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

[LilSaihah]

monks use weapons as a sidething to enhance their unarmed combat trough martial arts, they do not master the use of weapons

blademasters are monks which master the use of weapons

[Syegfryed]

snip

Oh God, it didn't take too long for the same fallacy of warlocks and Dhs once again, i should nknow better, there is no point in discussing this any longer with you two, especially after showing the double standarts against tinker and in favor of blademaster, is like a circus

snip

ok, since the nittpicking is just becoming exausting, i will talk about the points that are more absurd

it could be argued that is how they used to ignite their weapons originally, but no longer use oils and now use magic, instead.

you fill your mouth to say "you are using headcanon," your opinion" and yet, when we have another proof, the first thing you do is trying do dismiss by assumptions and headcanon as well, is hilarious, just like you tried to invalidate/dismiss other proofs before, like the countless of blademasters in the game, saying they don't count, because "you don't think so"

No matter how the blademasters are portrayed, as warriors, how they are tagged as warriors, and how even they can be found as warrior trainers, "that does not count", but its also hilarious, how the same arguments don't apply to "tinker" when they are just a "profession", thats where the hypcorsy comes to play

You say that rogues could just dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold is somehow now the same thing as playing a demon hunter. But here you are saying "just transmog your stuff and you're a blademaster."

because DH use demon magic, rogues don't, Blademaster are master of blades, just like arms warriors, thats why there is hypocrisy here, is in the false equivalences, just like wanting to compare the warlock/dh scenario..

- - - Updated - - -

blademasters are monks which master the use of weapons

if they master weapons, they are not monks, they are warriors.

[Triceron]

Oh God, it didn't take too long for the same fallacy of warlocks and Dhs once again, i should nknow better, there is no point in discussing this any longer with you two, especially after showing the double standarts against tinker and in favor of blademaster, is like a circus

Because you're dying on a hill using that same fallacy but with Blademaster instead.

Again, there's nothing you've said that actually favours your argument that wasn't already brought up years before in the Warlock/DH arguments that existed in this very forum.

Same arguments, different class. Both situations involved people who regarded Demon Hunters and Tinkers as already being in the game because some NPCs have Warlock and Engineering abilities.

Metamorphosis was made into a Warlock ability, just as Bladestorm was made into a Warrior ability. The argument against Blademaster is that Warriors can just transmog their weapon, which is the same as what people said about Demon Hunters if Warlocks simply got Warglaives. It was a bad faith argument either way you look at it. That you think a Warrior class is already a Blademaster is no different than the people who thought Warlocks were already Demon Hunters because of the spells and glyphs and the green fire quest literally saying they learned all this from observing Illidan.

You're using the same fallacy.


At no point have you ever actually addressed the points I've made that equate the argument. All you've ever done is dismiss it on the basis that you believe Demon Hunters can be their own concept and are different from Warlocks, but you don't actually address the arguments that others have had that believed they were just Warlocks with Warglaives. This very connection was based on Demon Hunter NPCs in the game that used Warlock abilities, like Banish, Metamorphosis, Curses and Shadowbolt.

[Ielenia]

ok, since the nittpicking is just becoming exausting, i will talk about the points that are more absurd

Except it's not nitpicking. You're just dismissing it as nitpicking. I went as far as I could to make the explanations detailed and simple for you to understand, yet you don't even bother reading it, considering you continue making the exact same arguments that have been addressed by not just me, but others as well.

you fill your mouth to say "you are using headcanon," your opinion" and yet, when we have another proof, the first thing you do is trying do dismiss by assumptions and headcanon as well, is hilarious, just like you tried to invalidate/dismiss other proofs before, like the countless of blademasters in the game, saying they don't count, because "you don't think so"

I use the word "headcanon" against you because it seems to trigger you and forces you to actually source your quotes. I have to resort to that because I keep having to ask you to link to your sources.

And I'll say this again: watch your wording. You don't have proof. First, because the word "proof" is a mathematical thing. Second, because the colloquial usage of the word "proof" refers to conclusive evidence that points to one conclusion and one conclusion only. And you don't have any of that. What you have is evidence that supports your opinion, but none of what you have is conclusive. Everything you presented has been demonstrated to be flawed, like the "WoD table followers" evidence, the "NPC using class abilities" evidence... everything has been addressed and demonstrated it's not conclusive.

