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

[Ielenia]

Only if humans all got a weapon called Lighting staff and owned houses made out of clouds.

You do know that "all" death knights did not get Frostmourne, right? Also, Jaina did get the Storm-Stave of Antonidas at some point. By your logic, all humans should have storm powers.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're really going to make that sort of hilarious leap, then I guess we're done here.

"Hilarious leap".
Also says this in the exact same thread barely five hours ago:

Any pet you summon can be considered a construct.

- - - Updated - - -

Druids can stay in animal form all the time, while Demon Hunters can remain in demon form only temporarily. That has been the differences between Druids and DHs since WC3. Additionally (once again) no other class could bring demonic melee to the table.

And yet the mechanic already existed in the form of the Enhancement Shaman's Ascendance talent, which is exactly what you said it did "remaining in shapeshift form temporarily", and on top of that, it does exactly what the metamorphosis from WC3 did: transformed the character from a melee to a ranged character.

[Triceron]

Yes. It does. Because technology can do damn near anything. We have spaceships and lasers and rockets and teleportation, miniaturization and all things in between being done via technology. Permanent stealth as a means for somebody to gain an advantage in a fight is exactly the sort of thing a tech master would do.

It actually fits Feral quite well, as it works practically the same as the Engineering invisibility. Both are only activated out-of-combat, both are permanent until revealed, and the only real difference is Feral has some Opener mechanics tied to the combat. Outside of that, you don't really stealth back into combat once you've engaged in it; you stay revealed for the rest of the fight or until you leave combat. And Druids don't have 'Vanish' ability so they can't restealth anyways. Hell, they even got rid of the positional combat mechanics, so it plays like a typical phys-melee Brawler class.

[Alanar]

Of course we're done, because you can't even properly explain or defend your bogus argument. It's a stupid argument and I'm glad I pointed out how absurd it is.

It all boils down to saying 'We don't need X because we already have it in the game', and that can be applied to specific abilities, roles or even entire classes. They're all defined by gameplay mechanics. It's undermining the addition of any new class because you can simply shift the goalpost to some broader metric, until it's applied to an entire class.

That is true, as one blue post once said: All classes are doing the exact same thing, they just do it differently.

[Djaye]

they cant balance or make relevent the 32 specs they have now, why the heck do people want to bloat the bloat?

druids are the antithesis of tinkers. druids exist in a harmonious balance with nature for their power. tinkers/mechanical engineering is the opposite of nature and consume it to exist. so STOP putting the two together, its beyond stupid.

if anything, they should put in a hybrid system where once you get to max level in your class/spec, you can train and learn a new classes spec with limited skill set.
they are never going to get shit balanced anyway. might as well open the flood gates.
i supposed you could stick to lore and limit the options for second class adoption, like lock druids, DK priests and priest DH.
no need for new powers then, as you get choice of whatever specs main abilities.
just the story quests alone could make up an entire expansion with 11-32 unique possible stories to play through.

wont happen, but might be nice. no matter retail is on fire, classic is saving WoW's ass right now. And it will continue to do so for many years at their current release model.

[Teriz]

It is! Literally, that's it. And it's utterly core to the archetype. And it's not playable.

We have a dark sorcerer class. We have a class with undead minions. But the dark sorcerer does not have undead minions, and the undead minions belong to a class that is not a dark sorcerer.

There is a gap here. I can admit to that, even if I don't think it is a gap that warrants an entirely new class.

So you’re telling me that someone is missing out on the Necromancer fantasy because they’re summoning a menagerie of demons instead of a menagerie of undead?

Gameplay is there. The aesthetic is there. The lore is there. However there’s a gap because you’re looking at an imp instead of a skeleton, or an Felguard instead of an Abomination?

Couldn’t we just fix this with a glyph?

- - - Updated - - -

You do know that "all" death knights did not get Frostmourne, right? Also, Jaina did get the Storm-Stave of Antonidas at some point. By your logic, all humans should have storm powers.

Jaina didn’t create humans in WC. Arthas/Lich King did create the Death Knights of the WoW class.

