Class Skins would add many new classes and be a major draw for a new expansion

[Triceron]

Well then we're talking about two entirely different things. You don't play lore, you play mechanics. Essentially you're making the argument for a Necromancer to just be a class skin of the Warlock class, because all it would take to turn a demon into a construct is a reskin.

Then you're saying we don't need more healers because we have healers.

Again, your mechanics argument is being used to dismiss overlap, so that means it also works to dismiss entire roles. The argument itself wouldn't allow any new class playable at all if you are talking mechanics.

Can you provide one example of a new class that would have zero overlap with existing mechanics?

[LedZeppelin]

Druid -> Tinker is the way to go

[Teriz]

Then you're saying we don't need more healers because we have healers.

Nope, because classes should have a healing spec based on thematics. If we have an science-based healer that is not using mana and is shooting healing darts and lobbing bio bombs at people, that's not the same thing as Druid or Shaman healer.

Again, your mechanics argument is being used to dismiss overlap, so that means it also works to dismiss entire roles. The argument itself wouldn't allow any new class playable at all if you are talking mechanics.

Yeah, no it doesn't. If your entire justification for a Necromancer class is vile minions, rituals, and diseases/afflictions, we already have a Warlock class that does that. It has nothing to do with the Warlock's roles in a group, it has to do with the necromancer being mechanically and thematically redundant.

Can you provide one example of a new class that would have zero overlap with existing mechanics?

Again, it's the thematics AND the mechanics.

[Soikona]

Do we want to? Depends on how you subjectively value the importance of the Necromancer and its themes in terms of what unique things could be brought to the table. Some people thing Unholy, Frost and Blood are the only themes they could use and it's an immediate problem. Yet DKs and Mages sharing a literal Frost spec that sources Lich spells, and no one bats an eye. Or how we're quite comfortable when Priests and Paladins share more similarities in mechanics and lore than actual differences.

It depends on what the Necromancer explores in terms of abilities and mechanics, and that will prove itself more than some nebulous concept of a 'Unholy, Frost and Blood spellcaster variation' that most arguments are focused against.

I can agree with that, I would just hate to see another class or spec get the same treatment as demo lock. I personally think a ranged class with a healing OS would be great. DH showed it’s possible to have a 2 spec class, so why not one for necro. As long as it doesn’t take too much away.

The biggest question though, is what expansion theme would be best to introduce one? Surely one based on death would have been the best time?

[draugril]

What would this "gap" be exactly?

Necromancer. And not Necromancer-by-technicality.

[Triceron]

Nope, because classes should have a healing spec based on thematics. If we have an science-based healer that is not using mana and is shooting healing darts and lobbing bio bombs at people, that's not the same thing as Druid or Shaman healer.

Sure, but the spell still recovers health right? So if it does then it's a healing spell. Your argument is if we have healers then we don't need more healers, because theres no mechanical difference to how the spell heals.

Undead constructs could be created by Fleshcrafting instead of Mana and Ritual summoning. Fleshcrafting would be similar to the Fleshcraft ability that sources nearby corpses rather than personal resource. Yet your argument wasn't about how they are created, you were saying a pet is no different from any pet other than Hunters, so that means any heal spell would be the same as any other heal regardless of the resource mechanics.

Yeah, no it doesn't. If your entire justification for a Necromancer class is vile minions, rituals, and diseases/afflictions, we already have a Warlock class that does that.

Unlike the Warlock, the Necromancer isn't inherrantly evil. Shadowlands has turned that around quite a bit. Being undead or creating undead is no longer typified as specifically being evil, just regarded an aspect of manipulating death magic.

And the difference is Necromancers that focus on Constructs do not create them with rituals; they Fleshcraft instead. Rituals and Constructs are two different Houses. Warlocks do all of their summoning through ritual only. Necromancers can Fleshcraft instead. And overall, is there much of a difference between Warlocks using rituals to summon undead and Shadow Priests summoning Shadowfiends?

- - - Updated - - -

I can agree with that, I would just hate to see another class or spec get the same treatment as demo lock. I personally think a ranged class with a healing OS would be great. DH showed it’s possible to have a 2 spec class, so why not one for necro. As long as it doesn’t take too much away.

