Why doesn't anyone talk about Bards?

[Hitei]

It's more than likely a combination of both. The important point is that the Bard would not have either a lore figure or an expansion that fits their theme.

It doesn't need either, because it's a universal fantasy class a la rogues, druids, priests, paladins, etc. Rather than a thematic-gimmick class like DK or DH.
Monk also didn't need either, though they chose to push it in that direction. It certainly didn't need Chen (who had literally fuck all to do with Monks in MoP, because he was off wandering and hanging around in random places, not involved with the Wandering Isle or Peak of Serenity), and if they had made it less Pandaren based in animations and spell names, it could have fit in any expansion.

All you need is a handful of NPCs to teach the newly made bards. Which are already in the game. Russell for the Alliance, a re-raised Hearthsinger for Horde, plenty of secondary NPCs to assist: lorewalkers, orc and tauren kodo-riders, ETC and Blight Boar for Horde.

[clevin]

The best way a bard would work is to have it like the Archon class in Rift. Archon was a mage that would cast spells doing little damage but would buff the party/raid with haste, crit damage etc. Basically you would sacrifice one dps spot so you could take an Archon. Good thing about it was you didn't need gear as the buffs were static and the dps was neglible, so it was easy to fill a raid spot. The buffs didn't stack so you only ever brought one Archon.

And that stacking issue is one of the complications. You really need/want one. But since the buffs don't stack, you don't want more than one. In a small group, you also have to have the encounters work if the group doesn't have one... but the bosses can't just fall over if there is one and the group's buffed.

This can work in the case of things like spriest DPS returning mana (classic/TBC etc) because that didn't directly boost DPS/healing. But once you boost the output of a group you have possible balance issues.

The other thing is that you have to have the class be workable as a soloing class - can they effectively quest, etc? That means they need DPS that's on par with most classes.... but wait, if they have the same DPS as a regular class AND can boost group DPS isn't that OP?? Hmm....

Add all of this to the fact that bards and that entire trope aren't really a Warcraft thing and... that's why we don't talk about them all that much. People want them because they've played them in other games and liked them there, not because they would fit well in WoW.

[Ielenia]

Uh, Deathwing was also a major lore figure. Assuming how many people knew of the character doesn't change that fact.

Being a "major lore figure" means absolute crap whatsoever if the overwhelming majority of the player base doesn't even know you even exist. Which was the case of Deathwing, and, to some extent, Chen Stormstout.

He was so obscure that people wanted an entire race based on his character?

That does preclude obscurity. And did people really want an entire race based on his character? I don't recall seeing any threads, here or on the official forums, about that. Do you have a source for that claim?

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Pandaren

Also GC confirmed that originally the Monk class was the Brewmaster class:

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ne...-pandaren-monk

The GamePedia link does nothing to support your claims, since it only tells the lore history of the class. As for the official blog post, that also does not help you. Because it says that the class concept ideas was either a 'brewmaster' (which then you'd be right) or a class where you could play with the brewmaster kit (which then you'd be wrong). According to what we got, though, you're wrong.

The important point is that the Bard would not have either a lore figure or an expansion that fits their theme.

It's not important because you have not shown that to be a requirement for class design. I'm still waiting for a quote from Blizzard saying that they require a prominent lore figure to base a class from. A quote that does not exist because Blizzard has never revealed their design rules.

[Teriz]

It doesn't need either, because it's a universal fantasy class a la rogues, druids, priests, paladins, etc. Rather than a thematic-gimmick class like DK or DH.

Rogues: Garona, Valeera,
Druids: Malfurion
Priests: Anduin, Velen, Tyrande
Paladin: Uther, Arthas

See what I mean?

Monk also didn't need either...

In your opinion.

All you need is a handful of NPCs to teach the newly made bards. Which are already in the game. Russell for the Alliance, a re-raised Hearthsinger for Horde, plenty of secondary NPCs to assist: lorewalkers, orc and tauren kodo-riders, ETC and Blight Boar for Horde.

Yeah, that's not how classes are structured. Classes tend to have some level of uniformity in their overal design. For example, the Monk class is Pandaren in theme, and the monk class completely ignores Monks from other races. Paladins tend to be largely based on the Silver Hand, despite lore showcasing multiple styles of Paladin. The idea that a Bard class is going to be a smorgasbord of Lorewalkers, Kodo Riders, and Ghosts from Stormgrade is complete nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Being a "major lore figure" means absolute crap whatsoever if the overwhelming majority of the player base doesn't even know you even exist. Which was the case of Deathwing, and, to some extent, Chen Stormstout.

