Tinker Class Concept 2018 (long)

[Ielenia]

So you're saying that piloting a mech wouldn't be a fun mechanic?

That's not a mechanic, that's "window dressing".

I'm talking about right now, not in your twisted fantasies about exploding bears and Warlocks. If there's no class that can currently perform the mechanic, then it is a new mechanic.

"Right now"? Why does it have to be "right now" when one of your arguments against another class in another thread was "why couldn't X ability be replicated by this other class instead"?

Also blowing up a vehicle is pretty different thematically than a spell caster blowing themselves up.

It wouldn't be an actual vehicle (as in, the in-game vehicle mechanic), so saying it's a vehicle is pointless. It's still your character blowing up. And the warlock could reform himself later. After all, he already does that.

[Wildberry]

I'm talking about right now, not in your twisted fantasies about exploding bears and Warlocks. If there's no class that can currently perform the mechanic, then it is a new mechanic..

Hey Teriz, remember that time you said:

If that's the case, then which ability showcased by those Lichs you listed wouldn't fit in either the DK or Mage classes?

I think you did it twice, actually:

Well again, which Lich abilities from those NPC Lichs wouldn't fit in the DK class?

Oh and remember the time you implied that giving a spell to a new class, when it could have fit an existing class, is "taking something away" from an existing class?

taking more abilities from existing classes.

What's it like being the most dishonest poster on MMO-Champion? Actually, you said it best:

Hypocrisy much?

P.S. Are you now going to delete some of the linked posts like you deleted your Necromancer thread, where you specifically stated that Necromancers could work?

[Teriz]

They don't have to be different from Frost DK's though, they just have to not be Frost DK's; ie a melee powerhouse that uses dark Frost magic.

Actually they DO have to be different than Frost DKs because the Frost DK spec holds the Lich theme.

Demon Hunters and Warlocks, Paladins and Priests. They both use the same schools of magic, same core techniques, but the classes are not the same basic archetype (Melee vs Spellcaster). Warlocks and Shadow Priests share the same themes of dark spellcasting too, albeit from different schools of magic and neither touching upon Necromancy.

Well that's not necessarily true anymore. Warlocks in BfA are getting two Death-themed abilities.

Shadowfrost absolutely makes sense as a theme, one that is as unique as Shamanistic magic. Shaman Elemental magic differs from its arcane counterpart, yet it is shared by Monks. We can have multiple classes use the same schools of magic, and similar archetypes can use the same schools of magic given that schools of magic are distinct. Necromancers fit all the rules presented by other classes.

Yeah, but there's things that Monks can do that Shaman cannot do and vice versa. I have yet to hear anything that a Necromancer would be able to do that would be out of place in the existing classes.

A Death Knight is a Necromancer in general terms, just as they are described as (unholy) Warriors in Warcraft 3. They aren't of the Warrior class, and thusly, they aren't the Necromancer class.

Blizzard themselves said that they incorporated the Necromancer concept into the DK class. The class even possesses the Necromancer's abilities from WC3.

At this point, saying that the DK isn't a Necromancer is simply semantics.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a mechanic, that's "window dressing".

So you're saying that a Bear can boost around the screen, self destruct, and drop empowering robotic turrets over the battlefield?

"Right now"? Why does it have to be "right now" when one of your arguments against another class in another thread was "why couldn't X ability be replicated by this other class instead"?

That's a completely different argument. In that argument I asked which ability from a Lich NPC would seem out of place in the DK or Mage classes. In this argument, YOU said that every mechanic I mentioned as possible is already being done by existing classes. I'm simply asking you to point out the classes already doing these mechanics.

It wouldn't be an actual vehicle (as in, the in-game vehicle mechanic), so saying it's a vehicle is pointless. It's still your character blowing up. And the warlock could reform himself later. After all, he already does that.

