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

[Ielenia]

You said the Metamorphosis (Vengeance) has.

No. I said that the vengeance spec can represent the "wings" attribute because the character sprouts wings when they glide:

Also, it lacks wings? No, it has wings. Transform into a demon, as a vengance DH, and tap on the jump button three times, and you'll see your wings.

Horns are horns. They're demon horns, regardless of curvature. And as for the wings, they're represented by the class' ability to glide.

If they add a specialization to each class (except for the Druid), then it could happen.

"Could it happen"? Yes, it could. Just like Blizzard could decide to surprise us with a new class introduction mid-expansion in 9.2. Or that Blizzard could shut down WoW tomorrow. Saying "it could happen" is not much of an argument when the likelihood of said "could" is low.

They are runic Monks. Hardly, deathly.

How so? Where in the lore says that runemasters don't use the power of death? I'll repeat: the runemaster is a nebulous concept within Warcraft because Blizzard never nailed down a concept for it. A runemaster could be anything Blizzard wants them to be: it could be made to use death magic, holy magic, elemental magic, etc.

Read what i wrote again: "(or basic units)".

Then why did you feel the need to make this distinction?

*Warcraft 3 Hero unit.

If basic units are allowed too, in your opinion?

We're all doing this for enjoyment. Otherwise, why would we argue?

First you say we're doing this because we want to compete. Now you're saying we do this for enjoyment. Decide.

Personal preference right there. It is okay if it is concerning the Mongrel Horde, but not the Runemaster and Necromancer?

What is okay? You just stated your opinion that "Mongrel Horde" is not going to happen. I just said I'm fine if it never happens. Just like I said I'm fine if dark rangers and blademasters never happen. I'm also not rooting for the runemaster concept. Oh, and by the way? I'm also fine if bards and necromancers never happen. I'm not going to stop enjoying WoW, even if Blizzard outright says, in these exact words: "we are never, ever adding necromancers or bards as a playable class in WoW."

3) Can i have a source for that?
This joke reference to Star Wars is not like the Venthyr one. It is part of their culture, while the may 4th one was a one-time event.

It's still a point that demonstrates that references does not mean they ARE what they are referencing. Another example, we have "Ogundimu's Fist" which is a clear reference to Akande Ogundimu, a.k.a. Doomfist, from Overwatch. But that doesn't make the warrior actually into Doomfist or that we're actually wielding Doomfist's gauntlet. Understand this: something being a reference for another thing, does not mean this something is the same as that other thing.

4) They are not reincarnated, nor are they alive. Reincarnation is what happen to animals in Ardenweald. The Shadowlands' denizens are dead.

This one is on me. I didn't mean that the venthyr are reincarnated. I said that reincarnation is "bodies given to souls" without being undead, not that the venthyr are reincarnated.

5) "In the Shadowlands, the vampiric venthyr have their own realm of Revendreth" (the page even shows a picture of them): https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Vampire
• "The venthyr of Revendreth are vampiric punishers of the unworthy, charged with rehabilitating the sinful souls sent to them by the Arbiter."
• Venthyr are mentioned to commonly have allergic reactions to garlic, a play on the folkloric belief that vampires hate garlic.
• The appearance and themes of the venthyr seem mainly inspired by Dracula and its adaptations.
• The name "venthyr" is similar to the Ventrue, a prominent vampire clan from Vampire: The Masquerade. It's also similar to a number of Eastern European names for vampires or vampire-like creatures, such as Dhamphir.
• Specific Venthyr that are references to real-world vampire myths or franchises that have been noticed by the editors are:
• Sire Denathrius and Duke Vlad are references to Count Vlad Tepes III the Dracul (Dracula).
• Tremen Winefang is a reference to the Tremere clan of Vampire: The Masquerade.
• The Countess and is a reference to Countess Elizabeth Bathory.
• Prince Renathal and The Stonewright are likely references to Castlevania.
• Nadjia the Mistblade, Sir Nandru, Nandor, and Lord Afanas are references to What We Do In The Shadows.
• Dredhunter Eileena is a reference to Bloodborne.
• The three venthyr of the Council of Blood and Lord Stefan may be references to The Vampire Diaries.
Lord Stefan may also be a reference to the character of the same name in the Subspecies movie series.
• Madame Sorina, Lord Sorin, and Inquisitor Sorin may be a reference to "Sorin, Vampire Lord" of Magic: The Gathering.
• High Inquisitor Radu may be a reference to Radu Bavron in the anime/manga Trinity Blood or the character of the same name in the Subspecies movie series.
• High Inquisitor Dacian may be a reference to the Dacian Clan of Twilight.
• Sir Marius may be a reference to the character of the same name in the Underworld movies.
• Duke Grigore may be a reference to either the Nephilim (called Grigori), who in the Blue Bloods vampire novels are vampires, or to the vampire Gregor of The Vampire Diaries.
• Lord Andrei may be a reference to the Tzimisce Clan vampire Andrei from Vampire: The Masquerade.
• Some of the male venthyr NPCs are voiced by Simon Templeman, who is known for his role as Kain, a vampire antihero in the video game series Legacy of Kain."

You have got to be mad to not consider them vampires.

I don't consider them vampires because they're not? Vampires, for me, require three things:
• The need to consume blood;
• Are afflicted by a blood curse;
• Can make more vampires by biting their victims.

The venthyr do none of that. The san'layn do all three.

What do you have against them?

... Who said I have anything against them? I just said I have no interest to play one. Not wanting something does not mean you dislike said something.

A mortal archangel.

There is no such thing. That's almost an oxymoron. Not to mention that, again, Tyrael has lost his archangel powers. One human witch bests him, at the end of Diablo 3, act III, remember?

How can you consider them as, merely, looks when the Priest turns to a Spirit Healer, which are Kyrians.

