This is the only viable option for a Bard class in WoW. Would you play it?

[KOUNTERPARTS]

This is not the only viable option to play Bards.

[Teriz]

I think the OP's central premise is flawed, unfortunately.

The central premise is based on the previous 4 expansion classes. If we recognize that Blizzard has a certain criteria for expansion class implementation, then all we need to do is look at the class concepts that have those necessary ingredients. As of this writing, the sole example within the concept of Bards is the ETC. There are no other Bardic heroes in WoW. There are no other Bardic heroes in their MOBA games (the typical origin of future class mechanics), and the disparate Bard NPCs in the game have no cohesive ability sets to tie them together to form a basic class foundation.

If we look back at the previous 4 expansion classes, we see a pretty clear commonality between all of them;

1. Based on a hero/villain character. DKs: Arthas/LK, Monks: Chen Stormstout, Demon Hunters: Illidan, Evokers: Alexstraza
2. Class mechanics and original abilities originating in MOBA/RTS: DKs: DK hero/Necromancer/Lich/Various UD units, Monk: Pandaren Brewmaster hero, Demon Hunter: DH Hero/Illidan HotS, Evoker: Alexstraza/Chromie/Deathwing HotS
3. Multiple cohesion points for expanding the class: DKs + UD, BrM + Monk NPCs, DH + BT units, Evoker: Dragon HotS heroes + WoW Dragons
4. Expansion locale tied to class: DKs: Northrend, Monks: Pandaria, DHs: Broken Isles, Evokers: Dragon Isles
5. Concept shows that it can be replicable within lore: DKs: LK can raise more DKs. Monks: Pandaren can train new monks. DHs: Illidan trained new DHs. Evokers: Black dragons can create artificial dragons.

Now let's look at the ETC;

1. Elite Tauren Chieftain
2. ETC HotS
3. ETC HotS + Bard Hero April Fools + weapons like Arcanite Reaper/Ripper
4. N/A Maybe Darkmoone Fair expansion
5. Band mates shown to be of other races.

The downside to the ETC is that its lore basis is iffy, and an expansion based on him is a laughable concept. However, the point is that he's the only Bardic character in the game with those qualities. I'm NOT saying that Blizzard can't create another Bard concept with these qualities in the future, but my point is that as of this writing, the only one is the ETC.

Which is why when people create Bard class threads (like the excellent one created a few years back) almost immediately people say that it doesn't fit WoW. If someone wrote up a ETC-based Bard class thread, that wouldn't happen. They might say that the class concept is ridiculous, but they wouldn't say it doesn't fit WoW, because the character and the concept has been in the franchise for decades.

[Aucald]

The central premise is based on the previous 4 expansion classes. If we recognize that Blizzard has a certain criteria for expansion class implementation, then all we need to do is look at the class concepts that have those necessary ingredients. As of this writing, the sole example within the concept of Bards is the ETC. There are no other Bardic heroes in WoW. There are no other Bardic heroes in their MOBA games (the typical origin of future class mechanics), and the disparate Bard NPCs in the game have no cohesive ability sets to tie them together to form a basic class foundation.

If we look back at the previous 4 expansion classes, we see a pretty clear commonality between all of them;

1. Based on a hero/villain character. DKs: Arthas/LK, Monks: Chen Stormstout, Demon Hunters: Illidan, Evokers: Alexstraza
2. Class mechanics and original abilities originating in MOBA/RTS: DKs: DK hero/Necromancer/Lich/Various UD units, Monk: Pandaren Brewmaster hero, Demon Hunter: DH Hero/Illidan HotS, Evoker: Alexstraza/Chromie/Deathwing HotS
3. Multiple cohesion points for expanding the class: DKs + UD, BrM + Monk NPCs, DH + BT units, Evoker: Dragon HotS heroes + WoW Dragons
4. Expansion locale tied to class: DKs: Northrend, Monks: Pandaria, DHs: Broken Isles, Evokers: Dragon Isles
5. Concept shows that it can be replicable within lore: DKs: LK can raise more DKs. Monks: Pandaren can train new monks. DHs: Illidan trained new DHs. Evokers: Black dragons can create artificial dragons.

Now let's look at the ETC;

1. Elite Tauren Chieftain
2. ETC HotS
3. ETC HotS + Bard Hero April Fools + weapons like Arcanite Reaper/Ripper
4. N/A Maybe Darkmoone Fair expansion
5. Band mates shown to be of other races.

