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

[Syegfryed]

Giving everyone Death Knight is wrong.
Giving everyone Monk is wrong.

according to who? you? who barely know the game and often bring shenanigans of other games?

who do you think you are trying to make your opinion as facts? you do not get to decide what people can or can't roleplay, if a tauren player want to be a dark ranger there is no problem on that, if they are training new races

[jellmoo]

Stormreaver Warlock/Eredar Warlock.

Yes.

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


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.

I think ultimately that the human brain looks for patterns everywhere and that's why you're hung up on the notion of rules for expansion classes. Blizzard has produced classes from a wide variety of sources within their universe. I think that they've shown both the capacity to be super specific about them, but also very general, mostly as an effort to maximize the number of character concepts that people are able to create.

When it comes to expansion classes, I think we still see a pretty wide variance. The Death Knight is a very specific class where they took inspiration mostly from two WC3 units. The Demon Hunter as well is super specific, taking inspiration almost exclusively from a single WC3 unit.

The Monk is more general and represents a wider variety of concept. Also, the class isn't named after a WC3 unit, taking the name as one of the class specs. And when it comes to abilities, it has the most "outside the box" thinking as they added a healing spec to it that really never existed.

If we look at what they've done so far, I think it's really hard to predict what Blizzard could do in the future. The could directly adapt another WC3 Hero unit, like the Tinker or Dark Ranger. Or they could adapt a regular unit like the Necromancer. They could take inspiration from multiple units to make an amalgamated class, say a "Science" class based on the Tinker and Alchemist. They could do none of the above and make something that wasn't really present in WC3. They've done all of the above already. I think the problem with looking for patterns to determine what they do next is that they also tend to break patterns. Their design methodlogy needs to be more robust than satisfying perceived patterns, otherwise they are limiting what they can do, and that would be a very bizarre design methodology for a game team to take.

[username993720]

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.

I'd like to hear your theory as to the next possible classes and why.

For consideration, not addition.

But like I said:

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


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.

Addition patterns are not demonstrations?

Speculation are all we've got, at the moment.

according to who? you? who barely know the game and often bring shenanigans of other games?

who do you think you are trying to make your opinion as facts? you do not get to decide what people can or can't roleplay, if a tauren player want to be a dark ranger there is no problem on that, if they are training new races

Cheapening the race/class combos, that's why.
You no longer have to attribute any special lore.
Just slap a "raised into it" or "taught it" and you're done.

I think ultimately that the human brain looks for patterns everywhere and that's why you're hung up on the notion of rules for expansion classes. Blizzard has produced classes from a wide variety of sources within their universe. I think that they've shown both the capacity to be super specific about them, but also very general, mostly as an effort to maximize the number of character concepts that people are able to create.

When it comes to expansion classes, I think we still see a pretty wide variance. The Death Knight is a very specific class where they took inspiration mostly from two WC3 units. The Demon Hunter as well is super specific, taking inspiration almost exclusively from a single WC3 unit.

The Monk is more general and represents a wider variety of concept. Also, the class isn't named after a WC3 unit, taking the name as one of the class specs. And when it comes to abilities, it has the most "outside the box" thinking as they added a healing spec to it that really never existed.

If we look at what they've done so far, I think it's really hard to predict what Blizzard could do in the future. The could directly adapt another WC3 Hero unit, like the Tinker or Dark Ranger. Or they could adapt a regular unit like the Necromancer. They could take inspiration from multiple units to make an amalgamated class, say a "Science" class based on the Tinker and Alchemist. They could do none of the above and make something that wasn't really present in WC3. They've done all of the above already. I think the problem with looking for patterns to determine what they do next is that they also tend to break patterns. Their design methodlogy needs to be more robust than satisfying perceived patterns, otherwise they are limiting what they can do, and that would be a very bizarre design methodology for a game team to take.

I'm hung up on it because i want my theories to turn out being right
You can attribute it to the the male ego

As for the 2 Monk specs, they were created out of nothing. But, the inspiration for the Monk, clearly, came from the Pandaren Brewmaster.

You're right.
I, believe, for that matter, that combining the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch is the most logical thing to do, as they are all bow-wielding heroes with magical abilities and arrows. Basically, Elven rangers who split up to different groups.
So are the Tinker and Alchemist. They could be a possible scientist class. They were, both, Goblin Hero units, after all.
As for the Necromancer, i'm a little more skeptic. It had its chance in Wrath of the Lich King and some would say in Shadowlands.

[Ielenia]

Addition patterns are not demonstrations?

Correct. Because vanilla classes also have additions. Basically all classes in the game have "additions" from other WC3 units, hero or not.

[Syegfryed]

Cheapening the race/class combos, that's why.
You no longer have to attribute any special lore.
Just slap a "raised into it" or "taught it" and you're done..

You are not the person to cry over lore when you are literally asking to change the lore in the blademaster topic, this high hypocrisy.

First of all if we go by lore, only undeads could be dark rangers, so this already bite your behind about "lore"

If they are teaching other races, other races can be dark rangers, simple as that. Because what is the special "lore" of void elves or humans dark rangers? there is none, is a bs argument.

[Triceron]

I'd like to hear your theory as to the next possible classes and why.

For consideration, not addition.

Not quite sure what you mean 'for consideration, not addition'. I'm not sure if I can respond correctly without some elaboration.