And yet the mechanic already existed in the form of the Enhancement Shaman's Ascendance talent, which is exactly what you said it did "remaining in shapeshift form temporarily", and on top of that, it does exactly what the metamorphosis from WC3 did: transformed the character from a melee to a ranged character.

Again, there’s a difference between a core ability and a talent. Metamorphosis permeates throughout the DH class in multiple abilities. Ascendance is a single ability.

- - - Updated - - -

Demon pets and Undead Constructs don't do the same things either. They don't have the same mechanics, and you could have difference of Talent and Core mechanics applied directly to these minions too.

So why wouldn’t these mechanics go to the Death Knight class which specializes in undead minions?

So is this an intentional double standard you're using here, or what? Care to explain why you think Demon Pets are the same as Constructs when they would be mechanically different? A skeleton isn't an Imp, an Abomination isn't a Voidwalker. I think that's pretty clear here, no?

Again, we have a class in the lineup that utilizes undead constructs, and there’s no fundamental difference between its pets and the Warlock’s pets.

"Constructs are simply pets, which is covered by the demonology spec.". So how exactly would you differentiate DK's from Warlocks, or are those mechanics the same to you?

Yes I would. What allows the two to coexist is that one is a clothie caster while the other is a heavily armored spell knight.

[jellmoo]

It actually fits Feral quite well, as it works practically the same as the Engineering invisibility. Both are only activated out-of-combat, both are permanent until revealed, and the only real difference is Feral has some Opener mechanics tied to the combat. Outside of that, you don't really stealth back into combat once you've engaged in it; you stay revealed for the rest of the fight or until you leave combat. And Druids don't have 'Vanish' ability so they can't restealth anyways. Hell, they even got rid of the positional combat mechanics, so it plays like a typical phys-melee Brawler class.

Sure. Feral is mostly a bleeds spec anyway, which runs pretty well for a tech dude that's say, wielding chainsaws and claws from a claw pack. If we look at the abilities to cover:

Stealth -> Stealth Field Generator
Shred -> Works as is
Rake -> Works as is
Rip -> Works as is
Ferocious Bite -> Massive Slash
Thrash ->Works as is
Swipe -> Works as is
Maim -> Works as is
Moonfire -> Orbital blast

The names are largely not a big issue, though you could rename them as you like. You're largely just approaching via stealth and then applying your bleeds via your saws and claw pack. If we take the principle of it being a Gnome or a Goblin it actually makes a ton of sense for them to fight this way.

[Gaidax]

Stop trying to make Tinker happen, it's never going to happen.

I mean, if that's what people want then I won't mind much.

I, personally, think there are thematically cooler and more interesting classes to consider before Tinker. But if what comes next is Tinker - I won't be crying myself to sleep either.

[draugril]

So you’re telling me that someone is missing out on the Necromancer fantasy because they’re summoning a menagerie of demons instead of a menagerie of undead?

Can you tell me why people would even be proposing a Necromancer class if they weren't missing out out on this? And not just "someone" - by your own poll, it's an incredibly common request.

- - - Updated - - -

we just fix this with a glyph?

Entirely.

But you do have to admit that the creation of a glyph would only occur because there is a gap, if only thematic.

The archetypal Necromancer is not playable at present.

[Lady Atia]

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.

They wouldn't add it to the druid class. We suggest they could build it around the druids *mechanics*. It wouldn't be a druid, it would be a tinker.

[Triceron]

So why wouldn’t these mechanics go to the Death Knight class which specializes in undead minions?

Again, we have a class in the lineup that utilizes undead constructs, and there’s no fundamental difference between its pets and the Warlock’s pets.

Yes I would. What allows the two to coexist is that one is a clothie caster while the other is a heavily armored spell knight.

Why have any new class playable?

New mechanics, new themes, new identity.

[Teriz]

Can you tell me why people would even be proposing a Necromancer class if they weren't missing out out on this? And not just "someone" - by your own poll, it's an incredibly common request.

