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

[Ielenia]

Because you never, really, got it. I guess i should have been more precise.

Even so, your definitions are wrong. Because we do have both vanilla and expansion classes focused on a single type, and both vanilla and expansion classes being representatives of various different types, making this a meaningless distinction between the two.

I agree about Mistweaving and Windwalker, which wasn't based on anything in Warcraft lore. But, the Pandaren Brewmaster was, clearly, the inspiration for the class (and the spec, of course). Chen had been its representative, after all.

Not really. It can be easily argued the Pandaren Brewmaster could have been picked for flavor instead of 'the base' of the class. Considering it's not the basis but just a single spec.

[Triceron]

They, also, said Tinker feels too whimsical. Do you believe them?
You have to learn and take their words as a grain of salt. Because, as i said, PR require you to provide an answer that would satisfy the crowd without revealing their true intentions.

I do believe them, yes. You have to take into consideration the context of question and the reply.

"Is the Tinker a class that you feel would fit into WoW? I'd love to see it"
"Not sure. Might be a little too whimsical for WoW. Would depend on the treatment."

He didn't say the Tinker Class is too whimsical, he posed that as something to consider of the (WC3) Tinker class concept. He does not dismiss the Tinker Class at all, he simply said 'Not sure' and 'would depend on the treatment', which actually speaks to its possibilities. Can Tinkers only be whimsical? No. But it comes into question what the design and direction of the identity should be, and for that even the community at large has very polarized opinions regarding this class. Should they go with a serious Tinker that downplays the Gnome and Goblin themes? Or double down on those themes to give us a 'silly' Class that we never had before? It's something to consider.

And when you say it is simply PR satisfying the crowd without revealing true intentions - what exactly is this supposed to satisfy? PR speak to satisfy anti-Tinkers who think it's too whimsical? That doesn't make sense to me. If it was simply PR speak, wouldn't it be better to lay down a neutral 'We aren't considering it right now' as they did for Demon Hunters?

I think GC was giving his down-to-earth opinion on the matter. Whether he is 'right or wrong' doesn't matter. I agree that the Tinker concept, at least as people know it from WC3, might by too whimsical. He's truthful, in that he's not sure whether it would be a good fit in WoW (at the time), and it might take more to consider how to approach its overall theme.

What people shouldn't do is use this as 'evidence' against a Tinker class. It's not evidence of denial at all, it's simply posing a rhetorical statement which should be considered when discussing merits and potentials of a class.

We, also, didn't expect a second Burning Legion expansion, a second Death expansion, or to visit Outland again, as Draenor. So, another MoP is possible.

Sure we did. We KNEW Sargeras was going to be a thing in the future, dare I say even near future. Of course, Azshara was expected to come before that, but we knew of the Burning Legion coming back in full force. Wrathion even hinted at that happening in Mists of Pandaria. You can't say it was unexpected when we have evidence for it in the game itself.

Death expansion was also known as soon as we knew about concrete evidence of the Shadowlands, especially it being detailed in Chronicles. That was absolutely on the table, and was being talked about as far back as ~6 years ago; if not further. Shadowlands was already established as far back as the RPG books, but it wasn't made official again until Chronicles.

I'll give you Draenor though. WoD was a complete outsider expansion, and Blizzard could definitely give us those again. However I will say that WoD also was the expansion that gave us nothing - no new races, no new classes. And we know the details of how they came about to this - Mongrel Horde, dead Chieftains being back to life by a magical warhorn - none of this stuff can really be predicted so honestly, I'm not banking on new races and new classes being added from such an expansion coming out of left field.

Just because 'Tinkers of Tinklandia' is possible doesn't mean I'm going to value it as a merit towards Tinkers, know what I mean? Tinkers have plenty of other factors behind it pointing to its potential. Mechagon relevance, potential of Undermine, the themes connected between Gnomes and Goblins left unexplored through a class to represent their major NPCs, the Island Expedition 'Engineers' who use abilities that Gazlowe had in HotS, etc. Plenty of actual material we can talk about without considering the 'what if'.

Not necessarily as a whole class. Maybe a spec inside a class.
That's where you're wrong. Because it doesn't have to be Orc Blademasters from the Burning Blade clan. It could be Ankoan and their Waveblade clan.

Then we're not talking about potential new classes. 4th spec and sub-spec is a different question from 'what classes do you think will potentially come', and I'm trying to stay relevant to the topic and questions asked here in this thread.

I don't see a reason to discard it, when it fits, quite well, with a Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon.

If we have no indication of it, we have no reason to consider it. I mean, right now it's as fitting as your Slavemaster class concept. What reason do we have to say it fits? Just because you say so?

I mean, it's as loose a connection as saying Mekkatorque would be a great Alchemist Class, because science and technology fits well with the Alchemy concept. Blizzard hasn't connected the two concepts, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that they 'fit quite well'.

And no, they didn't discard it for a Sea Witch. Not alone, per se. The Priestess of the Moon, also, wouldn't fit Shadowlands. Unless Elune is a Death entity. I Wanna say Wardens, too. But, there are undead ones called Dark Wardens.

Dark Wardens could be an aspect of Dark Ranger since we have a direct connection between the two concepts.

But it's not an Elune-derived concept. There's quite a stretch to say Elune is a Death Entity too, even if it's somewhat hinted at. The lore for that is quite obscure, and mostly being perpetrated by fan theories moreso than the game itself.

I didn't say it wouldn't come together with the Tinker, as part of a scientist class, or something. You just assumed i did.
And Alchemy is part of the Gnome theme. Ever heard of Potion Doc?
I agree on Ka'resh. It is long overdue. Probably, as part of the Light/Void expansion.

Popularity and demand.
Arthas.
Chen.
Illidan.

Easy to understand characters and concepts.

Mekkatorque.
Gazlowe.

We know who represents the Tinker class, which is part of its appeal. It's easy to grasp.

So who is this Gnome Potion Doc character we're talking about? Honestly speaking, I've never heard or seen this character.

I don't know why you all think everything needs to be epic, all the time?

Why would Blizzard settle on mediocre? Especially for something as big as a new class?

We aren't getting a new class once every 2 years like some other games here. This isn't a MOBA where they can add in whatever new and crazy idea the designers come up with. This is a 1-in-4 years event, and even then they are able to *skip* that pattern when a concept doesn't jump out at them 'like the Demon Hunter did for Legion'.

When considering this, then we have to consider that a class concept has to be strong and epic to be considered. And even then, as I said, the Dark Ranger and Necromancer didn't even make this cut. It tells me the devs are wanting something even *grander* than those concepts.

