Talk:Death knight/Archive1

Why a Hero class?

I think that Death Knights, or any other class, should and could not be a hero Class. By what Blizzard is telling us, you must become level 80 (that means you'd already have to battle Arthas), then complete a series of quests, then you can unlock it, get out of that character, create a new one for a race, and play it at a High level. I have problems with that.

1: like one guy pointed out, many people will play it and over populate it.

2: you really can't level up, and that takes the fun out of the game.

3: unfair advantage at the start

4: you can't really customize your guy when he already knows spells of all of his tactics.

but, I do wish for it to exist, but as a regular class that you get from the beginning. I also hope for Necromancers.

-- Quinn' Tonstern

You are overreacting. Considering your first concern, yes, for quite some time after the initial release of WLK there will be a lot of death knights. Things will fix itself though, because when the Burning Crusade came out everyone went to play a draenei shammy and a blood elf pally.. Now most of the people have gone back to their old classes and all is fine again. I'm somewhat surprised about your second concern, since most people I talk to find it incredibly BORING to level a character to 60. Wouldn't it be a relief, rather than a disappointment, to have a character that gets to skip the annoying bit? Also, how does that give them an unfair advantage? I don't see how it does. And about your fourth and final concern.. it will not immediately know all his spells. A new death knight won't start at level 80, rather at level 50 or 60. So there's still a lot to learn for the class. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They have also stated that they do not intend to make this a level 1 character that is then just leveled to 60(Or what they decide to use in the future) and with all those spells, they have said that when you get your high-level Death Knight it'll start with a few abillities and then you can learn more on the way, so basically you should see the Deathknight as 1-20 when going to 60-80, you'll start off with a few Rank 1 abillities and spells, then you get new ones and improve old ones on your way to 80, but you won't have 40 different spells halfway ranked up. _└^Fisker_┘^┌_t/c^┐  19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That (and the rune system used instead of rage/mana/energy) should prove to be interesting...basically a high-level noob, in other words? *grin* --Joshmaul 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two main reasons for the Hero Class mechanic (instead of just a regular new class). One: it's a prestige thing for hardcore players (like the epic flying mounts and Netherdrake), and you know how Blizzard loves to reward the hardcore players -- who aren't looking forward to another 1-50 grind. Two: Starting out at a high level (~55 or so) means Blizzard has a LOT less work to do in balancing out the class... they can ignore almost the entire leveling experience and just concentrate on the high-level experience. Adding a new class and having to balance it 1-80 against all the content, items and all the other classes involves a lot of man-hours, which is why they are so reticent to add new classes. I have a feeling that Hero Classes are the only new classes we are ever likely to see (or at least for a long, long time). -- AriochIV 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop whining about the DK class. Blizzard isn't perfect and but they can rewrite their mistakes. They aren't too powerful because they can't heal or use sheilds which gives an added defense bonus. Everyone was afraid about BC having Alliance shamans and Horde Paladins. And Blizzard says for now its all races, that doesn't mean when it comes out, all races will be able to. Like I said in my first sentence Bliizard will work out the kinks. And when people say they won't be able to level, they might start out at 50-70. Thats still 30-10 levles to level. And I don't think Blizzard would make make it when you finish the DK class, you become one. Because I like having a hunter, but I would also like to have a DK. And that would be stupid on their part and there probably wouldn't be another expansion if they did. Mr.X8 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it called a "hero" class?

