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

[Ielenia]

Uh, you think Warcraft fans only play WoW?

Back then? Between 2004 and 20012? I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the players only played WoW, yes.

It’s clearly a design path that they follow.

A design path you believe they follow. A design path you claim they follow. There's a difference between those statements and the one you just made.

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.

A spec concept is a significant, important part of a class' concept. A class would not exist in WoW without specs. Are you going to answer the question or keep trying to dodge it? If your claim is true, that "abilities birth concepts", which abilities "birthed" the mistweaver concept?

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

Actually, it's super easy! Barely an inconvenience!

Because, again, we don't need abilities when we have the concept. After all, abilities come from concepts. For example, let's break down the concept of the bard:
• It's a "jack of all trades", which means they're decently versed in many kinds of combat, even spellcasting. Hey, we got basis for three specs, already.
• It also means they can have a melee spec, and a ranged spec, at least.
• It's a "spellsong caster", which means they cast their spells through song and music. Hey, we got basis for special casting animations, just like paladins flip through the pages of a libram when they cast.
• It's an unrestricted concept, which means all races technically could be bards.
• It's a lightly armored concept, which means they would wear cloth or leather. Mail at best.
• Their spellsongs can harm and heal, which means one of their three specs could be a healer spec.

Seems more than enough to create a plethora of abilities from those concepts alone for the class.

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.

Except you're not a dragon. You're a dracthyr. Saying "you're a dragon" as a dracthyr is like saying playing Stormwind humans allow you to play as Vrykul.

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

You haven't. Because that was not my question. I asked which VIP NPC is an EVOKER. So, are you going to tell me which VIP NPC is the evoker? Dragons aren't evokers, they're dragons. Because, as far as I know, Wrathion isn't an evoker. Alexstrasza isn't an evoker.

Uh, it’s not irrelevant because Blizzard clearly wants to create classes based on their franchise characters.

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed that they base classes on major characters "because it sells", and I not only pointed out that classes don't seem to be this big selling point you seem to believe it is, but I also pointed out that, so far, we haven't gotten a class not based on "major characters" to compare which would "sell" better.

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

They happened to guess wrong. So what? That's what happens when people are trying to guess without any concrete, solid fact aside from perceived patterns influenced by their own biases.

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

*shrug* I suppose we'll see it when we get there, eh?

- - - Updated - - -

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

We know you like to claim that at every chance you got.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Bards don't have to be exclusively support. They can easily be made to fit within WoW's "holy trinity" of class design (healer/dps/tank).

[Teriz]

Back then? Between 2004 and 20012? I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the players only played WoW, yes.

I said Warcraft Fans, not WoW players.

A design path you believe they follow.

Backed up by all four expansion classes.

A spec concept is a significant, important part of a class' concept. A class would not exist in WoW without specs. Are you going to answer the question or keep trying to dodge it? If your claim is true, that "abilities birth concepts", which abilities "birthed" the mistweaver concept?

Except you're personally ignoring the other 2 specs in an inane attempt to isolate the Mistweaver spec. The Mistweaver spec is also derived from the Pandaren Brewmaster.

Actually, it's super easy! Barely an inconvenience!

If you want to create a random class that has no connection to WoW or Warcraft, certainly.

Except you're not a dragon. You're a dracthyr. Saying "you're a dragon" as a dracthyr is like saying playing Stormwind humans allow you to play as Vrykul.

And here's the part where you ignore the fact that a magical flying reptile that has the powers of multiple iconic Warcraft dragons, is a dragon.

You haven't. Because that was not my question. I asked which VIP NPC is an EVOKER. So, are you going to tell me which VIP NPC is the evoker? Dragons aren't evokers, they're dragons. Because, as far as I know, Wrathion isn't an evoker. Alexstrasza isn't an evoker.

Considering that the Evoker is literally a class that grants you the powers of the 5 dragonflights, I would consider characters like Alexstraza and Chromie to be Evokers as well. Dragon is their race, but there isn't a class name for their set of abilities that go beyond natural draconic abilities. Calling them Evokers frankly makes the most sense.

