The Next WoW class in 9.0

[Triceron]

DKs already have Lich abilities, can spread plagues, are Undead, can wear robes, and can cast spells. They can even equip scythes.

What's the difference?

They are completely melee. DK's Lich abilities all supplement Melee gameplay. They can spread Plagues - through Melee. They can wear robes and cast spells - for Melee gameplay. They can even equip Scythes - for melee.

They are a melee class. The Necromancer identity is that of a cloth-wearing spellcaster. I mean, is this much different than saying 'Armored warrior who uses Holy Magic' ss a unique identity despite having both Armored Warriors and Holy Magic Users in the game?

And the only reason DKs don't do that is because they already have Lich abilities without having to "Transform", and they can already spread plagues without having to use cauldrons. Coming up with more convoluted ways to perform existing abilities and gameplay is not unique.

You are literally pointing out differences, then saying it's not unique :P

While they don't have a caster spec, DKs can perform a wide variety of Necromancer-based spells. Again, a DK animating a corpse is no different than a Necromancer animating a corpse.

While they don't have a caster spec, DKsPallies can perform a wide variety of Necromancer-based Priest-based spells. Again, a DK animating a corpse Pally using Holy Magic is no different than a Necromancer animating a corpse Priest using Holy Magic.

The DH can turn into a demon, and the Paladin is a heavily armored warrior that uses holy magic. No other class does either.

No other Undead magic user wears cloth and has a Caster spec.

[Teriz]

They are completely melee.

Death Coil, Howling Blast, Death's Caress, Blooddrinker, Death and Decay, Gargoyle, Sindragosa's Breath, Clawing Shadows, etc.

DK's Lich abilities all supplement Melee gameplay. They can spread Plagues - through Melee.

Outbreak is ranged and causes Virulent Plague. Howling Blast is ranged and causes Frost Fever. Death's Caress is ranged and causes Blood Plague.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

They can wear robes and cast spells - for Melee gameplay. They can even equip Scythes - for melee.

See above.

They are a melee class. The Necromancer identity is that of a cloth-wearing spellcaster. I mean, is this much different than saying 'Armored warrior who uses Holy Magic' ss a unique identity despite having both Armored Warriors and Holy Magic Users in the game?

Yes, because no other class is a heavily armored warrior that uses Holy magic.

Your attempt to argue that Necromancers are different than DKs simply because you think that Necromancers can only be clothie spell casters is like arguing that Enhancement Shaman and Elemental Shaman should be different classes because one is a melee/magic hybrid and the other is a pure spellcaster.

You are literally pointing out differences, then saying it's not unique :P

Saying that a Necromancer needs to be its own class because they use Cauldrons to spread diseases is laughable.

While they don't have a caster spec, DKsPallies can perform a wide variety of Necromancer-based Priest-based spells. Again, a DK animating a corpse Pally using Holy Magic is no different than a Necromancer animating a corpse Priest using Holy Magic.

Priests don't only use Holy magic. That's the difference.

No other Undead magic user wears cloth and has a Caster spec.

You mean other than the Forsaken who can play as Mages, Priests, and Warlocks?

[Hitei]

Priests don't only use Holy magic. That's the difference.

Velen confirmed Paladin.

[Triceron]

Death Coil, Howling Blast, Death's Caress, Blooddrinker, Death and Decay, Gargoyle, Sindragosa's Breath, Clawing Shadows, etc.

Unholy - Melee DPS
Frost - Melee DPS
Blood - Melee Tank.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Yes. Specs.

Which you seem to be very confused about, considering you can't tell the difference between Ranged Specs and Ranged Spells.

Yes, because no other class is a heavily armored warrior that uses Holy magic.

And no other cloth-wearing caster uses Necromancy.

Saying that a Necromancer needs to be its own class because they use Cauldrons to spread diseases is laughable.

Yes, that's why a new class is added for their Identity, not its spells lol

I have been saying individual spells are a bad reason to add any new class, and here you are agreeing that adding a new class for one spell is laughable.

A Necromancer needs to be its own class because no other Undead-themed class is a Cloth-wearing Spellcaster. Spell mechanics are all up to the Designers to create fun gameplay.

