Blademaster Class Concept Updated

[username993720]

I'd disagree with this.

Heroes in WC3 aren't evaluated based on their weaponry alone, their role in combat and their playstyle is taken into account too. Mountain King may have a devastating 'Hero Killer' type of spell, but their role is much more in it to bolster the front line as a tanky hero with hefty damage dealing abilities. He's more of an equivalent to DKs and Chieftains. He doesn't really play anything like a Fury Warrior. I personally don't think Recklessness, Rampage, Bloodthirst and Condemn fits a Mountain King identity, they're Thanes and Nobles not berserking warmongerers.

WC3 didn't really have a Fury Warrior equivalent, other than say a Demon Hunter or Blademaster, which aren't really comparable either. They're more comparable to Troll Berserkers or Worgens than any melee unit or hero in WC3. Heck, the closest thing to playing a Fury Warrior in WC3 may actually be the Goblin Alchemist, oddly enough.

I didn't say the spec's abilities represent it but, according to my analysis, it is very much one:

The Mountain King's official description
"The mountain kings, or thanes as they are known in Khaz Modan, are the mightiest dwarven warriors under the mountain. Wielding both enchanted warhammers and hand axes, these fierce fighters live to test themselves against worthy opponents."

My race/class combos thread
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ials-and-lore)
Dwarves had the racial abilities "Gun Specialization" and "Mace Specialization", which increased Guns, one-handed Maces and two-handed Maces weapon skills, respectively (and then Crit and, lastly, Expertise before their removal). While Hunters, Rogues and Warriors could all wield Guns back in the day, Hunters could not (and still cannot) wield any kind of Maces and Rogues could not (and still cannot) wield two-handed Maces. that leaves us with the Warrior class. So, which spec, exactly, fits the Dwarven Warrior? the Fury Warrior does - as the Mountain King dual-wields a Mace and an Axe (i know the Warrior class cannot wield Guns anymore and the Mountain King does not utilize Guns, but it could still benefit from the racial back in the day). Moreover, their racial "Stoneform" (sometimes refered to as Avatar) resembles the Mountain King's "Avatar" ability, as they both transform you into stone (in HotS and Warcraft 3, at least).

The spec's description
"A furious berserker wielding a weapon in each hand, unleashing a flurry of attacks to carve <his/her> opponents to pieces."

You seem to forget that the, very much, iconic Berserker Stance of the Warrior class depicted a Dwarf:




The Mountain King may be a Thane, but it is far from a noble. The Dwarven Warrior archetype is, typically, based off of Nordic/Scandinavian Warriors:



Moreover, Barbarians are not exclusive to Orcs:

"Wildhammer dwarves are renowned for wild behavior and deadly skill at arms. They have a tendency to enter a fray armored with little more than a loincloth and body paint, and still come out covered only with the blood of their foes. They are fierce charging across the ground or when soaring atop gryphons; barbarians of other races seek to emulate Wildhammer dwarves' reckless ability to stay alive through sheer pluck while laying waste to their enemies. The iconic Wildhammer barbarian clutches his hammer and grins, showing gaps in his teeth. Feathers and beads are stuck in his sweaty hair and beard. "Come get some!" he shouts, before letting out a howl and charging forward."

Granted, the Wildhammer Barbarians are not the Bronzebeard Mountain Kings, yet they are both Dwarves. In Shadowlands, only customization options separate between the two.

If you look at their tattoos, they very much resemble those of Sonya, the Barbarian:



And she has abilities and talents like Fury, Wrath of the Berserker, Furious Blow, Shot of Fury, Battle Rage, Ruthless and Rampage.

The abilities of the Dwarven Warrior, like the Mountain King and the Gryphon Rider, are very lightning-based, due to the real-life Thor beliefs equivalence of Scandinavian/Norse people.

The Death Knight hero unit, although it doesn't use any Frost abilities, is based off of Arthas. Therefore, i would categorized it as a Frost Death Knight, more than anything (not a tank).

The Tauren Chieftain, i would say, is the closest to an Arms Warrior, according to my analysis:
Tauren have the racial ability "War Stomp", which is based on the Tauren Chieftain Hero unit ability "War Stomp" from Warcraft 3. now, their description says: "These elder Tauren warriors lead their Tribes in daily life as well as in battle". the WoWpedia page says they could be either a Warrior or a Hunter. they had the Shockwave ability, which was given to the Warrior and the Reincarnation ability, which was given to the Shaman. Their racial ability "Endurance" increases stamina, which is helpful for tanks, but used to increase base health only. their "Brawn" racial increases Crit damage and healing, which benefits dps and healers. The lore states: "Being great huntsmen and natural wanderers with a certain natural affinity, the tauren developed a deep knowledge of the botanical life of Azeroth, using it in various shamanistic rituals, as well as for medical treatment" - which implies that they are Hunters, Shamans and even Resto Druids. Furthermore, "Hunting the kodo and wandering the wilds has not been easy for the tauren, and facing the centaur has made it no easier. All tauren are born with the ability to communicate with the spirits in times of need, beseeching them to shake the earth and stun their enemies." - which, again, implies on a Hunter or Shaman direction. And yet, i feel that they are neither of these. the Tauren Chieftain unit uses a two-handed Axe and not a shield which means that they are not a Protection Warrior. That leaves us with Arms warrior, Survival Hunter or Enhancement Shaman. The survival hunter is, already, taken by the Troll race, and none of the abilities of the Tauren Chieftain is a Hunter ability. The Enhancement Shaman would be possible, as the Tauren Chieftain unit has the Reincarnation ability. But, the "Axe of the Tauren Chieftains", an item dropped by Baine in the End Time dungeon has Strength on it, which benefit Warriors, Paladins and Death Knights rather than Shamans or Hunters. Furthermore, Cairne and Baine, both Tauren Chieftains, are depicted in-game as Warriors - having Warrior abilities like Mortal strike, Cleave and Thunder Clap.

Blademasters are closer to an Arms Warrior, than a Fury Warrior:
"A battle-hardened master of two-handed weapons, using mobility and overpowering attacks to strike <his/her> opponents down."
"Blademasters, also known as blade masters, are legendary orc warriors of the Burning Blade clan, known for their mastery over swords, axes and polearms." (two-handed)

Troll Berserkers are an upgrade of the Troll Headhunter (Spearthrowers), which are set apart from the enraged melee Warriors:
The Troll race have a racial ability called "Berserking", which is based on the Troll Berserker unit from Warcraft 3. The unit is an upgrade from the Troll Headhunter unit of Warcraft 3. their description reads as follows: "These cunning warriors are trained from birth to hunt, track and trap the most dangerous beasts in the wilds". It matches the Survival Hunter old description: "a rugged tracker who favors using animal venom, explosives and traps as deadly weapons". In addition, with the Legion expansion, Survival Hunters, once again, use melee weapons like Polearms, which lines up with Troll Headhunters using Spears. They even had a glyph called glyph of the headhunter: "You throw a javelin instead of a hatchet when you use Hatchet Toss" (yes, i know rogues had one too: "Your Throw and Deadly Throw abilities will now throw axes regardless of your currently equipped weapon" - which, essentially, turned you into an Axethrower not a Spear thrower). Now, as for their racial "Beast Slaying", the lore says: "Trolls are excellent hunters and have developed skills in [Beast Slaying] over thousands of years". Furthermore, they had racials called "Throwing Specialization" and "Bow Specialization", which increased weapon skill with Bows and Throwing Weapons (and later on Crit before their removal). The only classes who could use them back in the day were Hunters, Rogues and Warriors. the lore says: "bows and throwing weapons are the iconic arms of the troll race, and has led to troll headhunters being one of the main forms of ranged support for the Horde".

Feral Worgen aren't Warriors at all:
"Worgen warriors are likely common as the kingdom of Gilneas had many footmen and knights. Unlike the half naked wild worgen who fight like animals with teeth and claws, the Gilnean worgen fight like men, wearing plate and mail and armed with steel swords and polearms."

Fair enough, tbh I didn't remember what his armament was, was just going off my memory, haven't played reforged but played the living hell out of the original, I guess just the image in my head is the stereotypical tanky heavy armoured dwarf, thunder clap etc.

Varian sure, but just in general like human warrior sort of thing, European medieval knight etc, and I imagine arms to be

fury I think 99% of people think orc would fit into that category, sure there are other types of orc I'm just saying what I believe the majority of the playerbase would imagine/think when you throw out combinations for them to describe.

- - - Updated - - -



^ What this dude says, that's how I personally feel.

But you might be forgetting, hellscream was in WC3 and you could also get the fel version of him, big red orc with an axe and very little armour, id probably say those are closest.

The Orc Barbarian would pass as a Fury Warrior, yes. Embracing their demonic bloodlust and dual-wielding axes.

Hellscream, on the other hand, wielded a giant two-handed axe (Gorehowl). as i've, already, shown, it matches the Arms type of Warrior:

"The iconic orc warrior is garbed in chain mail or leather and plate. He carries a mighty battleaxe and wears a horned helmet. He crouches in a battle stance, axe at the ready, as he evaluates his opponent...then, with a fearsome yowl, he strikes in a blur."

my only concern is who blizzard steals class identity from in terms of defensives/cds to make this if they ever made it, much like dhs stealing smoke bomb from rogues (rip)

It would only steal Bladestorm from the Warrior and Mirror Image from the Mage.
Demon Hunters stole Smoke Bomb from Rogues? What?

[Syegfryed]

Again, what is your definition of a Frontline fighter then?

nor a rogue but warriors?

rogues do not go in the frontline of a battle, they are infiltrators and assassins, they get out before they are found after they hit the target

Rogues fight in melee, doesn't that make them a Frontline fighter? They sure as hell don't fight in the back-line.

you are just confusing melee and ranged dilema with frontline and back-line

So what, in your own words, makes a class a class and not the same as another?

What is the difference between a Paladin and a Warrior trained to use Holy abilities?

Why is the Paladin a different class from Warrior if it could just be a Warrior with some extra Holy abilities?

So, youa re going to keep bringing up and revising the same failed argument trying to ignore the problem.

"apart from ALL THE DIFFERENCES A PALADIN AND A WARRIOR HAVE" why are they different if they are just warrior?

Paladin is literally a Warrior with Holy Light, Divine Shield and Ressurection.

Then its not a warrior

none of those skills are in the warrior class

Death Knight is a Warrior with Death Coil and Animate Dead.

Then its not a warrior

none of those skills are in the warrior class

Demon Hunter is a Warrior with Manaburn, Immolate and Metamorphosis.

