If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Teriz]

Except Paladin has shadow spells now with Covenants.

Which is an expansion feature, not a class or specialization theme like it is in Discipline and Shadow.

Have you played a Paladin in Shadowlands? They have access to Shadow spells.

See above. Paladins won't have shadow spells after Shadowlands.

Does this make them like Priests? No. Shadow isn't what separates the two classes, their Class Identities are beyond game mechanics.

Actually it is what separates the classes. Paladins don't get Shadow abilities in this expansion until they get covenant abilities in Shadowlands. Priests have shadow abilities throughout the leveling experience because shadow is an integral part of their class theme.

[Ielenia]

Which is an expansion feature, not a class or specialization theme like it is in Discipline and Shadow.

And yet you still use the covenants, which are an expansion feature, as part of your "hunters use necromancy" claims. Just reminding you of your double-standards.

See above. Paladins won't have shadow spells after Shadowlands.

Neither would hunters.

[Teriz]

And yet you still use the covenants, which are an expansion feature, as part of your "hunters use necromancy" claims. Just reminding you of your double-standards.


Neither would hunters.

Again no double standards. Hunters have a history of using shadow-based arrows via Black Arrow. Paladins don't have a history of using shadow abilities, and in fact the use of shadow abilities sort of goes against the very theme of the Paladin class. Obviously since we are in the death/shadow/necromancer expansion in a different realm, Paladins are allowed to bend the rules a bit.

[Triceron]

Actually it is what separates the classes. Paladins don't get Shadow abilities in this expansion until they get covenant abilities in Shadowlands. Priests have shadow abilities throughout the leveling experience because shadow is an integral part of their class theme.

Your point was that Paladins don't use Shadow Abilities. Seems like that goalpost gets moved back every time Blizzard adds new classes and game mechanics that keep proving you wrong :/

[Ielenia]

Again no double standards.

Wrong. It has been demonstrated that it's double-standards. Again: either all covenant abilities count, or none of them do. Doing what you are doing, which is cherry-picking when covenants count and when they don't, is pure and simple dishonesty.

Hunters have a history of using shadow-based arrows via Black Arrow.

Which: a) they don't, anymore; b) the concept of the Black Arrow ability never fit the hunter's concept for any of their specs; and c) doesn't excuse your dishonesty.

in fact the use of shadow abilities sort of goes against the very theme of the Paladin class.

And the use of shadow abilities goes against the theme of the theme of the hunter class, of a survivor of the wilderness.

[Alkizon]

cocomen2
Each time Teriz trying explain lore with use of ingame mechanics , its just Facepalm ... does he really that stupid?

Well, in fact, we can additionally also scold devs here too, whose idea was to remove mana. Mana is truly versatile resource that helps bring magical aspect to life within traditional RPG mechanics. We discussed this once in topics of resource organization and monipulation. That is, for example, "hunters could use both focus and mana", also focus wasn't necessary to be displayed on main resource panel, but to be done according to principle of cumulative stack one.

Person is wrong here, of course, DK's implementation is(was) quite easy both mechanically and lore-wise without mana, however, initial configuration of their resources was much more interesting and more appropriate than bits they have left now.

However, traditional necromancers, if we take it into typical necromancy, also use "magic items containing magic", and minions are very often bound to expenditure owner's life force (related to return, or through feedback), or those who're used as external source, but this is completely not necessary, that these can be only runes, which are main and almost only DK's source (their magic is conditioned by saturation, power of their weapons and relics (other very pertinent "items from 3rd slot" that devs foolishly cut out), they only "pulling trigger"). In addition, devs have a whole layer of similar mechanics not yet used like Shadow shamans' Loa, but this is also form of "spirits and vitality" monipulation, and, as I understand, it's also shadow (yet mechanics couldshould be completely different).

ps. I thought they brought back mana for enhs, didn't they?..

Ielenia
They always had mana. It's just for some reason was not shown until now. An enh shaman can only cast Healing Surge up to four times before they get a "not enough mana" error, regardless of how much Maelstrom they have.

Oh... didn't know (didn't leveled any, while still was playing, and learned about subsequent anomalous changes, that happened after 2015, only by external sources)

[Teriz]

Your point was that Paladins don't use Shadow Abilities.