You mean other than the Forsaken who can play as Mages, Priests, and Warlocks?

Yes, because a Forsaken Warrior =/= Death Knight. A Forsaken Mage/Priest/Warlock =/= Necromancer.

[Teriz]

Unholy - Melee DPS
Frost - Melee DPS
Blood - Melee Tank.

And none of those specs are "completely melee", as you attempted to argue before.

Yes. Specs.

Which you seem to be very confused about, considering you can't tell the difference between Ranged Specs and Ranged Spells.

You weren't talking about specs, you were saying that DKs only deploy diseases through melee. You are wrong.

And no other cloth-wearing caster uses Necromancy.

As has been shown, a cloth wearing necromancer is unnecessary when you already have a plate wearing necromancer.

Yes, that's why a new class is added for their Identity, not its spells lol

Utilizing cauldrons is not an identity, especially for a Necromancer class, and especially when a class already uses cauldrons.

I have been saying individual spells are a bad reason to add any new class, and here you are agreeing with me by giving proof why adding a new class for one spell is laughable.

When I say that Demon Hunters are unique because they transform into demons for example, I'm not talking about just one ability.

A Necromancer needs to be its own class because no other Undead-themed class is a Cloth-wearing Spellcaster.

That is not a good enough reason to introduce a new class.

[Triceron]

And none of those specs are "completely melee", as you attempted to argue before./

What is important is identity. DK specs are all melee. That does not fulfill a Scoruge /cult of the damned Necromancer fantasy. Is this not true?

You weren't talking about specs, you were saying that DKs only deploy diseases through melee. You are wrong.

They deploy diseases as a melee spec. As in, for a melee class.

Are you telling me any class using short ranged diseases is what a Necromancer is?

As has been shown, a cloth wearing necromancer is unnecessary when you already have a plate wearing necromancer.

If we resort to using bad reasons to add a class, yes it is unnecessary. I mean, all new classes are unnecessary.

We dont have new classes because they are necessary, we have them because there is a demand for them playable.

Utilizing cauldrons is not an identity, especially for a Necromancer class, and especially when a class already uses cauldrons.

But you defined a Demon Hunter by their demon transformation when we already jad a class with demon transformation. Huh.

That is not a good enough reason to introduce a new class.

It is and that is why Demon Hunters are playable in Legion instead of the logically reasonable Tinkers.

[Teriz]

What is important is identity. DK specs are all melee. That does not fulfill a Scoruge /cult of the damned Necromancer fantasy. Is this not true?

No, because the DK is the embodiment of the Scourge itself. It contains the Frost spells of the Lich, the Necromantic powers of the Necromancers and the Death Knight, and the Life draining abilities of the Dreadlord. And again, the specs are not entirely melee. It is a hybrid class that fights from melee range, but is loaded with ranged magical abilities. That's what makes the class so powerful and so unique.

They deploy diseases as a melee spec. As in, for a melee class.

They can deploy a disease from 30 yards away. That is a ranged ability, and no different than how a Necromancer would deploy a disease.

Are you telling me any class using short ranged diseases is what a Necromancer is?

30 yards is not "short ranged". That was the typical standard range for magic spells up until around WoD when they started to get pushed up to 35 and 40 yards.

If we resort to using bad reasons to add a class, yes it is unnecessary. I mean, all new classes are unnecessary.

Saying that a class should be in the game when it does pretty much the same thing as an existing class, yet wears a different armor type is a very bad reason to add the class into the game. You need something far more substantial than that.

We dont have new classes because they are necessary, we have them because there is a demand for them playable.

No, we have them because they fit into an expansion theme AND there is demand. The thing is, you can squash much of that Necromancer demand by simply pumping more Necromancer spells into Unholy and/or make it a true ranged spec. They're almost there as it is.

But you defined a Demon Hunter by their demon transformation when we already jad a class with demon transformation. Huh.

Yes, and Warlocks had their version of Demonic transformation removed in order to facilitate Demon Hunters being the only class that can transform into a demon.