Then its not a warrior

none of those skills are in the warrior class

Mountain King is a Warrior with Stormbolt, Thunderclap and Avatar.

This, one, is a warrior, their skills are in the warrior class

Brewmaster is a Warrior with Breath of Fire, Storm Earth and Fire and Drunken Haze. Beastmaster is a Warrior with Animal pet summons.

Then its not a warrior

none of those skills are in the warrior class

The difference between a warrior and any Warcraft 3 melee Hero is literally just 2-3 skills. Where are you exactly drawing a line of what would not be a Warrior?

You are just, on purpose, trying to play on semantics here

the differences between all these "warriors" is like day and night, they are completely different in skills, THEMES and fantasy, while the blademaster and warrior are the completely the same in theme and fantasy but just missed two skills

Warrior is different from Paladin in that they don't use Holy magic or have a dedicated healing spec.
Warrior is different from Blademaster in that they don't use stealth or deception mechanics, and aren't limited to Bladed weapons

Again, false equivalences, already explained countless of times, warriors use stelth and deception mechanics, yes, and no that is not part of what a blademaster is.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster

look at their wiki page, and even their rpg section and try to see how much emphazise in their "deception and stealth"

Wardens aren't Rogues. There is no instance in the game where Wardens are ever referred to as Night Elf Rogues. You realize this, right?

what is, the fundamental difference of a warden and a rogue if not their theme?

The only way you could play as a Warden is if you Roleplayed as one. Rogues don't use large 1H Moonglaives, don't wear plated armor, don't have confinement abilities like Umbral Bind or Containment, don't have Shadow Strike, don't use Avatar/Spirit of Vengeance, and don't fight for Justice. There's plenty of difference here they're not remotely the same class.

Rogues do use large 1H weapons, so this is a moot point, this is just a matter of limitations of transmog.

Plate? that is debatable, it could be just fancy armor, we already saw how warriors can just use leather, that is a transmog thing.


don't have shadow strike? what is this then?
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Sha...rogue_ability)

fight for justice? this is an entirely RP shit, like i said, something that change to culture and race, their portrayd in the RPG:

They are stealthy and mystical individuals, using their shadowy abilities in ways much different than the Sentinels. They are adept at entering and exiting combat quickly and have a number of attacks that can quickly disable their opponents. Many wardens are women, though not all of them. Wardens dress in dark colors and favor cloaks, which move about them like shadows to further hide their presence. Wardens are deadly melee combatants, able to bring their opponents to their knees with a few quick attacks, then teleport to safety.

hummmmmmmm, not rogue at all

We had a Lightforged Draenei Blademaster in Legion.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster_Telaamon

You even fight his Mirror Images as a Horde player.

But does he use wind walk? no

he also use divine strike, what blademasters use divine strike?

if his mirror images are light based, is that rly a OG ~~mystic~~ blademaster thing?

If that is something so broad, then there is literally, no problem, in putting that as a talent for normal warrior, seeing anyone can get that

In BFA, we are introduced to Ankoan Blademasters as well.

I mean, do you even know what we're talking about here? Blademaster is an archetype, not just Burning Blade Clan Orcs.

and how many of then friendo, are "stealth and deception" guys?

im talking that the blademaster that YOU are talking about, the one who use wind walk and mirror image is something entirelly specific of the orcs and how it was portrayed in the warcraft 3 game.

if you take a look at the ankoaan guys you can see:



THAT THEY ALSO USE THE FAR SEER TO THE SHAMAN, and look at that, in the same way they use blademaster to their warriors

we can just safely reach the conclusion that blademasters are just top warriors and that fantasy is already in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Just saying like I know a lot about history, I majored in ancient history so I know a lot about this stuff, never watched anime in my life hahaha. And actually Samurai do NOT by any means wear 'heavy armour' they used a lamellar overlapping leather and plate design, mounted samurai archers wore slightly heavier armour than ground troops but its still not heavy modern armour, its not even comparable to what a late medieval knight wore, solid plate armour with chainmail underneath and protecting ALL open areas.

dunno man, those seems like wow plate armour to me.

Sure that's my POV I accept that, but isn't it clear to you that lots of other warcraft fans here think that too, I almost guarantee my friends irl who played wc3 and WoW (no longer playing) would think that if I asked them too.

And again, lots of others don't think so, and seeing how this barely have any support, im going to throw out that isn't as big as you think

To me and them Garrosh isn't a blademaster, again

And who said he was? Garrosh isn't, but his lackey Ishi was

you want to put the all the warriors in the same baf, and everything that differ is another class worthy.

its like comparing a gallic berserker to a Japanese samurai. Garrosh runs around with heavy plate armour on his shoulders, boots, shins etc, with a giant axe, go look up gallic bersekers, they generally wore similar clothing, certain parts of the body, shoulders, head, legs, lightly armoured, not all of their body was covered in thick armour. Garrosh to me, isn't what I picture when I picture a blademaster.

no one, ever said, Garrosh was a blademaster

Heres how I see it.

Again, your vision is limited

a tauren arms warrior is your Varian wyrm? no, he isn't

Forget the other races like taurens, nelfs, whatever you wanna say, a blademaster isn't any of those thematically.

yes, because they are majorly orcs

A blademaster to so many Warcraft fans isn't a warrior,

How so many? youa re trying to bring an ad populum but you don't have the numbers to back up

see, how many years we are away from WC3, and nobody is asking for a blademaster class like they did with DH or are doing with thinker or necromancer, because they damn know blademasters are just fancy warriors, and two skills don't make a class

[Triceron]

I didn't say the spec's abilities represent it but, according to my analysis, it is very much one:

The Mountain King's official description
"The mountain kings, or thanes as they are known in Khaz Modan, are the mightiest dwarven warriors under the mountain. Wielding both enchanted warhammers and hand axes, these fierce fighters live to test themselves against worthy opponents."

Which to me just shows they're Warriors, nothing specific about Fury Warriors.

Moreover, Barbarians are not exclusive to Orcs:

"Wildhammer dwarves are renowned for wild behavior and deadly skill at arms.

Wildhammer Dwarves, sure. But Mountain Kings are specifically Bronzebeard Dwarves, not Wildhammer Warriors. The tattooes and the wild nature (literally in their name) would fit a Fury Warrior, so I'll definitely give you that.

However Bronzebeard warriors are much more organized, much more formally militarized. Their description of using different weapon types actually fits Arms better, since that is the 'Weapon Master' specialization. Fury is all about unleashing rage and attacking without considering defense, something much more fitting for fel-infused Grom, Troll Berserkers, Worgen and Wildhammers (if they were their own playable race)

I don't think a 'Mountain King' exemplifies a Barbarian archetype at all. They're well armored and have defense in consideration, and they aren't really geared towards being a reckless fighter.


If we're talking Fury Warrior, I'd expect a Warhammer style 'Slayer' type of Hero, which probably fits a melee Wildhammer Dwarf more than a Bronzebeard.

[Syegfryed]

I'm not confusing anything. It's in the Warrior page.

and you just can't make a mental note to not confuse the warrior class and the broad term warrior

If the distinction between them is only the holy aspect

"only" HAHA

Thrall: categorized as a Warrior (as well as a Far Seer and a Shaman) in the World of Warcraft: Game Manual and Before the Storm chapter 30.

Thrall multiclassed, he was a warrior and a gladiator first and foremost before becoming a shaman

That's why i can see it being associated with the Monk class. It doesn't need to wear plate armor. the set is, clearly, a mix of studded leather and iron/steel plates. Many armor sets, in game, already pass as other types of armor, visually.

monks are master of the barehand combat not masters of the blade, sorry

You know who else wears Mala Beads?

i know who:

So, yeah... it's not an Orcish thing.

[Triceron]

nor a rogue but warriors?

rogues do not go in the frontline of a battle, they are infiltrators and assassins, they get out before they are found after they hit the target

Which is exactly how a Blademaster is used with Windwalk and Mirror Image. They get in-and-out of battle, killing specific targets, and disengaging combat using Mirror Image or Windwalk. That's exactly how you use this hero in WC3 and Heroes of the Storm. If you just fight toe-to-toe with other heroes like you'd play a Bruiser, you're going to lose. That role is better suited for the Tauren Chieftain since they have a high HP pool and stuns to allow them to focus fire and bodyblock.

Then its not a warrior

none of those skills are in the warrior class

This, one, is a warrior, their skills are in the warrior class

It's just an ability. It doesn't define them as another class.


Would you consider a Druid to be a Priestess of the Moon because they have Starfall?

Would you consider Warlock to be a Demon Hunter because they had Metamorphosis?

Classes can take abilities from any source, but that does not mean they take their identity.

the differences between all these "warriors" is like day and night, they are completely different in skills, THEMES and fantasy, while the blademaster and warrior are the completely the same in theme and fantasy but just missed two skills

How is the the same when Blademasters weave in and out of battle like a Rogue? How is the same if the Blademaster focuses on Blades and excludes blunt weapons, which is a trait shared by DKs? We're shown there are specific aspects of a Blademaster that aren't applied to a Warrior. The THEME of a Blademaster is a mystical warrior who masters the use of blades.

A Warrior using Hammers can use Bladestorm, because it's treated as a simple AoE-type of ability that isn't exclusive to Bladed weapons. There's a very big difference here. The ability isn't supporting a Blademaster identity, the ability is simply the Diablo 2 Barbarian Whirlwind ability using the WC3 Bladestorm ability name instead. There's actually nothing specific to Blades about Bladestorm, nothing specific to an actual Blademaster.

It's the same as Warlock getting Metamorphosis. It has nothing to do with Demon Hunter class, it's a Warlock mimicing the Demon Hunter ability and using it for Demonology; we see this lore in Green Fire questline.

Again, false equivalences, already explained countless of times, warriors use stelth and deception mechanics, yes, and no that is not part of what a blademaster is.

Warriors don't employ stealth or deception at all. Explain what you mean here.

what is, the fundamental difference of a warden and a rogue if not their theme?

Wardens aren't Rogues. Blizzard has never canonically recognized any Warden in the game as a part of the Rogue class.

Even look in Legion where we have a Rogue class hall. There are no Wardens there at all.

"apart from ALL THE DIFFERENCES A PALADIN AND A WARRIOR HAVE" why are they different if they are just warrior?

---

he also use divine strike, what blademasters use divine strike?

if his mirror images are light based, is that rly a OG ~~mystic~~ blademaster thing?