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed that they base classes on major characters "because it sells", and I not only pointed out that classes don't seem to be this big selling point you seem to believe it is, but I also pointed out that, so far, we haven't gotten a class not based on "major characters" to compare which would "sell" better.

There's a very good reason why we've never gotten an expansion class based on a no-name character.

They happened to guess wrong. So what? That's what happens when people are trying to guess without any concrete, solid fact aside from perceived patterns influenced by their own biases.

They guessed wrong because they ignored the previous 3 class implementations. There was no gameplay basis for a TTRPG Dragonsworn class or "Dragon Knight". There were no Dragonsworn or Dragon Knight hero characters. There were no original abilities for either concept.

Meanwhile, the "dragonborne" concept had the same general pedigree of the previous 3 class inclusions. People seemed to be generally hung up on the idea of a player being able to be a dragon, Blizzard utilizing their draconic heroes from HotS, or a race/class being one in the same. Yet here we are.

*shrug* I suppose we'll see it when we get there, eh?

We need a Bard hero with unique abilities first. Since you clearly don't accept the ETC (and I don't blame you), then we're forerver stuck on step 1 towards class implementation.

[Selah]

Disagree with OP entirely on that being the only "viable" option. You have to remember, WoW doesn't function in a vacuum. There is the greater cultural context that WoW operates within, and while WoW lives in that world, so does D&D, FFXIV, and all of the other games that might offer a Bard class choice. This is an area with a lot of overlapping audiences. So, if Blizzard is to consider this class option then they do so with points of reference in this topic. We've seen them draw this sort of inspiration for almost every class in the game, and it would make sense for them to do this again here.

[Teriz]

Disagree with OP entirely on that being the only "viable" option. You have to remember, WoW doesn't function in a vacuum. There is the greater cultural context that WoW operates within, and while WoW lives in that world, so does D&D, FFXIV, and all of the other games that might offer a Bard class choice. This is an area with a lot of overlapping audiences. So, if Blizzard is to consider this class option then they do so with points of reference in this topic. We've seen them draw this sort of inspiration for almost every class in the game, and it would make sense for them to do this again here.

Well it's important to remember that Bards in those games (especially FFXIV) contain a playstyle that is simply unavailable in WoW. So if Blizzard is considering a Bard based on its supposed popularity in other games, they would immediately be blocked by the fact that there is no support role. Also Bards as a concept go against the long-running raid philosophy of "Bring the player, not the class".

Bards as support (pretty much buff bots) are necessities in other games, and that's part of their appeal.

[Short]

Well it's important to remember that Bards in those games (especially FFXIV) contain a playstyle that is simply unavailable in WoW. So if Blizzard is considering a Bard based on its supposed popularity in other games, they would immediately be blocked by the fact that there is no support role. Also Bards as a concept go against the long-running raid philosophy of "Bring the player, not the class".

Bards as support (pretty much buff bots) are necessities in other games, and that's part of their appeal.

*sigh* I already know what kind of " discussion" this is going to be but meh, i got nothing better to do.

D&D is an entirely different ball game, but for the sake of it, bard has some support spells/abilities. but so does every single other DnD class.
so the argument of it being a "support class" falls short. mainly because the game allows so much personalization of the character that branding a class by the stereotypical understanding of the class is doing the entirety of D&D a disservice.

there's no "support" role in FFXIV either, so that won't be a problem.
also, the FFXIV bard is basically a marksman hunter with some minor group buffs, like a shaman used to be.
so the argument that you can ONLY use what's already in the game, and that we can't look at other games for inspiration/examples is short sighted.

there's plenty of great examples from other games that can be plagiarized to a certain point and still feel like an original WoW class.
so why limit it only to what we already have?

[Teriz]

*sigh* I already know what kind of " discussion" this is going to be but meh, i got nothing better to do.

