No, but it’s still a tinker. Bonus is anyone can take it.
It doesn’t contain any of the Tinker’s hero abilities, so how can it be a Tinker?
4 Likes
Speaking of wishlist items, gosh I wish warlock got meta back especially for a tank spec. Sucking in demons to claim their power is peak warlock.
“ DH already has meta…” don’t care, DH is lame by comparison. Besides DH meta is temporary. Warlock meta is forever. Absolute best thing about SoD.
If calling it Meta upsets people, then call it Dark Apotheosis. Call it demoniac form. Call it “look at me, I’m the villain now sir/madam dungeon boss” form
respectfully that statement only works if you have a severely limited imagination.
a similarly absurd comparison would be like saying [Twelve-String Guitar] Toy = Bard class
This discussion has been done to death on these forums but the tinker/mechanic/engineer archetype reaches far beyond the breadths of a profession that creatively stops at making goggles, little gimmick toys, and forgettable throwable bombs.
4 Likes
If Engineer ended at “hehe crafter” sure.
But it doesn’t.
Engineer gets skills unique to Engineer. And tools to use. In combat and out of combat.
1 Like
Can Priest get an interrupt before we get any new classes? Please? I’m begging.
1 Like
please shaman needs a tank spec
Tinker should definitely be a class but I don’t know how to not make it clash with engineering.
Necromancer should be a reskin for affliction warlocks. It would basically be the same gameplay. But give them a “skin” which replaces their demons with undead and changes the visuals of their spells. Bam, you got a necromancer.
Warden? They’re subtlety rogues. A lot of the skills used by wardens in Warcraft 3 went straight to rogues in fact.
1 Like
If they add wardens they’ll further gut rogues to make them seem more special. If they add tinkers they’ll do the same to engineering. If they add necromancers they’ll do the same to death knights and possibly warlocks too.
No more new classes.
1 Like
I’m all for new classes, but I think adding a spec to each class would be just as interesting.
Of the classes that I’ve seen requested over the years I feel like tinker has the best shot. There’s a bunch of ideas that could be put to use that wouldn’t have much overlap with other classes. It only gets kinda awkward when you put it next to engineering.
Though I’m pretty sure you could differentiate someone that knows how make and use gadgets and someone that specializes in using an arsenal of gadgets in combat.
It’s almost like comparing someone that knows enchanting to a mage. They’re both magic, but one is just better for battle.
1 Like
The short answer:
Everyone asking for a proper Tinker class aren’t asking for it to have any of the things the current Engineering profession has. We want deployable turrets with missiles, flamethrowers, zap cannons, miniguns. Mech suits so we can tank or dps like High Tinker Mekkatorque and Gazlowe do. Mad Scientist professor putricide support/heals. We effectively want the same vein of Engineer/Tinker gameplay that every other MMO that has that class archetype has. (warhammer online, maple story, guild wars 2, etc)
Longer answer:
Thematically there is so much overlap across many professions and classes already. The entire concept of Enchanting is so intrinsically linked to Mages and the Arcane arts, and yet I can do it on my Warrior if I wanted to, a class which, lore-wise, is near-magicless. Similarly, a Mage can take up enchanting, or a Monk can learn inscription. This doesn’t “clash” with the two pairings, it simply enriches the player/class fantasy. A Blacksmith Death Knight that also knows Runeforging isn’t facing that problem, nor is a Leatherworking Hunter, or Alchemist Shaman.
As I said to the other person, the “complications” of how to make Tinker (class) and Engineer (profession) co-exist is only as big of a problem as one’s imagination is limited.
To that point, I have full confidence that when Blizz decide to finally see this job done (they might be underway designing right now tbh, given how vocal the forums have been about this class lately) it will similarly have zero issues co-existing with the Engineering profession. In fact, I’d bet good money that virtually every Tinker player would willingly choose the Engineering spec for that exact reason- seeking further class fantasy enrichment!
3 Likes
It’s not even. The Demo spec was created to mimic the DH, until the DH showed up. And the demo spec got reworked into one of my favorite specs.
And the overlap with the DKs can be simply modified with a few letters.
They should have added one of the old classes instead of evokers in my opinion. Once those are added, then start thinking about new classes.