Do you have proof that the majority of the player base didn't know who Deathwing was?

That does preclude obscurity. And did people really want an entire race based on his character? I don't recall seeing any threads, here or on the official forums, about that. Do you have a source for that claim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDYGywd5Os&t=2m32s

The GamePedia link does nothing to support your claims, since it only tells the lore history of the class. As for the official blog post, that also does not help you. Because it says that the class concept ideas was either a 'brewmaster' (which then you'd be right) or a class where you could play with the brewmaster kit (which then you'd be wrong). According to what we got, though, you're wrong.

The fact that they were considering calling the class "Brewmaster" indicates that they did indeed base the class off of Chen Stormstout and the WC3 Brewmaster hero.

It's not important because you have not shown that to be a requirement for class design. I'm still waiting for a quote from Blizzard saying that they require a prominent lore figure to base a class from. A quote that does not exist because Blizzard has never revealed their design rules.

\

Okie dokie.

[Ielenia]

Rogues: Garona, Valeera,

So disingenuous. Garona was just as (and perhaps even more so) obscure than Deathwing until WoD. And Valeera was added in Cataclysm.

Priests: Anduin, Velen, Tyrande

Anduin was barely a child when the game launched, Velen did not exist, and Tyrande? A priestess who had no priest ability?

See what I mean?

I see what you posted is irrelevant. Because I've yet to see you show us a quote from Blizzard saying "we have the classes we have today only because we could link them to a major lore figure."

In your opinion.

Right back at you.

Yeah, that's not how classes are structured. Classes tend to have some level of uniformity in their overal design. For example, the Monk class is Pandaren in theme, and the monk class completely ignores Monks from other races. Paladins tend to be largely based on the Silver Hand, despite lore showcasing multiple styles of Paladin.

Please don't be disingenuous. The monk class, lore-wise, was created by the pandaren. It's entire lore is pandaren-based. As for the paladins? Humans created the paladins and the Silver Hand was the only paladin order at the time of its creation.

The idea that a Bard class is going to be a smorgasbord of Lorewalkers, Kodo Riders, and Ghosts from Stormgrade is complete nonsense.

In your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have proof that the majority of the player base didn't know who Deathwing was?

Are you trying to say that you believe that the majority of the player base knew of a character that has never showed up in the game or was even mentioned until Cataclysm? I'm sorry, but all evidence we have point to Deathwing being a majorly obscure character. You think he wasn't? Then it's up to you to prove that he was "well known" to the player base despite all evidence to the contrary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDYGywd5Os&t=2m32s

So... is this a thing of yours, Teriz? You either show no evidence at all to back your claims, or you show "evidence" that has nothing to do with your claims? Because I've watched that interview, and at no point it's talking about the Pandaren demand from the fans.

The fact that they were considering calling the class "Brewmaster" indicates that they did indeed base the class off of Chen Stormstout and the WC3 Brewmaster hero.

Reading comprehension is not your forte, it seems. They would only base the class idea off the WC3 Brewmaster if they chose the class to be "Brewmaster". They haven't. So, no, you're wrong, they didn't base it off the WC3 unit. They based it off the common RPG monk trope.

[Hitei]

Rogues: Garona, Valeera,
Druids: Malfurion
Priests: Anduin, Velen, Tyrande
Paladin: Uther, Arthas

See what I mean?

No, I don't because Garona and Valeera did not exist in WoW proper until fairly far into the game, Malfurion was not around until Cata, Anduin was a child with no class a large portion of the game, Tyrande an Archer who used druid spells for most of her existence, Uther has been dead for decades and Arthas was a DK during the entirety of wow.

Hence my point. At absolute best most of the classes had 1-2 NPCs that had no interaction with them. Some had zero living npcs of note (warlock, rogue).

In your opinion.

In the readily observable fact that 99.99% of all monk depictions in Media are not Pandaren themed. Monk was a highly requested class before MoP, and no one was expecting it to be based on august celestials that didn't exist and channeling mist at people. Do you really think Monk couldn't have been added to the game with less pandaren influence?

