Dragonborne Class Concept 2022

[username993720]

Brightwing can easily be folded into Dragonborne.

Lunara can be expanded into the Druid
Cho'gall is very Void and Chaos-centric, so possibly Priest or Warlock
Falstad and Ragnaros are both rooted into Shamanism and the use of elements (Storm, Wind, Fire, Lava)
Anu'barak, Stitches and Mal'ganis already have basic roots in the Death Knight class. I think DK's even summon Aboms.
Greymane is a type of Outlaw Rogue in HOTS. He also represents 'Worgen' as a race.

That leaves Hogger, Murky and ETC as the outliers. They're kinda niche outliers though, since each is very whimsical themed. I'd say Hogger and Murloc are more represented as Races than classes, while ETC is 'Heavy Metal' themed which falls in line with the April Fools Bard concept we had.

The question is, can you see them as new classes?
By the way, what happened to "Greymane doesn't represent the Outlaw Rogue"?

Uh, my Dragonsworn concept from 3 years ago also utilized HotS mechanics.

When arguing on these forums, saying "a dragon class has no hold in WC3 and therefore wouldn't be added", then changed your mind and said you can see it happen, then again changing your mind to "it won't happen", and so on and so on...

Because pretty much none of those characters have the foundations for a class;

Ragnaros is an Elemental.

And Chromie, Deathwing and Alexstrasza are Dragons.

Hogger is a Kobold.

Gnoll. With abilities.

Brightwing is a Faerie Dragon.

Pretty close to your fellas, the dragons. Also, comes with abilities.

Murkey is a Murloc.

The most requested race

Falstad sort of already exists in class form as the basis for Dwarven Shaman

Sort of. Can we throw lightning hammers as Shamans, though? That's the domain of the Warrior (Mountain King).

Cho'gall is Warlock/Mage

Then, what is he? A Warlock or a Mage?

Greymane is a Warrior or Outlaw Rogue

Looks like Outlaw, has abilities that aren't found in in-game classes.

Lunara is a Dryad and heavily associated with Druids

Yet, they can't perform any of her abilities.

Medivh is a mage.

Yes, technically. But he is also a prophet. A possible class, perhaps?

Anubarak is a Nerubian.

Unrepresented in the classes.

Malganis is a Demon, and they're associated with Warlocks

No longer with Shadowlands. They're undead.

Stitches is an Abomination and associated with DKs.

Association is not a class. Otherwise, Chromie would be associated with the Mage for her time capabilities.

A class based on the dragons is more plausible because they can take the form of mortal (playable) races. If it weren't for that, they'd be right there with the rest of that pile.

Dreadlords are also known to take the form of humanoids. Dreadlord class confirmed!

You would have to ask a moderator.

Actually, i can imagine it myself.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I don't see why Blue and Green Dragonflights can't also be specs. No class in WoW is 100% unique. Many specs have lots of overlap with each (ie, all of the warrior specs, melee hunter and combat rogue. Frost DKs and Frost mages. Fire mages and Destruction Warlocks. Demon Hunters and Warlocks. And so on). And then there is the obvious case of the holy themed specs: Discipline priests, Holy priests, and Holy paladins draw upon the same power in lore and are aesthetically indistinguishable. I guess one way to differentiate the Blue Dragonflight from Arcane Mages would be to make them into melee of some sort, but it doesn't really matter.

- - - Updated - - -

The question is, can you see them as new classes?

We had a thread about this a few months ago. The answer is yes. When WoW was first created, the designers tried creating broad archetypes and also broke lore restrictions (ie, female Night Elves could become Druids, and male Night Elves could become priests), but came to regret it and later on began providing specific class fantasies in the expac classes. And with the release of Demon Hunter, we have a class restricted to just the canon races. So yes, Blizzard could release a class that only a particular race can play. LotRO did this with the Beorning (a race and a class that can only be that race and class. Beornings can't be rangers or burglars, and no other race like elves or dwarves can be Boernings), so that could easily be the model for a playable Dragon class or any race specific class fantasy going forward.

- - - Updated - - -

Then, what is he? A Warlock or a Mage?

In early Warcraft lore, Warlocks/Necromancers/Mages were the same thing. It wasn't until WoW that they started making a thorough distinction between them and differentiated their sources of power.

- - - Updated - - -

Unrepresented in the classes.