D&D is an entirely different ball game, but for the sake of it, bard has some support spells/abilities. but so does every single other DnD class.
so the argument of it being a "support class" falls short. mainly because the game allows so much personalization of the character that branding a class by the stereotypical understanding of the class is doing the entirety of D&D a disservice.

there's no "support" role in FFXIV either, so that won't be a problem.
also, the FFXIV bard is basically a marksman hunter with some minor group buffs, like a shaman used to be.
so the argument that you can ONLY use what's already in the game, and that we can't look at other games for inspiration/examples is short sighted.

So essentially a FF14 Bard is like the Survival Hunter with the Lone Wolf talent in WoD?

That's disappointing. At least in their traditional support role, Bards were somewhat original and interesting like they were in FFTactics, Ragnarok Online, and FF11. "Hunters with buffs" weren't very fun or engaging in WoW, which is why the original Lone Wolf talent was born and killed in a single expasnion.

there's plenty of great examples from other games that can be plagiarized to a certain point and still feel like an original WoW class.
so why limit it only to what we already have?

Again, none of it really matters until Blizzard develops a Bardic hero to base a class upon. Without a Warcraft Bard hero, there won't be a WoW Bard class.

[Triceron]

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.

Well, of course it's inevitable. It's already in the game as Engineering.

All they really have to do is expand on the Engineering tools to include cluster rockets, turrets and a temporary mech form and you'd have a Tinker. And they don't even have to be as separate abilities, they could easily be Engineer-themed spell FX glyphs or transmogs.

For that matter, they could literally do the same with having Bard be represented as a profession with in-combat utility. Certain Professions could provide themed 'glyphs' that replace existing class ability visuals and it'd work out just fine.

[bloodmoth13]

Sound magic sounds dumb. Maybe they will add in cosmic magic type with the weird zereth Mortis nonsense and build bards around that but they honestly seem to be at opposite ends of the fantasy spectrum and I don't think that will satisfy anyone.

Bards play music and magic happens, they can perform any genre and what they create could be anything. The concept is so flexible that it could inhabit the same space as every caster in the game.
So my suggestion is make it every caster in the game.
Make musical instruments a weapon type for casters and add in some unique casting animations and sounds for different instruments (can be reused for world building, well worth the effort)
The next expansion I hope overhauls ability animations and gives us ways to customize them. Add in some music inspired ability animations along with musical weapons for casters and you can have 20 odd bard specs. a spec for every genre!

[Teriz]

Well, of course it's inevitable. It's already in the game as Engineering.

All they really have to do is expand on the Engineering tools to include cluster rockets, turrets and a temporary mech form and you'd have a Tinker. And they don't even have to be as separate abilities, they could easily be Engineer-themed spell FX glyphs or transmogs.

For that matter, they could literally do the same with having Bard be represented as a profession with in-combat utility. Certain Professions could provide themed 'glyphs' that replace existing class ability visuals and it'd work out just fine.

Unfortunately the Engineering profession will never have the ability to match the breadth, purpose, and usefulness of a technology-based class. The lore, WoW's technology sub-theme, and the tech-based WoW races pretty much demand that a technology-based class be created.

- - - Updated - - -

Sound magic sounds dumb. Maybe they will add in cosmic magic type with the weird zereth Mortis nonsense and build bards around that but they honestly seem to be at opposite ends of the fantasy spectrum and I don't think that will satisfy anyone.

Frankly, I believe that Blizzard agrees with your general assessment.

[Selah]

Well it's important to remember that Bards in those games (especially FFXIV) contain a playstyle that is simply unavailable in WoW. So if Blizzard is considering a Bard based on its supposed popularity in other games, they would immediately be blocked by the fact that there is no support role. Also Bards as a concept go against the long-running raid philosophy of "Bring the player, not the class".

Bards as support (pretty much buff bots) are necessities in other games, and that's part of their appeal.