I thought you ranked them by their possibility, not by their position on the waiting list.

Sorry if I've used confusing terminology.

I will clarify.

When I say Merits and Possibilities of a class, I don't mean whether the class is Possible or not to be in the game. I am talking specifically about what a class has to offer and the different possibilities that entail how they would be presented in the game. I'm talking about what form they could possibily take in the game; since there's no one direction to add a new class. Take DK for example - Blizzard could have doubled down on the Unholy themes and adding a Necromancer spellcaster spec instead of diversifying with Frost and Blood. That's a possibility, and that is still undeniably still a Death Knight concept. Or we can take a look at existing classes and see how the Warlock shifted so many times with Demonology spec; those are all different possibilities.

I don't actually mean what classes are *possible*, because I view ALL class concepts as being possible. I don't discount any class concept. As I said, even your bogus Slavemaster concept is perfectly possible. So there is no real way to rank based on possibility.

What my personal ranking on is what is potentially viable as the next class, based on relevance and popular demand.

I, personally, don't see the Shadow Hunter being mixed with the Dark Ranger. Only with the Witch Doctor.

Same way I don't see the Night Warrior mixed with the Dark Ranger.

Either way, all of these concepts have a 'Death' connection between them all, but it doesn't mean any of them are directly connected. It's one of the few things I didn't like about the ShadowStalker concept, that it seemingly forced Dark Ranger into it. I am all for a Shadow Hunter though.

If everything on your list shifted, then it's kind of an affirmation that you shouldn't predict those based on popularity.

It shifted because Blizzard decided not to make a class at all this expansion.

If I didn't predict on popularity, then I'd be predicting on Blizzard not wanting any new classes period. Is that a better alternative to you?

It's not because i want it.
When i analysed the Warcraft 3 Hero pool for potential new classes, there were 3 wielding a bow and using magical attacks. I thought to myself, aside from the fact that they lack in game, that it would be a waste to add them separately. They are all, after all, based on the Ranger archetype and are all from Elven ancestry. So, it made sense for me to combine the three.

Yes, but a ranger class has been missing from the game since Vanilla. Hunters are still the only class that uses Bows in the game.

So why did they add 3 consecuitive melee classes in the game despite this fact? Why add a 4th Leather wearing class instead of filling out the missing 3rd Mail class gap?

There's more to being considered here than just what fits best to what is 'lacking' in the game. If we're going by what was lacking, then a mail-wearing ranged Tinker or Ranger should have been added to the game instead of Demon Hunter, by all means.

Reality tells a different story. What is the one thing that a Demon Hunter has advantageous over a Tinker or a Ranger? Popularity and Demand.

Was it there before people came up with a class concept for it, here on the forums? Because no one, as far as i know, considered that class before.
See, if we consider every shiny and appealing class concept made by users here, we would end up with Bards up on our list. I don't think that's how it works. Blizzard does not look for people to come up with class concepts on their forums to make a new class.

So here's the basis of a Dragonsworn and why it's touted.

Blizzard made a heroic Dragon character who became very popular; Wrathion. He's popular, he's notable, he's cool.
Blizzard has made the Aspects and Dragons like Chromie and Alexstrasza playable in Heroes of the Storm.

The Dragonsworn is the community's collective representation of a Dragon-based class that has the powers of the Aspects. It's a concept that existed in the RPG books and is being used to closely represent any type of Dragon-themed class in the game. You'll see that most cases, people will use different names for it; Dragoon or Dragon Knight or Dragonborn. Either way it boils down to the same basic idea - playable Dragon Class.

And with the Dragon Isles being teased, there opens up the possibility of a Dragon-related class. Dragonsworn just happens to be the collective name the community has accepted. Just like if we talk about any Tech class, it would be called Tinker, even if it could be called Artificer or Steam Knight or whatever other name Blizzard would choose. It doesn't have to be exactly the Tinker from Warcraft 3. The Dragonsworn does not have to be exactly the tabletop RPG class. These are just names for broad themes in a playable class form. This is much like how "Warrior" is a collection of many strong, melee-oriented classes like the MK and Chieftain as well as a staple RPG class; it's not just *one* concept made by Blizzard, it's a collection of themes and concepts into one.

Fair enough.
But, in the end, all that were added were from there. So, i do see a point.

As for the Monk. the class name might be from the RPG, but the concept itself is, strictly, chinese, which doesn't coincide with the overall, general Monk of D&D and other RPGs.

I am Chinese, and I don't think the Pandaren Monk is strictly Chinese at all. If anything, it's simply 'derived from Chinese culture' while completely misappropriating it, as most pop-culture does with any type of Asian theme they don't have extensive knowledge of.

RPG Monk are generally centered around the concepts of Martial Arts and Chi. Both the Pandaren Monk and D&D Monk share these qualities. Unarmed combat, use of spiritual mysticism. That's all typical of a Monk archetype.

And lastly - you, really, have to tone down the amount of your writing and the number of times you edit your post. It is exhausting.

There's absolutely zero indication of when you're writing your reply. If you wish, you can do a reply with little text and then edit in your response so I know exactly when you've read everything and are ready for your response. Otherwise my responses are all an iterative process since communication is so fickle over the internet. I prefer to clarify a response as much as I can.

[Jonnusthegreat]

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.

I've done the same. If you don't know what warlock spells are similar to "fire bolt" and "cripple" then you probably shouldn't be involved in a conversation about classes from wc rpg series translated into wow. The fact that you believe it's irrelevant shows your lack of understanding. And for the record, I called you out, and then you proceeded to deny what was given you and pretend (or not?) that you're too inept to figure it out on your own.

[Triceron]

Kind of funny that Zul being aligned with Azshara ended up happening.

As for the "Voodoo class" while i'm a fan of troll lore & characters, i feel there are a number of issues it runs into

A: it's very troll specific concept so number of playable races, related expansions goes down similar to gnome/goblin centric Tinkers (even more when you consider there are no "Voodoo" using alliance races)

I felt this way as well, until I really thought about it in my head and came out with a very reasonable explanation -



It doesn't matter.


Why? Because we already have three very culturally tied Class concepts in the game.

Paladins are outright themed around Humans and their religion with the Holy Light. This simply got expanded to other races adopting Light, as well as different cultures having their own cultural spin on it like Naaru or Sun Worship.

Druids are outright Night Elf themed, but other races adopted their own form of Druidism. Either way, the Night Elf culture gets shared around, and the concept of worshipping the Moon and having ties to the Emerald Dream all apply equally to the Zandalari, Kul Tiran, Tauren, Worgen and Darkspear Trolls.