If that is something so broad, then there is literally, no problem, in putting that as a talent for normal warrior, seeing anyone can get that

I put these three quotes together so you can see how inconsistent you are.

1- You infer there is a grand difference between Paladins and Warriors. Well, that aspect is all about Divine and Holy magic, right?
2- You infer that the Blademaster doesn't use Divine Strike or Light-based Mirror Image, and it's broad enough that Warriors can talent for it.

Well, aren't Divine and LIght-based abilities more for Paladins instead of Warriors? If you are saying a Warrior can talent for Light-based talents, then why is a Paladin a different class? You seem to not understand that Paladins are just as much Warriors as a Blademaster is.

You seem to be confused that because the Paladin in WoW has its own abilities, and that there's _one_ Blademaster ability in the Warrior talents, that the Blademaster can't possibly be its own class. You are mistaken.

The Blademaster isn't just 'Bladestorm'. They are a type of mystical Warrior that also uses Windwalk and Mirror Image. Your argument that Warriors can just use Divine abilities would also mean that Warriors could just be Paladins; and it's true in lore that they can do this but in gameplay Warrior and Paladin are different classes because of the different abilities and themes they use, and Blademaster is no different since they are a different theme altogether; a Mystical type of Warrior. This applies to Blademaster Telaamon, and Mirror Image is still a mystical art that Warriors do not use. The 'Mysticism' we are talking about is not just 'Magic', but the overall theme of using abilities that deceive or elude the enemy.

Warriors are themed around being Knights, Fighters, Weapons Masters and Barbarians. Blademaster is themed around being a mystical Samurai, Japanese-styled Swordsmen, and Ninjas. There's a huge difference between these themes. Garrosh and Grom aren't even canonically considered Blademasters.

[cocomen2]

rogues do not go in the frontline of a battle, they are infiltrators and assassins, they get out before they are found after they hit the target

Then its not a warrior

none of those skills are in the warrior class

1) Rogue + Warlock theme = Demon Hunter ( its OK we not racists, sexists , its okey .....)

2) Warrior + Necromancer theme = Death Knight ( OK too)

3) Warrior + Rogue theme = Blade Master (OH my gawd NO!!!!! , only warrior can wield two-handed sword ... wait a minute ..Pala and DK too?)

this how this thread looks to me, some people mistake lore and gameplay as always..... Rogue don't fights on frontline? lmao what then all this raids? oh you said Paladin has different skill set other than warrior.... but what forces you to think that blade master gonna have carbon copy of warrior skills?

At best warrior should lose Bladestorm to Blade master and get some of its own identity , time when they pruned stance-dance from warrior its become just brain dead class .... its feels like meme already "IF you don't know what to do , press Bladestorm"

Samuro gameplay from hots its best example of what it should be , Blade master rogue-like character that plays like glass cannon while hiding among his clones or INVIS and make use of elemental swordplay like windcutter or fireblade.

Same time Warrior is juggernaut type of character , he is not hiding , he proudly takes hit to the face or blocks it with PLATE armor, charge and damage reduction skills is his forte. (Muradin,Garrosh,Varian)

[Azerate]

That's a very good job on the site and an in-depth description. Everything looks very pretty as well. Lots of effort was put into it and I can appreciate that.

But in the end, when it comes to the actual subject matter - this is just another dude with a sword. It's not different enough to make sense adding it to the game which already has warriors, paladins, dks and monks. Maybe in a game like FF14 where you have like 50 different classes (jobs) yeah, but in WoW - nope.

[username993720]

Which to me just shows they're Warriors, nothing specific about Fury Warriors.



Wildhammer Dwarves, sure. But Mountain Kings are specifically Bronzebeard Dwarves, not Wildhammer Warriors. The tattooes and the wild nature (literally in their name) would fit a Fury Warrior, so I'll definitely give you that.

However Bronzebeard warriors are much more organized, much more formally militarized. Their description of using different weapon types actually fits Arms better, since that is the 'Weapon Master' specialization. Fury is all about unleashing rage and attacking without considering defense, something much more fitting for fel-infused Grom, Troll Berserkers, Worgen and Wildhammers (if they were their own playable race)

I don't think a 'Mountain King' exemplifies a Barbarian archetype at all. They're well armored and have defense in consideration, and they aren't really geared towards being a reckless fighter.


If we're talking Fury Warrior, I'd expect a Warhammer style 'Slayer' type of Hero, which probably fits a melee Wildhammer Dwarf more than a Bronzebeard.

The Arms Warrior, specifically, uses a two-handed, which doesn't coincide with the dual-wielding of the Mountain King.

There's nothing outlandish about Dwarf rage.
Muradin has a talent called Bronzebeard Rage

Dwarves are, usually, depicted shouting and cursing while in combat and are, very, easy to anger.

You'd consider a Wildhammer, but not a Bronzebeard. Except for their armor, they are, actually, very similar: incorporating lightning-based spells in their attacks.

The Vikings were, also, well armored. But, they were most often considered as barbarians. It's not, always, about how much armor you wear.

Grom, although consumed by fel madness, used a two-hander (Gorehowl) while fighting Cenarius as a Fel Orc. You could consider his Lords of War appearance (with dual-wielding axes) a Fury Warrior.

You see, rage is not, always, associated with the Warrior class. Orcs, for example, although having Blood Fury, also have Command. Hunters have Bestial Wrath, which sends you (and your pet) into a rage. Maraad, in the Durotan Lords of War says: "those who succumb to the beast within become their own greatest enemy" - referencing Durotan's Bloodlust (Blood Fury). The Beast Within is a Hunter talent. Sometimes there's an overlap in themes.

Troll Berserkers are, actually, Hunters. whether they are spear throwers or axe throwers. as an upgarde of the Headhunter they are, mostly, ranged units:

"Troll berserkers are members of bloodthirsty sects presents in the various troll tribes, with axe or spear-throwing hunters becoming known as berserkers through a combination of learning how to channel their rage and alchemical means.
Members of other "wild" races such as the vrykul can also become berserkers, but in these cases they are generally plainly enraged melee warriors instead."

Once again, a trait that would seem like a Warrior trait (Berserking) is, actually, a Hunter trait. As the Troll race, also, specializes in hunting beasts (Beast Slaying) and used to have mastery over Bows and Throwing weapons (Throwing/Bow Specialization).

You have to distinguish between the playable Worgen (Gilnean) and the Feral Worgen. They are not the same. The playable Worgen are, actually, in control. The Feral Worgen, in fact, do not fight like a Fury Warrior, but like a wild animal (meaning, they don't use weapons but their claws and teeth, instead). The Gilnean Worgen would most, likely, fight like a Human Footman/Knight. If there was an option to turn Feral (like Greymane in HotS, that would have been great).

and you just can't make a mental note to not confuse the warrior class and the broad term warrior

Then, i can say the same for the Blademaster. Stop generalizing.

"only" HAHA

Got any other aspect other than divinity and war?

Thrall multiclassed, he was a warrior and a gladiator first and foremost before becoming a shaman

And so, the Enhancement spec was born. The only characters i can associate with it are Thrall and Reghar - both are Shamans and Warriors.

monks are master of the barehand combat not masters of the blade, sorry

No shit. But they can wield weapons. And they have the asiatic themes and fantasy. So, i don't see it as so farfetched.

i know who:

I'm aware of Thrall's beads. It doesn't make it an Orcish thing. Those are monk pray beads:

Samuro gameplay from hots its best example of what it should be , Blade master rogue-like character that plays like glass cannon while hiding among his clones or INVIS and make use of elemental swordplay like windcutter or fireblade.

Same time Warrior is juggernaut type of character , he is not hiding , he proudly takes hit to the face or blocks it with PLATE armor, charge and damage reduction skills is his forte. (Muradin,Garrosh,Varian)

Exactly.
I don't know why he can't see it.

That's a very good job on the site and an in-depth description. Everything looks very pretty as well. Lots of effort was put into it and I can appreciate that.

But in the end, when it comes to the actual subject matter - this is just another dude with a sword. It's not different enough to make sense adding it to the game which already has warriors, paladins, dks and monks. Maybe in a game like FF14 where you have like 50 different classes (jobs) yeah, but in WoW - nope.

Not even as a spec?

[Triceron]

The Arms Warrior, specifically, uses a two-handed, which doesn't coincide with the dual-wielding of the Mountain King.

Yes, but Warcraft 3 hero concepts weren't designed with Warrior depictions in mind.

Look at the Paladin. It's a hero that represents all 3 Paladin specs, but does not depict any one spec directly. It's a very tanky hero, but does not use a shield. It uses a 2H hammer, but does not have any offensive abilities. It's role is mainly as support and as a Healer hero, but he primarily fights in melee with the rest of the troops with a 2H hammer. We don't just look at the Paladin hero and say "Oh, that's totally Ret because he's using a 2H hammer"

As you've pointed out as well, Beastmaster is also called a type of Warrior in WC3, and Beastmaster also dual wields. This isn't a Fury Warrior either, just by depiction of what weapons they use.

There's nothing outlandish about Dwarf rage.
Muradin has a talent called Bronzebeard Rage

Dwarves are, usually, depicted shouting and cursing while in combat and are, very, easy to anger.

Yes, but WC3 did not depict what we consider a Fury Warrior. Mountain King was designed as a very broad 'Warrior', and encompasses all three specs equally. As I said, there's nothing _specific_ to Fury, not to say that there's zero connection to Fury. Muradin is a 'Warrior', in that he encompasses all three aspects. In terms of gameplay theme though, he's more of an Arms/Prot styled Hero, much like how the WC3 Paladin is more of a Prot/Holy styled hero. Fury and Ret aren't really represented much in the MK and Paladin, other than the weapons they happen to be wielding.


The Fury Warrior spec is styled off the traditional D&D Barbarian. While Dwarves in fantasy are well known and typified as Barbarians, including the Warcraft ones, the Mountain King is more of a tanky Fighter, an unstoppable force that breaks the enemy on their impenetrable defense and martial prowess. Even despite having 2 weapons, the Mountain Kings attacks are very slow, while Bash is a passive damage boost with stun which balances offense and defense (interrupts enemy spellcasting/attacks).

Fury Warrior is more of a reckless Berserker who ignores defending and prefers to go all-out on offense, a trait that isn't typified in the Mountain King. There would be more emphasis on their attack speed and auto attacks, like how Blademasters are agi-based and crit or Goblin Alchemist Chemical Enrage boosts attack speed. Even in in Heroes of the Storm, Muradin is a very defensive hero, which is why he was made into a 'Tank' hero instead of an Assassin or Bruiser like Sonya or Samuro.