However, I did address this in a previous post

"I personally value the Dragonsworn higher than the Tinker, since we know Dragon Isles are an upcoming place to explore. I think the Tinker has more merit of becoming playable because it has more general demand surrounding it, but I find it difficult to see Blizzard working them into any particular expansion theme. And of course, my 'exception to the rule' for all of this would be Class Skins, since I personally think they could insert a half-dozen class concepts together regardless of any expansion theme the same way Allied Races aren't tied to any specific BFA theme; they're just there to participate in the Horde/Alliance war for 'reasons'."


I think Tinker is the strongest concept so far for next class, since it is a very open concept with deep roots in the Warcraft universe. We've had Gnomish Inventors and Goblin Alchemists as far back as Warcraft 2 making use of tech and explosives. A Tinker is absolutely thematic to Warcraft, to the point where I'm almost surprised that we still don't formally have a Tinker class yet. However, I do see problems with the marketting behind it, since Gnomes and Goblins are also the least-played races in the game, and the 'comic relief' image they have is both a blessing and a curse. It's great as a part of the ensemble, but questionable if it could lead the forefront of its own expansion from a marketting perspective. To me, they're like the Jawas or Droids in Star Wars. They're a cool part of the universe, but it's not Movie or TV Series material, even if we have some outstanding fan-favourites. They're best used as supporting characters. So the trick with Tinker is - how will Blizzard actually add Tinkers to the game? We have yet to see.

Dragonsworn is another potential class I see being added. Dragon themes are strong and widely recognized by fans. We have hints of the Dragon Isles returning in the future. We have plenty of unresolved Dragon plot lines in the game. A Dragon-themed class is completely open for exploration. Even though there's no core concept behind this class, we have an idea of what it could be based on RPG archetypes and Heroes of the Storm. There's a reddit thread about Dragonsworn that has 8.3k upvotes, so we're not exactly talking about a completely unknown concept; there is definite interest in this class. The problems with Dragonsworn is that it doesn't actually formally exist, so everyone has their own idea of what it would actually be. Some people would even argue it's not a class, but just a race. Or there might be lore conflicts for how a Dragonsworn actually obtains their powers; and people seem generally disinterested in the idea of more 'borrowed power'. The Dragon theme is ripe for exploration, and it all depends on what direction Blizzard would choose to take it. It's arguably going to be one of the more complicated concepts to tackle.

Bard has potential as a class, but I don't find much merit in its addition. The problem I have with this concept is that WoW simply isn't designed with a 'Support' role in mind, and the whole archetype of a Bard is centered around being Support. Any other translation into WoW mechanics and role would simply make it into a typical Music-themed Hybrid, and that alone isn't strong enough to go and make a new class out of IMO. I'd much rather see Music be turned into a Profession theme, and allow people to roleplay as the Bard they see fit.

And most other B-tier concepts like Necromancers, Runemasters, Dark Rangers, Wardens, Blademasters and so forth all have potential to be classes too, but they don't really hold a strong position compared to the two main classes above. I've yet to see individual concepts that are as strong as those two and as relevant to future expansion material. I think Blizzard could definitely address these concepts through Class Skins.


And overall, I feel like the biggest potential outlier is - No new class at all. Covenants have been so effective that I can see Blizzard deferring to this system in the future. What need is there for a Dragonsworn Class if we can have Dragon powers given to every class? What reason do we need a Tinker class if every class can suit up in their own variation of Mech suit? I'm not one who would have agreed with the idea of giving everyone Necromancy powers, but seeing how effective Covenants have been, I honestly can't say it's a bad idea. I don't like the concept of sharing these integral Class Themes to all other classes, but I absolutely see the merit in how it has opened up customizations and expansion-themed gimmicks without having to divert all the attention to a new class. That will always be something that needs to be considered.

[jellmoo]

You are not the person to cry over lore when you are literally asking to change the lore in the blademaster topic, this high hypocrisy.

First of all if we go by lore, only undeads could be dark rangers, so this already bite your behind about "lore"

If they are teaching other races, other races can be dark rangers, simple as that. Because what is the special "lore" of void elves or humans dark rangers? there is none, is a bs argument.

To be fair, Death Knights were dead Orcs in dead humans, then dead Paladins, and now dead anythings. I don't see why they couldn't change Dark Rangers to be something new, whilst keeping the core idea alive.

Imagine a new Lich King, after the events of SL realizes that Death Knights aren't equipped to handle every type of situation and wants to create a group of dedicated infiltration agents. This makes a new generation of Dark Rangers. similar in theme and powerset to the previous one, but of a wider variety of base races, now undead, just like Death Knights.

[username993720]

Correct. Because vanilla classes also have additions. Basically all classes in the game have "additions" from other WC3 units, hero or not.

We're talking expansion classes.

You are not the person to cry over lore when you are literally asking to change the lore in the blademaster topic, this high hypocrisy.

How?

First of all if we go by lore, only undeads could be dark rangers, so this already bite your behind about "lore"

True. What's wrong with that?

If they are teaching other races, other races can be dark rangers, simple as that. Because what is the special "lore" of void elves or humans dark rangers? there is none, is a bs argument.

Nathanos-like background.
Void elves are former High elves, so that kind of background.

Not quite sure what you mean 'for consideration, not addition'. I'm not sure if I can respond correctly without some elaboration.

Oops. That line was meant to answer your second paragraph in your last comment.