It is and that is why Demon Hunters are playable in Legion instead of the logically reasonable Tinkers.

Demon Hunters had a lot more going for them than what you're attributing to a proposed Necromancer class. So far I'm only hearing armor type and range. That really isn't enough to justify an entirely new class.

[threads]

new classes need to heavily fit in the story and there's nothing that would make tinkers essential. all we are gonna get is the mechagon gnome island to collect stuff and build robots.

we aren't in need of tinkers to save us from old gods.

[Teriz]

new classes need to heavily fit in the story and there's nothing that would make tinkers essential. all we are gonna get is the mechagon gnome island to collect stuff and build robots.

we aren't in need of tinkers to save us from old gods.

Machines cant be corrupted by the Old Gods.

In addition, the only Azerothian that was able to reverse engineer titan technology was a Tinker.

[Triceron]

No, because the DK is the embodiment of the Scourge itself.

That's cool, because the Necromancer is not an embodiment of the Scourge. Just as Paladins are the embodiment of the Holy Light, but Priests are not. Priests cover all types of Faiths, which includes but is not exclusive to the Holy Light.

Necromancers, IMO, embody all types of Necromancy, including the Scourge and beyond.

30 yards is not "short ranged".

Nice to know. Still, this doesn't prove that DKs have a caster spec, which is one of the identities of a Necromancer.

A very bad reason to add the class into the game

Bad to you though. So we mark this down as opinion, fair?

No, we have them because they fit into an expansion theme AND there is demand. The thing is, you can squash much of that Necromancer demand by simply pumping more Necromancer spells into Unholy and/or make it a true ranged spec. They're almost there as it is.

If the game was driven by necessity to fill gaps or bring new gameplay, then a leather-wearing Demon Hunter would not have been chosen over a mail-wearing Tinker. Is this a fair assessment?

And no, they can't just start giving themed abilities/items to a class and pretend it is another class. Otherwise we don't need Tinkers because Mechagon gives us grenades, turrets and other stuff; and I don't consider that a viable replacement for a new class.

Demon Hunters had a lot more going for them than what you're attributing to a proposed Necromancer class. So far I'm only hearing armor type and range. That really isn't enough to justify an entirely new class.

You also had a lot more reasons to dismiss the Demon Hunter than you do the Necromancer. Tinker remains a very strong concept yet the Demon Hunter was added for, what you consider, 'bad reasons'. Personally i don't think Blizzard holds anything sacred, therefore there is no such thing as a bad reason. Forsaken and Blood Elves joining the Horde was done for bad reasons, yet here we are.

[threads]

Machines cant be corrupted by the Old Gods.

In addition, the only Azerothian that was able to reverse engineer titan technology was a Tinker.

u can corrupt the guy using the machine. then what

[Teriz]

That's cool, because the Necromancer is not an embodiment of the Scourge. Just as Paladins are the embodiment of the Holy Light, but Priests are not. Priests cover all types of Faiths, which includes but is not exclusive to the Holy Light.

Necromancers, IMO, embody all types of Necromancy, including the Scourge and beyond.

Well that's definitely your opinion. The Monk class certainly doesn't embody all types of Azerothian Martial Arts, only the Pandaren variety. Despite that, we're almost certainly not getting another Monk class.

Nice to know. Still, this doesn't prove that DKs have a caster spec, which is one of the identities of a Necromancer.

Blizzard has demonstrated in both HotS and Diablo that a Necromancer doesn't need to be a caster.

Bad to you though. So we mark this down as opinion, fair?

You honestly believe that the game benefits from having multiple classes being essentially the same thing?

If the game was driven by necessity to fill gaps or bring new gameplay, then a leather-wearing Demon Hunter would not have been chosen over a mail-wearing Tinker. Is this a fair assessment?

I don't know. It could be argued that the Demon Hunter did offer new gameplay through its double jumping, dashing, and demonic transformations.

And no, they can't just start giving themed abilities/items to a class and pretend it is another class. Otherwise we don't need Tinkers because Mechagon gives us grenades, turrets and other stuff; and I don't consider that a viable replacement for a new class.

