The War Within 11.X Patches & World Soul Saga Speculation Thread

[Wyrt]

Yeah, your refusal to answer a simple yes or no question proves my point.

I'm not going to fight your strawman. I'm not talking about mechanics, I'm talking about lore.

[Teriz]

No. fire and Frost are not schools of damage, they are damage types. No one talks about damage types, they are irrelevant. We are talking about the cosmic powers magic school the use. Nature magic for the Force of Life, Arcane magic for the Force of Order, Shadow magic for the Force of Void, Death magic for the Force of Death, Fel magic for the Force of Chaos, Light magic for the Force of Light, Elemental magic for Reality.

These are all concepts and themes that classes build upon. The actual damage type is irrelevant. My rogue deals nature, shadow and plague damage as a deathstalker assassin, but that doesn't make it a shadow or nature magic user. It's just a type assigned to reflect the poisons. Poisons are not magic, yet still deal "magic" damage.

If you can't understand that, you have no ground to talk about classes.

No, all of that stuff you just spouted is irrelevant, because Blizzard wouldn't create another caster class with dedicated specializations to fire and frost magic. Do you know why? Because there's the Mage class doing fire and frost magic and damage, and another class doing it wouldn't be different from the existing Mage class.

no, he deals arcane damage, but is not an arcane melee class

Is he doing arcane melee? That was the question.

[huth]

And that's the lore mumbo-jumbo I'm talking about.

Let's make this simple; Yes or no; Is a guardian druid attacking targets with thrash (which under Lunar Calling is dealing arcane damage) doing arcane melee?

Depends on whether you mean Arcane magic in the sense of Mage magic and Order, then no. Arcane as in it deals arcane damage and would lock out the arcane magic school if it wasn't an instant that can't be interrupted, then yes.

Druids are Nature/Life casters, not Arcane/Order.

[huth]

Is he doing arcane melee? That was the question.

That's a meaningless question because "arcane melee" is no more a sensible combination of words than chainmail potatoes.

[Enrif]

No, all of that stuff you just spouted is irrelevant, because Blizzard wouldn't create another caster class with dedicated specializations to fire and frost magic. Do you know why? Because there's the Mage class doing fire and frost magic and damage, and another class doing it wouldn't be different from the existing Mage class.

If you lack the imagination for that, that is a you problem

Is he doing arcane melee? That was the question.

no he is not. He is doing animal form melee with celestial powers

[Teriz]

Witches are a Warcraft concept too. Drustvar was one of the more outstanding zones in BfA, there's a reason people spoke its praises while damning Stormsong

No? What are you on about? None of the concepts of Warcraft Witches appear in Shaman. Like at most you have Hex. Shamans are elemental. They don't curse people, they don't summon hordes of spiders, they don't make wicker constructs. Plus, if folks wanted a new shaman spec they'd want an earth based tanking spec

You do know that Hex is a curse right?

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=51514/hex

Tinker needs more development as you're quite aware how many people have gone into your very own tinker threads and just gone "Ignore it we already have engineering". Regardless it isn't, Prismatic is more developed than it.

I disagree. The Tinker concept not only discussed the roles it could do, but also what it would do specifically. I didn't see that in other concepts in that survey.

Because turns out there's more to necromancers than just doing what DKs are doing.

Such as?

No it's not? It's just describing wardens.

Saying that it's a Hunter using traps certainly says "Hunter spec or talent tree" to me.