[username993720]

Yes, but Warcraft 3 hero concepts weren't designed with Warrior depictions in mind.

Look at the Paladin. It's a hero that represents all 3 Paladin specs, but does not depict any one spec directly. It's a very tanky hero, but does not use a shield. It uses a 2H hammer, but does not have any offensive abilities. It's role is mainly as support and as a Healer hero, but he primarily fights in melee with the rest of the troops with a 2H hammer. We don't just look at the Paladin hero and say "Oh, that's totally Ret because he's using a 2H hammer"

As you've pointed out as well, Beastmaster is also called a type of Warrior in WC3, and Beastmaster also dual wields. This isn't a Fury Warrior either, just by depiction of what weapons they use.



Yes, but WC3 did not depict what we consider a Fury Warrior. Mountain King was designed as a very broad 'Warrior', and encompasses all three specs equally. As I said, there's nothing _specific_ to Fury, not to say that there's zero connection to Fury. Muradin is a 'Warrior', in that he encompasses all three aspects. In terms of gameplay theme though, he's more of an Arms/Prot styled Hero, much like how the WC3 Paladin is more of a Prot/Holy styled hero. Fury and Ret aren't really represented much in the MK and Paladin, other than the weapons they happen to be wielding.


The Fury Warrior spec is styled off the traditional D&D Barbarian. While Dwarves in fantasy are well known and typified as Barbarians, including the Warcraft ones, the Mountain King is more of a tanky Fighter, an unstoppable force that breaks the enemy on their impenetrable defense and martial prowess. Even despite having 2 weapons, the Mountain Kings attacks are very slow, while Bash is a passive damage boost with stun which balances offense and defense (interrupts enemy spellcasting/attacks).

Fury Warrior is more of a reckless Berserker who ignores defending and prefers to go all-out on offense, a trait that isn't typified in the Mountain King. There would be more emphasis on their attack speed and auto attacks, like how Blademasters are agi-based and crit or Goblin Alchemist Chemical Enrage boosts attack speed. Even in in Heroes of the Storm, Muradin is a very defensive hero, which is why he was made into a 'Tank' hero instead of an Assassin or Bruiser like Sonya or Samuro.

Then, how can you assign it to a spec?

Actually, the Paladin Hero unit of Warcraft 3 is a Holy Paladin, based off of Uther:
https://heroesofthestorm.fandom.com/wiki/Uther
Need i remind you that the Holy Paladin artifact was a two-handed Mace, The Silver Hand?
They, also, wield a libram, which is depicted alongside the Hammer.

The Beastmaster is, obviously, the Beastmaster Hunter (who, in the past, could dual-wield Axes). I, mainly, used it as a counter argument to sygfreyd.

I'd agree that the Mountain King is not well represented in game. They could draw more of Muradin's abilities into the class. I've made a thread about it: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ry-should-have
But, that doesn't mean he's not one. Just because we're used to the depiction of a blood-crazed Orc and the names and icons of the Fury Warrior's abilities.

I can't say he's an Arms Warrior, without mastering a two-handed weapon. Neither can i claim him to be a Protection Warrior, just because of his armor.

As i've said, the Mountain King is based off of Nordic/Scandinavian fighters fantasy, which is not so distant from your average barbarian depiction. That's why they resemble the Vrykul so much. And you know who else resembles the Vrykul? The Barbarian class of Diablo 3.

Heroes of the Storm's categorization is quite a mess. Chen is categorized as a Bruiser, despite being a Brewmaster (Tank). Karazhim, Reghar and Tyrande are categorized as healers, despite being a Monk, a Gladiator and a Ranger. Arthas, Garrosh and Muradin are categorized as Tanks, despite not having shields or, even, being heavily armored.

[Triceron]

Actually, the Paladin Hero unit of Warcraft 3 is a Holy Paladin, based off of Uther:
https://heroesofthestorm.fandom.com/wiki/Uther
Need i remind you that the Holy Paladin artifact was a two-handed Mace, The Silver Hand?
They, also, wield a libram, which is depicted alongside the Hammer.

Yes, there are connections to Holy. But just the same, there are connections to Prot and Ret that shouldn't be ignored, like the significance of the armor-boosting Devotion aura, the fact that Divine Shield grants immunity while allowing you to continue to melee attack, the fact they are a Strength hero and not INT-based, and plenty more. Holy spec is just one aspect of the WC3 Paladin, since it was much more than just a Healer in the RTS games.

I'd agree that the Mountain King is not well represented in game.
--
But, that doesn't mean he's not one. Just because we're used to the depiction of a blood-crazed Orc and the name time. It's not a class you hold back.

He's not blood crazed at all in Heroes or War3. Just having an ability called Bronzebeard's Rage isn't really indicative of a Fury Warrior; you've cherry picked one talent out of the dozen protection and arms related talents.

I get what you're trying to say, but when you look at the whole package, Muradin is more of a Prot/Arms designed Warrior in HOTS, and in WC3 he's pretty equal while leaning towards Prot/Arms due to the mechanics of WC3. Fury doesn't really get represented in WC3 because fast-attacking dual wield melee Strength-based heroes don't really exist; fast attacks are usually tied to Agi-based hero because attack speed is based on Agility in WC3. Beyond that, there are no heroes who have abilities that focus on Berserking other than the Goblin Alchemist, and the closest would be Fel-infused Grom who canonically wasn't a Blademaster anyways (confirmed by Micky Neilsen in a tweet).

Muradin is a very slow-attack type of Warrior with heavy damage single-target and AoE abilities on cooldown. That's how his character is carried through in Heroes of the Storm, where his abilities are powerful but his auto attacks are paced and methodical, not fast and furious as compared to Sonya, Twin-blade Varian or Samuro.

The Beastmaster is, obviously, the Beastmaster Hunter (who, in the past, could dual-wield Axes). I, mainly, used it as a counter argument to sygfreyd.
s and icons of the Fury Warrior's abilities.

In truth, a Beastmaster is a Beastmaster. Hunters emulate this gameplay, but Hunters aren't actually Beastmasters and vice versa in terms of what WoW actually considers these to be. It's a common misconception, due to how closely related these classes are, but not once is the Hunter class actually referred to as a 'Beastmaster'. Beastmastery is a specialization of a Hunter, it's a Beastmastery Hunter. It gets even more muddled when you consider that Survival Hunter is actually closer to the Beastmaster hero concept since it carries over the pet and melee, while a Beastmaster hero isn't exactly a Hunter either since they aren't Marksmen or Trappers.

As I've explained to Syg as well, the Monk is the one class where the specializations specifically point to an archetype; Brewmaster as opposed to 'Brewmastery'. You are literally a Brewmaster.

I can't say he's an Arms Warrior, without mastering a two-handed weapon. Neither can i claim him to be a Protection Warrior, just because of his armor.

As i've said, the Mountain King is based off of Nordic/Scandinavian fighters fantasy, which is not so distant from your average barbarian depiction. That's why they resemble the Vrykul so much. And you know who else resemble the Vrykul? The Barbarian class of Diablo 3.

He's based on the Thanes of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. There's a very big distinction between Thanes and the Slayers, who are the tattoed, mohawked wild Dwarves that you've referred to before. Thanes in WFB are combat veterans tutored in the art of war and battle-hardy commanders.

'Nordic Viking' would simply be a general Warrior archetype since not all Vikings could be equated specifically to Fury Warriors either; some could be classified as Protection or Arms depending on the type of weapon or fighting style a particular Viking were using. They were known to use large shields, they were known to use 2H weapons, they were known to fight with martial prowess and strategy. Not all Vikings were dual wielding berserkers fighting recklessly in combat. Look at the game For Honor; there are different classes of Vikings ranging from a Berserker to the 2H axe wielding Raiders and the sword-and-board Warlord.

Heroes of the Storm's categorization is quite of a mess. Chen is categorized as a Bruiser, despite being a Brewmaster (Tank). Karazhim, Reghar and Tyrande are categorized as healers, despite being a Monk, a Gladiator and a Ranger. Arthas, Garrosh and Muradin are categorized as Tanks, despite not having shields or, even, being heavily armored.

So there's two things here - either we look at the classifications as a rough indication of what the Class Identity was meant to be, or we discard it completely as being too different from WoW and not referring to it at all.

IMO, I think Heroes of the Storm does a fairly decent job of categorizing a class identity closer to what it was meant to be than what WoW does, because there are more category types and nuanced playstyles than simply 'Tank' 'DPS' and 'Healer'. WoW doesn't have a Bruiser or Support categories, WoW doesn't have non-shield Warrior tanks, WoW doesn't have the nuance that the RTS or MOBA games did in terms of defining a Class identity. It approximates everything to fit into the Holy Trinity, and leaves little room for customization. Even Vanilla WoW was more open to Hybrid and Support roles, whereas now we have a very rigid Tank/DPS/Healer style of gameplay.

The thing to realize is that WC3 Heroes weren't designed to represent 'Specs', because they aren't Specializations, they are Classes. WC3 Heroes are a full package Class, while WoW Specializations are (Holy Trinity) Roles that are meant to diversify these classes. Demon Hunters in WC3 aren't 'Assassin Rogues' or 'Demonology Warlocks' or 'Vengeance Demon Hunters'; they are the Demon Hunter Class.

This all relates back to why Blademaster shouldn't just be considered an aspect of 'Fury Warrior' even if that happens to be the comparable equivalent in WoW. The Blademaster Hero is a Blademaster class. The Beastmaster Hero is a Beastmaster class. The Priestess of the Moon is a Priestess of the Moon class. If these Hero archetypes are not playable in WoW, that does not mean their identity gets shoehorned into the closest comparable existing Class. Approximating Beastermasters to Hunters or Priestess of the Moon to Priest/Hunter/Druid would simply be misappropriating the Class Identity of these Heroes.

WoW classes had a strong basis on Everquest and D&D style of RPG archetypes, while using WC3 to ground the concepts into the Warcraft universe. Warrior is a mix of Fighter and Barbarian classes from D&D. We can directly equate MK and Chieftains to the Warrior class because that is what the Warrior's abilities and specs are themed around. Yet the Hunter class isn't solely built around Beastmasters; they were designed to be archetypical D&D Rangers who have permanent pets and are adept Marksmen. They deviate from the Beastmaster Hero, and are simply flavoured with some of its themes and features through the Beastmastery spec. Same can be said with the Rogue class, which is based on D&D archetype of Thief, and not any specific Hero from WC3. Even with the Warden elements added later, the Rogue isn't really a Warden. These classes aren't direct analogues of Warcraft 3 Heroes, and not all classes are meant to represent every WC3 Hero in the game even if there are abilities/themes/concepts that are similar.

