The Bard will be the next class in WoW. Here's why...

[Thimagryn]

For the fourth time in the past two pages, the only reason I'm mentioning the Warglaives is because THEY'RE THE ONLY WEAPON TYPE THAT MAKES SENSE TO SPIN WITH. Do you honestly think someone would be caught dead spinning with a fist weapon? As if fist weapons weren't hard enough to find use for, spinning with them just makes them even more worthless. You'd be opening both your front AND back for no reason whatsoever.

You do understand that the Demon Hunters fight with demonic grace. They're not exactly human, and they technically move in a way that is not capable by any other class. That's why Evasion is one of their traits, they're very quick and agile. So yes, if they were given unique animations that attacked like a Demon Hunter, or even quick strikes like the Diablo 3 Monk to show his ability to dodge attacks, then it would be a visual indication that you're playing a new class and not just a Rogue or Warrior.

Or Blizzard could opt not to do that at all and let them use the same weapon animations and focus distinct visual traits elsewhere, such as through class-specific Transmogs or the new 'Relic' items they're bringing back. Warglaive could be their 'Relic' item while they holster their regular weapons when attacking.

It not existing, as I've said, is because there is only one weapon set that makes sense to spin with, and Warriors, Rogues, Monks, and Death Knights can all wield them. They were made too early in the games lifecycle for them to think about extra animations - As proven by Death Knights getting no unique animations of their own not long after. Everyone CAN do it. It's not a unique fighting style. Therefore, making Demon Hunters spin and calling it 'unique' is a useless way of trying to differentiate them from other classes which, in truth, accomplishes nothing.

You're not making a strong point at all. Your original point is that Demon Hunters have nothing distinct. When given a plausible means to be distinct, your reasoning is it can't happen because it's too much work to make it distinct. It's clear that you're not looking for answers, you've already made up the conclusion in your mind and are unwilling to see any other options.

So what I will say is you're free to believe the Demon Hunter offers nothing unique. I'm fine with that. But it's not evidence against a Demon Hunter becoming its own class. Even if you're right, it would not be a mark against a possible Demon Hunter class. It would simply be an unused feature, like when Monks had no auto-attacks.

[Redvenom]

I think this would be pretty awesome but I don't think its going to happen

[Ielenia]

You're gonna have to explain that. Night Elves can't be Warlocks; They haven't been making Demon Hunters get along with Warlocks at all, let alone before Arthas was Lich King.

Night elves can be Demon Hunters.

Warlocks aren't undead. And you'll notice all Warlock hubs are nowhere near Draenei hubs.

I also notice the Mages' hub is greatly separated from the rest of Azeroth (i.e. floating around). Does that make mages as disliked as Warlocks?

I know of only one Forsaken in the Argent Crusade. And he's renounced all allegiance to the Forsaken, if I recall correctly. So again, explain.

It's and undead working alongside a living being who's all about the Light. Not about a Horde and Alliance working together. You're starting to confuse your arguments.

[Thimagryn]

Altruis self-exiled himself and avoids major cities because he is a Demon Hunter. Even he knows that his people are evil at heart.

1: "Although they are counted as some of the mightiest warriors within the Night Elves' society, the Demon Hunters are always maligned and misunderstood for making their selfless pact with darkness." - Official Warcraft 3 description

2: Altruis is derived from the word altruism, meaning selflessness or the principle/practice of concern for the welfare of others

There's actually no lore telling us Altruis is evil. The Illidari are evil and are cast as villains. Altruis on the other hand is a quest-giver unassociated to the Illidari; else it would have been stated and we would have been able to kill him.

[Ielenia]

Or they hunted them with the intend to ask for their help, and had to hunt them because Demon Hunters are in hiding? And if they refused to provide it, seeing as Demon Hunters are seen as greedy bastards, they would torture them? Because they're Warlocks and that's what Warlocks do?

