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

[Teriz]

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.

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

- - - Updated - - -

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.

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

[Triceron]

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

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.

[draugril]

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

Put them together and you have a bona fide Necromancer! Separate, though? Might as well say we had Demon Hunters since we have Subtlety and Demonology.

Again, I don't want Necromancer as a class. But I do admit that the Necromancer archetype is not a playable option. You can quibble technicalities all you want, but if someone wants to be that classic undead-raising sorcerer? There is no option for them.

If you believe there is room for Tinker with Hunters, Engineering, mech mounts, Gnomes, and Goblins being present, then there's room for a Necromancer with Unholy and Affliction being present.

- - - Updated - - -

The Houses in Maldraxxus are not inherrently 'Death Knight' themed

I would argue that the Maw is the Death Knight themed "covenant" - they really have no significant connection to Maldraxxus outside of general undeath.

[Triceron]

Put them together and you have a bona fide Necromancer! Separate, though? Might as well say we had Demon Hunters since we have Subtlety and Demonology.

Again, I don't want Necromancer as a class. But I do admit that the Necromancer archetype is not a playable option. You can quibble technicalities all you want, but if someone wants to be that classic undead-raising sorcerer? There is no option for them.

If you believe there is room for Tinker with Hunters, Engineering, mech mounts, Gnomes, and Goblins being present, then there's room for a Necromancer with Unholy and Affliction being present.

You should see the amount of stretching he does for POTM. He actually thinks having overlap with 3 classes is a *GOOD* thing and makes it more likely for them to be playable. And when you press him on what unique things a POTM would actually bring to the table? It veers off to Nightwarrior talk and how they can use Warglaives....

- - - Updated - - -

I would argue that the Maw is the Death Knight themed "covenant" - they really have no significant connection to Maldraxxus outside of general undeath.

Completely agree, but I'm sure he would make some connection considering he cited Construct Wing and Plague Wings in Naxxramas as being Death Knight themed. I wouldn't put it past him to do the same for Maldraxxus.

[username993720]

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?

House of Constructs represents abominations, like the Death Knight can summon, House of the Chosen represents Warriors (are you suggesting they would be this buffed, melee combatants?), House of eyes represents Rogues (are you suggesting they would be agile, stealthy fighters?), House of rituals suits them and so would House of Plagues. That's 2 Houses.

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. They wouldn't spread it alchemically or use poisons. They summon skeletons, ghouls and Aboms, but they wouldn't spend time perfecting the creation of the perfect construct. Those are the themes that Naxxramas' various wings all display.

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.

"Peerless battlefield tacticians, gladiators are unmatched in martial combat and train with a variety of rune-forged weapons". - not just a Death Knight thing, but a Necromancy thing.

This will be my last comment since people, for some reason, start reporting me.
So, if the discussion cannot occur without low blows, i'm out.

If you believe there is room for Tinker with Hunters, Engineering, mech mounts, Gnomes, and Goblins being present, then there's room for a Necromancer with Unholy and Affliction being present.

Not even close.
The Hunter barely scratches the surface with tech abilities.

[Teriz]

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.

How is it an absurd argument when Warlocks literally replaced the Necromancer's niche in the class lineup? Like seriously, what would a Necromancer bring to the class lineup that a Warlock doesn't currently bring?

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.

No, it's the equivalent of saying we need a Barbarian class because Warrior class doesn't do one thing that Barbarians supposedly do.

[Triceron]

How is it an absurd argument when Warlocks literally replaced the Necromancer's niche in the class lineup? Like seriously, what would a Necromancer bring to the class lineup that a Warlock doesn't currently bring?

You could ask that about Demon Hunters and I'm sure you'd get an answer you don't really like, but still have to admit to.

You get to play the class that is otherwise not already playable, and be given new (or repurposed) gameplay mechanics.

When it comes to asking 'what mechanics would they bring', it assumes that WoW classes need completely new mechanics in order to fit the pantheon. They don't. And it's not for lack of trying.

Look at how Monks tried to get added without Auto-attacks. Failed. Look at how they tried building Fistweaving as a viable healer alternative to spellcasting. Failed. Look at how they tried to build Healing without Mana. Failed.

What ended up working? Adding a class like Demon Hunter, which provided bare minimum new gameplay mechanics and played it safe. Didn't even bother with a 3rd spec. And it's actually one of the more successful classes in terms of what Blizzard set out to accomplish and actually getting it accomplished. They lowered the bar themselves because they realized how troublesome adding new mechanics actually can be for the sake of balance. It took them YEARS before they ended up adding Focus back to Hunters.

So suggesting something like a class that doesn't use mana to heal would be a fresh new mechanic? Well that could be any class then. You could even apply this to Necromancers if you want, and have the resource literally be 'Anima'. But as a mechanic itself, it doesn't really work out, because WoW is designed around mana-based healing systems, and that boils down to the type of gear you can obtain as well.

No, it's the equivalent of saying we need a Barbarian class because Warrior class doesn't do one thing that Barbarians supposedly do.