And they don't. An expansion feature that will be gone when this expansion ends doesn't change that.

[Ielenia]

Well, in fact, we can additionally also scold devs here too, whose idea was to remove mana. Mana is truly versatile resource that helps bring magical aspect to life within traditional RPG mechanics. We discussed this once in topics of resource organization and monipulation. That is, for example, "hunters could use both focus and mana", also focus wasn't necessary to be displayed on main resource panel, but to be done according to principle of cumulative stack one.

Person is wrong here, of course, DK's implementation is(was) quite easy both mechanically and lore-wise without mana, however, initial configuration of their resources was much more interesting and more appropriate than bits they have left now.

ps. I thought they brought back mana for enhs, didn't they?..

They always had mana. It's just for some reason was not shown until now. An enh shaman can only cast Healing Surge up to four times before they get a "not enough mana" error, regardless of how much Maelstrom they have.

[Teriz]

Wrong. It has been demonstrated that it's double-standards. Again: either all covenant abilities count, or none of them do. Doing what you are doing, which is cherry-picking when covenants count and when they don't, is pure and simple dishonesty.

Yeah, I've already explained this multiple times.

Which: a) they don't, anymore; b) the concept of the Black Arrow ability never fit the hunter's concept for any of their specs; and c) doesn't excuse your dishonesty.

The concept of Black Arrow not fitting the Hunter class concept is entirely your opinion. It would appear that Blizzard disagreed with that opinion since it was a Hunter ability for almost a decade.

And the use of shadow abilities goes against the theme of the theme of the hunter class, of a survivor of the wilderness.

Again, entirely your opinion. Back to the point, given the history of shadow abilities in the Hunter class, a shadow-based covenant ability has a chance of being retained after Shadowlands is over. A shadow-based covenant ability has zero chance of being retained in the Paladin class due to reasons already explained.

[jellmoo]

It is true. You don't have to believe it, but there's pretty much zero chance Blizzard would permit two classes to revolve around summoning undead minions. Further, if there's any chance of a necromancer class in WoW it would be through Kel'thuzad, and he is a lich. You're going to have to have a spec dedicated to him just like the Brewmaster spec was dedicated to Chen Stormstout. Now you're going to have to alter Frost DK and maybe even Mage Frost. Then you're going to have to populate the ability list with new spells. What type of spells would a Necromancer cast? Life draining spells? Sure. Curses? Sure. Various shadow-based bolts? Sure. Some soul-stealing abilities? Why not. All of that will be coming from the Warlock class, especially Affliction.

These are all your assumptions. Which are fine, by all means state what you believe and we can discuss. But stop presenting your beliefs as facts. Unless you've been sitting in on Blizzard design team meetings you have absolutely no way of knowing these things. Speculate away, but phrase your speculation as such. Phrasing everything that pops into your head as though it were 100% fact means we can't actually have a discussion. You're just dictating things instead of being open to other possibilities.

They even have a spell called Deathbolt. You think a Necromancer class wouldn't get an ability called Deathbolt from the Warlock class?

Why do they need to? They can have their own abilities. Just because it has death in the name? Multiple classes have spells with Death in the name. It has no reason to be the domain of any single class. Hell, if Death Knights are the Necromancers of WoW, why don't they own all of the Death named spells in the game?

You do know that the DK class has almost all of those abilities right?

Bonestorm, Frost Scythe, Magus of the Damned, Corpse Explosion, Sacrificial Pit, Necrotic Aura, Death and Decay, Summon Abomination

And almost all of those abilities as well.

Epidemic, Blood Worms, Apocalypse, Reanimation, Summon Abomination, Unholy Blight

Except we're talking about things that are functionally different. And even if they're similar, there's zero reason that they can't be changed to be... you guessed it... functionally different.

Yes they do. There's zero chance Blizzard releases a pure DPS class ever again.

There's more chance of them adding a class with nothing but DPS specs than there is of them adding a class limited to Gnomes and Goblins.

Of course I got that information from the same place you got yours. Imaginationland.