No, you said 'hunt'. Not only that, but also mentioned them being 'cornered'. There is no 'good' conotation for those words. They were hunting the DH like a predator hunts a prey. And they are seen as protectors, even though they go through it in an 'anti-hero' way. The only reason Illidan was locked behind bars was because he betrayed the Night Elves.

You cannot prove the only reason they thought about killing him was because he was a Night Elf. They clearly could tell he was a Demon Hunter, so that could have helped feed into their want to kill him.

Actually, no. I can prove it. He calls the guy a 'Night Elf'. Not a Demon Hunter, but a Night Elf. On top of that, he also adds: "didn't seem to be Alliance scum", which means that, since the NE was not Alliance, it means the Horde NPC didn't need to kill him.

Altruis self-exiled himself and avoids major cities because he is a Demon Hunter. Even he knows that his people are evil at heart.

Again: not understanding =/= kill on sight.

You tell me of MY inability to read, yet in my post it QUITE CLEARLY STATES:
Not once did I ever say someone from the Horde or Alliance killed him.

Yet you imply the only reason they care about him is because he knows the true name of a demon. If Loramus was of any other class, even a simple squire, if he knew the true name of that demon, you bet we'd be doing the same thing to resurrect him. And if he didn't know the name of the demon, it wouldn't matter if he was a great, famous general of the Alliance or a healthy noble: he would not be resurrected.

[Ielenia]

And how does that prove they're making pacts with Warlocks? Especially considering Night Elf Demon Hunters are not anywhere near Night Elf cities.

They're not making any pacts with warlocks. You're the only one who claim they are.

You're making absolutely no sense at this point. Dalaran was moved to Northrend to assist with assaulting Icecrown, and to deal with Malygos. Every major city has a mage hub.

And yet, before that, Dalaran was closed to the Outside world thanks to a mighty magic pink barrier, remember? And as for 'no DH hubs in major cities', of course there is no DH hubs in cities, because there are no DH player classes around. Just like there were no Monk hubs in the cities prior to MoP.

I'm not at all. Leonid Bartholomew renounced all ties to the Forsaken and serves the Argent Crusade as a warrior.

Renouncing the Horde and the Forsaken does not making him stop being an unliving abomination to the Light. He is still an undead.

[Thimagryn]

While an interesting idea, it also just doesn't make sense to have a weapon type as your relic. Why carry two sets of weapons if you're always going to only use one?

You mean the same reason why Monks and every Spellcaster puts away their weapons to attack? You realize that no caster uses their weapons in any animation. They channel with their hands with a staff on their back or tomes at their side. It's called suspension of disbelief if you find carrying weapons that aren't being used to be a hindrance to immersion.

Not once did I say it was too much work to make it distinct. I said it was too much work to make that one set of Warglaives have unique animations.

You keep saying that, and I keep telling you I never suggested Warglaives get unique animations. You're always attacking the strawman.

I said it was not a unique fighting style, which remains true, because anyone could spin with any weapon if Blizzard would make the animations. Them NOT making them is not proof that they can't do it. As proven by Whirlwind, and the fact that every class can be a Warrior.

I said the Demon Hunters have a unique fighting style, which IS true since it's reflected in Warcraft 3's animations. No other Hero in that game fights like a Demon Hunter, mainly because they don't wield the same exotic weaponry. The way a DH attacks isn't the same as a Blademaster's bladestorm. If you take a look at the Demon Hunter identity as we know it, then you can extrapolate a unique fighting style out of it, one that isn't shared by other martial fighting classes. Aside from Monks and Blademasters, the DH is the only known class to use an exotic fighting style.

It is evidence against your supposed proof that Demon Hunters have a unique fighting style, however. And without a unique fighting style, they remain as the class that is too similar to Rogues and Warlocks to be implemented. Any questions?

Absence is not evidence. Evidence is evidence.



This is proof that a Demon Hunter can have a unique fighting style. I don't really understand what else you need to see proof. Do you need a Blizzard designer to respond with an official quote? Or maybe I need a master Martial Artist to analyze these animations and tell you they are different from what's already in game?