Those engineering items can only be used in Mechagon though. That's not quite the same as continuing to push UH DKs in the direction they're already going down.

You also had a lot more reasons to dismiss the Demon Hunter than you do the Necromancer. Tinker remains a very strong concept yet the Demon Hunter was added for, what you consider, 'bad reasons'. Personally i don't think Blizzard holds anything sacred, therefore there is no such thing as a bad reason. Forsaken and Blood Elves joining the Horde was done for bad reasons, yet here we are.

As I said before, nothing stops Blizzard from bringing the Necromancer class into the game. I just don't see any reason why they would do it given what they've done with the DK, and the sheer redundancy of having another class that summons undead minions.

- - - Updated - - -

u can corrupt the guy using the machine. then what

Not necessarily. While inside mechs, Tinkers are considered mechanicals.

[nysisyn]

Don't forget that old gods may not be the theme of next expansion.
Nzoth could be killed as soon as 8.3 (And that would be a good thing in my opinion).

About dark ranger and necromancer. I can't imagine them as a class as they are not enough distinct from hunter/warlock
But we could have an Acolyte class, with Dark ranger spec (Ranged dps), Necromancer spec (Heal/Summoner spec) and a tanking spec

[Triceron]

Well that's definitely your opinion. The Monk class certainly doesn't embody all types of Azerothian Martial Arts, only the Pandaren variety. Despite that, we're almost certainly not getting another Monk class.

Right. There is no demand for any other type of Monk.

Blizzard has demonstrated in both HotS and Diablo that a Necromancer doesn't need to be a caster.

Blizzard has demonstrated many things, but the want for a Caster-based Necromancer doesn't come from what Blizzard demonstrates, but is driven by player demand.

You honestly believe that the game benefits from having multiple classes being essentially the same thing?

So long as it is fun, I see no reason why not.

I love playing my Holy Paladin and wouldn't trade it in for a Holy Priest any day. I wouldn't trade my Guardian Druid for a Warrior either.

I don't know. It could be argued that the Demon Hunter did offer new gameplay through its double jumping, dashing, and demonic transformations.

But it can be argued they are spells that fit the Rogue and Warlock too. You just say a DK can do it and dismiss any new mechanics for a Necromancer.

This is honestly the same thing you brought up against Demon Hunters. 'But Warlocks have demonic transformations and Rogues can dash and be given double jump'. So is it really unique to the Demon Hunter? I would say no.

I would say the Demon Hunter is a unique identity that players recognize and want to play.

Those engineering items can only be used in Mechagon though. That's not quite the same as continuing to push UH DKs in the direction they're already going down.

The dev made an example of certain grenades being useful in the Nazjatar raid. I don't know if that's true or the dev was giving a bad example.

As I said before, nothing stops Blizzard from bringing the Necromancer class into the game. I just don't see any reason why they would do it given what they've done with the DK, and the sheer redundancy of having another class that summons undead minions.

You're free to share that opinion, but you can't make an argument about lack of uniqueness by suggesting that DK's have claim over abilities they don't have.

Redundancy has never been an issue in class design. You're holding fast to a rule that has never been true.

What would you call Holy Paladin and Holy Priest specs if not redundant?

[Temis]

It's that time of year again! In less than 7 months, the next WoW class will be announced for the new WoW expansion. The question is, what will it be? Traditionally, new classes are released in every other expansion, with the previous release being the Demon Hunter in WoW: Legion. Since the release of the Demon Hunter Class in 2016, speculation has run wild on what the next class will be in World of Warcraft.

This poll will list the top potential classes based on threads here and on other forums, evidence within the game of its existence, as well as the history of previous class releases. The previous expansion classes (Death Knight, Monk, and Demon Hunter) were largely based on hero units from WC3, but there is precedent for a class to exist that was never a hero unit, but was instead a traditional RPG class trope (Rogue, Priest).

I'm looking forward to seeing the results this time around. The poll expires about a week before BlizzCon 2019's supposed date, so it will be interesting to compare the results to what we actually get.

Blizzard needs to fix the classes, they shouldnt be adding any new classes.

[Teriz]

Right. There is no demand for any other type of Monk.