Man, I really wish Cryptlord Nerubians were playable. We have... what? 20+ playable races in WoW, and they are all humanoids with two arms and two legs and a head. WoW differentiates its humanoid races more than most games, with Tauren looking pretty beastly and inhuman, but still. Would be really cool to play as a six limbed insectoid race, especially one with cool aesthetics like the Nerubians did with their underground cities and egyptian theme.

[username993720]

I don't see why Blue and Green Dragonflights can't also be specs. No class in WoW is 100% unique. Many specs have lots of overlap with each (ie, all of the warrior specs, melee hunter and combat rogue. Frost DKs and Frost mages. Fire mages and Destruction Warlocks. Demon Hunters and Warlocks. And so on). And then there is the obvious case of the holy themed specs: Discipline priests, Holy priests, and Holy paladins draw upon the same power in lore and are aesthetically indistinguishable. I guess one way to differentiate the Blue Dragonflight from Arcane Mages would be to make them into melee of some sort, but it doesn't really matter.

- - - Updated - - -



We had a thread about this a few months ago. The answer is yes. When WoW was first created, the designers tried creating broad archetypes and also broke lore restrictions (ie, female Night Elves could become Druids, and male Night Elves could become priests), but came to regret it and later on began providing specific class fantasies in the expac classes. And with the release of Demon Hunter, we have a class restricted to just the canon races. So yes, Blizzard could release a class that only a particular race can play. LotRO did this with the Beorning (a race and a class that can only be that race and class. Beornings can't be rangers or burglars, and no other race like elves or dwarves can be Boernings), so that could easily be the model for a playable Dragon class or any race specific class fantasy going forward.

I was being sarcastic. Of course they wouldn't be made playable. First of all, most of them are comic reliefs or non-humanoid creatures. Second of all, that is not where Blizzard pulls their new classes from.

In early Warcraft lore, Warlocks/Necromancers/Mages were the same thing. It wasn't until WoW that they started making a thorough distinction between them and differentiated their sources of power.

Again, sarcasm. I know what Cho'gall is:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Ogre_mage

Man, I really wish Cryptlord Nerubians were playable. We have... what? 20+ playable races in WoW, and they are all humanoids with two arms and two legs and a head. WoW differentiates its humanoid races more than most games, with Tauren looking pretty beastly and inhuman, but still. Would be really cool to play as a six limbed insectoid race, especially one with cool aesthetics like the Nerubians did with their underground cities and egyptian theme.

They can't be playable. They're a giant, four legged, spider beetles.

[Teriz]

You haven't thought about how your class and spec would play in the game. Do the specs use builders/finishers, a priority system, dot management, high APM button mashing, burst windows, etc?

Your tank sounds like it survives and mitigates damage in the say way a death knight does. This creates an issue where one tank is better than the other, and the worse one becomes "unplayable".

Your design is entirely cosmetic-which to be fair is important-but doesn't look at the moment to moment gameplay or the community consequences for what adding your class would mean.

Yeah, what you're describing above goes a bit beyond the purpose of this concept, which is more of general overview.

- - - Updated - - -

When arguing on these forums, saying "a dragon class has no hold in WC3 and therefore wouldn't be added", then changed your mind and said you can see it happen, then again changing your mind to "it won't happen", and so on and so on...

Well yes, and I still feel that the dragon concept is in an interesting spot, because while it isn't WC3, it still has a rather strong presence in HotS, and Blizzard has been translating HotS abilities into WoW over the years. Thus, I certainly can't ignore the possibility, especially with a dragon expansion on the horizon.

And Chromie, Deathwing and Alexstrasza are Dragons.

Titan-empowered dragons that can change into mortal forms (which allows them into the WoW playable race system), and have unique abilities based on their dragonflight (which allows them into the WoW playable class system). Not quite the same situation.

Gnoll. With abilities.

The most requested race

Then, what is he? A Warlock or a Mage?

Yet, they can't perform any of her abilities.

Association is not a class. Otherwise, Chromie would be associated with the Mage for her time capabilities.

Dreadlords are also known to take the form of humanoids. Dreadlord class confirmed!

etc.

Sorry, I wasn't clearer before, but your examples simply don't match up to what dragons can do, and what makes them a solid class candidate. If you were comparing them to proto-drakes, I could understand your point, but dragons in WoW are very unique conceptually speaking. They have all the hallmarks of a unique Blizzard type of fantasy class.

[Triceron]

The question is, can you see them as new classes?
By the way, what happened to "Greymane doesn't represent the Outlaw Rogue"?