Yet at no point did I ever say we need a Necromancer class, so it wouldn't actually be equivalent at all.

I don't even want a Necromancer class, I'm curious why would you think this is equivalent of saying we need one?

[Teriz]

You could ask that about Demon Hunters and I'm sure you'd get an answer you don't really like, but still have to admit to.

You get to play the class that is otherwise not already playable, and be given new (or repurposed) gameplay mechanics.

Demon Hunters provided demonic melee, and the ability to transform into a demon. No other class offered that after Warlocks lost Metamorphosis.

As for new mechanics? Minions created through Fleshcrafting. A new healing spec using Dark magic. A spec built around creating damage Zones on the ground, well beyond your typical AoE ability.

Why would we need to create minions via fleshcrafting when DKs already create the same minions with shadow magic and no corpses?

Yet at no point did I ever say we need a Necromancer class, so it wouldn't actually be equivalent at all.

I don't even want a Necromancer class, I'm curious why would you think this is equivalent of saying we need one?

You may not say we need one, but you're attempting to justify the existence of one.

[draugril]

Not even close.
The Hunter barely scratches the surface with tech abilities.

It's an equitable situation. If we do not have Tinkers, even if elements of the fantasy are present, then we do not have Necromancers, even if elements of the fantasy are present.

Admitting this doesn't mean you endorse the addition of Necromancers as a playable class. Personally, I don't see the point in this franchise wherein necromantic power is usually the first step toward gaining a greater power (Liches, Warlocks, Death Knights). They're bandit tier. Cannon fodder. But I can freely admit that they aren't playable.

That's just an acknowledgement of reality.

[Triceron]

Demon Hunters provided demonic melee, and the ability to transform into a demon. No other class offered that after Warlocks lost Metamorphosis.

Per your argument, if you think a pet is just a pet, then a form is just a form. Druids already have multiple forms, so the Demon Hunter's Metamorphosis didn't bring anything new to the table at all. The core mechanic is a shapeshift ability, and Druids already master that.

Let's try again, what new mechanics do Demon Hunters bring to the table?

You may not say we need one, but you're attempting to justify the existence of one.

So that is the equivalent of needing one? Your words, not mine.

[Teriz]

Per your argument, if you think a pet is just a pet, then a form is just a form. Druids already have multiple forms, so the Demon Hunter's Metamorphosis didn't bring anything new to the table at all. The core mechanic is a shapeshift ability, and Druids already master that.

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.

Let's try again, what new mechanics do Demon Hunters bring to the table?

See above.

So that is the equivalent of needing one? Your words, not mine.

Semantics?

- - - Updated - - -

It's an equitable situation. If we do not have Tinkers, even if elements of the fantasy are present, then we do not have Necromancers, even if elements of the fantasy are present.

Admitting this doesn't mean you endorse the addition of Necromancers as a playable class. Personally, I don't see the point in this franchise wherein necromantic power is usually the first step toward gaining a greater power (Liches, Warlocks, Death Knights). They're bandit tier. Cannon fodder. But I can freely admit that they aren't playable.

That's just an acknowledgement of reality.

At the most basic of levels, we have Necromancers because both Warlocks and DKs practice necromancy. Necromancer is merely someone who practices Necromancy, which is why DKs and Warlocks do.

[Triceron]

This will be my last comment since people, for some reason, start reporting me.
So, if the discussion cannot occur without low blows, i'm out.

Probably for the best, since this is literally going nowhere anyways.

I mean if you can't even see the difference between ritual spellcasting and channeling runic power through a Runeblade, then none of my words really matter, because you're convinced they're still one and the same. And really, I'm in no position to change your mind if you choose to see them as being the same thing. It's all a matter of opinion.

- - - 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.

There are other classes that have temporary forms too. The mechanic isn't new at all.

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=114049/ascendance
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=187827/metamorphosis
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=107574/avatar

Semantics?

Of course, because I'm arguing that new classes can exist, but by no means do we need a new class at all. The game would continue fine with the roster as is. By implying that we need a Necromancer or a Barbarian assumes that my arguments are reaching beyond the hypothetical, and towards an indication that it's a necessary for the game's continuation. I don't value any class as being a necessity, and I point at how successful Classic WoW was without any of the expansion classes retroactively added to fit (though I admit, that'd be a cool as fuck idea).

I could justify the existence of a new Faction for Warcraft 3, but I wouldn't say we need one either. That we could have one is a matter of discussing a hypothetical 5th Faction. By no means is any game locked down so far that we couldn't have had the Naga race playable in WC3. They were practically playable in the Campaign. But the game isn't going to suffer at all for the lack of a 5th race; it doesn't need it at all. Hell, I would even argue against adding it for the sake of maintaining the current dynamic between 4 races. That doesn't stop me from addressing the hypothetical here.

And if someone were to make arguments that X faction can't fit into WC3 because its mechanics are too similar, then I'd address those concerns too. There are arguments for and against adding any new faction, but just pointing out that the Ghouls are functionally similar to Footmen isn't going to justify cutting the entire Scourge faction from the game.

