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

[Calfredd]

They just need to add another class already doesn't matter if it's tinker or not because either way people will calm down and certain posters will shut up for a while like when they added demon hunters.

[Teriz]

WC3 latest patches actually addressed this.

Drain Life now applies Black Arrow debuff if you have one point in it.

I'm talking about WoW. In WoW there's no point of a bow class having something like Drain Life.

Are the Dark Shaman using Necromancy? If not, I don't understand how they are anything like Dark Rangers.

I'm saying they're the equivalent of Hunters and Dark Rangers. They're simply the dark variant of their sister class.

Necromancy has been the difference between multiple types of classes. There's a reason Necromancer is a different archetype from a Mage, and a Death Knight is a different archetype from a Paladin or Warrior. And in the case of a DK, they're literally just evil or corrupted Paladins that Blizzard chose and made into its own class.

And again, what Necromancer ability does the Dark Ranger possess beyond Black Arrow, an ability that Hunters once possesed.

If we're talking about HOTS abilities, then it's just as plausible to have them enter the Engineering profession as gadgets and explosives. It's not going to fundamentally change any class either.

Except the fundamental aspect of the Tinker concept is utilizing a large robot for combat (class) purposes. Neither Shaman, Hunter, or Engineering could provide that.

Sure they were.

"These renegade Paladins succumbed to bitter hatred over the course of their grueling quest. When they finally reached Ner'zhul's icy fortress in Northrend they had become dark and brooding. The Lich King offered them untold power in exchange for their services and loyalty. The weary, vengeful warriors accepted his dark pact, and although they retained their humanity, their twisted souls were bound to his evil will for all time. Bestowed with black, vampiric Runeblades and shadowy steeds, Death Knights serve as the Scourge's mightiest generals."

It's literally what the WC3 Death Knight concept is. An evil and corrupted Paladin with dark, mirrored abilities.

And again, they were able to expand that to make the Death Knight WoW's Necromancer class. You simply can't expand the Dark Ranger in that way, because at a fundamental level, it's exactly like the Hunter class.

For comparison, Death Pact, Army of the Dead, and Death Coil would fundamentally alter the Paladin class. Wailing Arrow, Withering Fire, and Black Arrow would not fundamentally alter the Hunter class.

[Something Wicked]

My favorite part of this discussion is how the "haters" keep ignoring the fact that Blizzard literally added the Tinker class already (at least hints of what they have in mind) via the Island Expeditions. Complete with three different specs. None of the other classes mentioned here have anything near as concrete as that going for them in WoW.

If they add another class, it's almost definitely going to be a Tinker. No matter how much some of you (irrationally) hate the idea. You might as well join the Pandaren haters.

[Triceron]

I'm talking about WoW. In WoW there's no point of a bow class having something like Drain Life.

I'd agree. A Dark Ranger class wouldn't need it any more than Sylvanas needs it in WoW.

I'm saying they're the equivalent of Hunters and Dark Rangers. They're simply the dark variant of their sister class.

So the problem with that assessment is we have multiple iterations of a 'dark variant' of any given class. There's no one way to go about it.

Priests have a dark variant, and it's represented as a simple Spec.

Paladins have a dark variant, and it's represented as an entire class.

There's no one answer the way you're implying that a Dark Shaman and Nightmare Druid wouldn't be made into classes because they're just dark variations of existing classes.

And again, what Necromancer ability does the Dark Ranger possess beyond Black Arrow, an ability that Hunters once possesed.

Bad faith baiting. Dark Rangers don't have Necromancer abilities, period.

Except the fundamental aspect of the Tinker concept is utilizing a large robot for combat (class) purposes. Neither Shaman, Hunter, or Engineering could provide that.

Engineering already provides it through Reaves. You even argued that it was too large (even if it's perfectly usable in town)

And again, they were able to expand that to make the Death Knight WoW's Necromancer class. You simply can't expand the Dark Ranger in that way, because at a fundamental level, it's exactly like the Hunter class.

I'd say that it's unlikely that they would choose the Dark Ranger as the next class, and expanding on it would be somewhat redundant since there are better class concepts to choose from.

But if you're comparing to the DK, then sure they can expand it like the DK since the DK absorbed cut content from other existing classes like the Necromancer and Runemaster.