Well no. It's a different thematic, and that thematic carries certain properties that separate from other properties. For example, transforming into a bear is a different theme than hopping into a mech. Players expect the mech to be able to perform a certain way, and they expect the bear to perform a certain way. If the Mech growls, bites, and causes bleeds with claws, people are going to wonder what's going on. If the bear explodes, flies around the screen, and shoots a machine gun or flamethrower from its head, players are going to wonder if they aren't playing a practical joke.

So no, saying that it's a vehicle is far from pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

/snip

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. However, I'm still waiting for some WoW Lich abilities would be out of place in the existing classes.

Let me know when you find them. I am legitimately curious.

[Thimagryn]

Actually they DO have to be different than Frost DKs because the Frost DK spec holds the Lich theme.

The theme, yes. Mechanics and gameplay, no. Warlocks hold the demon themes but none of the gameplay associated with Demon Hunters, and what was there was taken away. Death Knights had one passive that was as close as you could say to the Lich, and that's been removed. They aren't 'lichborne' anymore, and their mechanics are changing with every expansion.

Well that's not necessarily true anymore. Warlocks in BfA are getting two Death-themed abilities.

Warlocks had Death Coil and Shadow Priests had; Shadow Word: Death. We still had Death Knights added, right?

Warlocks getting a couple new Death spells means nothing to a Necromancer class, who would be themed on reanimation and spreading of plagues and poisons, rather than direct death. Necromancers are the kings of attrition.

Yeah, but there's things that Monks can do that Shaman cannot do and vice versa. I have yet to hear anything that a Necromancer would be able to do that would be out of place in the existing classes.

One could make an argument that Shamans heavily used fist weapons and are brawler types, which is exactly what a Monk does. The only difference is the cultural theme of a Monk. In fact, the Warcraft 3 depiction of Pandaren magic had them using Geomancy, which is a form of Druidism or Shamanism. This is pretty much the difference between Necromancers (which anyone can learn to become) and a Death Knight (only raised by the Lich King after War3).

We can never have a Void Elf, Nightborne or Zandalari Death Knight, but it would make sense for them to have Necromancers. Racial options are a big part of the conversation, and is what helps separate the Paladins from the Priests. We know it takes more to become a Paladin than just using holy magic and being a warrior type, else Forsaken, Gnomes and Goblins could all have Paladins since they can all be Warriors and Priests.

[Teriz]

Personally, find this 100% agreeable. There's also no reason why any future Goblin- or Gnome-based Allied Races wouldn't be able to utilize this class, which technically expands their racial options to four (as DH should've, w/ Nightborne and Void Elves). If they then want to later expand the options, more power to them, but following DH it seems quite nice to have a class whose core membership all come from the same racial/cultural kernel.



Initially, I thought that the gameplay of a Tinker would probably follow a pattern such as this:

Pilot Mode (Generating Secondary Rersouce w/ Abilities) > Mechanized Mode (Spending Secondary Resource w/ Empowered Abilities) > Repeat

As I sat in Discord discussing it with a couple guild members, though, we ultimately came to agree that they could attain an equal level of distinction between both the two races (Goblin/Gnome) and the numerous specializations by designing around the use of claw packs, while also allowing the actual player's transmogrification to be visible. They lose very little of their thematic charm this way, but gain a lot (specifically, you won't see people complaining about not seeing their gear). After ~45 minutes of conversation, here's what I came up with.

Note: The artistic inspiration for this conception relies on two different thematic approaches, simultaneously.

The mechanical (and to an extent, functional) aspects of the class are inspired by Gazlowe from HotS, who's known for utilizing a high-powered "claw pack" (see. Exhibit A and Exhibit B, below); while the visual (and to an extent, functional) direction draws various from both Tinkers and Alchemists (see. Exhibit C and Exhibit D).