No matter how the blademasters are portrayed, as warriors, how they are tagged as warriors, and how even they can be found as warrior trainers, "that does not count", but its also hilarious, how the same arguments don't apply to "tinker" when they are just a "profession", thats where the hypcorsy comes to play

Except we have blademasters actually being portrayed differently than warriors. We have blademasters using fire magic, for example. That is something the warrior player class has never been demonstrated to be able to do.

because DH use demon magic, rogues don't, Blademaster are master of blades, just like arms warriors, thats why there is hypocrisy here, is in the false equivalences, just like wanting to compare the warlock/dh scenario..

Blademasters can turn invisible and create illusory images of themselves, and warriors cannot. Blademasters have been shown to be able to use fire magic, warriors do not. Warrios use maces, which blademasters do not.

[Syegfryed]

Because you're dying on a hill using that same fallacy but with Blademaster instead.

you are trying to make warlocks and DH comparison to blademaster and warriors when nothing supports your argument, your base of "yep warlocks had metamorphosis, just like warriors have bladestorms, so they are the same. is already a statement based on something false

is a false equivalence, and i already spend too much time discussing this with you, in this and another topic, , this has become another fallacy(that also the other guy use a lot), by repeatedly and constantly revising the same argument to explain away the points.

Blademasters can turn invisible and create illusory images of themselves,

Again, ignoring the babling, that will not go nowere...

not all blademasters can do that, just a few, most blademasters use bladestorm and other warior abilities(because they are warriors), again you are wrong nittpicking things

you entire point is "warrior is not blademaster because they lack half of their skills present in the wc3 game, regardless if they have the other half"

your false premise is that to be a blademaster, one need to have those two skills, while in the wow lifetime is show that to be a blademaster those two are not completely necessary, because there is a lot of blademasters, confirmed blademasters, who don't.

And apprently, since that is the only thing that make a blademaster a blademaster byt this nonsensical logic, To "fix" this they merely had to add those 2 skills in the warrior spellbok or as talents, obivouslly not as a new and redundant class.

[Ielenia]

Again, ignoring the babling, that will not go nowere...

The only reason "it goes nowhere" is because you insist on stating your opinions as fact and dismiss any and all possibilities that go against your opinions.

not all blademasters can do that, just a few,

It's how the blademasters are represented in Warcraft 3. The unit's concept, backed by the concept behind those abilities, sets them apart from the WoW warrior class.

most blademasters use bladestorm and other warior abilities(because they are warriors),

You're stating your opinions as fact, here. If is your opinion that blademasters are warriors, not fact. This "blademasters use warrior abilities" argument has been addressed already. More than once. More than twice. While you, instead of addressing it, just dismiss everything as "nitpicking".

again you are wrong nittpicking things

The only one who's wrong here is you by stating your opinions as fact.

you entire point is "warrior is not blademaster because they lack half of their skills present in the wc3 game, regardless if they have the other half"

First: they don't have half. They have only one-fourth. Their "extra crit % and extra crit damage" does not exist in the WoW warrior class. Second: it's not just about the abilities. It's about the whole concept of the agile fighter. If anything, the blademaster resembles more a rogue wielding a two-handed weapon than a warrior, in terms of concept.

your false premise is that to be a blademaster, one need to have those two skills,

This is not my point. I keep going back to those abilities not because "the warrior class doesn't have them", but because of the concept behind those abilities back up the concept of the blademaster.

while in the wow lifetime is show that to be a blademaster those two are not completely necessary, because there is a lot of blademasters, confirmed blademasters, who don't.

And I can show you a bucket-load of "death knights, confirmed death knights," who didn't use frost magic prior to Wrath of the Lich King. And yet... the player class does.

And apprently, since that is the only thing that make a blademaster a blademaster byt this nonsensical logic, To "fix" this they merely had to add those 2 skills in the warrior spellbok or as talents, obivouslly not as a new and redundant class.

No. It doesn't. Adding those abilities to the warrior class would be the same thing as giving metamorphosis and self-immolation to the warlock. They'd do what a blademaster does, but they wouldn't be a blademaster. Just like a warlock pre-Legion would do what a demon hunter would, but wouldn't be a demon hunter. Again, the concept of a blademaster is of an agile fighter (it uses agility) that wears light armor (represented by the WC3 hero and many WoW NPCs wearing little to no armor) who may have mystical/magical abilities (represented by the WC3 mirror image and invisibility, as well as the WoW NPCs using fire magic).