However, I did address this in a previous post

"I personally value the Dragonsworn higher than the Tinker, since we know Dragon Isles are an upcoming place to explore. I think the Tinker has more merit of becoming playable because it has more general demand surrounding it, but I find it difficult to see Blizzard working them into any particular expansion theme. And of course, my 'exception to the rule' for all of this would be Class Skins, since I personally think they could insert a half-dozen class concepts together regardless of any expansion theme the same way Allied Races aren't tied to any specific BFA theme; they're just there to participate in the Horde/Alliance war for 'reasons'."


I think Tinker is the strongest concept so far for next class, since it is a very open concept with deep roots in the Warcraft universe. We've had Gnomish Inventors and Goblin Alchemists as far back as Warcraft 2 making use of tech and explosives. A Tinker is absolutely thematic to Warcraft, to the point where I'm almost surprised that we still don't formally have a Tinker class yet. However, I do see problems with the marketting behind it, since Gnomes and Goblins are also the least-played races in the game, and the 'comic relief' image they have is both a blessing and a curse. It's great as a part of the ensemble, but questionable if it could lead the forefront of its own expansion from a marketting perspective. To me, they're like the Jawas or Droids in Star Wars. They're a cool part of the universe, but it's not Movie or TV Series material, even if we have some outstanding fan-favourites. They're best used as supporting characters. So the trick with Tinker is - how will Blizzard actually add Tinkers to the game? We have yet to see.

Dragonsworn is another potential class I see being added. Dragon themes are strong and widely recognized by fans. We have hints of the Dragon Isles returning in the future. We have plenty of unresolved Dragon plot lines in the game. A Dragon-themed class is completely open for exploration. Even though there's no core concept behind this class, we have an idea of what it could be based on RPG archetypes and Heroes of the Storm. There's a reddit thread about Dragonsworn that has 8.3k upvotes, so we're not exactly talking about a completely unknown concept; there is definite interest in this class. The problems with Dragonsworn is that it doesn't actually formally exist, so everyone has their own idea of what it would actually be. Some people would even argue it's not a class, but just a race. Or there might be lore conflicts for how a Dragonsworn actually obtains their powers; and people seem generally disinterested in the idea of more 'borrowed power'. The Dragon theme is ripe for exploration, and it all depends on what direction Blizzard would choose to take it. It's arguably going to be one of the more complicated concepts to tackle.

Bard has potential as a class, but I don't find much merit in its addition. The problem I have with this concept is that WoW simply isn't designed with a 'Support' role in mind, and the whole archetype of a Bard is centered around being Support. Any other translation into WoW mechanics and role would simply make it into a typical Music-themed Hybrid, and that alone isn't strong enough to go and make a new class out of IMO. I'd much rather see Music be turned into a Profession theme, and allow people to roleplay as the Bard they see fit.

And most other B-tier concepts like Necromancers, Runemasters, Dark Rangers, Wardens, Blademasters and so forth all have potential to be classes too, but they don't really hold a strong position compared to the two main classes above. I've yet to see individual concepts that are as strong as those two and as relevant to future expansion material. I think Blizzard could definitely address these concepts through Class Skins.


And overall, I feel like the biggest potential outlier is - No new class at all. Covenants have been so effective that I can see Blizzard deferring to this system in the future. What need is there for a Dragonsworn Class if we can have Dragon powers given to every class? What reason do we need a Tinker class if every class can suit up in their own variation of Mech suit? I'm not one who would have agreed with the idea of giving everyone Necromancy powers, but seeing how effective Covenants have been, I honestly can't say it's a bad idea. I don't like the concept of sharing these integral Class Themes to all other classes, but I absolutely see the merit in how it has opened up customizations and expansion-themed gimmicks without having to divert all the attention to a new class. That will always be something that needs to be considered.

So, basically, what T eriz wants.

Dragon Isles is, probably, coming. Alongside a possible Light/Void expansion. Though, i doubt a Dragonsworn class would be introduced. Maybe a Draconic race.

I agree with the Tinker. A possible option.

The Bard, although interesting and unique, is indeed unlikely.

Why is everything else B-tier?
Have you seen my concepts? Are they, really, that bad?

Necromancers and Runemasters had their chance, so again - I'm skeptic.

[Ielenia]

We're talking expansion classes.

And I've pointed out that "additions" is not something that separates vanilla and expansion classes. If you cannot show any real, tangible difference between vanilla classes and expansion classes, then saying "we're talking expansion classes only" is just an arbitrary, needless distinction.

[Maljinwo]

Steam Warrior

[Triceron]

Why is everything else B-tier?
Have you seen my concepts? Are they, really, that bad?

In terms of a new class in Modern WoW, we have to consider all of the evidence the Devs have outlined.

Consider that even Shadowlands was not able to formally bring out a Dark Ranger or Necromancer concept to light, we know there is more to considering a concept that edges too closely to existing classes or may not be significant enough (to Blizzard) to be featured front-and-center of a new expansion. They want to tie these new classes into the story they wish to tell.

Blademaster- well what story is there to tell with a Blademaster in mind to fight the oncoming Light vs Void expansion? What role would it really fill in the story? Its theme is best tied to the Japanese style culture, and I don't see Blizzard making a Japanese styled expansion.