Exhibit A: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20131208202034
Exhibit B: https://img00.deviantart.net/b1ff/i/...on-d89nlkp.jpg
Exhibit C: https://t00.deviantart.net/nc3AynLU2...ch-dbvqwfj.png
Exhibit D: https://t00.deviantart.net/z8PYc1Rks...ch-dbvqw64.png

"mDPS" | A specialization that relies on pummeling their foes with their mechanical fists, until they've gathered enough energy to empower those haymakers with a raw burst of energy (Gnomes utilize Electricity, Goblins utilize Fire). The appearance of their "claw pack" illustrates that they're built for hand-to-hand combat, with all the appeal of a brawler (bare hands, athletic poise, etc.).

"rDPS" | A specialization that utilizes a plethora of projected ordinance alongside two very massive, very powerful hand-cannons to terrify (and, ultimately, terri-FRY) anybody who would dare to stand in front of them and their goals (Gnomes utilize Electricity, Goblins utilize Fire). The appearance of their "claw pack" should reflect that they're built for a range, with a sleek stature and two cannons where you'd normally find hands/claws.

"Tank" | A specialization that engages his/her enemies with a monstrous mechanical shield in one hand, and a small sprayer (hose-fed) in the other. This sprayer is used to lather his/her enemies in a corrosive concoction (Gnomes utilize electrified "Shock Water", Goblins utilize self-heating "Hotspray"). The appearance of their "claw pack" should communicate that they're as sturdy as a missile silo, though simultaneously highlighting their use of chemicals offensively (meaning, the sprayer and the tank it's connected to need to look dangerous).

"Healer" | A specialization that focuses almost exclusively on formulating and dispersing tinctures on the move and utilizing a massive, two-handed liquid-cannon (hose-fed) to rain down extremely potent restorative elixirs on their allies. The appearance of their "claw pack" ought to reflect their non-combative nature, with the more pronounced features being the tank that stores their healing extract and the enormous dispersal cannon connected to it.

The two specializations highlighted in orange deliver on the "Tinker" fantasy.
The two specializations highlighted in green deliver on the "Alchemist" fantasy.

A few related images and what they're related to:

"rDPS" cannons might look something like this:
https://cdn.instructables.com/FH8/G3...I4X1.LARGE.jpg

"Tank" could look a lot like this, minus the hand-held potion:
http://www.lol-wallpapers.com/wp-con...egends-lol.jpg

"Tank" could utilize a weapon similar to this, spraying liquid instead:
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...fxoatkmpt4.jpg

"Healer" could look something like this, replacing a lazerbeam with an elixir shower:
http://imageslogotv-a.akamaihd.net//...=jpg&width=480

This is pretty cool. I like the different approaches. If you want a pic of a Tinker with a big gun, here's a good one that I think really fits the concept:

https://img00.deviantart.net/a3af/i/...ll-d89v81p.png

Before Legion, I actually made a thread that contained the claw pack as a potential Tinker device. I've since moved on from that concept, but its cool to see others bring back as a possibility. I suppose we'll see which way Blizzard goes. IMO, any Tinker class is better than no Tinker class.

- - - Updated - - -

The theme, yes. Mechanics and gameplay, no. Warlocks hold the demon themes but none of the gameplay associated with Demon Hunters, and what was there was taken away. Death Knights had one passive that was as close as you could say to the Lich, and that's been removed. They aren't 'lichborne' anymore, and their mechanics are changing with every expansion.

And that's not necessarily true either. Unholy DKs deal directly with raising the undead, spreading plagues, and firing bolts of death magic. If Unholy spreads a few abilities back to Frost (which is quite possible given the direction BfA is going), then you have essentially a Lich that carries two swords instead of a staff.

Warlocks had Death Coil and Shadow Priests had; Shadow Word: Death. We still had Death Knights added, right?

Warlocks getting a couple new Death spells means nothing to a Necromancer class, who would be themed on reanimation and spreading of plagues and poisons, rather than direct death. Necromancers are the kings of attrition.

Fair enough.

