Will "class fantasy" ruin warrior?

[Syegfryed]

..................... Most forms of combat involving hand to hand combat, even with weapons, are considered Martial Arts. It has nothing to do with "Kung fu". Blade Masters can teach another person how to use a sword.

And I did show you how a Paladin can train a Warrior. Uther helped train Arthas before he was a Paladin.

the fact is blademaster dont teach the basic, they teach the full and complete thing, how to be a warrior, its not a history teacher teaching the basic of math, its not a paladin teaching arthas how to use a sword ( the lore says uther teach arthas how to use the light only and muradin, a warrior, teach him the ways of the sword)

again this could be a very subjective thing, a deathknight who was a warrior or a paladin in live can teach things for a warrior/paladin, but this doesn't exist ingame, this will not make him a Warrior/paladin trainer, its not exist in the lore

right now, only paladins teach paladins, warriors teach warriors, and go on, if a blademasters are warrior trainers is because they are warriors

and talking about muradin i put more fire, and will say mountain kings are just like blademasters, another race variation of warriors

[Archimtiros]

the fact is blademaster dont teach the basic, they teach the full and complete thing, how to be a warrior, its not a history teacher teaching the basic of math, its not a paladin teaching arthas how to use a sword ( the lore says uther teach arthas how to use the light only and muradin, a warrior, teach him the ways of the sword)

Then wouldn't that be an example of a Warrior/Mountain King (Muradin) teaching a Paladin (Arthas) how to fight? If that's fine, why doesn't it work in reverse.

For that matter, what exactly do Warrior trainers teach? As far as the game is concerned they don't do anything anymore, and even in the past they only taught base spells, the things you now get from leveling up, while higher level versions, talents, etc still came from outside sources. Logically speaking, this is called reaching.

again this could be a very subjective thing, a deathknight who was a warrior or a paladin in live can teach things for a warrior/paladin, but this doesn't exist ingame, this will not make him a Warrior/paladin trainer, its not exist in the lore

Keep in mind that just because something is represented in game doesn't mean it's set in stone, and the reverse is also true, just because something isn't represented in the game, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Med'an is the chief example of a character that breaks all the rules, as he is a simultaneous Priest, Mage and Shaman rolled up in one. Go figure, he was trained by a Mage, who helped him learn not only magecraft, but also Shamanism, despite the fact that she isn't a Shaman.

There's also the case of Amal'thazad, who is a Lich Mage/Necromancer, yet also a Death Knight trainer, representing the Frost Death Knights. So that kind of debunks the in-game trainers must be the same class theory.

[Actarius]

@Syegfryed

"The blademaster, aka blade master, is the name that the orc gladiator class goes by"

Among the Horde, gladiators are known as blademasters.

Gladiators come from the ranks of fighters, warriors, or barbarians. That is their origin, that does not make Blademasters, which are gladiatos, fighters, warriors or barbarians.

As an example, Paladins:
"Mixing elements of the warrior and the clerics of the Holy Light, the paladin is a tough melee fighter."
This does not make a paladin either a warrior or a cleric.

Similar to how you need a degree in biology (generally) before becoming a doctor, you need baseline skills of a warrior(not Warrior) before becoming a paladin or a gladiator.

I threw together a little infographic to hopefully make this a little clearer.



warriors can become a Warrior (WoW class), Blademaster, Monk, or Paladin. This is based on their generally accepted lore. To be a paladin, monk, or warrior you generally want to start out as a cleric, priest, martial artist, or barbarian. So on and so forth.

Everyone starts somewhere, no one walked in and decided, oh I'm a blademaster. They learned basics such as combat, martial arts, fighting styles, etc, and then become a gladiator (blademaster) after decided that they wanted to focus on weapon mastery. WoW Warriors focus on the mastery of a wide array of weapons, along with channeling basic magic powers. WoW monks delved deeper into combat styles, ultimately choosing a specific type of martial arts that fuses the power of unarmed combat with deadly & calculated weapon strikes. Paladins chose to become skilled in basic martial weapons and call upon the power of the light to infuse their weapons with holy power, and grant them supernatural abilties.

