How many more classes can the game sustain?

[muwatallis]

Demon Hunter and Wardens. I don't care about any others.

[Saffa]

The sky is the limit. Blizzard has money coming out of their ears. What blizzard wants, blizzard can do.

And the last thing Blizz wants is more classes for kiddies to be screaming 'BALANCE' about so there will be no new classes.

[Solzan Nemesis]

1, Tinker. Range mail wearing class with science.

[RickJamesLich]

One to two more classes at least, demon hunters are a given, don't matter if other classes have the abilities, blizz worked around that a bit already with death knights. Besides demon hunter tho, it would be tough, I'll admit, there should probably be a ranged/caster class.

[Ishimada]

Well based on the possibilities I see we could have:
-demon hunters
-rangers
-tinkers
-dragonsworn
-invokers
-battlemages
-necromancers
-bards
-witch doctors
-spellbreakers
-wardens
-sea witches
-keepers of the grove/druids of the nightmare
-wizards(D3 style)
-runemasters

that makes 15 classes that come from WC3 alone.
But no one said they can't add completely new to the game classes ^^

I prefer Spellbreaker, Tinker or Runemaster. Oh god plz.

[Teriz]

No, they're not. It's like saying that Mages already fill the niche of a cloth spellcaster, so that we don't need Warlocks and Shadow Priests. Flavor is key here. Death Knights are not spell casters, they're melee infused with powerful magic abilities by the Lich King. They utilise shadow and frost magic abilities. What I'd like to see in a new class if it's going to be of a spellsword type is a class that learned their spells him/herself in order to gain the edge in battle. Arcane and Fire schools preferably or Arcane+Nature, Arcane+Holy.

Except Mages, Warlocks and Priests are each using different types of magic, so their niche as casters works out fine. What you're suggesting is a melee spellcaster. In the case of such classes, types of magic is irrelevant, because its all about the playstyle that allows you to cast spells while you fight in melee.

In other words, if you have an Elemental battle mage type and a Shadow/Frost battle mage type, comparisons will be drawn instantly because the type of magic they're using is secondary. Its all about utilizing damaging or healing magic while in melee range. We're already seeing this with Enhancement Shaman being constant compared to Death Knights, and to a lesser extent Windwalker Monks. Some Enhancement Shaman players even feel that Blizzard took Enhancement Shaman concepts and put them on Death Knights and Monks, hurting the development of their class. What are you going to add to this dynamic? Another Shadow or Elemental Battle mage type? How will they play any differently than the existing battle mage types currently in the game?

Anyone wanting to play this type of class should just roll an Enhancement Shaman, because that is exactly how such a class would behave in WoW.

[Deleted]

Except Mages, Warlocks and Priests are each using different types of magic, so their niche as casters works out fine. What you're suggesting is a melee spellcaster. In the case of such classes, types of magic is irrelevant, because its all about the playstyle that allows you to cast spells while you fight in melee.

stop Reading right here. You have reached new heights in Trolling and u r deserving of the title MASTER TROLL. Congratz lol.

Note 4 readers: keep your eyes wide open when replying to the above poster guys. A poster that shifts positions as convenient. Here he says what matters is the gameplay instead of the magic you use, but in his ranger concept he is only worried about rangers using magic and hunters not, which is enough of a difference for him.
other incongruencies can be found throghout his posts mainly in his 5 reasons why demon hunters are NOT gonna be in wow and his demon hunter idea concept.

My guess is that he just wants people to like him and his ideals, no matter what

[CoolHwip46]

balanced? in what terms? pvp? if were talking pvp, the game has NEVER been balanced. the closest we ever got was mid-wotlk. now if were talking just from a pve point of view, yes the sky is the limit.

[zerocoolhack]

Add one every expac and ditch trying to make pvp super balanced like now. If they only tried balancing for pve every class would be balanced and they could add more.

[Teriz]

stop Reading right here. You have reached new heights in Trolling and u r deserving of the title MASTER TROLL. Congratz lol.

Note 4 readers: keep your eyes wide open when replying to the above poster guys. A poster that shifts positions as convenient. Here he says what matters is the gameplay instead of the magic you use, but in his ranger concept he is only worried about rangers using magic and hunters not, which is enough of a difference for him.
other incongruencies can be found throghout his posts mainly in his 5 reasons why demon hunters are NOT gonna be in wow and his demon hunter idea concept.

My guess is that he just wants people to like him and his ideals, no matter what

There's a difference with Hunters. There is a demand within the Hunter community for a petless spec that uses bows and arrows. A Ranger spec that is ranged and uses magic to increase their powers would be significantly different than the current Hunter class which uses pets for the majority of their DPS. There's also only one class that is physical ranged.

Meanwhile, Paladins, Shaman, Death Knights, and Monks all have melee/spell specs.

