If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Syegfryed]

You talk about "nitpicking", yet nitpick yourself, to avoid answering the question. And people have told you you're using words like "possible" wrong. And you continue.

you are literally moving goalposts and getting mad that "i didn't answer the question that you distorted" come on, comedy have limits, the question about why getting so worked over about tinker, when they indeed are a possibility, was not asnwered

[Ielenia]

you are literally moving goalposts and getting mad that "i didn't answer the question that you distorted" come on, comedy have limits, the question about why getting so worked over about tinker, when they indeed are a possibility, was not asnwered

I don't think I ever said tinkers are "not possible" without adding caveats to that statement (for example: "without changing the engineering profession"), so your question is misleading.

If you still think I ever claimed "tinkers are not possible" without adding any caveats, feel free to quote me making that statement.

[Triceron]

you are literally moving goalposts and getting mad that "i didn't answer the question that you distorted" come on, comedy have limits, the question about why getting so worked over about tinker, when they indeed are a possibility, was not asnwered

That's the problem.

You assumed others said it was not possible, but other people were talking plausibility not possibility.

Its why I said you were talking about the wrong thing since the beginning. You were using the wrong arguments, since you and the people you are talking about aren't talking about Tinkers being not possible, but rather not plausible. And plausibility doesn't need to be bound by fact, it's simply an argument or explanation of a potential outcome; an opinion of what is likely to happen based on whatever observed evidence is brought to the table.

And I even explained reasons why it was not plausible, but you kept thinking the topic was still about possibility when it never was. No one has argued that they are impossible to add. At most, people have talked about them being not plausible, with various reasons behind it.

Tinkers, like all class concepts, have pros and cons to their concept. Some people see the cons outweighing the pros, thus to them it is not a likely class to happen in the game. Reasons include Engineering taking a bunch of the theme, the lack of future expansion themes to tie them in, and the fact that even Blizzard devs considered them potentially too whimsical. Then there's the direct association to least-popular races, which is difficult to market to a wide audience. These are all things that make it less plausible, and is what people have been talking about.

You simply misinterpreted the whole thing as less possible.

[Syegfryed]

I don't think I ever said tinkers are "not possible" without adding caveats to that statement (for example: "without changing the engineering profession"), so your question is misleading.

If you still think I ever claimed "tinkers are not possible" without adding any caveats, feel free to quote me making that statement.

I also, never said, you did, it was a broad question, for the multiple pages bickering, but you jump on the gun anyway like it was meat for you, but you were just nitpicking about the "terms". And what happened to "shttuing down the conversation" and letting me "have the last reply"? you can't help yourself, right?

That's the problem.

You assumed others said it was not possible, but other people were talking plausibility not possibility.

No, not rly, i asked why people were bitching about tinker that much, regardless if they are "possible or pLauSibLe", its just does not justify all the fight.

Tinkers, like all class concepts, have pros and cons to their concept. Some people see the cons outweighing the pros, thus to them it is not a likely class to happen in the game. Reasons include Engineering taking a bunch of the theme, the lack of future expansion themes to tie them in, and the fact that even Blizzard devs considered them potentially too whimsical

And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

Also, the lack of future theme? seriously? there still the undermine all the subterranean plot with the blingtron hinting a possible enemy they can use for a next expansion, is not much but hey, what is the future theme to introduce blademasters? and i was called a hypocrite

[lazypeon100]

Tinker could be fun. Tank, heal, and a new ranged DPS spec.

I still want them to bring back an updated version of ranged survival and think it never should have been deleted in the first place. If they refuse to do a fourth spec, I think it could fit into Tinker if they were to design around the idea and maybe update some of the thematic stuff.

Healing spec could be based on a chemist. Think alchemist, but on steroids as far as potions go? Tanking you could make your mech / turrets.

[Ielenia]

I also, never said, you did, it was a broad question, for the multiple pages bickering, but you jump on the gun anyway like it was meat for you, but you were just nitpicking about the "terms". And what happened to "shttuing down the conversation" and letting me "have the last reply"? you can't help yourself, right?

Then, once again, your wording is put into question, as your post led me to believe you were complaining that I did not answer your question.

