Breakfast Topic: How new would a new class have to be?
by David Bowers 
Jul 19th 2007 at 8:03AM
And I'm not the only one. Lots of intelligent writers out there have been thinking about this for a long time. One of them, Tobold, recently changed his mind, and I was struck by something in this change. At first he said that Blizzard should not add new classes because there couldn't possibly be anything fundamentally new in this new class, but later he said that maybe it isn't such a bad idea to have new classes that are pretty similar to what we have already. "People who liked one character class and are starting an alt because they don't enjoy the end-game often are looking for something not so different from what they already played.... Adding more content to a game is never wrong."
So I got to wondering, how new would a new class have to be in order for players to accept it? Is it true that people would just cry "Bah! Another kind of rogue!" or "Humbug! another kind of warlock?" Or would these sorts of initial criticisms just die down gradually as people got used to the new rogue and warlock and whatever else that did basically the same thing in just a different way. After all, if you can reduce all class abilities down to a simple few (damage, crowd control, and healing) then maybe you can expand all these abilities out in a myriad of interesting hybridizations too. Perhaps, with this perspective, the potential for class differentiation is limitless.
What's your opinion?
Filed under: Cheats, Breakfast Topics, Expansions
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Kgbtraitor Jul 1st 2009 3:58AM
So far I've seen very interesting proposals, but in my opinion, a new hero class that starts at a high level should be added. I was bored for some time and came up with all details around what I consider the best option -- Ranger class.
Basically, it would be a hybrid between a hunter and a rogue (quite an unlikely combination, isn't it?). To balance out, it would retain the hunter's mastery of ranged combat and the rogue's stealth, but get rid of pets and the rogue's high melle skills. To that end, rangers will have to be allowed all ranged weapons, but be very limited in melee (e.g. only swords or daggers or something of the sort). Also, it would be best to limit them to leather armor ( I'm not sure if mail will work out that well).
As far as talent specing goes, I thought of a gun talent tree (Snipering), which focuses on guns and high crit ranged attacks, a bow/crossbow tree (Sharpshooting/Marksmanship), which provides burst damage attacks of sustained volleys of arrows, and a stealth/melee tree (Subtlety or something of the sort), that geves a little bit more decent melee and one or two cool stealth tricks.
Considering the lore aspect, I believe it was already covered. If I recall correctly from my warcraft III days, Sylvanas was a ranger before becoming a banshee/dark ranger. In my opinion, this hero class should require at least one max level character to create (like the DKs, except they need only a lvl 55), and start from lvl 70 or 60 (depending on whether they should pass through Outland or go directly to Northrend). Of course, it would be best to retain the one-per-realm limit.
My idea for this class is to be something like the elite corps of the Horde and the Alliance. Therefore, they would have two starting areas, one for each faction. They are supposed to be something like elite training camps, preparing these "best of the best" recruits. Also, the quest lines should be mandatory (like the Dk ones) and would be required for you to go to your faction capitals (since this is supposed to be a secret training operation). To that end, rangers should also have a faction (Horde/Alliance Black Ops or somethig).
So far this has been only a general outline. I am no Blizzard developer to be thinking about finer deatils right now. Many things remain undecided, e.g. will rangers use mana or energy or something else. There are also balncing issues in this class. Anyway, feel free to ask about any other thing about rangers if this really interests you as well. If many show interest I may try to actually write to Blizzard suggesting this (probably to no avail, but still).
native Jul 19th 2007 8:11AM
I'd be happy as long as it seems fresh and its fun to play the class.
But thats going to be tough to do when you're taking your "new" class through all the same content after the starting area.
I just don't know that another class is needed, but i'd certainly welcome it since thats the direction a lot of players want to go.
Chris Jul 19th 2007 8:19AM
GIVE US MONKS...
dual fist weapon users (they would obviously have to bring in more fist weapons to the game which would be a plus in my books too)
can wear cloth, or maybe cloth/leather
he would be similar to a rogue with self heals, however no stealth, they would work on either mana / energy depending on which stance they were in, and stances would change available abilties.
Example. medative stance would be a mana generation stance, limited short range strikes, buffs, and crowd control,could not physically attack but high mana generation. a form of combat stance, using energy, 2 fist weapons, and a lot of high speed hitting, this stance would increae attack speed by X%, uses energy, and has self heals, and the basic stance, and the normal stance that does nothing special itself but can use the energy skills in a form of mana cost, and use all skills available.
Chris Jul 19th 2007 8:22AM
wow...my monk class is stances(warrior), duel fist and small self heals (rogue), short range spells....well this is new in itself...medative stance would be all its own new stuff..
Mats Jul 19th 2007 8:23AM
No more cloth users please. We have 3 currently, and only 2 leather, 2 Mail and 2 plate users.
A new class should be the versatility tool of a shadowpriest, but in melee form. Like a monk.
Spudster Jul 19th 2007 8:26AM
"he would be similar to a rogue with self heals, however no stealth"
play a Fury Warrior, and they wear plate.....Go Go Bandages!
Angael Jul 19th 2007 8:35AM
The most interesting classes I've heard were Necromancer, Monk, and Runemaster. However, none really brings anything "new" to the table. All are copies or mixes of existing classes.