As I've noted, Rogues aren't Wardens and Wardens aren't Rogues. Beastmasters aren't actually playable. Dark Rangers and Necromancers are still their own class identity despite Forsaken Hunters and Death Knights being playable. I make these distinctions because Blizzard can and made Demon Hunters playable; a WC3 Hero whose abilities/themes/concepts were used for existing classes to the point where people have argued 'they are already playable'. This shows that they could take any Hero concept from WC3 and expand upon it as a class or subclass at any time, or simply choose not to have them playable at all.

[Syegfryed]

1) Rogue + Warlock theme = Demon Hunter ( its OK we not racists, sexists , its okey .....)

2) Warrior + Necromancer theme = Death Knight ( OK too)

3) Warrior + Rogue theme = Blade Master (OH my gawd NO!!!!! , only warrior can wield two-handed sword ... wait a minute ..Pala and DK too?)

that is just a oversimplification and no, blademasters have no rogue themes besides a stealth like ability from the warcraft 3 game, is like saying warrior+druid = blademaster because both have stealth

this is what happens when you dumb down arguments, everything is the same shit if you want to make it

this how this thread looks to me, some people mistake lore and gameplay as always..... Rogue don't fights on frontline? lmao what then all this raids?

that is literally gameplay and lore that you are confusing.
,

At best warrior should lose Bladestorm to Blade master and get some of its own identity

yeah, what a bullshit, make warriors lose their main ability since warcraft 3, very clever

time when they pruned stance-dance from warrior its become just brain dead class .... its feels like meme already "IF you don't know what to do , press Bladestorm"

no one like stance-dance, at least no one who play warrior does

Samuro gameplay from hots its best example of what it should be

Samuro isn't a rogue anda moba is a compeltely different game from a mmo, not even the rogues from wow play like that

Same time Warrior is juggernaut type of character , he is not hiding , he proudly takes hit to the face or blocks it with PLATE armor, charge and damage reduction skills is his forte. (Muradin,Garrosh,Varian)

And also like the orcish blademasters

- - - Updated - - -

Which is exactly how a Blademaster is used with Windwalk and Mirror Image.

you should play more WC3, the blademasters that i know ouse windwalk for speed, so he can close the gap.

Windwalk main ability was speed, he could reach the camps and farm creeps, he could reach the enemy base and kill the workers while receiving enough damage, then he RUN, before he dies, stealth was just a sideway

And this is just at early, early levels, once he is leveled he will fight among the army, as main guy killing and killing and activating baldestorm to clean the battlefield, mirror image was a gimmick

Disengage tatics was just in the early game until he is farmed and the army is being builded

If you just fight toe-to-toe with other heroes like you'd play a Bruiser, you're going to lose. That role is better suited for the Tauren Chieftain since they have a high HP pool and stuns to allow them to focus fire and bodyblock.

No, with the ability to crit and bladestorm the blademaster can be a bruiser just fine by killing then quickly, he only had problem with rly tank heroes.

It's just an ability. It doesn't define them as another class.

nice, now take this at hear and realize that mirror image and windwalk are just an ability. it doesn't define then as another class.

Would you consider a Druid to be a Priestess of the Moon because they have Starfall?

priest class, and the priest of the moon shenanigan is different, a druid would be able to be, so not a good comparison

Would you consider Warlock to be a Demon Hunter because they had Metamorphosis?

No, just like blademasters are not their own class just because windwalk/mirror image

How is the the same when Blademasters weave in and out of battle like a Rogue?

this Ad Hoc Rescue is becoming tiresome, i literally said they are the same but two skills and you come "but how it can be without this two skills?"

they still can weave in and out of battle, they just don't have wind walk

How is the same if the Blademaster focuses on Blades and excludes blunt weapons,

Arms warrior focus on arms, arms = blades too, how the heck is not the same? just because the class also use blunt weapons to emcompass all the warrior cultures?

you also mean that DH are not real DH because they can use swords and axes and not just glaives?

The THEME of a Blademaster is a mystical warrior who masters the use of blades.

The theme of a blademaster is a legendary orc warrior who master the use of blades, which fals exactly and like a glove into the arms warrior spec, warriors with maestry of weapons AKA blades.

A Warrior using Hammers can use Bladestorm, because it's treated as a simple AoE-type of ability that isn't exclusive to Bladed weapons. There's a very big difference here.

Yes, and? just because of that isn't a blademaster anymore? because the warrior class, who was amde to be inclusive and general can do something different? that is obnoxious.

Again, all classes, are generalists, they have to be, to englobe all different races so they do'nt feel shit while playing it, one of the problems with paladins today is how they are not that much generalists and feels bad to play a tauren paladin because they focus more on the humand and blood elf side.

Warrior have no such problem because is generalist enough to englobe all races, taking elements from beings like Tauren chieftain, mountain king AND blademaster, yo give the feeling of tauren, dwarf and orc warriors.

It's the same as Warlock getting Metamorphosis. It has nothing to do with Demon Hunter class, it's a Warlock mimicing the Demon Hunter ability and using it for Demonology; we see this lore in Green Fire questline.

warlock was complete different from a DH in any way shape and form while warriors and blademasters are the same in theme, design, lore and skills except two.

Again, your comparison isn't good.

Warriors don't employ stealth or deception at all. Explain what you mean here.

Saurfang, a simple warrior, not even a blademaster, applied deception to fool the alliance army into going to silithus and used stealth to find a hidden path to ambush and attack the night elves

They do employ if it is necessary

Wardens aren't Rogues. Blizzard has never canonically recognized any Warden in the game as a part of the Rogue class.

Even look in Legion where we have a Rogue class hall. There are no Wardens there at all.

But blizzard canonically recognized blademasters as warriors and even in legion, wod you find then as arms warriors followers, so, in which hill you will die on?

Btw, the rpg state that cordana felsong was a rogue and a warden, further showing that "warden" is a job, a tittle, not rly a class

1- You infer there is a grand difference between Paladins and Warriors. Well, that aspect is all about Divine and Holy magic, right?

ITs one of the aspect, you always want to dumb down the things to make easier to fit your argument, there is a plethora of difference of a paladin and a warrior, that goes from theme, fantasy, lore, abilities, powers and so on, while blademasters and warriors are the same in theme, fantasy lore and the only difference is the warrior class missing two skills from warcraft 3

You seem to not understand that Paladins are just as much Warriors as a Blademaster is.

You seem to not understand that paladins are different than warriors, while blademasters, are, literally, canonicall warriors

again, playing with semantics.

You seem to be confused that because the Paladin in WoW has its own abilities, and that there's _one_ Blademaster ability in the Warrior talents, that the Blademaster can't possibly be its own class. You are mistaken.

Blademaster can't be his own class because they are, already in the warrior class

Jesus, this si giving me flashbacks of "high elves" shenanigans, while people saying they are not in the game

Warriors are themed around being Knights, Fighters, Weapons Masters and Barbarians. Blademaster is themed around being a mystical Samurai, Japanese-styled Swordsmen, and Ninjas. There's a huge difference between these themes. Garrosh and Grom aren't even canonically considered Blademasters.

First of all, warriors are also themed about being samurai, japanese style, if you think they aren't you are just wrong.

This "ninjas" is something you pulled out from your own mind, blademasters are no ninjas or whatsoever.

The "mystical" part of the blademaster is something you are focusing too much and trying to build the argument around it, as a defining and main part of the "blademaster" this is something BARELY mentioned in their lore

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster

you can literally, find the word mystical only ONE time, when talking about mirror image, and that is it, not even the wind walk is something "magical or mystical" is just because they are so fast that they appear to be invisible to the naked eye, they are not invisible like a rogue

Again, by lore, blademasters are orcish warriors, top warriors in other cultures like the Ankoan, and thats it, in wow lifetime we saw countless of Blademasters, and im not talking about Garrosh or Grom, i don't know why you brought then up.

You can see Blademaster Ishi, lantressor of the blade, Akinos, Azuka tons of other, and surprise for you, none of then use the "mystical ninja rogue shenanigans" you think they should use, few, very few of then even use mirror image spell, you can count like 3-4 in wow lifetime and wind walk being even rarer with just jubei'thos using in the Raid.

Taking all of this into account, mysticism, deception and stealth ARE NOT, main things of the blademaster, seeing how those things are rare among then, those are tools for top warriors, like some NPCs can do shit like we players, can't, Thrall and anduin using plate as shaman and priests, they and other usingsspells and abilities we can't, and so on.

[username993720]

Yes, there are connections to Holy. But just the same, there are connections to Prot and Ret that shouldn't be ignored, like the significance of the armor-boosting Devotion aura, the fact that Divine Shield grants immunity while allowing you to continue to melee attack, the fact they are a Strength hero and not INT-based, and plenty more. Holy spec is just one aspect of the WC3 Paladin, since it was much more than just a Healer in the RTS games.

You can't expect it to only have healing abilities, can you?
Blizzard, already, muddled the archetype by the way they assigned abilities to the different specs.
I've suggested reassigning some abilities to better accommodate that:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...on-should-have

He's not blood crazed at all in Heroes or War3. Just having an ability called Bronzebeard's Rage isn't really indicative of a Fury Warrior; you've cherry picked one talent out of the dozen protection and arms related talents.

I get what you're trying to say, but when you look at the whole package, Muradin is more of a Prot/Arms designed Warrior in HOTS, and in WC3 he's pretty equal while leaning towards Prot/Arms due to the mechanics of WC3. Fury doesn't really get represented in WC3 because fast-attacking dual wield melee Strength-based heroes don't really exist; fast attacks are usually tied to Agi-based hero because attack speed is based on Agility in WC3. Beyond that, there are no heroes who have abilities that focus on Berserking other than the Goblin Alchemist, and the closest would be Fel-infused Grom who canonically wasn't a Blademaster anyways (confirmed by Micky Neilsen in a tweet).

Muradin is a very slow-attack type of Warrior with heavy damage single-target and AoE abilities on cooldown. That's how his character is carried through in Heroes of the Storm, where his abilities are powerful but his auto attacks are paced and methodical, not fast and furious as compared to Sonya, Twin-blade Varian or Samuro.