It seems you've heard about the FFXIV point, so I'll leave that alone. Regarding, the support role, they absolutely do not have to be a support class in the sense that you need a role dedicated to them. They don't have to be a support role at all. That's such a shortsighted way to see things. When you invoke the image of a class concept you're bringing to mind two very specific things. One is the image of the class. The second is the abilities of the class and how that manifests. That's it. Specific roles, play styles, and mechanics are all due subject to artistic vision and game design. That's why we can have a Warrior who tanks and a Warrior who can DPS and have them both be Warriors equally. So, when we talk about a Bard we're talking about someone in light armor who uses music (either vocal or instrumental) to manifest their abilities. That's it.

We can have a bard that doesn't buff the group, that's totally fine as long as the core identity of the Bard (the light armor and music) is there. If they're support, DPS, heals, or tank, it won't matter. Plus, WoW already has it's own version of a support class in the game. That would be the disc. Priest.

[Triceron]

Unfortunately the Engineering profession will never have the ability to match the breadth, purpose, and usefulness of a technology-based class. The lore, WoW's technology sub-theme, and the tech-based WoW races pretty much demand that a technology-based class be created.

I mean at this point, would it even matter? Tinkers wouldn't even be playable for another 4-6 years, if they even care to add more classes. By all means, if they just tooled up Engineering a bit more, it'd be a fine way to customize your character. Much like allowing Hunters to be Dark Rangers.

I personally think this is the route the Bard should go in as well. Minstrel makes way more sense as a utility-based support Profession, and they can tool in the LOTRO style song-playing gimmick to allow people to actually play music (with universal 'squelch' options for people who don't want to hear any of it)

[Teriz]

It seems you've heard about the FFXIV point, so I'll leave that alone. Regarding, the support role, they absolutely do not have to be a support class in the sense that you need a role dedicated to them. They don't have to be a support role at all. That's such a shortsighted way to see things. When you invoke the image of a class concept you're bringing to mind two very specific things. One is the image of the class. The second is the abilities of the class and how that manifests. That's it. Specific roles, play styles, and mechanics are all due subject to artistic vision and game design. That's why we can have a Warrior who tanks and a Warrior who can DPS and have them both be Warriors equally. So, when we talk about a Bard we're talking about someone in light armor who uses music (either vocal or instrumental) to manifest their abilities. That's it.

So what makes this class any different from existing classes? What makes "sound magic" any different than other forms of magic? Again, the support aspect makes the Bard a unique concept. You strip that away, and it's just another magician.

We can have a bard that doesn't buff the group, that's totally fine as long as the core identity of the Bard (the light armor and music) is there. If they're support, DPS, heals, or tank, it won't matter. Plus, WoW already has it's own version of a support class in the game. That would be the disc. Priest.

Again, what makes "music" unique?

This is why having a hero character with unique abilities to base this on is important. Without that foundation, we're just throwing mud at a wall.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean at this point, would it even matter? Tinkers wouldn't even be playable for another 4-6 years, if they even care to add more classes. By all means, if they just tooled up Engineering a bit more, it'd be a fine way to customize your character. Much like allowing Hunters to be Dark Rangers.

I never said it needed to happen anytime soon, I'm simply pointing out that there is a need for the class because without it some aspects of the game don't fit or make sense. Blizzard wants us to return to the land of the Tinkers (Undermine) at some point in the future, so it's going to happen. It's a matter of when, not if.

Also, Ion all but confirmed in a recent interview that there will be more classes.

I personally think this is the route the Bard should go in as well. Minstrel makes way more sense as a utility-based support Profession, and they can tool in the LOTRO style song-playing gimmick to allow people to actually play music (with universal 'squelch' options for people who don't want to hear any of it)

That works for the Bard because Blizzard has never established a Bard as a heroic character in their lore. There's no major character in the history of Warcraft who has used the power of music to do anything of any significance in the lore.

[Triceron]

I never said it needed to happen anytime soon, I'm simply pointing out that there is a need for the class because without it some aspects of the game don't fit or make sense. Blizzard wants us to return to the land of the Tinkers (Undermine) at some point in the future, so it's going to happen. It's a matter of when, not if.

Also, Ion all but confirmed in a recent interview that there will be more classes.