The downside to the ETC is that its lore basis is iffy, and an expansion based on him is a laughable concept. However, the point is that he's the only Bardic character in the game with those qualities. I'm NOT saying that Blizzard can't create another Bard concept with these qualities in the future, but my point is that as of this writing, the only one is the ETC.

Which is why when people create Bard class threads (like the excellent one created a few years back) almost immediately people say that it doesn't fit WoW. If someone wrote up a ETC-based Bard class thread, that wouldn't happen. They might say that the class concept is ridiculous, but they wouldn't say it doesn't fit WoW, because the character and the concept has been in the franchise for decades.

I would generally agree insofar as the common theme for the current roster of classes go, but telescoping that into a requirement for future classes to "fit WoW" is where I break with your proposed design law. The RTS and MOBA sources only give the briefest sketch of any given class archetype - a handful of abilities and a general theme, which WoW then further develops into a set of class-based specializations with dozens of abilities and/or talents granting a wide latitude of playstyles within the class. The idea that an RTS/MOBA "germ" has to exist for the cultivation of a WoW class seems far-fetched in that light, and nothing would really stop a developer from simply creating the core of the class from scratch and then building up the needed abilities and talent options to make it both a functional class and one that easily fits into the Warcraft aesthetic.

Barring the tired "X class already does that" arguments that pop-up perenially in these threads, there are still a number of classes yet to be explored, and a galaxy of different constructions that could be created for them (some of which have no current "germs" in the RTS/MOBA games). I would also disagree that a class *must* have an expansion catered to them, as well - I know that's kind of how it's been done in WoW's history, which each class being somewhat thematic of the expansion it was introduced in, but I don't think it's necessarily a strict requirement, either. You could, for example, introduce a Tinker-type class in an expansion that wasn't necessarily technology-themed, and you could introduce a Dark Ranger in an expansion that wasn't Scourge/undeath-themed. You'd just need an intro experience for the class that explained its relevance and/or why it was coming to the fore at this time, which could serve as its own little bottle story unconnected to the expansion's main plot.

[Teriz]

I would generally agree insofar as the common theme for the current roster of classes go, but telescoping that into a requirement for future classes to "fit WoW" is where I break with your proposed design law. The RTS and MOBA sources only give the briefest sketch of any given class archetype - a handful of abilities and a general theme, which WoW then further develops into a set of class-based specializations with dozens of abilities and/or talents granting a wide latitude of playstyles within the class. The idea that an RTS/MOBA "germ" has to exist for the cultivation of a WoW class seems far-fetched in that light, and nothing would really stop a developer from simply creating the core of the class from scratch and then building up the needed abilities and talent options to make it both a functional class and one that easily fits into the Warcraft aesthetic.

Barring the tired "X class already does that" arguments that pop-up perenially in these threads, there are still a number of classes yet to be explored, and a galaxy of different constructions that could be created for them (some of which have no current "germs" in the RTS/MOBA games). I would also disagree that a class *must* have an expansion catered to them, as well - I know that's kind of how it's been done in WoW's history, which each class being somewhat thematic of the expansion it was introduced in, but I don't think it's necessarily a strict requirement, either. You could, for example, introduce a Tinker-type class in an expansion that wasn't necessarily technology-themed, and you could introduce a Dark Ranger in an expansion that wasn't Scourge/undeath-themed. You'd just need an intro experience for the class that explained its relevance and/or why it was coming to the fore at this time, which could serve as its own little bottle story unconnected to the expansion's main plot.

I suppose the question boils down to this; Do you believe that Blizzard would just create a class out of thin air with no general connection to WoW and not even an intertwined expansion thematic? I certainly understand that Blizzard COULD do that, but WOULD they do it?

Even Evokers have pretty strong connections to pre-existing WoW lore and characters; Created by Deathwing, sharing the concept of the Chromatic dragons, possessing abilities from Alexstraza/Chromie HotS, and Onyxia WoW, being connected to the Dragonflights spec-wise, etc. Since every expansion class has had such connections, it would seem odd for Blizzard to stop that tradition and simply dump a non-connected new class into our laps with no general connection to any recognizable WC characters or lore.