Monks are the most culturally significant of them all, and practically anyone can be a Monk. You don't need anything special to have a connection the the August Celestials or to manipulate the Mists of Shaohao.


Who can or can't use Voodoo? Well, practically anyone can even if it's not culturally significant to them.
Stranglethorn had camps of Kurzen's men, some of which were Witchdoctors.
There were also Voodoo Sand Gnomes in Zul'Aman, including a Trinket that allowed you to summon them.
I mean, literally every race and character has interacted with Bwonsamedi and other Loa in some way, so we already have a surface-level connection. The details are unimportant.

: what is the gameplay and themes inherent to this kind of class concept? what does "Voodoo" do? you can draw lines with other classes, priests mix holy and shadow magic to heal or harm, shamans are elementalists who use spells, empowered weapons and totems, druids are versatile shapeshifters, "Voodoo" in the lore is mostly used vaguely and can seemingly just do whatever the plot demands from curses, hexes, raising the dead, empower others, illusions, mind control, many of which has heavy overlap with other classes conceptually (like priests, shamans and warlocks).

I'd say a Shadow Hunter fills in a 'Dark Ranger' archetype in some ways. You could build it as a Ranged DPS/Spellcaster/Healer Class pretty easily, with the Ranged spec accomodating for Thrown weapons if Blizzard ever gets creative enough to make it happen. It'd also be unique enough to avoid the obvious 'Marksman Hunter is a Ranger' comparisons that any type of traditional Ranger class concept gets scrutinized for.

Spell-wise, Shadow Hunter would simply be themed on Dark Spiritual magic. Sure, there's gonna be overlap, but honestly speaking has that ever been a problem? Monks are Chi-based Resto Shamans, manipulating another form of Water. Holy Priest and Paladin literally have the same themes and ability variations. I'd say they could definitely double down on the spirit animal themes that Shamans and Druids don't actually use though. Think of the Diablo 3 Witchdoctor; using slithering snakes and hopping toads as spell effects. Bats, Spiders, Snakes, Panthers, Crocodiles. It can be more than just what we've seen from Priests, Shamans and Warlocks.

They could even tie in some special racial 'Loa' themes. If there's a 'charging spirit animal' ability, it could be themed to Elekks for Draenei, Boars for Orcs, Rams for Dwarves, Rhinos for Trolls and Triceratops for Zandalari. If there's a 'soaring spirit animal' ability, then we could have Owls for Night Elves, Bats for Trolls, Parrots for Kul Tiran. It's more than just Hexes and Zombies.

[jellmoo]

I've done the same. If you don't know what warlock spells are similar to "fire bolt" and "cripple" then you probably shouldn't be involved in a conversation about classes from wc rpg series translated into wow. The fact that you believe it's irrelevant shows your lack of understanding. And for the record, I called you out, and then you proceeded to deny what was given you and pretend (or not?) that you're too inept to figure it out on your own.

Dude. I bloody well spelled it out for you. Piece by piece. Like, I can't actually say it slowly for you here. Again:

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.

I was asking for somebody (not even you, mind you, you just felt like throwing out a passive aggressive message about Googling stuff because you're cool) to show me a Warlock unit from WC3 that displays the same link between that game, and the class in World of Warcraft. That's it. That's what I was asking, rhetorically, because, shock of all shocks, it doesn't exist.

Tossing out a non playable unit that doesn't even have WoW Warlock abilities? Bravo. Quite the masterstroke of genius. Fire Bolt? Not a Warlock ability. Cripple? Not a Warlock ability. Look at the examples I provided. Heal? Yeah, that's a Priest ability. Divine Shield? Yeah, that's a Paladin ability. Blizzard? Yeah, that's a Mage ability.

Just admit that you jumped into a conversation you weren't a part of, and that you clearly didn't understand with your https://www.just-fucking-google.it/ attitude and run along since you still don't seem to be able to understand the concept of rhetorical questions, links between like items, and what is and what is not a playable unit in WC3.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Dude. I bloody well spelled it out for you. Piece by piece. Like, I can't actually say it slowly for you here. Again:



I was asking for somebody (not even you, mind you, you just felt like throwing out a passive aggressive message about Googling stuff because you're cool) to show me a Warlock unit from WC3 that displays the same link between that game, and the class in World of Warcraft. That's it. That's what I was asking, rhetorically, because, shock of all shocks, it doesn't exist.

Tossing out a non playable unit that doesn't even have WoW Warlock abilities? Bravo. Quite the masterstroke of genius. Fire Bolt? Not a Warlock ability. Cripple? Not a Warlock ability. Look at the examples I provided. Heal? Yeah, that's a Priest ability. Divine Shield? Yeah, that's a Paladin ability. Blizzard? Yeah, that's a Mage ability.

Just admit that you jumped into a conversation you weren't a part of, and that you clearly didn't understand with your https://www.just-fucking-google.it/ attitude and run along since you still don't seem to be able to understand the concept of rhetorical questions, links between like items, and what is and what is not a playable unit in WC3.

I spelled it out for you as well. Is it a 100% copy and paste? No. Are yours? No.

It is a unit in warcraft 3 with the same name as a class in WoW that has similar abilities. Just like what you asked for and what you linked for other classes.

[jellmoo]

I spelled it out for you as well. Is it a 100% copy and paste? No. Are yours? No.

It is a unit in warcraft 3 with the same name as a class in WoW that has similar abilities. Just like what you asked for and what you linked for other classes.

A. It's not playable.
B. It doesn't have the same abilities. At all.
C. I linked directly to explanation of the abilities for the Priest, Paladin and Mage units. Direct comparison easily done. I have yet to see how "similar" these abilities are in your example.

[Kayb]

Gunslinger class.

Rename current guns into rifles for two hand, add single and dual wielding pistols.

Orc, Blood Elf, Goblin, Undead, Vulpera, maybe Troll
Human, Gnome, Dwarf, Kul Tiran, Worgen

Specs - Sniper, Lawman, Wildcard


*shrug*

[Jonnusthegreat]

A. It's not playable.
B. It doesn't have the same abilities. At all.
C. I linked directly to explanation of the abilities for the Priest, Paladin and Mage units. Direct comparison easily done. I have yet to see how "similar" these abilities are in your example.

Oh, I see. It needs to be playable. Glad we are able to move the goalposts to suit our own needs.

In WoW, Warlocks have a spell called "Fire Bolt" in their spellbooks. Cripple was modified to Curse of Tongues (cripple was too powerful). Now you can directly compare them at your leisure!