EDIT: Also, as for your response to Triceron, I will repeat what I've already said before: saying "it's a false equivalence" and leaving at that without explaining why you think it's false equivalence don't work as a rebuttal. It's akin to saying just "nuh-uh".

[Triceron]

you are trying to make warlocks and DH comparison to blademaster and warriors when nothing supports your argument, your base of "yep warlocks had metamorphosis, just like warriors have bladestorms, so they are the same. is already a statement based on something false.

Nothing supports either argument. I am discrediting the very method you have used to tie together Warriors as Blademasters. Everything boils down to examples of NPCs having warrior abilities or being referred to as warriors.

Isn't that what you think the Blademaster boils down to? NPCs being connected to the Warrior class.

Not one piece of evidence from you actually has a Warrior actually representing the Burning Blade Blademaster archetype. Everything just circles back to *some * NPCs with Warrior abilities, and we can find the same equivalent with Demon Hunters in Vanilla and TBC with the same thing.

Demon Hunters had Shadowbolt, Banish and used Curses. Those are Warlock abilities. That is literally no different than you saying Blademaster NPCs using Warrior abilities.

There is absolutely no direct connection that says a Warrior class actually is a Blademaster. The closest thing we have is roleplay, same as Rogues had with Cursed Vision and the Warglaives or Hunters have bow with Sylvanas' bow and quiver. These things don't discredit the possibility of a Blademaster class. We know for a fact that Blademasters have their own gameplay as defined in other games like Warcraft 3, where the concept originated. This was further expanded to a more modern concept that people can get behind, like Samuro in Heroes of the Storm.

Blizzard themselves created the concept, and made Samuro more than just an Arms Warrior in MOBA form.

[Syegfryed]

Nothing supports either argument. I am discrediting the very method you have used to tie together Warriors as Blademasters. Everything boils down to examples of NPCs having warrior abilities or being referred to as warriors.

And warriors and blademasters have both, they have the SAME skills and they are referred, tagged as the same, and even had a blademaster as warrior trainer, something that never happened to warlocks and DH, therefore, you are cherrypicking evidence trying to make then the same

Not one piece of evidence from you actually has a Warrior actually representing the Burning Blade Blademaster archetype

you must be fucking joking with me, the only thing i do is to show examples of the blademaster and some of then are direct from the burning blade clan, The warrior trainer was from the burning blade clan, even Mankrik was

Saying there is "absolutely no direct connection that says a warrior is a blademaster" is just a disonest and false take

Like i said, this problem lies down to you two literally having a wrong take on the thing, thinking they are a different class, and basing the entire argument on a false premise

And since the question of the topic lies on: If they made a new class in the future, what would it be? the answer is definitly, not blademaster, even tinkers are more possible

[Triceron]

And warriors and blademasters have both, they have the SAME skills and they are referred, tagged as the same, and even had a blademaster as warrior trainer, something that never happened to warlocks and DH, therefore, you are cherrypicking evidence trying to make then the same

And at the end of the day, you're still just referring to NPCs. None of these characters actually have anything to do with the Warrior Player Class becoming a Blademaster. None.

So what if you can train from a Blademaster NPC? You learn generic Warrior abilities that every other Warrior can use. Blademaster Rokanada teaches Prot skills to any shield-bearing tank who uses 1h Maces. Think about that.

you must be fucking joking with me, the only thing i do is to show examples of the blademaster and some of then are direct from the burning blade clan, The warrior trainer was from the burning blade clan, even Mankrik was

Saying there is "absolutely no direct connection that says a warrior is a blademaster" is just a disonest and false take

Read carefully.

There is no direct connection that says a Warrior is a Blademaster.

You have shown plenty of examples of Blademaster NPCs. I'm not talking about NPCs. I'm talking about the Warrior class.

The Player Warrior class does not represent anything about Blademasters whatsoever. The only Blademaster ability in the Warrior class is Bladestorm ability that can be used with any weapon equipped including Maces, and was originally usable by all specs including Prot.

The closest you can get is transmogging your Orc Warrior with a Katana, and using the Banner of the Burning Blade toy. That's it.