[Archimtiros]

@Syegfryed

"The blademaster, aka blade master, is the name that the orc gladiator class goes by"

Among the Horde, gladiators are known as blademasters.

Gladiators come from the ranks of fighters, warriors, or barbarians. That is their origin, that does not make Blademasters, which are gladiatos, fighters, warriors or barbarians.

The idea you're leading up to is correct, but this part is up for some debate. This information comes from the wow-RPG books which are no longer cannon, and due to that, the question of whether Gladiators even exist as a class is up for debate.

Although, Syegfryed thinks that anything written on wowwiki is lore, so he's free to believe it regardless.

Everyone starts somewhere, no one walked in and decided, oh I'm a blademaster. They learned basics such as combat, martial arts, fighting styles, etc, and then become a gladiator (blademaster) after decided that they wanted to focus on weapon mastery. WoW Warriors focus on the mastery of a wide array of weapons, along with channeling basic magic powers. WoW monks delved deeper into combat styles, ultimately choosing a specific type of martial arts that fuses the power of unarmed combat with deadly & calculated weapon strikes. Paladins chose to become skilled in basic martial weapons and call upon the power of the light to infuse their weapons with holy power, and grant them supernatural abilties.

This is a good summation, and plausible. To say that Blademasters are the same thing as Warriors is misguided, there are simply far too many differences. To say they are some form of warrior, either a hybrid cross-class, or some sort of prestige class is certainly plausible.

Of course, the best argument, the one that should have been used from the beginning is fairly simple: You could say that Blademasters are an alternate, NPC-only specialization of Warrior. It would account for both their similarities and differences, and I find it funny that with all this circle-jerking, nobody has come up with that simple, effective statement. You could still argue that Blademasters have enough in common with other classes to dispute this notion, but it's impossible to substantiate entirely one way or the other.

[Syegfryed]

Then wouldn't that be an example of a Warrior/Mountain King (Muradin) teaching a Paladin (Arthas) how to fight? If that's fine, why doesn't it work in reverse.

For that matter, what exactly do Warrior trainers teach? As far as the game is concerned they don't do anything anymore, and even in the past they only taught base spells, the things you now get from leveling up, while higher level versions, talents, etc still came from outside sources. Logically speaking, this is called reaching.

i tought you are already done, whats is this now?

Muradin only teach Arthas how to use a sword, he could go foward and teach the entire thing, but Arthas goes to the Paladin side

you are taking Mechanics over the lore

in lore you already have the basic of your class, then you train skills and abilites with your trainer master, cause he is the boss, the master, thats why he trains you

Paladins teach paladins, druids teach druids, shamans teach shamans, and warrior teach warriors

Archdruids teach druids, cause they are the top of the hierarchy of druids, Far seers the top of the hierarchy of shamans, and Blademasters are the top of the hierarchy among the orc Warriors

Keep in mind that just because something is represented in game doesn't mean it's set in stone, and the reverse is also true, just because something isn't represented in the game, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Med'an is the chief example of a character that breaks all the rules, as he is a simultaneous Priest, Mage and Shaman rolled up in one. Go figure, he was trained by a Mage, who helped him learn not only magecraft, but also Shamanism, despite the fact that she isn't a Shaman.

med'an inst a priest, he is paladin, yes he break the rules, still he doeast not break the entire point of concentp about the class and the trainers, the science say every rule has his exceptions, yet, the mage help him about shamanis, but could not help him to be a master, only with the basic

There's also the case of Amal'thazad, who is a Lich Mage/Necromancer, yet also a Death Knight trainer, representing the Frost Death Knights. So that kind of debunks the in-game trainers theory.

fair point, but keep in mind unholy and frost deathknights take all the skills of the lich hero and this only work because they take the same powers, from the same ways, for the same purpose, a frost mage cant teach a frost death knight how to use their powers

even this is a fair point, Lich and death knights are not like Blademasters and warriors, i said above, Blademasters are like Archdruids and far seers, top hierarchy among their class

- - - Updated - - -

and again, im not saying blademaster are exactly the same as the playable warrior, i say many times before, they are a variations of specialized warriors among the orcs like the far seer is a orc thing only, its is not a entire different class like shadow hunters and shamans, clearly specified by the lore

[Archimtiros]

i tought you are already done, whats is this now?

