Gladiator would better serve as a 4th Warrior spec.
Dark Ranger would better serve as a new class (along with other archetypes, not alone).
Dragonsworn aren't Shamans. They are closest to a Druid.
Subtlety is already a Ninja.
Demon Hunters and Wardens are two different things.
Void elves and Paladins kinda contradict one another. The only reason they can be Priests is because of the Shadow spec (so, gameplay permits you to be a holy spec). Spellbreakers aren't Paladins, but more like Warriors. Paladins would be Blood Knights. There exists one Blood elf Shaman in game. And, since astrology refers to Shamanism (as in the case of Shadowmoon Orcs) i can see it being applied to Night elves. No connection to Dragonsworn, whatsoever. Orc Warriors would better serve as Grunts and Raiders. Blademaster deserves its own class (since the Warrior does not fulfill the fantasy of a Samurai). Night Warriors are not Demon Hunters, despite the use of glaives (which is a common weapon in night elven society). It would be easier for Tidesages to be Shamans, but i get your point.
What the... what do Bards and apothecaries have to do with Tinkers? apothecaries could be an undead skin for the Alchemist, which could potentially be a Tinker spec. The Bard, however, is unrelated at all.
That's the thing about Allied races. They were subraces at the end of the day (except for Vulpera).
So, introduce "sub-classes" with class skins (I.E - class/race combination classes).
How so?
So, you can apply every class skin to the Druid just because it fills all roles?
This is just forced. Just because you can imagine it, doesn't make it any good. Oh, the Druid fills the roles a Tinker would? let's just strap on a coat of paint and call it a Tinker! transformation and 1 pet ability reminds me of Tinkers? for all measures, it can be called a Tinker!
This is hella stupid. The differences between Druids and Tinkers are like night and day. Go look at its (and the Alchemist's) abilities and tell me if they are still the same.
Do Druid mechanics fit perfectly with those of a Tinker? i highly doubt it.
How about Tinker being their own thing, instead of arbitrarily applied to an existing class? Void Knights don't even exist in lore. And changing the Paladin to fit them would go against it's whole premise.
Dark Rangers are more like their own thing, believe it or not, rather than a shadowy hunter. I would argue that Blood Mages are now more akin to Fire Mages than Destruction Warlocks, and Spellbreakers are the Blood elven Warrior archetype, with the Paladin being a Blood Knight.
So, you guys go have a lore check before you spew things randomly into a thread.
How about, instead of trying to force the Tinker into existing classes, you realize it's its own thing?So the claw pack would have to be the Cat Form, Robo-Goblin the Bear Form, etc. Is about making a fantasy fit a Class Archetype. Alternatively, if you think turrets are most intrinsic to Tinkers, then Shaman could be the base, with totems being the turrets -as it already is with goblin shamans- and elementals/ascendence as helper construct robots.
The square doesn't fit perfectly within the rectangle? Let's just push it into the circle!
Fire Mages.You literally bring the issue with the Blood Mages. They DO exist between Warlock and Mage, so okay, which class should they be then?
Blood elven Warriors. The Paladins are Blood Knights.Spellbreakers have an entirely different concept from Paladins, as they simply do not use light, is just the mechanics that match most.
Yet, they do fit the Death theme of affliction.Same for Necromancers, they have nothing to do with the demonology and fel usage and fire of warlocks, but being casters that can control minions is a close mechanical fit to their fantasy.
It is, actually. Because we don't have technology-based class, aside from the Hunter which is very light on that aspect.Again that's the point, Class Skins are about making an unused fantasy fit an already existing class, but it has its drawbacks. The thing here is that Tinker is simply no more special or unique than other classes that get thrown on the idea of Class Skins.
There's Kezan, not introduced yet into the game.I do believe that Tinkers could be a very interesting Class, but when we talk about new classes we HAVE to consider all the development issues and game balancing that entails, as well as the necessity of a context that would make Tinkers thematic of the expansion that would introduce them. And right now, the only way I can see Tinkers being relevant on an expansion wide thematic level is if they get bundled with Artificers and we are looking at a more cosmic based/spaceship travel expansion.
With how much of a hassle balancing is, a new Class HAS to be relevant to the expansion itself to be worth it, this has been true for all 3 classes added post Vanilla.
Dragonsworn hasn't left the RPG sources yet.
Necromancers' healing spec? sounds unlikely (despite how much people want Blood to heal others).
Key word here is "closest".
It doesn't quite fit, but it's a close one? who cares, let's just force it into the class' gameplay to fit our vision.
Yes, it would.Tinker wouldn't be as different as other options such as Necromancer and Void Knight.
Void Knight is a made up class and Necromancer has already been integrated into the Death Knight. Meanwhile, the Tinker is an original class with no representation other than the Engineering profession which cannot really represent it adequately.
Finally. Someone with some sense.
You want a Sunwalker? class skin.
A Tinker? new class.
These are two different things.
Tinker is not a derivative of a Druid. Sunwalker is of a Paladin. Hence, why a class skin would fit it.