We will probably see a new Class during the Worldsoul Saga

[Vaedan]

That isn't on a regular basis though. That's a raid mechanic at best.

There are hunderds of quests in which you, as an adventurer, investigate some mysterious and potentially dangerous relic and deal with it. It is staple quest design which appears a lot. That is quite regular basis.

Then you have a loot you get as player after defeating bosses in either raids and dungeons. That is yet again, regular basis for us, adventurers.

As you pointed out, there are also some raid mechanics which forces us to interact with some objects/artifacts, all while we are not "explorers". That pretty much shows you don't need any particular expertise to use such items.

For these reasons, basing a class around usage of items is very weak and not interesting design choice, because everybody does that all the time.

Which again is not on a "regular basis".

Back in Legion, you as adventurer did it every day. That is regular basis. The only reason why we do not use artifacts anymore is that we sacrificed their power to drain Sword of Sargeras.

That's a matter of opinion. While I wouldn't consider a whip an artifact, Ancient Weapon Oil is a potentially interesting ability, and the ability to ride a Devilsaur sounds cool. I'm also looking forward to seeing how Gatling Wand turns out.

Well, one is just regular interrupt every class (except healing priests) have, the other is already existing consumable item created by a profession system and third one is using a mount. You have nothing unique here. New concept which would make players be excited about this class.

Again, I'm simply going off of the abilities of Artificer Xy'mox, and he's primarily pulling power from relics and artifacts. Brann and/or Reno does the exact same thing with Relic or Uldum and/or Gatling Wand respectively.

Well, because you know, you don't neeed to be any particular class to use an item, as I explained to you above. Every adventurer does that, which is why your explorer class concept is extremely shallow and completely lack any depth and potential for growth and expansion beyond "I hit things with whip and nobody else does it".

Explorers could be "adventurers", but the trouble is:

1) Explorers aren't typically serious combatants - whereas all WoW player classes are. Indeed they're some of the top-tier combatants in the entire WoW lore.

2) WoW player characters already do pretty much all the stuff "Explorers" do - i.e. explore (especially ruins), climb, use items, and so on.

Explorer wouldn't be impossible as a 4th Hunter subspec, or set of Hero Talents or something.

WoW is just not a game where you would have an Explorer class, because it's not even as combat-centric as Hunter, let alone stuff like Demon Hunter or Death Knight.

Artificer is questionable for similar reasons, but slightly more theoretically possible because it could be a very combat-focused one.

However, looking at WoW's history, all the classes they've added have been very serious combatants, lore-wise, and given about 80% of WoW is fighting stuff (maybe more), that doesn't seem likely to change. Especially not with Explorer, which is just combining elements of Hunter, Rogue and generic adventurer.

I can imagine that explorer concept could be, in a way, translated into a secondary profession, possibly in revamped Archaelogy.
It has some gimmicky visuals and mostly non-serious fluff, which would be fine for a non mandatory profession. That is fine.

Hunter hero spec could also work, potentially, but I would have to see how it is done. As you said, in comparison to other existing classes, such a flimsy concepts sounds more like an afterthought. It has no real "meat" to it, nothing others can't do.

[Teriz]

This is a completely irrational thing to "go off". Artificer Xy'mox is essentially caught in the process of a theft, and desperately unleashes the power of some items to try and stop the PCs. There's no real indication that there's even a connection between his title ("Artificer") and using the abilities.

Being able to pull power/magic from artifacts is an example of an artificer.

The cold fact is that artificer, in ALL CONTEXTS means someone who makes stuff. That's true across both the real meaning of the word, and how it's used in fantasy. You can't prove Xy'mox doesn't make stuff, here, and all the other examples are clearly people who do make stuff. So it's literally irrational to believe that Xy'mox doesn't.

Uh I can prove that Xy'mox doesn't make stuff because he doesn't make stuff in our encounter with him. You assuming that he is making stuff is headcanon, plain and simple.

Do you not understand what a job is? Artificer is a job. We fight plenty of Blacksmiths who just hit us, who don't spontaneously forge swords in battle lol.

You've irrationally decided because NPCs have jobs, that a class called Artificer would do exactly the same thing as EVERY SINGLE NPC WHO HAS EVER BEEN CALLED ARTIFICER.

It's just totally irrational.

TBF, Artificer is a broad term. Blacksmith is not. I have no idea why you made such a laughable comparison, yet here we are.

Unlike you, I wasn't. I said it was a distant synonym. You've claimed it's the same exact thing and interchangeable word. That's obviously false.

Uh, that's literally what "synonym" means sir. So yes, Brew is the same thing as Potion and the words are interchangeable.