I'm unpredictable, and it's a slow day.

Muradin only teach Arthas how to use a sword, he could go foward and teach the entire thing, but Arthas goes to the Paladin side

"Taught the sword" is a very broad statement, and could have a range of meanings. Generally, it's a colloquial phrase that implicately means "taught how to fight", rather than explicately meaning "taught how to use [only] a sword". In other words, it's a turn of phrase, and I wouldn't read so far into to take it as that he taught Arthas how to pick up and put away a sword, then wandered off so Uther could do the rest.

you are taking Mechanics over the lore

And you're taking mechanics as lore. Your entire argument revolves around the fact that they are labelled "Warrior Trainer", when in fact it's been proven that they don't necessarily have to be the same class to teach, both with real life examples and in-game with Amal'thazad.

med'an inst a priest, he is paladin, yes he break the rules, still he doeast not break the entire point of concentp about the class and the trainers, the science say every rule has his exceptions, yet, the mage help him about shamanis, but could not help him to be a master, only with the basic

Paladin/Priest, he still uses Divine magic and Shamanism which are far outside of the wheelhouse of the Mage who trained him. Also, "there is an exception to every rule" is a false premise, paradoxical statement. I really wouldn't use that as an argument (especially when talking about lore as fluid as WoW's). We could just as easily say that the Blademasters training Warriors were an exception to the rule, and then we wouldn't get anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

and again, im not saying blademaster are exactly the same as the playable warrior, i say many times before, they are a variations of specialized warriors among the orcs like the far seer is a orc thing only, its is not a entire different class like shadow hunters and shamans, clearly specified by the lore

No again, because that was your argument from the beginning, you've never once said there were variations (although nice try picking up my argument about specializations and using it as your own), you said specifically that Blademasters were Orc Warriors and time and again stated that they were the exact same thing.

As for Far Seers, they are not an Orc only thing, as stated by your own "source":
Though the far seers (a.k.a. farseers) were thought to be an orcish tradition, it appears that all highly accomplished shaman can become a far seer; Nobundo is referred to as a "farseer" in spite of the orcish tradition.

Now this too is open to interpretation, but even that small amount of doubt throws the entire line of reasoning into contention.

[Syegfryed]

"Taught the sword" is a very broad statement, and could have a range of meanings. Generally, it's a colloquial phrase that implicately means "taught how to fight", rather than explicately meaning "taught how to use [only] a sword". In other words, it's a turn of phrase, and I wouldn't read so far into to take it as that he taught Arthas how to pick up and put away a sword, then wandered off so Uther could do the rest.

he teach arthas how to fight and how to use a sword, nothing more, again only the basic

And you're taking mechanics as lore. Your entire argument revolves around the fact that they are labelled "Warrior Trainer", when in fact it's been proven that they don't necessarily have to be the same class to teach, both with real life examples and in-game with Amal'thazad.

its necessary to be the same class to teach efficiently, not the basic like what happens into the lore, the wow mechanics, only show the class trainners like their own class

again, the blademaster of orgrimmar, call himself a warrior, and will train another warriors

Paladin/Priest, he still uses Divine magic and Shamanism which are far outside of the wheelhouse of the Mage who trained him. Also, "there is an exception to every rule" is a false premise, paradoxical statement. I really wouldn't use that as an argument (especially when talking about lore as fluid as WoW's). We could just as easily say that the Blademasters training Warriors were an exception to the rule, and then we wouldn't get anywhere.

you could only say they are exception when the lore say so, the lore say they are a kind warriors training warriors, its a fact

- - - Updated - - -

No again, because that was your argument from the beginning, you've never once said there were variations (although nice try picking up my argument about specializations and using it as your own), you said specifically that Blademasters were Orc Warriors and time and again stated that they were the exact same thing.

they are warriors, is a fact, special, refined, unique, but still warriors, they are the elite force of orc warriors

of course they are not like the player

of course they are not exaclty the same thing, blademaster are legendary warriors, who are in a fucking high levell

again, rules no matter for npcs, they do the fuck they want, Thrall use plate, and still is a shaman, Blademaster are not like the playable warrior, but they are some kind of warrior, whether you like it or not

i know blademaster are some kind of warrior and we are another, i dont deny that, but since we get bladestorm from then, nothing imply we cant get windwalk too, thats my point
the fact is, they are warriors, not like us indeed, but warriors

its enough?

