Talk: Death knight

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death knight article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If you're new to the wiki, please take a look at our Talk page guidelines.	Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Archive
9 August, 2007 23 August, 2007

Available Races - My Two Cents

I noticed on the page that it appears all of the races would get access to it. My thought was..."Uh, WHAT?"

IMHO, reasons why the current races should or should not have death knights:

Horde:

• Orcs have done it before - even if it was technically orcish spirits in the bodies of dead Azerothian knights - and some (myself included) still practice warlock magics. Entirely plausible.
• Forsaken, definitely - they're dead, that's a good start right there. They've also proven they have a mastery of shadow magic - if you've ever faced an undead shadow priest in PvP, you'll know what I mean! - and indeed make the shadow their religion. Plus, Sylvanas would probably like a few necromancers in her ranks.
• Blood elves are opportunistic, and have proven that they will resort to anything - fel magic, sapping holy powers from a naaru, etc. - to feed their magical addictions. And besides, have you gotten a good look at their mounts? They're evil! Even the BE pallies - red eyes. Spooky stuff.
• Trolls....haven't seen any troll necromancers. Seen plenty of undead trolls, though! Truthfully, I have nothing to say for or against troll death knights.
• Tauren would probably be against it, because their culture has respect for the earth, and for the dead.

Alliance:

• Humans are opportunistic and easily corrupted - just ask Arthas, Kel'Thuzad, etc. All of the Scourge death knights in WC3, and all but one in WoW, have been humans. (See the next point for the all but one.)
• Dwarves might be pushing it a bit, but there is at least one dwarven death knight - Thane Korth'azz, one of the Four Horsemen in Naxxramas.
• Night elves - opportunistic as they might be (just look at Teldrassil, and who was behind its creation, and tell me that's not opportunistic) - would probably be opposed to it for pretty much the same reasons as the tauren. Well, respect for the earth might be pushing it - the Sundering is a good example of that, even if it was a paranoid egotist like Azshara behind that effort! - but they would not screw with the dead.
• Draenei - at least, those in the service of the Alliance - would not resort to necromancy. Ever. The Auchenai don't count, they're brainwashed by a man'ari eredar using the shadow energies of a dead naaru to screw with their minds.
• Come on...a gnome death knight?

Feel free to chuck rotten fruit at me, I'll be here all week. --Joshmaul 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to me if only the other plate-wearing classes could become (or is it "create?") a Death Knight. Between Warriors and Paladins, that encompasses all races in the game. Arthas was a Paladin so obviously Paladins would be able to follow in his footsteps. But from what I'm reading on the WoW official page, the Death Knights are a hybrid tanking/dps class... which is precisely what the Warrior class already is. Only time will tell, though. Darin Wagner 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that Humans, Dwarves, and maybe Gnomes from the Alliance (Joshmaul is correct about Draenei and Night elves), and Blood elves, Forsaken, and possibly orcs or trolls. Tauren- almost certainly not. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For certain, I think humans, orcs and undead. For the "possibles", I think blood elves (again, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine - a blood elf death knight would make Dar'Khan look like a cockroach), dwarves (if only because of Korth'azz) and (*shudder*) gnomes. And possibly trolls, but again, nothing really for or against that. --Joshmaul 12:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that a draenei would really be pushing it as a death knight. And night elves- forget about it. Probably the same for the Tauren. Addendum: since you have to complete a series of quests with another character, that character can probably be any race, while the new Death Knight character could only be chosen from an abbreviated list.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Like I've said elsewhere, if they DO make them available to all races...they had better have a good reason. --Joshmaul 12:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Gnomes turned from technology and magic to demonology, they have warriors, so it's not a stretch to imagine gnome warrior/warlock turned death knight. Yes, hilarity will ensue, but it's there. Cryptomancer 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New info posted on Stratics' WoW website, based on a post from WoW Europe's forums:

Which race? It's true that the current plan has been heavily discussed to go ahead with all races, but no final decision has been made. After talking to Chris he wasn't totally sold on the idea. Both are technically correct in that the current plan of some of the developers is to go ahead with all races, there's been no final decision made and no real work has progressed to force a decision just yet. The FAQ is more accurate at this time, in my opinion.

Lore-wise there's really no reason why a specific race couldn't become a Death Knight.

All races can be challenged mentally and physically, their will dulled, and be cast down into madness ... and darkness. Their souls drawn into the runeblade they wield.

Stratics News Post

So much for my argument against draenei, tauren or NEs. That is, if you take anything Blizzard tells us with more than a grain of salt. --Joshmaul 17:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer that not all races are available (it seems kind of silly to have only one class be universal), but all races are corruptible, and so you could make a lore argument for any one of them. Draenei and Night Elves are inherently corruptible... say hello to any Eredar, Broken, Lost Ones, Satyrs or Naga that you run into... and Illidan in particular comes to mind. Though admittedly Tauren are probably the toughest sell. And if Gnomes can be Warlocks and Warriors, it stands to reason that they can be Death Knights... though I have to agree no one wants to see that crap. :) -- AriochIV 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, before BC, Warriors were pretty much universal - all races had 'em. Now all but one has 'em (BEs think they're better than us...oh, wait). Still, nine races outta ten - if that's not "technically" universal... --Joshmaul 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever use a Shadowy Potion to take a romp down into the depths of Jaedenar? Some of the enforcers protecting Lord Banehollow are- surprisingly- Tauren. As for the Auchenai... am I the only one who would actually enjoy playing something as juicily wicked as an Auchenai Death Knight?