I think if they were to do the same with Dark Ranger, then take any number of similar scrapped concepts and mash them together with the Dark Ranger. Have Bard like songs enter the combat, since we've seen Sylvanas sings Lament of the Highborne with a whole Banshee entourage. Turn that into Buffs or Debuffs.

Incorporate Night Warrior or Dark Warden themes into the class. It's possible to bridge a connection since they're all using a dark form of magic.

Have the Dark Ranger absorb a bunch of Covenant abilities after Shadowlands, since they'll all be up for grabs.

There's plenty of possibilities to expand any given class concept. It's just a matter of how far Blizzard is willing to take any given concept.

For comparison, Death Pact, Army of the Dead, and Death Coil would fundamentally alter the Paladin class. Wailing Arrow, Withering Fire, and Black Arrow would not fundamentally alter the Hunter class.

Paladin is already using Necromancy in Shadowlands, I don't see how they've been fundamentally altered at all.

Vanquishers Hammer is pretty much a shadow-based ranged attack like Death Coil, Death Pact could probably be equated to Fleshcraft, and back in Vanilla WoW you could use Book of the Dead trinket to summon an army of skeletons at your side. Paladin is still a Paladin.

[Ielenia]

Name some Necromancy abilities that Dark Rangers use.

Raising those they kill as skeletons, for one.

Additionally what would be the purpose of mind-manipulation powers? Would Dark Rangers simply use these abilities to "tame" creatures like the Hunter class?

Others have already explained to you the differences between "charm" and "tame beast". You are just playing dumb.

Subtlety Rogue and their Shuriken abilities.

When have you seen dark rangers use SHURIKENS!? But okay. Hunters use bombs, are ranged and wear mail. That's your tinker, right there. That's your logic, here.

[Teriz]

So the problem with that assessment is we have multiple iterations of a 'dark variant' of any given class. There's no one way to go about it.

Priests have a dark variant, and it's represented as a simple Spec.

Which is fine since it’s contained in one class. There would be no issue in incorporating the Dark Ranger concept into the existing Hunter class (again).

Paladins have a dark variant, and it's represented as an entire class.

But it isn’t a dark variant of the Paladin class, it’s a Necromancer class that incorporates pretty standard Necromancer abilities.

There's no one answer the way you're implying that a Dark Shaman and Nightmare Druid wouldn't be made into classes because they're just dark variations of existing classes.

I’m saying that there’s close to zero chance that we’re getting a Dark Shaman or a Dark Druid class. Why would a Dark Ranger be any different?

Bad faith baiting. Dark Rangers don't have Necromancer abilities, period.

But you mentioned Necromancy as something that divides Hunters and Dark Rangers.

Engineering already provides it through Reaves. You even argued that it was too large (even if it's perfectly usable in town)

Reaves can’t complete world quests, can’t loot, can’t enter dungeons, can’t participate in raids, is restricted to one map in the Broken Isles, etc. Engineering does not provide Tinker gameplay via Reaves.

I'd say that it's unlikely that they would choose the Dark Ranger as the next class, and expanding on it would be somewhat redundant since there are better class concepts to choose from.

But if you're comparing to the DK, then sure they can expand it like the DK since the DK absorbed cut content from other existing classes like the Necromancer and Runemaster.

I think if they were to do the same with Dark Ranger, then take any number of similar scrapped concepts and mash them together with the Dark Ranger. Have Bard like songs enter the combat, since we've seen Sylvanas sings Lament of the Highborne with a whole Banshee entourage. Turn that into Buffs or Debuffs.

Incorporate Night Warrior or Dark Warden themes into the class. It's possible to bridge a connection since they're all using a dark form of magic.

Have the Dark Ranger absorb a bunch of Covenant abilities after Shadowlands, since they'll all be up for grabs.

There's plenty of possibilities to expand any given class concept. It's just a matter of how far Blizzard is willing to take any given concept.

And what exactly are Night Warrior and Dark Warden themes? Further, wouldn’t another shadow-based melee from Elven origins seem a bit redundant? Also wouldn’t Night Warrior be a bit strange to incorporate into a Dark Ranger class given the lore behind both concepts?