In other news, warlocks were central to the storyline in TFT. Without a warlock, most of TFT would not be possible.

Warlocks were in warcraft before WoW. This is a fact.

[Askyl]

My dream news headline: Activision Blizzard join forces with Ubisoft!

Reason to that headlines: Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft have worked together to create the best and most geniune experience in World of Warcraft yet. With the technology from Rocksmith, Activision Blizzard feat. Ubisoft now introduce... The Bard! (electric guitar sold separately)

[Triceron]

In other news, warlocks were central to the storyline in TFT. Without a warlock, most of TFT would not be possible.

Warlocks were in warcraft before WoW. This is a fact.

Ehhhh......

Warlocks in TFT used lighting spells and summoned skeletons. Pretty sure you don't want to use the TFT version of Warlocks as your example there, buddy.

[username993720]

Even so, your definitions are wrong. Because we do have both vanilla and expansion classes focused on a single type, and both vanilla and expansion classes being representatives of various different types, making this a meaningless distinction between the two.


Not really. It can be easily argued the Pandaren Brewmaster could have been picked for flavor instead of 'the base' of the class. Considering it's not the basis but just a single spec.

You got caught up in the types word.

Of course it is the basis of it. Chen's the representative.

I do believe them, yes. You have to take into consideration the context of question and the reply.

"Is the Tinker a class that you feel would fit into WoW? I'd love to see it"
"Not sure. Might be a little too whimsical for WoW. Would depend on the treatment."

He didn't say the Tinker Class is too whimsical, he posed that as something to consider of the (WC3) Tinker class concept. He does not dismiss the Tinker Class at all, he simply said 'Not sure' and 'would depend on the treatment', which actually speaks to its possibilities. Can Tinkers only be whimsical? No. But it comes into question what the design and direction of the identity should be, and for that even the community at large has very polarized opinions regarding this class. Should they go with a serious Tinker that downplays the Gnome and Goblin themes? Or double down on those themes to give us a 'silly' Class that we never had before? It's something to consider.

And when you say it is simply PR satisfying the crowd without revealing true intentions - what exactly is this supposed to satisfy? PR speak to satisfy anti-Tinkers who think it's too whimsical? That doesn't make sense to me. If it was simply PR speak, wouldn't it be better to lay down a neutral 'We aren't considering it right now' as they did for Demon Hunters?

I think GC was giving his down-to-earth opinion on the matter. Whether he is 'right or wrong' doesn't matter. I agree that the Tinker concept, at least as people know it from WC3, might by too whimsical. He's truthful, in that he's not sure whether it would be a good fit in WoW (at the time), and it might take more to consider how to approach its overall theme.

What people shouldn't do is use this as 'evidence' against a Tinker class. It's not evidence of denial at all, it's simply posing a rhetorical statement which should be considered when discussing merits and potentials of a class.

What i meant is they can't say "yes, we're working on it. Expect it to be the next class". They, always, have and, always, will be discrete about their plans.

Sure we did. We KNEW Sargeras was going to be a thing in the future, dare I say even near future. Of course, Azshara was expected to come before that, but we knew of the Burning Legion coming back in full force. Wrathion even hinted at that happening in Mists of Pandaria. You can't say it was unexpected when we have evidence for it in the game itself.

Death expansion was also known as soon as we knew about concrete evidence of the Shadowlands, especially it being detailed in Chronicles. That was absolutely on the table, and was being talked about as far back as ~6 years ago; if not further. Shadowlands was already established as far back as the RPG books, but it wasn't made official again until Chronicles.

I'll give you Draenor though. WoD was a complete outsider expansion, and Blizzard could definitely give us those again. However I will say that WoD also was the expansion that gave us nothing - no new races, no new classes. And we know the details of how they came about to this - Mongrel Horde, dead Chieftains being back to life by a magical warhorn - none of this stuff can really be predicted so honestly, I'm not banking on new races and new classes being added from such an expansion coming out of left field.

Just because 'Tinkers of Tinklandia' is possible doesn't mean I'm going to value it as a merit towards Tinkers, know what I mean? Tinkers have plenty of other factors behind it pointing to its potential. Mechagon relevance, potential of Undermine, the themes connected between Gnomes and Goblins left unexplored through a class to represent their major NPCs, the Island Expedition 'Engineers' who use abilities that Gazlowe had in HotS, etc. Plenty of actual material we can talk about without considering the 'what if'.

Well, then another asian-themed expansion is not off the table.

Then we're not talking about potential new classes. 4th spec and sub-spec is a different question from 'what classes do you think will potentially come', and I'm trying to stay relevant to the topic and questions asked here in this thread.

Spec is part of a class, so it's partially relevant.

If we have no indication of it, we have no reason to consider it. I mean, right now it's as fitting as your Slavemaster class concept. What reason do we have to say it fits? Just because you say so?

I mean, it's as loose a connection as saying Mekkatorque would be a great Alchemist Class, because science and technology fits well with the Alchemy concept. Blizzard hasn't connected the two concepts, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that they 'fit quite well'.

Common sense.
Like you would combine a Tinker and an Alchemist.

Dark Wardens could be an aspect of Dark Ranger since we have a direct connection between the two concepts.

But it's not an Elune-derived concept. There's quite a stretch to say Elune is a Death Entity too, even if it's somewhat hinted at. The lore for that is quite obscure, and mostly being perpetrated by fan theories moreso than the game itself.

No so far-fetched.
Let's just say 'expect to see Tyrande in Korthia'.

Popularity and demand.
Arthas.
Chen.
Illidan.

Easy to understand characters and concepts.

Mekkatorque.
Gazlowe.

We know who represents the Tinker class, which is part of its appeal. It's easy to grasp.

So who is this Gnome Potion Doc character we're talking about? Honestly speaking, I've never heard or seen this character.

Popularity and demand - Chen? I think you got you marbles mixed...

Sorry, the Alchemist, not the Potion Doc:


Can't associate it to a well-known name, though. Except for Gribble, Krimple Proxmeasure or Peppy Wrongnozzle.

Why would Blizzard settle on mediocre? Especially for something as big as a new class?

We aren't getting a new class once every 2 years like some other games here. This isn't a MOBA where they can add in whatever new and crazy idea the designers come up with. This is a 1-in-4 years event, and even then they are able to *skip* that pattern when a concept doesn't jump out at them 'like the Demon Hunter did for Legion'.

When considering this, then we have to consider that a class concept has to be strong and epic to be considered. And even then, as I said, the Dark Ranger and Necromancer didn't even make this cut. It tells me the devs are wanting something even *grander* than those concepts.