That's always what he is based off of in HOTS. He even has stealth talents.

I've never said 'Greymane doesn't represent the Outlaw Rogue'. We've talked about a Witch Hunter concept that use pistols _like Greymane in HotS_ as merely a comparison to an existing character who uses pistols. Greymane is still an Outlaw Rogue in HotS, for whatever reasons the designers chose to give him pistols and stealth mechanics when he's always been portrayed as a Warrior type in WoW.

I mean, I said it would be cool if we had a (Warhammer style) Witch Hunter in Warcraft. I am fully aware that there's no room for the archetype, since we already have that gameplay mostly covered by Outlaw Rogue.

I mean we could be talking about a Mountain King all the same. A MK is basically represented as (in your opinion) a Fury Warrior. Yet we don't have a true MK identity in WoW.
I could express wanting MK themes represented more than what Fury is able to do. It isn't a realistic call to say we need a Mountain King class, it's just expressing interest in it being cool if we could actually play as one without utterly roleplaying. Otherwise, is there room for an actual Mountain King class alongside Arms and Fury Warriors? Not really. Same with Witch Hunters in a world where Outlaw Rogue and Demon Hunters already exist in the game.

[Teriz]

I don't see why Blue and Green Dragonflights can't also be specs. No class in WoW is 100% unique. Many specs have lots of overlap with each (ie, all of the warrior specs, melee hunter and combat rogue. Frost DKs and Frost mages. Fire mages and Destruction Warlocks. Demon Hunters and Warlocks. And so on). And then there is the obvious case of the holy themed specs: Discipline priests, Holy priests, and Holy paladins draw upon the same power in lore and are aesthetically indistinguishable. I guess one way to differentiate the Blue Dragonflight from Arcane Mages would be to make them into melee of some sort, but it doesn't really matter.

Well my goal with this concept was to correlate with the HotS dragon characters, which were only Black, Bronze, and Red. Interestingly, those are also the flights which offer the most unique gameplay opportunities, so it is interesting that Blizzard chose reps from those flights and not the others. With that said, I really feel that Mages and Druids truly cover the concepts of those flights very well, and adding them into this concept would be redundant.

I did include all 5 flights in my older concept. Feel free to check that one out for my take on Blue and Green dragon concepts.

[username993720]

Well yes, and I still feel that the dragon concept is in an interesting spot, because while it isn't WC3, it still has a rather strong presence in HotS, and Blizzard has been translating HotS abilities into WoW over the years. Thus, I certainly can't ignore the possibility, especially with a dragon expansion on the horizon.

Translating abilities = class addition?

Titan-empowered dragons that can change into mortal forms (which allows them into the WoW playable race system), and have unique abilities based on their dragonflight (which allows them into the WoW playable class system). Not quite the same situation.

Hogger is a humanoid, Murky is a humanoid, Cho'gall is a humanoid, Falstad is a humanoid, Greymane is a humanoid, medivh is a humanoid, E.T.C is a humanoid.
All of them have their own unique abilities.

Sorry, I wasn't clearer before, but your examples simply don't match up to what dragons can do, and what makes them a solid class candidate. If you were comparing them to proto-drakes, I could understand your point, but dragons in WoW are very unique conceptually speaking. They have all the hallmarks of a unique Blizzard type of fantasy class.

Those are standards you have put up, not Blizzard.

That's always what he is based off of in HOTS. He even has stealth talents.

I've never said 'Greymane doesn't represent the Outlaw Rogue'. We've talked about a Witch Hunter concept that use pistols _like Greymane in HotS_ as merely a comparison to an existing character who uses pistols. Greymane is still an Outlaw Rogue in HotS, for whatever reasons the designers chose to give him pistols and stealth mechanics when he's always been portrayed as a Warrior type in WoW.

I mean, I said it would be cool if we had a (Warhammer style) Witch Hunter in Warcraft. I am fully aware that there's no room for the archetype, since we already have that gameplay mostly covered by Outlaw Rogue.

I mean we could be talking about a Mountain King all the same. A MK is basically represented as (in your opinion) a Fury Warrior. Yet we don't have a true MK identity in WoW.
I could express wanting MK themes represented more than what Fury is able to do. It isn't a realistic call to say we need a Mountain King class, it's just expressing interest in it being cool if we could actually play as one without utterly roleplaying. Otherwise, is there room for an actual Mountain King class alongside Arms and Fury Warriors? Not really. Same with Witch Hunters in a world where Outlaw Rogue and Demon Hunters already exist in the game.

