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

[Teriz]

Everyone in here is trying to make bard a support class, but are missing one crucial concept

ETC from Heroes of the Storm is a TANK

while I don't think this is the ONLY way that Blizzard could bring about the bard class concept, I do agree that this is a strong skeleton for an actual class...just further look at HotS's ability list for ETC.

And then you have a solid tank spec built out of ETC from hots. You can then add an additional spec, maybe HEALER since we already have the established precedent that the music has healing properties.

You can also add the abilities from the April Fool’s Bard;

Abilities
Metal

I Am Murloc - A potent transformational ability.
Tape Jam - An Indie debuff.
Shoegazer - An Indie debuff.
Epic Solo - Begins an epic solo that will enthrall up to ten enemy targets within a 20-yard radius, causing them to "rock out" and suffer 310 to 390 Rock Damage per second. The solo lasts 1 second for every 10 groove.
Starstruck - A talent which likely increases the Bard's stage presence.
Axe Specialization - Increases the Bard's proficiency with axes.
Punk Rock

Nonconformity - Dispels fear, mind control, and similar effects.
Mosh Pit - Removes all movement-impairing effects and increases movement speed by 50% for the bard's entire party. Lasts 10 seconds. Does not stack with other movement-speed-increasing effects.
Shred - A punk rock talent.
Rock 'N Roll Racing - A punk rock talent.

I agree; definitely a skeleton of a class.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. Again, you're trying to dodge the fact that the reason you made this thread was to get everyone to stop discussing the bard class concept. Which you failed, by the way. People will ignore your attempt here and just continue discussing the concept in future threads.

People are completely free to discuss a concept that has nothing to do with WoW or Warcraft.

False. You're now misrepresenting your own arguments, here. This isn't about my claims. This is about your claim that for a class concept to be a viable candidate to be added into WoW as a playable class, you claim it is required that a VIP NPC exists with unique abilities assigned to it. And you have zero proof of this, because all you have is correlation.

A “correlation” that applies to every expansion class. We’re 4 for 4 at this point.

You asked for examples of bardic characters, and I gave them to you. "Must have bard-like abilities" was ignored because, despite your insistence, you have never proven it to be a requirement. To this day, it hasn't been demonstrated to be anything other than your own arbitrary rules.

Let’s be honest here; They were ignored because you don’t have the goods, so instead of directly dealing with the question, you’re choosing to obfuscate instead.

Also, the entirety of the monk's mistweaver spec's abilities did not exist in the franchise before the class was implemented, mind you.

Wow, talk about irrelevant….

You have never demonstrated that they are even a requirement to begin with. For any class, past or future. This is the main problem with your arguments: you see correlations, and then extrapolate your opinion as being fact, as if Blizzard are somehow beholden to your rules. They are not.

Death Knight, Demon Hunter, Monk, and Evoker demonstrate it for me. I also demonstrated it by predicting that the class for Dragon Isles would be a race/class combo based on the draconic characters of WC (something you said would never happen btw).

Except we haven't. The Pandaren Brewmaster from Warcraft 3's only connection to the original 2002's April Fools joke is the fact that he is a pandaren. The 2002 joke didn't make a single mention about the race's affinity toward alcohol.

I’m struggling to find the relevancy of this example. Regardless of the joke, the Pandaren Brewmaster is still the basis of the WoW Monk class. Further, Chen Stormstout possessed Monk style abilities that allowed his concept to be applied to the eventual monk class.

- - - Updated - - -

That the concept of the bard(in general, not the pathetic mockery that's sometimes posted) is well liked but that certain people with giant chips on their shoulders are being bad faith actors and trying to twist said message?

I would argue that given Warcraft’s history, the Bard has never been seriously considered a viable class contender. Just consider the fact that not a single major lore character can be classified as a Bard. Also, there’s never been a Bard class in any WC media. Blizzard’s version of a Bard is a ridiculous heavy metal Tauren character that even Bard fans want nothing to do with.

I mean really, just think about it; Arthas was on the box for Death Knights. Chen was on the box for Monks. Illidan was on the box for Demon Hunters. Alexstraza was on the box for Evokers.

Who’s (realistically) going to be on the box for Bards?