*Looks at the Monk*

Not everything is a hero class, you know.
Who made you king to determine a Tinker is mediocre? or any concept, for that matter, that does not scream 'powerful and strong'?
They can just base it on big shot characters all the time... Jeez, what happened to fun?

Sorry if I've used confusing terminology.

I will clarify.

When I say Merits and Possibilities of a class, I don't mean whether the class is Possible or not to be in the game. I am talking specifically about what a class has to offer and the different possibilities that entail how they would be presented in the game. I'm talking about what form they could possibily take in the game; since there's no one direction to add a new class. Take DK for example - Blizzard could have doubled down on the Unholy themes and adding a Necromancer spellcaster spec instead of diversifying with Frost and Blood. That's a possibility, and that is still undeniably still a Death Knight concept. Or we can take a look at existing classes and see how the Warlock shifted so many times with Demonology spec; those are all different possibilities.

I don't actually mean what classes are *possible*, because I view ALL class concepts as being possible. I don't discount any class concept. As I said, even your bogus Slavemaster concept is perfectly possible. So there is no real way to rank based on possibility.

What my personal ranking on is what is potentially viable as the next class, based on relevance and popular demand.

I think you're being a little too liberal here.

Next class? could try to to guess it based on expansion speculation rather than popularity and demand.

Same way I don't see the Night Warrior mixed with the Dark Ranger.

Either way, all of these concepts have a 'Death' connection between them all, but it doesn't mean any of them are directly connected. It's one of the few things I didn't like about the ShadowStalker concept, that it seemingly forced Dark Ranger into it. I am all for a Shadow Hunter though.

I do.
Just think of a ranger that splits into different magic specializations.

It shifted because Blizzard decided not to make a class at all this expansion.

If I didn't predict on popularity, then I'd be predicting on Blizzard not wanting any new classes period. Is that a better alternative to you?

That would just be wrong. There are other methods, you know.
Try to predict the expansion, for example.

Yes, but a ranger class has been missing from the game since Vanilla. Hunters are still the only class that uses Bows in the game.

So why did they add 3 consecuitive melee classes in the game despite this fact? Why add a 4th Leather wearing class instead of filling out the missing 3rd Mail class gap?

There's more to being considered here than just what fits best to what is 'lacking' in the game. If we're going by what was lacking, then a mail-wearing ranged Tinker or Ranger should have been added to the game instead of Demon Hunter, by all means.

Reality tells a different story. What is the one thing that a Demon Hunter has advantageous over a Tinker or a Ranger? Popularity and Demand.

That's not what was in question.
It was the matter of combining the three.

So here's the basis of a Dragonsworn and why it's touted.

Blizzard made a heroic Dragon character who became very popular; Wrathion. He's popular, he's notable, he's cool.
Blizzard has made the Aspects and Dragons like Chromie and Alexstrasza playable in Heroes of the Storm.

The Dragonsworn is the community's collective representation of a Dragon-based class that has the powers of the Aspects. It's a concept that existed in the RPG books and is being used to closely represent any type of Dragon-themed class in the game. You'll see that most cases, people will use different names for it; Dragoon or Dragon Knight or Dragonborn. Either way it boils down to the same basic idea - playable Dragon Class.

And with the Dragon Isles being teased, there opens up the possibility of a Dragon-related class. Dragonsworn just happens to be the collective name the community has accepted. Just like if we talk about any Tech class, it would be called Tinker, even if it could be called Artificer or Steam Knight or whatever other name Blizzard would choose. It doesn't have to be exactly the Tinker from Warcraft 3. The Dragonsworn does not have to be exactly the tabletop RPG class. These are just names for broad themes in a playable class form. This is much like how "Warrior" is a collection of many strong, melee-oriented classes like the MK and Chieftain as well as a staple RPG class; it's not just *one* concept made by Blizzard, it's a collection of themes and concepts into one.

It is still an assortment of collections of users ideas about how the class will play. Because the RPG hasn't got much.

And a popular character applies to almost anyone. Let alone Sylavans and Tyrande. Blizzard converted all of the WC3 heroes into HotS characters. They are no exception.

I am Chinese, and I don't think the Pandaren Monk is strictly Chinese at all. If anything, it's simply 'derived from Chinese culture' while completely misappropriating it, as most pop-culture does with any type of Asian theme they don't have extensive knowledge of.

RPG Monk are generally centered around the concepts of Martial Arts and Chi. Both the Pandaren Monk and D&D Monk share these qualities. Unarmed combat, use of spiritual mysticism. That's all typical of a Monk archetype.

You don't see Monks, like Karazhim or Zenyatta for example, being embodied there.

There's absolutely zero indication of when you're writing your reply. If you wish, you can do a reply with little text and then edit in your response so I know exactly when you've read everything and are ready for your response. Otherwise my responses are all an iterative process since communication is so fickle over the internet. I prefer to clarify a response as much as I can.

What the problem in doing it in one take?

Ehhhh......

Warlocks in TFT used lighting spells and summoned skeletons. Pretty sure you don't want to use the TFT version of Warlocks as your example there, buddy.

Gul'dan is, pretty much, the basis for the class.

[Syegfryed]

True. What's wrong with that?

your point is "lore" but your argument have no lore, so is hypocrisy

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

and what background of high elves necromancers of dark rangers? this completely nonsensical you are using "yep, elf elf"

is a shit background who make no sense and you should feel bad about even saying out loud

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.

oh no, i don't mind something new, or changing something to be new, what im saying is completely bullshit to change something to make it worse and elf centric, like people are saying here.

I even said they could do something like Death knight and disponibilize to all races in undead form, which, would make way more sense than living beings being DK

- - - Updated - - -

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

they being alive completely invalidate the reason of why a dark ranger should exist in the first place

if anything who cast a frost arrow or other shenanigans the hero in wc3 could do then you can add that as talent to normal hunters and they can RP as dark ranger with a edgy transmog.

They could do those kind of things primarily because they were undead like Death knights

[Triceron]

What i meant is they can't say "yes, we're working on it. Expect it to be the next class". They, always, have and, always, will be discrete about their plans.

I agree.

Though if this what you mean, then what you originally brought up was a bad example, IMO. GC was neither confirming or denying the possibility, he was merely addressing a more general question of how he thinks Tinkers would fit in WoW. It's (paraphrasing) "I'm not sure. The original concept is a bit silly, so it depends on how that gets translated into WoW' which is a far more nuanced answer.

It's far more insightful and gives us an idea that they something like silliness of an original concept does have an impact on their consideration for design.