The ability 'spellbreaker' is on one of the most obscure NPCs in the game, just a trash mob involved in one quest that gets steamrolled on your way to the boss. Yeah, they have anti-magic, but they're not defined by it, especially given DKs have anti-magic shield which is a far more iconic ability. Being the anti-magic guy just isn't what DHs are. They're swift, mobile classes who get in and get out, and use the power of demons they're slain and imprisoned, and their big definiig move is Metamorphosis, to the point the reason we don't have it on any other races is those unique Meta forms

Spellbreakers on the other hand haven't done any of that, They're just big, slightly tanky anti-magic warriors who use Spell Steal. You might remember Spell Steal because its been a mage ability since, what, Wrath? They also had Feedback which was a human Priest ability. We've also seen them ingame where they clarify they're a group of warriors

If DHs were going anti-magic given the theme of DHs to be using demonic powers, they wouldn't be pulling out giant tower shields and throwing glaives like the Spellbreaker, they'd be turning into felhunter themed monstrosities just like how their other two specs turn into things with their actual defining ability, Metamorphosis. They would not use anything from the completely unrelated Spellbreaker units who have never been linked to them and they have never used the abilities of. If you're going to argue Mages or Priests are going to become Spellbreakers well, tehre's at least a matching ability for both of them, but I reckon most people will agree 'nah they aren't related'

Folks would love another class that's taking glaives out of the loot pool, same reason we'd love another class to use ranged weapons and stop the classic "Well, three guns have dropped and all of the hunters already have better, guess we're just rolling transmog" curse at present

TBF, Spellbreaker also appeared on a Demon Hunter sub boss. And like I said, Demon Hunters have a history of anti-magic and stealing magic. The idea of Demon Hunters utilizing spellbreaker mechanics isn't as alien as people like to pretend it is. Further, such a concept has a better chance of being part of a class than being its own class.

It got removed in Legion, roll one in Classic.

We're talking about retail WoW, not classic.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a meaningless question because "arcane melee" is no more a sensible combination of words than chainmail potatoes.

It's not a meaningless question when the argument is that the class lineup is missing arcane melee.

Wouldn't a character dealing arcane damage in melee range be considered arcane melee?

[Wyrt]

If you lack the imagination for that, that is a you problem

He's also ignoring that we do have an elemental caster already. One that has a very fire heavy talent build. And it's different, because an elemental class using fire is different from an arcane class using fire.

[Enrif]

It's not a meaningless question when the argument is that the class lineup is missing arcane melee.

Wouldn't a character dealing arcane damage in melee range be considered arcane melee?

is a rogue a nature melee?

Is a warrior a nature melee?

Is a hunter a nature melee?

Is a paladin a fire melee?

Is a demon hunter a fire melee?

that a ridiculous question to ask, and shows your lack of understanding

[Teriz]

is a rogue a nature melee?

Is a warrior a nature melee?

Is a hunter a nature melee?

Is a paladin a fire melee?

Is a demon hunter a fire melee?

that a ridiculous question to ask, and shows your lack of understanding

Howabout this; What's the difference gameplay wise from a Mage casting a fire spell with arcane magic, and another caster casting a fire spell with fire magic?

[Enrif]

Howabout this; What's the difference gameplay wise from a Mage casting a fire spell with arcane magic, and another caster casting a fire spell with fire magic?

the same difference between a mage casting firebolt and a warlock casting shadowbolt. nothing. damage types are irrelevant to gameplay since magic resistances were removed from the game.

[Wyrt]

Howabout this; What's the difference gameplay wise from a Mage casting a fire spell with arcane magic, and another caster casting a fire spell with fire magic?

No one cares. Fire mages and ele shaman both cast a bunch of fire spells. People care that they have different lore and thematics and play differently. No one gives a shit that they both do fire damage.

[Teriz]

the same difference between a mage casting firebolt and a warlock casting shadowbolt. nothing. damage types are irrelevant to gameplay since magic resistances were removed from the game.

Incorrect. There is a difference because Shadow and Fire have mechanics attached to them, such as some races having resistances to certain damage types.

Can you actually try to answer my question this time?

- - - Updated - - -

No one cares.

I didn't ask if you cared. I'm asking what's the difference. If there's no difference between a fire caster using arcane magic to cast fire spells and a fire caster using fire magic to cast fire spells, then the lore mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant.

[Enrif]

Incorrect. There is a difference because Shadow and Fire have mechanics attached to them, such as some races having resistances to certain damage types.

wow 1% damage reduction that only matters for PVP. No one gives a flying fuck about this.