[wushootaki]

You can also add the abilities from the April Fool’s Bard;

Abilities
Metal

I Am Murloc - A potent transformational ability.
Tape Jam - An Indie debuff.
Shoegazer - An Indie debuff.
Epic Solo - Begins an epic solo that will enthrall up to ten enemy targets within a 20-yard radius, causing them to "rock out" and suffer 310 to 390 Rock Damage per second. The solo lasts 1 second for every 10 groove.
Starstruck - A talent which likely increases the Bard's stage presence.
Axe Specialization - Increases the Bard's proficiency with axes.
Punk Rock

Nonconformity - Dispels fear, mind control, and similar effects.
Mosh Pit - Removes all movement-impairing effects and increases movement speed by 50% for the bard's entire party. Lasts 10 seconds. Does not stack with other movement-speed-increasing effects.
Shred - A punk rock talent.
Rock 'N Roll Racing - A punk rock talent.

The only reason I would argue no to this is simply because...wtf does "An Indie debuff" mean. These are not useful for the skeleton of a spec --- aside from axe specialization, whereas the abilities from HotS are already well thought out for an actual game that has been in practice.

If you are just saying things like they get 2 abilities that give debuffs, then maybe --- but you still have to balance what those debuffs are and what they do.

[Ielenia]

People are completely free to discuss a concept that has nothing to do with WoW or Warcraft.

And yet you still attempted to stop them from doing so, didn't you? After all, you are "tired of seeing this class concept being brought up constantly in multiple threads" (which, by the way, you lowkey just admitted that the bard is a popular concept) and you "want to end the discussion", right? Also, the bard concept does have everything to do with WoW and Warcraft, whether you like it or not, because bards do exist in the franchise's lore.

A “correlation” that applies to every expansion class. We’re 4 for 4 at this point.

Again, that's how correlation works. I mean, what you're doing is akin to "stating as fact" that if World War III ever happens, it's going to be caused by Germany, because WWI and WWII were caused by Germany.

Let’s be honest here; They were ignored because you don’t have the goods, so instead of directly dealing with the question, you’re choosing to obfuscate instead.

Again: the reason I call these so-called "goods" you speak of as not relevant is because you have time and again failed to demonstrate they have any relevance aside from repeating fallacious arguments that boil down to "because I say so". I'll lay it out for you again, Teriz: if you want to claim that "a VIP NPC with bard abilities" is a requirement for the concept to be eligible, then you must give us a quote from Blizzard themselves saying so. Because that is the only way for you to prove your claims as true. Not to mention that the runemaster concept debunks your claim because it was considered a valid class concept... despite WC3 having no runemaster hero units, or even runic abilities.

Wow, talk about irrelevant….

It directly counters to your claim that "concepts come from abilities" because, if your claim was true, what were the abilities that birthed the mistweaver concept? Where in the WC3 brewmaster unit are these "mistweaving" abilities?

Death Knight, Demon Hunter, Monk, and Evoker demonstrate it for me.

They only demonstrate the correlation. Again, if you want to demonstrate that your claim that "must have VIP NPC with abilities" is a mandatory requirement, then you need Blizzard's word on that. That is the only way to prove your claim that "future classes must follow these rules" are factual.

I also demonstrated it by predicting that the class for Dragon Isles would be a race/class combo based on the draconic characters of WC

And it can easily be argued that you had a lucky guess.

I’m struggling to find the relevancy of this example. Regardless of the joke, the Pandaren Brewmaster is still the basis of the WoW Monk class. Further, Chen Stormstout possessed Monk style abilities that allowed his concept to be applied to the eventual monk class.

Then re-read your own OP. You posited that, because the April Fools' joke about the bard class presented it as a "heavy metal hard rock dude", then it must be so and used it to back your claim that ETC is the only one that fits. And that is why I point at the April Fools' joke from 2002 to debunk your claim: because the WoW class we got (and even the WC3 hero unit) from that April Fools' joke was vastly different than the one presented in said joke.

[Teriz]

And yet you still attempted to stop them from doing so, didn't you? After all, you are "tired of seeing this class concept being brought up constantly in multiple threads" (which, by the way, you lowkey just admitted that the bard is a popular concept) and you "want to end the discussion", right? Also, the bard concept does have everything to do with WoW and Warcraft, whether you like it or not, because bards do exist in the franchise's lore.

I'm tired of seeing this class concept that isn't based on anything Warcraft. It's time to see some ETC-based Bard concepts.

Again, that's how correlation works. I mean, what you're doing is akin to "stating as fact" that if World War III ever happens, it's going to be caused by Germany, because WWI and WWII were caused by Germany.

Except you're comparing a global event littered with random accidents and coincidences to a video game PURPOSELY DESIGNED by a team of developers. You do understand that WoW is not some random world generated by AI or some real planet that we peer into right? It's a GAME where expansions, classes, events, and rules are PLANNED and considered and designed. You comparing a WoW expansion or class design to a World War is the height of complete silliness.