[Eurhetemec]

Being able to pull power/magic from artifacts is an example of an artificer.

No lol. You don't understand English words, apparently. That's absolutely not what it means. Artificer means someone who makes something. It's very funny that you think because they both have the same root word they're connected beyond meaning "made thing" and "person who makes things".

Uh I can prove that Xy'mox doesn't make stuff because he doesn't make stuff in our encounter with him. You assuming that he is making stuff is headcanon, plain and simple.

LOL now you're showing you don't know what "prove" means. This is incredible! Truly remarkable.

TBF, Artificer is a broad term. Blacksmith is not. I have no idea why you made such a laughable comparison, yet here we are.

They're both terms for people who make stuff. They're easily comparable. Both are jobs. You seem to not understand what a job is.

Uh, that's literally what "synonym" means sir. So yes, Brew is the same thing as Potion and the words are interchangeable.

Wow. You literally are lying about how language works on a basic level. This is incredible. What do you think you're achieving here, apart from looking profoundly dishonest?

[Teriz]

There are hunderds of quests in which you, as an adventurer, investigate some mysterious and potentially dangerous relic and deal with it. It is staple quest design which appears a lot. That is quite regular basis.

Then you have a loot you get as player after defeating bosses in either raids and dungeons. That is yet again, regular basis for us, adventurers.

As you pointed out, there are also some raid mechanics which forces us to interact with some objects/artifacts, all while we are not "explorers". That pretty much shows you don't need any particular expertise to use such items.

For these reasons, basing a class around usage of items is very weak and not interesting design choice, because everybody does that all the time.

We're clearly having different understandings of the word "regularly". When I say "regularly" I mean utilizing a powerful artifact all the time throughout the leveling or gameplay process. For example, having the Dragon Soul permanently as a source for abilities and talents. That would be an example of having an artifact on a regular basis, and an artificer should be able to utilize that artifact expertly on a consistent basis.

Back in Legion, you as adventurer did it every day. That is regular basis. The only reason why we do not use artifacts anymore is that we sacrificed their power to drain Sword of Sargeras.

Again, I'm talking about being able to use an artifact's full power permanently, not until the quest/raid/expansion is over.

Well, one is just regular interrupt every class (except healing priests) have, the other is already existing consumable item created by a profession system and third one is using a mount. You have nothing unique here. New concept which would make players be excited about this class.

You're grossly minimizing the concept purely for argumentative reasons. You could easily create a set of whip based abilities like I did in my class concept. Ancient Weapon Oil is a unique mechanic not really found on any profession item. If you do find it, let me know. As for the Devilsaur mount, Rider of the Apocalypse and Divine Steed shows that Blizzard is far more open to mounted combat. Imagine mounted combat on the back of your own Devilsaur? Considering the excitement around Rider of the Apocalypse, it's silly (and dishonest) to believe that people wouldn't be excited about a class ability that allows you fight on and ride a Devilsaur. Especially considering that Devilsaurs currently can't be mounted.

[Vaedan]

We're clearly having different understandings of the word "regularly". When I say "regularly" I mean utilizing a powerful artifact all the time throughout the leveling or gameplay process. For example, having the Dragon Soul permanently as a source for abilities and talents. That would be an example of having an artifact on a regular basis, and an artificer should be able to utilize that artifact expertly on a consistent basis.

We may agree to disagree on this matter, if you will.
My point is that actual WoW gameplay is focused on players using items. It is not special avenue for any class.

You're grossly minimizing the concept purely for argumentative reasons. You could easily create a set of whip based abilities like I did in my class concept. Ancient Weapon Oil is a unique mechanic not really found on any profession item. If you do find it, let me know. As for the Devilsaur mount, Rider of the Apocalypse and Divine Steed shows that Blizzard is far more open to mounted combat. Imagine mounted combat on the back of your own Devilsaur? Considering the excitement around Rider of the Apocalypse, it's silly (and dishonest) to believe that people wouldn't be excited about a class ability that allows you fight on and ride a Devilsaur. Especially considering that Devilsaurs currently can't be mounted.

I am not minimizing concept purely for the sake of argument. I am not convinced by it at all and you, as a creator of this concept, did not convinced me that this concept has any appeal to it.
Using whip is not present in current class line up, but it is not something which would be exciting gameplay. I can also imagine rogues or hunters utilizing it. Nothing about using a whip makes me think about "Explorer" fantasy. It is in here only as a reference to Indiana Jones, which is pretty weak foundation to build a class upon.
Ancient oil is hardly unique as it is already existing consumable or you can interchange it with a shaman weapon enhancements.
Riding devilsaur might appoeal to Jurasic Park fans, but I find it rather silly. It does not match epicness of Rider of the Apocalypse, which literally summons important lore figures of your class order hall, neither it feels signiture to class fantasy as Divine Steed does for paladins. If I think of an explorer fantasy, I don't picture a person riding dinosaur and hitting things with whips.