Well, then another asian-themed expansion is not off the table.

Neither is an Australian-themed expansion, but until we actually hear hints of this happening there's no reason for me to put Australian-themed Boomerang Jack class on the top of my list of potential classes.

I'm working off of 'what we know' not 'what can possibly happen'.

Spec is part of a class, so it's partially relevant.

Eh. Demonology Warlock having Metamorphosis is not a Demon Hunter, so this is debateable.

Again, years of Tinker fans saying we already had Demon Hunters because of Demonology. Excuse my jadedness, but I'm not drinking that coolaid of 'spec is part of a class'. It either gets called directly by name, or it's an aspect of that original class.

And to address the nuances of Legion examples you brought up; 'Beast Master' is a direct reference to Hunter specializations, and not the 'Beastmaster' class as we know it from Warcraft 3. Sure, WoWpedia says it can be called Beastmaster or Beast Master; but you know where that line is from? The RPG books. On top of this, Marksmanship Hunters in the same snippit are referred to as 'Marksmen', which means they're just using a short-form name to refer to the spec. It's not incorporating a separate Marksman Hero (which exists in the RPG books) that has their own abilities and themes.

We don't have a case where the WC3 Beastmaster concept, or Rexxar himself, is directly tied to the Hunter class. Simply referring to 'Beastmastery Hunter' as 'Beast Master' is not a case of tying it to the WC3 Hero concept, as we already know they didn't set out to make Mountain King and Chieftain classes, but a general Warrior class that shares themes with those both. That doesn't completely cover those Heroes identities, since we also have direct translations of other heroes like Paladins, Demon Hunters and Death Knights. We don't actually have a playable Mountain King or Tauren Chieftain in the game, we simply have a Warrior class that emulates their abilities to varying degrees.

Common sense.
Like you would combine a Tinker and an Alchemist.

Would you consider Monks as Alchemists since brewing is a significant part of Alchemy? I doubt it.
Common sense actually tells you that these aren't the same class just because they have *similar* themes.

No so far-fetched.
Let's just say 'expect to see Tyrande in Korthia'.

I'm open to ideas if Blizzard is willing to provide strong examples for it.

I'm happy to wait and see

Popularity and demand - Chen? I think you got you marbles mixed...

Pandaren were one of the most asked for race in Vanilla. You and I may not agree, but this is veritable fact by now, which is why we know Pandaren were planned for TBC. We have postmortem information on this.

Can't associate it to a well-known name, though. Except for Gribble, Krimple Proxmeasure or Peppy Wrongnozzle.

This plays into my point. A new class isn't going to bank on something obscure in the lore or generally overlooked by the fans. They're going to use something that is iconic, familiar and easy to understand. Even if it's something new we haven't seen it before, they'll tie it into something absolutely familiar, or at least bridge something in to familiarize it to us.

There simply are no major, well established Alchemists other than maybe Marin Noggenfogger and Putress from Wrath. As for Gnome Alchemists, there's practically no real notable names, and you'd have to dig into C-tier NPCs for any real examples. Who wants to play as Gribble or Wrongnozzle?

*Looks at the Monk*

Not everything is a hero class, you know.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, since I didn't say everything is a hero class.

There seems to be miscommunication here. I'm not quite sure what you have an issue with, since I didn't say everything should be a Hero class.

Who made you king to determine a Tinker is mediocre?

Miscommunication again. Where am I inferring Tinker is medioce?
I actually meant they passed up the Dark Ranger and Necromancer concepts to wait for a better concept LIKE the Tinker, which has more merit of being made into a playable class. It's the opposite of what you may think I have said.

I think you're being a little too liberal here.

Next class? could try to to guess it based on expansion speculation rather than popularity and demand.

Yes, and part of speculation involves anticipating what Blizzard would or would not pick, and analyzing why they might have internally chose X over Y.

If we're just talking about possibility without considering certain factors, then like you said, it's as pointless as considering Slavemaster as a legitimate potential class.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it has merit of being chosen to be developed into a class. It's not as simple as a matter of "Well it wasn't a Warcraft 3 Hero" to downplay its merits; we also have to consider a slew of other external factors.

That would just be wrong. There are other methods, you know.
Try to predict the expansion, for example.

It depends on what methods you're using.

So what methods are you using to suggest a Blademaster class, for example? Or an Alchemist class? If 'Warcraft 3' is your answer, then you're not really predicting, you're just correlating a pattern. It's no different than if I said 'the next class will be playable by Night Elf' because the last 3 Heroes were all playable by Night Elves. That is not predicting.

It is still an assortment of collections of users ideas about how the class will play. Because the RPG hasn't got much.

And a popular character applies to almost anyone. Let alone Sylavans and Tyrande. Blizzard converted all of the WC3 heroes into HotS characters. They are no exception.

---

Gul'dan is, pretty much, the basis for the class.

So I tied these two together to show you exactly what I mean.

Gul'dan is the basis for Warlocks, and you fully acknowledge this. So what abilities did Gul'dan have in the RTS games? Did he summon demons? Did he use affliction curses? Did he use fiery spells and shadow magic? No. He had zero abilities. He was represented by a WC3 Creep model that used Lightning magic and summoned Skeletons. Gul'dan was never shown to summon any demons, most of his lore portrayal involves soul-draining, sacrificial magic.

Gul'dan was simply a character who loosely represented a collection of archetypes. He wasn't any *one* established archetype. He was simply fit for any type of Fel-related concept. In fact, his most notable accomplishment in the lore was the creation of the Death Knights, a feat of Necromancy. It's not until we had a formal Warlock class that we actually retroactively applied what Gul'dan would have been if he were a playable character in the RTS games. Heroes of the Storm Gul'dan, for example, is all based on WoW's Warlock class. We have a case of retroactive continuity.


As for Dragonsworn, my example is Wrathion, prior to the introduction of a formal Dragon-themed class. So what does Wrathion do? Well, whatever the Dragon-themed class does, retroactively after it comes. Just like we see Arthas using Frost magic in Wrath of the Lich King even though he *NEVER* used Frost magic in Warcraft 3. We will associate those themes once they get formally added.

You don't see Monks, like Karazhim or Zenyatta for example, being embodied there.

Because Karazhim and Zenyatta weren't based on Pandarens. Pandarens are derived from Chinese culture, and that is the only connection the WoW Monk class has to it. Beyond that, any race can be a Monk, and they're not all tied to having to adopt Pandaren religion or culture in order to fight as a Monk. Chi is explained as an internalized form of Shamanistm, and like Martial arts it can be taught and trained, simple as that.