Wardens- We already went through Legion, what is their primary function or role going to be in the future? Their identity is tied to the Jailer themes, and aside from being general Bounty Hunters and Assassins, their roles in the story aren't really feasible to be brought to the front-and-center of an expansion theme IMO.

Sea Witch- I mean, the potential is always there, but their role in the game is fairly covered by the Shaman. I get that it's a unique concept, and I even argued in favour of an 'Enchantress' type of Sea Witch that is themed around divination (fortune telling) tied to Arcane magic and the Sea (Storms, Hydromancy, etc), but overall it seems unlikely. Azshara and the Naga are the ones who would usher in this class, and I'm not quite sure what the merit is of another Underwater type expansion since we know that's not likely going to be a thing in the future.

Alchemist- I mean, this is one of the least fleshed Heroes in Warcraft. Even the Tinker has more merit because of all the Gnome connections and Gnome lore we've gotten in WoW over the years, but alchemy overall has been made into a profession and a secondary trait of characters. I doubt Blizzard would officially create a new class out of it, and at most they would simply use the themes here to support a Healer spec for Tinkers. I'm a fan of the Alchemist concept, but not as a new hero. It doesn't have legs if we are talking about introducing a follow up hero to the Demon Hunter of Legion, of all things.


Overall, I feel these are all B-tier concepts because they're not thematically relevant or strong enough to carry out being a major feature of a new expansion. We're looking for big concepts that will match the epicness of Death Knights and Demon Hunters. Tinkers can arguably carry their own, with giant mech themes that have some fair value in WoW. Dragonsworn are no doubt epic in concept.

The rest I can see fitting more of a broader 'Class skin' lineup, where we have an ensemble cast heroes being introduced to the major fight against the Void Lords. Wardens, Blademasters, Alchemists, Dark Rangers, Runemasters, all of them able to join the fight because it's no longer about any one expansion theme, it's about bringing everything we have to the fight. The same basic reasoning how Dark Irons and Mag'har and Highmountains and Lightforged can all get some recognition without pairing them to any specific expansion theme. Otherwise, if we're talking about an individual new Class being added to the game, then much more attention has to be given to solidify them into the story.

After all, even though we have an expansion focused on the realm of the Dead, Blizzard decided not to pursue any Undead-related class concepts to give us. I interpret that as them choosing to wait for the right 'A tier' class concept to add to the game, not just whatever is most relevant or happens to be convenient to WC3.

T eriz wants

It's about coming to the realistic conclusions of what would be the most practical picks, and despite the differences in values between anyone and Teriz, there are plenty of merits to the arguments for and against Tinkers and Dragonsworn.

I'm not a fan of the Tinker concept at all, especially after 10+ years of participating in the mind-numbing Demon Hunter vs Tinker debates. Yet what I don't want to do is fall into the same argument traps of those discussions. There's no reason to downplay one in favour of the other. It's possible for both to appear in WoW, and it's rather a matter of time and effort for whether Blizzard makes them a reality. At that time, it did boil down to Tinker and Demon Hunters being the most talked about, most highly in-demand classes to consider.

Since the DH has been officially made, it should be fairly obvious that Tinker remains the next most-popular. Again, I don't care much for the concept personally, but I highly respect it for being so different and appealing in its own way. It's not something I should dismiss just because I don't happen to care for Tinkers. I want to see it made into a class, because I think it has a lot of great potential as one. I'd love to see what Blizzard would do for its mechanics, what customizations they'd give it, what races they'd allow it to be, etc. There's a lot of fun to be had here.

The Necromancer and Dark Ranger ranked closely behind, but I feel they lost their chance by being overlooked in Shadowlands. I haven't counted those two out, but I had them much higher on the list until Shadowlands announced with no new class. The likelyhood of these two classes getting another chance in the future would be much more slim though.

And that's why due to this massive shift in events, the Dragonsworn has jumped up much higher in the ranks. This relatively unknown concept has become much more popularized over the years. We've had Wrathion grow into his own as a character, and be a staple part of the story. We've seen the Aspects and Dragonflights explored in gameplay through Heroes of the Storm. Even if the origin of this class came from the RPG books, we have more material now about Dragon themes and Dragon characters more than any time before; far more than the RTS has ever provided. And on top of this all - Dragons are just damned cool. Who wouldn't want to play as a class that bears the power of the Aspects? Whether it be a Dragon themed expansion or a general Titan themed one, they have a direct connection to the bigger picture war against the Void Lords. And frankly, over time even Teriz saw the merit of this class too, though he has his own views of how they would be implemented in the game.

We come to these conclusions based on the flow of trends and information that Blizzard has provided through developing WoW. The more information we get over time, the more we can adjust our personal rankings. But hey, I didn't come to these conclusions based on 'oooh I want that'. We're all talking about the merits and possibilities, and Blizzard's own actions are more telling of what they'd actually consider as Class material than simply WC3 heroes with the right expansion theme at the right time.

[TheRevenantHero]

Of course it is relevant.
Where do you think they came up with some of the abilities and visuals for the Demon Hunter?

It is, mostly, associated with Tyrande. An attempt to re-envision the Priestess of the Moon. It is, a power associated with Elune. and Priestess of the Moon is, strongly, associated with Elune. For that matter, it didn't empower Malfurion. It is not a class, yet. But, it definitely tries to build up on the PotM. Them never gaining new abilities is irrelevant, as classes are barely well represented before their addition.