And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

It is your opinion that they're the same class, not fact. And, again, the only thing that the warriors "took" from the concept was the whirlwind ability. The other abilities are nowhere to be seen in the warrior class. Also, does "wielding a two-handed sword" equals warrior? Because, if so, someone warn Blizzard that they put two warrior classes in the game, since the paladin also wields a two-handed weapon.

[OwenBurton]

Perhaps they could do something different - or try a different class for each faction. Just like in the past with priest abilities, which were faction and race-exclusive.

The Alliance could probably get Wardens (it's been in the game for a long time), and they seem quite popular.
The Horde could get something like Spellfencers (lots of nightborne NPCs in Suramar use spellswords), an interesting parallel to the Wardens.

Perhaps they could remain locked to night elves and nightborne for one expansion or something, and then have them teach their skills to other races, or make them available to both faction eventually, after seeing how they're received?

[Nyel]

So... assuming Shadowlands is bombing as hard as WoD in the long run (which seems to be the case with content droughts already happening), do you think they'll come back with a new class in the next expansion? I mean it's the logical thing as Azerite and Covenants just failed and they need something bigger and better than that on top of the usual borrowed power system.

But what class would make sense after Shadowlands? Necromancers, aka Death Knight 2.0? Dark Ranger in reminiscence of Sylvanas? Or something completely different? I mean a Tinker makes no sense anymore.

[Syegfryed]

Then, once again, your wording is put into question, as your post led me to believe you were complaining that I did not answer your question.

once again the problem is your nittpicking and constant need for attention and be right, the proof is how you said "the conversation would end" but you are still here, doing the same

It is your opinion that they're the same class, not fact. And, again, the only thing that the warriors "took" from the concept was the whirlwind ability. The other abilities are nowhere to be seen in the warrior class.

that is much my opinion as it is a blizzard opinion putting and tagging bladmeasters as arms warriors, as warrior trainners and so on, the warrior class is a mix of blademaster, tauren chieftain, mountain king and other warrior-ish units, one of the reasons they are not carbon copies of any of those, blademaster is as much possible or PLaUsIBlE as mountain king and tauren chieftain class.

Also, does "wielding a two-handed sword" equals warrior? Because, if so, someone warn Blizzard that they put two warrior classes in the game, since the paladin also wields a two-handed weapon.

that is just your assumption and as always, over the top extrapolation trying to win the argument yet again by another fallacy, in this case, the appeal to ridicule, and you were the one talking about "honest conversations"

[Triceron]

No, not rly, i asked why people were bitching about tinker that much, regardless if they are "possible or pLauSibLe", its just does not justify all the fight.

Yes but you're already aware nothing is justified.

You arguing for dozens of pages saying Blademasters can't be playable isn't justified either when you fully recognize that Blizzard could retcon their own lore and make it happen, right? What was your justification if not your own opinion?

You are just as zealous as the rest, so if you're really criticizing people here, you're just being hypocritical about it.

I'm fully aware that there are people like this on both sides of the spectrum, and people argue in favour of what they think is true. And as I said, those matters of belief can't actually define the truth, because the only undeniable fact is that Blizzard could do literally anything and that nothing is actually impossible.

And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

Also, the lack of future theme? seriously? there still the undermine all the subterranean plot with the blingtron hinting a possible enemy they can use for a next expansion, is not much but hey, what is the future theme to introduce blademasters? and i was called a hypocrite

Again, you are talking plausibility here, not possibility. No one has said Tinkers were not possible. And you forget that no one in the Blademaster thread actually argued that Blademaster was a high plausibility, everyone was _denying your claims_ that they can not exist as a class, because you specifically said it was _not possible_. Had you simply said they were unlikely to happen, everyone would have likely agreed with you. Most people talking in the thread simply regarded the concept as something that could be made, not that it necessarily would be made. You came in and tried to shut those opinions down completely, stirring the hornets nest with bad faith arguments that it was impossible.

As I said, Blademasters ARE unlikely to happen, and that is different from saying they are _impossible_ to happen. No one has said a Blademaster was more likely than a Tinker, so I don't know why you think this. I feel like you are equating two things that are unrelated

Someone arguing that a Blademaster is possible (can factually exist) and that a Tinker is not plausible (not likely to exist) does not mean they think Blademasters are more likely to happen than Tinkers. That someone argues you that Blademaster can exist does not mean they should or have a good chance for it to exist.