One could make an argument that Shamans heavily used fist weapons and are brawler types, which is exactly what a Monk does. The only difference is the cultural theme of a Monk, which is pretty much the difference between Necromancers (which anyone can learn to become) and a Death Knight (only raised by the Lich King after War3).

We can never have a Nightborne Death Knight, but it would make sense to have a Nightborne Necromancer.

Eh, I wouldn't consider them brawlers. They were warriors that used melee weapons and elemental magic. Thrall would be a good example of the archetypical Enhancement (Melee) Shaman. That archetype is WAY different than Chen Stormstout, which was used as the basis for the WoW Monk class. I mean, you're comparing a spec that imbues weapons with fire/earth/wind/frost, with a spec that smashes kegs of beer on people's heads.

[Thimagryn]

And that's not necessarily true either. Unholy DKs deal directly with raising the undead, spreading plagues, and firing bolts of death magic. If Unholy spreads a few abilities back to Frost (which is quite possible given the direction BfA is going), then you have essentially a Lich that carries two swords instead of a staff.

That's a pretty big if. Warlocks are essentially Demon Hunters if they only got blindfolds and Warglaive options. They had a glyph that let them tank during Wrath/Cata. That's a pretty big leap to actually make them into Demon Hunters, and we know Blizzard doesn't want to go into that kind of archetype-breaking direction. Liches have a very iconic place in Warcraft.

I mean, Kel'thuzad was one of the more hyped anticipated heroes in HOTS, enough to get his own trailer, behind-the-scenes series of videos and in-game event. He's not just an Arthas skin.

Eh, I wouldn't consider them brawlers. They were warriors that used melee weapons and elemental magic. Thrall would be a good example of the archetypical Enhancement (Melee) Shaman. That archetype is WAY different than Chen Stormstout, which was used as the basis for the WoW Monk class. I mean, you're comparing a spec that imbues weapons with fire/earth/wind/frost, with a spec that smashes kegs of beer on people's heads.

The two most typical Shaman we have were raised fighting in the gladiator pits. That's the fighting archetype of the Shaman. Thrall was trained as a brawler, and like you said, he is the example of the archetypical enhancement shaman. Funny enough, Thrall has an achievement named after him in the Brawlers Guild, a notable nod to his gladiatorial days.

As for Monks, they use Shamanistic spirit magic and Elemental magic, and that's the domain of the Shaman. Hell, the Brewmaster ultimate ability was literally taken out of Shaman's quotes. Earth, Storm and Fire; Heed my call!

[Ielenia]

So you're saying that a Bear can boost around the screen, self destruct, and drop empowering robotic turrets over the battlefield?

I did not say druids, and I did not say a single class would get all the abilities.

That's a completely different argument. In that argument I asked which ability from a Lich NPC would seem out of place in the DK or Mage classes. In this argument, YOU said that every mechanic I mentioned as possible is already being done by existing classes. I'm simply asking you to point out the classes already doing these mechanics.

I demand you point out, in a quote, where I said that.

Well no. It's a different thematic,

Themes are not mechanics.

and that thematic carries certain properties that separate from other properties. For example, transforming into a bear is a different theme than hopping into a mech.

Yet, mechanically, basically the same. Which is the point. Window dressing alone is not reason enough to bring a class out into the fold.

Players expect the mech to be able to perform a certain way, and they expect the bear to perform a certain way. If the Mech growls, bites, and causes bleeds with claws, people are going to wonder what's going on.

Mechs make sounds when they move, including something like a growl, depending on the lack of oil in the moving parts, if you want to get technical. And if you cut a living being deep enough with a sharp edge, it will bleed. And have you seen the goblin mechs? 'Biting' is completely within the realm of possibilities.

If the bear explodes, flies around the screen, and shoots a machine gun or flamethrower from its head, players are going to wonder if they aren't playing a practical joke.

Because you're making a strawman, there.