The biggest question though, is what expansion theme would be best to introduce one? Surely one based on death would have been the best time?

I would like to say that I'm also one of the people who do not care much for or expect a Necromancer class, but I can see value in having one and there being room and potential for one regardless of my personal tastes. I think it's more in Blizzard's own interest that they would want to pursue something completely different more than they would want to create a Necromancer.

That being said, I think they can fit it into practically any expansion, including the next. Look at how Allied Races gave us playable Highmountains and Nightborne the expansion after they were introduced. Most of the time you either get a class/race added immediately in that expansion, or not at all. Here, we have a case where we're looking at a ton of Necromantic Borrowed Power mechanics being dropped once Shadowlands is done, and we all come out with a new-found respect for the Afterlife and the denizens of the dead, who aren't as 'evil' as we once thought they would all be. It's not just all rejects from the Cult of the Damned or cannabilistic Blood Trolls any more.

And there's traditionally two ways to add a new class. Either you have someone friendly introduce them because they're cool, or you bring them in because they specialize in fighting against the new enemy. Necromancers specialize in manipulating life magic and the undead are resistant to certain things like Charms or Mind Control, so it'd be ideal to fight against say some big new threat that is spreading mind control or poisons, etc. That being said, multiple things can all fit that loose archetype; like Tinkers with tech that is immune to charms, or Bards that could provide music that counter-acts those effects. I'm typically an out-of-the-box thinker, so don't mind me if my examples are a tad 'unrealistic'.

[Lady Atia]

Take Death Knight for example then.

It's based on Arthas from Warcraft 3 right?

And he had 4 abilities in WC3, all of which were Unholy spells. So where does Frost magic come from? Where does Blood magic come from? It comes from other classes, other sources of magic. The WoW DK is more than just 'Arthas', he is also part Lich and part Dreadlord and part WC2 Death Knight and part Necromancer and part Runemaster. They are all over the place too when you look at how the full class was designed. Yet it is united by one common thread - Arthas' Influence over those new themes and powers.

When I point out the Necromancer concept, it is going to be based on Kel'thuzad, and more than just Kel'thuzad. It would be Kel when he was a mage of the Kirin Tor aspiring to learn neceomancy, Kel as Headmaster of Scholomance, Kel as leader of the Cult of the Damned, Kel when he became a Lich and Majordomo of the Lich King, Kel when he was commander of Naxxramas, Kel when he was Lich-lord of the Plaguelands, Kel when he was champion in the Nexus, and Kel as the lieutenant of the Jailer.

Everything that mentioned from using Alchemy to spread plagues and blight, summoning vermin and pests, experimenting on spores, creating various types of undead constructs, and ascending to Lichdom is all derived from Kel'thuzad and everything that was housed in Naxxramas, his personal floating citadel. Each Wing was a representation of various domains he had influence over, and it all ties back to a wider depiction of what a Necromancer is capable of.

Same as how the DK's 3 specs are all represented by Icecrown Citadel's three wings, each having characters that further a domain that Arthas has influence over. Blood, Frost and Unholy are all represented here. Naxxramas is the seat of power that informs what a Necromancer is all about, and even beyond that we have Scholomance having shown us what Necromancers are capable of.

It all comes full circle back to Kel'thuzad influencing the use of these domains, and portraying what a Necromancer is capable of beyond a direct show of power. Necromancers are masters of subtlety and attrition. Patience is their ally, and Necromancers excel in the slow decay of things and making their methods the most effective way of Spreading death and decay. Not by a show of force and a strong arm, but through attrition and manipulation. Poisons and plagues, spiders and vermin, endless armies of undead and the ascendancy into an undead form that persists beyond death is all thematic to what a Necromancer is all about. And yes, they can pull from more than just Kel'thuzads own abilities, because the Necromancer is not just a representation of him as a character, but a representation of his influence. Just as the player DK is not just representing Arthas and Arthas was not just an Unholy DK as he was on WC3; the player class represented his influence over other domains such as Frost powers and raising Frost Wyrms, or Blood Magic and the creation of the San'layn. These are all ties back to the DK class and where their powers originate from.