Yeah, that's not how classes are structured. Classes tend to have some level of uniformity in their overal design. For example, the Monk class is Pandaren in theme, and the monk class completely ignores Monks from other races. Paladins tend to be largely based on the Silver Hand, despite lore showcasing multiple styles of Paladin. The idea that a Bard class is going to be a smorgasbord of Lorewalkers, Kodo Riders, and Ghosts from Stormgrade is complete nonsense.

What a bizarre fucking strawman. No one is saying that the class mechanics are mixed, please actually read. We are talking about the NPCs who instruct the newly made player characters of a class, which are mixed. Just like Paladins have sunwalkers teaching Tauren, Blood Knights teaching Blood Elves, the Silver Hand teaching humans and dwarves, etc.--yet they all share the same abilities and class.

Just like how Tyrande is absolutely nothing like Velen, and neither of them are like Moira or the Cult of Forgotten Shadow, yet priests exist fine as a singular class.

Just as the paladin teachers are a mix of Sunwalkers, Blood Knights, Silver Hand paladins, and presumably soon, Zandalari Prelates, bard teachers would be a mix of Dwarven and Undead bards, Kodo-Riders, Lorewalkers and similar racially based incarnations of the bard archetype. Class design =/= associated NPC design.

[Alkizon]

What about Dandelion from the Witcher series? I like that character. I also did not think about him being some kind of comic relief device, though his name is debatable. Ministrels in LOTRO also have a good design. And while technically not a Bard, Johnny Silverhand, a rockstar from Cyberpunk, is totally badass.

Honestly, the culprit about bards being comical relief are probably the "Asterix" comics, at least for Europeans.

Don't forget about action games, since it's look like new devs much more to this direction

[Mercruxio]

If Bards were to be a class, I feel like Blizzard has already implemented a pretty successful Bard Concept: Lucio from Overwatch. Obviously it would have to be adapted to fit WoW but I think an aura around the Bard with a low, constant heal that could be buffed up for a couple seconds when needed wouldn't be too out of the box.

It would need to be fleshed out but that sounds like a solid base to me.

[Mellrod]

while an instrument is essential to bard gameplay, that is only 1 weapon type. DH could also use 1h swords and fistweapons along with glaives. What other weapons could bards use to fit them into a class fantasy and give them options for weapons? melee bards could for sure use 1h weapons and forgo the instrument, have a wardrums buff of some sort "instrument" So 2 specs of the class would rely on a new weapon type? or is the "instrument" part only cosmetic and allow them to use staves and MH/OH as alternatives

Not sure about the Bard fantasy in other games, but to my knowledge of them in games like D&D and Pathfinder, Bards tend to be proficient with more than just an instrument. Infact the instrument isn't usually the only thing they carry, and it typically just serves as a way to amplify power they already have. Bards tend to have an arsenal of simple/light weapons (i.e. short sword, rapier, crossbow, etc), and a few magical items. In the context of WoW I could easily see bards wielding all 1h swords, maces, & axes, daggers, and even wands.

Also While "instrument" might just be a one weapon type, imagine how varied the actual instruments could be. From strings to woodwinds, brass, and maybe one or two whimsical electric instruments created by the engineering profession. I imagine most instruments would classify as 2H weapons, but imagine if there were some off-hands. Like a big speaker or a war drum that hangs off of your character's back or chest.

At first Bard seemed to me like an idea that wouldn't work in WoW, but now it seems like they've got a lot of potential for creativity at least.

[Duckypoo]

Speaking as a musician, the idea of bards in a raid seems stupid to me "I'll just strum my lute and sing songs while you all die or succeed". Then again with the way the Blizz devs are, I could totally see a bard playing a theremin with their arms flailing around and looking like a tard.

[b1ackbird]

Bards would be awesome! I'd look to make them a cloth class. We have enough LW as it is.

[Ielenia]

Not sure about the Bard fantasy in other games, but to my knowledge of them in games like D&D and Pathfinder, Bards tend to be proficient with more than just an instrument. Infact the instrument isn't usually the only thing they carry, and it typically just serves as a way to amplify power they already have. Bards tend to have an arsenal of simple/light weapons (i.e. short sword, rapier, crossbow, etc), and a few magical items. In the context of WoW I could easily see bards wielding all 1h swords, maces, & axes, daggers, and even wands.

Also While "instrument" might just be a one weapon type, imagine how varied the actual instruments could be. From strings to woodwinds, brass, and maybe one or two whimsical electric instruments created by the engineering profession. I imagine most instruments would classify as 2H weapons, but imagine if there were some off-hands. Like a big speaker or a war drum that hangs off of your character's back or chest.