As for Far Seers, they are not an Orc only thing, as stated by your own "source":
Though the far seers (a.k.a. farseers) were thought to be an orcish tradition, it appears that all highly accomplished shaman can become a far seer; Nobundo is referred to as a "farseer" in spite of the orcish tradition.

thats again another exception, far seers are the top and most powerful among the shamans, just like archdruids are from druids and blademaster are from warriors, while archdruid is a night eff thing there is a tauren who archiev this level, and a saberon blademaster exist in WoD

- - - Updated - - -
@Actarius i understand what you want to say

i try to show my point of view with the lore facts about blademasters:



while we will never reach the Blademaster level, we only can get some of their features and skills, and my point from the beginning is, if we take bladestorm from then, we could take windwalk too without breaking the "class fantasy"

and since hunters goes to melee, i am ready for big changes lol

[Archimtiros]

he teach arthas how to fight and how to use a sword, nothing more, again only the basic

Says you, not the game.

its necessary to be the same class to teach efficiently, not the basic like what happens into the lore, the wow mechanics, only show the class trainners like their own class

Again, says you, not the game, and we already proved that other classes can teach each other.

again, the blademaster of orgrimmar, call himself a warrior, and will train another warriors

Blademasters don't call themselves Warriors, you do. This also goes back to the point that warrior =! Warrior.

you could only say they are exception when the lore say so, the lore say they are a kind warriors training warriors, its a fact

The lore doesn't say that, you're interpreting that from the game mechanics. =! fact.

[Syegfryed]

Says you, not the game.

actually not me or the game, its the arthas book

Again, says you, not the game.

not me, the game, excluding the lich, by the reasons i say before, all class trainers in the game, are their own class

you will not se mages teaching warlocks and paladins teaching warriors

Blademasters don't call themselves Warriors, you do. This also goes back to the point that warrior =! Warrior.

After the fall of the Burning Blade Clan, we blademasters swore to free ourselves and our people from demonic control.
This may be done, but my honor remains unsatisfied.
I shall fight for the Horde - and train other warriors to do so - until I die gloriosly in battle. This is the only path I may tread.
So. Are you ready to train?

again, not me, the orc lore says so

and yet even other races archive the blademaster level like saberons and mantids

The lore doesn't say that, you're interpreting that from the game mechanics. =! fact.

i can pay the same game, and say you are interpreting blademasters different form things of your own head and persperctive, this is invalid

[Archimtiros]

actually not me or the game, its the arthas book

That's not what it says. It says "taught him the sword", which is an ambiguous statement, as outlined above.

not me, the game, excluding the lich, by the reasons i say before, all class trainers in the game, are their own class

so if you can exclude the Lich, why not others? How pointedly obvious of you to decide to ignore the thing that breaks your argument.

After the fall of the Burning Blade Clan, we blademasters swore to free ourselves and our people from demonic control.
This may be done, but my honor remains unsatisfied.
I shall fight for the Horde - and train other warriors to do so - until I die gloriosly in battle. This is the only path I may tread.
So. Are you ready to train?

He will train other Warriors, that does not explicitly mean he is a Warrior. See above.

i can pay the same game, and say you are interpreting blademasters different form things of your own head and persperctive, this is invalid

I'm pointing out the flaws in your arguments. I've played both sides of the debate.

I'm not interpreting anything, that's the major difference in our arguments. You're trying to turn interpretation into fact, I'm playing devils advocate and using simple reasoning and rationalization to point out alternative explanations. There's no right or wrong here, neither of us is in a position to say with 100% certainty, because neither of us designed the game or have any say in it's lore.

If you want to live by your own headcannon, that's perfectly fine. In fact, many things about WoW and other Blizzard game worlds is left ambiguous precisely for this reason; but don't try to push it off on others as absolute fact, because it's not, and it can't be.