Blizzard has demonstrated many things, but the want for a Caster-based Necromancer doesn't come from what Blizzard demonstrates, but is driven by player demand.

Even if that's the case, why wouldn't Blizzard simply give UH the option to go full ranged instead of attempting to squeeze out an entirely new class? Unholy is only about 2-3 talents away from that point as it is.

So long as it is fun, I see no reason why not.

I love playing my Holy Paladin and wouldn't trade it in for a Holy Priest any day. I wouldn't trade my Guardian Druid for a Warrior either.

Yeah, you're talking about specs. I'm talking about two classes doing essentially the same thing and having pretty much the same abilities.

But it can be argued they are spells that fit the Rogue and Warlock too. You just say a DK can do it and dismiss any new mechanics for a Necromancer.

This is honestly the same thing you brought up against Demon Hunters. 'But Warlocks have demonic transformations and Rogues can dash and be given double jump'. So is it really unique to the Demon Hunter? I would say no.

I would say the Demon Hunter is a unique identity that players recognize and want to play.

And again look what happened: Warlocks lost demonic transformations in order to facilitate a Demon Hunter class. This indicates that in order to facilitate a Necromancer inclusion, Blizzard would need to remove Necromacy from the DK class. The problem is that Necromancy plays a major part of every DK spec, so the entire class would need to re-done and changed, which is something I just don't see happening.

The dev made an example of certain grenades being useful in the Nazjatar raid. I don't know if that's true or the dev was giving a bad example.

Yeah, even if you can craft items in Mechagon and use them outside of Mechagon, that still doesn't make you a Tinker.

You're free to share that opinion, but you can't make an argument about lack of uniqueness by suggesting that DK's have claim over abilities they don't have.

Redundancy has never been an issue in class design. You're holding fast to a rule that has never been true.

What would you call Holy Paladin and Holy Priest specs if not redundant?

Again, Holy Paladin and Holy Priests are two specs within two classes. Specs are free to be redundant. When entire classes are redundant, that's when you're in trouble. We don't have redundant classes for a reason (though Demon Hunters came VERY close).

[Triceron]

Even if that's the case, why wouldn't Blizzard simply give UH the option to go full ranged instead of attempting to squeeze out an entirely new class? Unholy is only about 2-3 talents away from that point as it is.

Yeah, you're talking about specs. I'm talking about two classes doing essentially the same thing and having pretty much the same abilities.

And honestly, that has never stopped the game from adding classes that do that. Paladins literally do the same as a Priest. Priests have Shadow going for them, but they could totally wear plate and tank too if they were given that design. We would call that a Paladin spec.

Gameplay-wise, a Warlock only needs a Tanking spec to be the Demon Hunter. But you realized the one thing that matters - a Warlock would never be able to take up the Demon Hunter identity. Which is the exact same case here - the Death Knight will never be able to take up the Necromancer class (so long as they do not have a caster spec).

And again look what happened: Warlocks lost demonic transformations in order to facilitate a Demon Hunter class. This indicates that in order to facilitate a Necromancer inclusion, Blizzard would need to remove Necromacy from the DK class. The problem is that Necromancy plays a major part of every DK spec, so the entire class would need to re-done and changed, which is something I just don't see happening.

I honestly I think a Pet spec and a Summoner spec play differently. Hunters game mechanics are very rarely compared to Demonology Warlocks.

Yeah, even if you can craft items in Mechagon and use them outside of Mechagon, that still doesn't make you a Tinker.

By your definition of what a class is based on what they do, and the redundancy involved, you are absolutely making that case.

Your basis is 'if it uses Necromancy, it's a Necromancer'. And what does Mechagon allow all classes to do? Tinker their own mechs and weaponry.

My reasoning is simple - Mechagon does not represent the Tinker class identity.

Again, Holy Paladin and Holy Priests are two specs within two classes. Specs are free to be redundant. When entire classes are redundant, that's when you're in trouble. We don't have redundant classes for a reason (though Demon Hunters came VERY close).

Again, there is no reason. If player demand calls for it, what reason do you have to deny the class?