You mentioned Tinkers; Tinkers have a very strong connection to Gazlowe and Mekkatorque, two fairly major characters in lore since they're faction leaders. Tinkers also have a connection to Undermine, which was a proposed continent in vanilla WoW (and even shows up in the opening vanilla cinematic), so if Blizzard dropped the Tinker class with an Undermine expansion, it wouldn't be something considered alien or out of place. Granted some folks would hate it, but no one would say it doesn't fit Warcraft. The Bard on the other hand DOES have that problem, because Blizzard has never really cultivated the concept in general WoW lore, or codified it behind a major lore figure.

This returns me to my original point (and really the point of this thread); If Blizzard is going to bring out a Bard class, they're going to build it up first, probably long before they ever release it. From my vantage point, I haven't seen any indication of that happening. Which is why I pointed out the ETC, because beyond that character, cohesive Bard stuff is pretty scarce. You say that the MOBA/RTS connection in all the previous expansion classes is small, even a "germ". I won't argue that, but that germ IS present in every case, and the ETC has that germ. I think that's something we need to strongly consider. Again, Blizzard COULD create a class without that "germ", but why would they?

[shoc]

Not only should it be a rhythm game styled class but it should be compatible with actual Guitar Hero controllers, give me an excuse to bust that dusty bad boy out from my parent's attic.

[Teriz]

Sure, but prior to the Evoker they hadn't done it. It was the first. It literally shattered the paradigm of class and race being separate. You predicting such a thing is good foresight on your part, but not indicative of Blizzard's intent.

I'd just like to point out that it wasn't foresight, it was simply using the criteria. I knew there wouldn't be a TTRPG version of Dragonsworn, or some form of Dragon Knight, because those concepts never appeared in the RTS/MOBAs. However, we did have literal dragon characters with class mechanics, which pointed us to be able to play literal dragons. The only way that's possible is by making race and class one in the same.

I think we can use those criteria to better determine future classes.

[Triceron]

I would assume that if they didn't pull all funding from Heroes of the Storm, we could have potentially seen a lot more expansion of concepts not normally seen in Warcraft.

Heroes of the Storm characters are mostly built up from designers literally making up something new from nothing. What did Alexstrazsa have since WC2? No abilities to show for her existence as the leader of the red, until they decided to make her a playable MOBA character.

Sadly, Heroes won't see that expanded to many other concepts like Shadow Hunters or Naga Sea Witches or even a proper Feral/Guardian Druid Hero. I think if the game were being expanded today, we could see more expansion on music themes, and incorporate more skins, characters and classes that represent music or bards. We already have characters like Lucio after all. I'd even point at how League of Legends has fully embraced the theme with characters like Sona and Yasuo, and skin themes like Pentakill and KDA.

I think they could have even made that Blood Elf guitar dude into a Heroes of the Storm character had the game progressed long enough for it to happen. Maybe even the full ETC band, so you could them all as a whole team. It's not crazy to think about when they even took the WoW 2-headed Ogre April Fools and made that playable through Cho'Gall!

[Teriz]

I would assume that if they didn't pull all funding from Heroes of the Storm, we could have potentially seen a lot more expansion of concepts not normally seen in Warcraft.

Heroes of the Storm characters are mostly built up from designers literally making up something new from nothing. What did Alexstrazsa have since WC2? No abilities to show for her existence as the leader of the red, until they decided to make her a playable MOBA character.

Sadly, Heroes won't see that expanded to many other concepts like Shadow Hunters or Naga Sea Witches or even a proper Feral/Guardian Druid Hero. I think if the game were being expanded today, we could see more expansion on music themes, and incorporate more skins, characters and classes that represent music or bards. We already have characters like Lucio after all. I'd even point at how League of Legends has fully embraced the theme with characters like Sona and Yasuo, and skin themes like Pentakill and KDA.

I think they could have even made that Blood Elf guitar dude into a Heroes of the Storm character had the game progressed long enough for it to happen. Maybe even the full ETC band, so you could them all as a whole team. It's not crazy to think about when they even took the WoW 2-headed Ogre April Fools and made that playable through Cho'Gall!

While HotS is dead, there’s still a few heroes that could be expanded into new classes. Obviously you have Gazlowe/Tinkers, there’s also Sylvanas if they ever change their mind and do Dark Rangers. We’ve discussed ETC, which would work with Bards. There’s also Zul’jim and Rexxar who offer some interesting physical ranged and pet opportunities (though that should be considered for survival Hunter).