At first Bard seemed to me like an idea that wouldn't work in WoW, but now it seems like they've got a lot of potential for creativity at least.

To be fair, one option Blizzard has is that, instead of actually making music instruments a 'weapon type', they could just give the class custom animations. I mean, doesn't the monk has custom fight and cast animations? So why not make the bard, when casting a spell, instead of wiggling their fingers, they just start singing and/or playing an instrument?

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking as a musician, the idea of bards in a raid seems stupid to me "I'll just strum my lute and sing songs while you all die or succeed".

Bards can be accomplished fighters too, you know? At melee, ranged and spellcasting.

[Teriz]

So disingenuous. Garona was just as (and perhaps even more so) obscure than Deathwing until WoD. And Valeera was added in Cataclysm.

Still major lore characters.

Anduin was barely a child when the game launched, Velen did not exist, and Tyrande? A priestess who had no priest ability?

Still major lore characters.

I see what you posted is irrelevant. Because I've yet to see you show us a quote from Blizzard saying "we have the classes we have today only because we could link them to a major lore figure."

We should be able to figure things out without a direct quote from Blizzard reaffirming what we already know.

Please don't be disingenuous. The monk class, lore-wise, was created by the pandaren. It's entire lore is pandaren-based. As for the paladins? Humans created the paladins and the Silver Hand was the only paladin order at the time of its creation.

The point is that if there's ever a Bard class, they're going to be coming from a one or two sources, not a multitude of unrelated sources.

Are you trying to say that you believe that the majority of the player base knew of a character that has never showed up in the game or was even mentioned until Cataclysm? I'm sorry, but all evidence we have point to Deathwing being a majorly obscure character. You think he wasn't? Then it's up to you to prove that he was "well known" to the player base despite all evidence to the contrary.

Actually the onus is on you to prove it since you made the original claim. However its important to note that it doesn't matter because Deathwing was a major lore figure regardless.

So... is this a thing of yours, Teriz? You either show no evidence at all to back your claims, or you show "evidence" that has nothing to do with your claims? Because I've watched that interview, and at no point it's talking about the Pandaren demand from the fans.

Pandarens entered canon because of demand from the fans, just like the Tinker did.

Reading comprehension is not your forte, it seems. They would only base the class idea off the WC3 Brewmaster if they chose the class to be "Brewmaster". They haven't. So, no, you're wrong, they didn't base it off the WC3 unit. They based it off the common RPG monk trope.

They were going to. They chose Monk instead. Them choosing the name Monk over Brewmaster doesn't erase the fact that they almost called the class "Brewmaster".

[Adoxe]

I just don't see how Bard could work well in WoW. Tinkers and Dragonsworn are like the only 2 remaining "lore classes" that can work as a playable class whose roles aren't already fulfilled by another class like Necromancers would be.

[Duckypoo]

Bards can be accomplished fighters too, you know? At melee, ranged and spellcasting.

So, you want a melee or ranged/caster class instead? Do you understand what a bard is?

[Teriz]

No, I don't because Garona and Valeera did not exist in WoW proper until fairly far into the game, Malfurion was not around until Cata, Anduin was a child with no class a large portion of the game, Tyrande an Archer who used druid spells for most of her existence, Uther has been dead for decades and Arthas was a DK during the entirety of wow.

Garona appeared in WC2. Malfurion is from WC3. Uther and Arthas were both Paladins in WC3.

The point is that no such character exists for the Bard. Not even a character that originated in WoW.

Hence my point. At absolute best most of the classes had 1-2 NPCs that had no interaction with them. Some had zero living npcs of note (warlock, rogue).

Guldan is a Warlock, and Garona is a Rogue. Both have been a part of the WC universe for decades.

In the readily observable fact that 99.99% of all monk depictions in Media are not Pandaren themed. Monk was a highly requested class before MoP, and no one was expecting it to be based on august celestials that didn't exist and channeling mist at people. Do you really think Monk couldn't have been added to the game with less pandaren influence?

Like I told Ielenia, Monks were originally going to be called Brewmasters, after the WC3 hero.