It is very strange hill to die on. You certainly have more viable class concepts. This one is very unrealistic and what I have seen, nobody vibes with it and is interesting in playing it...

[Teriz]

We may agree to disagree on this matter, if you will.
My point is that actual WoW gameplay is focused on players using items. It is not special avenue for any class.

And my point is that a class that specializes in utilizing powerful artifacts can be a special avenue for a new class.

Agree to disagree.

I am not minimizing concept purely for the sake of argument. I am not convinced by it at all and you, as a creator of this concept, did not convinced me that this concept has any appeal to it.
Using whip is not present in current class line up, but it is not something which would be exciting gameplay. I can also imagine rogues or hunters utilizing it. Nothing about using a whip makes me think about "Explorer" fantasy. It is in here only as a reference to Indiana Jones, which is pretty weak foundation to build a class upon.

Again, agree to disagree. I believe that whip abilities can be utilized for everything from interrupts, to taunts, to movement, to damage. It's versatile and would give the class a very unique tool that also fits the theme.

Ancient oil is hardly unique as it is already existing consumable or you can interchange it with a shaman weapon enhancements.

Ancient Weapon Oil enchants an allies' weapon as long as they stay in combat. When the enchant ends, it jumps to a nearby ally. I'm not aware of anything in enchanting or the Shaman class having those mechanics.

Riding devilsaur might appoeal to Jurasic Park fans, but I find it rather silly. It does not match epicness of Rider of the Apocalypse, which literally summons important lore figures of your class order hall, neither it feels signiture to class fantasy as Divine Steed does for paladins. If I think of an explorer fantasy, I don't picture a person riding dinosaur and hitting things with whips.

It's pictured right here;

It is very strange hill to die on. You certainly have more viable class concepts. This one is very unrealistic and what I have seen, nobody vibes with it and is interesting in playing it...

If you go through the class thread, quite a few people vibed with it and were interested in playing it.

[Ielenia]

Hunters use whips and ride on the back of Devilsaurs? Since when?

Devilsaur mounts exist since Vanilla, if you recall.

As for the whip, again, I'll repeat what you keep ignoring: it fits perfectly among the hunter class' many thematics, especially for Survival and Beastmaster.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly are the rumours? It seems unlikely a tech-themed class in WoW would exclude the Draenei and to a lesser extent the Blood Elves, too.

His "rumors" are nothing more than his own wishlist he's pretending other people have found evidence of.

- - - Updated - - -

That the upcoming technology class would be based around Gazlowe, Speaker Brinthe, Mango's grandkid, and Mekkatorque, with Gazlowe being the primary conceptual basis. Which makes sense given his WC3/HotS pedigree and the origin of the concept.

But again, it's only a rumor.

That's not a rumor. That's making up shit, because there's no evidence of any class being based around those characters, much less rumors of an upcoming technology class.

Stop making stuff up and just admit that this is just your wish list, not any kind of rumor actually going around.

[Teriz]

Devilsaur mounts exist since Vanilla, if you recall.

Where?

As for the whip, again, I'll repeat what you keep ignoring: it fits perfectly among the hunter class' many thematics, especially for Survival and Beastmaster.

Warglaives fit into the thematics of Warriors, Rogues, and Monks. They could even use Illidan's Warglaives.

Despite that, Demon Hunters still became playable and made warglaives an exclusive weapon only to them.

Whips, on the other hand, are no where in the hunter class.

[Ielenia]

Yet and still we got a Monk class who completely revolves around using potions and brews to heal and empower themselves.

Why do you think lying so blatantly and making shit up that is so easily debunkable is a good idea?

[Nightshade711]

Being able to pull power/magic from artifacts is an example of an artificer.

Bro what are you even talking about. Do you have one single source that artificers pull magic from artifacts instead of making them?

When you say “artificer” no one is thinking about whatever nonsense you are talking about, they’re thinking about this:

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/artificer

Artificer
Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions. You can find everything you need to play one of these inventors in the next few sections.

Which lines up perfectly for what we’ve seen in WoW, especially with the Draenei.

I’m curious to see what source you’ve got saying otherwise for artificers.

Uh I can prove that Xy'mox doesn't make stuff because he doesn't make stuff in our encounter with him. You assuming that he is making stuff is headcanon, plain and simple.