Is it just because it requires you to have a main character at maximum level (80) in order to unlock it or will the "hero" classes be definitely more powerful than the others (just like Elite mobs are more powerful than non-Elite)? If they are much more powerful (let's say they have about twice as much hitpoints and deal about twice as much damage as the other classes), wouldn't that result in having raid groups containing only Death Knights? Since they are presumably "damagedealers and tanks", what would be the role of a warrior after the introduction of the Death Knights? Privatekey 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Most likely due to the hero units of Warcraft III. --Flyspeck 15:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, paladins should be hero units. They're not. (Though some of my brothers think we should be. I, on the other hand....people hate pallies enough, lol.) --Joshmaul 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the original idea was that Hero classes would be "super" classes for endgame characters, but now it seems pretty clear that they're just extra classes that have to be unlocked and start at higher level. If they had added Death Knight as, say, a super class to Paladin, then they'd also have to add a super class for every other class (or people would scream bloody murder), and they don't want to have to do that much work all at one time. The current info stresses that Death Knights will be (supposedly) balanced against other classes. I think the reason that they're still called Hero classes is because Blizzard has been promising them since before release, and it's a justification for starting them at high level (which saves Blizzard a ton of balance work).

That said, I think it will be interesting to see how they balance Death Knights against warriors... I guess by definition a knight can't tank as well as a warrior (since who would want a warrior when you can do dps too?), but if there's a significant difference, then the knight isn't really a tank. In any case, I'm feeling glad I never leveled my warrior past 18. :) -- AriochIV 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Death Knights will have a chance to shine as a tank just as a druid or paladin. It is their spec that makes them capable of tanking anyway, as I am sure Death Knights will have separate trees for DPS and tanking.
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Death knights were not heros, they were villans.--SWM2448 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not heroes to the guys they were busy gutting, no. Heroes to the Scourge? Yes. I guess in that case they should be called Anti-Hero Classes. --Super Bhaal 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing about death knights is the way their tanking is being implemented... They don't use shields. So all those LAWLFURYTANK warriors will for sure be jumping on the DK bandwagon =P. I imagine, given the death knights abilities in WC3, he makes up for the lack of shield with awesome health regen / life steal abilities. --Adonzo 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny/scary thought... if a Pally is a Priest in plate, then the DK is a Warlock in plate. --Adonzo 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That IS a scary thought. But they got no pets, though! Well, 'cept for skeletons, and technically that ain't warlock magic, that's necromancy...eh, evil is evil, who's keeping track? *grin* --Joshmaul 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DK may also make up for the lack of a shield with some sort of improved parry or other defensive ability that the runeblade(s) offer. I'd also like to point out that the official word is that there's "no need to use shields" -- I haven't seen anything official saying that the DK can't use a shield, just that he doesn't need to -- implying a better defense mechanism. -- AriochIV 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling about it. I think that DK will be a hero just as they were in WCIII: a hero of the Scourge! We will be battling for the Scourge against the alliance and the horde. In the trailer we see a player controlled DK (a former paladin of the alliance) battling alliance forces. DK will be a sort of Baron Rivendare controlled by player. N'Nanz 10:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That would mean that the scourge would actually be turned into a player faction. I don't think so. Since you need to be Level 80 with your main character and complete a quest, only veteran players would be able to start a character of that faction. This would result in having a low number of players inside that "veteran player's" faction batteling against both huge player factions, horde AND alliance. This is the most unbalanced thing I can think of. Another point is that Blizzard would actually have to redesign the battlegrounds, adding a starting point for the third faction as well as NPCs for them etc. And it really sounds like a lot (!!) of work changing all these things while keeping balance in PvP. Privatekey 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, its what I've been thinking all along. The reason bliz is starting it out at a high level is because they dont have space. That's right, there is NO MORE SPACE on any of the continents, and besides a DK hideout in outland would blend nicely into the story...not. Since they ARE a different faction, blizzard has no space to put DK starting areas, and even at its current level we have no clue what's going on; where are the scourge cities going to be? I heard something about the Vrykul being allied with the scourge, so maybe the DK's share the continent with them? I dunno, feel free to flame me to a crisp.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tristantene (talk · contr).