Again: the reason I call these so-called "goods" you speak of as not relevant is because you have time and again failed to demonstrate they have any relevance aside from repeating fallacious arguments that boil down to "because I say so".

Again, the existing four expansion classes demonstrate it for me. You outright ignoring their examples simply shows how dishonest your side of the argument truly is.

[AcidicSyn]

ETC isn't even a viable "fun little goof" concept, let alone a class concept.

What's next, "do you think making an alternate murloc universe version of previous WoW expansions is a good expansion concept?"

I mean.....I know you meant this sarcastically.....but.....maybe not as a wow xpac, but a spin off game? I......might play that.

[Hibiki]

I play bard in Rift. Bards sucks. I hate music.

[Ielenia]

I'm tired of seeing this class concept that isn't based on anything Warcraft.

You're literally denying reality here. Bards exist in WoW. All that is needed to do to disprove you is to type 'bard' in WoWHead's search bar to see they exist.

Except you're comparing a global event littered with random accidents and coincidences to a video game PURPOSELY DESIGNED by a team of developers. You do understand that WoW is not some random world generated by AI or some real planet that we peer into right? It's a GAME where expansions, classes, events, and rules are PLANNED and considered and designed. You comparing a WoW expansion or class design to a World War is the height of complete silliness.

But the situation here with your arguments is basically the same: you're seeing a correlation here that fits an arbitrary pattern you perceived, and coming to your own biased conclusions as to the reason said perceived pattern exists, while ignoring and/or denying the existence of all other possible explanations. You're making statements of fact while in ignorance of what really goes within the four walls of Blizzard's meeting rooms.

To make matters worse for you, your "rules for class creation" keep changing, every time Blizzard demonstrates they don't follow your rules, and your response to that? You just keep changing your own "rules" so you can claim you were right all along. First with the DH, and now we have the evoker class that is based on no WC3 unit whatsoever, hero or not.

Please understand, Teriz, that Blizzard doesn't care for patterns, much less your perceived patterns and rules. Yes, the game is "purposely designed." Yes, it's a "game". Yes, everything is "planned". But here's the thing, though: you don't know what the "purpose" is. You don't know what the "plan" is. You don't know what the "rules" are. You don't. That's a fact. Not to mention that none of what you mentioned is something set in stone. The "purpose", the "game", the "plan", the "rules"... they all changed since the late 90's/early 2000's.

Again, the existing four expansion classes demonstrate it for me.

If you have a low bar for examples, that's on you. Again: your poor logic dictates WWIII is going to be caused by Germany.

You outright ignoring their examples simply shows how dishonest your side of the argument truly is.

Except I'm not ignoring. I addressed them. Every time. Each and every time you proposed an example, I addressed it and showed it to you how they don't exclusively support your personal conclusions. If anyone is ignoring examples, it's you, considering you repeatedly ask for "examples" one or two posts after I give examples that you already asked in the previous post.

[Teriz]

You're literally denying reality here. Bards exist in WoW. All that is needed to do to disprove you is to type 'bard' in WoWHead's search bar to see they exist.

I’m talking about Bard heroes that can form the basis of a class. Not random NPCs.

But the situation here with your arguments is basically the same:

Uh, it’s not. Again, you’re comparing a series of random events that led to two global conflicts to planned expansions from a profit seeking video game company. It’s like predicting that Nintendo is going to put out a new Mario game with their new console because they ALWAYS put out a new Mario game with their new console. The idea that you’re comparing something like that to some random unrelated series of events shows you have no idea what correlation actually means.

you're seeing a correlation here that fits an arbitrary pattern you perceived, and coming to your own biased conclusions as to the reason said perceived pattern exists, while ignoring and/or denying the existence of all other possible explanations. You're making statements of fact while in ignorance of what really goes within the four walls of Blizzard's meeting rooms.

Blizzard releasing classes and expansions based on hugely popular franchise characters is hardly arbitrary.

To make matters worse for you, your "rules for class creation" keep changing, every time Blizzard demonstrates they don't follow your rules, and your response to that? You just keep changing your own "rules" so you can claim you were right all along. First with the DH, and now we have the evoker class that is based on no WC3 unit whatsoever, hero or not.

You’re confused. The issue with Demon Hunter was that it ate up design space from existing classes. The issue with the Bard is that it has no major or connective basis in Warcraft lore. The Bard situation is actually worse than the DH issue, because it’s lack of basis in lore makes an expansion based upon it unlikely unless Blizzard builds it, which they have never done in WC’s 30 years of existence.