I'm not talking about a recent discussion, but way back when you said he doesn't represent the Outlaw Rogue.

[Triceron]

I'm not talking about a recent discussion, but way back when you said he doesn't represent the Outlaw Rogue.

I'd only imagine the context of what you're talking about is talking about Greymane's character representation in general, since I've also pointed out he's represented as a Warrior in WoW. As a lore character, he isn't an Outlaw Rogue. As a HOTS Hero, his gameplay is (liberally adapted as) an Outlaw Rogue .

If you're gonna dig to 'way back when you said' then I would need to see the quote, as well as the context of when I said it. I doubt it would be to make a point about having Greymane spearheading a new class in WoW, since I've always seen him as having or representing Outlaw Rogue gameplay, even if he is not an Outlaw Rogue himself. Regardless, I don't think there is room for a 'new class based on Greymane from HOTS' if that's what the topic is.

I'd imagine it'd be similar if we're talking about Kael'thas. A Blood Mage's identity is different from a Fire spec Mage, but Kael'thas' gameplay in HOTS is not varied enough to spearhead a separate 'Blood Mage' class. If that makes sense. I'd extend this to some of the other characters mentioned above, like Lunara and Anub'arak. Sure, they have a lot of unique abilities, but their themes are also a part of Druid and DK and not enough to warrant individual new classes on the basis of those heroes alone. They also more unique as new races more than as new classes, similar to the Hogger and Murky scenario.

[Feitori]

Not that into a dragon-themed class, but I gotta give you some credit; You've put some actual effort into this and it isn't just a poorly written wishlist. Good job.

[username993720]

I'd only imagine the context of what you're talking about is talking about Greymane's character representation in general, since I've also pointed out he's represented as a Warrior in WoW. As a lore character, he isn't an Outlaw Rogue. As a HOTS Hero, his gameplay is (liberally adapted as) an Outlaw Rogue .

If you're gonna dig to 'way back when you said' then I would need to see the quote, as well as the context of when I said it. I doubt it would be to make a point about having Greymane spearheading a new class in WoW, since I've always seen him as having or representing Outlaw Rogue gameplay, even if he is not an Outlaw Rogue himself.

I don't remember what it was about, but i think you said HotS characters don't represent WoW classes.

Regardless, I don't think there is room for a 'new class based on Greymane from HOTS' if that's what the topic is.

I don't, either. I was being sarcastic to point out how drawing a class from HotS implies the possibility of other characters being translated into classes.

I'd imagine it'd be similar if we're talking about Kael'thas. A Blood Mage's identity is different from a Fire spec Mage, but Kael'thas' gameplay in HOTS is not varied enough to spearhead a separate 'Blood Mage' class. If that makes sense. I'd extend this to some of the other characters mentioned above, like Lunara and Anub'arak. Sure, they have a lot of unique abilities, but their themes are also a part of Druid and DK and not enough to warrant individual new classes on the basis of those heroes alone. They also more unique as new races more than as new classes, similar to the Hogger and Murky scenario.

None of them qualify as playable races at the moment.
But, of course i agree with your statement. Them being possible future classes is ridiculous.
The question is, do the Dragon heroes qualify as a basis for a new class?

[Teriz]

Translating abilities = class addition?

No, let me explain; We have a dragon expansion possibly on the horizon. We have a very strong desire among the community for a new class in the next expansion. Unlike Demon Hunters for a Demonic expansion, Monks for a Pandaren expansion, or DKs for a Northrend expansion, no class concept from WC3 really fits a Dragon-based/Dragon Isles expansion possibly led by Wrathion. So the logical conclusion would be to either shoehorn Tinkers into a dragon expansion OR utilize concepts you've already used in the past and construct a (rather easy) class out of your dragon characters.

You have the lore. You have the mechanics (thanks to HotS), and you have an abundance of characters to base this class on. There's simply too much material at hand to not have this concept as a potential class. It's honestly a slam dunk. Not only does it allow you to keep the Tinker in your back pocket for a future class down the line, but it utilizes an immensely popular concept, would be an original and decidedly Blizzard concept, utilizes popular mechanics Blizzard has used in the past (Old demo Warlock, and Druids), and fills multiple desires the community has for the class lineup (RDPS, new healing spec, new mail class).