I think your best bet (beyond the Tinker) is a something like Warcraft 4 that would offer new heroes, which in turn could open up new class opportunities.

[Polybius]

people making up "bard and tinkerer" stuff should be banned.
nothing you wrote was original.
to save wow we need more adult stuff, clearly this game doesnt work out as a fake kids game.
game is for 12+ 12=kid

Someone never played Rift.

- - - Updated - - -

I would generally agree insofar as the common theme for the current roster of classes go, but telescoping that into a requirement for future classes to "fit WoW" is where I break with your proposed design law. The RTS and MOBA sources only give the briefest sketch of any given class archetype - a handful of abilities and a general theme, which WoW then further develops into a set of class-based specializations with dozens of abilities and/or talents granting a wide latitude of playstyles within the class. The idea that an RTS/MOBA "germ" has to exist for the cultivation of a WoW class seems far-fetched in that light, and nothing would really stop a developer from simply creating the core of the class from scratch and then building up the needed abilities and talent options to make it both a functional class and one that easily fits into the Warcraft aesthetic.

Barring the tired "X class already does that" arguments that pop-up perenially in these threads, there are still a number of classes yet to be explored, and a galaxy of different constructions that could be created for them (some of which have no current "germs" in the RTS/MOBA games). I would also disagree that a class *must* have an expansion catered to them, as well - I know that's kind of how it's been done in WoW's history, which each class being somewhat thematic of the expansion it was introduced in, but I don't think it's necessarily a strict requirement, either. You could, for example, introduce a Tinker-type class in an expansion that wasn't necessarily technology-themed, and you could introduce a Dark Ranger in an expansion that wasn't Scourge/undeath-themed. You'd just need an intro experience for the class that explained its relevance and/or why it was coming to the fore at this time, which could serve as its own little bottle story unconnected to the expansion's main plot.

As long as it’s not another dark-themed class. We have 4 or 5 of those.

[Aucald]

I suppose the question boils down to this; Do you believe that Blizzard would just create a class out of thin air with no general connection to WoW and not even an intertwined expansion thematic? I certainly understand that Blizzard COULD do that, but WOULD they do it?

Even Evokers have pretty strong connections to pre-existing WoW lore and characters; Created by Deathwing, sharing the concept of the Chromatic dragons, possessing abilities from Alexstraza/Chromie HotS, and Onyxia WoW, being connected to the Dragonflights spec-wise, etc. Since every expansion class has had such connections, it would seem odd for Blizzard to stop that tradition and simply dump a non-connected new class into our laps with no general connection to any recognizable WC characters or lore.

You mentioned Tinkers; Tinkers have a very strong connection to Gazlowe and Mekkatorque, two fairly major characters in lore since they're faction leaders. Tinkers also have a connection to Undermine, which was a proposed continent in vanilla WoW (and even shows up in the opening vanilla cinematic), so if Blizzard dropped the Tinker class with an Undermine expansion, it wouldn't be something considered alien or out of place. Granted some folks would hate it, but no one would say it doesn't fit Warcraft. The Bard on the other hand DOES have that problem, because Blizzard has never really cultivated the concept in general WoW lore, or codified it behind a major lore figure.

This returns me to my original point (and really the point of this thread); If Blizzard is going to bring out a Bard class, they're going to build it up first, probably long before they ever release it. From my vantage point, I haven't seen any indication of that happening. Which is why I pointed out the ETC, because beyond that character, cohesive Bard stuff is pretty scarce. You say that the MOBA/RTS connection in all the previous expansion classes is small, even a "germ". I won't argue that, but that germ IS present in every case, and the ETC has that germ. I think that's something we need to strongly consider. Again, Blizzard COULD create a class without that "germ", but why would they?

They certainly could, as for would they, that's difficult to say. If they really wanted to introduce a new class, but it didn't fit the next expansion story arc that they planned to tell, they could certainly just shoehorn it in with a B-plot. This issue I see with your stance isn't really a question of "could," or even "would," just the appeal to the tradition fallacy - that because a thing has always been done a certain way then that is the only it can be done.