Please understand, Teriz, that Blizzard doesn't care for patterns, much less your perceived patterns and rules. Yes, the game is "purposely designed." Yes, it's a "game". Yes, everything is "planned". But here's the thing, though: you don't know what the "purpose" is. You don't know what the "plan" is. You don't know what the "rules" are. You don't. That's a fact. Not to mention that none of what you mentioned is something set in stone. The "purpose", the "game", the "plan", the "rules"... they all changed since the late 90's/early 2000's.

Uh, the purpose is to make money, and you make money by basing classes on major franchise characters. What moves a WoW expansion faster? An expansion with Illidan on the cover with a story involving Illidan, or a cover and expansion with some random Bard with a lute? You want to make that Bard like Illidan? You have to try to build up a Bard character/hero to be as influential, interesting, consequential, and cool as Illidan.

The fact that they have never done this should tell you the state of the Bard class in WoW.

This is common sense.

If you have a low bar for examples, that's on you. Again: your poor logic dictates WWIII is going to be caused by Germany.

Yet another example of you not knowing what correlation means….

[Ielenia]

I’m talking about Bard heroes that can form the basis of a class. Not random NPCs.

Chen Stormstout wasn't even a "random NPC" before MoP, considering his model didn't exist in WoW, and in the game's eight years of life since it was created and up to the last day of Wrath, the pandaren as a whole had a maximum of I think five or six mentions in random easter eggs.

Uh, it’s not. Again, you’re comparing a series of random events...

It is. And your insistence it's not demonstrates how the point is flying miles over your head, as you apparently fail to see how what you're doing also ignores many events and decisions that happen within closed doors inside Blizzard. Just like you claim I'm "ignoring" all the other events and decisions that also helped spark those wars.

Blizzard releasing classes and expansions based on hugely popular franchise characters is hardly arbitrary.

I never said that. I said your conclusions based on perceived patterns are arbitrary. The rules you dictate are mandatory are arbitrary.

You’re confused. The issue with Demon Hunter was that it ate up design space from existing classes. The issue with the Bard is that it has no major or connective basis in Warcraft lore. The Bard situation is actually worse than the DH issue, because it’s lack of basis in lore makes an expansion based upon it unlikely unless Blizzard builds it, which they have never done in WC’s 30 years of existence.

Again, you ignoring the lore regarding bards in WoW does not means they don't exist. We have bards in the lore. We have bard-like abilities in the game. We have music-based magic.

Not to mention that, once again, your "rules" have been broken by Blizzard: because we don't have a dracthyr VIP NPC that is the basis for the race, nor do we have a VIP NPC that is the basis of the class. We can, for example, look at Arthas and say "he's the prime death knight" or look at Illidan and say "he's the prime demon hunter" but for the evoker... which VIP NPC can we look at and say "he/she's the prime evoker"?

Uh, the purpose is to make money, and you make money by basing classes on major franchise characters. What moves a WoW expansion faster? An expansion with Illidan on the cover with a story involving Illidan, or a cover and expansion with some random Bard with a lute?

Of the five highest-selling WoW expansions, only one had a class bundled with it:


Seems expansions without classes sell better than expansions with classes, as a general rule...

You want to make that Bard like Illidan?

Strawman. I never said "I want to make the Bard be like Illidan".

You have to try to build up a Bard character/hero to be as influential, interesting, consequential, and cool as Illidan.

Not really. Chen was not as influential as Illidan, not as interesting as Illidan, totally inconsequential, and not anywhere near as cool as Illidan. And yet we still got the monk class.

The fact that they have never done this should tell you the state of the Bard class in WoW.

This is common sense.

"The fact they have never done this should tell you the state of the tinker class in WoW."

Just sayin'.

Yet another example of you not knowing what correlation means….

I do. I literally explained to you what correlation is.

[Teriz]

Chen Stormstout wasn't even a "random NPC" before MoP, considering his model didn't exist in WoW, and in the game's eight years of life since it was created and up to the last day of Wrath, the pandaren as a whole had a maximum of I think five or six mentions in random easter eggs.

He was a franchise character appearing in everything from Warcraft collectible card games, to comic books, to toys. Not surprising they created a class based on his character.

. Just like you claim I'm "ignoring" all the other events and decisions that also helped spark those wars.

Ielenia: “There’s no evidence.”

Poster: “Here’s 4 examples.”

Ielenia: “Irrelevant.”