If Blizzard brings forth a new Dragon expansion and there's NO class in it, I can only say that they're lazy. This illustration came from their own development team;



So they are well aware of this concept.

Hogger is a humanoid, Murky is a humanoid, Cho'gall is a humanoid, Falstad is a humanoid, Greymane is a humanoid, medivh is a humanoid, E.T.C is a humanoid.
All of them have their own unique abilities.

Okay, now go further; How can we make Hogger into a class? How can we make Murky into a class? Howabout Cho'Gall?

Once again, if we were dealing with proto-drakes, your comparison would be more accurate. Instead, we're dealing with characters who can turn into humaniods AND dragons with their own unique set of powers and abilities. None of your other examples can do that.

[Triceron]

I don't remember what it was about, but i think you said HotS characters don't represent WoW classes.

Again, depends on the context.

Lorewise, they do not. Gameplaywise, some certain do, like Kael'thas obviously representing Fire Mage abilities even if he technically isn't a Fire Mage.

None of them qualify as playable races at the moment.
But, of course i agree with your statement. Them being possible future classes is ridiculous.
The question is, do the Dragon heroes qualify as a basis for a new class?

I don't see why not.

No new class is actually 'based on Heroes of the Storm'. We're talking about using the Dragon Heroes as a 'visual aid' for what a Dragon themed class could look and play like in WoW, that's the context of there being a 'basis'. And as a general class concept, I don't think a Dragon themed class needs to be questioned at all.

I mean, if Monk wasn't already playable, I would say Chen and Lili Stormstout would be a great basis for a Monk class. And if DK's weren't playable, I'd say Arthas, Stitches, Kel'thuzad and Mal'ganis could all contribute in some way to formulate a playable WoW Death Knight class. It'd be similar to Illidan's look and gameplay ushering in WoW Demon Hunters. And I'd go as far to say Gazlowe is a good example of what a proper WoW Tinker could look and play like, as opposed to the more whimsical WC3 version.

We have multiple HOTS characters with a common Dragon theme, and a broad range of gameplay that isn't simply derivative of existing WoW specs. I'd say it's a good start as a basis, at least in terms of regarding a broad style of gameplay. We're mostly talking about broad roles (Tanking, Spellcasting DPS, Healing) and general ability themes, but I think it's something worth discussing.

As for what the class actually is, I think what Teriz presents has merit. It might not be my preferred choice to play as a Chromatic Dragon (I don't think they have a place in current lore), but the overall idea of a Dragon-based class that could actually be a Dragon makes sense to me. And the way he's presented the specs and the abilities is very easy to visualize, because they're not just 'words describing an ability'.
Some of them are already present in Heroes of the Storm. Takes some of the guesswork out of the equation.

[username993720]

No, let me explain; We have a dragon expansion possibly on the horizon. We have a very strong desire among the community for a new class in the next expansion. Unlike Demon Hunters for a Demonic expansion, Monks for a Pandaren expansion, or DKs for a Northrend expansion, no class concept from WC3 really fits a Dragon-based/Dragon Isles expansion possibly led by Wrathion. So the logical conclusion would be to either shoehorn Tinkers into a dragon expansion OR utilize concepts you've already used in the past and construct a (rather easy) class out of your dragon characters.

That's not the logical conclusion.

You have the lore. You have the mechanics (thanks to HotS), and you have an abundance of characters to base this class on. There's simply too much material at hand to not have this concept as a potential class. It's honestly a slam dunk. Not only does it allow you to keep the Tinker in your back pocket for a future class down the line, but it utilizes an immensely popular concept, would be an original and decidedly Blizzard concept, utilizes popular mechanics Blizzard has used in the past (Old demo Warlock, and Druids), and fills multiple desires the community has for the class lineup (RDPS, new healing spec, new mail class).

Except, that's not how Blizzard works.

If Blizzard brings forth a new Dragon expansion and there's NO class in it, I can only say that they're lazy. This illustration came from their own development team;

So they are well aware of this concept.

What does this picture has to do with your class concept? Wrathion was always able to transform into a Dragon.

Okay, now go further; How can we make Hogger into a class? How can we make Murky into a class? Howabout Cho'Gall?

Add playable gnolls and his abilities. Add playable Murlocs and his abilities. Add playable Ogres and his abilities. Simple.

Once again, if we were dealing with proto-drakes, your comparison would be more accurate. Instead, we're dealing with characters who can turn into humaniods AND dragons with their own unique set of powers and abilities. None of your other examples can do that.