I didn't cherry pick, i've just shown you that it's not, completely, separate.
As for the abilities he uses: Blizzard, completely, ruined it by assigning most of its abilities to the Protection and Arms Warrior, while the unit is known to dual-wield. Avatar, Thunder Clap and their associated talents and glyphs should, at least, be available to the Fury Warrior, as well.

I wouldn't equate him to a an Arms Warrior or a Protection one. For that he'd need a two-handed, more mobility than just Dwarf Toss and Overpowering attacks like Overpower. That would sit well with Varian, less so with Muradin. A Protection Warrior would need to be a living tank. If not in armor, than in stature. Avatar might be one example, but it can be considered a defensive mechanism for other specs. Personally, i'd see a Protection Warrior as Reinhardt, while he uses a shield.

If there's anything i would equate the Mountain King to is Enhancement Shamans, like Thrall. They both use their hammers to deliver lightning-based attacks and are, somewhat, inspired by the Thor archetype.

In truth, a Beastmaster is a Beastmaster. Hunters emulate this gameplay, but Hunters aren't actually Beastmasters and vice versa in terms of what WoW actually considers these to be. It's a common misconception, due to how closely related these classes are, but not once is the Hunter class actually referred to as a 'Beastmaster'. Beastmastery is a specialization of a Hunter, it's a Beastmastery Hunter. It gets even more muddled when you consider that Survival Hunter is actually closer to the Beastmaster hero concept since it carries over the pet and melee, while a Beastmaster hero isn't exactly a Hunter either since they aren't Marksmen or Trappers.

As I've explained to Syg as well, the Monk is the one class where the specializations specifically point to an archetype; Brewmaster as opposed to 'Brewmastery'. You are literally a Brewmaster.

The Beastmaster is the Beastmastery Hunter. Saying otherwise, that it is its own class, is purely semantics. Everything the Beastmaster does in WC3 and everything Rexxar does in HotS is of the Beastmaster Hunter. Their descriptions even match: Masters of the wild who tame a variety of Beasts to assist in combat (even mimicking said animals).

Blizzard, once again, fucked up the fantasy by making the Survival Hunter a pet-based class. It shouldn't be. It should be based on the Headhunter. The Beastmaster doesn't need to be a Marksman or a Trapper. That is what sets it apart from the Marksmanship and Survival Hunters.

The Pandaren Brewmaster is to the Brewmaster spec the same as Beastmaster is to the Beastmastery spec. You are nitpicking on the "Y" at the end, for no reason whatsoever.

He's based on the Thanes of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. There's a very big distinction between Thanes and the Slayers, who are the tattoed, mohawked wild Dwarves that you've referred to before. Thanes in WFB are combat veterans tutored in the art of war and battle-hardy commanders.

'Nordic Viking' would simply be a general Warrior archetype since not all Vikings could be equated specifically to Fury Warriors either; some could be classified as Protection or Arms depending on the type of weapon or fighting style a particular Viking were using. They were known to use large shields, they were known to use 2H weapons, they were known to fight with martial prowess and strategy. Not all Vikings were dual wielding berserkers fighting recklessly in combat. Look at the game For Honor; there are different classes of Vikings ranging from a Berserker to the 2H axe wielding Raiders and the sword-and-board Warlord.

Again, other than the appearances, the Wildhammer Gryphon Riders, for example, are very similar in combat style to those of the Mountain King - using a lot of lightning-based hammer attacks:
Mountain King
Storm bolt, Thunder Clap, Perfect Storm, Sledgehammer, Reverberation, Thunder Burn, Healing Static, Thunder Strike.

Gryphon Rider
Hammerang, Lightning Rod, Hinterland Blast, Gathering Storm, Dishonorable Discharge, Static Shield, Secret Weapon, BOOMerang, Charged up, Thunderstrikes, Crippling Hammer, Call of the Wildhammers.

If you'd consider the Wildhammer a Fury Warrior just because it is half-naked and have tattoos, then it's the wrong way to look at it. Both Dwarves rush blindly into the fray, delivering devastating blows on the battlefield, fueled by anger.

The Diablo 3 Barbarian, for example, can wield a massive two-handed, dual-wield one-handed or equip a shield. Yet, most of its abilities, its resource (Fury) and ,especially, its name (Barbarian), associate it with the fantasy of the berserker type of Warrior. That's why Sonya, for example, was chosen to dual-wield in HotS.

So there's two things here - either we look at the classifications as a rough indication of what the Class Identity was meant to be, or we discard it completely as being too different from WoW and not referring to it at all.

IMO, I think Heroes of the Storm does a fairly decent job of categorizing a class identity closer to what it was meant to be than what WoW does, because there are more category types and nuanced playstyles than simply 'Tank' 'DPS' and 'Healer'. WoW doesn't have a Bruiser or Support categories, WoW doesn't have non-shield Warrior tanks, WoW doesn't have the nuance that the RTS or MOBA games did in terms of defining a Class identity. It approximates everything to fit into the Holy Trinity, and leaves little room for customization. Even Vanilla WoW was more open to Hybrid and Support roles, whereas now we have a very rigid Tank/DPS/Healer style of gameplay.

The thing to realize is that WC3 Heroes weren't designed to represent 'Specs', because they aren't Specializations, they are Classes. WC3 Heroes are a full package Class, while WoW Specializations are (Holy Trinity) Roles that are meant to diversify these classes. Demon Hunters in WC3 aren't 'Assassin Rogues' or 'Demonology Warlocks' or 'Vengeance Demon Hunters'; they are the Demon Hunter Class.

This all relates back to why Blademaster shouldn't just be considered an aspect of 'Fury Warrior' even if that happens to be the comparable equivalent in WoW. The Blademaster Hero is a Blademaster class. The Beastmaster Hero is a Beastmaster class. The Priestess of the Moon is a Priestess of the Moon class. If these Hero archetypes are not playable in WoW, that does not mean their identity gets shoehorned into the closest comparable existing Class. Approximating Beastermasters to Hunters or Priestess of the Moon to Priest/Hunter/Druid would simply be misappropriating the Class Identity of these Heroes.

WoW classes had a strong basis on Everquest and D&D style of RPG archetypes, while using WC3 to ground the concepts into the Warcraft universe. Warrior is a mix of Fighter and Barbarian classes from D&D. We can directly equate MK and Chieftains to the Warrior class because that is what the Warrior's abilities and specs are themed around. Yet the Hunter class isn't solely built around Beastmasters; they were designed to be archetypical D&D Rangers who have permanent pets and are adept Marksmen. They deviate from the Beastmaster Hero, and are simply flavoured with some of its themes and features through the Beastmastery spec. Same can be said with the Rogue class, which is based on D&D archetype of Thief, and not any specific Hero from WC3. Even with the Warden elements added later, the Rogue isn't really a Warden. These classes aren't direct analogues of Warcraft 3 Heroes, and not all classes are meant to represent every WC3 Hero in the game even if there are abilities/themes/concepts that are similar.

As I've noted, Rogues aren't Wardens and Wardens aren't Rogues. Beastmasters aren't actually playable. Dark Rangers and Necromancers are still their own class identity despite Forsaken Hunters and Death Knights being playable. I make these distinctions because Blizzard can and made Demon Hunters playable; a WC3 Hero whose abilities/themes/concepts were used for existing classes to the point where people have argued 'they are already playable'. This shows that they could take any Hero concept from WC3 and expand upon it as a class or subclass at any time, or simply choose not to have them playable at all.

I'm sorry, but Garrosh and Muradin never struck me as tanks. If we consider Frost as a tank, as it was previously considered, then i guess Arthas could be labeled as one. The Diablo 3 Monk never struck me as a Healer, but more of a Windwalker Monk. But, i guess its holy aspect could be attributed to that. Rehgar, as a Gladiator, is as far as i imagine a Healer to be. Tyrande, although a kind of a Ranger, is a Priestess and can draw some healing from Elune. As for Chen, while being a Brewmaster, is not heavily armored, but relies on dodging and parrying more. So, i guess it makes some sense.

Not all Warcraft 3 Heroes are their own class. The Pandaren Brewmaster is, clearly, a Brewmaster Monk and the Beastmaster is, clearly, a Beast Mastery Hunter.
As for your Demon Hunter example, it is more of a Havoc than Vengeance:

The Paladin is a Holy Paladin. The Archamge is a Frost Mage. The Mountain King (as i see it) is a Fury Warrior. The Blood Mage is a Fire Mage. The Blademaster (as i see it) is not in game. The Far Seer is an Enhancement Shaman. The Tauren Chieftain is an Arms Warrior. The Shadow Hunter is not in game. The Death Knight is a Frost Death Knight (Arthas). Keeper of the Grove is a Restoration Druid. The Priestess of the Moon is not in game. The Warden is not in game. Naga Sea Witch is not in game. The Dark Ranger is not in game. The Tinker and Alchemist are not in game (as classes).

Blademasters are not the equivalent of Fury Warriors. I don't know where you got that from. As masters of two-handed weapons, they are closest to an Arms Warrior.

You can't just claim every Warcraft Hero to be its own class. That is just wrong. Adding a Beastmaster into WoW, while having a Beastmastery spec would be, completely, unnecessary.

The Hunter would be based around the Beastmaster, Headhunter and Sapper, if it was up to me. They weaved in a Ranger/Archer archetype into the Hunter that i believe should be pulled out if we ever want to see a playable Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon or Sea Witch.

The Rogue, as they've said, is based around the Assassin, the Pirate and the Ninja. I would take the Ninja aspect and incorporate it into the Blademaster. The Sentinel would be a better fit to replace the stealthy aspect of the Rogue.

Beastmaster is, very much, playable. I don't know how you got to that conclusion? Because Mok'nathals aren't a playable race? that is of no issue. Summoning pets, Stampede, Mend Pet, Bestial Wrath, Flare, Aspect of the Beast, Aspect of the Hawk, Dire Beast, Thrill of the Hunt, Intimidation, Feign Death, Spirit Bond and Kill Command are not foreign to the Hunter's repertoire.

I agree on the Dark Ranger. Less so about the Necromancer. It is a basic unit, and as such is unlikely to be made into a class (alongside Spellbreakers and alike). Blizzard, usually, incorporates these basic units into the Hero units that are turned into classes (as in the case of Necromancers being incorporated into the Death Knight class). For example, Witch Doctors are lesser versions of Shadow Hunters, Tauren Warriors are lesser versions of Tauren Chieftain, Shamans are lesser versions of Far Seers, and Archers and Huntresses are lesser versions of the Priestess of the Moon.