I would argue that a musical expansion or a technology expansion would be a bit too niche for WoW, and probably have a minimal draw either way for either a Bard or Tinker class, to use the above examples. But if they did, for instance, an expansion focused more on exploration without a central arc, something more akin to Classic having a loose collection of associated stories more focused on worldbuilding than telling a central story (e.g. Burning Legion, Scourge, faction conflict, Old Gods, etc.) you could easily introduce a Bard or Tinker class and weld it onto one of the ongoing plotlines.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as it’s not another dark-themed class. We have 4 or 5 of those.

Guess it depends on what you consider a "dark-themed" class. The only three I can think of that really qualify as being "dark" in terms of their aesthetic are Warlocks, Demon Hunters, and Death Knights.

[Teriz]

They certainly could, as for would they, that's difficult to say. If they really wanted to introduce a new class, but it didn't fit the next expansion story arc that they planned to tell, they could certainly just shoehorn it in with a B-plot. This issue I see with your stance isn't really a question of "could," or even "would," just the appeal to the tradition fallacy - that because a thing has always been done a certain way then that is the only it can be done.

That's fair, but wouldn't you agree that there are advantages to introducing a class based on established lore and characters instead of just dropping a new class out of the blue that has had no lead up, no ties to lore, and no real basis for existence beyond simply being a new class?

Again, take Evokers; They're certainly a new take on dragon lore, but they ARE part of Warcraft's storied dragon lore. Because of that it gives their inclusion weight and anticipation. Countless players have encountered dragons like Wrathion, Chromie, Kairozdormu, Kalecgos, or other dragons in mortal form and wanted to be part of that fantasy. Thanks to the Evoker class, now they can. You simply wouldn't get that by dropping a random class with no basis in WoW into the gameworld.

I would argue that a musical expansion or a technology expansion would be a bit too niche for WoW, and probably have a minimal draw either way for either a Bard or Tinker class, to use the above examples. But if they did, for instance, an expansion focused more on exploration without a central arc, something more akin to Classic having a loose collection of associated stories more focused on worldbuilding than telling a central story (e.g. Burning Legion, Scourge, faction conflict, Old Gods, etc.) you could easily introduce a Bard or Tinker class and weld it onto one of the ongoing plotlines.

TBF, Tinkers have the edge in this department because they have Undermine as their possible expansion. Undermine is goblin-based, has the same pedigree as Dragon Isles, and is storied in WoW lore. It is also the location of the Tinker Union, and WoW devs have mentioned in the past that they want Goblins to return there at some point in the future.

If you notice in this article released prior to the announcement of Mists of Pandaria, Undermine is mentioned alongside Pandaria and Broken Isles as possible future expansion locations. All things considered, Undermine is a VERY viable future expansion location.

[Aucald]

That's fair, but wouldn't you agree that there are advantages to introducing a class based on established lore and characters instead of just dropping a new class out of the blue that has had no lead up, no ties to lore, and no real basis for existence beyond simply being a new class?

Again, take Evokers; They're certainly a new take on dragon lore, but they ARE part of Warcraft's storied dragon lore. Because of that it gives their inclusion weight and anticipation. Countless players have encountered dragons like Wrathion, Chromie, Kairozdormu, Kalecgos, or other dragons in mortal form and wanted to be part of that fantasy. Thanks to the Evoker class, now they can. You simply wouldn't get that by dropping a random class with no basis in WoW into the gameworld.

Advantages, sure - and if there is an expansion premise that seems tailor-made for introducing a given class (e.g. MoP for Monks, or Legion for Demon Hunters) then it behooves the developers to add that class at that point, no real argument there. Same for Evokers - if they're going to make a draconic class and/or race, then an expansion with dragons at its centerpiece is the ideal time to do just that. Is it a requirement, though, for that to be the case? I would argue that it's not, with more to follow in the next part.

TBF, Tinkers have the edge in this department because they have Undermine as their possible expansion. Undermine is goblin-based, has the same pedigree as Dragon Isles, and is storied in WoW lore. It is also the location of the Tinker Union, and WoW devs have mentioned in the past that they want Goblins to return there at some point in the future.

If you notice in this article released prior to the announcement of Mists of Pandaria, Undermine is mentioned alongside Pandaria and Broken Isles as possible future expansion locations. All things considered, Undermine is a VERY viable future expansion location.