Like i said, this problem lies down to you two literally having a wrong take on the thing, thinking they are a different class, and basing the entire argument on a false premise

Except the premise isn't false. It's absolutely true considering there is no evidence that the Warrior class is a Blademaster.

And since the question of the topic lies on: If they made a new class in the future, what would it be? the answer is definitly, not blademaster, even tinkers are more possible

Again, up to Blizzard to decide.

The answer to this could just as possibly be No new class will ever be made and Demon Hunter is the last one we'll ever see. Consider the possibilities, right?

[El Gucaragua]

The Dragonsworn is the closest example to something that I personally would want.

But I would love to have customizability that allows the player to choose which flight they belong to, and the specs reflect that in their VFX.

[Syegfryed]

Keyword is *had*.

That Warrior trainer NPC no longer has the title of Warrior Trainer. The connection has since been severed.

just because he retired does not mean he wasn't, the story and the lore was not erased, no matter how you try that.

That connection never existed with Warlocks and DH? Perhaps not, but it just as well could have since we knew one Dev was aiming to do so. Read his blog, he details everything about what he thought about the DH and how he simply saw it as a means to flavour the Warlock further.

"it never had, it never was, but ti could be, so my point stand"

come on, you are literally grasping at straws, warlocks were never even hinted as demon hunters, they had everything else different, unlike blademasters and warriors, rly, stop trying to say they are the same

Read carefully.

There is no direct connection that says a Warrior is a Blademaster.

read again.

There is, direct connections, both in lore and in the game, choosing to flat out ignore then, or not accept then, is not going to change that

but the Warrior class does not represent anything about Blademasters whatsoever.

This is you assuming that(to not say lying), a warrior class literally represent the blademasters, not fully 100% but it does, saying they don't represent anything whatsoever is being flat out wrong.

It's like saying a Death Knight is a type necromancer

yet again with another false equivalence, you would be better comparing dh and warlocks with necromancer and DK, since they do share more similarities, even by being a ranged x melee spec.

Except the premise isn't false. It's absolutely true considering there is no evidence that the Warrior class is a Blademaster.

there is countless of evidences, posted a lot of times here and in the other topic, straight up ignoring then or not deming then suitable to your taste don't magically erase then.

[jellmoo]

The Dragonsworn is the closest example to something that I personally would want.

But I would love to have customizability that allows the player to choose which flight they belong to, and the specs reflect that in their VFX.

I think the challenge here is to figure out what a Dragonsworn actually is. Is it a mortal creature (playable race) being infused with the power of dragons to do their will? If so, is that better served as a Covenant style system? Is it the ability to play as an actual dragon? How can you incorporate all of the various flights into a single class?

I like the idea, but I think there's a wide gap when it comes to what people actually think of when it comes to the concept of the class.

The more I read the... um... interesting arguments regarding the Blademaster, the more the concept intrigues me. While I don't think the game needs an more melee classes, it is a classic fantasy archetype that's missing from the game that could make for a fun addition.

[Triceron]

just because he retired does not mean he wasn't, the story and the lore was not erased, no matter how you try that.

If we're talking about lore, then Paladins are also Warriors.

Arthas was trained by Muradin, a Warrior. The Knights of the Silver Hand were Priests who were trained in combat by Warriors, and Warriors who took up the Holy Light.

Paladins are Warriors too, but they are not represented in the game's Player Classes as having specific 'Warrior' abilities because of game mechanics. Blizzard could have made the Paladin a Warrior spec, but they chose specifically to give it its own class. Blademaster has not had this benefit, and remains unplayable and unrepresented in the game; just like Shadow Hunters, Wardens and Dark Rangers.

"it never had, it never was, but ti could be, so my point stand"

come on, you are literally grasping at straws, warlocks were never even hinted as demon hunters, they had everything else different, unlike blademasters and warriors, rly, stop trying to say they are the same

Except the Warrior class was never hinted as being a Blademaster. The Warrior class doesn't actually learn anything specific to Blademasters outside of the Bladestorm ability that was originally usable by all specs and all weapon types back in TBC. It has become a Warrior talent that has little to do with Blademaster themes or fantasy.

read again.