Paladin is already using Necromancy in Shadowlands, I don't see how they've been fundamentally altered at all.

They’re not fundamentally altered because those are not permanent Paladin abilities.

Vanquishers Hammer is pretty much a shadow-based ranged attack like Death Coil, Death Pact could probably be equated to Fleshcraft, and back in Vanilla WoW you could use Book of the Dead trinket to summon an army of skeletons at your side. Paladin is still a Paladin.

A weapon, an expansion feature, and a trinket is not the same as having Paladins getting a permanent shadow ability added to their class.

[Triceron]

Which is fine since it’s contained in one class. There would be no issue in incorporating the Dark Ranger concept into the existing Hunter class (again).

Hunters are not POTMs just because they have True Shot. Black Arrow hardly encompasses the entire Dark Ranger concept.

But I guess this differs from person to person, since you feel Void Elf Hunters are Dark Rangers too.

But it isn’t a dark variant of the Paladin class, it’s a Necromancer class that incorporates pretty standard Necromancer abilities.

Which is exactly how the Dark Ranger concept actually differs from Hunters. We see this exemplified in Heroes of the Storm and Warcraft 3, where the concept is strongest.

I’m saying that there’s close to zero chance that we’re getting a Dark Shaman or a Dark Druid class. Why would a Dark Ranger be any different?

Because we're not talking about a Dark Hunter. You seem to be fixated on this class concept simply being a Shadow Priest equivalent, when Dark Ranger has always been more akin to how Death Knights differ entirely from Paladins.

Dark Rangers are themed more closely to Rogues than they are Hunters. It actually makes more sense to make them a ranged Rogue spec, since the Rogue is actually built with Shadow abilities and stealth in mind. However they would still differ in that they use actual dark and necromantic magic, as well as mind manipulation where Rogues are all about the stabby-stabby.

But you mentioned Necromancy as something that divides Hunters and Dark Rangers.

You're baiting into pulling the Death Knight into this as the sole Necromancer class of the game. Bad faith argument, not buying it.

Reaves can’t complete world quests, can’t loot, can’t enter dungeons, can’t participate in raids, is restricted to one map in the Broken Isles, etc. Engineering does not provide Tinker gameplay via Reaves.

Then it means Blizzard doesn't care about the Tinker gameplay as much as you care for them to if they added them to Engineering.

I mean, look at where we are with the design of the Demon Hunter. Just because it's playable doesn't mean they made you happy about it, right? You still heavily criticize it to this day for being a flawed design. I see no difference if they happened to incorporate any Tinker abilities into Engineering where they belong.

And what exactly are Night Warrior and Dark Warden themes? Further, wouldn’t another shadow-based melee from Elven origins seem a bit redundant? Also wouldn’t Night Warrior be a bit strange to incorporate into a Dark Ranger class given the lore behind both concepts?

No stranger than DK absorbing Lich, Necromancer, Runelord and Dreadlord themes.

The lore of the Night Warrior doesn't need to be incorporated if we're just taking its themes along for the ride. Hell, if Blizzard invented Night Warrior in the first place, then they can invent any number of Dark Ranger subthemes for a new class. It's just like how Monks got the while Mistweaving spec with a full background history of the first Pandaren Emperor creating the Mists and how it ties into spiritual healing magic.

They’re not fundamentally altered because those are not permanent Paladin abilities.

Which is why Death Knight is its own class.

Just adding Necromantic abilities to a Paladin doesn't change its definition. Adding shadow abilities to a Hunter doesn't change the fact that it will always just be a Hunter.

[pacotaco]

Demon hunters are charged with fel energy, something established in the lore well before the class was introduced as something that mutates you to have more demonic features so the addition of horns and wings makes perfect sense. I got nothing when it comes to DK because I still understand that entirely.

Meanwhile, dark rangers in WoW are just hunters. There just isn't enough unique about them to justify a class. Maybe a hunter spec but certainly not an entire class.

The lore is unclear about how they become Dark Rangers. They don't look like normal undead. All of them are elves (save Nathanos, but that's a special case), and some of them we've seen them before as banshee. So it's safe to asume that some (if not all of them) still have that ability even if it's not presented in-game.