Again, a major lore character gives the new class entry into the story of the game. Every lore character associated with a new class has done this, and served as the new class' representative in the game world. What? Are we just going to have Necromancers there with no major lore characters to interact with the story? No major lore characters to act as a liaison or possible origin for this new class' existence? That sounds rather far-fetched.

Which is not needed. At all. Chen didn't introduce Monks to the game. Chen wasn't the string that brought Monks up to speed.

And yeah, we can totally have a class without a major lore character. It's really, really not hard. We can also create a character if we really want to have somebody hold players by the hand. Gravy Bill The Necromancer. He's an old war buddy of Khadgar's. He takes you all around Necromancer Hill and introduces you to everyone. Then you go have a slice of pie and take about zombies.

There are other narrative devices you can use. Blizzard is a creative company capable of telling a story without needing major lore characters to do it.

What about Shadow Priests? Wouldn't they also have to give up everything they believe in and their practices in order to become a Paladin?

None of the Priests that became Paladins were Shadow Priests. Shadow Priest is a gameplay mechanic that didn't exist when Paladins were created.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, I've already explained this multiple times.

And your explanation falls short. Again, it is double-standards: either all the covenant abilities count, or they don't. All your attempts to try to explain your cherry-picking didn't work.

The concept of Black Arrow not fitting the Hunter class concept is entirely your opinion. It would appear that Blizzard disagreed with that opinion since it was a Hunter ability for almost a decade.

That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Shadow abilities, necromancy to be exact, simply do not fit the Hunter concept. This is the hunter class' description in WoW's official class webpage:

"From an early age, the call of the wild draws some adventurers from the comfort of their homes into the unforgiving primal world outside. Those who endure become hunters. Masters of their environment, they are able to slip like ghosts through the trees and lay traps in the paths of their enemies."

And these are the description for all three of the hunter's specs, again from WoW's official hunter specs' webpage:

Beast Mastery: "A master of the wild who can tame a wide variety of beasts to assist him in combat."
Marksmanship: "A master sharpshooter who excels in bringing down enemies from afar."
Survival: "An adaptive ranger who favors using explosives, animal venom, and coordinated attacks with their bonded beast."

"Shadow magic" does not fit any of the descriptions above. That is a fact.

Back to the point, given the history of shadow abilities in the Hunter class, a shadow-based covenant ability has a chance of being retained after Shadowlands is over.

I can say, with 99.9% certainty, that I doubt any of those abilities would make it to the hunter class after Shadowlands in their current form. They'll be changed into physical abilities, or deal nature damage. And you know why? Because, again, necromancy does not fit the hunter class' theme and concept.

[Teriz]

While I said you get the last word, I had to address these two points;

Except we're talking about things that are functionally different. And even if they're similar, there's zero reason that they can't be changed to be... you guessed it... functionally different.

I would just like to point out that all of those abilities I listed were functionally the same as yours.

There's more chance of them adding a class with nothing but DPS specs than there is of them adding a class limited to Gnomes and Goblins.

Nah, there really isn't. Blizzard has stated in the past that DPS classes are highly disadvantaged against hybrid classes, and if they could do it again, no class would be pure DPS. The fact that every expansion class has been hybrid since, backs that up.

[Imperator4321]

You're comparing what would be a regular class (ie monk, who also had very little background until MoP) to hero classes, classes based off of, well, heroes from WCIII.

Yes i don't think Tinkers (or whatever Blizzard would call a Tech-class) would be designed after a particular hero the same way hero classes are designed after a particular iconic character mostly because the closest thing to an "iconic tinker" we have is Gazlowe or Mekkatorque who are D tier characters at best.

Same way the Monk wasn't designed on the fantasy of "being Chen Stormstout" and wasn't based entirely around the brewmaster/drunken boxer fantasy, it instead based itself on the more broad and standard fantasy monk archetypes like shaolin/wuxia martial artists and mystics (and then given a warcraft coat of paint in the form of pandaren culture), a Tinker class being entirely designed around being a comic relief midget in a mech suit who uses chicken bombs and shrink rays would be like if the Monk class was instead the Brewmaster class and based entirely around brewing and being drunk.

DHs worked being exclusive to NE/BEs. You have no argument other than "I really don't like tinkers and think nobody else should either".