There is, direct connections, both in lore and in the game, choosing to flat out ignore then, or not accept then, is not going to change that

Those same connections exist between a Warrior and Paladin, Shaman and more. We're talking about lore, where Warriors literally trained the Paladins to fight in melee combat. Muradin trained Arthas. Blackmoore trained Thrall as a Warrior first, before he trained as a Shaman under Drek'thar. The lore of a Warrior is broadly applied to anyone who uses melee combat.

If we're talking about the specific Warrior Player Class, then they are not Paladins, Demon Hunters, Shamans or Blademasters. They are simply the Warrior class who has the *abilities* from heroes such as Mountain Kings, Chieftains, Blademasters, but nonetheless is a Warrior class. You aren't specifically a knight or a footman or a grunt, you are a Warrior class. That is different from the broad use of the term when applied to any other archetype, like how the Paladin is a Holy Warrior or the Blademaster is a legendary Warrior.

This is you assuming that(to not say lying), a warrior class literally represent the blademasters, not fully 100% but it does, saying they don't represent anything whatsoever is being flat out wrong.

Having an ability does not mean it represents the fantasy.

Druids have Starfall and Moon related magic. This is not a representation of the Priestess of the Moon. This is a *connection*, but it is not *representation*.

It's the same way we regard Warlocks and Demon Hunters. There is a connection, since Warlocks were able to learn Metamorphosis, but Warlocks never *represented* Demon Hunters.

The Warrior class does not *represent* Blademasters. It actually works the other way around where Blademaster NPCs represent Warriors, but it has never worked the other way around where any typical Warrior has in turn become a Blademaster.

yet again with another false equivalence, you would be better comparing dh and warlocks with necromancer and DK, since they do share more similarities, even by being a ranged x melee spec.

So what, you would only consider Blademaster has its own theme and fantasy if it were ranged?

Absurd.

Blademaster already has a distinct style of play that involves deception and stealth mechanics that are not found on the Warrior class. That is already the difference between Rogues and Warriors.

there is countless of evidences, posted a lot of times here and in the other topic, straight up ignoring then or not deming then suitable to your taste don't magically erase then.

Evidence of NPCs.

We're talking about Player Classes. Not one bit of evidence you have provided has indicated that the Warrior class is or can be an actual Blademaster.

All signs point to us being able to RP as one, just as Rogues were able to RP as Demon Hunters and Hunters will be able to RP as Dark Rangers. At no point does this mean these archetypes are actually playable.


Whether they should actually add a Blademaster class is not what I'm arguing against. I don't think Blizzard should have necessarily added the Demon Hunter either if I knew their approach was going to gut existing classes and only add them with 2 specs. It's a very nuanced subject considering Blizzard has made plenty of controversial choices in what new classes to add to WoW.

[El Gucaragua]

I think the challenge here is to figure out what a Dragonsworn actually is. Is it a mortal creature (playable race) being infused with the power of dragons to do their will? If so, is that better served as a Covenant style system? Is it the ability to play as an actual dragon? How can you incorporate all of the various flights into a single class?

I like the idea, but I think there's a wide gap when it comes to what people actually think of when it comes to the concept of the class.

The more I read the... um... interesting arguments regarding the Blademaster, the more the concept intrigues me. While I don't think the game needs an more melee classes, it is a classic fantasy archetype that's missing from the game that could make for a fun addition.

I do agree that the idea needs a comprehensive foundation before implementation. It's more just the one thing I've always wanted in this game as Dragons are my favorite mythical creature, and since WoW is filled with them it's always been a dream.

I more-so would want just one more mail wearer that can tank, or make a shaman spec tank. The Dragon I can dream about.

[jellmoo]

I do agree that the idea needs a comprehensive foundation before implementation. It's more just the one thing I've always wanted in this game as Dragons are my favorite mythical creature, and since WoW is filled with them it's always been a dream.

I more-so would want just one more mail wearer that can tank, or make a shaman spec tank. The Dragon I can dream about.

There was a a long back and forth way earlier in this thread which bantered back and forth the idea that the class could essentially be a playable Dragon. It's not something I personally am in favor of, as I'd prefer there be a seperation between the player character and extremely powerful races, but others do make a decent argument for having the class be essentially being a playable Dragon.

I think my preference at this point is to do away with the Mail tier of armor altogether, rolling everyone into Light (Cloth), Medium (Leather) and Heavy (Plate). Mail just doesn't seem to serve a purpose these days. Absolutely none of the survivability of either Hunters or Shaman is tied to their armor. It seems like it exists for reasons that just aren't in the game anymore.