What, in your mind, is the criteria required for any class to have a unique fighting style; and why is it important to be its own class? Last I checked, a Death Knight fought the exact same as a Warrior and Paladin.

If you're looking for unique DH traits and themes, then I will fall back on my previous examples of Vengeance and Anti-magic. Along with a stronger Demonic theme provided by a Legion expansion, these traits could be enough to build a new class up from scratch. The Monk was pretty much based on a Panda unit with 4 abilities (of which it only used 3) and the rest was made up and tied to Pandaria. If we're fighting the Legion on different worlds, then why couldn't we have a Demon Hunter class that hails from a dead, ravaged world?

Thematically, the Warlock expands itself with more spells and more types of Demons to summon. Demon Hunters can channel Fel energy, but Spectral Sight lets them manipulate all types of magic, letting them deflect/absorb or control magic. In this example, the DH only channels Fel magic to power themselves in combat, and would not have the same 'Demon' association that everyone believes would overlap with Warlocks. They would be introduced the way Death Knights were, championed in their environment then joining the Horde/Alliance to fight the big bad.

Two classes with Demon Forms would be no different than two classes having Summon Elemental. The methods and results differ greatly, especially if the list of 'Demons' is expanded in that particular expansion.

[Ielenia]

There doesn't NEED to be a good conotation. You read it wrong; You can hunt without the intent to kill, you can corner your hunted target without killing it. They are still prey, you just don't have any intention of killing them. Hell, if they cooperated they wouldn't need to get hurt at all.

And don't forget 'suffering for eternity', that part is kind of important.

And then he was banished from the forests for absorbing the Skull of Gul'dan, and killed in Outland for trying to invade Azeroth... That's not 'anti-hero', that's 'evil.'

Yes. He was banished from the forests, is corrupted by the fel magic of the Skull of Gul'Dan, and wants revenge on Azeroth for banishing him.

Doesn't say "We only didn't kill him because he doesn't appear to be with the Alliance."

Actually, it says exactly that.

Still no Demon Hunters anywhere near civilization, which highly hints that they're not exactly welcome anywhere nearby. Whilst Warlocks are allocated areas in every major city that trains them.

Just as unwelcome as the Death Knights were, at the beginning. Remember? Getting into Orgrimmar and Stormwind for the first time and being peppered with rotten fruit and insults?

... That was my point, you dunce.

Which means your point was irrelevant, because the fact he is a Demon Hunter plays no part on the quest at all. And the Alliance NPC never speaks with distaste toward the Demon Hunter.

- - - Updated - - -

And? I'm failing to see the point you're trying to make. I don't think you have one at this point.

My point is: when Demon Hunters get introduced, we will see a Demon Hunter hub on the main cities. Or they'll get a 'teleport' ability to take them to their own hub, like the Death Knights. We didn't have Worgen hubs in Darnassus or Goblin hubs in Azshara before Cataclysm. We had no Draenei hubs around Azeroth before TBC, and so on and so forth.

It does, however, make him their ally. And, being one who serves the Argent Crusade (Of which serves the Light), killing one who is willing to serve is not considered a good deed.

Right. So a forsaken is an undead abomination if they don't belong in the Argent Crusade, but a loved comrade to share stories with at campfire if they are part of the Argent Crusade? Fact is: worshipers of The Light and undead Forsaken can work together with no issue, which nullifies your argument about binaries not being able to work together.

[Ielenia]

If they don't cooperate. An even more important part.

In other words, the warlocks are not really giving him a choice, right?

And he's the only Demon Hunter which everyone knows about. And they know him as "The Demon Hunter who went insane and invaded Azeroth," not "The Demon Hunter who sought revenge because he was wronged." Which, even that is up for debate.

That is until World of Warcraft came out and more Demon Hunters were introduced.

It says they didn't kill him, and he didn't appear to be Alliance. It does not say "We didn't kill him BECAUSE he didn't appear to be Alliance."