Not wanting a class concept I like being based around being a comic relief jokes means i don't like it? I like the idea of a Tech-class in fantasy settings, I like the artificer in D&D, Engineers in Warhammer fantasy, Machinists in Final Fantasy, Engineers in Guild Wars, ect. What I don't like is the same "small man made wacky device XD" joke we've had with Gnome/Goblin tech since the games inception, I wouldn't want a concept i like to be burdened with being entirely associated with two comic relief joke races, especially when we've seen more serious takes on technology in the warcraft universe from Dwarves, the Iron Horde and the Lightforged Draenei, I'd prefer if such a class would allow for such fantasies (dwarf/orc engineer, Draenei artificer) to be represented as well instead of being entirely about two races who have been nothing but comic relief since their introduction.

...As is with all arguments against classes, nobody truly has any proper argument against them other than "I just don't like it and think you shouldn't either". This whole "butbutbut compare to the hero classes!" "Bbbbubtbutbut racial exclusivity!" "Bbbbbbbbbbb the WCIII bible doesn't say much about it!" "Bbbutbutbutbut X is too similar to Y therefore we can't have a class that shares the same aesthetics and ideas!"

I don't like the idea of a comic relief tech-class, other people like Teriz do, it's perfectly fair for them to like it. It's just that I don't think a class should be designed entirely around that kind of aesthetic and tone, ideally if a tech-class became a thing those that like the comic relief gnome/goblin in a mech suit aesthetic would be free to make a gnome/goblin Tinker and have that comic relief inventor fantasy be available, meanwhile others would be free to make a non-gnome/goblin Tinker and be able to have their fantasy of a more serious take on a tech-class available.

When we once had paladins and shamans, who were both bound to one race and one race only until TBC. When we have had monks, who weren't much of a thing until MoP, even having to borrow from Pandaren Brewmasters from WCIII. When we have DHs who are bound to two races and two races only. When we have priests and paladins, warlocks and DHs being classes thematically tied to one another but still being different enough.

Yes Paladins and Shamans once had a more specific fantasy of a holy light worshipping knight and a tribal spellcaster, now they've evolved and changed into something that allows for a more broad range of fantasies (such as the Zandalari prelate and the Tauren Sunwalker or the Dwarf and Kul Tiran shaman), I consider that a good thing. I think most classes should be designed around a broad range of archetypes to allow for more ways a particular concept can be expressed.

Hero classes being based on a more specific fantasy is fine because they're tied to a specific character and have their fantasies based on that particular character. Arthas for Death Knights and Illidan for Demon Hunters, I don't think Tinker's can be designed like that because they likely wouldn't be a hero class due to lacking a popular iconic character to base/represent that fantasy and should instead be designed to incorporate a more broad range of fantasies related to the idea of a tech-class, this doesn't mean the "gnome/goblin wacky inventor in a mech suit" fantasy can't be there but it would be designed as only a part of a greater concept, same way the Pandaren brewmaster became a spec of the much more broadly applicable Monk class.

What's next? Necromancers can't be a thing because of DKs and shadowpriests? LOL c'mon

I'd say as long as the overall class concept can be made distinct any overlap between specs is insignificant. We already have signicant overlap between things like Shadow Priests and Affliction Warlocks who are both shadow based spellcasters who use damage over time spells or Holy Paladins & Holy Priests are both Holy Light using healers but they are made distinct both due to the overall differences between how the base class operates and how the invidual specs operate (priest class having shadow/mind spells, Holy Paladins being frontline healers).

A Necromancer class as long as it was distinct in terms of visuals, gameplay or fantasy would be perfectly fine even though we have Death Knights, Affliction Warlocks & Shadow Priests of which there are plenty of distinctions that exist or could exist. We already have the spellcaster vs melee distinction (meaning necromancers can exist alongside death knights same way paladins exist alongside priests), we could have different types of magic or different ways it can be used such as Blood healing instead of tanking, poison-based spells, insect summoning, bone spikes/spears/projectiles vs bone armor/storms, constructs instead of zombies/ghouls, Anima based magic. thematically it could be based on the themes of the Shadowlands realms instead of the Scourge or the elements of the scourge not represented much within the Death Knight class (such as nerubians and constructs)

[Teriz]

Yes i don't think Tinkers (or whatever Blizzard would call a Tech-class) would be designed after a particular hero the same way hero classes are designed after a particular iconic character mostly because the closest thing to an "iconic tinker" we have is Gazlowe or Mekkatorque who are D tier characters at best.