What a bizarre fucking strawman. No one is saying that the class mechanics are mixed, please actually read. We are talking about the NPCs who instruct the newly made player characters of a class, which are mixed. Just like Paladins have sunwalkers teaching Tauren, Blood Knights teaching Blood Elves, the Silver Hand teaching humans and dwarves, etc.--yet they all share the same abilities and class.

Just like how Tyrande is absolutely nothing like Velen, and neither of them are like Moira or the Cult of Forgotten Shadow, yet priests exist fine as a singular class.

Yeah, but we can draw a small connection between Tyrande and Velen and Anduin.

There's zero connection between a Kodo Rider and a Lorewalker.

[Ielenia]

Still major lore characters.

Being "major lore characters" means nothing if no one knows they even exist and it's not mentioned in the game's lore whatsoever.

Still major lore characters.

So what you're saying is that we can use any major lore character, regardless if they represent the class or not? Since, y'know, the only thing "priest" about Tyrande is the name. Bow wielding, arcane/nature spells, etc. Everything a priest doesn't use.

We should be able to figure things out without a direct quote from Blizzard reaffirming what we already know.

We do if you want to state things as fact.

The point is that if there's ever a Bard class, they're going to be coming from a one or two sources, not a multitude of unrelated sources.

How about the common RPG bard trope. Boom. Problem solved.

Actually the onus is on you to prove it since you made the original claim.

I've shown you the evidence. The fact there is a complete lack of appearances or even mentions of Deathwing until Cataclysm came along, and the fact the guy's last appearance was in Warcraft TWO, over twenty years ago.

However its important to note that it doesn't matter because Deathwing was a major lore figure regardless.

Yes. It matters. It matters because being a "major lore figure" doesn't mean shit if said "major lore figure" was so absent from the lore that if you removed it entirely it almost nothing of value would've been changed.

Pandarens entered canon because of demand from the fans, just like the Tinker did.

Pandarens entered the WarCraft 3 game due to demand from fans because they liked an April Fools' joke. But canon? Show me the proof that fans demanded Pandaren to be canon, because I have never seen or heard any fans wanting Pandaren to be canon, in WC3 or WoW.

They were going to. They chose Monk instead.

Then case closed. The monk class wasn't based off the WC3 Brewmaster hero unit. It was based off the RPG monk trope, instead. The class is designed just like the RPG monk trope is.

[Irian]

If I can point out to you that Zor'lok literally uses a bunch of spells that are nearly identical to spells on the 3.5 bard spell list, as well as the primary mechanic of the bard class, and your answer is "he's not really a bard", I don't know how to help you. You seem to be stuck on the idea that a bard has to be a human or elf guy dancing around an inn playing a harp, despite that being completely incompatible with how bards are depicted in pretty much every game and RPG.

That's really, really not what I'm saying. I'm saying that using sound-based attacks does not make your role in any game a bard, and D&D is not WoW. Zor'lok is not a WoW bard because there really isn't much pretense for a bard class other than a few NPCs that are bards in the way of their profession, not class.

By your logic you can literally take any character that has ever used sound-based moves, apply D&D tropes to them and say "it's a bard". Does it use sound to deal damage, heal, buff? "Yep that's a bard."
But my entire point from the beginning is that we've actually seen literal necromancers, not grasping at straws for a dim concept of what you assume to be a type of bard class because it uses sound in its abilities. There are actual in-universe tinkers and necromancers all over the game, and they are notable and important characters. Your best examples of bards are things like mantids, birds, and an NPC from classic whereas tinkers and necromancers have characters like Gazlowe, Mekkatorque and Kel'thuzad, characters with their own unique models, spells and animations that clearly and distinctly show a role that players don't have access to.

What you're not getting is that your definition of a bard is not what Blizzard would implement as a class. Whether or not characters like Zor'lok, Chi-Ji and Atramedes fall under the definition of a D&D bard is an utterly pointless conversation that is hugely subjective. I'm saying that the bard you described, the entertainer sort, would be what we'd get as a class if Blizzard actually made a bard class. Blizzard loves and relies on character tropes and stereotypes when it comes to WoW's design and have rarely ever deviated from iconic and memorable fantasy imagery.

And of that imagery, there are no true bards that are fully established in the WoW universe. You can apply a subjective point of view to a bunch of NPCs you think fall under the category because they use sound but that doesn't make your point not heavily skewed and wrong in the eyes of everyone else.