You are right. Demon Hunters are the reason why i believe all future WoW classes to be pulled from Warcraft III Heroes. I saw a pattern with the Death Knight and Monk. But the Demon Hunter sealed the deal. I was skeptic about it ever being playable, due to its abilities being in the Warlock, Rogue and Priest. Yet, the addition of them in Legion (with only two specs) was sort of a stamp of approval. But, unlike you, i don't believe every Warcraft 3 Hero to be viable. Especially not the Beastmaster. You have to examine, really closely, who are represented in game, whether through abilities and talents or races and their racials, and who are not. I've come to my conclusion that the Blademaster is not represented in game, much like the Demon Hunter, even though it has its abilities in the Warrior and Mage classes. Yet, i don't think considering every one of the Heroes available as a potential candidate is a logical point of view. Some of these heroes are present in the game's classes, they just need a bit of an overhaul and better representation. Adding a Keeper of the Grove, for example, while we have Druids would not be a wise decision.

[Triceron]

You can't expect it to only have healing abilities, can you?
Blizzard, already, muddled the archetype by the way they assigned abilities to the different specs.

Except they didn't muddle the concept. On the contrary, you have a personal difference of opinion of what it should be, and that leans heavily towards headcanon arguments.

I didn't cherry pick, i've just shown you that it's not, completely, separate.

I never said they were separate, I said they were not specific to any one Spec.

As for the abilities he uses: Blizzard, completely, ruined it by assigning most of its abilities to the Protection and Arms Warrior, while the unit is known to dual-wield. Avatar, Thunder Clap and their associated talents and glyphs should, at least, be available to the Fury Warrior, as well.

And herein lies the perception issue I point out.

You regard WC3 Paladin as Holy spec because of hoe its abilities were used and arranged in WoW, regardless of the fact Holy Light is present in all 3 specs.

Yet when a MK is arranged so that abilities aren't in Fury, you just regard this as Blizzard's mistake, rather than take a more objective look at what Blizzard actually intends the MK to be. You're not looking at what the MK actually is, you're looking at what you want to regard ot to be.

I wouldn't equate him to a an Arms Warrior or a Protection one. For that he'd need a two-handed, more mobility than just Dwarf Toss and Overpowering attacks like Overpower. That would sit well with Varian, less so with Muradin. A Protection Warrior would need to be a living tank. If not in armor, than in stature. Avatar might be one example, but it can be considered a defensive mechanism for other specs. Personally, i'd see a Protection Warrior as Reinhardt, while he uses a shield.

Then you're employing double standards in how you regard classes, by appropriating the Paladin based on abilities and role but not weapons, but applying weapons above abilities and role to the MK.

Heres an excersize - take a look at all the Heroes you consider to represent a Prot Warrior in WC3. Now tell me which one of them uses a shield. I think you will be suprised to realize no WC3 hero that is a tank actually uses a shield.

The Beastmaster is the Beastmastery Hunter. Saying otherwise, that it is its own class, is purely semantics. Everything the Beastmaster does in WC3 and everything Rexxar does in HotS is of the Beastmaster Hunter. Their descriptions even match: Masters of the wild who tame a variety of Beasts to assist in combat (even mimicking said animals).

Everything except the fact that they're never regarded as 'Hunters'. The Beastmaster is a friend to all beasts, and would not ever hunt them. A Hunter makes no distinction in this regard, and is broad enough to be both a Beast Tamer and a Beast Killer depending on what specs and themes you choose to take up. It's about the same as equating a Paladin to a Priest; they are essentially the same thing in all but name and we even see Anduin capable of doing everything a Paladin could, plus more. He wears plate armor, he uses a 2H weapon, he casts Holy protective magic and shields, and on top he's not restricted to Holy magic and can use Shadow as well. But Blizzard chose to make that distinction between Paladin and Priest, showing that there is significance to the names and that what we see in WC3 aren't just 'Titles' of broader archetypes.

Truth of the matter is Mountain King isn't just a name for Warriors. Mountain Kings are Mountain Kings. Warriors don't and can not play as a Mountain King; they simply emulate the gameplay through abilities. If you notice, you can't even take all the MK talents at once; Stormbolt is on the same tier as Avatar. In order to truly play as a Mountain King, Blizzard would need to modify how class identities already work in WoW, and add in a Prestige system for certain Race/Class comboes, or add in a Sub-class system similar to Allied Races where we have a carbon copy of an existing class with modified Talents that actually allow you access to the full Mountain King kit.

Of course, WoW translations of Heros aren't 1:1, and we even see how Demon Hunter differs to the WC3 Hero when we break down how Metamorphosis is no longer a ranged form and is designed for melee, which is closer to the HOTS portrayal rather than the Warlock Metamorphosis which was closer to WC3's Demon Hunter ability. So we need to regard that there is going to be some shifts here and there. There were no Shield Tank heroes in WC3. There was no pure Healing role for any Hero; every Hero had multiple functions and roles in the game. There was no Holy Trinity, and RTS units were designed more to fit like cards in a deck, working together to build a hand rather than perform individual roles.

What we have to consider with these heroes are the broader scope of themes. Each Hero is its own Class. That we equate some to a generic Class in WoW is due to how Blizzard set up WoW to play as, now how Heroes should be identified as. WoW's class system is too rigid to accomodate all the nuanced Heroes like Dark Rangers, Priestess of the Moon, Blademasters, Wardens etc. WoW can only provide blanket archetypes, while bridging in unique and familiar hero concepts where it fits. The Class system was designed to be an RPG system, and the Spec system isn't capable of giving you a full 'Class' in one package; it purposefully splits up the mechanics in multiple ways to fill multiple Roles. This isn't like Guild Wars 2 where you can literally pick and choose your abilities and playstyle to suit your needs, you're forced into the Spec Archetypes which rigidly define Fury and Frost DK as Dual Wield, Unholy Ret and Arms as 2H etc. Legion was the only instance where we actually got closest to the WC3 archetypes, but unfortunately that's a one-and-done deal. I'd prefer my 'Druid of the Claw' to keep using Claw weapons instead of Stat-sticks, but that's how the Druid Class is designed to be.

You can't just claim every Warcraft Hero to be its own class. That is just wrong. Adding a Beastmaster into WoW, while having a Beastmastery spec would be, completely, unnecessary.

You misunderstand my point.

Every Hero in WC3 should be regarded as its own Class Identity.

Not every Class Identity needs to be represented in playable form. Generic Classes such as Warriors, Priests and Mages may represent multiple Identities, but they will only ever be a Warrior, Priest or Mage class. You are not a Mountain King, you are not a Witchdoctor, you are not a Blood Mage. You are a Warrior, Priest or Mage.

The merit of having a certain Class Identity be playable is up for discussion, but should be overall respected as their own Class Identity.
- Do we need a playable Blood Mage if Mage already represents the class? Probably not.
- Do we need a playable Necromancer if DK already uses Necromancy? Debateable, since Necromancers were a different archetype
- Do we need a playable Mountain King if Warrior already has its abilities and themes? Probably not *but* more distinctions could be added to Warrior to better portray MKs
- Do we need a playable Blademaster if Warrior already has its abilities and themes? Debateable, since Blademasters have a specific Eastern theme not represented by Warriors

This is how I think Class Identities should be regarded and addressed. When we talk about Blood Mage, it isn't just the Mage Class, it's a Blood Mage identity. If we talk about Mountain Kings, we should be talking specifically about the Mountain King and not just aspects of the Warrior class which we attribute it to. We need to regard the identities, because that is ultimately what we want to choose to play as.

Blizzard does not officially mix the Class Identities of WC3 Heroes with playable classes. Even if certain NPCs are tied to a class as a Trainer or a Follower, it is not what our own playable Class can be. Dark Rangers can be Trainers and Marksman Hunter Followers, but our own Hunters are not Dark Rangers nor are Dark Rangers specifically a Hunter. Same can be applied to Demon Hunter, where it's not just a 'Type of Rogue' or 'Type of Warlock' like many people argued it to be.

Beastmasters have no direct comparison to any playable class in WoW. Hunters just happen to be *the closest comparable class* to a Beastmaster, including sharing many themes. But as I say with Warlocks and DH, sharing themes does not equate to being the same. We have to consider the class identity itself too. Demon Hunters aren't just Fel Practitioners, they are Fel-imbued masters of combat. Well a Warlock can also be a Fel-imbued master of combat if they have Metamorphosis right? But their class identity is still based on being a powerful spellcaster motivated by power lust, rather than a character that fights makes great sacrifices for the sake of power to mete out their vengeance. Beastmasters aren't animal hunters or trappers; they're specifically protectors of the Wild. Even if a Hunter can be a Protector of the Wild, their core concepts are still built around being wilderness experts who track, hunt and kill. Their goals are similar but not the same. That makes it a different class identity.

You can choose to roleplay your character as you see fit, but you aren't actually going to be that Class unless Blizzard says you are playing that Class. The difference to you and me may be negligible for some concepts like Farseer or Mountain King or Beastmaster, but it's still not an officially bound thing by Blizzard saying we actually are Farseers and Mountain Kings and Beastmasters. We're just able to emulate the gameplay well enough that there's no need to make a separate playable Class in WoW to represent those specific Class Identities. Most people aren't chuffed that they aren't actually Spirit Walkers or Farseers when they play their Shaman. But you can see by this very conversation, there are people like you and me who regard MK as being a Warrior, but at the same time acknowledging the Warrior Class isn't designed well enough to actually be a Mountain King. Well, that's because you aren't actually playing a Mountain King class, and Blizzard would need to address this Class Identity specifically just as they would need to for Blademasters.

My hopes is that Blizzard opens up Prestige Classing or Subclassing in the future, which will actually bridge in specific concepts. What we have in WoW is already much too broad, and we have a Priest class representing everything Faith-related in WoW whether it's Voodoo or Elune or the Pandaren pantheon of Celestial Beings. On top of that, they also represent secular or non-faith based concepts, like Gnome Medics and Forsaken Apothecaries. We should have these Identities diversified into their own, rather than just be all lumped together in one name. Let us play as a specific Witchdoctor, or a Warden, or a Spellbreaker.

[Triceron]

Again, all classes, are generalists, they have to be, to englobe all different races so they do'nt feel shit while playing it, one of the problems with paladins today is how they are not that much generalists and feels bad to play a tauren paladin because they focus more on the humand and blood elf side.

Not all classes are generalists.

There are 3 Generalist classes which all other classes can be considered based on.

Warrior
Mage
Priest

Every other class is just a specialized version of each of these roles.