Last but not least, Trolls do have necromancers. Zanzil is one of the few that actually summons undead (and believe me, he's a rump and a half), but he does summon them and the bulk of the zombies in STV bear his mark.--Darth603 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot forget that every race has its black sheep. Someone, or groups of people, that disregard everything about their own kind and start messing with things that should not be messed with. Also, they never mentioned how death knights will come into existence in the game yet. 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of Tauren... I'm pretty sure a Grimtotem Tauren would have no problem with the whole death knight bit. --Adonzo 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see Darkspear trolls. They're into the voodo and a small group. Night elves and tauren are definte no no's even if do have evil individiuals like the Highborne and grimtotems I haven't seen any of them worshipping the shadow(or anything besides the earth in the tauren case). They just don't use shadow magic,have never been seen using necromancy and can't be a paladin which decreases their chances. Gnomes would be odd because they don't worship anything,being atheists. I can actually see draenei deathknights because Malaadar is a fallen paladin and uses the shadow. Not that they would be welcome in the Exodar. Orc death knights are a mixed bag,on one hand you have the warcraft 2 deathknights but they were in undead human bodies and were a different class from scourge deathknights. They also lack access to the paladin class. They certainly aren't out of the question but they aren't a shoe-in. Zarnks 04:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're running on the assumption that you had to be a paladin to become a death knight. While for the most part paladins have been the ones corrupted into death knights (Arthas, the guy in the trailer, etc.), the insane descent into evil is not exclusive to them (ask any warlock). Warriors could very possibly become death knights too (and the blood elves have paladins, so that fills that gap!) And lore-wise - at least according to Blizzard - anyone could become a death knight, if they go too far into madness. --Joshmaul 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Its certainly is a big boast to have been a paladin. I've haven't saw any deathknights that have been stated to have not been paladins. Zarnks 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Teron Gorefiend? Yeah, I know... not a Scourge Death Knight. But prior to patch 2.1 at least, he was quite Orky. -- AriochIV 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The orc body was a typo. He is a orc in a undead human body. The deathknights from Warcraft 2 are actually quite different from Warcraft 3 death knights,being fragile spellcasters,actually being undead. They were more closer to liches then scourge death knights. Infact many became liches. Zarnks 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You said you hadn't seen any non-paladin death knights...well, the argument is unclear as to whether Highlord Mograine was one or not - I think he might have been, but many cite the fact he has no mana in his appearance in Old Hillsbrad to the fact that he was probably just a warrior, not a paladin (though still enough to be an officer in the Alliance military, and have some affiliation with the Silver Hand). And as I said, descending into madness/necromancy/etc. is NOT exclusive to paladins. --Joshmaul 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys every heard how this whole thing worked....but your character doesn't become a death knight!!! After you have completed the line of quests, you unlock the ability to create a death knight character from the character creation screen. All this discussion about what races or classes should be able to do it is largely irrelevant. The race question will only happen at the beginning when you create your character and at that point it really doesn't matter. Maybe I just thought you all were talking about something else and I am totally off basis here. User:Tetsuo86/sig

We were discussing what races could become them. Zarnks is of the opinion - or so I am presuming - that only races that have paladins (humans, dwarves, draenei and blood elves ATM) should have access to death knights, because paladins are the predominant (but not only, as I said) source of DKs in WC3. --Joshmaul 20:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Death knights will be available to all races. Blizz said it themselves.   Zurr  T ∙ C 20:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blizz also said that may very well change before release. -- AriochIV 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"The orc body was a typo."

Typo? ROTFLOL... Last I checked Teron Gorefiend wasn't a piece of ascii art...Baggins 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean a mistake. Teron Gorefiend currently looks like an undead human not an orc. Zarnks 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They clearly changed their minds, but I'm not sure you can call it a mistake. What does the ghost of an orc who possessed an undead human look like? Seems to me there's no hard and fast answer to that question. -- AriochIV 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out, if you look at the sample UI of the Player Portrait/Rune interface, the example Blizzard chose was an Orc named Teron. As in Teron Gorefiend. This by itself does not prove anything, of course, but those who assume that the new Death Knight refers only to the Scourge version from WC3 may be a bit premature. -- AriochIV 08:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As Gorefiend himself would tell you in BT, he was the first to take the title of death knight, and thus all who claim it now are pale shadows of his magnificence - even Arthas, to a small degree. *grin*

Seriously, however - you're right, it might not prove anything, but you might be onto something nevertheless. --Joshmaul 08:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the horde death knight's being orcs in human bodies, they werent in human bodies because it was necessary to becoming a death knight, but quite simply because their old bodies had been destroyed. Their powers as a death knight came from their powers in life as warlocks and necrolytes. --Adonzo 05:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Half right; the necromantic powers came from the jeweled truncheons they wore, which were imbued by Gul'dan with the powers of the necrolytes (which he had recently, ritually murdered). None of the death knights were necrolytes themselves, far as I'm aware; they were all warlocks of the Shadow Council killed by Doomhammer during his purge. --Joshmaul 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft 2 death knights are a different class altogether,they are more akin to warlocks not modern Death knigths. A great deal of them became liches and they share death and decay. Zarnks 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, horde and scourge death knights share two of the same spells as well, death coil, and raise dead and animate dead (considered the same spell in the RPG). To clarify raise dead by name became a term literally meaning to resurrect the dead rather than raising skeletons like it was in Warcraft II. In warcraft III raise dead, and animate dead did essentially the same thing (although one was skeletons, and the other were more like flesh-covered zombie warriors). In later sources, the old "raise dead" was renamed "animate dead", to clarify a difference between the two, and raise dead became a healer ability, literally a form of resurrection, and animate dead would raise the skeletons or zombie warriors. Both necromancers and death knights share the "Animate Dead" spell.

Even unholy armor/haste combo and unholy aura have a similar use between the two orders of Death Knights (the aura has a haste component, and both armor and aura are used to improve defense of other units, so they don't die too fast, one by granting invulnerability for a short time, and the other by increasing hp regeneration). Point of note the Death Knight concept, name and class orignates from Dungeons and Dragons originally, their appearances varied depending on the campaign, but were always based on the same original class. As a side note WoW druids got the original death knights, "Whirlwind" spell, although renamed, "Cyclone", warriors Whirlwind has nothing to do with the original spell.Baggins 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, maybe the Night Elves and Draenei COULD be. I mean the Highbourne have evil classes (warlocks and necromancers), but then again, the main body of them NE's hate the Highbourne. And with the draenei, theres Auchindound and the corrpted Eredar. So basically only time will tell. Mr.X8 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Draenei make sense as they are paladins and as seemingly all death knights are paladins. Every paladin can fall whats stopping them. There are inividuals depraved in the draenei,remember the racism against the broken or the draenei in Nagrand who insults the broken and tells them to beat a prisoner. Night elves,tauren,and Darkspear trolls don't work. Darkspear trolls aren't into magic not having to do with voodo or loa(even the arcane comes from the loa)andare not into the arcane. Tauren are not into it,they have never been seen worshipping anything besides nature,even the Grimtotem don't use the arcane. A night elf wouldn't be a night elf anymore if he praticed the arcane. Gnomes and orcs could work if they pushed it. Zarnks 08:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Grimtotem Clan have sorcerers. And Archmage Allistarj's cult have tauren in them. Forgot about the Night Elves and their whole "they turn into a new race when they practice magic" thing. Of course maybe Blizz will make it a mechanic where they won't. But who knows, maybe you're right Zarnks, we just won't know for awhile really. Mr.X8 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Every race can be influenced to become a Death Knight. Kanaru discussion 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh right I forgot about the grimtotem sorcerers. Zarnks 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually many night elves became demon hunters(basically a melee warlock) another corrupting magic source and actually turn themselves into demons which certainly is not good for your mental state. So a night elf death knight isn't that crazy. Zarnks 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that each race will have access to only one hero class - not necessarily one race per hero class, but one hero class per race. If that is the case, I'd guess Forsaken or Horde will get DK's, and Humans will for Alliance... And perhaps in some later patch, Night Elves and Blood Elves will become Demon Hunters. Just MY two cents. ~Peregrine

The argument about draenei has one minor hole (cough)....EREDAR? The draenei have shown themselves to be easily corruptible and open to using shadow magic. Though sworn to they light and the naaru, they could sever their ties with the naaru and fall into corruption.--God_Of_WoW 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very possibly. Others have cited the Auchenai (draenei who were turned to necromancy by a power greater than themselves - hmm, I wonder who that sounds like?) as an example of what happen when draenei go bad. And I suppose draenei do dabble a bit in shadow magic (they get priests, and priests can be Shadow), but not enough to forfeit their souls over it, like death knights. --Joshmaul 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Orcs HAVE done it before but thats not the same type of death knight. Besides, orc warlocks was already pusing it. According to LORE not gameplay, Thrall would NEVER allow warlocks, much less Death Knights amongst his ranks, but according to gameplay, it's an obvious choice.