Same way the Monk wasn't designed on the fantasy of "being Chen Stormstout" and wasn't based entirely around the brewmaster/drunken boxer fantasy, it instead based itself on the more broad and standard fantasy monk archetypes like shaolin/wuxia martial artists and mystics (and then given a warcraft coat of paint in the form of pandaren culture), a Tinker class being entirely designed around being a comic relief midget in a mech suit who uses chicken bombs and shrink rays would be like if the Monk class was instead the Brewmaster class and based entirely around brewing and being drunk.

While the Monk wasn't completely designed around Chen Stormstout's hero, it's hard to argue that the Monk class wasn't designed around his concept. The class is based on Pandaren culture, and the hero unit was called the Pandaren Brewmaster. Also in early iterations of the Monk class you had brewing abilities in all three specs, and each spec had their own unique set of brews that they would use to empower themselves. Brewmasters had Purifying Brew and could brew Elusive Brew. Windwalker Monks had Energizing Elixir and could Brew Tigerseye Brew. Mistweavers had Thunderfocus Tea and could brew Mana Tea. All specs had Fortifying Brew, Nimble Brew, and Healing Elixir via talents. They even got exclusive weapon and armor options that resembled the Brewmaster hero from WC3.

So when you take all of that together, the Monk class took a lot from the Brewmaster hero.

If Blizzard applies that same strategy to a Tinker class based on the Goblin Tinker and possibly the Goblin Alchemist heroes, then yeah you're looking at a class that is going to have a lot of Goblin themes at play. Sure Blizzard will no doubt pull from broad tech themes, but those tech themes will be funneled through a Goblin/Gnome filter.

Will that appeal to everyone? Obviously not, but as with the Monk class, Blizzard appears to very much like having their own unique spin on their class concepts. Thus when you think of a WoW Necromancer, it's a big hulking juggernaut with a broad sword, not a frail spell caster. When you think of a WoW Monk, it's not a barechested bald guy doing martial arts, it's a anthropomorphic panda with a staff in one hand and a magical brew in the other.

Obviously WoW's technology class would be no different. It's going to be something uniquely Blizzard, and a technology class firmly based in Goblin and Gnome tech would be exactly that.

[Ielenia]

I'd say as long as the overall class concept can be made distinct any overlap between specs is insignificant. We already have signicant overlap between things like Shadow Priests and Affliction Warlocks who are both shadow based spellcasters who use damage over time spells or Holy Paladins & Holy Priests are both Holy Light using healers but they are made distinct both due to the overall differences between how the base class operates and how the invidual specs operate (priest class having shadow/mind spells, Holy Paladins being frontline healers).

A Necromancer class as long as it was distinct in terms of visuals, gameplay or fantasy would be perfectly fine even though we have Death Knights, Affliction Warlocks & Shadow Priests of which there are plenty of distinctions that exist or could exist. We already have the spellcaster vs melee distinction (meaning necromancers can exist alongside death knights same way paladins exist alongside priests), we could have different types of magic or different ways it can be used such as Blood healing instead of tanking, poison-based spells, insect summoning, bone spikes/spears/projectiles vs bone armor/storms, constructs instead of zombies/ghouls, Anima based magic. thematically it could be based on the themes of the Shadowlands realms instead of the Scourge or the elements of the scourge not represented much within the Death Knight class (such as nerubians and constructs)

Battle for Azeroth introduced and Shadowlands expanded upon a new type of necromancy graphic that is wholly different from the DK's: a dark, sickly green-ish graphic as opposed to the DK's purple one. That is enough to be sufficiently different in graphics, especially considering both warlocks and fire share the "orange/yellow fire" graphic for their fire specs, and DKs and mages share the "blue ice" graphic for their frost specs.