They don't need to. They're already humanoids.

Again, depends on the context.

Lorewise, they do not. Gameplaywise, some certain do, like Kael'thas obviously representing Fire Mage abilities even if he technically isn't a Fire Mage.

Or WoW characters. I don't remember. You again came up with the Anduin and Thrall's armor argument.

I don't see why not.

No new class is actually 'based on Heroes of the Storm'. We're talking about using the Dragon Heroes as a 'visual aid' for what a Dragon themed class could look and play like in WoW, that's the context of there being a 'basis'. And as a general class concept, I don't think a Dragon themed class needs to be questioned at all.

I mean, if Monk wasn't already playable, I would say Chen and Lili Stormstout would be a great basis for a Monk class. And if DK's weren't playable, I'd say Arthas, Stitches, Kel'thuzad and Mal'ganis could all contribute in some way to formulate a playable WoW Death Knight class. It'd be similar to Illidan's look and gameplay ushering in WoW Demon Hunters. And I'd go as far to say Gazlowe is a good example of what a proper WoW Tinker could look and play like, as opposed to the more whimsical WC3 version.

We have multiple HOTS characters with a common Dragon theme, and a broad range of gameplay that isn't simply derivative of existing WoW specs. I'd say it's a good start as a basis, at least in terms of regarding a broad style of gameplay. We're mostly talking about broad roles (Tanking, Spellcasting DPS, Healing) and general ability themes, but I think it's something worth discussing.

As for what the class actually is, I think what Teriz presents has merit. It might not be my preferred choice to play as a Chromatic Dragon (I don't think they have a place in current lore), but the overall idea of a Dragon-based class that could actually be a Dragon makes sense to me. And the way he's presented the specs and the abilities is very easy to visualize, because they're not just 'words describing an ability'.
Some of them are already present in Heroes of the Storm. Takes some of the guesswork out of the equation.

Then, it begs the question, would characters like Qhira and Orphea be a basis for a new class?
Where do we draw the line? Would Hearthstone be a basis for a new, non-estbalished class?

[Teriz]

That's not the logical conclusion.

We're making a dragon expansion. We need a dragon-based class. We have a dragon-based concept that has a basis in lore and fits the structure of our class system.

Conclusion: Create a class based on that dragon-based concept.

Why is that not a logical conclusion?

Except, that's not how Blizzard works.

That's exactly how they work. It's why we have DKs, Monks, and DHs as classes.

What does this picture has to do with your class concept? Wrathion was always able to transform into a Dragon.

That is the basis of my class concept.

Add playable gnolls and his abilities. Add playable Murlocs and his abilities. Add playable Ogres and his abilities. Simple.

Except only Gnolls, Murlocs, or Ogres would have those abilities and could play those classes. That's not how WoW's class structure works.

[Triceron]

Then, it begs the question, would characters like Qhira and Orphea be a basis for a new class?

Why would they? Their look and gameplay is not defined in Warcraft, nor as a potential WoW class. They are themed on the Nexus, and they aren't connected to WoW at all. The point of using Warcraft heroes as examples is because of the fact they touch on themes that already exist in Warcraft, where their new looks and visuals would already fit into the general aesthetic.

If we're talking about their general abilities seeping into WoW, then that sorta happens already considering there are variations of Diablo, Overwatch, Starcraft and Hearthstone abilities making their way into Warcraft and WoW. For example, the whole concept of party-wide Auras originates from Diablo 2.

Where do we draw the line? Would Hearthstone be a basis for a new, non-estbalished class?

It could be.

I think for that idea to be substantial, Blizzard has to set the precedence first. I would say HOTS Illidan's gameplay and aesthetics influencing the WoW DH is what opened the doors for Dragon-based class discussion, as well as reinforce a more modern concept of a Tinker.

If you're talking about a specific theme or card, we'd have to discuss it on a case by case basis, much like the HOTS Heroes.

It's not just a blanket 'Look, X hero is playable therefore everything in this game applies'. There's a good reason why I've mentioned Dragon class and Tinkers. These Warcraft Heroes represent themes and gameplay that aren't connected to classes in WoW.