And there you have the main root I'd have with the most common expansion setting for a Tinker class - Undermine, alone and in itself, isn't really strong enough in my view to carry an entire expansion on its back. Now I could certainly see an expansion that had Undermine in it as a primary hub, so to speak, but you'd need more than just Goblins and their racial capitol to create a winning theme for an entire expansion. Pandaria, for example, was an entire continent replete with different cultures (Pandaren, Yaungol, Mantid, etc.) and was way more than just the Vale of Eternal Blossoms or the Golden Lotus.

Just like the theme of technology itself isn't really strong enough to carry an entire expansion, and neither is the theme of music. If we stick to the model of "X class has to be buttressed by Y expansion whose theme largely caters to the class" it's quite possible we'll never see a Tinker, Bard, or several other classes released.

[Teriz]

Advantages, sure - and if there is an expansion premise that seems tailor-made for introducing a given class (e.g. MoP for Monks, or Legion for Demon Hunters) then it behooves the developers to add that class at that point, no real argument there. Same for Evokers - if they're going to make a draconic class and/or race, then an expansion with dragons at its centerpiece is the ideal time to do just that. Is it a requirement, though, for that to be the case? I would argue that it's not, with more to follow in the next part.

And there you have the main root I'd have with the most common expansion setting for a Tinker class - Undermine, alone and in itself, isn't really strong enough in my view to carry an entire expansion on its back. Now I could certainly see an expansion that had Undermine in it as a primary hub, so to speak, but you'd need more than just Goblins and their racial capitol to create a winning theme for an entire expansion. Pandaria, for example, was an entire continent replete with different cultures (Pandaren, Yaungol, Mantid, etc.) and was way more than just the Vale of Eternal Blossoms or the Golden Lotus.

Well why couldn't Blizzard do what they did with Pandaria for Undermine? Before MoP, all we knew about Pandaria was that it was where Pandaren come from. We had no information about the Mogu, the Mantid, the Hozen, the Jinyu, etc. All of that was expanded upon when the expansion came out.

If we look at Undermine, all we know is that it's a goblin-controlled city or continent controlled by the incredibly wealthy goblin trade princes.

Consider what Blizzard did with goblin city of Gadgetzhan in Hearthstone; They made it into a large city that encompassed the whole of Tanaris, and created a cosmopolitan urban setting filled with a variety of races vying for control of the city;







Blizzard could do the exact same thing with Undermine, and make various zones in the continent designed like urban areas. For example, the first zone would be the seaport/harbor area, and the zone with the hubs would be in the city center, and another zone could be uptown where the rich and wealthy blow huge amounts of money. They could the slums and sewer zone where crime is rampant, people are struggling, and hideous experimental creatures attack the residents. You can toss in a sort of "central park" style zone for the required forest area that every expansion needs, and finally have the trade princes get their own castles/mansions on various sides of the continent. Boom, you got an expansion.

As for threats, there's plenty of lore that can be pulled to create an expansion antagonist. There's the Robo War happening beneath Azeroth that could potentially become a threat, and it ties directly to titans, underground, and technology. There's also the story of an Old God-like creature beneath Undermine (forgot the name). Finally, we have Ka'jamite, the mineral that made Goblins intelligent centuries ago has Titan connections which can be forged into an interesting story that also deals with technology.

Perhaps the robotic war threatens the Ka'jamite reserves (and Ka'jamite affects the machines in a certain way that makes them more powerful) and forces the trade princes to request assistance from the Horde and Alliance? Perhaps the machines infiltrate a titan facility and through that they threaten some world-ending event where they reverse the curse of the flesh (King Mechagon's original scheme)?

Heck, for a change of scenery, you can even add HS-style Gadgetzhan as a secondary expansion location ala The Isle of Thunder, Isle of Giants, or the Timeless Isle.

In short, you can do a lot with the concept.

Just like the theme of technology itself isn't really strong enough to carry an entire expansion, and neither is the theme of music. If we stick to the model of "X class has to be buttressed by Y expansion whose theme largely caters to the class" it's quite possible we'll never see a Tinker, Bard, or several other classes released.

See above. Again, Undermine gives the Tinker a very strong expansion opportunity even with the technology angle. Blizzard even said they want the goblins to visit Undermine, so it's coming at some point in the future. This is something that the Bard concept simply doesn't have. Blizzard needs to do a lot of work to bring the Bard concept to that level of viability. ESPECIALLY if they're not going with the ETC concept as their foundation.