And I don't think they fit the hunter theme. They're not the same: hunter is being one with the nature and create a link with your animal pet. Dark Ranger are the reverse. They're like the DKs to the Paladin.

- - - Updated - - -

My favorite part of this discussion is how the "haters" keep ignoring the fact that Blizzard literally added the Tinker class already (at least hints of what they have in mind) via the Island Expeditions. Complete with three different specs. None of the other classes mentioned here have anything near as concrete as that going for them in WoW.

If they add another class, it's almost definitely going to be a Tinker. No matter how much some of you (irrationally) hate the idea. You might as well join the Pandaren haters.

While I agree of that making them the highest possible option, that's not any guaranty of it happening. And I'm being totally neutral here, I don't care what class we get as far as we get something new to play with.

[Teriz]

Hunters are not POTMs just because they have True Shot. Black Arrow hardly encompasses the entire Dark Ranger concept.

Hunters also received an equivalent of Searing Arrow (Exotic munitions and Arcane Shot), and they had the PotM’s owl ability (Sentinel). The only ability from the PotM they never got was Starfall.

Btw, PotM is in a similar position as Dark Rangers in terms of class viability.

But I guess this differs from person to person, since you feel Void Elf Hunters are Dark Rangers too.

Lots of people have lumped Void Elves in as a potential Dark Ranger race.

Which is exactly how the Dark Ranger concept actually differs from Hunters. We see this exemplified in Heroes of the Storm and Warcraft 3, where the concept is strongest.

Again, you’re not naming any specific abilities that mark this difference. If we take Banshee based powers off the table, all we have is a Hunter that is shooting shadowy arrows, and the Hunter class has a robust history of doing that.

Because we're not talking about a Dark Hunter. You seem to be fixated on this class concept simply being a Shadow Priest equivalent, when Dark Ranger has always been more akin to how Death Knights differ entirely from Paladins.

But the very name of this concept is Dark Hunter, since Ranger is merely another word for Hunter. In fact, the Hunter class is considered a Ranger class.

Dark Rangers are themed more closely to Rogues than they are Hunters. It actually makes more sense to make them a ranged Rogue spec, since the Rogue is actually built with Shadow abilities and stealth in mind. However they would still differ in that they use actual dark and necromantic magic, as well as mind manipulation where Rogues are all about the stabby-stabby.

Where do we have examples of Dark Rangers using stealth?

it means Blizzard doesn't care about the Tinker gameplay as much as you care for them to if they added them to Engineering.

Except the didn’t add Tinker gameplay to engineering. They did however bring Dark Ranger gameplay to the Hunter class multiple times in the history of WoW, and it never fundamentally changed the nature of the Hunter class.

I mean, look at where we are with the design of the Demon Hunter. Just because it's playable doesn't mean they made you happy about it, right? You still heavily criticize it to this day for being a flawed design. I see no difference if they happened to incorporate any Tinker abilities into Engineering where they belong.

Why would class abilities belong in a profession which is not designed to house such abilities, and has never housed such abilities?

No stranger than DK absorbing Lich, Necromancer, Runelord and Dreadlord themes.

Why is it strange? The WC3 DK hero had rune and necromancer concepts seeded in it from the beginning. Obviously when it was expanded into a class it made sense to bring those concepts into the fold.

The lore of the Night Warrior doesn't need to be incorporated if we're just taking its themes along for the ride. Hell, if Blizzard invented Night Warrior in the first place, then they can invent any number of Dark Ranger subthemes for a new class. It's just like how Monks got the while Mistweaving spec with a full background history of the first Pandaren Emperor creating the Mists and how it ties into spiritual healing magic.

The thing is that there was no Monk class in WoW so the Monk class had plenty of design space to fill. During this entire exchange, the only thing you have expressed that is a mark of difference for the Dark Ranger and the Hunter is the use of Shadow shots. That isn’t a robust design space, and unlike the Monk class, there is no fundamental class archetype that the Dark Ranger belongs to.

Which is why Death Knight is its own class.

Just adding Necromantic abilities to a Paladin doesn't change its definition. Adding shadow abilities to a Hunter doesn't change the fact that it will always just be a Hunter.