As I said, you were using the wrong words and because you did, you are conflating different arguments together just because you see people resisting your own beliefs on what you think is not plausible, even though you dun fucked up and said 'not possible' instead. That got everyone explaining why it _is possible_, but you think they are all arguing why that class would be _likely_. This is because you think possibility just means likelyhood, while everyone arguing against you was not talking about a high or low chance, but the simple argument that you shouldn't be considering anything as 'not possible'.

You messed up what you intended to say by using the wrong words. If you had used the right words and right meaning at the start, you'd see that no one is actually denying the possibility of a Tinker while arguing that Blademasters are possible. You're lacking consistency in your argument because you don't realize that if you said Tinkers were impossible, the same people arguing against you about Blademaster would do the same for Tinker, saying that nothing is actually impossible and that the argument is wrong.

If you had stuck to plausibility, most people discussing Blademaster openly regard the chances of it happening are pretty low, and agree with that. As I said myself, I would agree with you if you were talking about plausibility, but you continue to say possibility instead and you keep defending yourself kn using the wrong terminology.

Tinker and Blademaster are _equal_ in possibility, because there are no facts that suggest one being _more_ possible than the other. Both are WC3 concepts, both have themes and gameplay existing in the game through Warriors or Engineering. These are plain facts, and possibility doesn't care whether one is a class and one is a profession because either way Blizzard can retcon anything to make it work, which is why the possibilities are the same.

Plausibility is what we should discuss, and a Tinker is more plausible than a Blademaster for many of the reasons you have mentioned. Not possibility, plausibility

[Syegfryed]

Yes but you're already aware nothing is justified.

You arguing for dozens of pages saying Blademasters can't be playable isn't justified either when you fully recognize that Blizzard could retcon their own lore and make it happen, right? What was your justification if not your own opinion?

nah, you want to make those things equal, but they are as different as oil and water, and most what i did was to say blademaster are already a thing, and people coming with pichforks saying it wasn't, cause the "real blademaster" is from hots and all other bullshit nonsense, that is beyond their hability or capability of retconing stuff, which i never said was not possible.

You are just as zealous as the rest, so if you're really criticizing people here, you're just being hypocritical about it.

seems like im pointing ou the double standards and you are just "no u"

Again, you are talking plausibility here, not possibility. No one has said Tinkers were not possible. And you forget that no one in the Blademaster thread actually argued that Blademaster was a high plausibility, everyone was _denying your claims_ that they can not exist as a class, because you specifically said it was _not possible_.

Incorrect, people are "denying my claim" saying bullshit like: 1- blademasters are not warriors, 2-Warrior class have nothing to do with blademasters 3-warriors and blademasters have different themes, fantasy and even skills, 4- blademaster is a monk spec. (all of those points are false btw corrected many times)

i never said it was "impossible" that blizzard did some nonsensical and utterly bullshit thing to just retcon their game and add the same class again under another name with HOTS skills, this is you assuming that.

What i said is: it is highly unlikely that they do that, because warriors are blademasters and already share theme and fantasy(because again, same class), and, is way more likely, aka more possible, to simple give the arms spec more blademaster-ish features or even add a 4th spec to warriors.

in return what i got is that was not enough because, of course, the 4 points i mentioned early, i literally had people saying they cannot give warriors mirror image and wind walk because ~~reasons~~, when they actually not just can but did similar skills before.

Plausibility is what we should discuss, and a Tinker is more plausible than a Blademaster for many of the reasons you have mentioned. Not possibility, plausibility

I will still die ont he hill saying one is more possible than the other, period, because of the factiors already discussed, regards of the mental malabarisms you are coming up with.

[Ielenia]

that is much my opinion as it is a blizzard opinion putting and tagging bladmeasters as arms warriors, as warrior trainners and so on, the warrior class is a mix of blademaster, tauren chieftain, mountain king and other warrior-ish units, one of the reasons they are not carbon copies of any of those, blademaster is as much possible or PLaUsIBlE as mountain king and tauren chieftain class.