[Hitei]

That's really, really not what I'm saying. I'm saying that using sound-based attacks does not make your role in any game a bard, and D&D is not WoW. Zor'lok is not a WoW bard because there really isn't much pretense for a bard class other than a few NPCs that are bards in the way of their profession, not class.

By your logic you can literally take any character that has ever used sound-based moves, apply D&D tropes to them and say "it's a bard". Does it use sound to deal damage, heal, buff? "Yep that's a bard."
But my entire point from the beginning is that we've actually seen literal necromancers, not grasping at straws for a dim concept of what you assume to be a type of bard class because it uses sound in its abilities. There are actual in-universe tinkers and necromancers all over the game, and they are notable and important characters. Your best examples of bards are things like mantids, birds, and an NPC from classic whereas tinkers and necromancers have characters like Gazlowe, Mekkatorque and Kel'thuzad, characters with their own unique models, spells and animations that clearly and distinctly show a role that players don't have access to.

What you're not getting is that your definition of a bard is not what Blizzard would implement as a class. Whether or not characters like Zor'lok, Chi-Ji and Atramedes fall under the definition of a D&D bard is an utterly pointless conversation that is hugely subjective. I'm saying that the bard you described, the entertainer sort, would be what we'd get as a class if Blizzard actually made a bard class. Blizzard loves and relies on character tropes and stereotypes when it comes to WoW's design and have rarely ever deviated from iconic and memorable fantasy imagery.

And of that imagery, there are no true bards that are fully established in the WoW universe. You can apply a subjective point of view to a bunch of NPCs you think fall under the category because they use sound but that doesn't make your point not heavily skewed and wrong in the eyes of everyone else.

"Does it sing spells like a bard and damage people by shouting and creating sonic waves spells like a bard, and charm people with its voice like a bard?" "Welp it must be a duck, derp." There is nothing dim or vague here, there is a very clear, standardized character type with 100% absolute representations in game. Hearthsinger and Russell Brower are bards, there is no arguing it. Zor'lok is a bard too, but I get that you are just incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that bards don't have to be dancing humans.

What I am absolutely getting is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and somehow, multiple posts later, don't fucking understand that the tropes and stereotypes for bard are exactly what I am talking about. Because in nearly any RPG, in nearly any game in general where there is a bard class, it is that kind of character. I don't know how you managed to type "B-Blizzard wouldn't look at D&D!" and "Blizzard bases classes on existing memorable imagery" in the same paragraph.

The iconic and memorable fantasy imagery for a bard is a switch-hitting gish whose magic is heavily focused on sound manipulation and music. That is what they are in D&D, that is what they are in other MMOs, that is what you get pictures of when you google image search fantasy bard, that is what Zor'lok is. It is not going to be an entertainer, in the same way that a monk is not going to be a sequestered scribe, and a tinker is not going to be someone who repairs things for other people to use.

Blizzard takes the fantasy basic (monks hit things with fists and have some superhuman skills) take wow elements old and new (pandaren, august celestials, brewmaster abilities) and blend them into a wow class.

It should be painfully obvious that they would take the fantasy basic (bards use music and song magic to fight) take wow elements old and new (existing bards, sound magic characters like atramedes and murmur and new elements) and blend them into a wow class.

[Irian]

It should be painfully obvious that they would take the fantasy basic (bards use music and song magic to fight) take wow elements old and new (existing bards, sound magic characters like atramedes and murmur and new elements) and blend them into a wow class.

There's zero precedent for it. From this thread I can see many people have tried to explain this to you and you're not getting it.

Yes they could create a new class from existing ideas but this could be used to explain a huge amount of classes that don't and aren't going to exist. Just because a handful of NPCs use vaguely similar concepts doesn't mean it's established.

Honestly this conversation is tired. You kind of just paragraph on about a point that you don't get that nobody is making. My entire point from the beginning is that tinkers and necromancers actually exist, fully established, even with abilities within WoW. Bards do not. That's a fact.

If you can't even understand what someone else is trying to say and instead drown them out with a thousand words trying to cling to a tiny sliver of a hint of an idea that could possibly exist then nobody's going to want to have a decent conversation with you. The same point is being bashed into your head in as many ways as possible and either it's going over your head entirely or you're stubbornly digging your heels in trying to argue a point that nobody else is even arguing.

Yes, I get that bards as a concept could actually happen.

No, there is not precedent for them yet within the game. Even if we take the NPCs you're clinging onto, that's like 5 random-off characters that are mostly dead.