Except they didn’t add Necromantic abilities to the Paladin class. Covenant abilities in general are temporary abilities for this expansion and this expansion only. Some classes may retain these abilities going forward, but the Paladin class isn’t one of them. Interestingly, the Hunter class is one of those classes that could retain its Shadow-based ability from this expansion.

Adding permanent shadow abilities to the Paladin class would absolutely change the class’ concept, because part of its core concept is a pure holy magic user free of corruption.

[TheRevenantHero]

Not really. They have abilities of their own. And their concept is wholly different and separate from the hunter class. Saying both are the same, is like saying warriors and paladins are the same.

- - - Updated - - -


Necromancy and mind-manipulating powers, just off the top of my head.


I'll remind you that the DK was still portrayed as "evil paladin" in the expansion's reveal trailer. Also, what stops Blizzard from expanding the dark ranger concept as well?

- - - Updated - - -


I didn't know rogues were a ranged class?

No they don't. What abilities do they have in WoW that hunters don't?

[Teriz]

Do you guys not think that Blizzard would find it easier to say in 10.0, hey! we arent having a hero class but we have something else, 4th specs coming for some classes! hunter - dark ranger, warrior - blademaster etc etc.

I understand Teriz that perhaps Tinker could be its own class, I get your argument, maybe, Im not sure, but all these otherspecs like dragonsworn, bard, are not going to happen, they just arent.

I can however see 4th specs instead of an entire new class.

I can't. 4th specs would require a far higher level of balance than a new class. Also, some classes like Druids and Demon Hunters wouldn't get a 4th spec, and in the case of Demon Hunters, they might not even get a 3rd spec. Not to mention that some specs like Arms and Markmanship currently need an overhaul because they seriously lack identity. Before we get 4th specs, some of the current specs could use a refresher.

[TheRevenantHero]

The lore is unclear about how they become Dark Rangers. They don't look like normal undead. All of them are elves (save Nathanos, but that's a special case), and some of them we've seen them before as banshee. So it's safe to asume that some (if not all of them) still have that ability even if it's not presented in-game.

And I don't think they fit the hunter theme. They're not the same: hunter is being one with the nature and create a link with your animal pet. Dark Ranger are the reverse. They're like the DKs to the Paladin.

- - - Updated - - -



While I agree of that making them the highest possible option, that's not any guaranty of it happening. And I'm being totally neutral here, I don't care what class we get as far as we get something new to play with.

But dark rangers in WoW are literally just undead hunters. They don't have any abilities that separate them from hunters.

[Teriz]

Raising those they kill as skeletons, for one.

And that's about it. Hunters had the ability to summon undead creatures in Legion as well. The reason this ability was removed was because it was simply a stand in for a pet, and this would be no different in a Dark Ranger class using this ability.

Others have already explained to you the differences between "charm" and "tame beast". You are just playing dumb.

Moving this ability into WoW, Charm would simply be an expanded version of tame beast. Instead of just taming beasts, the Dark Ranger would be able to tame everything else.

So to back track, we have a Hunter who summons the undead instead of summoning the beasts of the wilds. We have a Hunter that can tame/enslave non-beasts/demons/undead to do their bidding.

At this point you're simply describing an "evil" Hunter.

When have you seen dark rangers use SHURIKENS!? But okay. Hunters use bombs, are ranged and wear mail. That's your tinker, right there. That's your logic, here.

That wasn't what I was arguing. I was responding to Triceron's description of a ranged assassin using stealth. That's Subtlety Rogue in a nutshell.

Further, the core concept of the Tinker is utilizing mechs. The bombs and other stuff are simply the weaponry;





And those simply don't work with the Hunter class.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure they would, but they in theory satisfy far more of the population, they change up the formula, it fits easier, and while it takes more time to balance, it takes less time to create than an entire new class.

You're taking the number 4 way too literally Teriz, most classes have 3 specs, so I used 4 as an example.. Im saying adding 4th specs to classes that have commonly requested specs that don't exist.

I agree on the 'refresher' but I think a lot of specs don't need a refresh, they need literal scrap and burn and replace. We've seen too many shit variations of arms for example. Its time to replace 1/2 the core abilities.