I’m curious to see this “proof” you have that Xy’mox doesn’t make stuff. It is quite likely that he made the broker technology he’s using in all of his fights.

- - - Updated - - -

Hunters use whips and ride on the back of Devilsaurs? Since when?

Bran doesn’t ride on the back of a Devilsaur in-game. He just uses it as a hunter pet basically.

[Teriz]

Bro what are you even talking about. Do you have one single source that artificers pull magic from artifacts instead of making them?

When you say “artificer” no one is thinking about whatever nonsense you are talking about, they’re thinking about this:

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/artificer

Which lines up perfectly for what we’ve seen in WoW, especially with the Draenei.

I’m curious to see what source you’ve got saying otherwise for artificers.

Like I said, we can simply look at the variety of Artificers in WoW itself. Most of them are very different from the Draenei variety.

I’m curious to see this “proof” you have that Xy’mox doesn’t make stuff. It is quite likely that he made the broker technology he’s using in all of his fights.

Because he doesn't make anything in his fight, nor is he described as someone who makes stuff. I'm pretty sure that lore wise he's described as a thief.

[Nightshade711]

Like I said, we can simply look at the variety of Artificers in WoW itself. Most of them are very different from the Draenei variety.

Have any examples that you can prove don’t invent things?

Because he doesn't make anything in his fight, nor is he described as someone who makes stuff. I'm pretty sure that lore wise he's described as a thief.

That’s not proof that he doesn’t invent things. As said, it is likely that’s what he did to make the gadgets he uses in the fight.

Which his voice lines during both fights actually alludes to.

[Teriz]

Have any examples that you can prove don’t invent things?

Stormforged Artificers. Archaios the Artificer, Grand Artificer Zeerak, Artificer Xy'mox, etc.

That’s not proof that he doesn’t invent things. As said, it is likely that’s what he did to make the gadgets he uses in the fight.

Doubtful, considering that the gadgets he uses are called relics.

[Ielenia]

Where?

The raptor mount from Zul'Gurub comes to mind. And that one counts because it's basically a devilsaur scaled down. You're not going to get a class mount that makes you taller than most buildings in WoW.

Warglaives fit into the thematics of Warriors, Rogues, and Monks. They could even use Illidan's Warglaives.

Monks are unarmed fighters, and wield weapons purely for the game mechanics of "you need a weapon". After all, 90% of their attacks use bare fists or feet.

Warglaives don't really fit into the warrior or rogue thematics. Warriors are your common grunts and soldiers, and warglaives are specialized weapons. As for the rogue, the thematic of the rogue requires light, fast weapons, which the warglaives are not.

Whips, on the other hand, are no where in the hunter class.

And I'll repeat that I never said it's "in" the hunter class. I said it fits all the themes in the Hunter class.

[Nightshade711]

Stormforged Artificers. Archaios the Artificer, Grand Artificer Zeerak, Artificer Xy'mox, etc.

And I don’t see a single think saying those don’t invent/build gadgets/magical technology.

Doubtful, considering that the gadgets he uses are called relics.

He calls the relics relics. Not his broker technology.

[Ielenia]

Stormforged Artificers. Archaios the Artificer, Grand Artificer Zeerak, Artificer Xy'mox, etc.

Can you prove that those examples don't invent things? Like Nightshade asked?

Doubtful, considering that the gadgets he uses are called relics.

Being able to invent things doesn't preclude one from using relics.

[Teriz]

The raptor mount from Zul'Gurub comes to mind. And that one counts because it's basically a devilsaur scaled down. You're not going to get a class mount that makes you taller than most buildings in WoW.

Uh its not even the same model.

Also the Hunter devilsaur pets aren't the size of buildings. There's nothing wrong with something that size being a mount.

Monks are unarmed fighters, and wield weapons purely for the game mechanics of "you need a weapon". After all, 90% of their attacks use bare fists or feet.

Warglaives don't really fit into the warrior or rogue thematics. Warriors are your common grunts and soldiers, and warglaives are specialized weapons. As for the rogue, the thematic of the rogue requires light, fast weapons, which the warglaives are not.

A bladed weapon doesn't fit the thematics of three classes known for being capable of using bladed weapons? What? Especially warriors who are themed to be masters of weapons period.

And I'll repeat that I never said it's "in" the hunter class. I said it fits all the themes in the Hunter class.

If it fit the themes of the Hunter class, it would be in the hunter class.

- - - Updated - - -

And I don’t see a single think saying those don’t invent/build gadgets/magical technology.

Xy'mox drawing and using power from relics would indicate that he didn't build the relics himself.

He calls the relics relics. Not his broker technology.

