Possible future hero classes.

[Teriz]

I'll repeat the question: are you being this obtuse on purpose?

So you're going to purposely ignore the definition of "song"?

Yet that is what you heavily imply in your previous post.

I'm just pointing out what I see in the game.

That is simply a gameplay distinction that does not exist in the lore.

Actually it would, since classes are heroes of the game, and professions are menial hobbies that the hero can possibly undertake. It would make sense that a grenade wielded by a hero would be superior to a grenade wielded by a profession chump.

Well, that's nothing but headcanon. I hope you are aware of that. Funny how once again your hypocrisy and double-standards show, as you criticize anyone who use 'headcanons', but have no problem affirming your own headcanons as fact.

It's a valid comparison, since the Hunter grenade IS vastly superior to the engineering grenade, just like Gazlowe's shredder is vastly superior to the Sky Golem.

"Clearly"? It's as "clear" as charcoal. Just because it has 'hymn' in the name doesn't immediately mean that it was made from Priest spells!

Except the fact that its effect is literally the combination of both Priest hymn spells at that time, has the same animation, and is also a hymn.

Show me it's an actual song, that it's actually music-based, and not just a name for the spell. Because it's not uncommon, in WoW, to have spells that don't do exactly what the name implies.

Prove to you that a spell called "Song of Chi-Ji" is actually a song? That would be quite a waste of time when the proof is in the title itself, and the fact that Chi-ji's concept has song within it.

Luckily we don't want a bard class based on the Mantid. And again, the Mantid were just used to show that song- and music-based spells are not something alien to WoW.

The point is that in almost every occasion we have a NPC with song abilities, they also have shout abilities. That indicates that shout spells are part of the bard concept in WoW. Thus, all of those Warrior shout abilities should also be considered "Bard" abilities.

WoW is not "other games", and the DnD bard is not the quintessential bard concept. The DnD Bard having 'word' spells is completely irrelevant.

Then by all means, provide an example of a Bard in WoW that has an ability set that doesn't resemble existing classes. in the absence of that, we have to use concepts from other games like the DnD concept.

Demon Hunters say 'hello'. Broke tradition by having only two specs. Broke tradition by "taking a major ability from an existing class". Not sure if you're noticed, Teriz, but Blizzard "deviates from tradition" nearly all the time.

Yes, and both of those actions were done to maintain the tradition of having heavy ties to the WC3 incarnation of the Demon Hunter.

Death Knights say 'hello'... with their warrior and warlock abilities...

Except I said "Warcraft", not "WoW". Keep in mind that even though we had DKs with Warrior and Warlock abilities in Naxx, we still had the WC3 incarnation of Death Knights to pull from. When DKs entered WoW as a class, they were loaded with WC3 abilities as typical of every WoW class before it.

WC3 is still "Warcraft".

With this, I'm done entertaining your dishonesty. If you seriously cannot differentiate song and music from one-word spells and raging shouts, I'm surprised you still have the IQ to be able to type. In this thread, so far, you've shown nothing but dishonesty, double-standards, hypocrisy and bait-and-switch tactics.

Where did I ever say that Songs and shouts were the same? I said that Shouts are part of the Bard trope, and are considered "Bard" abilities in many games, including apparently WoW.

In WoW, Forresten an NPC that have been propped up in this thread as being an example of a "Bard in WoW" have Shout abilities along with singing abilities.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm simply pointing out the facts.

[Rhamses]

Just because it's slightly different doesn't mean it should restrict access. Forsaken are priests because of shadow spec, despite the lore saying they can't use Holy Magic. We didnt lock them outta two specs

I wouldn't say that Draenei tech is slightly different. Whereas Gnome and Goblin stuff tend to be steampunk, Draenei tech tends to be extremely sci-fi. The Exodar for example is a trans-dimensional spaceship!

[Directionalk9]

I wouldn't say that Draenei tech is slightly different. Whereas Gnome and Goblin stuff tend to be steampunk, Draenei tech tends to be extremely sci-fi. The Exodar for example is a trans-dimensional spaceship!

Dropping Draenei and Blood Elves, orcs and dwarves utilize the same tech as goblins and gnome what would be the reason for dropping them?