[draugril]

At the most basic of levels, we have Necromancers because both Warlocks and DKs practice necromancy. Necromancer is merely someone who practices Necromancy, which is why DKs and Warlocks do.

And Enhancement Shamans are Fire Mages by technicality, as well.
Mechagnome Hunters are Tinkers, by technicality.
Undead Hunters are Dark Rangers, by technicality.
Night Elf Druids are Dragonsworn, by technicality.
Holy Priests are Bards, by technicality.
And so on.

But we all know what people mean when they speak about those classes. People don't want a "technically playable" class. Your own fervent hope for Tinkers is testament to that. I am not understanding this desire to discredit another concept verbosely for page after page rather than simply saying, "I don't want that." That's all the energy that needs to go into it.

The Necromancer archetype is not playable in WoW. Full stop. By admitting this reality, you are not endorsing the class to be made playable. As mentioned, I would prefer virtually any other addition, Tinkers included, to Necromancers. But I can admit that this archetype isn't playable. Why is that so difficult?

[Teriz]

Probably for the best, since this is literally going nowhere anyways.

I mean if you can't even see the difference between ritual spellcasting and channeling runic power through a Runeblade, then none of my words really matter, because you're convinced they're still one and the same. And really, I'm in no position to change your mind if you choose to see them as being the same thing. It's all a matter of opinion.

- - - Updated - - -



There are other classes that have temporary forms too. The mechanic isn't new at all.

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=114049/ascendance
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=187827/metamorphosis

Metamorphosis is the very spell we're talking about.

Ascendance is a talent, not a core Shaman ability. Unlike Demon Hunters, Shaman don't do various abilities and transform into elementals. Demon Hunters on the other hand have abilities like Eye Beam or Infernal Strike which turns them into demons momentarily.

Of course, because I'm arguing that new classes can exist, but by no means do we need a new class at all. The game would continue fine with the roster as is. By implying that we need a Necromancer or a Barbarian assumes that my arguments are reaching beyond the hypothetical, and towards an indication that it's a necessary for the game's continuation.

I could justify the existence of a new Faction for Warcraft 3, but I wouldn't say we need one either. That we could have one is a matter of discussing a hypothetical 5th Faction. By no means is any game locked down so far that we couldn't have had the Naga race playable in WC3. They were practically playable in the Campaign. But the game isn't going to suffer at all for the lack of a 5th race; it doesn't need it at all.

Fair enough.

- - - Updated - - -

And Enhancement Shamans are Fire Mages by technicality, as well.

Nah, because they utilize more lightning spells than fire spells.

Undead Hunters are Dark Rangers, by technicality.
Night Elf Druids are Dragonsworn, by technicality.
Holy Priests are Bards, by technicality.
And so on.

There is actually an argument for that.

But we all know what people mean when they speak about those classes. People don't want a "technically playable" class. Your own fervent hope for Tinkers is testament to that. I am not understanding this desire to discredit another concept verbosely for page after page rather than simply saying, "I don't want that." That's all the energy that needs to go into it.

The Necromancer archetype is not playable in WoW. Full stop. By admitting this reality, you are not endorsing the class to be made playable. As mentioned, I would prefer virtually any other addition, Tinkers included, to Necromancers. But I can admit that this archetype isn't playable. Why is that so difficult?

The Necromancer archetype is a dark sorcerer who utilizes vile pets and foul magic to control life energies, and torment foes with afflictions and curses.

It's exactly what Warlocks do.

[draugril]

The Necromancer archetype is a dark sorcerer who utilizes vile pets and foul magic to control life energies, and torment foes.

It's exactly what Warlocks do.

You are deliberately missing their defining feature for the sake of argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Try asking yourself: If the Necromancer fantasy was achievable within the playable roster, why are people asking for it at all?

[Teriz]

You are deliberately missing their defining feature for the sake of argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Try asking yourself: If the Necromancer fantasy was achievable within the playable roster, why are people asking for it at all?

Again, what is missing? From my vantage point, it's undead minions instead of demonic minions.

That's about it.

[jellmoo]

Get rid of something to fit your vision? sounds great!

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.

Temporary invisibility would somewhat make sense, as technology can produce it. But, a permanent stealth based gameplay? not so much. Remember, you are ambushing a target from hiding. Does it sound like a you-know-who?

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.

So did glyphs.

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

I was expecting to hear it directly from you.
Anyone can come up with a concept. The question is it good enough.

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.

Apparently, we are. Because people are asking for Void Knights who don't even exist in lore.

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.

I'm not the arbiter, i'm just simply pinpointing the fact that not everything can be a new class.

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.

I was talking about class additions, not vanilla ones. And, by the way, we had Garona, Warlock and Cleric units since WC1.

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.

Alongside the Dark Ranger and Warden.

But how are these added to the game?

[draugril]

Again, what is missing? From my vantage point, it's undead minions instead of demonic minions.

That's about it.

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.

[Triceron]

Ascendance is a talent, not a core Shaman ability. Unlike Demon Hunters, Shaman don't do various abilities and transform into elementals.

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 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?

"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?

[anon5123]

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