[Deleted]

There's a difference with Hunters. There is a demand within the Hunter community for a petless spec that uses bows and arrows. A Ranger spec that is ranged and uses magic to increase their powers would be significantly different than the current Hunter class which uses pets for the majority of their DPS. There's also only one class that is physical ranged.

Meanwhile, Paladins, Shaman, Death Knights, and Monks all have melee/spell specs.

oh my GOD Teriz ! LOL I will only reply to u this one time becaue I'm making time before my friend picks me up...

There is the same demand in the community for demon hunters and battlemages so why is the same argument not valid for them as well? No need to answer that

[Teriz]

oh my GOD Teriz! LOL I will only reply to u this one time becaue I'm making time before my friend picks me up...

There is the same demand in the community for demon hunters and battlemages so why is the same argument not valid for them as well? No need to answer that

Because again, there's only one class using physical ranged weapon, and that class also is a pet class. There is no straight archer class in the game. Meanwhile, there's quite a bit of melee/spell users in the game as is.

[Kharli]

what we need is a class that uses mail and a ranged weapon aka bow/xbow/gun. end of it.
and DonQ, no Dragon Sworn will not work, we are already enough classes who uses polearms, one handed weapons etc, the only weapon type that is used by ONE class is Guns/bows/xbows.
best thing would be if we got a class that ONLY uses Plate Int and Bow/Xbow/Gun but that won't happen since guns/bows/xbows is agi and I don't see them adding plate agi ever again.

[Cloudjumper]

murlock nightcralwer please =)

[Deleted]

Tinkers
Bards

Theres 2 classes I can think of that dont conflict with any other classes we already have both of which could work. Oh and if you think Death Knights aren't balanced you should probably stop playing one, weather you're complaining they are too OP or not doesn't matter, Blizzard is nerfing/buffing every class every patch so your logic behind that is flawed.

I think the game could do with one more class...the Tinker!

I hear a lot of ideas for new classes on these forums, and tinker is the only good one. We don't have a class that relies on technology, and we have two races in-game that already have "Tinkers", we just haven't seen much of them. Perhaps the Gnomes could FINALLY retake all of Gnomeregan and begin training tinkers in earnest. For horde, Thrall already threatened to depose Gallywix, so he could finally be replaced by a charismatic goblin leader who believes technological advancement, not greed, is the way forward for his race.

And I KNOW that it's somewhat akin to engineering, but who cares! Engineering can just be like junior-level Tinkering. It's the stuff other classes can manage to do, but if you go beyond that level of skill, WAY beyond it, then you're a tinker. For example, engineers can use jumper cables to revive fallen allies, but there's only a chance it'll work, with a Tinker they can have something called "Spark of Life" which is there revive spell. It's the same idea as the jumper cables, shocking someone back to life, but it always works.

You should work for Blizzard this is a fine idea!

[Jtree]

stop Reading right here. You have reached new heights in Trolling and u r deserving of the title MASTER TROLL. Congratz lol.

Note 4 readers: keep your eyes wide open when replying to the above poster guys. A poster that shifts positions as convenient. Here he says what matters is the gameplay instead of the magic you use, but in his ranger concept he is only worried about rangers using magic and hunters not, which is enough of a difference for him.
other incongruencies can be found throghout his posts mainly in his 5 reasons why demon hunters are NOT gonna be in wow and his demon hunter idea concept.

My guess is that he just wants people to like him and his ideals, no matter what

Or maybe he's someone wise enough to see subtle nuances from different sides to an argument, and apply them in different times and different contexts.

[Deleted]

Because again, there's only one class using physical ranged weapon, and that class also is a pet class. There is no straight archer class in the game. Meanwhile, there's quite a bit of melee/spell users in the game as is.

you can easily roleplay a ranger in Marks spec.

But you know that you are playing a fantasy game right? the most there is here is magic and magic users(in numerous ways and forms) so why do u have such a hard time in accepting other magic based classes? Its a futile attempt for you to try and deny other forms of magic classes into the game srsly...

you want ranger because somehow it is the magic opposite of the hunter and I agree.

u want the tinker because its technology and I support that.

U want demon hunter because I have no fidea why now, since you keep opposing melee/magic fighters.

u want the bard even though in ur concept you gladly striped it out of most of what people like about it, the support factor(and u made it heavily a melee/magic user-the irony).

You also want a necromancer because obviously u'r a fan of the D2's version and made it a mirror image of it which I don't fully agree.