Kosar Jul 19th 2007 8:43AM
a Necomancer class would be nice.
leather wearer perhaps, slight caster, slight melee, one type of pet perhaps, but requires a dead body to create, and is under control for only a short time.
a Monk class would be interesting too. as mentioned above.
Chris Anthony Jul 19th 2007 8:44AM
I'd be happy with a new class that was nigh-identical to an old class, as long as I got to hear WoW players say "Humbug".
I see a lot of people have Decided that Monk Will Be The New Class, but I'm not really sure I like the implications of a melee cloth-wearer. I'd like to see some classes that take a different /approach/ to class design; perhaps an Astrologer, whose attributes and buffs/debuffs change depending on the time of day, month, and year, or a Scholar, whose class skills come not from trainers but from BOP tomes.
And I wouldn't put it past Blizzard to announce that one of the new classes in the expansion will be the Brewmaster...
-Chris A.
http://www.etherjammer.com/blog/
woeye Jul 19th 2007 8:48AM
Don't you think we already have too much balancing related discussions? Since WoW is heavily baced on tank/spank/heal there's really no need to another class. DPS classes are already flaming eachother about who 'deserves' to be able to do the best DPS (which of course should be mages as we all know ...). WoW is absolutely about min/max (best tank, best healer, best DPS). Adding another class would only lead to even more endless discussions and whine.
Adam Mc Jul 19th 2007 8:51AM
i would have to go with a shadowknight.
Pally is a priest with plate.
Shadowknight is a warlock with plat.
They would get weaker pets, Weaker dots and so on
but able to wear plate and use 2h/1h/shields and have greater Hp. able to tank like a pally.
Monks also would be cool. But dont really see them working into wow to good.
Bard thats we WoW is missing also. Someone thats able to play songs to buff the group/raid or debuff a mob, and use duel weapons and use mail gear.
Necos nah to closs to warlock.
Shinagani Jul 19th 2007 8:52AM
I always liked the idea of secondary classes. So instead of a brand new class your current class could become much more specialized. A Shadow Priest hits a certain level, and they could choose between turning into an advanced pure holy, or pure shadow class. If they chose Shadow, they'd lose all Holy spells but get some frekin amazing shadow skills, and three new talent trees to further specialize within the Shadow class. So I guess basically it'd be like permanently selecting a certain talent tree, but with more depth.
Lizardking63 Jul 19th 2007 9:05AM
I think that instead of a new class, it would be really cool to be able to split classes. So, you could have skills from both classes but not specialized at either. So, for example a Warrior Mage that can't cast while in plate but can melee and cast or a Rogue Warlock...anyway, you get the picture. Balance would be difficult, but it would add alot of new opportunities to experiement without having to add a new Class.
Avonturier Jul 19th 2007 9:10AM
What about a player/pet variety in which the player has to do the tanking and crowd control, while the pet does damage from a distance?
Octal040 Jul 19th 2007 9:13AM
It seems like eveyone wants Everquest Classes. I played all these classes to death in EQ already. How 'bout something NEW.
Juwon Jul 19th 2007 9:14AM
A monk is a good idea but when you think about it, all skills have been covered by all the available class at the moment. And as mentioned, @9 the will be no end to the whining, overpower class and so on.
My suggestions will not to have a new class but to revamp the old ones. Make them play the way they should be played. Revamp all talents, revamp all tress and give us more to do other than quests, levelling, and going into dungeons and not to forget get the best gears.
Give us option to customise our characters, our guild (Guild house).
BillDoor Jul 19th 2007 9:14AM
I'd love to play as a Bard. A leather or mail user whose primary focus is group buffs and auras, based around music and such. Perhaps the ability to soothe or charm mobs would be a key component too.
Monks and Dark Knights also sound pretty fun.
xcb Jul 19th 2007 9:24AM
How about a Merchant/Artisan class that was godawful at any sort of fighting but was capable of knowing more/all trades?
Paw Jul 19th 2007 9:29AM
I always liked the idea of engineer as a class. Since that is already a profession, and one Bliz would likely not consider reconfiguring into a class, call it something else. Tinkerer, Inventor, whatever. The class uses devices instead of traditional weapons. Could be ranged or melee. It would be a pet class where you craft your pets at certain levels by gathering the mats in a quest chain, instead of acquiring or taming them. The pets would have abilities that would suit play against certain types of foe. Pets would be on battery power, so they would have a timer with a cool down for recharging. At mount-level time, they would craft their mounts. I don't know what the mounts would be, but possibly a four-legged contraption so as not to be confused with the gnome racial mount.
Calminaion Jul 19th 2007 9:23AM
Hey, how about this ... Buff a warrior's ability to deal DPS, and introduce a pure tanking class.
I don't know why a warrior's role is supposed to be accepted as a meatshield - Warriors (mythical ones) of old have been legendary in their abilities to slice through the enemy with brutal efficiency (think Achilles, Hercules, Thor, Conan) - not stand there and take a beating while somebody else does the damage.
I expect a flaming, but I have always found something wrong with the generally accepted view that a warrior's job is a tank - that's just junk - A warriors job is slaughter - blood and glory !!!