If you're asking 'where do we draw the line' then that's always subjective, since no one stops anyone from demanding a 'Mountain King class' if they really wanted to make that argument. Of course, there are _other reasons_ that work against that happening that has nothing to do with being a playable Warcraft hero from Heroes of the Storm. Again, both the Dragon class and Tinker aren't rooted in Heroes of the Storm, their origins are established in other material. HoTS is just being used as an example of how those concepts could be realized into playable form, since we have direct examples of those unique themes and gameplay being used.

[username993720]

We're making a dragon expansion. We need a dragon-based class. We have a dragon-based concept that has a basis in lore and fits the structure of our class system.

Conclusion: Create a class based on that dragon-based concept.

Why is that not a logical conclusion?

Shoehorning Tinkers isn't the logical conclusion, and a non-established lore class that does not feature in WC3 isn't either.
The Dragon expansion is going to feature Life themes and perhaps even Void vs Light ones. So, the most logical conclusion would be something related to these, from WC3.

That's exactly how they work. It's why we have DKs, Monks, and DHs as classes.

No. The reason we have them is because they pull 'em from the pool of WC3 Hero units.

That is the basis of my class concept.

You think they looked at your concept and decided to add those Wrathion art pieces, even though he could do it since Cataclysm?
I ask again. What do the pictures add that weren't there before?

Except only Gnolls, Murlocs, or Ogres would have those abilities and could play those classes.

According to what rules?

That's not how WoW's class structure works.

Neither does adding a non-established class concept.

Why would they? Their look and gameplay is not defined in Warcraft, nor as a potential WoW class. They are themed on the Nexus, and they aren't connected to WoW at all. The point of using Warcraft heroes as examples is because of the fact they touch on themes that already exist in Warcraft, where their new looks and visuals would already fit into the general aesthetic.

Because they have no franchise they belong to. And we're suddenly pulling concepts from HotS. So, who says Blizzard wouldn't?

It could be.

I think for that idea to be substantial, Blizzard has to set the precedence first. I would say HOTS Illidan's gameplay and aesthetics influencing the WoW DH is what opened the doors for Dragon-based class discussion, as well as reinforce a more modern concept of a Tinker.

They drew abilities, not the class concept itself. The Demon Hunter has roots in WC3.

If you're talking about a specific theme or card, we'd have to discuss it on a case by case basis, much like the HOTS Heroes.

I was being hypothetical. Nothing specific.

It's not just a blanket 'Look, X hero is playable therefore everything in this game applies'. There's a good reason why I've mentioned Dragon class and Tinkers. These Warcraft Heroes represent themes and gameplay that aren't connected to classes in WoW.

The one thing i agree with you is them being sort of Hero characters.

If you're asking 'where do we draw the line' then that's always subjective, since no one stops anyone from demanding a 'Mountain King class' if they really wanted to make that argument. Of course, there are _other reasons_ that work against that happening that has nothing to do with being a playable Warcraft hero from Heroes of the Storm.

I mean, i'm not against creativity.
But, it opens the way for some wild suggestions. One day, people would be asking for Starcraft troops to be playable in WoW.

[Teriz]

Shoehorning Tinkers isn't the logical conclusion, and a non-established lore class

Except characters such as Wrathion are well established in lore. Also Blizzard decides what class works within an expansion, not the players.

You think they looked at your concept and decided to add those Wrathion art pieces, even though he could do it since Cataclysm?

Nope, I looked at their pictures and the dragons in HotS and decided that there was a strong basis for a class. Considering that it has been Blizzard putting this together the entire time, it stands to reason that they have a similar view.

According to what rules?

Please explain how a Night Elf, Human, Orc, Troll, Dwarf, etc. would be a Hogger class.

[Triceron]

Because they have no franchise they belong to. And we're suddenly pulling concepts from HotS. So, who says Blizzard wouldn't?

I mean, you're not wrong. But I'd say it'd probably on the level of adding an Overwatch, Starcraft, Rock n Roll Racing or Lost Vikings class to the game. It's merely 'it's possible', with nothing much left to discuss beyond that.

They drew abilities, not the class concept itself. The Demon Hunter has roots in WC3.

And a Dragon class has roots in Dragonsworn from the tabletop RPG, as well as having the general theme represented by characters like Wrathion and the Dragon Aspects.

I mean, i'm not against creativity.
But, it opens the way for some wild suggestions. One day, people would be asking for Starcraft troops to be playable in WoW.

If someone wants to make a thread about that, then they can do so. I think it's fair to say this thread is about a Dragon class, therefore we can discuss it as a hypothetical, right?