That’s pretty much how this goes, every time.

I never said that. I said your conclusions based on perceived patterns are arbitrary. The rules you dictate are mandatory are arbitrary.

So Blizzard basing classes on major lore characters and lining up those characters with expansions that match their themes (or vice versa) is completely arbitrary, despite the fact that it’s happened every time, and is going to happen again when the next class is released?

Again, you ignoring the lore regarding bards in WoW does not means they don't exist. We have bards in the lore. We have bard-like abilities in the game. We have music-based magic.

There is no Bard lore. They’re just random disparate NPCs. If you disagree, tell me where most Bards come from?

Not to mention that, once again, your "rules" have been broken by Blizzard: because we don't have a dracthyr VIP NPC that is the basis for the race, nor do we have a VIP NPC that is the basis of the class. We can, for example, look at Arthas and say "he's the prime death knight" or look at Illidan and say "he's the prime demon hunter" but for the evoker... which VIP NPC can we look at and say "he/she's the prime evoker"?

Ah, so you’re going to ignore the fact that Blizzard created the Evoker in order to allow players to be a dragon and to avoid technical issues that would be associated with allowing players to be full sized dragons?

Who are the VIP characters that the Dracthyr Evoker is based on? Simple; Alexstraza, Chromie, Wrathion, Ysera, Kalecgos, Onyxia, etc. Which is why they have most of their abilities.

Of the five highest-selling WoW expansions, only one had a class bundled with it:


Seems expansions without classes sell better than expansions with classes, as a general rule...

Where did I make the argument that WoW expansions with classes outsell WoW expansions without classes?

Strawman. I never said "I want to make the Bard be like Illidan".

I never said you did. I said the goal when bringing in new classes is to have them based on popular characters, like Illidan. Again, this has happened with every WoW class.

Not really. Chen was not as influential as Illidan, not as interesting as Illidan, totally inconsequential, and not anywhere near as cool as Illidan. And yet we still got the monk class.

And you completely miss the point, per usual.

"The fact they have never done this should tell you the state of the tinker class in WoW."

Just sayin'.

They’ve done far more for the Tinker concept than the Bard concept, and the Tinker concept is much farther along, and better developed.

Just sayin’.

- - - Updated - - -

The only reason I would argue no to this is simply because...wtf does "An Indie debuff" mean. These are not useful for the skeleton of a spec --- aside from axe specialization, whereas the abilities from HotS are already well thought out for an actual game that has been in practice.

If you are just saying things like they get 2 abilities that give debuffs, then maybe --- but you still have to balance what those debuffs are and what they do.

True. In the end, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the ETC is by far the most fleshed out Bard concept in Warcraft.

[Ielenia]

He was a franchise character appearing in everything from Warcraft collectible card games, to comic books, to toys. Not surprising they created a class based on his character.

He was obscure. Again, he didn't even have a single model in WoW and Chen and the entire pandaren race were relegated to five or six easter eggs, total, in the span of eight years.

Ielenia: “There’s no evidence.”

Poster: “Here’s 4 examples.”

Ielenia: “Irrelevant.”

That’s pretty much how this goes, every time.

Except it's not. Because I lay out, point by point, why your examples don't work the way you think they do. Another example of that is further below in this post.

So Blizzard basing classes on major lore characters and lining up those characters with expansions that match their themes (or vice versa) is completely arbitrary, despite the fact that it’s happened every time, and is going to happen again when the next class is released?

It is arbitrary in the sense that you're stating something that is based solely on the perception of a pattern. Your error here is that you then proceed to state, as fact, that just because this is how things worked so far, then it means this is how things will always work out and never deviate from that path. And I know you're in error here because Blizzard has demonstrably "deviated from paths" several time in these almost two decades of WoW.

In other words, even if we assume that what you said regarding "class creation rules" are correct, Blizzard has demonstrated that they're more than willing to toss that type of rules out the window the moment they interfere with their desire to do something specific.

There is no Bard lore. They’re just random disparate NPCs. If you disagree, tell me where most Bards come from?

There is bard lore. Just the Lorewalkers alone are a truck-load of bardic lore. And bards don't even have to come from one singular place.

Ah, so you’re going to ignore the fact that Blizzard created the Evoker in order to allow players to be a dragon and to avoid technical issues that would be associated with allowing players to be full sized dragons?

You want to know why your argument here is irrelevant? Because it still shows that your "rules for class design" are something that only exists in your mind. Because even what you said there is true, it still shows Blizzard showing disregard for your rules.