You're moving the goalposts, now. First you were speaking of the "archangel" priest PvP talents, which boosts Atonement, and now you're talking about the Spirit of Redemption holy priest ability (which does NOT turn you into a kyrian, it specifically turns you temporarily into a 'Spirit of Redemption'). Shapeshifting is a thing in WoW. Druids aren't animals despite having the ability to turn into one.

Yet, Uther who served the light does get sent to Bastion? anyone who dedicates his life to service gets sent there.

It wasn't him following the Light that earned him a spot in Bastion. It was his devotion. Because Kyrians look for those who can and are willing to put their own prejudices and judgments aside to work for the 'mission'. Anyone with such high level of devotion would enter Bastion, regardless of deity being worshiped.

[Fantazma]

Frankly, I don't believe Blizzard creates a new class. This would have already done that in BFA. The current team is too lazy to introduce and balance a new class.
However...
... if they introduce a new class to the game and it’s not Dark Rangers I’ll be very disappointed....

LOGIC says that the new class can only be Dark Rangers:

- Sylvanas is more popular than Illidan and Arthas. However, these two Warcraft heroes have already had their classes put into play. The Sylvanas class has not yet.
- All new hero-classes are melee. Dark Ranger would come to be the first Ranged hero-Class.
- There is a lack of class that uses mail armor in the game. So ... let the Dark Rangers come.
- Many classes share swords, maces, staffs, fist weapon etc ...! But only Hunter uses bow. How to solve this? Ok ... DARK RANGERS !!
- There's a battle-ground that Nathanos says "Let me look at you. Pathetic. Why aren't there Dark Rangers here ?? !!" (it's just Blizzard giving us a spoiler)

Now let's stop talking about logic and just talk about fun:
Dark Rangers would be a mix of Hunter and Rogues who could use Banshee's powers. I can't imagine how incredible that would be. In practice it would be a Hunter with perma-stealth with a lot of shadow damage. There could only be two specs (like DHs) one strong on single target damage and the other on survival and aoe damage. No pets in my opinion.

[FossilFree]

Just make something new you can literally make up lore, make something new and exciting like i don't know
This fixation on W3 is really fucking dumb and limiting shit like Tinkerer or Botanist just because you can link it weirdly to W3 is cringe and boring as fuck

Just curious, what would you suggest for a new class then?

[Syegfryed]

I'm not distorting anything. From the get-go, since the start, the talk about mobility was centered about the blademaster's theme of stealth and deceit, where an important part of it is getting out of combat. Which the warrior has none. His entire kit is designed to put the warrior into combat as soon as possible and keep him in there.

the mobility was never about stealth and deceit, you are literally distorting and backpedaling because you know you said potatoes

Windwalk is literally made so the blademaster went to combat as soon as possible, and it can be used to escape, literally like heroic leap, heroic leap in guides is literally said to be a escapa mechanism, because thats how warriors do, they heroic leap away, heal and come back, exactly like blademaster do with wind walk, only a blind man or a dishonest one cannot see

Wrong.

yes mister warrior have no mobility.

Once again, for the people in the back:

you keep making guile to be a synonyms of "deceit" when its literally showed in the blademaster lore it is a synoym of cunning, try to read in blademaster lore, in wod, in the rpg anywhere, if blademasters are depicted or talked about deceptive tricksters, if you can we can end this now

That's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Learn what the fallacy truly means. As for "bringing up Blizzard themselves", it's a valid argumentconsidering they are the ones who created the Warcraft's blademaster concept. I mean, in a conversation about Harry Potter, why would I not be allowed to bring up J.K. Rowling's opinions about the franchise's world?,

why did you consider this vallid and not blizzard putting blademasters as arms warrior in different parts of the game? why don't you think is valli blizzing putting blademasters as arms warriors in the garrison tables? why do you is invalid if blizzard made bladmaster entirelly based on warriors with their abilities? why do you think is invalid a blademaster being a warrior trainer? and so on and on? this is hypocrisy, pain and simple, you try to dismiss blizzard take on things before, but now youa re acting like sacred, when they just did a mere guide, that jsut can't reflect in the meta and how players play their game, thats why bugs or exploits happen, they cannot know how everyone will use their shit

It is, though. Because it's an iconic aspect of the ability.

try to bring me a piece of lore that shows that blademaster are "iconic by their abiltiy to be invisible"

Not even the ability says that, is "wind walk" not "invisible walk" and they just "appear to be" invisible, not real invisibility, it is just "an iconic aspect that cannot be changed" because you want then to be.

Something the warriors cannot do because they're nowhere near as fast, concept-wise. After all, they're wearing heavy plate.

they are, dash is ltierally they being fast, but yeah, "i totally play warrior"

- - - Updated - - -

Straying too much from the core of the ability (speed+invisibility). The only thing changeable is the bonus damage, since it's not mentioned in lore or appears in the animation.

you are just making things up, you, with your personal biased opinion do determine what is important and is not while not showing why(because its just your biased opinion), is pathetic, and hypocrite, because nowhere in lore is mentioned invisibility, they jsut apepar to be, so, they can just appear to be in wow as well

And its even more funny because youa re telling me what is important is invisibility "because its what the animation show", thats literally grasping at straw, .

You're not grasping that you're using personal preferences when arguing about the concept.

Are you compltely unawere that you just described yourself? your personal preference is that "invisibility" is the thing more important and cannot be changed, therefore a new class is encessary, is just bonkers

[pacotaco]

Not if you combine with Priestess of the Moon and Warden.

I could see making a Night Warrior class with PoM and Warden as spec, but I think DR theme is too far away from the other 2 (I still haven't played the NF Cov, so maybe something is explained there that make you think they match OK?)