I say, humans, undead, orcs, blood elves. It would be cool if Night Elves got it... but they are too "princess perfect" for that.... besides, they don't have the guts. Baldr 9/12/2007

[1] All races so far. User:CrazyJack/Sig 12:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Class Armor

I'm I the only one who noticed, but the Death Knight Armor is very remarkable close to T4 Hunter? Some people say it's the Warrior set, but it's definately the Hunter one. Blizzard is kinda rushing on this, aren't they?

Death Knight Armor T4 Hunter, Demon Stalker ScythXIII 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Breastplate's kinda different, but the shoulders are a dead giveaway, yeah. (Ooh, that was a bad one..."dead" giveaway...) Good eyes - I don't think I would have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it. --Joshmaul 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me people are reading WAY too much into that silly trailer video. More than likely the "real" Death Knight gear has not yet been created. -- AriochIV 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That "silly trailer video" is all we have at the moment...so we can read into it as much as we damn well please, thank you. *grin* --Joshmaul 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hardly. According to that video, Death Knights are converted from Alliance Paladins when they get surrounded and overwhelmed by undead creatures. We know very well from much better sources that's not true. Please don't take a teaser trailer for more than it is... an early attempt to generate excitement for the expansion... with whatever they happen to have lying around at the moment. -- AriochIV 08:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed right away, but I didn't care because I know they didn't make any Death Knight sets yet, as it's still not anywhere near completion. Kanaru discussion 07:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but you gotta admit's its a cool movie Mr.X8 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait Kanaru, do you work for Blizzard and make WoW? Mr.X8 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Get over it people its the first trailer... I mean hell they can't be THAT far along in production unless the day after TBC was released some WoW developer said "right, well lets get to work on the next one." ~Peregrine

How do you know they didn't? --Joshmaul 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The armor looks a alot like the Dreadknaught gear Mr.X8 05:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

already 10 characters on a realm?

i checked out some podcast with the lead designer where he mentioned how having 10 characters wouldn't hinder making a death knight. instead, it would unlock a "hero slot" which is needed to make the death knight. it was unclear however if it was one hero slot per realm, or per character. anyone heard anything else about this, as i find it'd be nice to know if i shall level more characters the few extra levels to be allowed to make more hero characters.. ;) User:Taurmindo/sig 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

probably the 10 slot is how many normasl chars you can have and once you unlock heroes you can have prolly 10 hero classes lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rahnumed (talk · contr).

Not likely. It might be two or three (three was the limit in WC3), but not a whole new set of 10. --Joshmaul 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to guess that they will simply count as another character since that is what they essentially are. Yes they take more time to unlock and you start them later in the virtual life of the character, but they are a character nonetheless. The reason they limit the number of toons you can have is because of database and server storage issues. If everyone had 50 characters on a server, they would have huge databases that would take a lot of time to query.

User:Tetsuo86/sig

I rather hope they raise the per-server cap to maybe 15 (but still keep the global cap at 50). It would definitely help my debilitating condition :) Chairman Kaga 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A mount

I was thinking sinceall death knights have a skeleetal horse mount, will the DKs get to summon a skeletal horse? But then again the Forsaken already have a skeletal horse as their mounts Mr.X8 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So no problem, then.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're not Horde. This would be nice, but there's no official word on it yet. -- AriochIV 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hope for something a little closer to the  [Fiery Warhorse's Reins]. Skeletal horses...might be cool to see Alliance on it, but almost everyone (I've seen) Horde has one. --Joshmaul 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the  [Fiery Warhorse's Reins] Josh, that is my favorite mount in game (or is it in-game?) so yeah that would be nice. Mr.X8 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in game. Attumen the Huntsman in Karazhan. --Joshmaul 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant is it spelled in-game or ingame. Sorry about I should have worded it better Mr.X8 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the DK's should get some sort of...well....perhaps a cross between the fiery warhorse thing from kara and the warlock dreadsteed?

An Undead Paladin Charger would be most likely IMO. --Invin Dranoel 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL...wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. But I hope they do something a little more original. (Question is, how the devil can you make horses look more "evil"?) --Joshmaul 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Possible Ideas section

I personally really don't like this kind of thing. WoWwiki isn't a blog, it is an encyclopedic information source. I would like to remove this piece from the article and prevent other such pieces from being added. I understand the value of this kind of thing, but since it hasn't been talked about my Blizzard it isn't something that should be in a source like this. Thoughts? User:Tetsuo86/sig

Not quite sure which section you mean? The "The following abilities are only ideas" bit? I think it's valid information (as it's taken from in-game) but should be worded in a fashion that doesn't encourage people to add their own hopes and desires. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tetsuo's right; the stuff about auras is pure speculation. There is plenty of this information on the Lore page about Death Knights... it doesn't need to be posted here. Any speculation opens the door to more speculation, and there's an infinite number of "possible" abilities. -- AriochIV 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but those were inferred from pre-existing Death Knight abilities. It's not the important anyway, so fine with it being left off. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make a new article just for this? Looks like it might be a hot topic. /shrug --Super Bhaal 14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is an interesting subject, but it is all speculation until it is confirmed. There are pleanty of places to talk about it that aren't supposed to be critical sources of information (the WoW Forums, various fan sites). I would say they are the appropriate place for such discussions. User:Tetsuo86/sig

I'll uh...stick to my user page, thank you. >>; Discussing lore issues ( or classes ) on the WoW Forums are more trouble than it's worth. White Wolf forums has a thread about the expansion, and while some of it's just us hoping and begging they don't stall the release of Dark Factions the rest is a pretty good lore discussion ( why we hope Frostmourne doesn't drop, et cetera ), and I'm sure if someone brought up the subject of Death Knight abilities they'd get answers. That, and the people there are generally nicer than the people at the official forums and a lot more "lore learned". http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=61619

--Super Bhaal 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres also www.deathknight.info ~Peregrine

You don't unlock the class through a quest anymore

Since the page wasn't edited yet, and I really don't know how or where to fit it in, in a recent interview at buffed.de (http://www.buffed.de/features/1471/wow-wrath-of-the-lich-king-cg-interview), the class will be unlocked if you have a character between 55-60 (hasn't yet been decided). You then have to do quests as your new character to become the Death Knight, and start doing normal Alliance/Horde quests. Kanaru discussion 07:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's some better links. http://events.curse.com/leipzig2007/articles/details/2842/ http://www.worldofraids.com/ Kanaru discussion 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Um yea about the links, I can't access the second one for some reason and the first one is in German, is there another link I can go to? Mr.X8 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Try the third one. Kanaru discussion 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you lose that character after becoming a DK? You won't be able to start another fresh DK anylonger whenever you want?