I really have no idea. It seems to be a case similar to people who want Blademaster or Shadow Hunter. Essentially the existing class equivalent is not EXACTLY how you want it to be. So instead they advocate for a new class that does essentially the same thing as the existing class except for one minor thing….

Entirely.

But you do have to admit that the creation of a glyph would only occur because there is a gap, if only thematic.

The archetypal Necromancer is not playable at present.

But I have to ask again; If I’m a demonology warlock in the center of my demonic horde slaughtering everything around me, and manipulating various life energies to keep the demonic engine running, how am I any different than an archetypal Necromancer?

- - - Updated - - -

Why have any new class playable?

New mechanics, new themes, new identity.

Except the new mechanic you’re talking about would seem most applicable for an existing class. There’s no need to create a new class for undead minion mechanics when we already have a class that utilizes undead minions. Place those new and cool mechanics there.

[Ielenia]

Jaina didn’t create humans in WC. Arthas/Lich King did create the Death Knights of the WoW class.

And now you move the goalposts to "must have created X".

Again, there’s a difference between a core ability and a talent.

No. No, there isn't any relevant difference. Ascendance is also available to all three specs of the shaman class, just like metamorphosis is available to all two specs of the DH class.

Metamorphosis permeates throughout the DH class in multiple abilities. Ascendance is a single ability.

So does Ascendance. It transforms the shaman, and, just like metamorphosis, empowers the shaman's abilities.

[Triceron]

Except the new mechanic you’re talking about would seem most applicable for an existing class. There’s no need to create a new class for undead minion mechanics when we already have a class that utilizes undead minions. Place those new and cool mechanics there.

Except you don't know the mechanics of the class at all, so how would you know?

If the Necromancer summoned all its units using Fleshcrafting cooldowns instead of mana, then it's functionally different from Demonology gameplay. If it didn't have a DoT spec and had a Healing spec instead, then it'd be functionally different from Affliction. If their Spell-DPS spec included an assortment of summons and a temporary Lich-form, then it'd be different from Destruction. Hell, the Lich Form can literally be the old Warlock Metamorphosis gameplay, using 'Anima' to fuel the form instead of souls and otherwise blasting things with shadow magic.

Three different mechanics, three different specs. Warlocks can't heal, use Fleshcraft or Necromancy to create constructs, and have no shapeshift abilities. That's not even including all the other things mentioned prior, like using Poisons and Plague, creating oozes, summoning spider swarms, customizing your Construct, and bumping threads from 2005.

[username993720]

The *something* works fine for me though. You're the one who is taking issue with it. I'm just trying to find a compromise because I think the concept is malleable enough to work in a multitude of ways.



Yes. It does. Because technology can do damn near anything. We have spaceships and lasers and rockets and teleportation, miniaturization and all things in between being done via technology. Permanent stealth as a means for somebody to gain an advantage in a fight is exactly the sort of thing a tech master would do.



And that's great. Why not expand on it?



You keep expecting me to build out class concepts I don't care about. I'm not interested in a Necromancer class. At all. I don't want one. Does that mean I don't think one can be added? Of course not. Does it need to butcher the Death Knight? Of course not. There are plenty of forum examples that illustrate exactly how you could build a Necromancer class with unique abilities that doesn't impact the Death Knight at all.

Are they good enough? They're at least as good as the shallow experience that is the Demon Hunter. The bar isn't that high.



But what's wrong with that? There's plenty of stuff that doesn't exist in the lore until Blizzard decided to add it. Maybe it's less likely to be added, but there's no harm in thinking up cool concepts. The Void intrigues people. Wanting a class out of it isn't exactly crazy talk.



The problem is that you are acting like the arbiter of content. If you want to say something like: "I'd rather such and such be a unique class than a class skin" or "I don't think there's enough material to make a compelling class out of such and such" we could banter about it and see where it takes us.

But time and again you are saying that "such and such doesn't work".

One is an opinion and the other is you attempting to state a fact. We're in a thread specifically about class skins but are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing the merits of specific class instead of the implementation of the proposed feature.