- - - Updated - - -

Just make something new you can literally make up lore, make something new and exciting like i don't know
This fixation on W3 is really fucking dumb and limiting shit like Tinkerer or Botanist just because you can link it weirdly to W3 is cringe and boring as fuck

Something new like what?

[jellmoo]

Frankly, I don't believe Blizzard creates a new class. This would have already done that in BFA. The current team is too lazy to introduce and balance a new class.
However...
... if they introduce a new class to the game and it’s not Dark Rangers I’ll be very disappointed....

LOGIC says that the new class can only be Dark Rangers:

- Sylvanas is more popular than Illidan and Arthas. However, these two Warcraft heroes have already had their classes put into play. The Sylvanas class has not yet.
- All new hero-classes are melee. Dark Ranger would come to be the first Ranged hero-Class.
- There is a lack of class that uses mail armor in the game. So ... let the Dark Rangers come.
- Many classes share swords, maces, staffs, fist weapon etc ...! But only Hunter uses bow. How to solve this? Ok ... DARK RANGERS !!
- There's a battle-ground that Nathanos says "Let me look at you. Pathetic. Why aren't there Dark Rangers here ?? !!" (it's just Blizzard giving us a spoiler)

Now let's stop talking about logic and just talk about fun:
Dark Rangers would be a mix of Hunter and Rogues who could use Banshee's powers. I can't imagine how incredible that would be. In practice it would be a Hunter with perma-stealth with a lot of shadow damage. There could only be two specs (like DHs) one strong on single target damage and the other on survival and aoe damage. No pets in my opinion.

Where did you get the info that Sylvanas is more popular than Arthas and Illidan? She seems way more polarizing to me, with a ton of people openly despising her.

I think most people are hoping for a ranged class given the sheer number of melee and all additions after launch being of that variety. I think there are multiple mail options though.

Dark Ranger, like you said.
Tinker (though I hate that name and would rather they call it anything else)
Bard
Dragonsworn

All either fit well or at least do not preclude mail as their armor type, and all could conceivably have a ranged spec. My personal take is that they should just get rid of mail as an armor type since it doesn't really serve any practical purpose anymore, but I digress.

[Ielenia]

the mobility was never about stealth and deceit, you are literally distorting and backpedaling because you know you said potatoes

You're too worried to go on a 'gotcha' here that you're completely forgetting the original context of the conversation about movement mobility. The entire time we were talking about having movement speed that would be designed to get the warrior OUT of combat, of which he has none.

Windwalk is literally made so the blademaster went to combat as soon as possible, and it can be used to escape, literally like heroic leap, heroic leap in guides is literally said to be a escapa mechanism, because thats how warriors do, they heroic leap away, heal and come back, exactly like blademaster do with wind walk, only a blind man or a dishonest one cannot see

Warriors cannot "leap away and heal" since they don't have any ability to heal that doesn't involve staying in the middle of combat and hitting mobs. And again: heroic leap is not designed as an "escape" ability. The fact it has a damage component is evidence of that. Hell, even its name, Heroic Leap, is evidence of that: there is nothing "heroic" in running away.

yes mister warrior have no mobility.

Wrong.

you keep making guile to be a synonyms of "deceit" when its literally showed in the blademaster lore it is a synoym of cunning, try to read in blademaster lore, in wod, in the rpg anywhere, if blademasters are depicted or talked about deceptive tricksters, if you can we can end this now

I have. Which is why I'm telling you this: they're about stealth and deceit. It's reflected in the Warcraft 3 unit with mirror images and wind walk, being able to summon illusory images to confuse the opponent and use wind walk to leave combat.

why did you consider this vallid and not blizzard putting blademasters as arms warrior in different parts of the game? why don't you think is valli blizzing putting blademasters as arms warriors in the garrison tables? why do you is invalid if blizzard made bladmaster entirelly based on warriors with their abilities? why do you think is invalid a blademaster being a warrior trainer? and so on and on? this is hypocrisy, pain and simple, you try to dismiss blizzard take on things before, but now youa re acting like sacred, when they just did a mere guide, that jsut can't reflect in the meta and how players play their game, thats why bugs or exploits happen, they cannot know how everyone will use their shit

Because, as explained multiple times, the WoD follower table is flawed, considering it makes questionable choices regarding character classification considering EVERY follower NPC has to fit within one of the current playable classes' specs. Have you not noticed that there is not a single NPC in that table that is NOT associated to any of the present classes in the game? We don't have a "fisherman", for example, which would be Nat Pagle's "class", but they had to shoe-horn him into the 'hunter' classification.

try to bring me a piece of lore that shows that blademaster are "iconic by their abiltiy to be invisible"

I said it's an iconic part of the ability. Also, the fact that the lore describes blademasters as "masters of stealth" seems to point that the ability is indeed an iconic part of the blademaster.

they are, dash is ltierally they being fast, but yeah, "i totally play warrior"

Fast to get into combat, not to get out of combat or anywhere else.

[username993720]

No. I said that the vengeance spec can represent the "wings" attribute because the character sprouts wings when they glide:

Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
Why do you need a picture? Do you not believe me when I say the vengeance demon hunter spec does not have wings when they glide?

I would like it if you provided a picture.

How so? Where in the lore says that runemasters don't use the power of death? I'll repeat: the runemaster is a nebulous concept within Warcraft because Blizzard never nailed down a concept for it. A runemaster could be anything Blizzard wants them to be: it could be made to use death magic, holy magic, elemental magic, etc.

There are the RPG sources.
Never nailed down a concept for it? i thought you prided on it being a front runner...
Now, do you see it was in early stages?

Then why did you feel the need to make this distinction?

If basic units are allowed too, in your opinion?

Huh?
I think you've got it mixed up. WC3 Hero units = addition. RPG classes & WC3 basic units = integration. That's what i meant.

First you say we're doing this because we want to compete. Now you're saying we do this for enjoyment. Decide.