My point with all of this is: These are all possible additions to the game because they all have a place on the wow stage as being different in their own right and offer unique gameplay. What I just said will hopefully clear things out for most people that don't want any more classes. For those that want more classes and welcome diversity, this was a given since they first played Wow. But for you, i really don't know what is gonna happen lol

---------- Post added 2013-04-27 at 07:50 PM ----------

what we need is a class that uses mail and a ranged weapon aka bow/xbow/gun. end of it.
and DonQ, no Dragon Sworn will not work, we are already enough classes who uses polearms, one handed weapons etc, the only weapon type that is used by ONE class is Guns/bows/xbows.
best thing would be if we got a class that ONLY uses Plate Int and Bow/Xbow/Gun but that won't happen since guns/bows/xbows is agi and I don't see them adding plate agi ever again.

well yh we do having 2 or 3 classes using polearms but when it comes the time for adding dragonsworns, then polearms would have their number evened out with other weapons because there would be other new classes ^^!
lets take it hypothetically that the next class is indeed a mail user. My opinion would be to bring demon hunters as in my sig. after that, all armour will be balanced and Blizzard can choose as they want. But for me I am already planning ahead

---------- Post added 2013-04-27 at 07:52 PM ----------

Or maybe he's someone wise enough to see subtle nuances from different sides to an argument, and apply them in different times and different contexts.

So, is there a medal for being the best Troll? plus, what u just said doesn't apply because I alone(ot to mention the several others) have caught him on his mistakes so many times I don't even remember

[Teriz]

you can easily roleplay a ranger in Marks spec.

But you know that you are playing a fantasy game right? the most there is here is magic and magic users(in numerous ways and forms) so why do u have such a hard time in accepting other magic based classes? Its a futile attempt for you to try and deny other forms of magic classes into the game srsly...

For whatever reason you're not understanding what I'm saying. There are 4 classes in the game that posses a melee spec that uses magic. Adding another class that uses a similar set up would be rather redundant. ESPECIALLY given that the 4 classes that possess a melee/magic spec don't differ hugely from standard melee classes like Rogues and Warriors.

you want ranger because somehow it is the magic opposite of the hunter and I agree.

u want the tinker because its technology and I support that.

I want those classes because they are wanted and needed in terms of class balance.

U want demon hunter because I have no fidea why now, since you keep opposing melee/magic fighters.

I actually don't want Demon Hunter. I made that class thread as a personal challenge to myself in terms of class design, because no one else seemed to be able to create a WoW class that represented the WC3 class effectively.

u want the bard even though in ur concept you gladly striped it out of most of what people like about it, the support factor(and u made it heavily a melee/magic user-the irony).

I had to strip the support aspect from the class because Blizzard no longer has support classes in the game. Thus, if a Bard appeared in WoW, it would have to be a class that stood up on its own two legs.

You also want a necromancer because obviously u'r a fan of the D2's version and made it a mirror image of it which I don't fully agree.

That was another personal challenge to myself. I personally don't believe that we'll see a stand-alone Necromancer class in the game. I may do a Runemaster class for the same reason.

My point with all of this is: These are all possible additions to the game because they all have a place on the wow stage as being different in their own right and offer unique gameplay. What I just said will hopefully clear things out for most people that don't want any more classes. For those that want more classes and welcome diversity, this was a given since they first played Wow. But for you, i really don't know what is gonna happen lol

The Bard and the Tinker are the strongest possibilities from my class list. The rest is just fan-made fantasy designed to entertain.

BTW, when are we going to do our class vs. threads? Do you want me to start the thread? Which class do you want to use first?

[Deleted]

this game doesnt have :

- necromancer ( skeletons invoker ) , nor Bone magic, or acid spells
- barb
- nature spell caster healing while dpsing ( spores, seeds, and so on ) ( aka Rift cholomancer)
- battle mage ( Melee magic dealer)
- Chronomancer ( time based spec)
- telekinesic based magic
-heavy ranged spec with turrets, nets, mines, grenades
- dual wild ranged spec ( 2 pistols...)
- ranged bleeding spec
- another bow class except hunter
- engineering/robot based spec
- a complex symbol/constelation/ combinaison of skills sped

and so on and so on

So the game can sustains LOTS of new classes, or specs for already existing classes

---------- Post added 2013-04-27 at 07:03 PM ----------

Imo, top of my wish list is necromancer ( acid rain, then bone arrow in your face, and lets finish with my skeleton army, fuck i miss diablo 2)

[Syferite]

I wish they'd focus more on Hunters and Rogues to make them more distinct. Perhaps re-do mages as well since their specs have always felt like "choose the color of your spells" spec. Hell, Arcane could become the Arcane Warrior/Spellbreaker spec. And they could all be dps specs so that the "but they are supposed to be pure classes!" arguments don't flood forums.

A tinker/engineer class is possible since you can come up with quite a bit of ideas with alchemy, steampunk and gadgets. However alchemy kinda crosses over in to Mistweaver territory if you think along the lines of medicine and you can easily implement a mechanical element to one of the Hunter specs.

A bard is going to be impossible with how Blizz implements their classes. There is just no way to split it up in to 3 specs. What I can see, however, is for Holy Priests to have more song/chant spells in the future. I'd rather see Chants as a stance over Chakra since it feels more lore-related. Or maybe they can make a Rogue bard spec like in DA.