Warglaives are the Demon Hunter weapon.
Moonglaives are the Sentinel's weapon.
Umbra crescents are the Warden's weapon.
Tyrande dual-wielding two unique-looking glaives does not fall into any of those categories and had nothing to do with the Priestess of the Moon, up until now. It is, clearly, an attempt to expand upon the concept.

I might be wrong, but according to their patterns and my analysis, it is, highly, likely.



I know what a Runemaster is.
A Monk with runes.
The rune aspect was integrated into the Death Knight and the martial arts was integrated into the Monk.
As for the Necromancer, we all know what it is, and what aspect of it was integrated into the Death Knight.

Take the apothecary for example. It was an RPG class. It won't be introduced as a class of its own, but it could, definitely, be integrated into the Alchemist.

No. HotS is 100% irrelevant. Any comment about future classes that involves HotS should be disregarded because it is a 100% different game with different mechanics. You are completely wrong. Major lore characters never play by the same rules as players and will always get special armor/weapons that players will likely never get. Anduin is another example of this.

Hilarious that you're saying runemaster is just Monk and necromancer is just death knight but you're ridiculously claiming that priestess of the moon isn't just a hunter. The double standard is staggering.

[username993720]

And I've pointed out that "additions" is not something that separates vanilla and expansion classes. If you cannot show any real, tangible difference between vanilla classes and expansion classes, then saying "we're talking expansion classes only" is just an arbitrary, needless distinction.

The fact that Vanilla classes embody all sorts of types, while the expansion ones were taken from Warcraft 3 Hero units.

Steam Warrior

A Tinker, basically.

In terms of a new class in Modern WoW, we have to consider all of the evidence the Devs have outlined.

Jesus christ, you write a lot. You know that?

I thought you're not into looking for patterns. Now, it is viable to consider 'evidence the devs have outlined'?

we know there is more to considering a concept that edges too closely to existing classes or may not be significant enough (to Blizzard) to be featured front-and-center of a new expansion.

Having Demon Hunters kind of disproved that.

Blademaster- well what story is there to tell with a Blademaster in mind to fight the oncoming Light vs Void expansion? What role would it really fill in the story? Its theme is best tied to the Japanese style culture, and I don't see Blizzard making a Japanese styled expansion.

There isn't. Never claimed it was the next class.
They need an expansion like Pandaria, which no one thought would come.

Wardens- We already went through Legion, what is their primary function or role going to be in the future? Their identity is tied to the Jailer themes, and aside from being general Bounty Hunters and Assassins, their roles in the story aren't really feasible to be brought to the front-and-center of an expansion theme IMO.

Elven story, perhaps. Like ancient Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul, as depicted in the Chronicles.

Sea Witch- I mean, the potential is always there, but their role in the game is fairly covered by the Shaman. I get that it's a unique concept, and I even argued in favour of an 'Enchantress' type of Sea Witch that is themed around divination (fortune telling) tied to Arcane magic and the Sea (Storms, Hydromancy, etc), but overall it seems unlikely. Azshara and the Naga are the ones who would usher in this class, and I'm not quite sure what the merit is of another Underwater type expansion since we know that's not likely going to be a thing in the future.

Azshara is, pretty much, still relevant, as she "intend to claim the real throne of power" for herself at the end of the encounter in Ny'alotha.
Blizzard wanted to add Nagas for a long time. Once in classic WoW, and once mentioned by Chris Metzen.
I could see the Elven story kinda fitting there.
Besides, me not coming with great ideas doesn't mean Blizzard can't or that it is off the table. They could surprise us, out of nowhere, with expansions like MoP.

Alchemist- I mean, this is one of the least fleshed Heroes in Warcraft. Even the Tinker has more merit because of all the Gnome connections and Gnome lore we've gotten in WoW over the years, but alchemy overall has been made into a profession and a secondary trait of characters. I doubt Blizzard would officially create a new class out of it, and at most they would simply use the themes here to support a Healer spec for Tinkers. I'm a fan of the Alchemist concept, but not as a new hero. It doesn't have legs if we are talking about introducing a follow up hero to the Demon Hunter of Legion, of all things.

If you can see the Tinker, then you can see the Alchemist as well. It was translated into Engineering, as well, after all. A Technology-based expansion, like Undermine or whatever, revolving around the rivalry of Gnome and Goblins would be one example.
The hero associated with it would be Noggenfogger, as in Reforged he is used to represent that unit.

Overall, I feel these are all B-tier concepts because they're not thematically relevant or strong enough to carry out being a major feature of a new expansion. We're looking for big concepts that will match the epicness of Death Knights and Demon Hunters. Tinkers can arguably carry their own, with giant mech themes that have some fair value in WoW. Dragonsworn are no doubt epic in concept.

Not necessarily. Hero classes, maybe. Not basic ones. Look at the Monk class. How epic was that? associating it with a Blizzard's April Fools joke race. There are the "Villainous" classes (which, get added as Hero classes), and friendly ones (which get added as base classes). The Tinker will fall into the category of the Monk. So, nothing "epic" about that. Like the Monk, the races associated with it are regarded as comic relief. Epicness, as a factor, is subjective and could be associated with many others.
As for not being thematically relevant or strong enough, that can't really be said about the Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon, as Sylvanas and Tyrande are hot topics right now and, were, in the previous expansion. Hell, Sylvanas got 3 (4, counting Reckoning) cinematics featuring her.
Vol'jin is, literally, set to be reborn. Vashj is, suddenly, relevant to the story.