[Goldielocks]

Personally, find this 100% agreeable. There's also no reason why any future Goblin- or Gnome-based Allied Races wouldn't be able to utilize this class, which technically expands their racial options to four (as DH should've, w/ Nightborne and Void Elves). If they then want to later expand the options, more power to them, but following DH it seems quite nice to have a class whose core membership all come from the same racial/cultural kernel.

Illidan was a Night Elf, and as such was pretty racist towards other races. The Illidari started out as only Night Elves. His cooperation with Kael'thas for a time is why there are BE Demon Hunters as well. With the Nightborne and Void Elves, all of the Illidari were made before patch 2.1 when we raided BT so it's not possible for them. Eventually maybe, but there's no president for either race to absorb a demon soul into themselves. No more Legion threat. The lore required the DHs to be only one race per faction. It would have been much more profitable for Blizzard to make every race a DH but that would have been a retcon.

The Tinker would have no such restriction. It's just engineers using their skills to fight. Sure, Gnomes and Goblins are well known for their engineering abilities, but I'm p sure a player with max engineering is just as skilled as any of them. Any race can reach this point.

Perhaps there could be a magical variant? Goblins/Gnomes would be Tinkers and the Draenei/BE would be Arcane Tinkers? The only thing differing them would be spell aesthetic and the mech they pilot.

[Darktbs]

See, this is where I simply can't take you seriously. So the Tinker was turned into the profession, despite zero of the Tinker abilities ever appearing in the profession, yet somehow the DK isn't a necromancer despite the majority of Necromancer abilities appearing in the DK class?

You mean the mechs being mounts, the rockets being profession made, the robots being pets, and the list goes on and on?

zero of the Tinker abilities ever appearing in the profession

Funny you said that when there is a collection of itens called Cluster rockets and their variants.The Passive of the Tinker is called engineering and the Profession shares the same name?

Hypocrisy much?

Hey im using your logic.

I guess this show signs of your self awareness.

The other 12 classes can pilot a mech during a raid or dungeon?

Please explain.

All 12 classes can pilot mechs, every class build engineering stuff, every class can use mechanical stuff.

They do that and more.

You're asking for a class that does less then what the existing currently do.

[Teriz]

That's a pretty big if. Warlocks are essentially Demon Hunters if they only got blindfolds and Warglaive options. They had a glyph that let them tank during Wrath/Cata. That's a pretty big leap to actually make them into Demon Hunters, and we know Blizzard doesn't want to go into that kind of archetype-breaking direction. Liches have a very iconic place in Warcraft.

It's an entirely different situation from the DK/Necro situation. Demon Hunters were a very specific concept with little to no variation. Necromancers is a fairly broad concept with very few lines that separates what a Necromancer is and what it isn't. Essentially any class that can raise and control the dead is a Necromancer class.

I mean, Kel'thuzad was one of the more hyped anticipated heroes in HOTS, enough to get his own trailer, behind-the-scenes series of videos and in-game event. He's not just an Arthas skin.

Yeah, but his skills are almost entirely found in the DK class with few exceptions.

Warcraft 3 Brewmaster was absolutely a brawler, whether you considered them that or not. The hero had no punches or kicks; and one of his 4 abilities is drunken brawler. Hell, his ultimate ability was literally taken out of Shaman's quotes. Earth, Storm and Fire; Heed my call!

Actually the basis for Earth, Storm, and Fire were the three storms from Big Trouble in Little China.



- - - Updated - - -

I did not say druids, and I did not say a single class would get all the abilities.

So what classes currently house the mechanics I've shown in the class write-up?

Themes are not mechanics.

No, but themes can dictate mechanics.

Yet, mechanically, basically the same. Which is the point. Window dressing alone is not reason enough to bring a class out into the fold.

Except I've already demonstrated how it isn't window dressing.

Mechs make sounds when they move, including something like a growl, depending on the lack of oil in the moving parts if you want to get technical.

Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to make an argument.

Because you're making a strawman, there.

LoL! I'm making a straw man? You're the one here pretending that a Druid is a Tinker in animal form.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the mechs being mounts, the rockets being profession made, the robots being pets, and the list goes on and on?

Tell me your mech's rotation in a standard dungeon or raid setting. I'm curious how your DPS stacks up to similar classes performing the same raid.

Thanks in advance.

Funny you said that when there is a collection of itens called Cluster rockets and their variants.The Passive of the Tinker is called engineering and the Profession shares the same name?

You mean Rocket Cluster. There is an ability called Cluster Rockets in the game. Which do you think is the actual Tinker ability? The one spelled like the original ability that actually does something similar to the old Tinker ability, or the profession skill with a different name that launches fire works into the sky?

Come on, it's not that hard champ!

Hey im using your logic.

You're asking for a class that does less then what the existing currently do.

Again: Tell me your mech's rotation in a standard dungeon or raid setting. I'm curious how your DPS stacks up to similar classes performing the same raid.

Thanks in advance.

[Ielenia]

So what classes currently house the mechanics I've shown in the class write-up?

I said they could have. Big difference.

No, but themes can dictate mechanics.

No, they don't. Themes dictate the graphics that would be displayed. No mechanics are dictated by theme..

Except I've already demonstrated how it isn't window dressing.

Saying "no it's not window dressing" is not demonstrating. Nothing you wrote up there couldn't be given to other classes, with or without minor thematic alterations.

Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to make an argument.

You wrote, specifically, "growl". Which is the druid's taunt ability. If you mentioned 'growl' as in an actual growl, my reply is spot-on. But if you mean 'growl' as in, a taunt ability, your argument was completely pointless.

LoL! I'm making a straw man? You're the one here pretending that a Druid is a Tinker in animal form.

And here you are in another strawman.

[Darktbs]

You mean Rocket Cluster. There is an ability called Cluster Rockets in the game. Which do you think is the actual Tinker ability? The one spelled like the original ability that actually does something similar to the old Tinker ability, or the profession skill with a different name that launches fire works into the sky?

Come on, it's not that hard champ!

So now what the spells do matters to you?
Oh yea because fits your agenda.

I argued time and time how D&D, Frost Nova and many others all do different things then their original counterparts and could easily be name changed, but you ignored because they had the same name.

And now when bullet goes right back at you, you pretend like it doesn't matter.

You want to talk about hypocrisy Teriz, you should look at a mirror.

Again: Tell me your mech's rotation in a standard dungeon or raid setting. I'm curious how your DPS stacks up to similar classes performing the same raid.

Thanks in advance.

I will say it again, and honestly im getting tired of it.

The Tinker became a profession, accept it.Your mechs, became mounts, your robots, became pets, the rest, toys and consumables.

Its getting even better considering BFA they are giving a Battle rez to engineering, because Engineering its getting more usable stuff.

With a couple more addictions we won't even need a Tinker class.

[Kithelle]

Engineering already covers this theme. What we need is something completely new, not something based off a profession.

Ahh yes, another person who just looks at the word *Tinker* and gives this worthless reply without even using their head or bothering to read a single word.

[Teriz]

And here you are in another strawman.

Once again, says the guy who thinks a Druid is a Tinker in animal form.

Moving on....

- - - Updated - - -

With a couple more addictions we won't even need a Tinker class.

A nonsensical statement considering that a profession can never take the place of a class.

[TheWorkingTitle]

Ahh yes, another person who just looks at the word *Tinker* and gives this worthless reply without even using their head or bothering to read a single word.

Just take a look at what you can make as an Engineer and you'll realize how unoriginal this idea is. Engineering profession has this whole theme covered already. Next.

[Ielenia]

Once again, says the guy who thinks a Druid is a Tinker in animal form.

Moving on....

Except I'm claiming I never wrote that, and you have never shown any evidence of the contrary.