[pacotaco]

I think the challenge here is to figure out what a Dragonsworn actually is. Is it a mortal creature (playable race) being infused with the power of dragons to do their will? If so, is that better served as a Covenant style system? Is it the ability to play as an actual dragon? How can you incorporate all of the various flights into a single class?

I like the idea, but I think there's a wide gap when it comes to what people actually think of when it comes to the concept of the class.

The more I read the... um... interesting arguments regarding the Blademaster, the more the concept intrigues me. While I don't think the game needs an more melee classes, it is a classic fantasy archetype that's missing from the game that could make for a fun addition.

I would personally make the class be Twilight Dragons (it's not a stretch to think they could use some variation/corrupted version of the 5 dragonflights they used to creat them). They will be mainly on humanoid form, any current race with draconic customization (scally/sha-touched skin/fur, glowin eyes, horns, weird hair color, maybe some void-corrupted accents) or maybe update the draconid model to allow player customization, and show their dragon form to fly and/or when they do certain abilities.

[El Gucaragua]

There was a a long back and forth way earlier in this thread which bantered back and forth the idea that the class could essentially be a playable Dragon. It's not something I personally am in favor of, as I'd prefer there be a seperation between the player character and extremely powerful races, but others do make a decent argument for having the class be essentially being a playable Dragon.

I think my preference at this point is to do away with the Mail tier of armor altogether, rolling everyone into Light (Cloth), Medium (Leather) and Heavy (Plate). Mail just doesn't seem to serve a purpose these days. Absolutely none of the survivability of either Hunters or Shaman is tied to their armor. It seems like it exists for reasons that just aren't in the game anymore.

I would rather have the dragon form be the major CD with affects based around the spec. The only time I would want them to really be the dragon is akin to something like druid's travel form. I only just joined the thread now so I can't say for arguments before hand, but I think there's a way to make powerful races possible as a playable one with cool classes. But at the same time, I also do agree that we really don't need more at this point, and just having fun thinking about it is more enjoyable for me personally.

As for armor types, I would say that if the issue is tied into whether mail armor affects the survivability of the classes that utilize them in-game than that itself is the main issue, rather than the armor itself. Don't feel strongly either way about it, but I do see your point.

[Ielenia]

And warriors and blademasters have both, they have the SAME skills and they are referred, tagged as the same, and even had a blademaster as warrior trainer, something that never happened to warlocks and DH, therefore, you are cherrypicking evidence trying to make then the same

One blademaster NPC being tagged as a warrior is simply because the WoD mission table uses player classes and specs to sort their followers. Which is why Nat Pagle is classified as a hunter despite him never, ever displaying any hunter qualities. Every time he shows up, he's a fisherman, and nothing but a fisherman.

Blademaster NPCs having warrior abilities, again, is simply because Blizzard uses abilities that already exist in the game when they do a close enough job to represent the concept the NPC is supposed to represent. Blizzard does not create entirely new abilities for every new NPC they create. They only do so when the NPC is supposed to do something the game's current array of abilities (both player and NPC) does not fit.

Having a blademaster be a warrior trainer does not mean that all blademasters are warriors and nothing but warriors. Both blademasters and "warriors" are melee fighters who depend on their weapons, and it's this overlap that allows one to teach the other. Like priests taught the first paladins.

None of the arguments you presented so far "proves that blademasters = warriors" like you have repeatedly claimed. They may give some credence to your opinion, but they do not prove it as fact.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the challenge here is to figure out what a Dragonsworn actually is. Is it a mortal creature (playable race) being infused with the power of dragons to do their will? If so, is that better served as a Covenant style system? Is it the ability to play as an actual dragon? How can you incorporate all of the various flights into a single class?

I mentioned this before. We have a total of five "major" dragonflights: red, black, blue, yellow, green. And here is the issue I have with the idea of it being a class: if we were to make it in a class, we run into two problems:
• Assuming a three-spec class and each spec focuses on one dragonflight, that means either two dragonflights won't be representing.
• Assuming a four-spec class, that means one is left behind. Is it possible to have a five-spec class? Yes. Probable? I don't think so.
• Assuming a three-spec class and wanting to represent all five dragonflights, that means two of the specs would have to have two dragonflights "mashed together" in them, like Green and Red being the healer spec. That, for me, does not work for two reasons: one, it kind of defeats the purpose of the dragonsworn swearing themselves to a dragonflight. Second, it prevents the spec from truly focusing on one aspec.