Who are the VIP characters that the Dracthyr Evoker is based on? Simple; Alexstraza, Chromie, Wrathion, Ysera, Kalecgos, Onyxia, etc. Which is why they have most of their abilities.

I didn't say what characters you believe the class is based on. I asked which character(s) is the evoker prime. I.E. the first evoker. Not the first dragon, the first evoker. Alexstrasza, Chromie, Wrathion, Ysera, Kalecgos and Onyxia aren't evokers. Which VIP NPC is going to be the leader of evokers, like Darion is the leader of the playable death knights?

Where did I make the argument that WoW expansions with classes outsell WoW expansions without classes?

That is not my argument. You heavily implied that the reason they add classes "based on major characters" is because "it sells expansions":

Uh, the purpose is to make money, and you make money by basing classes on major franchise characters.

And I simply showed evidence that debunk your argument considering that, out of the three expansions that added a new class (so far), two were vastly below expansions without classes in sales, which shows that "classes based on major characters" isn't exactly this powerful selling point you claim it is.

I never said you did. I said the goal when bringing in new classes is to have them based on popular characters, like Illidan. Again, this has happened with every WoW class.

And it's a point I disagree with, because it's just your own arbitrary conclusions based on the correlated data you perceived by looking back at previous expansions. One point I contend, too, since Chen was not a "major or popular character" at the time before MoP.

And you completely miss the point, per usual.

You put Illidan as the bar. "It has to meet or beat Illidan at this, this, and this category". And I pointed out to you that is not the case as seen in that graph.

They’ve done far more for the Tinker concept than the Bard concept, and the Tinker concept is much farther along, and better developed.

Just sayin’.

They've done far more for the tinker concept... and yet where is the playable tinker class, after 18+ years? It's almost as if what you tout as "requirements to be eligible as a valid class option" are just your own arbitrary rules that Blizzard doesn't care or even know about. That's my point.

[willtron]

I think Teriz and Ielenia need to get a room and just get this tension out. We can all see it.

[Aenwyrm]

adding my two cents and hoping it hasn't already been brought to the table.

ranged leather spellcaster

three talent trees specializing in spell damage, healing, and support/buff casting

wielding maces, swords, daggers, offhand, staves, and shield

spell damage would be some basic ranged spells like mage
healing would be akin to druid HoT
Support spellcasting would be their main focus and deal with cleansing debuffs, buffing for spellcasting speed/damage, melee attack speed/damage, debuffing the enemy, etc

skill trees could be called colleges

the spell effects would have a small tune play upon cast, spell names could reference arias, sonatas, etc...

just some ideas to throw out there.

[Teriz]

He was obscure. Again, he didn't even have a single model in WoW and Chen and the entire pandaren race were relegated to five or six easter eggs, total, in the span of eight years.

Meanwhile;
2003: Warcraft RPG: Manual of Monsters (Pandaren history)
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Manual_of_Monsters
2004: Chen's Empty Keg quest WoW:
https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/w...%27s_Empty_Keg
2005: Pandaren Xpress April Fools;
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Pandaren_Xpress
2007: Fires of Outland CCG:

2008: Brewmaster Class (WoW RPG Dark Factions)
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_Factions
2009: Pandaren Monk Pet w/letter from Chen Stormstout:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Pandaren_Monk
2009: Chen Stormstout Minature Figure;
https://toywiz.com/world-of-warcraft...en-stormstout/
2010: Chen Stormstout Action figure:
https://cmdstore.com/products/world-...hen-stormstout

What an obscure character.... If you consider this obscure, what should we consider the non-existent Bard hero?

It is arbitrary in the sense that you're stating something that is based solely on the perception of a pattern. Your error here is that you then proceed to state, as fact, that just because this is how things worked so far, then it means this is how things will always work out and never deviate from that path. And I know you're in error here because Blizzard has demonstrably "deviated from paths" several time in these almost two decades of WoW.

Blizzard has never deviated from the expansion classes being based on hero characters and the new class being related expansion's theme.

There is bard lore. Just the Lorewalkers alone are a truck-load of bardic lore. And bards don't even have to come from one singular place.

Cool, name some known Lorewalker abilities that could be utilized in a Lorewalker class that fits the standard paradigm of WoW classes.

In other words, you can't just take a random NPC and say this is whatever I want it to be. If you're claiming it's the basis of a class, it needs to fit where classes come from.

You want to know why your argument here is irrelevant? Because it still shows that your "rules for class design" are something that only exists in your mind. Because even what you said there is true, it still shows Blizzard showing disregard for your rules.