Well wouldn't the game be better served if less popular/redundant specs like Survival, Arms, Enhancement, Arcane, etc. got overhauled instead of adding entirely additional specs? Shouldn't we take some of those 4th spec concepts and apply them to existing specs to make them more interesting? For example, this Dark Ranger discussion we've been having; Wouldn't the Hunter class (and the game) benefit more from Blizzard simply applying a few Dark Ranger talents to the MM spec to make it more interesting? Wouldn't Outlaw Rogue be a bit more interesting if they put a few Bardic concepts into it that would give it some group utility? Howabout placing the Blademaster concept into Arms? Howabout Arcane dip a bit deeper into Time magic to the point where it borders on being a Time Mage? Howabout adding some Druid of the Fang or Nightmare Druid concepts to the existing 4 Druid specs? Howabout we simply make Enhancement a tank spec?

I think we'd be better off if we propped up what we have instead of slapping on random new specializations.

[Teriz]

I mean yes I'm not going to say you're wrong on that basis, no. I think there will inevitably be some cases where a 4th spec would be more suitable, but I doubt we will ever see a new class and major overhauls simultaneously. With regards to some of your points, I think some of them would be really damaging, for example Enh shaman, I personally love that spec, they just need to figure out how the hell to balance it a bit better. Id be 'heartbroken' if they scrapped it, as I think the theme of a melee dps shaman is amazing.

Ultimately, I think this would be the next big thing if they were going to do anything, that's not to say there wont be a new class next xpan, but I think this would serve the game better long term than adding a tinker meanwhile half of the specs in the game are underplayed, widely considered soul destroyingly boring or consistently unbalanced and weak.

Well I disagree with that. If half the existing specs are underplayed, then that only strengthens the argument against adding an additional spec to the existing classes. Take those cool 4th spec concepts and apply them to the existing specs that lack an identity or purpose. Adding a Tinker doesn't harm that process, since a Tinker class wouldn't take anything away from existing classes. Just like adding Demon Hunters didn't effect the massive class overhauls we got in Legion.

- - - Updated - - -

I would also add that Demon Hunters could definitely use a third spec. The situation with Havoc this expansion kind of proves that.

[razorpax]

Do you guys not think that Blizzard would find it easier to say in 10.0, hey! we arent having a hero class but we have something else, 4th specs coming for some classes! hunter - dark ranger, warrior - blademaster etc etc.

I understand Teriz that perhaps Tinker could be its own class, I get your argument, maybe, Im not sure, but all these otherspecs like dragonsworn, bard, are not going to happen, they just arent.

I can however see 4th specs instead of an entire new class.

Hey there blizz dev nice to get your input unlike the rest of us who are 100% guessing with our opinions I’m glad you have the pure answers for us

[Teriz]

You've misread what I said, I said there will be some classes where a 4th spec would be more suitable, meaning that the other 3 specs are already well played, but there's a clear space for a whole unique 4th spec.

Secondly, there is 0 chance that they would do 4th specs/entire spec revamps for most classes and also do a new class. Its too much work and they don't have the budget, team size, etc to do it simultaneously. The class overhauls we saw in Legion arent as large of a workload as I'm talking when I say basically recreating multiple new specs from the ground up, not rework, remake completely, that plus 4th specs, I don't think that they would want to do both those things. Im just speaking from my POV as a dev, those things are both very large.

I agree, which is why I don't see 4th specs happening;

1. It's far too much work (4th specs is the equivalent of multiple classes being released at once).
2. It would be far better for the game to take those neat 4th spec concepts and apply them to existing classes.
3. Druid and Demon Hunter players wouldn't benefit from this concept.

Reworks are medium work, classes are high work, a remake is also high. But that's just my PoV/opinion.

I think DH need a 3rd spec too tbh.

I agree on both these counts.

I think Tinker might exist in the future, but I full well believe that the case for tinker is far weaker than DH/DK/monk imo.

How so? There was no Necromancer class, so DKs filled that role. There was no Monk class, so Monks filled that role. We have no technology class, so Tinkers fill that role. In addition, multiple races could use a technology-based class because their current class options don't reflect their racial lore.

Indeed, I would argue that the class with the weakest case was the Demon Hunter class. The Tinker serves a far stronger case in WoW than that class did/does.

[Traveler Voltin]

this place is a circle.