But if we were to make the dragonflights into a Covenant-style feature, we have five different "covenants", each with their own special ability(ies), buffs and rewards. Which, on paper, works. But then there is one issue with it that I see: the cosmetic rewards. The dragonflights are all dragons. Save for small differences, they all look the same. How different could it be a "dragon-based armor" from the red dragonflight, and the blue dragonflight?

[jellmoo]

I would personally make the class be Twilight Dragons (it's not a stretch to think they could use some variation/corrupted version of the 5 dragonflights they used to creat them). They will be mainly on humanoid form, any current race with draconic customization (scally/sha-touched skin/fur, glowin eyes, horns, weird hair color, maybe some void-corrupted accents) or maybe update the draconid model to allow player customization, and show their dragon form to fly and/or when they do certain abilities.

I'm not sire thsI'm not sure that the interest is there for the Twilight Dragonflight. Most WoW fans are likely invested in the original flights. I could of course be wrong, but I think there would be some disappointment if those Flights weren't represented in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

I mentioned this before. We have a total of five "major" dragonflights: red, black, blue, yellow, green. And here is the issue I have with the idea of it being a class: if we were to make it in a class, we run into two problems:
• Assuming a three-spec class and each spec focuses on one dragonflight, that means either two dragonflights won't be representing.
• Assuming a four-spec class, that means one is left behind. Is it possible to have a five-spec class? Yes. Probable? I don't think so.
• Assuming a three-spec class and wanting to represent all five dragonflights, that means two of the specs would have to have two dragonflights "mashed together" in them, like Green and Red being the healer spec. That, for me, does not work for two reasons: one, it kind of defeats the purpose of the dragonsworn swearing themselves to a dragonflight. Second, it prevents the spec from truly focusing on one aspec.

Honestly? I don't think there's a ton to rebut what you've laid out. A 4 spec class is incredibly unlikely to happen again, much less a 5 spec one.

I could potentially see Flights being left out. Black and Red are about as certain as you can get for inclusion, and I would assume Blue would be the third. That would work pretty well to have tank/heal and dps specs respectively. The narrative could easily have the other flights taking a back seat for the expansion. But I agree that this is far from elegant.

Mashing the Flights together isn't outside the realm of possibility, assuming the narrative is another "all flights come together to fight a common foe". The could work into the class a mechanic that allows the player to build up power to a respective Flight in combat for different bonuses. Sort of demonstrating that they use the power of the appropriate flight when it makes the most sense. But again, this is not exactly elegant.

But if we were to make the dragonflights into a Covenant-style feature, we have five different "covenants", each with their own special ability(ies), buffs and rewards. Which, on paper, works. But then there is one issue with it that I see: the cosmetic rewards. The dragonflights are all dragons. Save for small differences, they all look the same. How different could it be a "dragon-based armor" from the red dragonflight, and the blue dragonflight?

I agree that this is the most likely scenario, even if it's the most boring (for me anyway, as another expansion of borrowed power is... ugh). But you are right that the difference between the flights might not feel robust enough for people. There's a world of difference between supporting vampires vs supporting faeries, but is there enough of a difference between supporting the red vs the green dragonflight?

I actually think the armor is less of an issue, since they could be stylistically pretty different, but they likely wouldn't be particularly iconic.

The problem with the Dragonsworn as a concept, ultimately, is the more I think about it, the less excited I get. It seems really fun in the abstract, but the dragon is in the details.

[Syegfryed]

If we're talking about lore, then Paladins are also Warriors.

They were, warriors.

Arthas was trained by Muradin, a Warrior. The Knights of the Silver Hand were Priests who were trained in combat by Warriors, and Warriors who took up the Holy Light.

Again, with another false equivalence, i wonder how you guys cannot make an argument without goingo for absurd comparisons, none of those things happened in wow, none of those are ingame trainners, none, its not the same thing

When you find, a paladin trainner, in the game, training priests, or a Warlock trainner, training demon hunter, then, you can say thaey are the same.