No, you unlock the ability to create a new character which is the Death Knight that you do the quests to actually become the Death Knight. So yes, you can make as many DKs as you want, but you would still have to do a difficult quest line on your brand new Death Knight to actually do normal quests, etc. Kanaru discussion 18:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the page, oddly enough someone put it back to having to unlock the class through a difficult quest line, when that is not true. Kanaru discussion 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, any race (even Tauren, NEs, and Draenei) can be death knights? Mr.X8 05:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what blizzard said.   Zurr  T ∙ C 14:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the reason behind this. I think it's odd not even the warrior was universal, but the DK class will be Mr.X8 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Warriors were taken out as a class choice because of Blizzard's race-class combination philosophy. Alliance and Horde races have counterparts with each other. Tauren-gnome, human-troll, etc. Each counterpart can only roll the same number of classes as the other. The problem was draenei were able to roll 6 and their counterpart blood elves were slated to be able to roll 7. In the end warriors were taken out for blood elves, since the other classes that were given to blood elves felt so important to the race. --- Zexx 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mounted Combat

On WoW Model Viewer, there is a few Death Knights in the creatures part. They're mounted, and they can attack 1h, 2h, unarmed etc on the mount. Maybe this is going to be added in the expansion? Might be a Death Knight only thing, since the WC3 Death Knights all attacked on their horses. Kyelv

In the Warcraft RPG Death Knights could attack on foot, and riding was optional ( Rivendare had both the Death Knight and Mounted Warrior prestige classes, and I'm sure in the lore Arthas attacked on foot ). It wouldn't be too fair in PvP ( imagine trying to chase [b]a freaking plate necromancer going at epic land mount speed[/b] across Warsong Gulch ). Still I'm sure Blizzard is thinking of ways to make mounted combat fair. --Super Bhaal 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because a certain unit or character could attack on a mount in lore, WC3, or the RPG, doesn't mean they'll be able to in WoW... game mechanics have to be taken into account. ~Peregrine

As I said. Still, we don't know what Blizzard's planning so it's best not to draw early conclusions. ...although if you were to ask me it'd be a bad idea. --Super Bhaal 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think mounted comnbat will be implemented in the future... it would create way too much imbalance. ~Peregrine

It won't, the only reason he found those models was because there are NPCs in-game that do not dismount when fighting, Baron Rivendare for example.   Zurr  T ∙ C 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rivendare - as well as the aforementioned Attumen - are bosses. They can do whatever the hell they want. *grin* --Joshmaul 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think mounted combat would be sick. I mean if 1 person is on an epic mount in a bg ad the other person isn't and the mounted one runs away, its not an imbalance, it just means the mountless one is poor. Mr.X8 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that being said....what about an summoned flying mount? you couldnt have the advantage in PvP. This may not count for combat but just sayin, I think DK's might be able to summon like, a dark phoenix or a skeletal dragon. those besides looking sick would travel at the new 80 mount speed and did I mention they would look SWEET?

So basically, mounted combat would just be another way to punish players for not playing enough to get their epic mount... ~Peregrine

As well it should be. *wicked grin* --Joshmaul 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blizzard has said on numerous occasions that they'll never do mounted combat. It's not just a question of player imbalance, but rather a case of environment imbalance. If you can fight on horseback (or griffonback), then there's basically no outdoor mob that you can't kite solo, and there's essentially no situation you can't escape from. They'd have to rework every single outdoor mob to be able to handle a mounted adversary, and they're not going to do that. -- AriochIV 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've play games that have incorporated mounted combat (Some Korean MMOs). It is possible to balance it out. Blizzard will find a way sooner or later. They just have not decided when it would be right to do so. --Invin Dranoel 09:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor contradiction, or my misinterpretation

Hey, in the article it states that to become a Death Knight, your existing character will need to be level 55-60, yet later it says: "However, previewers indicate that a Death Knight is created as a new character after being unlocked through a questline by an existing character (required level is still being decided)". I take it that this means the specific level is yet to be determined, but it will be somewhere between 55 and 60? The Haunted Angel 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. Some problems arised from Blizzcon saying one thing at Blizzcon ... then saying contradictory info at the Leipzig GC very soon afterwards (which fewer players followed). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. It confused me, because I thought that a while ago I read that you had to be level 80, but it appears that either I was mistaken, or the source has changed. Again, thanks. The Haunted Angel 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a case of wiki-mutation as official information has changed over time. I've fixed the offending paragraph to bring it in line with current information. -- AriochIV 08:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Warglaives of Azzinoth

Since as of now only rogues and warriors will be able to weild the warglaives of azzinoth, is there a chance maybe the DKs can too? Mr.X8 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it matters, they'll probably be useless at 80. -- Raze 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Death Knights don't start at 80 they said, but who knows, maybe they will. I've probably said this 3 times "only time will tell" Mr.X8 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely. The Death Knight class weapon lists may be limited to only Runeblades or 2h Weaponry. --Invin Dranoel 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You thinking runeblades might become its own weapons class? --Joshmaul 11:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Consequences?

I can't help but think that becoming a Death Knight has long-term ramifications to your gameplay. All of the Death Knights in WoW lore have been direct servants of the Lich King. I wouldn't be surprised if they determine that this is the "bad" Hero class, and they come out with a "Good" hero class later on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JT Jag (talk · contr).

Bottom of the page next time, please. Anyway, more hero classes will be coming out, so it doesn't really matter. --User:Sky2042/Sig 07:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft Lore jump the shark. Again?

I sincerely believe that The Death Knight Hero Class will be "Lore-LOL". Arguements that "evil Warlocks and Rogues" are allowed into the Horde/Alliance anyway is nonsense. You can be a Rogue/Warlock and yet still be on the side of the Good Guys. BUT Death Knight on the other hand is a totally different story. People become Warlocks by simply using Demonic Magic, Rogues are just people who are sneaky. But to be a Death Knight, as suggested by the Wrath of Lich King announce, you are going to lose your will to the Lich King. DEATH KNIGHTS = SCOURGE. For the Horde, it is semi-believable for them to have the Death Knight class on account that they used to have a different Non-Scourge affiliated version of the Death Knight, But still, it is something Thrall would never agree to. But for Alliance? The only way they become Death Knight is to go Scourge. I will find it utterly ridiculous if the Death Knight class is intergrated into the Alliance/Horde. How can a Death Knight, the very personification of the Bad Guys aka Scourge, simply walk into Stormwind/Orgrimmar, and say "Yo, Wassap" to Bolvar/Thrall and nobody would give a damned. --Invin Dranoel 07:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Having Alliance/Horde death knights would be a problem lore wise, perhaps...but making the Scourge as a third faction also raises problems - many of which have been addressed, but I'll reiterate:

• Starting zone. Scourge players would probably start in Northrend. If the rumors that you'd be starting at level 55-60 are true, Northrend would be a little on the high side. There is the possibility, however, that you could start in northern Lordaeron (Stratholme in all likelihood).
• Capital. The capital of the Scourge would be Icecrown Citadel, and your racial leader would be the Lich King. Simple, right? Problem with that is, Icecrown is an instance (see next point), and your capital (and racial leader) would be under constant attack within about...oh, I'd say six months of the expansion release. Give or take.
• Questing/instancing. There would be no major problem with death knights instancing in Outland, as none of the instances have anything to do with the Scourge. But because a lot of the questing and major instances in Northrend (Utgarde, Naxx 2.0, Icecrown, etc.) would have something to do with the Scourge, what is a Death Knight to do? You can't make Scourge questing purely PvP, constant raiding of the Alliance and Horde towns.
• Travel. This is probably the most important problem: Where would you put the flight paths? Northrend and Lordaeron would be easier - the Scourge are EVERYWHERE, so it wouldn't be a problem - but how would you get around in, say, Outland? The Scourge has no presence there at all. (Naberius, the lich in Kirin'Var Village in Netherstorm, doesn't count - the Scourge has necromancers and liches, but these are NOT exclusive to the Scourge.)

As for Alliance and Horde taking them: For the Horde, at least, some of the orcs' allies were taken out of necessity, their powers useful to advancing the Horde's cause. The Forsaken openly practice shadow magic and it's no secret that they're busy developing a plague to destroy the Scourge (and quite possibly the living as well), and they also utilize necromancy to an extent. The blood elves openly practice any kind of magic they can get their hands on - they might have a minor beef with having death knights in their ranks (if only because the guy who invaded their land, killed their people and burned their cities was a death knight), but magic is magic. As for the Alliance, they're not exactly goody-goodies themselves - humans especially. The draenei are probably the only race that hasn't really been subject to all the infighting and powermongering that the other Alliance races have pulled...Stormwind's nobility is corrupt, Ironforge has to deal with the Dark Irons (and the fact that the next heir to Magni's throne is half-Dark Iron), the night elves and the whole business with Teldrassil, all the crap in Gnomeregan, and so on. But even draenei can be corrupted - the Auchenai in and around the Bone Wastes is the most-often cited example of that.

And lastly - the Lich King's control is formidable, but it can be broken. Need a tip on how to do that? Ask any Forsaken. Death knights are one of the most formidable of the Lich King's troopers - but even though they (for the most part) are mortal, they could still regain some semblance of free will, don't you think? --Joshmaul 10:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I just thought of a possible non "lore-lol" way to have Death Knights leave the Scourge... Sylvanas and the Forsaken are working on a plague to use AGAINST the Scourge, right? So what if the purpose of this plague was not to kill the scourge... but free them? ~Peregrine

Wasn't it already said that they'd just go "oh, thanks for the training guys, screw you I'm heading back to Alliance/Horde/Venture Company"? --Super Bhaal 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To complain that a certain bit of Warcraft lore doesn't make sense is to imply that the rest of it makes any sense, which is obviously silly. :) -- AriochIV 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But this certain bit of Warcraft Lore is integral to the entire story. Death Knights are the symbols of the Scourge, the banner carrier, the theme of corruption. The theme of the Death Knights is that evil corrupts, no matter how great you are. Arthas is an allusion to King Arthur. And he was corrupted into a Death Knight. The underlying message is that no one can escape the will of the Lich King and the corruption he brings. The Death Knight brings a sense of dread to the story. It reminds us of evil. And now that you can become an Alliance/Horde Death Knight? Yes this make the rest of Warcraft Lore "senseless". I understand the problems posed into game mechanics but if Blizzard cannot solve the Lore problem, they shouldn't make the Death Knight class at all! Didn't Blizzard pride themselves on great story-telling? Well, as of World of Warcraft, they have destroyed the beauty of their story and turned it into an abomination in the name of profit. --Invin Dranoel 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The theme of the Death Knights is that evil corrupts, no matter how great you are.

Ahh yes, but maybe they want to introduce the theme that anyone can be redeemed, no matter how low you've sunk. Death Knight players will sorta be using the abilities of the Death Knight to bring about the greater good. I get the impression that Blizzard cares enough to make this believable. Nothing you've said was ever written in stone either, don't make it sound like it is. -- Raze 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this has been said before but it was lost in your sea of complaining. I think the death knight's first quest chain has to do with breaking free of the Scourge and joing his or her former race.--SWM2448 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

O-o It is? Wow... this changes things. Well... it can be translated into "Wow... Arthas must really suck not being able to control people the way Ner'Zhul used to." But that is the whiney side of me complainin. They'd better make the Alliance/Horde DK lore solid and not a flimsy foil hat.--Invin Dranoel 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heard of the Forsaken? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Epic" starting quests, eh?

<You hear a dark voice whispering in your mind> "Arise, Death Knight. I am your new Lord and Master, the Lich King... To prove your loyalty and worth to me I require a task from you. Slay the Rebellious Zombies ten feet away from you, and return to me with 10 Zombie Asses as proof of your deeds.

Joking aside though, I expect a very silly justification for why the Alliance of all bigoted and unforgiving factions will allow the existence of Death Knights amongst their ranks. --- Zexx 06:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicely tarring everyone with the same brush there. If they were all that bigoted, they'd hardly be a faction made up of more than 5 races ... (you know they have warlocks, yes?) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I did a pretty accurate job, didn't I? Of course they're bigoted. It's pretty clear if you read the Alliance Player's Guide. All the Alliance races generally get along with each other because they all have views that conveniently intersect with one another, and offering up the availability of one class in a faction is hardly a mark of receptive diplomacy. The Horde is a group of different races with vastly different agendas, but choose to be allied for the sake of survival and acceptance.

Otherwise the official Blizzard response would not have been "appropriate lore will be created regarding how Death Knights will be accepted into the Alliance", would it? It wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. --- Zexx 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realised a problem with individual (Player) Death Knight being able to break free from the Lich King. Highlord Mograine could not do so. Sir Zeliek, another one of the Four Horsemen could not do so. Both are powerful members of the SilverHand and have powerful will yet they cannot break free. And along comes several hundred nameless guys and they break free from Lich King control by doing a series of quest similar in difficulty to an Epic level quest. Hello?

I understand there is this "Forsaken" theory that most people hold. The Forsaken broke free from the Lich King's powers when he was significantly weakened due to his power leak. In WotLK, Lich King is back to full power. Nobody breaks free from Lich King's will when he is at full power. --Invin Dranoel 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody breaks free from Lich King's will when he is at full power.