[Aucald]

See above. Again, Undermine gives the Tinker a very strong expansion opportunity even with the technology angle. Something that the Bard concept simply doesn't have. Blizzard needs to do a lot of work to bring the Bard concept to that level of viability. ESPECIALLY if they're not going with the ETC concept as their foundation.

Given that this is a thread about Bards and not Tinkers, it's probably a discussion best to have in another thread. But yes, I'd say an expansion akin to the Hearthstone Mean Streets of Gadgetzan setting might be suitable for Bards or even Tinkers, but again Gadgetzan is only one city - it's still not strong enough to carry an entire WoW expansion without additional story arcs and areas.

[Teriz]

Given that this is a thread about Bards and not Tinkers, it's probably a discussion best to have in another thread. But yes, I'd say an expansion akin to the Hearthstone Mean Streets of Gadgetzan setting might be suitable for Bards or even Tinkers, but again Gadgetzan is only one city - it's still not strong enough to carry an entire WoW expansion without additional story arcs and areas.

I definitely understand that we're veering off topic, but I simply have to ask;

An expansion with a continent-sized Undermine city, an HS-style Gadgetzhan, Plunder Isle, and an underground titan complex (location of final raid against big-bad boss)?

You don't think that would be enough for a WoW expansion?

[Aucald]

I definitely understand that we're veering off topic, but I simply have to ask;

An expansion with a continent-sized Undermine city, an HS-style Gadgetzhan, Plunder Isle, and an underground titan complex (location of final raid against big-bad boss)?

You don't think that would be enough for a WoW expansion?

All of that together? Sure, probably. Although there are a number of issues with the overall theme as Gadgetzan and Undermine have no real connection, Plunder Isle having no real connection to either location, and an underground Titan complex having no central connection to any of the above. There's also a pretty big issue with Undermine being potentially destroyed in the Cataclysm, as Deathwing caused the eruption of Mount Kajaro which sat directly on top of Undermine - meaning it is highly likely that Undermine is now so much slag boiling beneath the earth of Kezan. Given the state of Kezan as seen in the Motherlode instance in BfA, it's not looking so good for Undermine as a viable setting for anything.

That being said, a high seas type expansion that involves any of a number of Azeroth's thus-far unexplored islands like Plunder Isle, Tel'abim, and so forth could make for a good jumping-off point for a Bard class - given the whole connection with pirates, ships, shanties, and the like. You could mix in some strong pirate themes into a suitable Bard class.

[Teriz]

All of that together? Sure, probably. Although there are a number of issues with the overall theme as Gadgetzan and Undermine have no real connection,

Gadgetzhan is under control of Marin Noggenfogger, who is a member of the Steamwheddle Cartel, one of the Cartels controlled by the Trade Princes in Undermine. Gadgetzhan is one of the cities under control of said cartel.

Plunder Isle having no real connection to either location

Plunder Isle is directly east of Kezan and west of Booty Bay, another goblin-controlled area. It's not too difficult to see Plunder Isle causing issues with the cartel-held Booty Bay, and an intervention of some sort taking place.

and an underground Titan complex having no central connection to any of the above.

Again, the mineral that made goblins super intelligent is titan-based. That is a stronger connection than the Old God in Pandaria that was ripped out of Azeroth by a Titan. If they can do that for Pandaria, it shouldn't be too hard to put a titan complex beneath Undermine.

There's also a pretty big issue with Undermine being potentially destroyed in the Cataclysm, as Deathwing caused the eruption of Mount Kajaro which sat directly on top of Undermine - meaning it is highly likely that Undermine is now so much slag boiling beneath the earth of Kezan. Given the state of Kezan as seen in the Motherlode instance in BfA, it's not looking so good for Undermine as a viable setting for anything.

Blizzard has already stated that Undermine wasn't destroyed during the Cataclysm.

With that, I'll let you have the last word. This has gone far enough off topic. Thank you for the reasonable conversation.

[Faerillis]

Not even close.

- - - Updated - - -



Read the OP.

'The premise of the OP is flawed.' "Read the OP" is kinda like having an unplugged surge protector and plugging it into itself when someone says it has no power.

[Teriz]

'The premise of the OP is flawed.' "Read the OP" is kinda like having an unplugged surge protector and plugging it into itself when someone says it has no power.

You asked a question. Your question was answered (thoroughly) in the OP.

[Edison]

I'd love to play a bard-type healer like the Minstrel from LOTRO tbh. Pretty cool