Except the Warrior class was never hinted as being a Blademaster.

- Blademaster as warriors trainner
- Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions
- Blademasters NPCs being tagged as Warriors in different stances/Scenarios
- Arms spec literally called master of weapons IE. Master of blades too.
- Warrior having blademaster skills.
- Lore flat out stating that blademaster are legendary warriors
- Their theme and fantasy revolving around they being skilled and ultimate" warriors, pure warriors, fighting head-on into combat
- they both use plates, they both use blades, they both are melee focused fighters
- The blademaster being a title as much as far seer, just different ways to call warriors and shamans.(Far Seers are ancient Orcs who represent the pinnacle of Shamanistic power.)

Come here and dare to say everything i pointed out happened to warlocks and shamans, i know you will do, but you have to understand the amount of bullshit you have to pull trying to

Don't pick just one and nittpick that, that would be cherypicking fallacy, i want to know if they ahve all the same things.

It has become a Warrior talent that has little to do with Blademaster themes or fantasy.

That is again, flat out wrong, cause they have everything to do with blademaster theme and fantasy, maybe not the one you made up with your headcanon+hots.

Having an ability does not mean it represents the fantasy.

Then why you think to represent the fantasy warriors should have windwalk/wrilind/ AKA having those abilities... IF YOU LITERALLY SAID HAVING AN ABILITY DOES NOT MEAN IT REPRESENT THE FANTASY?

You are literally refuting yourself, you said in all words, warriors don't need to have wind walk and mirror image to represent the blademaster fantasy, and that is completely right, because there is blademaster ingame who don't.

The Warrior class does not *represent* Blademasters. It actually works the other way around where Blademaster NPCs represent Warriors

So what, you would only consider Blademaster has its own theme and fantasy if it were ranged?

Absurd.

abusrd is your comparisons, but yeah, they being ranged, is something crucial in their fantasy and gameplay that are vastly different.

We're talking about Player Classes. Not one bit of evidence you have provided has indicated that the Warrior class is or can be an actual Blademaster.

plaayble warrior doing what blademaster npcs can do is literally a indacted of warriors being blademaster.


the whole root of this onversation is again, you basing the argument of blademaster being something else than a tittle , a different name for the warriorclass, just like far seer, tauren chieftain and mountain king, all of those are names for shamans and warriors, they are not their own class, much less "their own PlAyAbLe clAsS"

- - - Updated - - -

One blademaster NPC being tagged as a warrior is simply because the WoD mission table uses player classes and specs to sort their followers

that is your opinion., in other hand, they do that because is what they are, just like Blizzard rightfully tagged Death knights under their 3 specs

. Which is why Nat Pagle is classified as a hunter despite him never, ever displaying any hunter qualities. Every time he shows up, he's a fisherman, and nothing but a fisherman.

fisherman area type of hunters lmao, they "hunt fish", you are just being short sighted.

Blademaster NPCs having warrior abilities, again, is simply because Blizzard uses abilities that already exist in the game when they do a close enough job to represent the concept the NPC is supposed to represent. Blizzard does not create entirely new abilities for every new NPC they create. They only do so when the NPC is supposed to do something the game's current array of abilities (both player and NPC) does not fit.

that is of course, your opinion


This could be, simple, because blademasters are warriors, and thats why blizzard put them with warrior skills, in the entire wow lifetime

Having a blademaster be a warrior trainer does not mean that all blademasters are warriors and nothing but warriors. Both blademasters and "warriors" are melee fighters who depend on their weapons, and it's this overlap that allows one to teach the other. Like priests taught the first paladins.

that is of course, your opinion, they are training warriors, simple because they are warriors. and nothing more occult or deep like your headcanon says.

the priest and paladin is another false equivalence, because they taught the first paladin when there was no paladin, obviously, a paladin cannot train a paladin because they didn't existed yet, if you find me a priest as paladin trainer, in wow, when paladins already have other paladins to teach, they i will consider your opinion other than rubbish.

None of the arguments you presented so far "proves that blademasters = warriors" like you have repeatedly claimed. They may give some credence to your opinion, but they do not prove it as fact.

once again, you dismisinng the evidences and cherypicking other on top of your opinion, does not make then less true, which is extremely funny coming from a person who fight against tinker so much saying they were just profession = engineer, the hypocrisy is hilarious