Yeah, but as we've seen with Shadowlands, they could present us with an X themed expansion without giving us an X themed class. They could just omit it entirely and give us some alternative gimmicks, like elaborate Mech mounts that can be used in combat and special call-down abilities usable in the open world for everyone, Covenant-style. Undermine is a fine way to present Tinkers, but that's if they even plan on it as a future class.

There can be more classes and Tinkers and Bards aren't the only ones on the list left to make, honestly. Now that we've gotten Evokers, the gates have been opened for all sorts of new concepts and themes.

That works for the Bard because Blizzard has never established a Bard as a heroic character in their lore. There's no major character in the history of Warcraft who has used the power of music to do anything of any significance in the lore.

And there doesn't need to be. Like I said, there's no established Dracthyr Evoker heroic character in Warcraft lore either, and yet here we are with Dracthyr Evokers. Doesn't matter if you want to associate them with the Aspects or whatever Dragon character, the point is there is no pre-existing major Dracthyr character to speak of, while we have an class dedicated to this completely new race.

If they want to introduce Minstrels or Bards from Outer Melodina, who can use magical form of music to combat C'kaph'nix, the Void Lord of Dissonance, then that's what we'll get.

[Selah]

So what makes this class any different from existing classes? What makes "sound magic" any different than other forms of magic? Again, the support aspect makes the Bard a unique concept. You strip that away, and it's just another magician.

What makes Priests different from Warlocks? How are those two different from Mages? How are those three different from Shaman? How are those four different from Evoker? How are those five different from Druid? How are those six different from Paladin? How are those seven different from Monk? All of these classes are perfectly valid casters (or some variation thereof) and accepted classes and yet none are a "support" class in the sense you are forcing on Bards in this scenario. Why do you not insist that these other classes have a fully dedicated support role? Surely you would have an equally effective argument for support roles for at least Priests, Mages, Shaman, Evoker, and Druid would you not?

To answer your question more simply, magic brought into the world by music *would* be the factor that makes it unique. No other class would be able to do that.

Again, what makes "music" unique? This is why having a hero character with unique abilities to base this on is important. Without that foundation, we're just throwing mud at a wall.

I think it's great to have a "hero" character to draw inspiration from. However, I don't think it's necessary. But, I would like to leave you with two thoughts this evening while you sit there with your stubborn opinion. First off, "sound magic" has been in the game since at least TBC in the form of Murmur. You know, the primal essence of sound per the own game and it's lore. Just using Murmur alone you could argue that in WoW Bards would harness the same powers as Murmur and use that. Much like Shaman's do with the elements. Basically Shaman but music.

Second off, I'm going to give you with a concept from D&D explaining what the Bard does. It seems you've been so consumed with the idea of a "support" Bard that you refuse to hear anything else.

Source: D&D 5e PHB

"Music and Magic:

In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain. Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers."

In D&D they're literally just Wizards who use music instead of books. This concept can so comfortably merge into WoW given what we've seen with Murmur. There's no reason to relegate it to this small box of an idea you've forced it into. Not to mention, the idea that words and music create magic is something that has been in the fantasy genre since at least Lord of the Rings, if not further back.

[Ielenia]

I said Warcraft Fans, not WoW players.

And we're talking about WoW. So those fans are what we're talking about, here. And even so, most warcraft fans were WoW fans at that time, and didn't care much or at all about the RPGs or TCGs.

Backed up by all four expansion classes.

Again: it's a pattern your perceive, and we've already established that Blizzard doesn't really care for patterns and are willing to do whatever, ignoring any and all perceives patterns and "rules" when they get in the way of what they want to do.

Except you're personally ignoring the other 2 specs in an inane attempt to isolate the Mistweaver spec.

I'm not.

The Mistweaver spec is also derived from the Pandaren Brewmaster.

I'll repeat my question: what abilities from the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster birthed the mistweaver spec? You're the one who constantly claims "concepts come from abilities, and not the other way around" so I want to see which abilities from the PB "birthed" the mistweaver spec. Come on, put your money where your mouth is.

If you want to create a random class that has no connection to WoW or Warcraft, certainly.