Great post - now I wonder if we could take Class Skins one step further even and use different specs from different original classes as base for the new ones. Like take the Necromancer as an example - I could see them using Affliction Warlock, Demology Warlock aswell as Holy Priest (bear with me) as base specs. The warlock ones are easy enough to reskin - switch demons with undeads aswell as re-skin all fel related spells . For holy priest - well they would need more work on that one but it could all be done via cosmeting changes only. The current angel/valkyr mechanic could turn your healing Necromancer into a Lich! How awesome would that be?

Priestess of the Moon could be done similiary with a mix of Survival/Beastmastery and Heal Shaman. Similiary the Dark Ranger could get the mentioned possible healing spec this way. Bladmaster could mix Brewmaster/Windwalker/Combat Rogue.

Of course this *could* be a counter argument to "but less balancing", that said I think it wouldn't be too game breaking to switch some of the specs around as you can only play one anyways.

[Triceron]

Great post - now I wonder if we could take Class Skins one step further even and use different specs from different original classes as base for the new ones. Like take the Necromancer as an example - I could see them using Affliction Warlock, Demology Warlock aswell as Holy Priest (bear with me) as base specs. The warlock ones are easy enough to reskin - switch demons with undeads aswell as re-skin all fel related spells . For holy priest - well they would need more work on that one but it could all be done via cosmeting changes only. The current angel/valkyr mechanic could turn your healing Necromancer into a Lich! How awesome would that be?

I played around with the idea, and I think it has a lot of merit since there's a lot that can be gained by mixing and matching specs.

The one problem I ran into though is how to form the 'core class', because there are so many unique abilities that a spec ties back into the class mechanics, and changing them would bring up potential balance issues. Like Balance is built into Druid gameplay, and they have talents that play into boosting effectiveness of Healing Touch, or boosting the use of Forms outside of DPS. So if you straight up take Balance out and adapt the spec, do you also have to bring in the heals and other forms? Do you leave out the Travel Forms? Do you leave out Mark of the Wild buffs, Battle Res and out-of-combat Ressurections?

It's a bit tricky to tackle because deviating from the class will upset certain aspects of balance, while accomodating them all will also bloat the class skin with way too much material.

I think the best way to balance it out so far is to have them be dedicated to classes, and simply opt to leave out certain specs and cut it down to being a 2-spec class if need be; with the potential on expanding or diverging gameplay in the future. Like if we really looked at Rogues or Mages, I don't think they would really 'break' if we opted to cut out one spec completely. Keep all the Core spells that each class gets, but just trim everything specific to the Spec. So if you say cut out Mistweaver from Monks, then Brewmaster and Windwalker would still have Vivify and Resuscitate because they're core abilities. Then apply all of that to the Class Skin, while the devs can tackle whether they choose to keep or remove those heal abilities (depending on the Class Skin fantasy).

[Teriz]

Sure, but the spell still recovers health right? So if it does then it's a healing spell. Your argument is if we have healers then we don't need more healers, because theres no mechanical difference to how the spell heals.

Uh no. We need more healers because healing is a class role. Role is a separate discussion, and since there's only three roles, overlap is not an issue because we need multiples of classes doing the three roles in order to give diversity to the game.

Do we need another dark caster class that does rituals, has pets, and spread diseases? Not really.

Undead constructs could be created by Fleshcrafting instead of Mana and Ritual summoning. Fleshcrafting would be similar to the Fleshcraft ability that sources nearby corpses rather than personal resource.

DKs had a similar mechanic in WotLK through Cata, and it had to be changed because it sucked.

[Ielenia]

An association with the artic continent Northrend and the Lich King. Arthas wielded Frostmourne and became the Lich King at the end of WC3. He was also placed on the frozen throne. All of that ties the concept to ice and frost.

That's like saying humans should have storm-based powers because they live in Stormwind. Or dwarves should have metal and fire powers because they live in Ironforge. "Living somewhere" does not mean the character gains powers related to where they are living.

[Lady Atia]

I played around with the idea, and I think it has a lot of merit since there's a lot that can be gained by mixing and matching specs.