The point stands though. Not every class was based off of a hero unit from WC3. Saying that a Blademaster is a viable class concept because it was a hero unit and a Spellbreaker isn't because it wasn't is demonstrably false.



But how are these added to the game?

Unfortunately, i can't reply to you because, apparently, the moderators have chosen a side (hint: i'm not in it). So, you are spared of the great answers i had in store for you.

[Triceron]

Stealth -> Stealth Field Generator
Shred -> Works as is
Rake -> Works as is
Rip -> Works as is
Ferocious Bite -> Massive Slash
Thrash ->Works as is
Swipe -> Works as is
Maim -> Works as is
Moonfire -> Orbital blast

I didn't realize how adaptable most of those abilities would be. You don't even have to change the names!

The names are largely not a big issue, though you could rename them as you like. You're largely just approaching via stealth and then applying your bleeds via your saws and claw pack. If we take the principle of it being a Gnome or a Goblin it actually makes a ton of sense for them to fight this way.

I can totally see it. Equip your rocket boots and jet off towards your target, spring-jump to em and whack em with your Sawblades. Then do some quick self-heals and carry on. Even though I have 2 Druids already, I wouldn't mind rolling a Tinker based on the gameplay I already know and love.

[draugril]

I really have no idea. It seems to be a case similar to people who want Blademaster or Shadow Hunter. Essentially the existing class equivalent is not EXACTLY how you want it to be. So instead they advocate for a new class that does essentially the same thing as the existing class except for one minor thing….

Very subjective.

I personally don't see much difference between a Goblin/Gnome Hunter with the right transmog and a mechanical pet and a Tinker - certainly not enough to justify an entirely new class. But the concept doesn't appeal to me on a personal level, so I've never invested the intellectual capital in drawing those distinctions and fleshing out the concept internally. Certainly, if you want to, you can take the concept and run with it.

Same with Necromancer and Shadow Hunter and Dark Ranger and Blademaster and whatever else - that kernel of novelty is all you need. You can build mountains out of it. Again, I don't care to see any of these playable, but I have to acknowledge the distinction and potential.

Shaman is actually a great example - nothing about them is thematic to the witch doctor / Shadow Hunter aesthetic. Yes, there are a few borrowed abilities, but the class is completely themed around Elemental Power. The tribal medicineman aspect has been almost entirely lost. Same as Necromancy in the Warlock class - in refining the Core Thematic to a point, they've lost secondary thematics. As much lip service as Blizzard can give that technical association, it is immaterial if it doesn't actually express itself in how the class is developed.

And if you're playing with demonic summons, you simply aren't playing a Necromancer. It might even play the exact same, but it doesn't matter. It's the class fantasy people are after. There is no a-ha! gotcha moment here that is going to convince someone they were actually playing a Necromancer all along. They aren't. The core fantasy of a dark sorcerer with undead minions, as you so succinctly put it, is not met.

You have two classes that utilize Necromantic powers. But we do not have playable Necromancers.

Is that too much to admit?

[threads]

class skin is a terrible idea. sounds like a lazy excuse to not give us a real new class OR new specs.

[Teriz]

And now you move the goalposts to "must have created X".

No, I'm pointing out that Jaina's relationship to humanity is far different than Arthas' relationship to the 3rd generation of DKs.

No. No, there isn't any relevant difference. Ascendance is also available to all three specs of the shaman class, just like metamorphosis is available to all two specs of the DH class.

Except there's multiple abilities within the DH class where you change into a demon. Ascendance is the only ability in the Shaman class where you turn into an Elemental, and you get it very late in the game.

So does Ascendance. It transforms the shaman, and, just like metamorphosis, empowers the shaman's abilities.

See above.

- - - Updated - - -

Except you don't know the mechanics of the class at all, so how would you know?

If the Necromancer summoned all its units using Fleshcrafting cooldowns instead of mana, then it's functionally different from Demonology gameplay. If it didn't have a DoT spec and had a Healing spec instead, then it'd be functionally different from Affliction. If their Spell-DPS spec included an assortment of summons and a temporary Lich-form, then it'd be different from Destruction. Hell, the Lich Form can literally be the old Warlock Metamorphosis gameplay, using 'Anima' to fuel the form instead of souls and otherwise blasting things with shadow magic.