Please sign your posts, Tristantene. Again, Blizzard has been talking about class balance of Death Knights grouping with the existing classes and justifications for why Death Knights would be accepted in the Horde and Alliance... they are NOT a different faction. If they were creating a new faction, they would have trumpeted this all over as a new feature. -- AriochIV 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, you would need a lot more than the Death Knight to create a new faction...though IMHO, the Scourge would probably not be a good new faction anyway, because any potential "cities" for the Scourge are also instances and zone-boss areas - Scholomance, Stratholme, Deatholme, Andorhal, etc...and especially Icecrown. Plus there would be a problem of balance - for one, the current PvP system is set for only two sides, and for another, of the current (and planned) classes of WoW, the Scourge would really only have access to....oh, maybe three or four at most, not all nine (ten counting the DK) of both sides. The Death Knight, of course, but probably the warrior, the mage and maybe - MAYBE - the rogue (surely there are "sneaky Scourge"). Though of course you could fill it in with faction-specific stuff (necromancers and MAYBE liches). --Joshmaul 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute .. Icecrown is becoming an instance? Is there any official Blizzard statement about it yet? If it's really becoming an instance, I hope they don't require attunement for it, or at least make it possible for casual players to complete the requirements to enter it. Arthas is truly an epic enemy. I wouldn't be pleased to see only the top 5 elite guilds enjoying a battle of this quality although I must admit that keeping casual players away from important figures of the Warcraft universe unfortunately seems to be Blizzard-typical behavior. Privatekey 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This thread has gone off topic. There is a thread about the faction issue, but I urge you to understand that Blizzard has stated there will be no new faction and the DK will be aligned with either the alliance or horde in the same way all other chars are:

Q:	How will the death knights fit into the Alliance, when they were primarily horde?
A:	Still deliberating. Warcraft II death knights were on the Horde side. In Warcraft III, it was a number of paladins who succumbed to despair and fear. Arthas never died. Are death knights really dead and do their powers reflect Warcraft III? How can they be let into the factions? They are similar to warlocks, so they are a necessary evil. Creatures who can fight fire with fire. Not set in stone, but imagine they have gone through death knight academy and in the graduation ceremony, you've got all your powers and taking all your tests, and you decide you're just not with these guys. A Robin Hood element. Much like the Forsaken. The death knights will have to make their own choice as to who they will serve and how they will use their powers. Not finalized, but this is what we're discussing.
	~Chris Metzen, BlizzCon 2007

User:Tetsuo86/sig

I already posted this quote above in the thread that IS about faction. :) -- AriochIV 22:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I also had an explanation from some guy whose guildie went to BlizzCon, but it was removed and isn't in the archive.

Dude, its still up there. That is still active, so I didn't archive it. Plus, I went to BlizzCon and I heard him say it as well. The point of including the quote here was to show proof of the answer. User:Tetsuo86/sig

EDIT: Oh, wait. Chris quote, lol.  :/ --Super Bhaal 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Faction

Well the Deathknight in the Trailer was made by the Scourge...Would that mean we would no longer serve the Horde/Alliance but the Scourge? Shiniki

One of the no doubt many headachy and slightly confusing tweaks to the lore. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Scourge is your friend guys, really!" --Super Bhaal 04:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Couple things I want to know: first of all, what are the death knight cities? if they are a separate faction starting at a high level, then they must have vendors,cities, etc. also, There comes the problem of neutral cities. Like gadgetzan and ratchet, how will death knight fit in? The horde/alliance peace i can understand but allowing the Scourge in? hmmm....just doesn't seem likely. Will they be flagged for pvp for all factions? will I, who really want to be a death knight, be able to complete the attunement quest at a low level? so many questions... heres a few:

>What are the spells?

>Who are the members of the death knight faction? (Whose gonna be vendors)

>Are they going to have special racial abilities? (shadow and frost resistance, underwater breathing ,etc)

>who is their king (Arthras seems the most probable, but then again why deprive the poor death knights of a raid?)

>What is their transport? how can they get to azeroth? do they have portal trainers?

>Will they be welcome in shattarath?

>Who are the available races?