I don't recall Blizzard ever making this a hard rule. You are just speculating. Also another point that might be relevant is that, unlike Arthas, both Mograine and Zeliek had both died and were risen as undead, and were therefore slaves to the Lich King. Whether player Death Knights actually die beforehand is still unknown. If we are not made undead when we choose a death knight, we may retain some of our free will. It is still way too early to judge whether it'll make sense or not, I've already given just one example of how they can make it work. -- Raze 13:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On checking, it seems Zeliek might not have died. But we really don't know how he was corrupted. Maybe it took a very powerful artifact similar to Frostmourne to keep him in control. We don't know of course, but it is a plausible explanation. -- Raze 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bornakk has made a blue post of the forums saying that the playable death knights will be those who have had a change of heart and choose to fight for the Alliance and Horde now against the Scourge. Death knights do indeed have free will, which begs the question of why the suffering Four Horsemen in Naxx simply don't leave.

Blue post here. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=1777867826&pageNo=1&sid=1#9 --- Zexx 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear may be one reason, but also, who says that they all have free will? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe death knights can still serve the Scourge while serving their respective faction...an infiltrator of sorts. Hell, the Alliance and the Horde do it, and even the Burning Legion to some degree - so why not the Scourge? A death knight in the Alliance or Horde would make the perfect spy, if the "I'm free of the Lich King, need a hand?" ploy works. --Joshmaul 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet nobody trusts the Forsaken. The loophole is if people actually come to accept these Death Knights among their ranks, what the hell is stopping them from world peace? "Within this quest chain the character learns to master the power of the Death Knight and to learn to use the power to their will." Indeed this sounds very Warlockish. I would accept the Death Knight if the way they attain their Death Knight powers is not directly linked to the Lich King, but the trailer seems to tell otherwise. The whole point of the Scourge in the 1st place is to have an army with no free will. Granted, it is easier to command that army through Death Knights and Liches with some level of free will (akin to Overmind - Cerebrate - Overlord relation in Starcraft's Zerg), but to lose total control over Death Knights, somewhere pretty high up on the Scourge Hierarchy is something very unbefitting to the Lich King, the supposed "Most Power Being To Ever Walk Upon Azeroth" --Invin Dranoel 13:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, bear in mind we don't know the whole story yet. The only info we have on the sudden interest in the Lich King is that he has done something that "endangers all life on Azeroth", or approxomately that. Until we know the rest of the lore, we can't really assume anything. Maybe this new weapon of the Lich King is powerful - and dangerous - enough to force the Horde and the Alliance to take drastic measures. We just don't know, so until Wrath is out I don't think anyone is justified in saying the lore is being destroyed OR in saying the lore will be perfectly fine, because we don't know ANY of the backstory yet. ~Peregrine

It's pretty much a retcon. If you've ever been inside Naxx and fought the Four Horsemen, they say things like, "Go away... Before.. It's too late!" "Sorry... I... Can't fight it much longer!" etc etc, indicating that they do not have free will. When now.. Suddenly, they do. --- Zexx 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What!?

Alright, before it said you need to be level 80 to create a Death Knight, then level 55-60, and now it's back to 80. Do we have any sources for these things? What level is it going to be? The Haunted Angel 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is actually some high, undetermined, level.   Zurr  T ∙ C 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was decided to be Lvl 80 at Blizzcon, but Blizzard changed their minds some time before Leipzig. It didn't make sense to level your current character to 80 that you're not gonna use (If you're gonna use a Death Knight). As per previous comment, the actual level hasn't been decided. --Raze 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The most recent official post (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=1272010930&sid=1&pageNo=1#) places both the uncap and DK starting level at 55. Paly 1's reversions back to the "level 80 unlock quest" were, as far as I can tell, unwarranted. -- AriochIV 06:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. The Haunted Angel 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"First hero class?"

Correct me if I'm wrong but many existing classes ARE hero classes. Baldr 9/12/07

If you're referring to Warcraft 3 Heroes (eg. Paladins), then that's not what they mean by hero class. In WoW, it kind of just means the class is unlockable under special conditions. Also, Blizzard themselves call this the first hero class. -- Raze 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference, BTW - of the hero classes in WC3, only the paladin is used as a player class in WoW. --Joshmaul 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also the Orc Warlock (unique to Gul'dan in WCIII) --N'Nanz 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There were Stormreaver warlocks and necrolytes (all orcs, yes, but still) that were simple creeps in WC3:TFT. For the record, BTW, I only meant player-obtainable hero classes, as in the ones you'd have in a normal map (provided you didn't go over to the tavern and fill all your hero spots with guys like Pit Lords and Dark Rangers, heh). --Joshmaul 13:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Only hero class for WotLK

That's the current direction, but as we all know, this could change easily. Proof is in Neth's response in this thread.

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=712010477&pageNo=1&sid=1#2 --- Zexx 08:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Only hero class for WotLK. That's the key bit there: "For WotLK". God knows what we're gonna get down the road... --Joshmaul 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... Yeah. That's what I said, Joshmaul. It's kinda the name of the topic I made too. But the premise of this 'Hero Class' sounds ridiculous because it offers no significant advantages over any other class. They're simply a new class. --- Zexx 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, their definition of a hero class, as I'm sure is mentioned on other pages - is that they are based on the WC3 classes, are more specialised, new, and start at high level. That they are called "hero" does not mean they will be uber powerful as that would completely destroy the point of WoW. If you are not talking about general power, then exactly how do you know they don't have significant advatages? Have you played one? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a marketing gimmick. They call it a hero class when in actuality it's simply a new one. Paladins were a hero class in WC3 -- how much of a difference do we really see? Skills of hero classes in WC3 were given to the supposed 'regular' classes of WoW too. The Blademaster's Whirlwind found it's way to warriors, Blood Mage's Flamestrike to mages, Blood Mage's drain mana to Warlocks, Mountain King's Thunderclap to warriors again, etc.

Death Knights aren't more specialized. If anything, they're more hybridized, because they are described as being offensive casters wearing plate and using two handers. On top of this, they will be able to viably tank with two-handers. How is that specialized? And if the only difference between the capability of this class compared to another 'regular' class is that you need to perform a quest on an existing character to play one, what does the definition "Hero Class" entail beyond a gimmick of having to quest for the priviledge of playing one? Blues have stated repeatedly that this is not an "evolved" class. It's just a class.

I've heard the same doubletalk regarding promises for the reimplementation and encouragement of World PvP (And we all know how that turned out) and addressing the Horde PvE problem, which ended up simply getting rid of faction exclusive classes. I see bad PR and empty promises like I call them. Atleast they got the Arena system right, and yes, I would expect that if you become a "Hero Class" it would somehow entail that you are a step up from the base class you leveled up from with more highly specialized powers and abilities. I'd have way more respect for the company if they said straight up their design decision not to make Hero Classes superior came from the fact they wanted talent builds to reflect that and keep that flexibility, and that the Death Knight is simply a new class you need a quest to unlock. This hyping of Hero Classes is just insulting. --- Zexx 07:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazing news - Blizzard tries its hand at "marketing". If you want a more specialised class, how about suggesting one?

• Melee physical dmg - filled.
• Melee healer - filled.
• Ranged physical dmg - filled.
• Ranged spell dmg - filled.
• Ranged healer - filled.
• Hybrids of most of those - filled.