He's exploiting the power of those relics (artifacts). That's the point, and why he's called an Artificer.

- - - Updated - - -

Being able to invent things doesn't preclude one from using relics.

But it does preclude you from being the one who built the relic you're utilizing for combat.

[Ielenia]

Uh its not even the same model.

I never said they're the same model. I said they have the same overall shape.

Also the Hunter devilsaur pets aren't the size of buildings.

We're not talking pets here. We're talking mounts, remember? "Brann riding a devilsaur".

And the hunter pets are scaled down for gameplay reasons. They don't have the magical power of shrinking beasts down up to a quarter of their sizes after taming them.

There's nothing wrong with something that size being a mount.

It'd be a raptor mount, at the end of the day.

A bladed weapon doesn't fit the thematics of three classes known for being capable of using bladed weapons? What?

Warglaives are exotic weapons that don't exist within the societies in WoW, hence why warriors and rogues are not trained in them.

And again: monks are not known for using weapons. The main shtick of the class is unarmed combat, for crying out loud.

If it fit the themes of the Hunter class, it would be in the hunter class.

That's not how it works. Just because something fits within a theme, does not mean it has to be present. For example: transforming into an elemental ascendant fits the theme of an elementalist class (shaman) yet it didn't exist in the shaman class until Mists of Pandaria.

But it does preclude you from being the one who built the relic you're utilizing for combat.

So what? Again: why do you think being able to invent devices would somehow preclude you from using relics you've found laying around?

[Triceron]

I disagree. It was HotS that showcased how a dragon class with the player actually being a dragon could mechanically work. Prior to HotS, dragon class concepts consisted of Dragon Knights or humans who worship dragons and perform dragon magic like the Dragonsworn on Timeless Isle.

And we don't have that in HOTS, or even WoW.

The NPCs you are using examples of are just a ragtag group of Adventurers, like our own players forming a group for a dungeon.

Similar to how there's four characters to choose from to play Hearthstone's Witchwood. They all have their own archetypes.

In this case, we have Hearthstone giving these characters abilities

And archetypes, and Elise is a Druid archetype. There is no cohesion between their abilities.

The thing is that according to lore there's only one hero of a specific class. So there aren't thousands of hero Shaman, Warriors, etc. running around, there's only a single one who is the champion of the Horde or the Alliance.

Order Halls say otherwise. There are thousands of every class, and there are at least 3 representatives of each class (barring DH) who represent their specs, having been shown wielding various artifacts in the Legion final cinematic.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that point then.

It's practically everyone disagreeing with you. Not a single person in this thread supports the Explorer concept. It may have potential for merit, but definitely not by any examples you have brought here. It's rather unconvincing.

Whips and Hat buffs aren't really solid concept. And for whatever reason, you've chosen it to be a hill to die on.

Yes, as the class matured more elements were added. The point is that the Monk class was a memetastic, whimsical class, and this would also be a memetastic whimsical class. There's nothing wrong with having a light-hearted class every once in awhile.

But it's clear that Blizzard hasn't returned to that type of design for WoW Classes. I'd even go as far as saying Ghostcrawler might be right all these years about the Devs actively avoiding whimsical' elements. It's been over a decade of class design with zero comic relief added since Brewmaster's kegs. All of the fun stuff is pushed onto Toys, Glyphs and Transmogs.

HOTS was definitely a great approach to incorporating radical and whimsical elements. I absolutely love their design for Murky, Hogger, and even going as far as a 2 Player Cho'Gall.

[Nightshade711]

Xy'mox drawing and using power from relics would indicate that he didn't build the relics himself.

He's exploiting the power of those relics (artifacts). That's the point, and why he's called an Artificer.

The Broker Technology he is using to do such likely was invented by him. Not to mention the teleporters and other tech he uses in the fights.
Which again his voice lines suggest he invented given he refers to them as a product of his genius.

If blizzard wanted to change the definition of Artificer they would’ve made a point to do so, yet there’s no lore stating as such.
Unless that is you can find me actual lore pointing to what you’re trying to claim, instead of a bunch of random throwaway NPCs who don’t prove either side of the argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Stormforged Artificers. Archaios the Artificer, Grand Artificer Zeerak, Artificer Xy'mox, etc.

Also decided to look a bit further. The Stormforged Artificers are part of a quest, the quest text outright says “they build a weapon that threatens us all.” referring to the Iron Colossus they’re building.

Archaios the Artificer seems to have made an artifact that helped make the cloak for timerunning.

Grand Artificer Zeerak is quite literally a random NPC with no quest text or lore attached to it. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here?

And Xy’mox has already been discussed.

Do you have any other examples for us to debunk?