Competition is part of the enjoyment

What is okay? You just stated your opinion that "Mongrel Horde" is not going to happen. I just said I'm fine if it never happens. Just like I said I'm fine if dark rangers and blademasters never happen. I'm also not rooting for the runemaster concept. Oh, and by the way? I'm also fine if bards and necromancers never happen. I'm not going to stop enjoying WoW, even if Blizzard outright says, in these exact words: "we are never, ever adding necromancers or bards as a playable class in WoW."

Unless Garrosh goes at it again...
Probably only in the far far future...

It's still a point that demonstrates that references does not mean they ARE what they are referencing. Another example, we have "Ogundimu's Fist" which is a clear reference to Akande Ogundimu, a.k.a. Doomfist, from Overwatch. But that doesn't make the warrior actually into Doomfist or that we're actually wielding Doomfist's gauntlet. Understand this: something being a reference for another thing, does not mean this something is the same as that other thing.

I'm still waiting for the source about wine being infused with anima.
You don't understand the differences between tributes and actual, grounded references. What you are claiming is like saying that Worgen aren't Werewolves.

This one is on me. I didn't mean that the venthyr are reincarnated. I said that reincarnation is "bodies given to souls" without being undead, not that the venthyr are reincarnated.

More like souls given physical forms.
They're not alive, either. What would you categorize an animated dead creature?

I don't consider them vampires because they're not? Vampires, for me, require three things:
• The need to consume blood;
• Are afflicted by a blood curse;
• Can make more vampires by biting their victims.

The venthyr do none of that. The san'layn do all three.

At least you admit that it is your own, personal view.
I'd equate red Anima consumption with Blood consumption.
As for the other traits, they are missing. But, Vampires, likely, had several iterations throughout history, just like zombies. If you read Jellmoo's post, he pointed out how they started out as risen and, later on, as infected. Meaning, probably Nosferatu vampire was different to today's vampires.

There is no such thing. That's almost an oxymoron. Not to mention that, again, Tyrael has lost his archangel powers. One human witch bests him, at the end of Diablo 3, act III, remember?

It's a fantasy game, for crying out loud. In a movie called Legion, an angel comes down to earth, loses his wings and his powers and regains them later on. It's a recurring theme.

You're moving the goalposts, now. First you were speaking of the "archangel" priest PvP talents, which boosts Atonement, and now you're talking about the Spirit of Redemption holy priest ability (which does NOT turn you into a kyrian, it specifically turns you temporarily into a 'Spirit of Redemption'). Shapeshifting is a thing in WoW. Druids aren't animals despite having the ability to turn into one.

-_-

I linked a picture of the Spirit of Redemption (Spirit Healer).
"The Spirit Healers are Watchers, kyrian whose role is to eternally evaluate souls within the Veil."
"Holy Priests temporarily become Spirit Healers upon death with the [Spirit of Redemption] ability."
Druids are, literally, categorized as Beasts when using forms. What are you on about?

It wasn't him following the Light that earned him a spot in Bastion. It was his devotion. Because Kyrians look for those who can and are willing to put their own prejudices and judgments aside to work for the 'mission'. Anyone with such high level of devotion would enter Bastion, regardless of deity being worshiped.

Correct.
"Those who have lived a life of service are drawn to Bastion to assumed the highest duty of all — carrying the souls to the Shadowlands".

the mobility was never about stealth and deceit, you are literally distorting and backpedaling because you know you said potatoes

The mobility is part of the invisibility. "become so fast that you become invisible to the naked eye".

Windwalk is literally made so the blademaster went to combat as soon as possible, and it can be used to escape, literally like heroic leap, heroic leap in guides is literally said to be a escapa mechanism, because thats how warriors do, they heroic leap away, heal and come back, exactly like blademaster do with wind walk, only a blind man or a dishonest one cannot see

Stop using guides. That's technical things you can use it for. In reality, it is an AOE damage, not an escape.

you keep making guile to be a synonyms of "deceit" when its literally showed in the blademaster lore it is a synoym of cunning, try to read in blademaster lore, in wod, in the rpg anywhere, if blademasters are depicted or talked about deceptive tricksters, if you can we can end this now

What's cunning about them? quote lore, please.
Stealth and Guile is, clearly, referencing Wind Walk and Mirror Image.

why did you consider this vallid and not blizzard putting blademasters as arms warrior in different parts of the game? why don't you think is valli blizzing putting blademasters as arms warriors in the garrison tables? why do you is invalid if blizzard made bladmaster entirelly based on warriors with their abilities? why do you think is invalid a blademaster being a warrior trainer? and so on and on? this is hypocrisy, pain and simple, you try to dismiss blizzard take on things before, but now youa re acting like sacred, when they just did a mere guide, that jsut can't reflect in the meta and how players play their game, thats why bugs or exploits happen, they cannot know how everyone will use their shit

Because they did these before. Warlocks having Demon Hunter abilities. Death Knight NPCs using a mix of Warlock and Warrior abilities. Mis-categorizing Rexxar as a Survival Hunter in Legion. They're not immune to mistakes.

try to bring me a piece of lore that shows that blademaster are "iconic by their abiltiy to be invisible"

"Masters of stealth and guile"

Not even the ability says that, is "wind walk" not "invisible walk" and they just "appear to be" invisible, not real invisibility, it is just "an iconic aspect that cannot be changed" because you want then to be.

Appear to be invisible is invisible, i game terms. and Wind Walk is "you are so light on your feet that you appear to be walking on wind".

they are, dash is ltierally they being fast, but yeah, "i totally play warrior"

Isn't Dash a Druid's Cat form ability?

you are just making things up, you, with your personal biased opinion do determine what is important and is not while not showing why(because its just your biased opinion), is pathetic, and hypocrite, because nowhere in lore is mentioned invisibility, they jsut apepar to be, so, they can just appear to be in wow as well

And how would that be expressed in animation, if not invisibility? Because, that's what the ability does in both WC3 and HotS.