The one problem I ran into though is how to form the 'core class', because there are so many unique abilities that a spec ties back into the class mechanics, and changing them would bring up potential balance issues. Like Balance is built into Druid gameplay, and they have talents that play into boosting effectiveness of Healing Touch, or boosting the use of Forms outside of DPS. So if you straight up take Balance out and adapt the spec, do you also have to bring in the heals and other forms? Do you leave out the Travel Forms? Do you leave out Mark of the Wild buffs, Battle Res and out-of-combat Ressurections?

It's a bit tricky to tackle because deviating from the class will upset certain aspects of balance, while accomodating them all will also bloat the class skin with way too much material.

I think the best way to balance it out so far is to have them be dedicated to classes, and simply opt to leave out certain specs and cut it down to being a 2-spec class if need be; with the potential on expanding or diverging gameplay in the future.

Well they could either redo talents so they only affect spec specific abilities, or give you the druid abilities only for your druid specs - basically leaving the class without "core abilites" as current classes have them. Or you give all the baseline abilities from one or both classes to the new one, which could be done but would ultimately lead to balance issues again.

I also thought about the problem of having different armour classes between specs, but in the end this would just be a drawback to playing a skin - you have access to new spec combis, but you may have to farm a second set of gear if you wanna play all the specs.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, because Priests utilize Holy magic as well, and the Priest shadow magic is Old God based shadow, whereas Warlock is Demonic-based with some other attributes that bleed into Necromancy like Drain Life and Soul Stone.

But, according to your logic, "everything warlocks do can already be done by other classes". Shadow magic, summoning pets, spreading dots, etc. Priests being able to use holy magic is meaningless, in this regard.

Otherwise, it opens the argument that if the necromancer concept does something that no other class can, however small, is enough to justify it as its own standalone playable class.

[username993720]

Why when they fit perfectly as a class that has 3 specs?

There are multiple Necromancer class concepts floating around right now. There are two in the Next Class thread you can check right now, take your pick.

I don't see why you think Necromancer would just be a Spec as a part of some bigger class. Is that how you think classes are designed?

You said it.
Just describe a Necromancer class and its specializations.

Doesn't matter what is based on what. Both Frost Mage and Frost DK double dip into WC3 Lich anyways, I don't see you fussing.

More of an Archmage (with the exception of Frost Nova).

I didn't even suggest Necromancers using any Frost powers in Lich form because WoW has established that not all Liches use frost. There are also Blood Troll Liches or Death-based Liches who focus on summoning undead too. Lich form is treated as a power boost. Shadowlands has opened up their lore significantly, and Chronicles 3 has its own small section dedicated to explaining Liches.

Agreed, they also have necromantic powers.
Lichborne is one such power boost. Unfortunately, it's not represented in the animation.

Necromancers can have a Lich form that suits any style of gameplay needed. Blood-based Lich form for healing and health transfers, Ritual based Liches for Death magic and summoning, classic Shadow-frost Liches like Kel'thuzad or Lady Deathwhisper, etc. If you're talking about specs, you're talking about gameplay mechanics, not lore. Specs are based on mechanics first, while lore is just used to explain the mechanics.

First, you have to find a blood manipulating lich. And, associating troll liches with the others isn't right. Undead trolls differ from other undead, as they are associated with voodoo and loa.

Look at Demon Hunter design. Vengeance DH is just an expression of Tanking mechanics with a 'skin' on top that tied back to the Demon Hunter theme. The Tanking spec could have looked exactly like the same Shadow-Illidan form we've seen before, instead they're completely new and not based on ANYTHING we've seen in Warcraft. Vengeance form does not come directly from Illidan, or any other established demon hunter. Blizzard effectively invented a wingless Tanking Demon form. So in comparison, why couldn't we assume Blizzard could create new types of Lich forms for Necromancer that aren't solely based on Kel'thuzad, especially given that we have multiple types of Liches already in the game?

Never said there was something wrong with different types of liches. The difference in Havoc and Vengeance forms is to distinguish between the two. Just like a Bear can DPS, but it doesn't mean they should be representatives of the Feral spec too.