Battle for Azeroth also introduced a second type of blood magic (blood sacrifice/ritual) that is different from the DK's vampiric magic in concept, one that can be used for a healing spec, which is further differentiation from the death knight and warlock classes.

Last, but not least, we have the fact that a class concept of a light-armored, ranged character who relies solely on spellcasting inherently plays differently than a class concept of a heavy-armored, melee character who most of their attacks rely on weapon swings. So that, alone, debunks any and all claims that "necromancers and DKs have the same-y gameplay".

[Imperator4321]

While the Monk wasn't completely designed around Chen Stormstout's hero, it's hard to argue that the Monk class wasn't designed around his concept. The class is based on Pandaren culture, and the hero unit was called the Pandaren Brewmaster. Also in early iterations of the Monk class you had brewing abilities in all three specs, and each spec had their own unique set of brews that they would use to empower themselves. Brewmasters had Purifying Brew and could brew Elusive Brew. Windwalker Monks had Energizing Elixir and could Brew Tigerseye Brew. Mistweavers had Thunderfocus Tea and could brew Mana Tea. All specs had Fortifying Brew, Nimble Brew, and Healing Elixir via talents. They even got exclusive weapon and armor options that resembled the Brewmaster hero from WC3.

So when you take all of that together, the Monk class took a lot from the Brewmaster hero.

The Monk class was not designed around the fantasy of the Pandaren Brewmaster or Chen Stormstout, the Pandaren Brewmaster is inspired by the "Drunken Boxing" concept in chinese martial arts where one mimics the movements of a drunk person, there is a joke/warcraft flavor is that the Pandaren brewmaster is actually drunk, every single pandaren brewmaster ability except storm, earth, fire refences this idea, Breath of Fire is spitting out alchohol set on fire, Drunken Haze is coating them in alcohol, Drunken Brawler is the unpredictable movements of a drunk person. Only Storm, Earth and Fire doesn't tie into this concept of a actually Drunken Boxer (and also didn't become a part of the brewmaster spec), everything about the Brewmaster Spec in WoW furthers this from it's animations and abilities further this concept, their animations look like the monk drunk/tipsy, the Stagger passive evokes the idea that they're drunk enough to shrug off attacks

Absolutely nothing about the Windwalker or Mistweaver evokes the fantasy of a Drunken Boxer, the brews the Mistweaver uses aren't even alcohol they use tea, they are an entirely different type of fantasy from what the Brewmaster is the only thing that they share is the that they also draw from other martial arts/east asian fantasy archetypes. Windwalker is a shaolin type martial artist, Mistweaver is a mystic/folk/herbal healer, the Windwalker isn't killing people with alcohol and the Mistweaver isn't healing people with alcohol, they have entirely different fantasies from what the brewmaster hero in WC3 and the Brewmaster spec represent

Obviously WoW's technology class would be no different. It's going to be something uniquely Blizzard, and a technology class firmly based in Goblin and Gnome tech would be exactly that.

That does not mean that the tone, aesthetic or fantasy would be solely based on the comic relief stylings of Gnomes and Goblins, just like how the Monk class was not based solely on the fantasy of a drunken boxer that the Pandaren Brewmaster unit represented, Windwalkers and Mistweavers are something completly different and only related by sharing the trait of being a martial arts archetype.

On this reasoning, I don't think a tech-class would be solely based on the fantasy or tone of being a wacky comic relief Gnome/Goblin a mech suit, same way Monks didn't become a Brewmaster class based entirely around being a Drunk Panda, it would likely become a element of a single spec such as a Mech suit tank spec.

Battle for Azeroth introduced and Shadowlands expanded upon a new type of necromancy graphic that is wholly different from the DK's: a dark, sickly green-ish graphic as opposed to the DK's purple one. That is enough to be sufficiently different in graphics, especially considering both warlocks and fire share the "orange/yellow fire" graphic for their fire specs, and DKs and mages share the "blue ice" graphic for their frost specs.

Agreed, Shadowlands done a lot on expanding what Death-based Magic can look/do and I think in the future a class based around the themes of the Shadowlands zones could work such as a poison/insect spec based on the themes of Ardenweald, a bone/flesh/construct spec based on themes of Maldraxxus and a Anima/Blood healer spec based on themes of Revendreth.