The rest I can see fitting more of a broader 'Class skin' lineup, where we have an ensemble cast heroes being introduced to the major fight against the Void Lords. Wardens, Blademasters, Alchemists, Dark Rangers, Runemasters, all of them able to join the fight because it's no longer about any one expansion theme, it's about bringing everything we have to the fight. The same basic reasoning how Dark Irons and Mag'har and Highmountains and Lightforged can all get some recognition without pairing them to any specific expansion theme. Otherwise, if we're talking about an individual new Class being added to the game, then much more attention has to be given to solidify them into the story.

Class skins i would give to race/class combinations that are unique to a specific race. Like Sunwalkers. Just slapping that to everyone would be lazy. Wardens, for example, fall into the categorization of Night elf Rogues and Warriors in lore. Shadow Hunters/Witch Doctor fall into the Shaman, Priest and Warlock categorization. Priestess of the Moon falls into the categorization of a Priest, Druid and Hunter. Sea Witch to Shaman, Mage and Hunter. So, which one would it be? You can't give it to several classes. That's the problem with these viable classes, in contrast with a Sunwalker, for example, which is obvious.

After all, even though we have an expansion focused on the realm of the Dead, Blizzard decided not to pursue any Undead-related class concepts to give us. I interpret that as them choosing to wait for the right 'A tier' class concept to add to the game, not just whatever is most relevant or happens to be convenient to WC3.

We can't say for sure why. They told us that nothing fitted, but we know that Dark Danger and Necromancer would. I'm guessing they couldn't categorize it as a basic class, like the Monk. Since we had a Hero class last time, a basic one is due. Or, they just didn't have time and resources to include one alongside the features of the expansion. I don't, really, know...

It's about coming to the realistic conclusions of what would be the most practical picks, and despite the differences in values between anyone and Teriz, there are plenty of merits to the arguments for and against Tinkers and Dragonsworn.

The problem with you and Te riz is you both assume Blizzard will add these 2 classes and be done with it. Even though we know it's one of their main money-making features. I don't say they are due next expansion, but i'm talking in general about the future and what it might hold. Even in 20 years from now.

I'm not a fan of the Tinker concept at all, especially after 10+ years of participating in the mind-numbing Demon Hunter vs Tinker debates. Yet what I don't want to do is fall into the same argument traps of those discussions. There's no reason to downplay one in favour of the other. It's possible for both to appear in WoW, and it's rather a matter of time and effort for whether Blizzard makes them a reality. At that time, it did boil down to Tinker and Demon Hunters being the most talked about, most highly in-demand classes to consider.

Actually, i am kind of a fan of the Tinker. If Te riz wouldn't have shoved it down our throats, i wouldn't seem so against it in this thread. Other than the Tinker (and Alchemist), i only think Shadow Hunters are exotic and interesting enough. Shaman, clearly, do not do them justice.

Since the DH has been officially made, it should be fairly obvious that Tinker remains the next most-popular. Again, I don't care much for the concept personally, but I highly respect it for being so different and appealing in its own way. It's not something I should dismiss just because I don't happen to care for Tinkers. I want to see it made into a class, because I think it has a lot of great potential as one. I'd love to see what Blizzard would do for its mechanics, what customizations they'd give it, what races they'd allow it to be, etc. There's a lot of fun to be had here.

Again, basing it on popularity would have given us Dark Rangers because of Sylvanas fans. This site's polls are not, really, a tool for measurement.

The Necromancer and Dark Ranger ranked closely behind, but I feel they lost their chance by being overlooked in Shadowlands. I haven't counted those two out, but I had them much higher on the list until Shadowlands announced with no new class. The likelyhood of these two classes getting another chance in the future would be much more slim though.

No, if you don't consider the Dark Ranger alone. You gotta see the bigger picture. Sylvanas has been hyped up since Legion, with her featuring in the expansion cinematic trailers 3 times, already, (and in Reckoning) showcasing her abilities in action. Her character, pretty much, drove the story forward these last few expansion. She's gonna have boss abilities in Chains of Domination which Blizzard could draw on. Tyrande has been relevant in these couple of expansions. She was given the Night Warrior lore, out of nowhere, to expand the Priestess of the Moon role. Now, it's either they are gonna combine that with Sea Witch, because of the whole archery/magic thing, or Wardens because of Dark Wardens. I'm not quite sure. But, an Elven expansion featuring all 3 could totally come, as i said, with Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul as depicted in Chronicles, and Azshara being the antagonist. Much like how Night Elves, Blood elves and High elves combined forces to take down Elisande.

And that's why due to this massive shift in events, the Dragonsworn has jumped up much higher in the ranks. This relatively unknown concept has become much more popularized over the years. We've had Wrathion grow into his own as a character, and be a staple part of the story. We've seen the Aspects and Dragonflights explored in gameplay through Heroes of the Storm. Even if the origin of this class came from the RPG books, we have more material now about Dragon themes and Dragon characters more than any time before; far more than the RTS has ever provided. And on top of this all - Dragons are just damned cool. Who wouldn't want to play as a class that bears the power of the Aspects? Whether it be a Dragon themed expansion or a general Titan themed one, they have a direct connection to the bigger picture war against the Void Lords. And frankly, over time even Teriz saw the merit of this class too, though he has his own views of how they would be implemented in the game.