And its even more funny because youa re telling me what is important is invisibility "because its what the animation show", thats literally grasping at straw, .

Does it not turn you invisible? Am i imagining things?
"Allows the Blademaster to become invisible, and move faster for a set amount of time. When the Blademaster attacks a unit to break invisibility, he will deal bonus damage."

Not my words, but the ability description in WC3.

Are you compltely unawere that you just described yourself? your personal preference is that "invisibility" is the thing more important and cannot be changed, therefore a new class is encessary, is just bonkers

It is. Because invisibility (and speed) are referenced in its lore and are shown in its animations. That, you cannot touch. Just like you can't a Demon Hunter's Demon form, for example.

By the way, why did you quote my whole reply to lelenia? please edit it out.

I could see making a Night Warrior class with PoM and Warden as spec, but I think DR theme is too far away from the other 2 (I still haven't played the NF Cov, so maybe something is explained there that make you think they match OK?)

Night elven Dark Rangers, Dark Wardens, Night Warriors being dark, Elune turning out to be a death entity (Eternal one).

[Ielenia]

I would like it if you provided a picture.

Why? I don't understand why you need a picture. Do you not believe me when I say vengeance demon hunters can glide, which summons their wings? Is that it?

There are the RPG sources.
Never nailed down a concept for it? i thought you prided on it being a front runner...
Now, do you see it was in early stages?

Alright, let me amend my original statement: Blizzard never revealed the contents of the runemaster concept they were considering. Better?

Huh?
I think you've got it mixed up. WC3 Hero units = addition. RPG classes & WC3 basic units = integration. That's what i meant.

But the priest class was never based on a WC3 hero unit. Or the rogue class. Or the warlock class.

Competition is part of the enjoyment

Not for everyone.

Unless Garrosh goes at it again...
Probably only in the far far future...

Again, what did you mean with your previous post?

I'm still waiting for the source about wine being infused with anima.
You don't understand the differences between tributes and actual, grounded references. What you are claiming is like saying that Worgen aren't Werewolves.

They're beast-like, they get a rabid rage, they're a curse, that gets transmitted through bites... sounds like werewolves to me. Neither "tribute" or "reference" (grounded or not) means that they are the same thing as what they are "tributing" or "referencing".

More like souls given physical forms.
They're not alive, either. What would you categorize an animated dead creature?

How do you know they're not alive? It's another dimension, but they do look alive.

I'd equate red Anima consumption with Blood consumption.

This is what puts the san'layn above the venthyr in the 'who's the real vampire', since they consume actual blood.

As for the other traits, they are missing. But, Vampires, likely, had several iterations throughout history, just like zombies. If you read Jellmoo's post, he pointed out how they started out as risen and, later on, as infected. Meaning, probably Nosferatu vampire was different to today's vampires.

Of course they have. But the blood sucking, undead, reproduce on biting kind of vampire are the most common and most famous depiction of the vampire mythos, represented by the san'layn.

It's a fantasy game, for crying out loud. In a movie called Legion, an angel comes down to earth, loses his wings and his powers and regains them later on. It's a recurring theme.

But this movie is not WoW, is it?

-_-

I linked a picture of the Spirit of Redemption (Spirit Healer).
"The Spirit Healers are Watchers, kyrian whose role is to eternally evaluate souls within the Veil."
"Holy Priests temporarily become Spirit Healers upon death with the [Spirit of Redemption] ability."
Druids are, literally, categorized as Beasts when using forms. What are you on about?

But we were specifically talking about "archangel" ability, weren't we? This is the first time you mention the Spirit of Redemption. And again, one brief transformation does not mean the priest itself is an angel or archangel just because they transform.

[username993720]

Why? I don't understand why you need a picture. Do you not believe me when I say vengeance demon hunters can glide, which summons their wings? Is that it?

I do. I just have to see it with my own eyes.
Still, is it not part of the model, like say Havoc Metamorphosis. If Havoc had the ability Demon spikes, would it mean that they have those like the Vengeance Metamorphosis?

Alright, let me amend my original statement: Blizzard never revealed the contents of the runemaster concept they were considering. Better?

They did, actually:
"It was envisioned as a rogue- or monk-type melee class who wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers."

But the priest class was never based on a WC3 hero unit. Or the rogue class. Or the warlock class.

*Sigh*

Expansion classes. Do we have to go through it every time?

Again, what did you mean with your previous post?

That it's, probably, not going to happen.
Then, you said something along the lines of "never say never".
Then, i said "ok but, probably, only in the the far future".

They're beast-like, they get a rabid rage, they're a curse, that gets transmitted through bites... sounds like werewolves to me. Neither "tribute" or "reference" (grounded or not) means that they are the same thing as what they are "tributing" or "referencing".

Again, applying your own perspective.

They are, though. Listed as ones alongside the San'layn and other vampiric races. You'd have to be blind to think they are anything else but vampires. It's like saying Kyrian aren't angels, because they don't use the light.

How do you know they're not alive? It's another dimension, but they do look alive.

Because it was stated that everything in the Shadowlands is dead. That's why when they see us, a living mortal with a beating heart, it is so strange to them.

This is what puts the san'layn above the venthyr in the 'who's the real vampire', since they consume actual blood.

They are all vampires, just different iterations. You can't, really, expect them to repeat the San'layn.

Of course they have. But the blood sucking, undead, reproduce on biting kind of vampire are the most common and most famous depiction of the vampire mythos, represented by the san'layn.

And the most famous is a risen zombie or an infected one?
It doesn't matter who you consider as a real vampire. It matters what the race is, essentially. And, it is nothing other than a vampire.