[Thimagryn]

It's an entirely different situation from the DK/Necro situation. Demon Hunters were a very specific concept with little to no variation. Necromancers is a fairly broad concept with very few lines that separates what a Necromancer is and what it isn't. Essentially any class that can raise and control the dead is a Necromancer class.

A Lich is a very specific concept, one whose lore basis is directly tied to Necromancers and their ilk. You're equating Death Knights to a very different and specific concept which they are not derived from. Arthas is the source of Death Knight Frost abilities, not Kel'thuzad. This is even represented in HOTS where Arthas has Frost abilities, but he doesn't represent the Lich concept.

Necromancers are iconic enough within the Warcraft universe to show how Liches differ from the Death Knight. Even Warcraft 2 Death Knights are technically Liches, and not the basis for the Warcraft 3 Death Knight variants which were derived from Arthas' corrupted Paladins.

When talking about a conceptual basis, Death Knights aren't representative of the typical Necromancer or Lich archetype. They're derivatives of Arthas' themes.

Yeah, but his skills are almost entirely found in the DK class with few exceptions.

Demon Hunter skills were found all over the place. This isn't a flaw of the concept, but a flaw in your logic that Classes are derived by the abilities represented in War3. How did we fare with Demon Hunters having their abilities shared by other WoW classes?

Whatever overlap that can't be avoided will be removed from the DK and replaced by a like-spell, or their theme updated. Or, best case scenario, the Necromancer simply doesn't overlap and gets designed in another direction; just like Monks don't really overlap with Shamans or Rogues despite sharing many base themes (Water-based healing, elemental spirits). A cultural aspect can provide a lot of separation to the class concept, and the Necromancer having alchemical or cultural influences (Voodoo, Dark Naaru, Dark Shamanism) can do wonders to separate the class concept. The Blood Troll Liches are exactly what I'm talking about

[Darktbs]

A nonsensical statement considering that a profession can never take the place of a class.

It shouldn't, Engineering and Tinkering would and should remain as professions, just as they were optional things in Wc3 and did not conflict with the original stuff.

I also love how you are aware of your hypocrisy.

[Teriz]

A Lich is a very specific concept, one whose lore basis is directly tied to Necromancers and their ilk. You're equating Death Knights to a very different and specific concept which they are not derived from. Arthas is the source of Death Knight Frost abilities, not Kel'thuzad. This is even represented in HOTS where Arthas has Frost abilities, but he doesn't represent the Lich concept.

Keep in mind, I didn't say Lichs, I said Necromancers. Also the Lich kind of proves my point, since it is a type of necromancer as well. Btw, quick question, where do you think the Frost DK spec comes from?

Necromancers are iconic enough within the Warcraft universe to show how Liches differ from the Death Knight. Even Warcraft 2 Death Knights are technically Liches, and not the basis for the Warcraft 3 Death Knight variants which were derived from Arthas' corrupted Paladins.

When talking about a conceptual basis, Death Knights aren't representative of the typical Necromancer or Lich archetype. They're derivatives of Arthas' themes.

You do know that he was known as the Lich King right?

Demon Hunter skills were found all over the place. This isn't a flaw of the concept, but a flaw in your logic that Classes are derived by the abilities represented in War3. How did we fare with Demon Hunters having their abilities shared by other WoW classes?

The difference being that all the Necromancer skills are found in one place.

Whatever overlap that can't be avoided will be removed from the DK and replaced by a like-spell, or their theme updated.

You would have to remove the majority of the class then. It isn't a set of spells like metamorphosis and Demon Hunters.

[Wyrt]

I think my favorite part of this is you took a concept and icon from draenei things(the warframe) and then decided the class should still be exclusive to gnomes and goblins.

This is why I never support these stupid tinker ideas. There's more tech in WoW than gnome and goblin tech and arbitrarily restricting a tech based class to those 2 races is a terrible idea.