Again, we got 4 out of 4 examples. Further, the 4th example was predicted before it was revealed using the exact "rules" you're trying to disregard.

I didn't say what characters you believe the class is based on.

Yeah, it's not what "I believe" they're based on, it's literally what the class is based on, since they're dragons who have a visage form, and have the abilities and powers of the dragon characters you named.

That is not my argument. You heavily implied that the reason they add classes "based on major characters" is because "it sells expansions":

And I simply showed evidence that debunk your argument considering that, out of the three expansions that added a new class (so far), two were vastly below expansions without classes in sales, which shows that "classes based on major characters" isn't exactly this powerful selling point you claim it is.

Which is a straw-man of my argument. My argument was that Blizzard creates classes based on major lore figures because pushing a new class that is based on a major lore figure like Illidan is a bigger selling point than pushing a new class based on a random Bard with a lute. I truly have no idea how you took that argument and tried to make it into expansion w/classes vs expansions w/o classes. That's a completely separate argument and discussion.

And it's a point I disagree with, because it's just your own arbitrary conclusions based on the correlated data you perceived by looking back at previous expansions.

Which I used to predict the next expansion class.

One point I contend, too, since Chen was not a "major or popular character" at the time before MoP.

See above. Chen was quite popular in multiple WC-Related formats.

You put Illidan as the bar. "It has to meet or beat Illidan at this, this, and this category". And I pointed out to you that is not the case as seen in that graph.

As I said, you miss the point, per usual.

They've done far more for the tinker concept... and yet where is the playable tinker class, after 18+ years? It's almost as if what you tout as "requirements to be eligible as a valid class option" are just your own arbitrary rules that Blizzard doesn't care or even know about. That's my point.

More likely we simply haven't gotten to the Tinker expansion yet.

[Big Thanks]

I dont do much when i resub to wow...but one thing i do everytime is visit Darkmoon Faire and watch the concert.
They do a sick guitar solo.

Is quite epic

[Ielenia]

What an obscure character.... If you consider this obscure, what should we consider the non-existent Bard hero?

All those links... and only two of them being from WoW. And of those two, only one being a canon mention. You're proving my point that Chen was not a major character.

Not to mention that the TCG and RPG books, aside from being non-canon, were also materials that required a lot of different characters to make cards from, considering they were making lots of expansions. Same thing with the books: how many classes and races do the books have in comparison to WoW?

Blizzard has never deviated from the expansion classes being based on hero characters and the new class being related expansion's theme.

And fact of the matter is: that doesn't mean this is how things are always going to be. Or even that those are a rule written on a billboard somewhere on Blizzard's walls.

Cool, name some known Lorewalker abilities that could be utilized in a Lorewalker class that fits the standard paradigm of WoW classes.

This argument of yours is meaningless because it stems from your erroneous claims that "abilities create concepts" and not the other way around. And the evidence for that is numerous, which you keep ignoring. For example: what abilities birthed the mistweaver concept for the monk? None. In fact, it was the other way around: the concept of a chi healer created the mistweaver abilities.

In other words, you can't just take a random NPC and say this is whatever I want it to be. If you're claiming it's the basis of a class, it needs to fit where classes come from.

And classes come from concepts, which they fit because they fit the concept.

Again, we got 4 out of 4 examples. Further, the 4th example was predicted before it was revealed using the exact "rules" you're trying to disregard.

"Predicted"? You guessed that we'd get a dragon-related class. Not to mention your class idea is very, very different from what we got. You basically only got the "dragon-related" part right.

Yeah, it's not what "I believe" they're based on, it's literally what the class is based on, since they're dragons who have a visage form, and have the abilities and powers of the dragon characters you named.

Why don't you address the actual question I presented in that paragraph?

I didn't say what characters you believe the class is based on. I asked which character(s) is the evoker prime. I.E. the first evoker. Not the first dragon, the first evoker. Alexstrasza, Chromie, Wrathion, Ysera, Kalecgos and Onyxia aren't evokers. Which VIP NPC is going to be the leader of evokers, like Darion is the leader of the playable death knights?

Which is a straw-man of my argument. My argument was that Blizzard creates classes based on major lore figures because pushing a new class that is based on a major lore figure like Illidan is a bigger selling point than pushing a new class based on a random Bard with a lute. I truly have no idea how you took that argument and tried to make it into expansion w/classes vs expansions w/o classes. That's a completely separate argument and discussion.