Generally completely agree, except:
So long as by ‘support’ you mean ‘has interesting utility’ and not ‘similar to Aug’. Cause please never want another Aug-like again.
Past that tho, complete agreement.
1 Like
As I said before I’m just spitballing ideas hahah. I’m not the one in charge making the class. When I say support/heals I mean augmentation style support OR heals like a standard healer. Doesn’t bother me either way!
All that matters for that spec is that the fantasy is fulfilled that you’re a mad scientist. Maybe the augmentation effects could be exclusively self-inflicted and have no bearing on other players as to not get screwy with balance
1 Like
And yet, here I am, having had the engineering profession for almost 16 years that I’ve played this game, and still can’t do any of the basic things that are typically associated with the class archetype. Engineering as it currently is, is a minigame factory. The tools and devices it creates are so goofy and wildly circumstantial (and prone to backfire) that it feels less like a Tinker class and more like a silly little yolo button. Outside of the throwable bombs used by min-max mythic prog raiders, literally everything else either: can’t even be used in combat, poses too great of a risk to yourself if it backfires, or has such a bizarrely niche use that it falls by the wayside.
Can’t stress enough, none of that is a bad thing- but it’s just not fulfilling enough to say “hey, this is good enough, we don’t need a Tinker class after all”.
Frankly, all of the above-mentioned stuff alongside a properly constructed class would be really fun tbh. But there is a reason why they haven’t gotten serious with things like Exo-suits, Powerful Turrets, and everything else yet. Either they’re saving it for something else, or they just flat out know that it’s too much for a paltry profession to have.
1 Like
What, pocket factory?
Or is there some other nebulous Tinker I’m unaware of? Are you conflating an idea like Inventor (PF2E) or Artificer (5E)?
In any case, my issue is that you think there’s no valid argument that Engineer fulfills the role of Tinker. I’m not here to tell you how you feel about it is wrong.
not sure if you skimmed that but I’m looking primarily at the gameplay that can be more of a meat and potatoes for the Tinker. Everything the engineer does is filler stuff by design. Because it’s designed to fill in the cracks of other classes/specs alongside their exisiting ability kits.
So by that logic if we can safely assume that design ideology is true, then it means that Blizzard themselves are holding off of making the really meaty stuff, because doing so within a profession would automatically make Engineering the best profession ever if it let you effectively be 2 classes at the same time.
How is that an issue. I’ll be blunt in saying my time on these forums is almost exclusively discussing the Tinker class. In megathreads, casual conversation. I’ve easily seen hundreds of discussion on this topic both beore and after the forums got wiped and turned into reddit jr. I have no issues with your opinion at all, but I do notice that it is a sentiment held by those who haven’t really done much digging onto the class archetype/fantasy. Even within Warcraft itself, being a Tinker is displayed as something more that just a profession by many NPCs.
There aren’t any faction/race leaders that are enchanters or blacksmiths by title, first and foremost. But there are High Tinkers, Chief Engineers, Artificiers, Machinespeakers, Mechanics, who wear that title and take it into battle with machines, artillery, bombs, and even exo-suits.
I’m simply just saying that while I understand your argument here, I think the deeper you look the more you realize the fantasy has so much more to offer than what Engineering currently presents. that’s all!
1 Like
It’s essentially just a haughty version of “nuh uh you’re a troll because you disagree.”
I despise echo chambers of any sort.
I can respect and even empathize with a desire for more from this fantasy, but in order to have an earnest discussion about it you have to be willing to do more than this;
and to your credit, since that point you have. This is an excellent point that I have no argument against;
and I would even go as far as to say this is objectively true. My only counter is that I don’t necessarily agree that Tinker needs to feel like an entire class of its own.
And that’s ok! I appreciate your insight and opinion on the matter. Who knows, maybe for our next class we’ll get blindsided by something totally out of left field again like Evoker that nobody even gets a chance to brainstorm or discuss before it’s already done and locked in lol
I think it’s becoming exceedingly hard to come up with class ideas that don’t overlap with others in pretty large ways. This isn’t the end of the world, some overlap is fine, but that’s a rocky road to start on, even if the end result is perfectly acceptable.
People will never be satisfied with how they overlap, how much they overlap, which overlaps come first, etc. etc.