But this movie is not WoW, is it?

No, but neither did WoW invent it. They rely on mythos and pop culture. There's no reason why it wouldn't happen.
Heck, they are uniting the Kyrian and Forsworn this upcoming patch, so that you could play both the Blue and Purple Kyrians:

But we were specifically talking about "archangel" ability, weren't we? This is the first time you mention the Spirit of Redemption. And again, one brief transformation does not mean the priest itself is an angel or archangel just because they transform.

No, it is not. Go watch the pictures i linked. I showed a picture of this ability alongside other angelic abilities. Let me show you how ridiculous what you just said:
"And again, one brief transformation does not mean the Demon Hunter itself is a demon just because they transform."

[Diaphin]

Sylvanas is NOT more popular than Illidan or Arthas and anyone who thinks that is an I........ ignore them, they're just making complete shit up to support their dark ranger argument, perfect example of a fucking terrible argument. Ima make shit up to prove im right!

- - - Updated - - -



Dude you must be either dellusional or new to the Warcraft franchise. Sylvanas is not even nearly is popular and iconic as Illidan and Arthas, this one sentence just made it so 0 people on this forum can take your entire post seriously.

Making a dark ranger argument is fine, feel free, but this one statement is like complete 10/10 bullshit lol.

While she is probably not quite up there with Arthas and Illidan, I think you are the one making a fool of yourself if you don't admit that she is not probably close to the tier of those two. She is certainly one of the most iconic character of Warcraft right after those two. She is certainly one of the characters most people who don't know Warcraft would recognize and who people think about when they think Warcraft. Which I think makes Dark Ranger just the most logical new class to introduce after Death Knight and Demon Hunter. The class fits into the same niche and the character who represents it most iconically is close to Arthas and Illidans level of popularity and celebrity.

If you look at Monks on the other hand, who is the one lighthearted class we got, the class was neither well received at the beginning nor did it creat any significant hype. It took some time for their population to build up, while with Death Knight and Demon Hunter, the servers where full of them when the classes where released and most people at least tried them out. Which is why I think that Dark Ranger would just make the most sense if Blizz goal is to creat a class which creats hype and enthusiasm for a new expansion. Some people hype up Tinker here, but neither are the races those class would be based on very popular, they also lack an iconic hero close to the level of Sylvanas.

[Ielenia]

I do. I just have to see it with my own eyes.
Still, is it not part of the model, like say Havoc Metamorphosis. If Havoc had the ability Demon spikes, would it mean that they have those like the Vengeance Metamorphosis?

In my opinion? Yes. It would be a valid representation in my eyes.

They did, actually:
"It was envisioned as a rogue- or monk-type melee class who wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers."

I said "concepts of the runemaster", meaning their specs, roles, special abilities, mechanics, etc. "Envisioned" does not mean "defined". Envisioned means a general idea.

*Sigh*

Expansion classes. Do we have to go through it every time?

Speaking of "having to go through it every time", must I remind you that this separation of vanilla and expansion classes are purely arbitrary, to which the only reason I can see for such distinction is that including the vanilla classes causes this argument of yours to break down.

That it's, probably, not going to happen.
Then, you said something along the lines of "never say never".
Then, i said "ok but, probably, only in the the far future".

You were the one that said "never say never".

Again, applying your own perspective.

So are you. There is no "objective definition" of what a vampire is, considering all the different forms that vampires have been portrayed in popular media throughout the decades.

They are, though. Listed as ones alongside the San'layn and other vampiric races. You'd have to be blind to think they are anything else but vampires. It's like saying Kyrian aren't angels, because they don't use the light.

They're not angels. Being called "angelic" does not mean being an actual angel, just like being called "vampiric" doesn't mean it's an actual vampire, just that it drinks blood (which, I'll remind you, the venthyr do not). Kyrians are called angelic because they look the part.

Because it was stated that everything in the Shadowlands is dead. That's why when they see us, a living mortal with a beating heart, it is so strange to them.

But they're obviously not "dead". Because they're moving around, consciously, have bodies that can die, can feel emotions, etc. Everything the living can.

They are all vampires, just different iterations. You can't, really, expect them to repeat the San'layn.

Why not? Especially since you claim that Arthas was inspired on the venthyr to make the san'layn.

And the most famous is a risen zombie or an infected one?
It doesn't matter who you consider as a real vampire. It matters what the race is, essentially. And, it is nothing other than a vampire.

And this is your perspective. For all the times you downplay my arguments as "just your perspective", you're applying your own, as well. Also, your point about "most famous" is a fallacy, because the "most famous" is the very first vampire in their stories, so of course it didn't get "infected". But tell me: how did the "most famous" create more vampires?

No, but neither did WoW invent it. They rely on mythos and pop culture. There's no reason why it wouldn't happen.
Heck, they are uniting the Kyrian and Forsworn this upcoming patch, so that you could play both the Blue and Purple Kyrians:

Your second line is completely irrelevant to this discussion, by the way. And of course Blizzard relies on popular mythos and popular media. But that doesn't mean they'll copy those 1:1.

No, it is not. Go watch the pictures i linked. I showed a picture of this ability alongside other angelic abilities. Let me show you how ridiculous what you just said:
"And again, one brief transformation does not mean the Demon Hunter itself is a demon just because they transform."

Except we have Illidan himself saying to us that our souls are now "the soul of a demon". During the DH starting zone, near the beginning, you reach a point where you have to choose between killing one of your own, or sacrificing yourself to power a demon portal. If you choose to sacrifice yourself, Illidan comments on how your soul is the soul of a demon now, and cannot truly die.

[doodle90]

They really need to add a tech based class. Machinist, Tinkerer, w/e its really the only trope we are missing.