>What level do you have to be to become one?

>Why is one of the death knight spell classes , sorry rune classes, "Blood"? why not something like Shadow (with like a rogue stealth)

>When is Wotlk coming out?

I may have too many questions, but I really do want to know - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tristantene (talk · contr).

Since the devs have talked about how Death Knight characters will have roles as tank/dps in groups, you have to assume that they have to be Horde/Alliance faction (aside from the fact that there has been no information at all that suggests otherwise). Since Death Knights would be the only members of a new faction, you can't exactly have groups of all Death Knights, since they can't heal. As for the Horde/Alliance allowing evil Death Knights... well, they allow "evil" Warlocks and Rogues. - Ariochiv 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AH, but you don't know that they can't heal. I personally think that the rune class "Blood" will have some sort of shadow priest-esque lifeleech. That might allow you to heal yourself with trickle charge and maybe something could be like the blood elf mana tap- it's a stacking effect. Again, trickle charges in multiples may allow the tank/dps death knight to survive

by the way, rogues arent evil, just fun.And they don't serve the scourge. warlocks in the storyline are banished and hated people, but they still manage to make it. However , serving the scourge as an undead monstrosity with powers to raise an army of dead and blast shadow at unsuspecting bystanders............well, you fill in the blank here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tristanene (talk · contr).

It is inconceivable to think the Death Knight would not be Alliance/Horde. It would unbalance gameplay greatly. They will work in a thread of lore that will allow Death Knights to be alliance or horde as they did to allow Dreanei to be Shaman (seeing as their culture viewed it as evil since the trolls practiced it). --Tetsuo86 12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, when the draenei turned to shamanism, they didn't even know trolls existed. And I don't think they necessarily saw shamanism as evil, but rather they merely associated it with the orcs - who abandoned it for warlock powers. --Joshmaul 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can check this out if you want. Some Draenei were forced to turn to Shamanism because they lost their connection to the light. This occurred AFTER Shattrath City was invaded by the Horde. There is plenty of quest lore if you start out as a Draenei shaman that explains how other Draenei see the practice of shamanism as taboo because of the Horde's use of it. I'm fairly certain about this. Either way, the discussion is academic. --Tetsuo86 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Death Knights have some limited self-healing abilities similar to the Warlock's, but for instance groups you need dedicated healers, and it's a pretty good bet that this is something the Death Knight can't do. For one thing, Blizzard said the role of the Death Knight in groups will be hybrid tank/dps... no mention of healing. Your notion of Death Knight player characters serving the Scourge instead of Horde/Alliance is based solely on the silly trailer movie... you really ought to read some of what Blizzard has written on the subject, because it's quite clear that's not so. Here is a quote by Blizzard's Chris Metzen from a panel at BlizzCon:

Q: How will the death knights fit into the Alliance, when they were primarily horde?

A: Still deliberating. Warcraft II death knights were on the Horde side. In Warcraft III, it was a number of paladins who succumbed to despair and fear. Arthas never died. Are death knights really dead and do their powers reflect Warcraft III? How can they be let into the factions? They are similar to warlocks, so they are a necessary evil. Creatures who can fight fire with fire. Not set in stone, but imagine they have gone through death knight academy and in the graduation ceremony, you've got all your powers and taking all your tests, and you decide you're just not with these guys. A Robin Hood element. Much like the Forsaken. The death knights will have to make their own choice as to who they will serve and how they will use their powers. Not finalized, but this is what we're discussing. -- AriochIV 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Death Knight response by community

Many players have expressed concern over the introduction of Death Knights for several reasons. Blizzard has said that Death Knights will be the only hero class in Wrath of the Lich King, so they could quickly become overabundant, especially due to their popularity, and relatively high starting level, not requiring as much time or commitment (exact level not decided yet). Their projected role may overshadow existing classes such as warriors as well, which could easily lead to balance problems. --Hugeman