Gonna shift this pivot a bit, because I do not agree with this adhereance to any one concept.

The Druid class is clearly based around Malfurion, would you agree? So Druids should be able to do everything Malfurion could, and he was expressed as an Archdruid that had Keeper of the Grove abilities. Yet in WC3, he had no access to any forms. He was not a Bear Druid or a Storm Crow Druid. He was a nature-based ArchDruid.

So if you said Druid class is based on Malfurion, he would represent just the Restoration spec (and very loosely for that matter) because it is the most Nature-centric without forms (circa Vanilla). So where does Guardian/Feral and Balance come from? Other units. Other sources that are not solely Malfurion.

Malfurion didn't go through several iterations. He was a just a Druid. Kel'thuzad managed to be a Mage, a Necromancer and a Lich in his life time. that's 3 different "classes". The Mage isn't part of the Necromancer and the Lich's frost powers aren't part of their toolkit. Meanwhile, a Druid of the Claw or Talon is a Druid.

This is why I am explaining the Necromancer can be designed more openly than just one Hero to base it on. This is why Nerubians or Spiders can be added. This is why I believe classic alchemy-based Necromancers like Heigan who created the Blight and Plagues of Plaguelands can be a source of inspiration for a spec.

The alchemy i can understand. The Nerubians are an enslaved spider race. It's not like they learned to use their abilities (especially since they're not spiders themselves).

Both Naxxramas and Maldraxxus doubles down on the basic themes of Necromancerd - Rituals, Plagues and Constructs. Yet if I mention Naxxramas all you can think of is a Frost Connection? Why? Because you're too focused on a pure Kel'thuxad connection rather than seeing a class as being much more open than that. Otherwise a Druid would not have multiple Specs with Forms if we consider that Malfurion is the ideal Druid, and he never shapeshifted until we saw him in BFA.

Arachnid Quarter - Nerubians/spiders. I find it hard to believe they started mastering this race and its abilities

Plague Quarter - Undead creatures. a Necromantic aspect found in Death Knights.

Military Quarter - mostly Death Knights.

Construct Quarter - Undead Constructs. Also part of the Death Knight kit.

That is why people desire the Necromancer - it is a blindspot in the Warlock's repertoire, not reflected in the de facto fantasy.

You should take a look at Affliction. And, of course, Unholy.

A Necromancer could different multiple ways from a DK. I would see it having 3 specs: a minion swarming spec, a plague/disease dot spec, and a healing spec.

Undead swarming spec would be similar to legion Warlocks with the imps. No "strong monsters," just disposable skeletons, some of which could be mages, some melee, hitting your target. The plague spec could have dots that stack and once they get stacked high mutates into an infection for burst damage, and the healing spec could be one where you heal someone but do damage to yourself and then you either have to drain lifeforce out of an enemy or the ground to heal yourself so you have the play pattern of heal an ally, take dmg yourself, then heal yourself. Obviously these would need to be examined in an environment see if they fit into the game and are fun, but there is definitely room in the game for it.

Already covered by the Death Knight.
Except for the healing part, which is out of place.

Give me any Druid spell or ability that you believe cannot be re-skinned to fit the Tinker theme

You can skin everything you want. It's still won't be it.

No, they're meaningless. I have explained more than once already the reason for my comparison of class skins to allied races. You refuse to acknowledge it, and instead supplant my own comparison to yours and attack my arguments based on your own comparison to allied races.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: class skins are about cosmetic changes to bring new fantasies to the playable roster, with no changes to gameplay or how abilities work.

If you choose to, once again, ignore this fact and continue to argue against something I am not arguing for, then I'll just dismiss you as being dishonest (which I'm very close to doing, mind you) and end the discussion.

I know what it means. But, you simply discard racial abilities like they do not hold any substantial abilities.

No. It's based on an unexplored concept. This "single blood troll NPC ability you cannot even find" is just an example I give to those who claim that "it must currently exist in WoW outside of a player class".

Oh, so your imagination.

Irrelevant. I never claimed my class concept is a worshiper of G'huun or Bwonsamdi.