[username993720]

In my opinion? Yes. It would be a valid representation in my eyes.

Then, it's your own opinion. The model, clearly, lacks spikes.

I said "concepts of the runemaster", meaning their specs, roles, special abilities, mechanics, etc. "Envisioned" does not mean "defined". Envisioned means a general idea.

Good to see that you're admitting it was in early stages, and nowhere near completion.

Speaking of "having to go through it every time", must I remind you that this separation of vanilla and expansion classes are purely arbitrary, to which the only reason I can see for such distinction is that including the vanilla classes causes this argument of yours to break down.

No. It's not like i skip an expansion and say "that was a one time trip". I conclude all of the expansions (notice i said expansions, not base game).

So are you. There is no "objective definition" of what a vampire is, considering all the different forms that vampires have been portrayed in popular media throughout the decades.

What are they, then, if not vampires?
Are Kyrian not angels?
Are Sylvar not Fauns?

They're not angels. Being called "angelic" does not mean being an actual angel, just like being called "vampiric" doesn't mean it's an actual vampire, just that it drinks blood (which, I'll remind you, the venthyr do not). Kyrians are called angelic because they look the part.

So are Venthyr.
I don't get it. It's like i'm talking to a wall. Are they anything but vampires?

But they're obviously not "dead". Because they're moving around, consciously, have bodies that can die, can feel emotions, etc. Everything the living can.

That's called animated (undead). They are from the Shadowlands, the land of the dead. They are born of death. They are dead creatures. Why do you think they were so surprised to see a living mortal among them?

Why not? Especially since you claim that Arthas was inspired on the venthyr to make the san'layn.

The same way the Scourge and Maldraxxus are not, exactly, the same.

And this is your perspective. For all the times you downplay my arguments as "just your perspective", you're applying your own, as well. Also, your point about "most famous" is a fallacy, because the "most famous" is the very first vampire in their stories, so of course it didn't get "infected". But tell me: how did the "most famous" create more vampires?

By biting.
How do forsaken reproduce? by infecting? or by being raised?
I guess they had to change it, since Shadowlands creatures are made, not reproduced. Do you think that's how angels or fauns are said to reproduce in myth?

Your second line is completely irrelevant to this discussion, by the way. And of course Blizzard relies on popular mythos and popular media. But that doesn't mean they'll copy those 1:1.

Never said it has to be an exact copy.
Yet, it is a probable outcome.

Except we have Illidan himself saying to us that our souls are now "the soul of a demon". During the DH starting zone, near the beginning, you reach a point where you have to choose between killing one of your own, or sacrificing yourself to power a demon portal. If you choose to sacrifice yourself, Illidan comments on how your soul is the soul of a demon now, and cannot truly die.

I know. I was being sarcastic.
Is it by chance that the Archangel/Dark Archangel divide of the Priest exists in Bastion?

[pacotaco]

They really need to add a tech based class. Machinist, Tinkerer, w/e its really the only trope we are missing.

We lack a few more:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...aracterClasses

- Dragon Knight / Monster Knight: Dragonsworn.
- Samurai: Blademaster.
- Cavalier: WoW gameplay doens't actually have room for this.
- Magic Knight / Battle Mage: Spellblade (like Aluriel in Nighthold)
- Blue Mage: I think this concept doesn't exist on WoW lore, so probably not happening ever.
- Necromancer: this may never happen, because part of the concept is integrated on the Death KNight (although this last one is the Dark Knight concept).
- Scout: Dark Ranger could fill this niche.
- Witch Doctor: Shadow Hunter.
- Templar / Inquisitor: It would be a Holy DPS spec for Priests.
- Bow and Blade Ranger / Magical Ranger: Dark Ranger could fill this niches too.
- Bard
- Engineer: Tinker
- Alchemist: I don't think this have too much room in WoW to become a class, but some of the themes and mechanics could be integrated on the Shadow Hunter and the Tinker.
- Psychic: WoW has not real psionics (they're usually depicted as Void related powers).

And I don't see it anywhere on that page, but the bare-handed brute (like the Hulk), although that could be an unarmed Fury Warrior maybe? But we can't actully play it unarmed, so...

[doodle90]

Dragon knight is not a trop it is a fantasy knight and WoW has multiple of those. Same with like most of the concepts you mentioned. Samurai: Arms warrior. Magic Knight both shaman and paladin, Necro DK, Scout- Rogue and Hunter Witch Doctor - Shadow Priest Templar- Disc and Paladin. Bow ranger....blade ranger...again hunter. Bard we do not have but idk how a support class would work in WoW. Alchemist - Could also fuffill the machinist/steampunk fantasy we are missing. Psychic I guess an illusionist could fufill this but wow anwser to this seems to be arcane mage and shadow priest.

[pacotaco]

Something that surprises me and is not stale i don't care, could be Planes Walker for all i care that consjures dark matter on your face with a gun
Again, they literally printing new lore by the patch they could literally make a dimension ripple and outcomes a race and class we never ever heard above and it would be consistent and not even the most ridiciloust thing that happened in this game.
This boring fetish with WC3 is really lame

The thing is, when you add new things to a game, usually you use previous established things. When you start pulling things from thin air, you star breaking the suspension of disbelief.

That's what happened with Draenei when they were added on TBC. Suddenly you have a new race of alien goatmen, never seen before (they retconned Eredar and old Draenei into mutated forms of this race), that have spaceships powered by another new race of Holy Light Wind Chimes.

They still do shit like this (although not so blatantly obvious), but they try to foresight it a bit nowadays.

Add that to concepts already present of previous media, and it's easy to see why people focus more on things from WC3 / HotS than things more techno-magical, that is more common on FF that Warcraft.