Blood Trolls and Bwonsamdi also showed a different take on Blood Magic and Necromancy that could also work as inspirations.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Necromancers and death knights are fundamentally different. The mechanic of DKs is runic power and runes. Necromancer would absolutely be a mana based caster. That alone separates them enough to make necromancer into a class. Also, Diablo 3's necromancer isn't based on the fucking DK. It's based on the Diablo 2 necromancer. You can't fucking be serious with that comment.

I think they could have another resoruce too, maybe called Anima or something? And they could be like the Shadow Priest where a few of their spells cost Mana, and the rest generate stuff?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, they could be a Mail Tank/DPS/Heal class too

[Teriz]

The Monk class was not designed around the fantasy of the Pandaren Brewmaster or Chen Stormstout, the Pandaren Brewmaster is inspired by the "Drunken Boxing" concept in chinese martial arts where one mimics the movements of a drunk person, there is a joke/warcraft flavor is that the Pandaren brewmaster is actually drunk, every single pandaren brewmaster ability except storm, earth, fire refences this idea, Breath of Fire is spitting out alchohol set on fire, Drunken Haze is coating them in alcohol, Drunken Brawler is the unpredictable movements of a drunk person. Only Storm, Earth and Fire doesn't tie into this concept of a actually Drunken Boxer (and also didn't become a part of the brewmaster spec), everything about the Brewmaster Spec in WoW furthers this from it's animations and abilities further this concept, their animations look like the monk drunk/tipsy, the Stagger passive evokes the idea that they're drunk enough to shrug off attacks

Absolutely nothing about the Windwalker or Mistweaver evokes the fantasy of a Drunken Boxer, the Mistweavers brews are tea's, they are an entirely different type of fantasy from what the Brewmaster is the only thing that they share is the that they also draw from other martial arts/east asian fantasy archetypes. Windwalker is a shaolin type martial artist, Mistweaver is a mystic/folk/herbal healer, the Windwalker isn't killing people with alcohol and the Mistweaver isn't healing people with alcohol, they have entirely different fantasies from what the brewmaster hero in WC3 and the Brewmaster spec represent

Again, where do you think the Pandaren aesthetic and iconography of the Monk class comes from? Where do you think brew aspects of the class come from? Without the Pandaren and brewing concepts within the Monk class, you would have a completely different class.

That does not mean that the tone, aesthetic or fantasy would be solely based on the comic relief stylings of Gnomes and Goblins, just like how the Monk class was not based solely on the fantasy of a drunken boxer that the Pandaren Brewmaster unit represented, Windwalkers and Mistweavers are something completly different and only related by sharing the trait of being a martial arts archetype.

On this reasoning, I don't think a tech-class would be solely based on the fantasy or tone of being a wacky comic relief Gnome/Goblin a mech suit, same way Monks didn't become a Brewmaster class based entirely around being a Drunk Panda, it would likely become a element of a single spec such as a Mech suit tank spec.

It's important to note that not every aspect of Goblin/Gnome tech concepts are comic relief. It's there, but there are serious aspects as well. Iron Juggernaut, Iron Star, Mekkatorque's Mech, Gazlowe's HotS abilities, etc. are not inherently wacky concepts, and some concepts like the irradiation of Gnomeregan and Goblin experiments on Hobgoblins have some rather dark elements. So, a tech-class wouldn't be solely comic-relief or whacky simply because it revolves around Goblins and Gnomes. It would be more light-hearted than Death Knights and Demon Hunters, but not inherently ridiculous or silly.

Also there ARE WoW players looking for a more light-hearted class like the Monk class since we just had the Demon Hunter Class.

[Imperator4321]

Again, where do you think the Pandaren aesthetic and iconography of the Monk class comes from? Where do you think brew aspects of the class come from? Without the Pandaren and brewing concepts within the Monk class, you would have a completely different class.

From chinese culture? Blizzard don't really invent the wheel when it comes fantasy. They are pretty derivative, Monk classes in fantasy since forever have drawn from chinese and other east asian cultures.