I totally agree with you. Well thats gonna be the problem of whole expansion. People are talking only about how they will play death knights. I think servers will be too much 'death-knightish' in the future. On the other side its good they've added new class. However, i have NO idea how they will keep balance between classes now. --Axell 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I foresee requirement to become Death Knight something similar to chain to open AQ. You need entire raid to do the task (which might as well be killing Arthas), but only one will be able to become Death Knight. I'd like it a lot more if Death Knights were actually a kind of upgrade to existing classes, though having everyone being Death Knight wouldn't be particularly cool no matter what. --Drundia 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A Hero class is something like a prestige class in D&D. Players will have to fulfill certain requirements (which are likely quite strict) to obtain the new class. Hence, there will be overall far fewer Death Knights than you might think. If the come to their senses and only make the class open to a few races, that would also balance it out. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to the class discussions and from what they made it sound like, the quest line to unlock the Death Knight won't be cake. It isn't going to be terribly hard (require a raid), but it won't be easy. As for over-population, I think you will find that it will balance itself out as the other classes did. Not everyone WANTS to melee DPS or tank. Also, you have to hit 80 first, which itn't a piece of cake in itself. Also, not everyone is going to want to start someone out at even level 55 or so. --Tetsuo86 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course this will happen, but I doubt it will be much worse than the Draenei Shaman / Blood Elf Paladin glut people were worried about in Burning Crusade. And as far as I'm concerned, there can never be enough tanks in the game... so this is not necessarily a bad thing. And it has been said in the previews that the questline will not require a raid, so I suspect that it will be a grind like the Netherdrake line. Ariochiv 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

no it will actually be available to every race trust me except mabe gnomes. what happens is your character will travel all around Outland doing quests and at some point you'll die and get corrupted enabling to make another character a "future" corrupted version of yourself as a death knight. this is gonna be incredible. this ain't nnosense it's probably the truth i mean really look at the trailer. how else are you gonna make a new hero? you'll ahve to follow the lich kings footsteps and get corrupted geez --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rahnumed (talk · contr).

I was watching the video where devs were talking about it and revealed that you dont need raid group for this. They are already tired watching all people whine about things like Black temple which is difficult stuff to do. They want it a bit easy becasue DEATH KNIGHT its the main (except Northrend)feature of WotLK. If they make it too difficult, people wont buy it. Simple business. And developer stated that they didn't make the final decision what race can be death knight, but he said that for now its every race.So World of DeathKnightCraft is on sight. --Axell 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

why does the DK pic have a shark and beach in it? Mr.X8 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's from a term known as "jumping the shark". It's for when something ( usually a television show ) veers out of control. This comes from an episode of Happy Days, where Fonzie, in an attempt to show everyone how badass he is, gets on water skiis and jumps over a shark. This also happened on Family Matters when Steve Urkel pretty much became the main character.

tl;dr: It's a decline in quality. My guess is that people think Blizzard sent the Warcraft universe in the wrong direction, making Death Knights playable or something. If you ask me though opening Outland for no apparent reason was far worse. --Super Bhaal 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man Mr.X8 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New section for hero classes?

Since Blizzard said "yeah guyz we're making hero classes lol", should we make a new section for hero classes and one for "base" classes? Also, I like the icon for Death Knights. :D --Super Bhaal 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not really an use for a section "hero classes" that only has the death knight in it. Once more hero classes are announced, I say go for it. But as of the present situation, I say.. let's not.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I cancur with the Olympian. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Change into or Create?

This thread has been answered. Please do not expand it further.