If it is reliant on a Blood Troll NPC, then it is.

Druid -> Tinker is the way to go

If you want a complete failure.

Priestess of the Moon could be done similiary with a mix of Survival/Beastmastery and Heal Shaman. Similiary the Dark Ranger could get the mentioned possible healing spec this way. Bladmaster could mix Brewmaster/Windwalker/Combat Rogue.

Nice try.

[Triceron]

Uh no. We need more healers because healing is a class role. Role is a separate discussion, and since there's only three roles, overlap is not an issue because we need multiples of classes doing the three roles in order to give diversity to the game.

Roles are gameplay mechanics, and if you're arguing that mechanics should not overlap because we already have them covered, then you're arguing that the role is already filled. The nuances are negligible because you're basing it down to generalizations anyways; do we need pet DPS when we already have DPS? Do we need X AoE heal mechanic when we already have Y AoE heal mechanic? It boils down to the roles no matter how you look at it.

It's an argument that implies we don't need any more classes because we already have classes.

DKs had a similar mechanic in WotLK through Cata, and it had to be changed because it sucked.

And they made a new one for Covenants that works and doesn't suck.


Dark Apotheosis was a Demon Form for tanking that sucks for raiding. Doesn't mean that they couldn't build a class and spec around using Demon Form for tanking.

[Ielenia]

Any pet you summon can be considered a construct.

Seriously!?

Are you being serious, right now? Are you sure you're not just trolling us? What kind of argument is that? "Anything you summon can be considered a construct". That's absurd and even Mister Fantastic would strain hard to reach that far.

[Triceron]

Well they could either redo talents so they only affect spec specific abilities, or give you the druid abilities only for your druid specs - basically leaving the class without "core abilites" as current classes have them. Or you give all the baseline abilities from one or both classes to the new one, which could be done but would ultimately lead to balance issues again.

I also thought about the problem of having different armour classes between specs, but in the end this would just be a drawback to playing a skin - you have access to new spec combis, but you may have to farm a second set of gear if you wanna play all the specs.

Ah, and one more I left out that might be a concern- Resource mechanics.

Some specs are mana-based, others aren't. Might be an issue if you're mix-matching and don't want the complications of balancing multiple resource mechanics within the same class. I mean it'd work for some classes that already have unique resource mechanics for each spec (Druids) but it might get weird for others. Runemaster mixing Monks and DK's migh get a big weird if you start mixing Chi mechanics for one spec with a Runic Power bar for the next.

[Ielenia]

I know what it means. But, you simply discard racial abilities like they do not hold any substantial abilities.

I literally said that I discard them because of the reasons I've repeated more than once.

Oh, so your imagination.

So what? At least I have some imagination to come up with more original concepts?

If it is reliant on a Blood Troll NPC, then it is.

... Are you trolling? I just said it's not reliant.

And since you've proven, without a shadow of doubt that you're not willing to be honest in this discussion, by still misrepresenting what I'm saying despite multiple clarifications, this is my last response to you.

[username993720]

I literally said that I discard them because of the reasons I've repeated more than once.

That's the mistake. Especially if you're comparing the feature to them.

So what? At least I have some imagination to come up with more original concepts?

So can a 4 year old. The question is, does it fit WoW's lore?

... Are you trolling? I just said it's not reliant.

So, don't use it as an example.

And since you've proven, without a shadow of doubt that you're not willing to be honest in this discussion, by still misrepresenting what I'm saying despite multiple clarifications, this is my last response to you.

Very well.

[LedZeppelin]

Nah come on guys are being to hard on yourselves. the only way tinker gets into wow is if they add it to the druid class.

[Triceron]

You said it.
Just describe a Necromancer class and its specializations.

Necrolords covenants already addresses this.

House of Rituals - traditional spellcasting and Death magic. Ritual summoned undead like Skeletons, spellcasting like your typical shadow spells, Death-based spells and debuffs, and ascendancy into Lichdom. Your traditional WC3 Necromancer archetype

House of Plagues - Alchemical creation of Poisons and plagues. Necromancers here aim to create the perfect plague to spread death. The spec is based on mastering the craft of perfecting the poisons, not simply the application and spread of it. Create oozes that trail puddles of poison, summon spider swarms that inject venom and rats that spread plague, or drop a giant Plague Cauldron in the battlefield that spreads poisons and generates even more oozes over time. Instead of traditional DoT effects, this spec is more centered on creating plague puddles on the ground and using your minions to maneuver and keep them standing in it.