The only one that isn't really filled is melee spell dmg - i.e. the Death Knight. If you were expecting any different to what we got, you were simply fooling yourself and read far too much into the word "hero". Blizzard didn't hype hero classes (in fact they specifically did the opposite for a long, long time), they only now just hyped the addition of a new class.

If you're that annoyed with what Blizzard does, go play something else. They aren't going to change because they're not doing what you want - they have much bigger issues to deal with - like what is best for everyone. For example - you complain they made mistakes with World PvP - shock, horror, people make mistakes, they test ideas and try and come up with better ones ... like what Blizzard is doing. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, more deluded whining holding Blizzard to promises they haven't even made. And where was the massive hype surrounding the hero class? There was none. It appeared briefly on the "On the Horizon" page, and they made no mention of it until Blizzon. They certainly didn't mislead you to believe any of those things about hero classes. If the words "hero class" didn't meet your unrealistic expectations that isn't a fault of theirs. -- Raze 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like how you're changing your argument Kirkburn. First you claimed the Death Knight is more specialized, now you're accusing ME of saying what you claimed? And then you bring the argument to "well you think you can do better"? Of course I can't. I'm not a goddamn video game designer, but I don't have to be Scorcese to say a movie sucks, do I?

Then the "play something else" argument. Right, because that's the obvious solution to playing a flawed product -- just bow out instead of become a fanboy like you and cowtow with all their decisions? The extensive use of calling the Death Knight a Hero class is a marketing gimmick specifically because ALL IT IS IS A NEW CLASS. There is nothing heroic about it except you will need a quest to unlock it. Unlocking a HEROIC INSTANCE implies that the loot in there will be better, which it is. That is a proper usage of the word. And what does a Hero Class offer that is superior to a "normal" class?

According to Blizzard so far, absolutely nothing. So how is this an unrealistic expectation? And how are your arguments and scaled support unbiased?

Two years. TWO YEARS of absolutely unequaled Alliance superiority in PvE. --- Zexx 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it nice, gentlemen. --User:Sky2042/Sig 06:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alliance superiority? Well that came out of nowhere. To address this point, Horde PVE have always been viable though not perfectly balanced. Plenty of horde guilds made it through endgame (including mine), and that issue was fixed when TBC came out anyway. But how does that relate to this discussion? Makes your post seem like a general excuse to whine than an actual valid complaint.

The other point is that hero classes being superior to regular classes is a monumentally bad idea and will clearly mess up both PVP and PVE. Why do you care so much if they call it a hero class or not? They've never lied and said they were superior. -- Raze 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do Sky. First of all, the disparity between the Alliance ease of PvE and Horde PvE was huge. Horde had to spend twice as much time and have twice as much skill to clear instances from MC to AQ40. You were in a Horde raiding guild, you say? Really? Which guild? What server? What was your character's name and class, and how far did you progress? I'd LOVE to hear it all from the perspective of someone who's obviously raided and thought it was fine. The supportive superiority of paladins didn't start to fade until Naxxramas, which was released only months before the expansion went live and guilds all over the world were either quitting or, as top guilds, got invited to beta test the upcoming BC instances. If you actually followed my posts instead of trying to strawman me, you would see that MY POINT is that Blizzard as a company are terrible at rectifying in-game problems. Noone ever had a problem with Windfury, but suddenly when Pat came out with his sword spec videos, it got nerfed over night. So did Reck bombs after the infamous video of a paladin literally 3 shotting Kazzak. But AV is being fixed after 3 years, and it took them an entire expansion to resolve the Horde PvE problem?

How is the idea that a Hero Class is better than a regular class a monumentally bad idea? Then obviously it wouldn't be a Hero Class, would it? It should just be called an unlockable class. The implication is that it is supposed to be superior, such as Heroic Instances, and it is an implication you pleasantly pass over to try to take the argument into a different tangent while saving your agenda. What support do you have other than "oh well they never talked about Hero Classes"? So if they released a new rank of potions called Ultimate Healing Pot and it did the same as Super Healing Pots, but needed to be unlocked through alchemy, the obvious marketing gimmick involved of flavorful word usage wouldn't rankle you?

There's two solutions: The easy one is stop BSing the fan base with PR words like "Hero" and flat out describe it as an unlockable class. The harder, and much more admirable one, is create Hero Classes for every class and hold off the expansion for an extra two years to tweak and refine them. --- Zexx 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Horde PVE was imbalanced for quite a while, but it doesn't help your argument to make exaggerations like "twice as long and twice as much skill". Remember the first guilds to down C'thun and Kel'thuzad were horde guilds. Does that mean they spent more than twice as long as top Alliance guilds? No they didn't. More than twice as much skill? The difference is much smaller than that. My horde guild downed Maexxna and Razuvius, though we probably could have gotten further with paladins. This doesn't discount the fact that every single encounter was beatable, and we had plenty of fun doing them. It just made killing each boss more satisfying than if we did it as an Alliance guild. They resisted making the horde and alliance experiences identical by maintaining differences with Paladins and Shamans, which is admirable, but obviously it didn't work out. Still they deserve credit for making raids enjoyable from both sides (Huge effort if you ask me).

And don't accuse me of having an agenda out of the blue. I'm just trying to point out a few realities that are ignored. You are overstating the implications of the word "Hero", they have otherwise been perfectly clear(no bs) about the Death Knight, though nothing is finalized. It is the players that kept crying out for "Hero classes", and this is as close as they can realistically do it without breaking the game. As for delaying the game 2 years for 9 hero classes? Admirable my ass, I'm glad fans aren't the ones making the decisions. That would be a huge waste of time/money, and it would unnecessarily delay me getting to play on a new continent. 1 class is plenty to introduce given the huge effort it will take to balance for both PVP and PVE. -- Raze 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That and throwing Demon Hunters and Rangers in the middle of an expansion about the Scourge and Northrend would be kind of dumb. --Super Bhaal 12:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Raze, that's like saying because a kid on a bike woke up the earliest to do his paper route, he can deliver papers faster and better than a guy in a car. Just doesn't work like that. You need to look at the number of Alliance guilds who were in high content back then compared to the number of Horde guilds, which are vastly in favor of the Alliance because of paladins. The first world downings are by people who logged on earliest after the hotfix. Kel'Thuzad, as I've mentioned before, is a different case because Naxxramas was the first instance where the utility of paladins wasn't imbalanced in the favor of Alliance. The boss fights in there were so short that Horde had a fighting chance for equality, and long fights is where Blessings shine. I've been raiding for a long, long time and I can tell you in places like MC, BWL and AQ40 all, Blessings make a tremendous difference. Not to mention Fear Ward made encounters like Onyxia and Nefarian a total joke. The running argument was that dwarf priests were few adn far between, but any top Alliance raiding guild worth their salt ALWAYS had a dwarf priest with them. Horde tanks had to stance dance, and Alliance did not. Horde had to be much more careful about their DPS because of an upcoming fear bomb, and Alliance did not. I raided on both a hunter and a mage, and BoW and SoW back then made encounters a total joke for Alliance. A total joke. If I went OOM as a hunter I just needed to keep autofiring, and I'd get my mana back for a fresh rotation. As a Horde hunter? I have to pop FD and drink, and my DPS was absent and going to waste. As a mage I just have to sit there after my gems are gone and my Evo is down. As Alliance? I just wand. This goes for their healers too.