What I'm interested in hearing more about is whether or not a given character who completes the quest chain actually changes into a Death Knight (of lower level) or if a separate Death Knight character is created in that process (like an evil twin). Some of the words expressed at Blizzcon seem to point to the latter... but we know in Arthas's case, he was actually transformed. Darin Wagner 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Err... I think you fulfill the requirements, then level up in the Death Knight class. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, once you finish the quest you get the option to create a new death knight character. -- Dark T Zeratul 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How does that figure into the lore of Arthas changing into a Death Knight? If you get to create a new DK character, leaving the one you actually performed the quest with intact... how are you "following in my (Arthas's) footsteps" as the trailer says? Could this mean that players will discover a Paladin Arthas somewhere? That the one who actually took up Frostmourne and later merged with the Lich King was, as I described earlier, some sort of "evil twin?" Darin Wagner 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While I must admit it would be cool to be able to change your character into a death knight I foresee (and Blizzard probably does as well) too much chance for buyer's remorse. They would be inundated with requests to revert characters back to their original class. Perhaps a better way to figure Arthas' lore into the class would be a series of quests and events that direct your new character into choosing the path of darkness much as Arthas did. Quests that require you to do moraly questionable things to obtain the power you need to do what you thought was right. --Evil Iggy 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion at the BlizzCon Classes panel [1] makes it pretty clear that the Death Knight is created as a new character, and not converted from an existing character, for exactly the reasons Iggy mentions -- no one wants to lose a level 80 character. Hard to see how this will be justified in terms of lore, but Blizzard is used to such gymnastics in Warcraft lore... it's essentially a story of people switching sides from good to evil and back again (Medivh, anyone?). -- Ariochiv 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As well, from White Wolf forums...Well, I guess the hope is gone. Guildie was at the second day class panel and he explained the death knights as:

Quote:

The answer given is thus : Imagine you're in college (Death Knight University), you go through all your classes for your major (hating all life, gaining unholy powers), and then, you hit graduation day, and before you get your diploma, you're all, "shit, this isn't what I wanna do with my life. This doesn't feel right." But, you're already stuck with all this supernatural power, so might as well use it. They're using the same approach they used with warlocks - evil, yes, but fight fire with fire, yeah?

So, yeah, instead of redeeming death knights it looks like we're getting the disgruntled ones who decided that a unlife of evil in the service of their telepathic near-omniscient demigod wasn't such a good idea after all. I had no idea the Lich King would just give his powers out to random people who might decide *not* to serve him after all.

I should have known better.

Lore, lol.

Think Frodo and the One Ring or something along those lines. ----Super Bhaal 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think when the paladin in the picture turns into one, Blizzard uses that a symbol to show after he got powerful, he could become a death knight. Afterall it would be stupid if the quest turns you into one. Mr.X8 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Please do not move this article without discussing it here. In particular is the capitalization of the words "hero" and "class". As far as I know, we've yet to see "hero class" written by Blizzard as "Hero Class", so they are not proper nouns, yet. As such, the name of the article will be Death knight. Feel free to discuss any comments, concerns, or potential changes here.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look on the front page of Blizzard's own Wrath site [2], they capitalize it as "Hero class". -- Ariochiv 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Death and Decay?

Anyone remember that spell from Warcraft II? It would be pretty awesome spell to use, though a bit overpowered in my opinion. Unless Blizzard makes it so it's only usable in the Destructible buildings war-zones. Then it would be crazy to use. ScythXIII 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm.. wasn't that a spell used by Kel'Thuzad in W3? I was searching for that spell now and found out that Rage Winterchill in Old Hyjal has it. Interesting idea anyway. --Axell 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a spell that Gul'dan's Death Knights could use in Warcraft II. It was the ultimate spell for the Lich hero in WC3. Given that it's now a Lich ability, players probably can't use it, but you never know.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It will probably just be scaled down into a basic AoE spell like the Mage's [Blizzard] spell was. --Evil Iggy 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's what the shadow AoE spell was in the trailer? --Joshmaul 05:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it because he raised skeletons. --Axell 12:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Must not have seen that part. (Was that trailer supposed to have sound? Mine came without it!) Oh, and an addendum: Teron Gorefiend - being the first of Gul'dan's death knights - also has the Death and Decay ability. I've only seen it used when he possesses your body (as he did mine), but I'm guessing he also has it in BT as well. --Joshmaul 12:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well i searched now for that spell and found out that the spell he used in trailer is 'Army of the Dead' (Summons undead minions to fight for him).Acording to blizz dev. Tom Chilton. --Axell 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets not forget, WARCRAFT 3!!!! That was a spell in that game too.