Druid is a Nature Priest. Shaman is an Elemental Warrior. Warlock is a Fel Mage. Hunter is a Wilderness Warrior. Rogue is a Shadowy Warrior. This is how generalist it gets if you really boil down the concepts, because WoW is ultimately built around the Holy Trinity.


Demon Hunters, Monks, Death Knights and Paladins are not generalist classes. These are very specific niche classes that actually exist *between* existing ones. If designed differently, each of these Classes could be tied to an existing Generalist class.

Demon Hunter = Rogue with Metamorphosis or Warlock with Warglaives and Elf options
Death Knight = Warrior with Necromancy, something that Shadowlands already partially covers
Monk = Shaman with Martial Arts to Tank and DPS
Paladin = Warrior with Holy abilities or Priest with Plate Melee options

These classes are specific because they are *NOT* designed to be any of the above.

Not *all* classes are generalists.

Warrior have no such problem because is generalist enough to englobe all races, taking elements from beings like Tauren chieftain, mountain king AND blademaster, yo give the feeling of tauren, dwarf and orc warriors.

Yes, and that's part of the Warrior being a generalist.

So when people are talking about a more specific class concept that focuses on Samurais and Eastern-styled Bladed Weapon techniques and Mystic abilities, why do you think it needs to be associated to the Warrior class? This thread is about a new class concept that uses the Blademaster as a jumping point.

But blizzard canonically recognized blademasters as warriors and even in legion, wod you find then as arms warriors followers, so, in which hill you will die on?

That's the hill you're choosing to die on.

If Blizzard makes Blademaster its own class, then everyone will accept that as the new canon and that they are different from Warriors, and that the WoD follower classification is just out-dated. Same way as all retcons.

Even Blizzard can change the WoD Follower class to be Blademaster and that would fix it up. It's that easy.

Taking all of this into account, mysticism, deception and stealth ARE NOT, main things of the blademaster, seeing how those things are rare among then, those are tools for top warriors, like some NPCs can do shit like we players, can't, Thrall and anduin using plate as shaman and priests, they and other usingsspells and abilities we can't, and so on.

Which is why this thread is taking those concepts and suggesting a new class based on Mystic abilities that aren't already used in the game, and tying it directly to the Blademaster concept that uses it.

https://pacomadreja.github.io/Blademaster.html#spec3

Have you even bothered to look at the concept? It's not anywhere similar to a Warrior, it's a new class concept altogether.

I feel that you're hung up on the 'Blademaster' name specifically. Would it be better if you look at this class as 'Samurai' or 'Mystic Swordsman' and see things differently?

I'm not even supporting this specific concept. I'm just pointing out that your argument that Blademaster is only an Arms Warrior has almost nothing to do with what this thread is actually about. If you look at the concept, then you can see that it's a new class being presented that is based on the Blademaster of WC3. It's far more than just 'Windwalk' and 'Mirror Image', there's a new resource system, plenty of new abilities, plenty of different themes.

[VinceVega]

That is so much better than tinker^^

Bit to strong leaning to monk but good nonetheless

[Snufflupagus]

This is an awesome concept. I would love to see this come to fruition. There are too few 2h classes in the game in my opinion.

This blademaster concept is substantially different from warrior, rogue, monk and shaman. The guy claiming otherwise is a smoothbrain, don’t sweat it.

[Declaron]

I can see it becoming a Spec but definitely not a class (they will never add another melee class now.)

[Syegfryed]

Whats your point though

my point is Samurai fantasy and even transmogs are already in the game, and people said they aren't, simple as that.

and secondly, again, this isn't my opinion, its a fact, Samurai armour was not heavy armour like we see on late medieval knights. It was lamelar plate and leather on the vulnerable areas, and largely leather on less vulnerable areas, that's not plate, plate =/ lamelar.

IT is a kind of plate nevertheless, wow warriors have a lot of difference in their armor, not everyone use heavy complete armor, they just use another transmog.

By your own images, grom did not use late medieval knights armor, he barely use any armor, and you can't say he was not a warrior.

- - - Updated - - -

Not all classes are generalists.

never said al of then are, i said they try to be, to fit more themes and races, therefore their different cultures on the subject, they can't bee to race specific without a good argument, or the class would be playable only for one race

Druid is a Nature Priest. Shaman is an Elemental Warrior. Warlock is a Fel Mage. Hunter is a Wilderness Warrior. Rogue is a Shadowy Warrior. This is how generalist it gets if you really boil down the concepts, because WoW is ultimately built around the Holy Trinity.

that is not a generalist, that is a oversimplification, you are taking the terms that are class and using then to fit your argument that "everything is warrior so everyone can be a different class by itself because not exact the same as the warrior class"

In wow and other games they have fundamental differences and are not dumbed down like this, by example, in most of the games, warlocks are not "bad mages" warlocks differe from mages or wizards by doing a pact for power, wizards/mages study magic, sorcerers have innate power from their birth/blood

of course, this semantic discussion would not be happening if in wow the name of the playable class was different, by, example, this is not a problem in dungeons and dragons because they use "fighter" instead of warrior, for the class. But nevertheless, you just have to accept there is a difference between "warrior" the broad term for any character who wages some sort of war or warlike behavior and the playable class warrior.

Demon Hunter = Rogue with Metamorphosis or Warlock with Warglaives and Elf options

Right, because the abse of Demon hunter is being a stealth rogue or a spellcaster warlock, but those two with glaives

Thats why you don't dumb down into a simplicist thing, you create those nonsenses.

So when people are talking about a more specific class concept that focuses on Samurais and Eastern-styled Bladed Weapon techniques and Mystic abilities, why do you think it needs to be associated to the Warrior class?

Because they are warriors, plain and simple, samurais are warriors trough and trough, and the "mystic abilities" is just one, that can simple be put as talent for the warrior class, they are not their own class

you tried and tried again make the blademaster look like a paladin or a death knight, even a demon hunter to validate then as something else, but is just false equivalance all together.

This thread is about a new class concept that uses the Blademaster as a jumping point.

the class concept of the blademaster is already in the game, but more generalist to fit other races, otherwise blademaster, the way you "imagine" then to be, would be an orcish class only

Bloody hell, even in the RPG blademaster was just the gladiator rank of the warriors, not another class

If Blizzard makes Blademaster its own class, then everyone will accept that as the new canon and that they are different from Warriors, and that the WoD follower classification is just out-dated. Same way as all retcons.

But why they would make then their own class, it they literally, time and time again, proved their are warriors, specific arms warriors? why go trough all this trouble to make a carbom copy of the same class, but with wind walk and mirror image? owh way they can just copy past moba abilities here, like it would work

There is no logic in that, Jesus, this is the second "high elf" thing, its just blizzard to chose change the canon and add then. and buddy, if they just did void elves and give then blood elf elves, you better expect they jsut giving the options to warriors.

Which is why this thread is taking those concepts and suggesting a new class based on Mystic abilities that aren't already used in the game, and tying it directly to the Blademaster concept that uses it.

You mean they are taking the blademaster and filling with headcanon and wishful thinking, and desires to change the canon and what is already established in the lore,

it would be better to start with that already and not pretend you had like something concrete.

Again, blademaster are legendary orcish warriors, in wow lifetime they showed then countless of times, they are already established in wow lore, they already have a solid theme and representation, this "mystic swordmans is barely touched, even among the rare cases that use those skills, so don't try to argue that is their main thing, when it is not.

And even taking all of those walls, you still have the problem of this being another melee class that play the same as others, with no difference whatsoever, and no, "mystic warrior" cannot hold itself, plus, there is no expansion who would make sense this "class" be playable, ship kinda sailed in wod, if there was anytime

Less they can do is again, give the abilities missing to the warrior, or when race campaigns come up(like covenant and artifacts) they start giving classes titles and abilities to mirror those themes, if you are horde your warrior can be a blademaster under orcish tutelage, fi you are shaman you can be witch doctor with troll ttuelage and so on

Another class? impossible, blizzard barely made DH with tons of shit to draw upon.

[Triceron]

never said al of then are, i said they try to be, to fit more themes and races, therefore their different cultures on the subject, they can't bee to race specific without a good argument, or the class would be playable only for one race

You literally said all classes are generalists.

You need to be more careful with your words if that wasn't what you meant.

they can't bee to race specific without a good argument, or the class would be playable only for one race

And that's what we've come about to with Blademasters. Look at the concept in the OP. There is a good argument that we can have a class that would be playable for multiple races, based on the general concept of a Samurai/Eastern-themed Swordsman archetype

Thats why you don't dumb down into a simplicist thing, you create those nonsenses.

And you've dumbed down the Blademaster to being a Warrior, even without Windwalk and Mirror Image. You've ignored the fact that Warriors aren't exclusively Blade-users, aren't Eastern themed, don't use mystical arts, and don't use stealth or deception in their kit. You've created a nonsense argument for yourself surrounding what you think a Blademaster should be; simply a Warrior.

Except everything in this OP's concept is all about being a Mystical Warrior rather than just a Warrior with Windwalk and Mirror Image. You need to actually look at the OP's concept before you spout out nonsense about Arms Warriors.

Another class? impossible, blizzard barely made DH with tons of shit to draw upon.

Who says Blizzard *has* to make this a class?

I'm arguing against your claim that the Blademaster is already a Warrior. They're not the same concept, they're different concepts.

That you don't believe Blizzard would make a new class out of the Blademaster is besides the point. As I said, the Warrior only represents itself, and no other class in the game. You are playing a Warrior. Not a Mountain King, not a Chieftain, not a Blademaster. You only play as an Arms Warrior, a Protection Warrior or a Fury Warrior. You are not any other class. You are simply able to emulate other Heroes from Warcraft 3, but you aren't actually playing as them.

But why they would make then their own class, it they literally, time and time again, proved their are warriors, specific arms warriors?

Blademasters aren't playable, therefore they aren't associated directly with any class.

NPCs are simply *approximations* of existing classes. There's no Tinker class in the game either, and every Tinker is represented by an Engineer. It doesn't mean we can't have a Tinker class either, you understand this right?

Same with Necromancer. They are tied to the Death Knight. Blizzard doesn't have to make a separate Necromancer class at all. But there is a clear difference between a Necromancer and a Death Knight. Not all Death Knights are Necromancers, not all Necromancers are Death Knights.

Same applies with Blademaster. Not all Warriors are Blademasters, not all Blademasters are Warriors. Blademasters could just as easily be Assassins who use stealth to kill, or Monk-like Swordmasters who use Chi and Mystical powers to boost their swordmastery. These are themes that the Warrior class does not cover.