[Teriz]

Because while I agree Tinkers exist in WoW, I think they're far more on the edge of the fantasy world than the DK. The DK/DH both have a major character involved in them, the two biggest in the franchise. And the Monk while it didn't have much going in the way of characters, fits very comfortably in a fantasy world.

Gazlowe has been a Warcraft mainstay since WC3. Mekkatorque has been in WoW since its beginning. Goblins and Gnomes have been utilizing tech since the beginnings of Warcraft. While technology isn't a typical an aspect of fantasy, Blizzard has made it quite clear that Warcraft has a very strong and robust technological aspect, and there should be a class that reflects it.

- - - Updated - - -

this place is a circle.

I'm forced to agree.

[Ielenia]

And that's about it. Hunters had the ability to summon undead creatures in Legion as well.

Raising a random undead beast on attack is not the same thing as raising a humanoid undead skeleton from the humanoid mob that you just killed.

The reason this ability was removed was because it was simply a stand in for a pet,

We don't know why it was removed, so stop pretending like you do.

and this would be no different in a Dark Ranger class using this ability.

Except, as pointed out almost an infinite number of times to you by almost everone in this entire planet, the dark ranger ability would not work 1:1 as the old hunter ability.

Moving this ability into WoW, Charm would simply be an expanded version of tame beast.

No. No, it would not. That's like saing the WC3 Paladin's resurrection ability would instead work on beasts only if translated to WoW.

Instead of just taming beasts, the Dark Ranger would be able to tame everything else.

So we should remove "banish", "paralysis", "cyclone", "hex", and all the other CC abilities, because they're just the mage's "polymorph" that work on more mobs than polymorph.

So to back track, we have a Hunter

It's not a hunter.

who summons the undead instead of summoning the beasts of the wilds.

Raising the dead =/= calling a beast.

We have a Hunter

It's not a hunter.

that can tame

It cannot "tame".

At this point you're simply describing an "evil" Hunter.

And describing a death knight pre-WotLK would be exactly that: describing an "evil" paladin. Without even having to mention their lore and the expansion reveal trailer that ACTUALLY describe them as "evil paladins".

That wasn't what I was arguing.

That was exactly what you were arguing. You equated the Subtlety rogue to the dark ranger because it can throw shurikens. Not to mention that just going by shurikens alone your DPS would be competing with the healers'.

I was responding to Triceron's description of a ranged assassin using stealth. That's Subtlety Rogue in a nutshell.

Except the rogue is not a ranged class. And "using stealth" is not exclusive to the rogue class.

And those simply don't work with the Hunter class.

Of course it does. Just give them the ability, and done. After all, if dark arrow, an ability that has never fit with the hunter's theme and concept, "fits" in your opinion, then a mech surely would fit, as well.

- - - Updated - - -

No they don't. What abilities do they have in WoW that hunters don't?

Don't be a Teriz and start coping his "specific in-game WoW abilities that we can see in WoWHead to check its properties" nonsense. They possess access to necromancy, as they are able to raise the skeletons of the foes they kill. They are also versed in mind manipulation. Read their WoWPedia entry and you'll see it.

[Teriz]

And I agree with all of that, it's part of the warcraft universe, even though it's not so common in most fantasy and they've existed since the start. But my point isnt that they dont exist, its simply that they arent as iconic as others.

Iconic in what way exactly? There has been toys and merch of Goblin characters throughout Warcraft's history.

Ask any warcraft fan to name 10 characters, then write down what 'class's they fit into, tinker will fall very low down that list. Probably above monk but low. And as I said, monk is just an easier class to add to a fantasy game and also to make an entire xpan about so it makes sense why this happened.

Well 1. That's an irrelevant point because we have no idea what the results of such a quiz would be, and 2. the only thing that matters is what Blizzard pushes as iconic and a mainstay of the series. Gazlowe is in Heroes of the Storm, which is pretty much a showcase of major Blizzard franchise characters. That alone proves that Goblins are an iconic aspect of the Warcraft franchise. In addition, the fact that Chen Stormstout and the Pandaren had an expansion and a class based upon them opens the door for Gazlowe and a Gnome/Goblin expansion in the future. Frankly, I believe that the general population would welcome such an expansion, especially given the calls by those in the community to rachet things down a bit from the cosmic threat level stuff.