Can you actually try to answer my question this time?

Well, no, i won't. you're up your own arse so much that it is wasted time to talk to you, as you simply can not discuss in good faith, pulling strawmans, and having circular logic that makes a toddler look like a genius in comparison.

[Wyrt]

I didn't ask if you cared. I'm asking what's the difference. If there's no difference between a fire caster using arcane magic to cast fire spells and a fire caster using fire magic to cast fire spells, then the lore mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant.

I like you ignoring the part about ele shamans and fire mages both using fire magic. Do you have selective illiteracy or something? Should probably see a doctor about that.

[Teriz]

wow 1% damage reduction that only matters for PVP. No one gives a flying fuck about this.

That's still a mechanical difference.

Well, no, i won't. you're up your own arse so much that it is wasted time to talk to you, as you simply can not discuss in good faith, pulling strawmans, and having circular logic that makes a toddler look like a genius in comparison.

Asking what's the gameplay difference between a fire caster using arcane magic and a fire caster using fire magic is a straw man?

Wow.

[Supertoster]

No one cares. Fire mages and ele shaman both cast a bunch of fire spells. People care that they have different lore and thematics and play differently. No one gives a shit that they both do fire damage.

Literally this. No matter what damage Mage deals - it is an arcane caster because source of its magic is Arcane. Their fire and frost damage are also Arcane magic.
While Druids also deal arcane damage, their magic is not Arcane - it is Life/Nature magic.

So a new class can deal literally any type of damage and it will be fine as long as its source is different.

Theoretically, Tinker can deal physical, nature, fire and frost damage like Shaman, and also arcane damage like Mage, but it will be fine, because its source will be Tech.

[Teriz]

I like you ignoring the part about ele shamans and fire mages both using fire magic. Do you have selective illiteracy or something? Should probably see a doctor about that.

I ignored it because you were attempting to dodge the question instead of simply answering it.

It's cool though. The point has been proven; Your lore mumbo jumbo means absolutely nothing gameplay wise.

[Enrif]

Literally this. No matter what damage Mage deals - it is an arcane caster because source of its magic is Arcane. Their fire and frost damage are also Arcane magic.
While Druids also deal arcane damage, their magic is not Arcane - it is Life/Nature magic.

So a new class can deal literally any type of damage and it will be fine as long as its source is different.

Theoretically, Tinker can deal physical, nature, fire and frost damage like Shaman, and also arcane damage like Mage, but it will be fine, because its source will be Tech.

to bad this thread, again, gets diluted by one persons irrational ramblings.

meanwhile, the reply by chromie.de about the leaks was drowned by this useless discussion

[Wyrt]

I ignored it because you were attempting to dodge the question instead of simply answering it.

It's cool though. The point has been proven; Your lore mumbo jumbo means absolutely nothing gameplay wise.

Lore is the single most important part of classes. What type of magic damage they do is so meaningless it's basically irrelevant. We wouldn't have 4 fire focused casters if damage type was anywhere near as important as you're trying to make it.

[Teriz]

Literally this. No matter what damage Mage deals - it is an arcane caster because source of its magic is Arcane. Their fire and frost damage are also Arcane magic.
While Druids also deal arcane damage, their magic is not Arcane - it is Life/Nature magic.

So a new class can deal literally any type of damage and it will be fine as long as its source is different.

Theoretically, Tinker can deal physical, nature, fire and frost damage like Shaman, and also arcane damage like Mage, but it will be fine, because its source will be Tech.

This is incorrect. Regardless of what the "lore" says the Mage is actually doing, when you're specced into Fire mage, you're casting fire spells that are dealing fire damage. Because of that, you're never going to see another mage-style class with fire and frost specializations doing fire and frost spells because they're actually using fire or frost magic. That level of distinction on the gameplay level simply doesn't exist.

Once you understand that, the number of potential WoW classes narrows considerably.