YES! It says exactly that!! He was not killed because he is not Alliance!! And on top of that, he goes on to say: "and anybody who kills demons is useful to me"
It means they had no issues with him being a Demon Hunter.

Of course I remember. I also remember that Death Knights were kill on sight before that point.

That is because the Death Knights, until that point, were part of the Lich King's Scourge, therefore their goal was to extinguish all life on Azeroth. Quite different from the Demon Hunter's goal of getting Azeroth rid of demons, isn't it?

And IF they don't, we won't. I'm still failing to see your point.

Which is why we see no bard hubs, no dragoon hubs, no runemaster hubs, etc.

It doesn't, actually. It's an exception, not a rule. Similar to how Sir Zeliek in Naxx doesn't pave the way forward for Undead Paladins, Leonid Bartholomew doesn't suddenly make Draenei and Undead get along. Leonid is a special case.

Draenei still consider undead to be an abomination. Draenei in the Argent Crusade might still consider Leonid an abomination for that matter. They just don't kill him because he is an ally of their ally.

Which still prove they can work together without much issue. Draenei and their former mortal enemies Blood Elves can work together too, btw.

[Teriz]

It's pretty hypocritical to say Assassination and Martial Arts are not the same thing, then turn around and say Warlocks and DH are the same even though the only relation is that a Warlock can equip 1H (Spell)swords. They don't have a fighting style at all, whereas the DH is martially trained for combat. That itself is a big gap in class identity.

Which is like saying that Enhancement Shaman aren't really Shaman because Elemental and Resto are spell-casters, and Enhancement has a "fighting style", and is "martially trained for combat".

- - - Updated - - -

Yet what I said is something that makes the monks very, very similar to rogues in terms of game mechanics.

No they aren't. Their only similarity is that both use energy. Your argument is like saying that Priests, Mages, Shaman, and Warlocks are very, very similar to each other because they all use mana and are spellcasters.

Even their 'chi' system can be compared to the rogue's 'combo points' system, in a way. Yet, by using the idea of martial arts, made the monks very different from the rogues. Which means it's not that big of an issue for Blizzard to make Demon Hunters different from Warlocks or from any other class in the game.

Nonsense. Demon Hunters revolve around the same themes that Warlocks do. There's no way you can make Demon Hunters very different from Warlocks unless you completely change what a DH is. If you need to do that, you might as well not even bother, because the appeal of the DH concept is exactly the thing that makes it almost impossible to implement.

[Thimagryn]

... You don't hit people with staves when casting a spell. That's just common sense.

Wouldn't it common sense to use the staff to channel spells, like a proper Wizard? Instead of putting it on your back and leaving it?

Monks hit people with fists because that's their unique idea; They use Martial Arts.

So how is that common sense to carry weapons that they aren't going to use?

You don't carry daggers, then hit people with Glaives. That'd just be silly.

Yes, as silly as carrying any weapons and not using them. Being hypocritical does not mean you have a fair point.

I'm going to explain this one slowly, because I'm REALLY getting tired of repeating myself: *snip*

Again, what we're talking about is a NEW class. You can't use current knowledge and definitions to extrapolate the potential for what could be. If we were doing that, then the idea that Monks get their own animations would have never happened because, as you said with current knowledge in mind, 'Animations are set in stone'.

To say that Monks getting unique animations 'makes sense' is absolutely speaking in retrospect. You are opposed to the Demon Hunter getting new animations because you see no reason to, even though we are shown that they have a distinct fighting style that has not since been replicated for WoW. The potential is there, whether it is used or not. It's much more to go on than having based Martial Arts on the Brewmaster hero.

To use a different example, it would be if you asked what made a Bard unique, and I said they could use Instruments and have unique strumming animations. Your argument there forth would shift to say other classes could simply get instruments and strumming animations, and the Bard would no longer be unique. Do you see how it's out of context with the implementation of a Bard class? The idea of new animations is only supplementary to a NEW class. The example does not work outside the context of that, and no one is asking for Instruments or Strumming animations to be given to existing classes.