We don't actually have the nuanced lore of Druids or Paladins where certain races are adopting a particular cultural faith in order to use the magic. No one is adopting Pandaren culture (ie beliefs and religion) to use Monk abilities, it's simply training in the fighting style which they developed.

What the problem in doing it in one take?

Sometimes what I write may not be what I mean, and I have to change some statements to clarify. English is not my first language.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Ehhhh......

Warlocks in TFT used lighting spells and summoned skeletons. Pretty sure you don't want to use the TFT version of Warlocks as your example there, buddy.

Didn't realize Gul'dan did those things.

[username993720]

your point is "lore" but your argument have no lore, so is hypocrisy

Because everyone can be undead? Whoopy-fucking-doo.
It's a Dark Ranger for a reason.

and what background of high elves necromancers of dark rangers? this completely nonsensical you are using "yep, elf elf"

The fact that they are undead when they choose that class.
In Necromancy background, i would lean more towards the Banshee orientation - like Elves of all sorts.

is a shit background who make no sense and you should feel bad about even saying out loud

A background nonetheless.
Unlike you giving free classes, because of "reasons".

[Triceron]

Didn't realize Gul'dan did those things.

Oh, you're talking about Gul'dan?

You mean the Orc who used Necromancy to create the Death Knights in Warcraft 2 then, right? Which is what Warlocks are based on, yes? Using Necromancy?

Or the fact that Gul'dan was never actually shown in WC2 or WC3 summoning any demons?


Warlock in WoW is a mishmash concept. It takes demon summoning from Dreadlord and Eredar, Fiery AoE and Fear abilities from Pitlord, curses from Necromancers and Warlock Creeps, Banish from Blood Mages, Life Drain from Dark Rangers. There was no one unit or hero you could equate to a Warlock class. The Warlock class is itself a collection of concepts centered on a general (and loose) concept of Fel magic. Even back then they never really tied "Fel Magic" directly to the Warlock, the traditional Green Flame variety. It was just a much more general 'Dark' magic which could have included Necromancy, Void and any number of magical subthemes that we have clearly separated now.

[jellmoo]

Oh, I see. It needs to be playable. Glad we are able to move the goalposts to suit our own needs.

How can I be moving goalposts in a discussion you weren't even involved in? I was always talking about playable units from WC3.

In WoW, Warlocks have a spell called "Fire Bolt" in their spellbooks. Cripple was modified to Curse of Tongues (cripple was too powerful). Now you can directly compare them at your leisure!

So let me load up WoW and cast Fire Bolt and Cripple. Oh... wait... It's almost like it's not the Warlock that casts that at all.

In other news, warlocks were central to the storyline in TFT. Without a warlock, most of TFT would not be possible.

Never said or implied otherwise.

Warlocks were in warcraft before WoW. This is a fact.

Again, never said or implied otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

oh no, i don't mind something new, or changing something to be new, what im saying is completely bullshit to change something to make it worse and elf centric, like people are saying here.

I even said they could do something like Death knight and disponibilize to all races in undead form, which, would make way more sense than living beings being DK

I'm not particularly fond of Dark Rangers (I'm honestly tired of 'dark and edgy') but I do think that they absolutely could create a class out of it. Though I think it would be a mistake to make it Elf centric. We simply don't need a bevy of Elf centric classes in the game. I think going the Death Knight route would actually make the most sense, and essentially give fans of every race another solid ranged option, which is way better than just shoehorning in an exact replica of the Dark Ranger.

[username993720]

I agree.

Though if this what you mean, then what you originally brought up was a bad example, IMO. GC was neither confirming or denying the possibility, he was merely addressing a more general question of how he thinks Tinkers would fit in WoW. It's (paraphrasing) "I'm not sure. The original concept is a bit silly, so it depends on how that gets translated into WoW' which is a far more nuanced answer.

It's far more insightful and gives us an idea that they something like silliness of an original concept does have an impact on their consideration for design.

Damn, you write fast as hell.

'Not sure' is, exactly, what i meant. An answer which could be read by players either way. Essentially, a non-straight answer.

Neither is an Australian-themed expansion, but until we actually hear hints of this happening there's no reason for me to put Australian-themed Boomerang Jack class on the top of my list of potential classes.

I'm working off of 'what we know' not 'what can possibly happen'.

The magic word is 'again'.
If we had two death expansion, or two demonic expansions, even two off-world expansions, then a second asian-themed one is not a out of the question.

Eh. Demonology Warlock having Metamorphosis is not a Demon Hunter, so this is debateable.

Again, years of Tinker fans saying we already had Demon Hunters because of Demonology. Excuse my jadedness, but I'm not drinking that coolaid of 'spec is part of a class'. It either gets called directly by name, or it's an aspect of that original class.

And to address the nuances of Legion examples you brought up; 'Beast Master' is a direct reference to Hunter specializations, and not the 'Beastmaster' class as we know it from Warcraft 3. Sure, WoWpedia says it can be called Beastmaster or Beast Master; but you know where that line is from? The RPG books. On top of this, Marksmanship Hunters in the same snippit are referred to as 'Marksmen', which means they're just using a short-form name to refer to the spec. It's not incorporating a separate Marksman Hero (which exists in the RPG books) that has their own abilities and themes.

We don't have a case where the WC3 Beastmaster concept, or Rexxar himself, is directly tied to the Hunter class. Simply referring to 'Beastmastery Hunter' as 'Beast Master' is not a case of tying it to the WC3 Hero concept, as we already know they didn't set out to make Mountain King and Chieftain classes, but a general Warrior class that shares themes with those both. That doesn't completely cover those Heroes identities, since we also have direct translations of other heroes like Paladins, Demon Hunters and Death Knights. We don't actually have a playable Mountain King or Tauren Chieftain in the game, we simply have a Warrior class that emulates their abilities to varying degrees.

I didn't know how you got to it from what i wrote, but okay.

Never meant Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters in any way. Meant that a spec addition is very close in essence to a class addition. It's like Allied races - cutting down on time and effort.

Funny how you would consider the Brewmaster as a Monk spec, but not the Beastmaster as a Hunter spec. It is, clearly, the same situation with the name (and description) implying on its origins. And yes, we have - Hearthstone and WoW. Putting Rexxar in the Hunter class order hall and as a representative. I don't know where you got the idea that he isn't one.

Marsksmanship contained two archetypes - archer and sharpshooter. So, you can get an idea where they came from.

There are playable Tauren chieftain and Mountain King. Not good ones, though. If you'd use your analysis skills, you'd see that.

