Quote Originally Posted by Shougun View Post
Who said this exactly? I've not seen that anywhere (at least in this thread and in a state that you presented it).

OP said might be because of the boss but not for sure (red herring). As for the rest of it you seem to be making a strawman. Maybe you were just compiling everything from everyone, across other threads too, and turning it into a caricature of an argument, maybe for insult / "I don't take you seriously", but if it was meant to be serious and representative showcase- it looked like a sloppy argument to me.
Yes, it's a "compilation" and yes I am summing it up as something of a caricature because the compiled point seems illogical to me.

My point is unrelated to whether an "altered necromancer without zombies" would be a viable class.

My actual point is that in setting out to argue that the zombie-summoning necromancer boss could be a hint at a playable necromancer class, then being told that it couldn't work as-is, people are coming up with workarounds that involve removing everything about the idea that resembles what the boss is and does, while maintaining that the boss must be a hint that this altered class is coming.

By keeping fixed on the two ideas "necromancer could work somehow" and "there is a necromancer boss in the game that must be a hint at the class" and trying to equate the two ideas as they shift further apart, that starts looking illogical.

Or to look at it another way, let's say the game designers did set out to implement necromancer and had to make these alterations - giving it a different name and inventing a skill set that doesn't involve any zombies or "dark powers", ending up with something quite different. Let's call it Spiritmancer.

If the developers then wanted to hint at the existence of Spiritmancer, we would be fighting a Spectral Spiritmancer in the Heroes' Gauntlet who gives a glimpse of that job's skill set, rather than a necromancer who summons zombies.