[Ielenia]

No they aren't. Their only similarity is that both use energy. Your argument is like saying that Priests, Mages, Shaman, and Warlocks are very, very similar to each other because they all use mana and are spellcasters.

Not just energy. But a secondary resource similar to combo points, dual-wielding, agile and nimble, leather-wearers, make them similar to rogues.

[Florena]

If blizz can contrive a reason for dks to be accepted into the horde and Alliance they could certainly do so for demon hunters. Just make a DH starting zone where they resolve a crisis and ends with them getting the favor of a notable npc who gives them a letter of recommendation like Tirion did for the dks and BAM them not being liked is not a problem.

[Ielenia]

Depends how closely the Demon Hunters wish to guard their secrets.

In other words, acquiring power means more than the lives of others. Quite the evil thing, right?

No one has heard of these Demon Hunters. And no one had heard of Illidan either, (Except some Night Elves) until Burning Crusade.

I was not aware that Azshara and Blasted Lands were introduced AFTER TBC launched. My bad.

"Normally, I'd have slain the Night Elf on sight, but I didn't because he didn't appear to be Alliance."
Do you see the difference in these sentences yet?

No! Because there is none! He wasn't killed because he's not Alliance! You can only be trolling if you keep insisting in this line of "reasoning".

I can see you've given up on this point, if there was ever one to begin with.

I haven't. Hubs do not exist because there aren't player-controlled Demon Hunters.

[Teriz]

Not just energy. But a secondary resource similar to combo points,

Its not similar to combo points. CPs determine the strength of a finishing move. Chi allows you to use certain abilities, but having more Chi doesn't increase the power of the ability. For example, if you use all 5 combo points for Rupture it increases the duration and damage of the DoT. If you have full Chi and use Black Out Kick, it always costs 2 Chi, and always does the same amount of damage.

dual-wielding, agile and nimble, leather-wearers, make them similar to rogues.

Monks can also use 2H weapons. Monks don't use daggers while those are the main weapons of Rogues. Mistweavers are INT-Based, not agility based. Druids also wear leather, and they aren't "very, very similar" to Rogues (Feral Druids being the exception).

[Thimagryn]

And won't be. Because it's not unique. It's just using Warglaives the way they're supposed to be used. If they make Demon Hunters use Warglaives the way they're supposed to be used, they should make the Warglaives of Azzinoth work they way they're supposed to be used for all classes that can wield them. Which makes it not unique.

That's an absolutely backwards mentality. Would be like saying if Instruments were the one thing that made Bards unique, we should give Instruments to existing classes so we don't need Bards.

Again, you are speaking out of context of new class discussion. Your logic can be used to prevent any class from happening, since anything unique could be excused to retroactively fit any existing class. Do you not realize this?

There is no unique factor any potential class could bring that can't be retrofitted into existing classes. Be it Technology, Dragons, Music or Murlocs, we already have all that is necessary to cover any potential theme or style. The idea isn't whether there IS room for a new class, it's a matter of WHAT room would be made for it.

[hrugner]

Hm. Thinking about it, I see several problems with the bard theory.
1) Adding a single support class would mean that EVERY raid guild/group would require a bard (or several). Of course, this could be alleviated if a few other classes got something similar, most likely in the way of repurposing specs ("shout warrior", probably by repurposing Fury; Discipline priests as buffers, etc.), but this would require a substantial rework of several classes, something which would almost definitelly be rejected by the playerbase.
2) Similar problem, fiveman composition. Fivemans would have to stay fivemans (if nothing else, for older content reason), therefore the bard would most likely have to take a place of one of the DPS. Again, that would make 5mans VERY dependent on a single class, something that isn't viable in current setting.
3) Lack of content. Any (group) content before the expansion in which the bard would be introduced would have no real place for a support character (or a very limited one), simply because it was designed for the "holy trinity". Of course, a support would still somewhat work in there, but it would create problems with the support character having nothing to really base their performance on (nonHC levelling 5mans are usually doable with just a tank, healer and two DPS, thus the bard would not see his/hers impact on the gameplay as easily, especially when failing), or, in turn, it would necessitate altering all previous group content to include mechanics expecting a support class, which isn't viable (it would probably cost more than just a raid tier).
4) Spec of the bard class. Being a support wouldn't be viable for questing, therefore the bard would have to have a DPS spec as well. While I can imagine funny way of the bard damaging his foes (cacophony spec - playing so bad it hurts), realistically there is no real way, unless we involve "sound magic", which would turn it into sort of a mage, and not a bard.
Just my 0.02€.