The specs themselves are based on chinese/wuxia martial arts archetypes, the august celestials are based on the four cardinal guardians, the pandaren themselves are obviously based on chinese culture (and things like the mogu are based on chinese guardian lions), they basically just gave everything a fantasy coat of paint. making a chinese culture equivilent pandas isn't that unique since it's their fucking national animal, the most flavor they really give the concepts is making the Drunken Boxer martial artist actually drunk which is more just exaggerating a concept than inventing something new.

I would say the only truly unqiue or non-derivative element of the Monk class is that the Mistweavers use the eponymous Mists of Pandaria the expansion is named after and even that can just be seen as a extension of elementalism since it's water vapor, other than that it's relatively standard fantasy monk flair. I'd honestly say the Diablo 3 Monk is a more original take on a Monk class since it combines holy/divine powers typical of a cleric or paladin with eastern martial arts and the character has eurasian/eastern european style instead of just a chinese/east asian style

It's important to note that not every aspect of Goblin/Gnome tech concepts are comic relief. It's there, but there are serious aspects as well. Iron Juggernaut, Iron Star, Mekkatorque's Mech, Gazlowe's HotS abilities, etc. are not inherently wacky concepts, and some concepts like the irradiation of Gnomeregan and Goblin experiments on Hobgoblins have some rather dark elements. So, a tech-class wouldn't be solely comic-relief or whacky simply because it revolves around Goblins and Gnomes. It would be more light-hearted than Death Knights and Demon Hunters, but not inherently ridiculous or silly.

And notice when it comes to the forefrought it usually drops the overly comedic stylings that Gnome/Goblin tech is used for in every other circumstances, the Iron Juggernaut and Iron Stars weren't even mainly used by Goblins it was used by the True/Iron Horde. So yeah i think if the technological elements of WoW get their own class I don't think it would be represented in a comedic fashion, and if it isn't treated in a comic relief way it really has no business being exclusive to comic relief races like Gnomes and Goblins and should be available to a wider set of races especially other races who have shown a openess to technology either by inventing their own or being open to using others like Dwarves, Draenei, Nightborne and Orcs/Mag'har and Forsaken (if alchemy is a part of it)

I don't have issue with it using the surface level aesthetics (for the races that use that style i think Draenei/Nightborne should use their respective magi-tech style of technology) since thats the established look of that what most technology looks like in Warcraft but i don't think it needs to also be entirely about Chicken bombs, shrink rays, clockwork midgets, clawpacks and other overly comedic or wacky forms of it, especially since that doesn't fit non-goblin/gnome races.

[Ielenia]

I think they could have another resoruce too, maybe called Anima or something? And they could be like the Shadow Priest where a few of their spells cost Mana, and the rest generate stuff?

I think just being a pure mana caster is fine, but we know Blizzard, they'll likely tack on a secondary resource like they did with almost all offensive spellcasters. If we are to come up with a secondary resource for necromancers, based off of my concept, I'd say something akin to "necrotic power": something akin to "all mana spent on spells is converted to Necrotic Power" which is then used to fuel a special ability that empowers the necromancer, likely for a set period of time according to how much necrotic power they had when activating the the ability, by either increasing their damage by a %, or increasing the length of their dots by a % as well.

Also, they could be a Mail Tank/DPS/Heal class too

That is something I'll disagree on. Necromancers shouldn't wear mail, or even tank, when we have the death knight class. That's like saying priests should be able to wear mail and tank, when we have the paladin already. No, in my opinion, necromancers should be cloth only (no leather since we have 4 of those already) and no tank specs. Just a healer spec (if that) and then the rest are DPS specs.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, Shadowlands done a lot on expanding what Death-based Magic can look/do and I think in the future a class based around the themes of the Shadowlands zones could work such as a poison/insect spec based on the themes of Ardenweald, a bone/flesh/construct spec based on themes of Maldraxxus and a Anima/Blood healer spec based on themes of Revendreth.

I think we can leave the Revendreth theme alone, considering it draws heavily on the 'gothic vampire' aesthetic and themes, something the DKs have already: vampirism.

Blood Trolls and Bwonsamdi also showed a different take on Blood Magic and Necromancy that could also work as inspirations.

I based my necromancer blood concept on the blood trolls, and I'll be keeping it for my next iteration of my concept I'm slowly working on.