A Dragon Isles expansion is due, correct. But, it might bring along with it a covenant style of feature, based on the 5 aspects. Or, it could bring a Draconic race.

We come to these conclusions based on the flow of trends and information that Blizzard has provided through developing WoW. The more information we get over time, the more we can adjust our personal rankings. But hey, I didn't come to these conclusions based on 'oooh I want that'. We're all talking about the merits and possibilities, and Blizzard's own actions are more telling of what they'd actually consider as Class material than simply WC3 heroes with the right expansion theme at the right time.

Exactly. Blizzard's own actions. Which, have shown a direction towards WC3 heroes. I didn't make this up, out of nowhere.

No. HotS is 100% irrelevant. Any comment about future classes that involves HotS should be disregarded because it is a 100% different game with different mechanics. You are completely wrong. Major lore characters never play by the same rules as players and will always get special armor/weapons that players will likely never get. Anduin is another example of this.

Hilarious that you're saying runemaster is just Monk and necromancer is just death knight but you're ridiculously claiming that priestess of the moon isn't just a hunter. The double standard is staggering.

Anduin is a Priest. He uses Priest abilities. The Armor and Weapon he wears are cosmetic in HotS.

I'm not saying anything. Blizzard claimed to integrate them into these classes.
Priestess of the Moon is made of Hunter, Druid and Priest. So, which is it?

[TheRevenantHero]

The fact that Vanilla classes embody all sorts of types, while the expansion ones were taken from Warcraft 3 Hero units.



A Tinker, basically.



Jesus christ, you write a lot. You know that?

I thought you're not into looking for patterns. Now, it is viable to consider 'evidence the devs have outlined'?



Having Demon Hunters kind of disproved that.



There isn't. Never claimed it was the next class.
They need an expansion like Pandaria, which no one thought would come.



Elven story, perhaps. Like ancient Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul, as depicted in the Chronicles.



Azshara is, pretty much, still relevant, as she "intend to claim the real throne of power" for herself at the end of the encounter in Ny'alotha.
Blizzard wanted to add Nagas for a long time. Once in classic WoW, and once mentioned by Chris Metzen.
I could see the Elven story kinda fitting there.
Besides, me not coming with great ideas doesn't mean Blizzard can't or that it is off the table. They could surprise us, out of nowhere, with expansions like MoP.



If you can see the Tinker, then you can see the Alchemist as well. It was translated into Engineering, as well, after all. A Technology-based expansion, like Undermine or whatever, revolving around the rivalry of Gnome and Goblins would be one example.
The hero associated with it would be Noggenfogger, as in Reforged he is used to represent that unit.



Not necessarily. Hero classes, maybe. Not basic ones. Look at the Monk class. How epic was that? associating it with a Blizzard's April Fools joke race. There are the "Villainous" classes (which, get added as Hero classes), and friendly ones (which get added as base classes). The Tinker will fall into the category of the Monk. So, nothing "epic" about that. Like the Monk, the races associated with it are regarded as comic relief. Epicness, as a factor, is subjective and could be associated with many others.
As for not being thematically relevant or strong enough, that can't really be said about the Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon, as Sylvanas and Tyrande are hot topics right now and, were, in the previous expansion. Hell, Sylvanas got 3 (4, counting Reckoning) cinematics featuring her.
Vol'jin is, literally, set to be reborn. Vashj is, suddenly, relevant to the story.



Class skins i would give to race/class combinations that are unique to a specific race. Like Sunwalkers. Just slapping that to everyone would be lazy. Wardens, for example, fall into the categorization of Night elf Rogues and Warriors in lore. Shadow Hunters/Witch Doctor fall into the Shaman, Priest and Warlock categorization. Priestess of the Moon falls into the categorization of a Priest, Druid and Hunter. Sea Witch to Shaman, Mage and Hunter. So, which one would it be? You can't give it to several classes. That's the problem with these viable classes, in contrast with a Sunwalker, for example, which is obvious.



We can't say for sure why. They told us that nothing fitted, but we know that Dark Danger and Necromancer would. I'm guessing they couldn't categorize it as a basic class, like the Monk. Since we had a Hero class last time, a basic one is due. Or, they just didn't have time and resources to include one alongside the features of the expansion. I don't, really, know...



The problem with you and Te riz is you both assume Blizzard will add these 2 classes and be done with it. Even though we know it's one of their main money-making features. I don't say they are due next expansion, but i'm talking in general about the future and what it might hold. Even in 20 years from now.



Actually, i am kind of a fan of the Tinker. If Te riz wouldn't have shoved it down our throats, i wouldn't seem so against it in this thread. Other than the Tinker (and Alchemist), i only think Shadow Hunters are exotic and interesting enough. Shaman, clearly, do not do them justice.



Again, basing it on popularity would have given us Dark Rangers because of Sylvanas fans. This site's polls are not, really, a tool for measurement.