[Katie45]

he teach arthas how to fight and how to use a sword, nothing more, again only the basic





its necessary to be the same class to teach efficiently, not the basic like what happens into the lore, the wow mechanics, only show the class trainners like their own class

again, the blademaster of orgrimmar, call himself a warrior, and will train another warriors






you could only say they are exception when the lore say so, the lore say they are a kind warriors training warriors, its a fact

- - - Updated - - -















its enough?



thats again another exception, far seers are the top and most powerful among the shamans, just like archdruids are from druids and blademaster are from warriors, while archdruid is a night eff thing there is a tauren who archiev this level, and a saberon blademaster exist in WoD

- - - Updated - - -
@Actarius i understand what you want to say

i try to show my point of view with the lore facts about blademasters:



while we will never reach the Blademaster level, we only can get some of their features and skills, and my point from the beginning is, if we take bladestorm from then, we could take windwalk too without breaking the "class fantasy"

and since hunters goes to melee, i am ready for big changes lol

But the players are more powerful than the npcs at this point

[Syegfryed]

That's not what it says. It says "taught him the sword", which is an ambiguous statement, as outlined above.

only if you are to cetic

so if you can exclude the Lich, why not others? How pointedly obvious of you to decide to ignore the thing that breaks your argument.

thats not obvious why you could exclude the lichs? if not go back and read the comment again, why not exclude the others? cause they are not differents as lich-deathknights

you are closed to Lich-deathknight is the same blademaster-warrior relationship, when actually blademaster are like archdruids, far seers and other sub-classes

He will train other Warriors, that does not explicitly mean he is a Warrior. See above.

so by what right he would teach warriors? what proficiency? it is because he is a warrior too, its obvious, when you show me blademasters training rogues or monks then we will talk about blademaster close-related to then, and they becoming a new and exclusive class

I'm not interpreting anything, that's the major difference in our arguments. You're trying to turn interpretation into fact, I'm playing devils advocate and using simple reasoning and rationalization to point out alternative explanations. There's no right or wrong here, neither of us is in a position to say with 100% certainty, because neither of us designed the game or have any say in it's lore.

If you want to live by your own headcannon, that's perfectly fine. In fact, many things about WoW and other Blizzard game worlds is left ambiguous precisely for this reason; but don't try to push it off on others as absolute fact, because it's not, and it can't be.

you saying that i live in a headcannon? rly? you are trying to be funny right? what about all of your nonsense to relate monk and rogue with blademaster? haha

im not turn interpretation into fact, im taking facts showing then, you are taking facts and interpreting at your will

-the lore say they are special and specialized warriors
- you have a blademaster, training warriors, clearly showing they are a branch of warriors, and you try to put crazy things to argue againts like:
" they are not a blademaster, cause blademaster not use plate!" "blademaster dont use awlays the banner!" "blademaster are related to monks, so its obvious they are not warriors!" ( this one is the most fun) and others

i say again to emphasize

Blademasters>warriors
Far seer>shaman
archdruid> druid
spiritwalkers>priests
mountainking>warriors

this is a entire different thing with lich-deathknights

- - - Updated - - -

But the players are more powerful than the npcs at this point

yeah, thats why i dont see problem if we get windwalk or mirror image too

enter the spectrum of what is "class fantasy of warriors"

[Archimtiros]

only if you are to cetic

I don't even know what that means. I assume you're having trouble typing coherent words again, unless you mean http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Cetic, in which case I'm even more confused.

thats not obvious why you could exclude the lichs? if not go back and read the comment again, why not exclude the others? cause they are not differents as lich-deathknights

you are closed to Lich-deathknight is the same blademaster-warrior relationship, when actually blademaster are like archdruids, far seers and other sub-classes

See, this is what I mean about shit posting. Try formulating complete sentences, because you're nonsensical and I don't care to try to decipher what you mean.

you saying that i live in a headcannon? rly? you are trying to be funny right? what about all of your nonsense to relate monk and rogue with blademaster? haha

Everyone "lives by headcannon" when there isn't concrete proof. It's kind of the cornerstone of these games.

i say again to emphasize

Blademasters>warriors
Far seer>shaman
archdruid> druid
spiritwalkers>priests
mountainking>warriors

this is a entire different thing with lich-deathknights

You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true.