And your argument is irrelevant because we don't know how popular or "expansion-selling" a class not "based" around a popular character would be. And I'll point this out again: classes aren't that big of a selling point to begin with, considering only one of the three class-bringing expansion (until now) rank in the top five best selling expansions chart. Expansions such as Wrath and MoP were outperformed by Cataclysm, WoD and BfA.

Which I used to predict the next expansion class.

And what you basically got right was boils down to "it's dragon-related".

As I said, you miss the point, per usual.

A point that you, so far, have failed to elucidate twice. Just accusing me of "missing the point" doesn't do any favors if you don't reiterate your point with different words to explain what you claim I got wrong.

More likely we simply haven't gotten to the Tinker expansion yet.

"More likely we simply haven't gotten to the bard expansion yet." Right back at you.

[Teriz]

All those links... and only two of them being from WoW. And of those two, only one being a canon mention. You're proving my point that Chen was not a major character.

Uh, you think Warcraft fans only play WoW?

Not to mention that the TCG and RPG books, aside from being non-canon, were also materials that required a lot of different characters to make cards from, considering they were making lots of expansions. Same thing with the books: how many classes and races do the books have in comparison to WoW?

Yet despite this supposed need for tons of characters and classes, the RPG TCG never created a Bard hero or a Bard class. Interesting.

And fact of the matter is: that doesn't mean this is how things are always going to be. Or even that those are a rule written on a billboard somewhere on Blizzard's walls.

It’s clearly a design path that they follow.

This argument of yours is meaningless because it stems from your erroneous claims that "abilities create concepts" and not the other way around. And the evidence for that is numerous, which you keep ignoring. For example: what abilities birthed the mistweaver concept for the monk? None. In fact, it was the other way around: the concept of a chi healer created the mistweaver abilities.

Why are we focusing on one spec instead of the entire class?

Oh yeah, because it’s quite obvious where the class concept came from.

And classes come from concepts, which they fit because they fit the concept.

And it’s rather hard to create a class when there’s no character and abilities to support the concept.

"Predicted"? You guessed that we'd get a dragon-related class. Not to mention your class idea is very, very different from what we got. You basically only got the "dragon-related" part right.

I predicted that the class would be a race/class combination, that would allow the player to be a dragon both in race and in class. I also predicted that the class would utilize the abilities of the HotS dragon characters and the dragon characters in WoW.

Why don't you address the actual question I presented in that paragraph?

I did. The Dracthyr Evoker literally has the abilities of the draconic heroes of Warcraft because the race/class is based on them.

And your argument is irrelevant because we don't know how popular or "expansion-selling" a class not "based" around a popular character would be. And I'll point this out again: classes aren't that big of a selling point to begin with, considering only one of the three class-bringing expansion (until now) rank in the top five best selling expansions chart. Expansions such as Wrath and MoP were outperformed by Cataclysm, WoD and BfA.

Uh, it’s not irrelevant because Blizzard clearly wants to create classes based on their franchise characters. I do believe it was stated as such in an interview where a vanilla dev said their goal with WoW’s classes was to allow players to play as the WC3 heroes in class form.

And what you basically got right was boils down to "it's dragon-related".

As this poll shows, the majority of posters thought we were getting a Dragonsworn class or a Drakonoid race. Very few chose the option that we actually got; A dragon race/class combo based on the dragon heroes of WC;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...vs-Dragonborne

The majority of posters believed that because they ignored the previous expansion class inclusions.

"More likely we simply haven't gotten to the bard expansion yet." Right back at you.

What expansion theme could a Bard possibly fit in? WoW: The Musical?

[wushootaki]

DF alpha bard in an inn

that's a lot of detail put into that harp, just saying

[Teriz]

DF alpha bard in an inn

that's a lot of detail put into that harp, just saying

Expansion classes are derived from heroes with unique abilities, not random NPCs.

[Rocksteady 87]

I've said it before and I'll likely say it again:

There will never be a Bard class in WoW as long as Blizzard has creative control of the game. They hate everything about the role the bard fills and have been stripping aspects of it out of the game since TBC. The only way it'd be a class if they turned into a pure DPSing/Healing class, with DPS working something stupid like the assassins in Kung Fu Hustle.

If Microsoft ends up buying it and takes an interest in the game, that may change as they'll see the wisdom in adding more races and classes. But Blizzard? Nope. They literally despise the concept.

Tinkers though? They've been working on it for a while and have prototypical class abilities already included in the game, as seen on both factions in the Island Expeditions. It's inevitable, but only when they finally go to add Undermine or some similar location to the game.