No, if you don't consider the Dark Ranger alone. You gotta see the bigger picture. Sylvanas has been hyped up since Legion, with her featuring in the expansion cinematic trailers 3 times, already, (and in Reckoning) showcasing her abilities in action. Her character, pretty much, drove the story forward these last few expansion. She's gonna have boss abilities in Chains of Domination which Blizzard could draw on. Tyrande has been relevant in these couple of expansions. She was given the Night Warrior lore, out of nowhere, to expand the Priestess of the Moon role. Now, it's either they are gonna combine that with Sea Witch, because of the whole archery/magic thing, or Wardens because of Dark Wardens. I'm not quite sure. But, an Elven expansion featuring all 3 could totally come, as i said, with Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul as depicted in Chronicles, and Azshara being the antagonist. Much like how Night Elves, Blood elves and High elves combined forces to take down Elisande.



A Dragon Isles expansion is due, correct. But, it might bring along with it a covenant style of feature, based on the 5 aspects. Or, it could bring a Draconic race.



Exactly. Blizzard's own actions. Which, have shown a direction towards WC3 heroes. I didn't make this up, out of nowhere.



Anduin is a Priest. He uses Priest abilities. The Armor and Weapon he wears are cosmetic in HotS.

I'm not saying anything. Blizzard claimed to integrate them into these classes.
Priestess of the Moon is made of Hunter, Druid and Priest. So, which is it?

Priestess of the Moon is ONLY hunter. The only thing different is they could cast Starfall in WC3. Otherwise, they were just hunters with a different name. Priestess of the Moon isn't happening.

[ippollite]

Ive just unlocked blue mage in ff14. You know what? I love the idea of it. Not just the way you accrue spells (die you fireballing defias pillagers!), but the fact its not supposed to be an end game class. Its just a dumb pokeball class for world and emergent gameplay. I want that in wow. Its a spell stealing class you can build into whatever you like. You collect all these spells, you then choose an outlay. You cant use it in anything but world content. Itd be hilariously broken in warmode. I want it!

[Maljinwo]

A Tinker, basically.

No. Steam Warriors dont fight with several crappy inventions and bad Teriz concepts



They are basically an iron man type thing

[Maxilian]

All dark rangers are dead, if they aren't they are just a ranger wannabe edgy on my view

Yes they are, but again, that's because of who the served (and they even were a special force)

- - - Updated - - -

Well, their necromancy comes from their undead natures:
"after being raised into undeath by Arthas Menethil, Sylvanas found herself out of touch with the wilds, which was replaced by necromancy, making her a dark ranger."

Otherwise, they would be just Rangers.
Though, this one seems quite alive:

But that's because she just felt out of touch with nature, not because it was an inability of the undead to use Nature magic, reason why Undead now got Hunters, and just like how necromancy magic was first used by living creatures, there's no reason why Rangers who use necromancy instead of Nature magic have to be undead.

Though again, its really likely that the main reason that the Undead can be Hunters is under the assumption, that most undead (including the player) are Dark Rangers (if i remember correctly there were a couple of dark ranger style abilities added in Legion because of that) -Heck we even got the whole Undead pet to tame now

Regardless... GIVE ME DRAGONS! I mean... anything but Bards

[username993720]

Priestess of the Moon is ONLY hunter. The only thing different is they could cast Starfall in WC3. Otherwise, they were just hunters with a different name. Priestess of the Moon isn't happening.

Again with the quoting. Is it so hard to crop?

Priestess as in Priest.
Moon as in Druidic lunar abilities.

It is happening. Can a Hunter heal? or cast spells?
There's no need for the whole Night Warrior shenanigans, otherwise.

No. Steam Warriors dont fight with several crappy inventions and bad Teriz concepts



They are basically an iron man type thing

Yes they are, but again, that's because of who the served (and they even were a special force)

- - - Updated - - -



But that's because she just felt out of touch with nature, not because it was an inability of the undead to use Nature magic, reason why Undead now got Hunters, and just like how necromancy magic was first used by living creatures, there's no reason why Rangers who use necromancy instead of Nature magic have to be undead.

Though again, its really likely that the main reason that the Undead can be Hunters is under the assumption, that most undead (including the player) are Dark Rangers (if i remember correctly there were a couple of dark ranger style abilities added in Legion because of that) -Heck we even got the whole Undead pet to tame now

Regardless... GIVE ME DRAGONS! I mean... anything but Bards

In lore, they are supposed to represent Dark Rangers. Them being able to use Hunter nature magic is game mechanics.
Even living necromancers, like humans, become undead after a while due to its magic.

[Maxilian]

In lore, they are supposed to represent Dark Rangers. Them being able to use Hunter nature magic is game mechanics.

Yeah i imagined that and makes sense.

Even living necromancers, like humans, become undead after a while due to its magic.

But its not something that always happen as most prominent Trolls necromancer did not became undead.

Though if i remember correctly, the whole "becoming undead because of the magic they wield" is more of a RPG Book info, so not really canon or at least not something that should be taken as a "general rule"

[TheRevenantHero]

Again with the quoting. Is it so hard to crop?

Priestess as in Priest.
Moon as in Druidic lunar abilities.

It is happening. Can a Hunter heal? or cast spells?
There's no need for the whole Night Warrior shenanigans, otherwise.








In lore, they are supposed to represent Dark Rangers. Them being able to use Hunter nature magic is game mechanics.
Even living necromancers, like humans, become undead after a while due to its magic.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Pri...(Warcraft_III)

They are not priests. Priestess of the Moon can't heal either. As I said, they are literally just hunters who could cast Starfall.

Also, necromancers don't all become undead. They only become liches because it gives them more power. Plenty of races other than humans used necromancy and never became undead.