I feel like all of these problems could be solved by allowing the bard to have humanoid pets, or a combat mount or something similar. If the point of a class is that they can make those around themselves powerful enough to make that class worth bringing, the only way to make pure support worthwhile would be to give them a constant companion to support.

The entourage of support characters introduced with garrisons would make a pretty good pool from which to draw these types of pet like support characters for a bard.

- - - Updated - - -

just wanted to say, i find it funny that ppl think the idea of a bard is stupid, and that they have a hard time grasping the concept of buffing and demoralizing songs or tunes, its a fantasy world ffs how did you manage to cope with ice bolts flying from hands and unlimited amounts of demons summoned from thin air.

music is, irl, noticeably pleasing or displeasing. i would of thought a bard is practically the only class that has some roots in reality. mind = blown.

like a comment on the last page 'fighting with a lute how stupid', i guess thats a bit like fighting with a mysterious regenerating blue resource that isn't exactly water but it might be. :/ i'm still not sold on any of these class concepts, the bard overshadows rogues and hunters, demon hunters over shadow warlocks and hunters, and tinkers just not my cup of tea at all, steam punk is very take it or leave it i feel.

It's funny how often people discard an idea simply because they personally lack the creativity to figure out how to make it interesting.

[Thimagryn]

It's not at all. See, no class already knows how to use instruments. They could MAKE them able to do so, sure, but what point would that have?

There already ARE classes that use Warglaives. The Warglaives of Azzinoth. If Demon Hunters used Warglaives the correct way, it wouldn't make sense for everyone else to not use the Warglaives of Azzinoth the correct way. And because other classes can do it, it is not unique.

No class uses instruments. So they could make a class that uses instruments and it would be unique. A good idea? Not in my opinion. Possible, though? Absolutely.

There is reason for everyone else to not use the Warglaives of Azzinoth 'the correct way'. The answer is that the 'correct way' could be a distinct style. This would explain why anyone can equip them and use them, but they would continue using the same animations as any other weapon. That is how those classes USE the tools they are given.

The situation is set up so that a Demon Hunter class with new animations would make sense. It doesn't make sense outside the context of a new class, because there's no reason to retroactively give new animations to ONE Legendary. You understand that without Demon Hunters, there is no reason to add more Warglaives to the game. Which is exactly how the Bard/Instrument argument pans out.

It makes no sense to add Instruments to existing classes just as it makes no sense to add new animations just for Warglaives. Yet in the context of a new class, new animations that represent a new fighting style could (yet not required) fit in perfectly.

[Varlak]

Since blizzard saif they wont be adding new class anytime soon if they ever add one at all claiming that monk are the least played class by a margin and even DK after so many years arent that popular as main so dont hold your breath. Especialy since WoW isnt deigned around support class they would need to be pure dps with maybe a healing tree. Pure dps bard just sound silly

[Teriz]

I'm trying to understand how we need a DH class when the only thing required to make Warlocks into DHs is;

1. A "stance" within one of the existing specs, or a 4th spec that allows Dual Wielding and melee combat.
2. Night Elves to be playable Warlocks.

Those reasons do not justify the creation of an entirely new class. It'd be like saying that we need a Shadow Hunter class because Shaman can't use bows and guns.