I think you are too afraid to label classes and specs, for some reason. Like it's not political correct or something. I can claim you can't play as a Death Knight, Monk or Demon Hunter because i don't like forced categorization. That wouldn't be true, though.

Would you consider Monks as Alchemists since brewing is a significant part of Alchemy? I doubt it.
Common sense actually tells you that these aren't the same class just because they have *similar* themes.

Brews were part of the Cooking profession. Not Alchemy. Know the difference.

I'm open to ideas if Blizzard is willing to provide strong examples for it.

I'm happy to wait and see

Go see my thread on the lore forum for that:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ia-and-Tyrande

Pandaren were one of the most asked for race in Vanilla. You and I may not agree, but this is veritable fact by now, which is why we know Pandaren were planned for TBC. We have postmortem information on this.

Then, where did the hate come from?

This plays into my point. A new class isn't going to bank on something obscure in the lore or generally overlooked by the fans. They're going to use something that is iconic, familiar and easy to understand. Even if it's something new we haven't seen it before, they'll tie it into something absolutely familiar, or at least bridge something in to familiarize it to us.

There simply are no major, well established Alchemists other than maybe Marin Noggenfogger and Putress from Wrath. As for Gnome Alchemists, there's practically no real notable names, and you'd have to dig into C-tier NPCs for any real examples. Who wants to play as Gribble or Wrongnozzle?

I didn't say they were the iconic race for it. They won't even be the representative one. Noggenfogger and Goblins will. But, it will definitely be available to them.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, since I didn't say everything is a hero class.

There seems to be miscommunication here. I'm not quite sure what you have an issue with, since I didn't say everything should be a Hero class.

Wanting every new class to be cool, epic and strong, like Demon Hunters and Death Knights.
And then, there is the Monk. So, not everything has to be one.

Miscommunication again. Where am I inferring Tinker is medioce?
I actually meant they passed up the Dark Ranger and Necromancer concepts to wait for a better concept LIKE the Tinker, which has more merit of being made into a playable class. It's the opposite of what you may think I have said.

You, clearly, called everything that is not cool, epic and strong mediocre. and that applied to the Tinker, which you considered comical.

Yes, and part of speculation involves anticipating what Blizzard would or would not pick, and analyzing why they might have internally chose X over Y.

If we're just talking about possibility without considering certain factors, then like you said, it's as pointless as considering Slavemaster as a legitimate potential class.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it has merit of being chosen to be developed into a class. It's not as simple as a matter of "Well it wasn't a Warcraft 3 Hero" to downplay its merits; we also have to consider a slew of other external factors.

There's a limit to how many classes you can attribute to a certain expansion.

It depends on what methods you're using.

So what methods are you using to suggest a Blademaster class, for example? Or an Alchemist class? If 'Warcraft 3' is your answer, then you're not really predicting, you're just correlating a pattern. It's no different than if I said 'the next class will be playable by Night Elf' because the last 3 Heroes were all playable by Night Elves. That is not predicting.

I don't. There aren't any expansions on the horizon that i can attribute them to.
To the Light and Void, i can only attribute the Shadow Hunter.
To the Dragon Isles, nothing really. Because i don't believe in Dragonsworn.
I use a certain method to predict expansions:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ure-expansions

So I tied these two together to show you exactly what I mean.

Gul'dan is the basis for Warlocks, and you fully acknowledge this. So what abilities did Gul'dan have in the RTS games? Did he summon demons? Did he use affliction curses? Did he use fiery spells and shadow magic? No. He had zero abilities. He was represented by a WC3 Creep model that used Lightning magic and summoned Skeletons.

Gul'dan was simply a character who loosely represented a collection of archetypes. He wasn't any *one* established archetype. He was simply fit for any type of Fel-related concept. It's not until we had a formal Warlock class that we actually retroactively applied what Gul'dan would have been if he were a playable character in the RTS games. Heroes of the Storm Gul'dan, for example, is all based on WoW's Warlock class. We have a case of retroactive continuity.


As for Dragonsworn, my example is Wrathion, prior to the introduction of a formal Dragon-themed class. So what does Wrathion do? Well, whatever the Dragon-themed class does, retroactively after it comes. Just like we see Arthas using Frost magic in Wrath of the Lich King even though he *NEVER* used Frost magic in Warcraft 3. We will associate those themes once they get formally added.

Interesting fact: Wrathion was present in BFA's beta Alliance Embassy, probably to introduce an Allied race.

Because Karazhim and Zenyatta weren't based on Pandarens. Pandarens are derived from Chinese culture, and that is the only connection the WoW Monk class has to it. Beyond that, any race can be a Monk, and they're not all tied to having to adopt Pandaren religion or culture in order to fight as a Monk. Chi is explained as an internalized form of Shamanistm which can be taught and trained, simple as that.

Pretty much, confirming what i said.
And yes. Every other race that adopts the Monk learns Pandaren Martial Arts.

Sometimes what I write may not be what I mean, and I have to change some statements to clarify. English is not my first language.

Neither is mine, but i do small grammatical corrections, not whole paragraphs.

Even back then they never really tied "Fel Magic" directly to the Warlock, the traditional Green Flame variety.

I'm not particularly fond of Dark Rangers (I'm honestly tired of 'dark and edgy') but I do think that they absolutely could create a class out of it. Though I think it would be a mistake to make it Elf centric. We simply don't need a bevy of Elf centric classes in the game. I think going the Death Knight route would actually make the most sense, and essentially give fans of every race another solid ranged option, which is way better than just shoehorning in an exact replica of the Dark Ranger.

But, what about different lore background for the different race that differentiate them between one another?

Even second generation of Human Death Knights were different from the first generation of Orc Death Knights.

Just giving it to everyone without explanation, or a short simple one, just makes everything bland.

[Ielenia]

You got caught up in the types word.

I'm both pointing out your misuse of it, and explaining that whichever meaning you ascribe to it, you're still wrong because the differences you claim exist between "vanilla classes" and "expansion classes" do not exist.

Of course it is the basis of it. Chen's the representative.

That's a non-sequitur. Chen being the "representative" of the class in the game does not mean that the WC3 unit was made as the basis for the monk class. A NPC being used as a representative for a playable class does not mean said NPC was used as a basis for said class.

As I pointed out: a strong argument can be made that the WC3 unit was just used as flavor for the concept.

- - - Updated - - -

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BelatedDevotedAustralianshelduck-size_restricted.gif

That's a demon, not a warlock. All demons use demon magic (a.k.a. fel magic).