House of Constructs - Fleshcrafting and animacy. Customize and create your Minion army. Your minions get auto-generated instead of summoned, and you get to choose which minions comprise your army. Take inspiration from Autochess, being able to mix and match your army composition for different situations. Do you want multiple Sludgebelchers to tank and spread AoE poisons? Or maybe you need more single-target DPS and swap them out for scythe-wielding Bone Golems.


The Houses in Maldraxxus are not inherrently 'Death Knight' themed, and have plenty of Necromancers and Liches within each House. And again, even if DK has some relation to these Houses or themes, it does not mean it's automatically a 'Death Knight theme'. Overlap exists with all sorts of classes, and you still think a Priestess of the Moon can be its own class despite using the same Moon magic that Balance Druids use, and using the same Owl Pets and using the same Bows that a Hunter does. These are not exclusive to any one class, would you agree?

Malfurion didn't go through several iterations. He was a just a Druid. Kel'thuzad managed to be a Mage, a Necromancer and a Lich in his life time. that's 3 different "classes". The Mage isn't part of the Necromancer and the Lich's frost powers aren't part of their toolkit. Meanwhile, a Druid of the Claw or Talon is a Druid.

Heigan the Unclean is a Necromancer. Maldraxxus Necromancers of the various Houses are still Necromancers. Grand Widow Faerlina bred spiders for the Cult of the Damned.

I don't see why you're dismissing these as themes when they are all related back to Necromancers and Kel'thuzad. You're just pointing out that DK's also use Plagues and Minions. Well yeah, and I'll also point out that all of the DK's necromancy comes directly from their Runeblades, and they do zero ritual summoning of minions or fleshcrafting to create them. They are literally channeling Necromancy through Runeblades to spread plagues and raise minions. Just look at the animation for Army of the Dead, you raise your sword into the air and bolts shoot into the ground to raise undead.. They wouldn't use any alchemically or poisons to spread plagues, they do so through their Runeblades. They summon skeletons, ghouls and Aboms, but they wouldn't spend time perfecting the creation of the perfect construct. Naxxramas' various wings all display what the necromancer Kel'thuzad and the Cult of the Damned aim to master, well beyond the Death Knights of the Ebon Blade.

What is the theme of the Construct wing? It's the creation of the perfect Construct, which culminates to facing the Flesh Titan, Thaddius. Would DK's ever aspire to creating something like this? No, they wouldn't. They value their minions as tools for the job, and care little of mastering the craft of creating a better construct. They're supplementary to their Sword attacks and Runic spells.

What is the theme of the Plague wing? It's creating the perfect plague and experimenting on various flora and fauna to do so. This culminates in Loatheb, a giant Fungal monstrosity and failed experiment that has incredible healing properties. Would Death Knights experiment on creating plagues? No. Plagues are simply valued as tools they use to supplement their martial combat skills. They aren't interested in creating a more effective Plague, or using Alchemy to do so. They actually employ Necromancers and Apothecaries to do the research for them.

It's the same difference you have between Mages not being Necromancers. Necromancers are not Death Knights. Necromancers do not use Runeblades, and Runeblades are the one defining aspect of the Death Knight and all of its mechanics. When you're casting any DK spell, how are you doing it? You're tapping Runes and spending Runic Power. It's all about their Runeblade.

"They have a personal connection with their blades, and can forge runes into them in order to increase their power, these runeblades are empowered with dark magic and they can expend the power of their runes for vicious attacks."

This is why a Necromantic Spellcaster is different thematically from a Death Knight, because even the lore is clear that DK's channel necromancy as a tool to aid their combat skills, while Necromancers use *more than* just Necromantic magic (Fleshcrafting, Alchemy, experimenting on Flora/Fauna) for the pursuit of mastering the art of (un)Death.