Honestly, after the Tinker, what do you suggest will be the next playable Class?

All the options we have are redundant. Yet all of the options also have unique mechanics to offer.

[Directionalk9]

Velen confirmed Paladin.

I audibly chuckled, TY.

[Teriz]

And honestly, that has never stopped the game from adding classes that do that. Paladins literally do the same as a Priest. Priests have Shadow going for them, but they could totally wear plate and tank too if they were given that design. We would call that a Paladin spec.

Paladins don't do the exact same thing as Priests. Again, the only intersection point between Paladins and Priests are the Holy specs. Protection Paladin utilizes Holy magic and heavy shields for defense. Retribution utilizes holy-based weaponry for offensive purposes. Shadow Priest utilizes Void Magic which is a magic school completely unavailable to Paladins. Discipline balances Light and Void magic for healing and offense.

The idea that a Priest is merely a Paladin in cloth is absolutely false.

Gameplay-wise, a Warlock only needs a Tanking spec to be the Demon Hunter. But you realized the one thing that matters - a Warlock would never be able to take up the Demon Hunter identity. Which is the exact same case here - the Death Knight will never be able to take up the Necromancer class (so long as they do not have a caster spec).

I've already explained multiple times how a DK is a Necromancer class. There's no need to repeat myself. You have yet to come up with a single reason why a DK isn't a necromancer outside of its fighting range, which really isn't a valid reasons since melee Necromancers isn't unheard of.

I honestly I think a Pet spec and a Summoner spec play differently. Hunters game mechanics are very rarely compared to Demonology Warlocks.

Of course the main difference being that one is using Beasts and has Beast-based abilities and the other is using Demons and is using Demonic based abilities.

In the case of a Necromancer, you would have another class using Undead pets and summons and utilizing Necromantic abilities, just like the current DK class.

By your definition of what a class is based on what they do, and the redundancy involved, you are absolutely making that case.

Your basis is 'if it uses Necromancy, it's a Necromancer'. And what does Mechagon allow all classes to do? Tinker their own mechs and weaponry.

My reasoning is simple - Mechagon does not represent the Tinker class identity.

Yeah, the difference being that Mechagon isn't a class, and craftable items aren't abilities. In addition, the Tinker concept involves quite a bit more than lobbing grenades (which Tinkers don't do anyway).

Again, there is no reason. If player demand calls for it, what reason do you have to deny the class?

Because you can fulfill that demand by giving the UH spec an option to go ranged.

Honestly, after the Tinker class, what do you suggest will be the next in-demand Class?

I don't know. Honestly after the Tinker class I don't see any major hole in the class lineup, and all the old WC3 heroes will have a class equivalent in one form or another. It would be interesting to see what Blizzard would do if they announce the 14th class in 2024.

[Triceron]

I've already explained multiple times how a DK is a Necromancer class. There's no need to repeat myself. You have yet to come up with a single reason why a DK isn't a necromancer outside of its fighting range, which really isn't a valid reasons since melee Necromancers isn't unheard of.

There is only one reason and one you have unable to refute.

They are not a Undead-themed Cloth-wearing Spellcaster class. This is about class identity, not fighting range.

Your answer to this is always 'but we don't need that'. You can't say that I have not come up with a single reason. You can say you disagree with the reason, but you can't dismiss it.

A Death Knight does not fulfill the Necromancer fantasy, otherwise you must explain why there are ~100 people voting for a Necromancer instead of a unanimous 'Death Knights are Necromancers'.

I don't know. Honestly after the Tinker class I don't see any major hole in the class lineup, and all the old WC3 heroes will have a class equivalent in one form or another. It would be interesting to see what Blizzard would do if they announce the 14th class in 2024.

Yes, because your entire basis for 'what can be a class' is 'what holes are there in the class lineup.

As the Demon Hunter has shown, this is not how Classes are decided. There was no 'hole' for Demon Hunters. They broke your concept of Class lineup to create a unique niche for themselves.

And the 14th class would be announced in 2023 considering they announce expansions at least one year ahead of time. That is, if they don't decide to throw us a loop and go for some Allied Classes type concept that breaks the mold.