And I'll say again, Necromancers and Engineers aren't Mages or Warlocks, they exist outside of the player class paradigm, therefore it's reasonable to assume that other classes do as well. Whats wrong with things remaining unique?

Spiritwalkers aren't priests, atleast not traditional ones. They are very similar to Druidism and Shamanism, except revering ancestors rather than nature/elements. At best you would classify them similarly to Witch Doctors, which are also similar to Priests, but not the same class, due to utlizing an entirely different form of magic.

[Katie45]

Well one monk have windwalk and two, warriors embody more than just blademaster, they are knights, sentinels, grunts and so on. Mirror image is part of the mage fantasy for the game much longer now too.

[Syegfryed]

You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true.
.

you can deny as many times you want, that doesn't' make it true

its a fact, you can interprete as you wish

you are so boring, instead o shitposting and run around with headcanon nonsense go read some wow lore and i will put more coherent words on my vocabulary

deal?

[Archimtiros]

you can deny as many times you want, that doesn't' make it true

Great argument...

you are so boring, instead o shitposting and run around with headcanon nonsense go read some wow lore and i will put more coherent words on my vocabulary

I guess if your idea of "lore" is making thin connections based entirely upon conjecture, sure. Do you even understand what "headcannon" means? It's not an insult.

And you still haven't explained what the heck

only if you are to cetic

meant.

[Syegfryed]

Well one monk have windwalk and two, warriors embody more than just blademaster, they are knights, sentinels, grunts and so on. Mirror image is part of the mage fantasy for the game much longer now too.

windwalk from blademaster is a totally different thing from the monk windwalk

and sure mirror image is a part of mage, like demonic transformation was a warlock thing, and they move to demon hunters

they can change if they want, only saying if they rly want put windwalk or mirror image, there is no problem at all

- - - Updated - - -

Great argument...

just being like you buddy

You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true.

i will not say the same thing over and over again, just because you like ignore half of the things

again you are boring, deny most of the things said, and drop nonsenses to make your arguments valid, just like the monks and rogue thing

[Archimtiros]

just being like you buddy


i will not say the same thing over and over again, just because you like ignore half of the things

again you are boring, deny most of the things said, and drop nonsenses to make your arguments valid, just like the monks and rogue thing

You're just being childish now. Debates aren't about right and wrong, nor is it for you to say what is right or wrong, because you don't write the lore, nor do you you don't work on or design the game.

This is where my point about headcannon comes in: It's up to every person to come up with their own reconciliation of the information provided. It isn't a bad thing to disagree, and it's good fun to debate about it, but neither party is necessarily right or wrong, because it's impossible to prove one side or the other with absolute certainty. I've given you plenty of opportunity to make your case and explain your reasoning, and I've pointed out flaws in your argument just as you've tried to do the same with mine, there's no reason to be churlish.

[Syegfryed]

the only "flaw" in this entire discussion is the lich and death knight thing, and i already say they are not the same as the others, there is no debate when you put half of the things said aside, and try to atack some "flaws" with no canonical things and assumptions

"med'an learn shamanism with a mage" or arthas receiving warrior teaching from a mountainking ( another warrior) are exceptions who will not breaks the concept of: class trainers are they own class, and almost all the things said about the blademaster like they dont use plates will not break the concept they are warriors

this will be in forever since we are not changing our point view, and will not be more productive, this is getting tiresome, even to other people who come to the topic

I will continue saying Blademaster with the mountainking are a type of warrior, unlike the playable one, but still warrriors, by lore and game reasons , and since we get some skills of then, I would like to see windwalk too, and if by blizzard gods they decide to put this to warriors, I say this will not break the class fantas

[Archimtiros]

Seems it's always an exception when it doesn't support your point of view. That's ok, I'll let it go.

As I said before, you're perfectly welcome to believe your own personal headcannon, that's why many things are purposefully left ambiguous in the game; to allow you to fill in the gaps with your own imagination. I attempted to give a different point of view, you don't have any interest in hearing it, so you're free to continue on with your own beliefs.