I have not found a single warrior trainer named or titled "blademaster". Also, what exactly to you mean by "tagging blademasters as arms warriors"? I don't think blizzard tags NPCs with "specializations" or even "classes". They just give them abilities that abilities that fit their concept, using abilities from classes when they are "close enough" (like giving Fireball to a tinker) or creating new ones when what they have are not good enough. Again, same link.

I mean, we even have Blademasters with mana. The warrior class doesn't use mana.

that is just your assumption and as always, over the top extrapolation trying to win the argument yet again by another fallacy, in this case, the appeal to ridicule, and you were the one talking about "honest conversations"

I asked you if that is what makes one an "arms warrior" in your eyes, because you didn't specify what makes a NPC an "arms warrior". Yes, I'm assuming, because you, as always, don't provide enough information.

[Syegfryed]

I have not found a single warrior trainer named or titled "blademaster".

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

he was a warrior trainer before he retired

Also, what exactly to you mean by "tagging blademasters as arms warriors"?

tagging then as such in things like mission tables, garrison tables.

Lantressor of the blade is a blademaster and is called a arms warrior in the game:


But of course, this will not matter, i can already see you saying how those examples means nothing, are not enough, yada yada, is like a deja vu, so please, do what you said you were going to do and end this already.

I asked you if that is what makes one an "arms warrior" in your eyes, because you didn't specify what makes a NPC an "arms warrior". Yes, I'm assuming, because you, as always, don't provide enough information.

"since you didn't specify what makes i will proceed to make an dumb extrapolation", we always end up with you assuming and making that, weird hun?

[Triceron]

I will still die ont he hill saying one is more possible than the other, period, because of the factiors already discussed, regards of the mental malabarisms you are coming up with.

And that is why you will always see people push back on any of your statements. Because you are literally dying on a hill vocally and unreasonably so.

[Ielenia]

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

he was a warrior trainer before he retired

So you have one example? One single example does not a rule make.

tagging then as such in things like mission tables, garrison tables.

Lantressor of the blade is a blademaster and is called a arms warrior in the game:
http://wowimg.zamimg.com/uploads/guide/images/4500.jpg

The mission tables don't exactly match what the characters' classes actually are. They are given "player classes" and "player specs" for ease of understanding and to make the list more concise, as far as I can tell. After all, we have some "Rangaris" being hunters, and others being rogues. And draenei cannot be rogues. And then we have robots without two-handed weapons who are "arms warriors". Then we have Arakkoa being druids despite their lore not exactly fitting the druid thematic. And then we have "fury warriors" wielding a single weapon.

"since you didn't specify what makes i will proceed to make an dumb extrapolation", we always end up with you assuming and making that, weird hun?

Perhaps if you were upfront with the information we wouldn't have to extrapolate and waste time. Again, you could have easily provided source links for your vague claims. But you haven't, forcing me to guess what you actually meant.

[draugril]

I'm very open to the idea of Dragonsworn because it simply makes sense. We have Dragon Isles coming up, Dragons are by far a central figure to the Warcraft lore and universe, and their powers and theme are relatively untapped by the classes.

However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system. There are some things that I see in my mind that work better if they approached it as a Covenant system, like splitting each Dragonflight into their own subfaction instead of dividing them up into specs. It'd be difficult to explain how one class has access to all dragonflight powers without it being a case of 'borrowed power' too, since usually Dragonsworn in lore would be followers of just one Dragonflight. It's too early to tell right now, since we know nothing about what they would do with Dragon Isles and how it fits with the overall story.

I honestly think I would be done with WoW entirely if Dragonflights are relegated to a new Covenant system. It would prove they they are entirely bereft of creativity and that there is ultimately nothing to hope for in the future of the game if all they're interested in is preserving a stale status quo.

[Syegfryed]

So you have one example? One single example does not a rule make.

you want to dismiss the example because its just one?

He still was a warrior trainner and a blademaster, point valid.