[Rhamses]

Dropping Draenei and Blood Elves, orcs and dwarves utilize the same tech as goblins and gnome what would be the reason for dropping them?

No real reason honestly. I'd prefer the class to be Gnome and Goblin only, but that's personal preference. The expansion leak states that the possible Tinker class is Gnome and Goblin only, and I prefer to believe that.

[Directionalk9]

No real reason honestly. I'd prefer the class to be Gnome and Goblin only, but that's personal preference. The expansion leak states that the possible Tinker class is Gnome and Goblin only, and I prefer to believe that.

Ina funny twist I thought of the Tinker as a goblin and gnome only class for a long time too, but continuing to think about it and coming here to see what the player base thought of it and I'm now firmly at the conclusion that that if a Tinker were to become a class it'd be those six races.

Definitely not trying to be rude or condescending, but that leak is fan-wank, not shit, but not at all possible. New race race and hero class, Broke it real bad. No classes back to back is like the only thing I'm convinced Blizzard has a rule about, and no way they introduce a class that can't also be the played by the new race they are giving.

[Ielenia]

Yes, you are being this obtuse on purpose.

Actually it would, since classes are heroes of the game, and professions are menial hobbies that the hero can possibly undertake. It would make sense that a grenade wielded by a hero would be superior to a grenade wielded by a profession chump.

It's a valid comparison, since the Hunter grenade IS vastly superior to the engineering grenade, just like Gazlowe's shredder is vastly superior to the Sky Golem.

Nice headcanons. Pity it's supported by nothing in the lore. And therefore by your own rules they're invalid.

Except the fact that its effect is literally the combination of both Priest hymn spells at that time, has the same animation, and is also a hymn.

So is the druid's regrowth spell a combination of the Priest's Heal and Renew spells at the same time? As for "same animation", one is standard casting animation, the other is actually using a musical instrument. And it's not the priest the one holding a musical instrument.

Prove to you that a spell called "Song of Chi-Ji" is actually a song? That would be quite a waste of time when the proof is in the title itself, and the fact that Chi-ji's concept has song within it.

I've already explained why, but you chose to ignore them: several abilities in WoW do not reflect the exact meaning their name implies. For example: the 'Sky Golem' is not a golem made of air. 'Dragonsfire Grenade' is not actual dragon fire. 'Purgatory' does not put you in Purgatory or anything. In short: names do not always reflect the functionality of the ability.

The point is that in almost every occasion we have a NPC with song abilities, they also have shout abilities. That indicates that shout spells are part of the bard concept in WoW. Thus, all of those Warrior shout abilities should also be considered "Bard" abilities.

No, it shouldn't. Only one factual bard has a shout alongside songs, and it was already explained why. More than once, in fact.

Then by all means, provide an example of a Bard in WoW that has an ability set that doesn't resemble existing classes. in the absence of that, we have to use concepts from other games like the DnD concept.

You're making it a dichotomy that doesn't exist: "We must use an existing Warcraft concept, otherwise we must use a DnD concept" and that is a "rule" that you have no way to prove it's real. The class can easily be pulled simply from the general Bard fantasy trope concept, and it has been demonstrated numerous times in this thread alone.

Where did I ever say that Songs and shouts were the same?

When you keep conflating them together in the same "group".

I said that Shouts are part of the Bard trope,

And you're wrong.

and are considered "Bard" abilities in many games, including apparently WoW.

Wrong.

In WoW, Forresten an NPC that have been propped up in this thread as being an example of a "Bard in WoW" have Shout abilities along with singing abilities.

Remove the dishonesty glasses, Teriz. It has been explained several times why he has a 'shout' ability.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm simply ignoring the facts.

Fixed that for you.

Goodbye.

[Teriz]

Nice headcanons. Pity it's supported by nothing in the lore.

It isn't lore based, its gameplay-based. Heroes (players) participating in professions isn't lore-based.

So is the druid's regrowth spell a combination of the Priest's Heal and Renew spells at the same time? As for "same animation", one is standard casting animation, the other is actually using a musical instrument. And it's not the priest the one holding a musical instrument.

No, because Druid is an actual class in WoW. A Bard is not.