Who said it wouldn't have any connection to Warcraft? Bards already exist in the franchise's lore, so by being a bard alone they're already intrinsically connected to the franchise.

And here's the part where you ignore the fact that a magical flying reptile that has the powers of multiple iconic Warcraft dragons, is a dragon.

I'm not ignoring it. I just see the truth for what they are: dracthyrs are not dragons in the same vein that gryphons aren't lions. They're hybrids. They're something else. Not dragons. Draconic, but not dragons.

Considering that the Evoker is literally a class that grants you the powers of the 5 dragonflights, I would consider characters like Alexstraza and Chromie to be Evokers as well.

And you'd be wrong in that assertion because they're not evokers. Alexstrasza cannot cast bronze dragonflight magic or blue dragonflight magic. Chromie cannot cast green dragonflight magic or red dragonflight magic. Therefore they're not evokers.

Dragon is their race

Wrong. Dracthyr is their race, not dragons. Because they're not dragons. They're hybrids of draconic descent, but not dragons.

There's a very good reason why we've never gotten an expansion class based on a no-name character.

Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. But the fact of the matter is that you don't know what this reason might be. Again, I'll repeat: the numbers tell us that classes aren't exactly this biggest selling point you claim them to be, so them being on a "popular character" doesn't seem to be anywhere near as impactful as you like to believe.

They guessed wrong because they ignored the previous 3 class implementations. There was no gameplay basis for a TTRPG Dragonsworn class or "Dragon Knight". There were no Dragonsworn or Dragon Knight hero characters. There were no original abilities for either concept.

There were plenty of gameplaby basis for those. We don't need "hero characters" (the evoker has none, for example).

We need a Bard hero with unique abilities first.

No. No, we don't. We just need the concept. Everything else is secondary and can be made entirely "from nothing", just like 90% of all classes are, and how 100% of the monk's mistweaver spec came from literally no ability whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

So what makes this class any different from existing classes? What makes "sound magic" any different than other forms of magic?

Again, what makes "music" unique?

Music is as "unique" as technology is. Which is to say: it's just a "coat of paint" applied over game mechanics. Basically game mechanic could be given to any class, with just a new "coat of paint". Paint a mage's fireball green and it won't look out of place in a warlock's toolkit. Change the paladin's judgment ability graphics into a big icicle instead of a golden hammer and it won't look out of place in a mage's toolkit. Change a warrior's shockwave ability from a giant sword hitting the ground to a big green blast erupting from the character's mouth and it wouldn't look out of place in the DH's toolkit.

Etc, etc.

This is why having a hero character with unique abilities to base this on is important.

It's not important. All we need is the concept for the class.

[Ryzeth]

I don't care for Bard, but saying this is the only viable option is objectively wrong. Not to mention bad.

[Calfredd]

I don't care for Bard, but saying this is the only viable option is objectively wrong. Not to mention bad.

This is Teriz we're talking about so you could tell me he made this terrible bard concept intentionally with the purpose of driving bard popularity down so he could prop tinkers up in an attempt to stifle next class competition and I would 100% believe you.

[Ielenia]

This is Teriz we're talking about so you could tell me he made this terrible bard concept intentionally with the purpose of driving bard popularity down so he could prop tinkers up in an attempt to stifle next class competition and I would 100% believe you.

That is 100% the reason why he made this, and he even blatantly says so in the OP:

Since I am tired of seeing this class concept being brought up constantly in multiple threads, let's end the discussion here;

[Kiwijello]

Bard = PROFESSION = problem solved.

Wood gatherer + Bardery! (is that even a word?)

Gather mats, makes instruments, entertain your friends and create music for the masses!

Simple concept, but they could run with it and make it something fun that has nothing to do with actual gameplay and influencing raids or even dungeons.

[Ielenia]

Bard = PROFESSION = problem solved.

Wood gatherer + Bardery! (is that even a word?)

Gather mats, makes instruments,

"Bard" is not a crafting profession. That's like saying "warrior" or "priest" are crafting professions.