It is time. Spell breakers and necromancers

Community General Discussion
61

We already have them its called unholy DK

2 Likes
62

To those saying “We HavE uNhOlY DK”, no, they don’t count as Necromancers. They’re as much Necromancers as Affliction Warlocks are Shadow Priests. Overlap is present, and allowed.

Necromancy has it’s own distinct set of assets & spell colourations.

1 Like
63

You do realize demo locks have imps passively spawn with hand of gul’dan right…? So we do use imps…lol

3 Likes
64

Like I said you can’t reason with people when they want a certain motif/aesthetic. They don’t care if they water down existing concepts even further.

1 Like
65

We already do have necromancers though. They’re constantly raising old threads from the dead.

1 Like
66

While necromancers are a cool concept, I think the gameplay and niche would be too similar to warlocks.

Spell Breakers could overlap a lot with Demon Hunters as well (in terms of gameplay, not fantasy), but perhaps it could be done different.

The problem with Spell Breakers is that it should have been done in TBC. Nowadays, I don’t think we’ll have a Blood Elves centered expansion again.

2 Likes
67

If you want to suggest a new class…once again…

You need to suggest something it will mechanically do different from what is available. Aesthetics are irrelevant when creating a new class.

3 Likes
68

Aesthetics are NOT irrelevant.

I see you’re a Troll but for serious? Come on. There is a specific aesthetic I chose for each of my race class combinations. This is a MMO, after all. I mean, good god man, 90% of vidya games’ these days? End Game is Cosmetic. The entire industry is Play Dress Up lmao… WoW is no different. I haven’t touched Raids in several xpacs and haven’t run M+ in longer.

Like how I don’t have a Shaman because the look/feel of them is meh and I think they suck and are quite boring to look at. But i’m not going to trash other people for playing it.

1 Like
69

They are absolutely irrelevant when deciding if a new class should be created.

This is completely irrelevant to a new class being designed.

Also completely irrelevant to the conversation.

The conversation is adding an arcane sword-and-board class. Necromancers.

Things that are mechanically already represented in WoW. These should not be added as a new class for aesthetic reasons.

70

So, the look of a race/class is not relevant to its design? You are bored and trolling. Bye

71

if it was relevant we wouldn’t have gotten the joke that is Dracthyr

1 Like
72

Not what I said.

I said creating it for no other reason than its aesthetic is useless.

It has to fill a mechanical need that makes it unique.

Please attempt to read things.

If the class doesnt fill a gameplay need/hole, then its aesthetic is irrelevant because it wont be created regardless.

1 Like
73

trying to convince any RPG community that a new class should be added seems to be a futile endeavor. any conversation will be inevitably stonewalled by grognard types who just love the status quo.

if we got the evoker, i don’t really see what’s stopping them from using other hyper-specific class concepts.

74

But evoker…mechanically…players very different from others.

These new suggestions are just reskins of what we already have.

The WOW forums are constantly supporting new classes. But what is being suggested isn’t “new”.

“What if a prot pally used arcane spells instead” is not a new class concept.

2 Likes
75

Actually, they’re not.

DK’s are what the Dev team went with because they tried to do Necromancer as a class and realized it was just a warlock mechanically and they wanted the first new class to have some actual distinction.

76

Maybe not the standard stereotype. But they sure do check off the important boxes.

1 Like
77

Like I said in my full quote, they’re what the dev team went with because they understood that the necromancer was just going to be a warlock.

And whatever you might say about the DK, they’re a legitimately unique class both in terms of their aesthetics and their mechanics.

78

They’ll just barrow the same spells over again if they do let them be totally different from the original classes.

1 Like
79

I mean. Yeah. Not debating that.

But a magic user that raises the undead, and known for using disease and cold based magical attacks? Thats what I feel a necromancer is at its core.

It certainly feels like every lore definition of “necromancer” seems to fit with death knight. They just dont wear robes.

Sorry, wasnt trying to go off on a tangent. I just personally feel that the death knight does fulfill the necromancer role in a variety of ways (in conjunction with demo locks also from a mechanical point of view).

1 Like
80

None. Just more gibberish to scroll past.