- - - Updated - - -

Dragon knight is not a trop it is a fantasy knight and WoW has multiple of those. Same with like most of the concepts you mentioned. Samurai: Arms warrior. Magic Knight both shaman and paladin, Necro DK, Scout- Rogue and Hunter Witch Doctor - Shadow Priest Templar- Disc and Paladin. Bow ranger....blade ranger...again hunter. Bard we do not have but idk how a support class would work in WoW. Alchemist - Could also fuffill the machinist/steampunk fantasy we are missing. Psychic I guess an illusionist could fufill this but wow anwser to this seems to be arcane mage and shadow priest.

I think you are not understanding the idea.
You are looking at the bigger segments (fighter, magician, rogue, cleric, ranger) and saying "yeah, we have it all covered".
- Dragon Knight: we have nothing that plays like that. Look at the FF Dragoon. The Arms Warrior maybe is the closer thing we have, but it doesn't even use magic. (Also, the balls to say that a thing that we've already seen hundreds of times in media, and that has its own page on TVTropes, is not a trope...)
- How the f... is the Arms Warrior the Samurai concept? Did you even read the descriptions from the page I linked? Arms Warrior represents the Warrior concept from that page.
- Yeah, Paladin are a type of Magic Knight, but they're a recurrent trope differentiated from othe Magical Knights (like the Dark Knight -Death Knight-).
- WoW's Shaman is actually a Nature Magician or a Witch Doctor, but even close to a Magical Knight. They don't event fit the global Fighter trope (maybe the EnhSham could be classified as a Nature Magic Warrior if you are too loose with the concepts).
- You point that the Scout is the Rogue and the Hunter. Yeah! It's a mix of the two! Of course you can see that concept on both of them. But neither of them fit really the concept.
- Witch Doctor -> Shadow Priest. No, not even close. How these 2 concepts are the same to you?

Shadow Priest:

The Light in which many priests bathe is brilliant and effervescent, granting them immense divine power. But the brightest light casts the darkest shadow—and from within this blackness, a rival power dwells. Shadow priests fully embrace this opposing polarity, their faith equally resolute as their holy counterparts—but focused on shadowy magics and mental manipulation. Like all priests, they dedicate much of their lives to worship—but they derive their power from the Void, straying dangerously close to the domain of the Old Gods. To truly understand such ancient, corruptive influence is to be driven mad. This is the state in which these dark priests thrive, embracing insanity and feeding off of the minds of their opponents to reach terrifying new limits.

Witch Doctor:

A version of the Cleric flavored for a more shamanic, nature-worshiping culture as opposed to the generally Monotheistic religion most Cleric-using settings use. May be slightly more magically offensive and overlap with the Shaman.

- Templar -> Disc and Paladin. Disc, maybe although I'd say it's closer to the Sage (aka Red Mage). But Paladin is not a ranged holy assassin, and it really falls into another archetype named after, you know, the Paladin archetype.

- Bow ranger....blade ranger...again hunter. You didn't understood. Its not one or the other, it's a combo of the 2. None of the 3 Hunter specs really alternate between ranged and melee combat, they're one or the other but not both.


I feel like you are not familiar with the tropes, nor you read the link I put that explain them.

[Ielenia]

Then, it's your own opinion. The model, clearly, lacks spikes.

But somehow venthyr represent drinking blood without actually drinking blood?

Good to see that you're admitting it was in early stages, and nowhere near completion.

I never, ever claimed the runemaster was "near completion". You were the one who made a similar claim, when you claimed that "Blizzard abandon projects mid-way" and then mentioned the "Pandaren almost became an Alliance race in TBC".

No. It's not like i skip an expansion and say "that was a one time trip". I conclude all of the expansions (notice i said expansions, not base game).

And you have yet to give a good reason for the separation between expansion classes and vanilla classes.

What are they, then, if not vampires?
Are Kyrian not angels?
Are Sylvar not Fauns?

Venthyr are venthyr. Just like Kyrian are Kyrian, and Sylvar are Sylvar.

So are Venthyr.
I don't get it. It's like i'm talking to a wall. Are they anything but vampires?

Yes, hey are "anything but vampires". And I've laid out my reasons already: because they don't drink blood; their existence isn't due to a blood curse; they do not spread their curse through biting others.

The same way the Scourge and Maldraxxus are not, exactly, the same.

But the san'layn and venthyr somehow are?

By biting.
How do forsaken reproduce? by infecting? or by being raised?
I guess they had to change it, since Shadowlands creatures are made, not reproduced. Do you think that's how angels or fauns are said to reproduce in myth?

And at which point, after how many changes, does it stop being what they are referencing? Venthyr don't suck blood and their existence isn't a blood curse. In my eyes, they're not vampires. They look like vampires and reference the vampire mythos in their design, but they're not actual vampires in my eyes.

I know. I was being sarcastic.
Is it by chance that the Archangel/Dark Archangel divide of the Priest exists in Bastion?

There is no "archangel/dark archangel divide" in Bastion... because kyrians aren't angels.

[jellmoo]

What are they, then, if not vampires?
Are Kyrian not angels?
Are Sylvar not Fauns?

I would argue that in each case they are more inspired by the source material. I wouldn't say that Venthyr are Vampires since, well, they differ from Vampires in a lot of ways, but they are quite obviously inspired by Vampire lore and gothic Vampire aesthetic. That being said, if somebody were interested in playing a Vampirelike character, they would certainly be something that could fit that bill were they playable.

I'd toss it in a similar group as Odyn, Tyr, Loken, Helya and that group that are very clearly inspired by Norse mythology, but aren't actually those beings from the stories.

[pacotaco]

This standard of "usually" wasnt applied to wow not 15 years ago and they not applying to it currently, they invent new shit out of thin air all the time. I dont see how this is an argument for this game

It's not an argument. I understand you thinking "if they do it with these other things, why not with classes too?", and I tried to explain why I think is a bad idea.