like Blizzard, Water Elemental, Flamestrike, Slow, Invisibility and Polymorph which form the basis for abilities of the Mage class in WoW.

Please direct me to the Warlock unit that does the same.

Archimonde:
Dark Portal (opens a portal allowing demons to step through and do Archimonde's bidding)
Rain of Chaos (summons multiple infernals)

Orc Warlock:
"They have the ability to cast fire bolts, to induce frenzies on allied units and cripple enemy targets."

Though, i never claimed WC3 units to be the inspiration for Vanilla WoW. So, i don't know why you're so hooked on that.

[jellmoo]

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you are literally ignoring facts given to you and being deliberately dense so you can 'win' in your mind. You are not worth my time. You were shown the warlock, and given two links (since one wasn't enough), and now you want a third. Hilarious, even though it's disappointing.

So your contribution here is to passive aggressively google something and provide irrelevant information for a topic I'm guessing you don't quite grasp and then peace out when you're called out on it? I very clearly pieced together the information and correlation, so I'm not quite sure why you don't get it.

But cool. Run along then.

[Triceron]

It'll be like discussing the possibility of a flying pink elephant being behind you everytime you're not looking (that can't be captured or proved by any scientific tool). Could you say for 100% it's not there?
Doesn't matter, the discussion is irrelevant.

It doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it so you can't make bold and baseless claims like Apothecarys have more merit of being real than Alchemists because they appeared in Warcraft 3.

I'm specifically countering your use of arbitrary patterns. But hey, if your entire argument is centered on the use of those patterns, then sure, I can see how you feel like there's no merit to discussion.

For the time being, there is.
Though, they could always break it.
When it occurs, i'll probably go silent

I don't see the point of going full tinfoil hat when it's much more sensible to, you know, use common sense and reasonable talking points.

These patterns are correlations. The ground is wet every time it rains, but we're intelligent enough to understand the pattern isn't a rule.

[username993720]

It doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it so you can't make bold and baseless claims like Apothecarys have more merit of being real than Alchemists because they appeared in Warcraft 3.

I'm specifically countering your use of arbitrary patterns. But hey, if your entire argument is centered on the use of those patterns, then sure, I can see how you feel like there's no merit to discussion.

Other way around. Or, did you mean to write less?

There is. Just not to endless possibilities.
I'd keep it inside Warcraft lore classes or fantasy classes, in general.

I don't see the point of going full tinfoil hat when it's much more sensible to, you know, use common sense and reasonable talking points.

These patterns are correlations. The ground is wet every time it rains, but we're intelligent enough to understand the pattern isn't a rule.

Let's just throw theories out of the window and ruin all the fun.

[Ielenia]

What did i just say? Expansion classes, not Vanilla ones.

You added that caveat after the fact, hence: moving goalposts.

By the way, there are Warlock units and Assassin creeps. But, that is not my point.

Not playable ones.

And yet, it still wasn't added. But, was integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes.

It doesn't matter. The fact it was one of the runner-ups is important. Because if WC3 was indeed important, the runemaster would've never been one of the top 3 choices for a new class.

Archimonde:
Dark Portal (opens a portal allowing demons to step through and do Archimonde's bidding)
Rain of Chaos (summons multiple infernals)

Archimonde is not a playable unit, though.

[username993720]

You added that caveat after the fact, hence: moving goalposts.

I meant it from the beginning.
Already explained that to Triceron and Jellmoo, but you, apparently, don't read other comments.

Not playable ones.

Was never the point.

It doesn't matter. The fact it was one of the runner-ups is important. Because if WC3 was indeed important, the runemaster would've never been one of the top 3 choices for a new class.

Did you ever stop to think why it lost twice? to the Death Knight and Monk?

Archimonde is not a playable unit, though.

Again, doesn't matter.
The claim was not that classes were based on playable units, but existing ones.
Though, i didn't claim it, either. People just assumed i'm talking about Vanilla WoW classes, and for some reason, are still talking about it.

[Triceron]

Let's just throw theories out of the window and ruin all the fun.

If patterns are the only way you can legitimately discern theories, then yes, throw them out the window. There are far more reasonable ways to have a discussion without cherry picking Warcraft 3 heroes as the be-all end-all.

I don't see how you equate that to ruining all the fun since you were completely able to address the Runemaster and Necromancer above without haphazardly equating them to having to be sourced from Warcraft 3 heroes.

A completely agree that the Runemaster is a relatively unknown concept to most people, making it more difficult for it to be fully considered when put up against stronger thematic concepts like a Death Knight and Necromancer, which were actual units we've seen in the RTS games.

I agree that the Necromancer lost out to the Death Knight if you're talking about a Basic class vs a Hero class. There's far more potential in exploring the Hero class variant of the DK, and giving it a unique starting zone and backstory and everything to go with it.

As for a more nuanced response, I'd say the Runemaster and Necromancer concepts still have potential in regards to Class skins purely because they are already a core influence on existing class design. There's potential to explore these identities again. And this isn't just a 'what I want' response, it's based on what we've seen with Allied Races bridging in sub-race options as their own races rather than just being sub-options for existing races. We also have Covenants showing that they're slowly opening up to the idea of classes having customizable, deviating gameplay options. This is beyond 'what I want', since I'd much rather have a new class instead of a regurgitation of existing classes; but beggars can't be choosers when Blizzard hasn't added a new class in over 6+ years, and did a pretty half-ass job at the last one.

[Ielenia]

I meant it from the beginning.
Already explained that to Triceron and Jellmoo, but you, apparently, don't read other comments.

But like I said:

And also: it has never been demonstrated that class design rules for expansion classes are any different than the class design rules for the original vanilla classes.

So trying to separate vanilla classes from expansion classes is meaningless until you can demonstrate their design processes are different.

Did you ever stop to think why it lost twice? to the Death Knight and Monk?

Yeah, I did. For a moment. Then I realized it was a futile thing that was considering we're not privy to the reasons as to why it "lost" twice, and any and all affirmations one make regarding said reasons are nothing but pure speculation.