Lrn2sign FTW. (God, I hate talking like that.) And yes, we knew that already. It was mentioned above by Ragestorm. --Joshmaul 12:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well. When Teron Gorefiend possesses you in Shadowmoon Valley, he has a Death and Decay ability, if I'm not mistaken. Thus, it's logical to assume that it's not a Lich-restricted ability. Yaki 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone said that death and decay might be an AoE spell. I think it could go 1 of 2 ways.

1.) They could summon minions like a hunter's pet or lock's minion 2.)It's like the hunter trap that when you trigger it, snakes pop out, but only stay for a short time. Maybe the DK's spell that summon undead are like the snake trp, they are an AoE minion that only stays for a short time.

Runeblades

Anyone who's ever read the lore (or got the [Runeblade of Baron Rivendare] from Stratholme) knows that all death knights carry a runeblade, sort of as a receptacle of their soul - and if the death knight is destroyed, the blade remains to suck the soul of its next waiting victim (kinda how Arthas was the first to lose his soul to Frostmourne). I saw pictures from the content panel at BlizzCon that Tigole was a part of, and it showed concept art of what death knights could possibly wield - not just swords, but axes as well.

I don't know how they'd work, but my idea - it's crazy, so again, feel free to laugh - is to start with a single 2h weapon or pair of 1h weapons, your choice of axes or swords (since death knights seem to be into bladed weapons), and that you should be able to name/personalize it. That one weapon/pair will grow in power as you level up, reaching the ultimate - of course - at level 80. Would probably never work, but hell, I can dream, can't I? --Joshmaul 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this as well. I believe that it is simply an allowance they have to make for being able to play a Death Knight. I guess you could think about this way: when the DK decides to use a new weapon, he/she imbues the new instrument with his/her soul, carving in it the runes that make it so powerful. Yes I know it isn't very "lorefull", but as I said, you have to make small allowances like this for playability. It would be like saying, "Whoever kills a Death Knight becomes one." If that were true, killing any of the numerous Death Knights in the world...of warcraft...would have made you one already. It could also be that only Frostmourne is imbued with the power to capture the soul of the bearer. User:Tetsuo86/sig

(update)I have read more lore and realize the RPG guide says the Lich King gives each Death Knight a sword that steals souls blah blah blah. But I am going to hold to the fact that a little lore has to be nudged for playability's sake. User:Tetsuo86/sig

It would certainly be cool to have the runesword be an upgradable personal weapon, but somehow I doubt they will do this, as it would take away a major loot opportunity. I suspect there will be a variety of Knight-specific rune weapons in the game that will be acquired as loot like all other weapons, and that the Knight can use regular weapons of the appropriate type (swords and axes) until such are found. Although I guess it's true that since you start at level 50+, you'll hopefully have a pretty decent weapon to start with. It will be interesting to see what they do in terms of starting gear. Will it be white, green, or even blue? -- AriochIV 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be sweet to have the DK start out with a quest or something to gain their weapon type and then have them keep that weapon the whole way. You could have class trainers that would allow you to upgrade your weapon or other DK-specific quests to enhance the abilities of the weapon to match the powers of other epic-quality weapons. User:Tetsuo86/sig

Cool, yes... but problematic. Aside from having no weapons to loot, the player would have to make a decision on weapon type at the very beginning (2H sword, 2H axe, 1H sword, or 1H axe? And what about the off-hand?) and it would be awkward to change it later. The Knight would have to stick with a single weapon (or combination of weapons), and would not be able to switch weapons for special situations. -- AriochIV 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)