The mission tables don't exactly match what the characters' classes actually are. They are given "player classes" and "player specs" for ease of understanding and to make the list more concise, as far as I can tell. After all, we have some "Rangaris" being hunters, and others being rogues. And draenei cannot be rogues. And then we have robots without two-handed weapons who are "arms warriors". Then we have Arakkoa being druids despite their lore not exactly fitting the druid thematic. And then we have "fury warriors" wielding a single weapon.

you better pic other examples, cause everything you said fit pretty well, rangari is a organization that does have hunters and rogues, yes, the class option is not available to draeneis, but whats the matter? we still have, to this very day, class options only available to npcs and not players (orc druid, night elf paladin, tauren rogue, goblin monk, etc)

On top of that, Lantressor and other blademasters, have warrior skills only, like i commented before, warrior need to be broad and have other fantasies, the class cannot be blademaster focused only because that is a orcish thing first and foremost, it would not feel right to alliance players, just like its not mountain king only, because is a dwarf thing, and would not feel right to horde, thats why the warrior class is a mix of then and would not make much sense create new classes based on mountain king and blademaster, when they are essentially playable already.

[Ielenia]

you want to dismiss the example because its just one?

He still was a warrior trainner and a blademaster, point valid.

But it doesn't mean "blademasters = warriors".

you better pic other examples, cause everything you said fit pretty well, rangari is a organization that does have hunters and rogues, yes, the class option is not available to draeneis, but whats the matter? we still have, to this very day, class options only available to npcs and not players (orc druid, night elf paladin, tauren rogue, goblin monk, etc)

It's still a demonstration of how the mission table is not a precise (i.e. not reliable) way to determine what is the "class" and "spec" of a character. The rangari were NOT the only examples I mentioned.

On top of that, Lantressor and other blademasters, have warrior skills only,

Just like death knights had warrior and warlock skills? Also, I'll repeat what I said before:

I have not found a single warrior trainer named or titled "blademaster". Also, what exactly to you mean by "tagging blademasters as arms warriors"? I don't think blizzard tags NPCs with "specializations" or even "classes". They just give them abilities that abilities that fit their concept, using abilities from classes when they are "close enough" (like giving Fireball to a tinker) or creating new ones when what they have are not good enough. Again, same link.

I mean, we even have Blademasters with mana. The warrior class doesn't use mana.

Which leads me to believe that the Blademaster, despite its name, could have some spellcasting added to it, considering their ability to go invisible/stealth and to create duplicate images of themselves.

like i commented before, warrior need to be broad and have other fantasies,

"Being broad" does not mean "automatically encompasses everything that wields a weapon".

the class cannot be blademaster focused only because that is a orcish thing first and foremost,

Wasn't the monk class a "pandaren thing first and foremost"?

it would not feel right to alliance players, just like its not mountain king only, because is a dwarf thing, and would not feel right to horde,

We'll cross that bridge when someone advocates for a "mountain king" class. Right now, we're focusing on the Blademaster, and the class' name doesn't really sound like "Horde-only". I see no problem in having human blademasters, draenei blademasters, dwarven blademasters or night elf blademasters, for example.

thats why the warrior class is a mix of then and would not make much sense create new classes based on mountain king and blademaster, when they are essentially playable already.

Not really. The blademaster is arguably not playable considering I don't have the blademaster gameplay on my warrior. I cannot go invisible/stealth and I cannot summon illusory images of my character to confuse the enemy.

[Revamp Man]

I honestly think I would be done with WoW entirely if Dragonflights are relegated to a new Covenant system. It would prove they they are entirely bereft of creativity and that there is ultimately nothing to hope for in the future of the game if all they're interested in is preserving a stale status quo.

Idk why people think it would be better as a covenant when if you add the BfA dragon stuff to Wrathion having his agents you can essentially make a class that is based off of the black dragon empowering you and then you gain the others through the intro quest

[draugril]

To get outside the realm of "possibility" discussion (anything is possible - an artist hid panda doodles, and we got a continent, race, class and expansion out of it), let's talk possible implementation.

Concerning Blademasters, I don't think there's enough to the concept to get a full class out of - I think it much more suitable for it to be a fourth spec for Rogues or Monks. I would have included Warriors, but I think the concept strays too far from Warriors at their core (heavily-armoured brutes) for it to fit in there. They're about finesse, agility, and misdirection, which would fit in well with either of the aforementioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Idk why people think it would be better as a covenant when if you add the BfA dragon stuff to Wrathion having his agents you can essentially make a class that is based off of the black dragon empowering you and then you gain the others through the intro quest

I don't think anyone is saying that another Covenant system is their preference - only that it might be Blizzard's preference. It does fit in very cleanly with the cookie cutter they've been using for the past few years.