Let's try this again; If this entire concept behind this mechanic revolves around undead minions, why wouldn't this mechanic go to the existing class that specializes in undead minions? Why do we need to create an entirely new class just to come up with a new way to summon undead minions?

To compare, it would be like saying we should create a new class because there's a gimmick that allows us to summon beasts instead of simply giving the gimmick to the Hunter class because they already summon beasts.

Three different mechanics, three different specs. Warlocks can't heal, use Fleshcraft or Necromancy to create constructs, and have no shapeshift abilities. That's not even including all the other things mentioned prior, like using Poisons and Plague, creating oozes, summoning spider swarms, customizing your Construct, and bumping threads from 2005.

You can solve all of that "difference" with a glyph.

- - - Updated - - -

And if you're playing with demonic summons, you simply aren't playing a Necromancer. It might even play the exact same, but it doesn't matter. It's the class fantasy people are after. There is no a-ha! gotcha moment here that is going to convince someone they were actually playing a Necromancer all along. They aren't. The core fantasy of a dark sorcerer with undead minions, as you so succinctly put it, is not met.

You have two classes that utilize Necromantic powers. But we do not have playable Necromancers.

Is that too much to admit?

Wouldn't the class fantasy be a dark sorcerer that controls dark minions, manipulates foul magics that steal the life of enemies, and corrupts those around them with curses and afflictions? Warlocks do that. Quite well I might add.

In all seriousness, this reminds me of the people who want Battlemages, but don't like Enhancement Shaman because they don't have arcane magic.

[Triceron]

Let's try this again; If this entire concept behind this mechanic revolves around undead minions, why wouldn't this mechanic go to the existing class that specializes in undead minions? Why do we need to create an entirely new class just to come up with a new way to summon undead minions?

1- Again, we don't need anything. Let's be clear, we don't _need_ to create any new class. The game will not suffer for the lack of any new classes, so they aren't a necessity.
2- Mechanics are just mechanics. "Undead minion" is not a mechanic, because you're either talking about a theme or a type of unit. How is this unit created? What attack types does it have? What is the ability cooldown? Damage? Duration? These are mechanics. So if you want to talk about mechanics, please give me an example of what you consider a Necromancer ability, and we can discuss it on a case-by-case basis.
3- "Undead" is a theme. You've outlined that Demon pets are the same as Undead Constructs. Where do you stand on theme? Because if you still adhere to them being the same, then just say 'Minion', otherwise I'm going to assume you're talking about theme and dismiss your argument altogether because you're equating themes instead of talking about mechanics. It would be akin to asking why we need Covenants when we already have Death Knights covering all Unholy and Necromancy magic in the game.

To compare, it would be like saying we should create a new class because there's a gimmick that allows us to summon beasts instead of simply giving the gimmick to the Hunter class because they already summon beasts.

Sure. And they could say that if you wanted, because it's a hypothetical. And you can also answer that because that is your opinion on beasts. And neither would be wrong. The issue here is you don't even want to engage in acknowledging the hypothetical, and try to apply your opinion as some standard of fact, when really we're all just talking about hypotheticals here with no regard for what actually will end up in the game.

Druids have Shapeshift forms, and they gave Shamans a Ghost Wolf form as a gimmick. You could ask the same and why Druids didn't just get Ghost Wolf form instead, especially since Goldrinn was one of the Ancients in Hyjal and could have easily taught Druids the form. What's your interpretation of this? And do you think, as a hypothetical, that Blizzard could not grant more variations of these animal forms to other classes? Because technically we already have that with anyone who chooses Night Fae too.

You can solve all of that "difference" with a glyph.

Yes, that is also a strong alternative. An alternative we don't yet have in game.

[cocomen2]

Each time Teriz spams threads with tinker baised staff, more i feel like he roleplays certain character from gotham, one side says that all equal but in next 2-3 posts he jumps out to say that his concept much better than other people ideas.