Both spells have musical notes swirling around the caster:

I've already explained why, but you chose to ignore them...

I chose to ignore the silly nonsense that a song spell isn't a song spell simply because it proves you wrong.

No, it shouldn't. Only one factual bard has a shout alongside songs, and it was already explained why. More than once, in fact.

Which was an excuse instead of a simple admittance that Shout is a bard ability.


[quote]You're making it a dichotomy that doesn't exist: "We must use an existing Warcraft concept, otherwise we must use a DnD concept" and that is a "rule" that you have no way to prove it's real. The class can easily be pulled simply from the general Bard fantasy trope concept, and it has been demonstrated numerous times in this thread alone.[/quote

If we're talking about a potential WoW class, then yes we must use an existing WC concept. In the absence of that, DnD is a potential source. A class concept cannot be "easily pulled" from borrowed abilities within existing classes.

When you keep conflating them together in the same "group".

Given Hearthsinger's abilities and the abilities from DnD Bards, it would appear that I'm not the only one conflating them....

Wrong.

And yet Hearthsinger Forresten has a Shout ability....

Remove the dishonesty glasses, Teriz. It has been explained several times why he has a 'shout' ability.

And it was a nonsensical explanation that simply doesn't hold water. Why? Because when Blizzard decided to give music and sound abilities to Mantid in Mists of Pandaria, they also attached Shout abilities to those NPCs.


As I said; every WoW class has ties to WC3 and is loaded with abilities from that game throughout their existence.

The Bard has no such history in WC. It would make a fine profession or a sub-theme for an existing class, but as a stand-alone class, it simply doesn't work.

[Ielenia]

If we're talking about a potential WoW class, then yes we must use an existing WC concept.

I'm still waiting for a Blizzard quote on that. Until then, it's just meaningless hypothesis.

As I said; every WoW class has ties to WC3 and is loaded with abilities from that game throughout their existence.

That may be true if you're talking about current existing classes. But if you're saying it's a rule for future classes, then no, it cannot be asserted as true. And as far as we know, you have a very poor track record asserting Blizzard rules. Remember your "next class must be mail wearer to even out the armor types" rule, before DHs were announced, for example?

The Bard has no such history in WC.

See the first reply in this post.

[Thimagryn]

Dropping Draenei and Blood Elves, orcs and dwarves utilize the same tech as goblins and gnome what would be the reason for dropping them?

Wouldn't be dropping them as much as not adopting them to adhere to one particular Tinker fantasy, in this case one that is exclusive to Gnomes and Goblins rather than the broad 'anyone can use this tech!' fantasy of the Engineering profession.

[Directionalk9]

Wouldn't be dropping them as much as not adopting them to adhere to one particular Tinker fantasy, in this case one that is exclusive to Gnomes and Goblins rather than the broad 'anyone can use this tech!' fantasy of the Engineering profession.

Tomayto tomahto on the use of the word "Dropping," neither of us want to go down the rabbit-hole of limited races = lower appeal...I guess I kinda do. I get the argument for Goblin/Gnome only. But hypothetically the class is introduced, and people that want to play the class but not those races are fucked and it's going to be really easy for that sub-sect of the player base to go "but this over here" and then its the class version of playable High Elves debate.

I promise this will be my last opinion on restricting the race options. But if there were other options and you are set on Goblin/Gnome, all you have to do is not play the other races, and create it as a Goblin/Gnome.

Also how would Pocket Factory work within the WoW combat system?

[Teriz]

I'm still waiting for a Blizzard quote on that. Until then, it's just meaningless hypothesis.

Do you honestly believe that Blizzard would bring in a class with absolutely no ties to Warcraft?

Tell me, what kind of expansion would a Bard fit into?

That may be true if you're talking about current existing classes. But if you're saying it's a rule for future classes, then no, it cannot be asserted as true.

See the first response. Ties to the Warcraft universe are essential. This is especially true for expansion classes since Blizzard has stated in the past that new classes should fit the overall theme of the expansions they're released in. I have yet to see a WoW expansion not tied to Warcraft history in one form or another.

[Darktbs]

Do you honestly believe that Blizzard would bring in a class with absolutely no ties to Warcraft?