The only real advantages of being Horde is we're (Obviously in my opinion) the much cooler faction, and there is a fierce pride in being the underdogs. Fear Ward is still a significant advantage in raids. Not as much as it use to be, but Alliance priest racials still far outshine Horde. I still don't see why my expectations are skewed. A Heroic Dungeon by definition offers you better loot, but a Heroic Class by definition doesn't offer you a superior class? How is that consistent? Like I said I would have much more respect for Blizzard if they held off that idea retooled it to truly feel like what it is titled for another expansion, and instead mentioned the Death Knight as an unlockable class.

If an idea is inconsistent you simply tell the players "it's not happening" and that is that. Fanning up their expectations and telling them that the Hero Class you promised is simply an unlockable class is just insulting your fanbase's intelligence. There are a lot of things this game gets very right, and a lot of things it gets oh so terribly wrong. The tension and muddled gray areas between the factions and brilliant use of moral ambiguity is one of the things that sets Warcraft genuinely apart from any other typical sword and fantasy game. Another glaring flaw this game has is apparently every bad guy we fight turns crazy, but don't even get me started on that. So far I counted a list of about 15 Blizzard villains/anti-heroes who have gone rogue cause they went crazy. --- Zexx 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Going back to what I said about specialized-ness - yes, they are specialised, as a melee caster. In pretty much the only way they can be atm. You want them to be more specialised somehow, and I was pointing out it's not really possible without severely stunting their usefulness. Meanwhile, you are still talking under the delusion that "hero" was something Blizzard hyped. They spoke about them briefly very early on, said they wanted to introduce them somehow, but hadn't worked out how, nor knew what they'd be like. Then all went quiet. How that is "hyping" them, I don't know. You also complain that bad people are often crazy. How odd, it's almost like real life! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Zexx, feeling good to unload all the random WoW frustrations off your chest? If you actually bothered to read my post, I never said anything like a kid on a bike can go faster than a car. Horde PVE was imbalanced for quite a while was my first sentence. Nevertheless, every raid boss was perfectly doable from both sides, and it became a greater achievement to kill each boss as a horde guild than as an alliance guild. Stop comparing yourselves with the alliance guilds and maybe you could have enjoyed the experience more.

Blizzard villains who went crazy? Another topic completely out of the blue. You're the one who brought it up so no I won't get you started on it as you suggested.

Back to the topic of the Hero class, you need to stop using the "insulting your fanbase's intelligence" catchphrase and think about how Hero classes fit into a game like WoW. The game will ultimately suffer if a Hero class introduced that is superior in either PVP or PVE. If a Death Knight can out DPS/out tank every other class, what's the point of bringing other classes? Do Rogues, Mages, Warlocks, Hunters, Warriors, Shadow priests all become Crowd Control class? What if they wanted a raid boss that do not spawn adds? Why would a player choose a Rogue if they can kill twice as many players as a Death Knight?

What else could you possibly mean by superior? Please elaborate. If they delayed the game 2 years or 10 years, it won't change the fact that Death Knights should be equally desired. Blizzard will find other ways to distinguish Hero classes from regular classes, just not in power. -- Raze 03:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirkburn what do you mean by ME saying I want death knights to be more specialized? It was YOU claiming that they are. Since you enjoy putting words in my mouth and avoiding the actual issue of word usage here (Heroic Dungeons = Better loot, yet Heroic Class = uhh...), I'll skim past you to Raze.

Raze -- more of the same things you are bringing up without addressing the issue of word usage. At all. Can you stop pussyfooting around it and actually address that issue instead of reiterating about what you feel blah blah blah would have repercussions for doing blah blah blah? You're a bad liar and bad at changing your argument. You insinuated Horde PvE was not as bad at Alliance PvE by claiming it wasn't twice as hard for a Horde guild. This clearly shows me you haven't raided as Horde at all pre-BC, because any moron who spent an hour in MC can you tell you it's true -- both Alliance and Horde agree. If you didn't think so you'd become the laughing stock of the Raid and Dungeon Forums who remember those days fondly/bitterly. Next you completely misunderstood my analogy, yet it's exactly the same thing you claimed. You claimed Horde guilds were the first ones to down C'Thun and Kel'Thuzad. Now I have to sit you down and actually explain to you what that analog meant. You think because those Horde guilds logged on first after the hotfixes to down those bosses the PvE imbalance wasn't as severe -- hence, the analogy of a kid waking up to do his paper route on a bike being considered "superior" to a guy who does it in a much better vehicle (ie - a car) because he does it earlier. Horde guilds managed to reach that point at C'Thun the same as Alliance because C'Thun was impossible, so they had enough time to catch up, but it took guilds twice as long and with twice as much effort because they lacked paladins.

The point of a Hero Class, and what the company insinuated from their word usage after taking a D&D template for their characters and borrowing many D&D skills (Arcane Missiles, Humanoid Slaying, Poisons, Disarm Traps, etc. All borrowed from D&D.) is that they were to be Prestige Classes. Meaning after a certain class hit a level or point, they can unlock the ability to become a Prestige Class that is more specialized and much better in the departments other classes only dabble in. For example, a rogue can become a Master Assassin, which greatly increases his proficiency in poisons and daggers than any other type of Prestige Rogue. One commendable feature of Blizzard is that they allowed on the fly flexibility to choose to sort of "spec" into these specializations via talent points, keeping the game flexible and easier. It was what a Hero Class would have been, and they could have called the upcoming death knight simply an unlockable class, and done away with any false wordplay.

But nope. They didn't. Oh, and also Kirkburn let me get out the laundry list of people in Blizzard games who have "gone crazy": Sarah Kerrigan, Arcturus Mengsk, the Matriarch, King Leoric, the guy who put Bhaal's soul shard in his forehead, the guy from Diablo I who put Diablo's soul shard into his head, Grom Hellscream, Medivh, Sargeras, Kel'Thuzad, Arthas, Prince Kael'Thas, Illidan Stormrage, Sylvanas Windrunner, Deathwing and soon Malygos. Wow... What a creative plotline! The only two significant Blizzard villains I can think of that DIDN'T go crazy are Gul'dan and Ner'zhul.

Yes Kirkburn. Apparently EVERY villain goes crazy. It's an easy plot device that doesn't require much creative writing. But of course we should just keep kissing ass and sheepishly nodding our heads to drivel like this instead of, oh I don't know, demanding better content from the company we pay 15 dollars a month to enjoy their product for? Like I said there are many things this game gets very right, and many things it gets very wrong. --- Zexx 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, this discussion is OVER. I'm sorry if it seemed like I put words in your mouth, it was not my intention. However, this wiki, and especially this page, is not a place for you to go off on rants about everything you dislike in WoW. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)