Just the same I could come up with a Darkmoon themed 'Mystic' class that uses enchanted Tarot cards as their primary source of spellcasting, with plenty of homages to Hearthstone cards. I think could be discussed on the merit of it being a hypthotical class. I'm presenting a clear archetype and how it would fit into WoW, even if such a class doesn't formally exist, and I'd be drawing examples of how it would work through sources like Hearthstone or the Darkmoon cards or whatever fantasy/pop culture-related characters who happen to use Card-based spellcasting. This wouldn't just be a 'class based on Hearthstone', we're discussing an archetype that has Hearthstone elements within it. And I'd have no problems with that type of hypothetical discussion, as long as everyone is clear the discussion is focused on 'would it be cool as a class concept'.

With this topic, we're discussing 'It would be cool if we had' rather than 'will this become a playable class'. Those are two very different discussions.

[username993720]

Except characters such as Wrathion are well established in lore. Also Blizzard decides what class works within an expansion, not the players.

We're talking about a class. If you search Dragonborn on WoWpedia, you won't find class information.
Of course it is Blizzard who decides. And what have they done time and time again?

Nope, I looked at their pictures and the dragons in HotS and decided that there was a strong basis for a class. Considering that it has been Blizzard putting this together the entire time, it stands to reason that they have a similar view.

Their addition of characters to HotS and Hearthstone is a testament for new classes?

Please explain how a Night Elf, Human, Orc, Troll, Dwarf, etc. would be a Hogger class.

Just like Monks. They train.
And a Hogger class would probably be available to any mongrel race, like Orcs, for example.

I mean, you're not wrong. But I'd say it'd probably on the level of adding an Overwatch, Starcraft, Rock n Roll Racing or Lost Vikings class to the game. It's merely 'it's possible', with nothing much left to discuss beyond that.

I see people would start to claim Orphea is the new Shadow Priest.

And a Dragon class has roots in Dragonsworn from the tabletop RPG, as well as having the general theme represented by characters like Wrathion and the Dragon Aspects.

No, actually. A Dragonsworn is a mortal sworn to the Dragonflights.

If someone wants to make a thread about that, then they can do so. I think it's fair to say this thread is about a Dragon class, therefore we can discuss it as a hypothetical, right?

Definitely.

Just the same I could come up with a Vulpera and Darkmoon themed 'Mystic' class that uses enchanted Tarot cards as their primary source of spellcasting, with plenty of homages to Hearthstone cards. I think could be discussed on the merit of it being a hypthetical class.

You just planted a seed right there

I'd have no problems with that type of discussion, as long as everyone is clear the discussion isn't about how this idea 'will be the next/future WoW class'.

This is largely my issue here. Claiming this is a future class instead of a concept.

With this topic, we're discussing 'It would be cool if we had' rather than 'will this become a playable class'. Those are two very different discussions.

True. With the first one being much more enjoyable.
I might seem like a closed off person when it comes to classes. But, actually, i'm all for 'em. I'm just pointing out addition patterns because i'm into analysing aspects of the game.

[Triceron]

This is largely my issue here. Claiming this is a future class instead of a concept.

Where has that claim been made here? It hasn't.

No, actually. A Dragonsworn is a mortal sworn to the Dragonflights.

The origin doesn't have to be 1:1. Consider that the original (WC3) Death Knight was specific to still-living, corrupted Knights/Paladins who followed Arthas, whereas the WoW version is a race of any origin raised in service of the Lich King. The WoW class is a collection of all Scourge-based themes into one class, on top of adding cutting-room floor design elements from Runemasters and Necromancers. That's a concept well beyond the original Warcraft 3 Death Knight.

True. With the first one being much more enjoyable.
I might seem like a closed off person when it comes to classes. But, actually, i'm all for 'em. I'm just pointing out addition patterns because i'm into analysing aspects of the game.

I've said the exact same thing. You just didn't understand my point for all the times I've made arguments against Night Warriors and Priestess of the Moon and Dark Rangers, when I've always specifically made arguments against them as 'future potential classes for X reasons' rather than simply dismiss them on any merit of being a hypothetical class.

I'm all for any class being possible and being discussed. And on the basis of a hypothetical, there are many other reasons to consider whether it'd be fitting for Warcraft or not. Cuz someone can come up with a 'Machinist' class that centers on using vehicles if they want, but just because we're discussing hypotheticals doesn't automatically mean it'd be a good class for WoW.