Tell me, what kind of expansion would a Bard fit into?

They pulled a whole expansion with, continent, Sha, countless new races, a class, histories and so much more because Chen simply said he was a "Brewmaster of Pandaria"

If they can pull that much from a single line and character they can do that again.

[Toroc]

What about something with Dragons? Not necessarily Aspect level but there are plenty of them. I don't know much about lore but I've always wondered.

[Darktbs]

Also how would Pocket Factory work within the WoW combat system?

Well they can make like the Shadow Priests...uh....shadows?Voidforms? that floats to the character when they are under the Pain Word.

or the Unholy Dk pvp talent, when Virulent plague expires its summons a bunch of slimes that slow the enemy when killed.

Not saying they should do exactly like those, but the same idea.Just particles that will deal damage when reach the destiny or a bunch of low hp npcs that will blow up when destroyed.

[Ielenia]

Do you honestly believe that Blizzard would bring in a class with absolutely no ties to Warcraft?

I do. I mean, I have yet to see a good reason not to.

Tell me, what kind of expansion would a Bard fit into?

Blizzard "pulled" an entire continent, the mantid, the jinyu, the hozen, the mogu, the pandaren, the Sha, the monk class, and everything else in the Mists of Pandaria out of a single WC3 unit.

Do you honestly think Blizzard is incapable of pulling a class from a common, well-established fantasy trope like the Bard?

[Directionalk9]

What about something with Dragons? Not necessarily Aspect level but there are plenty of them. I don't know much about lore but I've always wondered.

I think the Dragon Aspects could be a great replacement for the current artifact system. I am just assuming based on nothing that we will be some how not using artifacts post Legion, but the system will move forwards, altered and changed most likely. Just like how Garrison and order halls are the same system but different.

[Darktbs]

What about something with Dragons? Not necessarily Aspect level but there are plenty of them. I don't know much about lore but I've always wondered.

Im not agaisn't the Dragon concept(neither a huge fan).However a Dragon Class which is not based around the aspects is more, believable.

With that said, i have some issues.

-Which Faction they should be?If neutral how one would justify the fight between them.
-How would they play?
-A Half Dragon or a full scale dragon?
-Would they take the aspects powers?
-Weapons or spells?
-What elements can be explored to make specs?

[Nurvus]

I think the only class worth adding is Necromancer.
From there, Blizzard can start making racials being less generic and more class-specific, such as a Tauren Warrior actually using his horns/hooves, etc.
From there, we can start seeing Hero Specs, such as Wardens for Night Elf Warriors/Rogues, Blademasters for Orc Warriors/Rogues, Shadow Hunters for Troll Hunters/Shamans, and so on.

Whole new classes, however, only Necromancer.

[Teriz]

They pulled a whole expansion with, continent, Sha, countless new races, a class, histories and so much more because Chen simply said he was a "Brewmaster of Pandaria"

If they can pull that much from a single line and character they can do that again.

Well actually, this is what they pulled it from:

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml
http://wow.gamepedia.com/History_of_...en_in_Warcraft

The concept of the Pandaren and Pandaria certainly didn't come from nowhere. Before MoP, it had over a decade of history in the Warcraft universe. Mostly rooted in WC3, but also scattered in WoW lore.

With the Bard, we got nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard "pulled" an entire continent, the mantid, the jinyu, the hozen, the mogu, the pandaren, the Sha, the monk class, and everything else in the Mists of Pandaria out of a single WC3 unit.

Do you honestly think Blizzard is incapable of pulling a class from a common, well-established fantasy trope like the Bard?

Yes, because they designed WoW (from lore to the trinity system) to work against well-established Bard tropes.

[Ielenia]

Yes, because they designed WoW (from lore to the trinity system) to work against well-established Bard tropes.

And this is a shining example of what arrogant, spoiled children say when arguing in a discussion. Not to mention asserting as facts stupid things they have no way to even show evidence for.

"Blizzard designed WoW to work against Bard fantasy tropes"... implying Blizzard developers, when developing WoW in the early 2000's, were discussing among themselves: "Any ideas how to design a fantasy MMO game that makes the introduction of a Bard player class impossible?"... Stupidity of this level is so sig-worthy...