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

[Teriz]

Except for you, apparently, since you claim Chen Stormstout was "a major character" before MoP.

Which he was, since he participated in the founding of Ogrimmar alongside Rexxar, Thrall, and Jaina, and was a champion of the Horde.

And you use "VIP NPC is on the box cover art" as evidence of that claim, and I have shown that your evidence doesn't hold water.

How does it not? Every expansion class can be a playable version of the major character on the box.

And, with Shadowlands, Blizzard can literally create any character they want "from nothing", no matter how "major" they need to be. Right, Zooval?

I never said they COULDN'T do it. My point is that they HAVEN'T created a viable Bard hero character at this time. Considering the lead in time between character introduction and WoW class implementation based on that character, we could be looking at decades or never.

Because-- and I don't know if you didn't notice this, but do brace yourself for this shocking revelation-- the expansions is about the dragons and the Aspects, of which Alexstrsza is the most popular living aspect, and is likely to be the central character in the story. Fancy that.

And Alexstraza just happened to also be the only draconic hero who had a playable version that allowed players to switch in and out of visage form, utilize healing/damage fire mechanics, had some pseudo-green dragonflight abilities, and utilized aerial abilities. We also have a new class which just happens to have some of those attributes and abilities.

So is your claim that Alexstrasza can't take a visage form that is indistinguishable from mortals "because she was wounded during captivity." Except mine is based in actual canon facts, while yours is based in nothing and exists solely to support your narrative.

I don't know why Alexstraza doesn't take a full visage form, and I don't believe that matters. What matters is that the Dracthyr Evoker has a visage form, and that comes directly from the draconic heroes of Warcraft.

[Ielenia]

Which he was, since he participated in the founding of Ogrimmar alongside Rexxar, Thrall, and Jaina, and was a champion of the Horde.

He was an optional character back in the WC3:TFT bonus campaign. If you didn't come across him, you could still complete the campaign without any problems. Then you have the fact that Chen Stormstout himself not only did not exist in NPC form in WoW until MoP, not only he was never mentioned in any story quest arc, but also his only mention was in an optional side quest in vanilla where you had to find a singular barrel laying on the ground in a random are in the Barrens. To make matters worse, at the time quest-starting objects did not glow or have a golden '!' above their heads.

Hogger was more of a "major character" than Chen back then.

How does it not? Every expansion class can be a playable version of the major character on the box.

Because you're ignoring all the other expansion box arts that debunk your claim that those characters are on the box art "because we have a class based off them", when in reality they're there because they're either what the expanison's story is about, or at the very least important to the story itself.

I never said they COULDN'T do it. My point is that they HAVEN'T created a viable Bard hero character at this time.

And they don't have to. Just like the evoker, they can create the class "from nothing". After all, dracthyrs didn't exist in the Warcraft franchise, much less dracthyr evokers, and that debunks your claim that "we must have bard heroes before the class is created."

Considering the lead in time between character introduction and WoW class implementation based on that character, we could be looking at decades or never.

Considering, like I mentioned above, we didn't have a single evoker in WoW until Dragonflight, that "wait time" can also be zero.

And Alexstraza just happened to also be the only draconic hero who had a playable version that allowed players to switch in and out of visage form, utilize healing/damage fire mechanics, had some pseudo-green dragonflight abilities, and utilized aerial abilities. We also have a new class which just happens to have some of those attributes and abilities.

All irrelevant. Because we're talking about her being on the box art. Unless you're trying to claim she's on the box art because she exists in HotS and has all those game mechanics... and in that case, it's still all irrelevant.

I don't know why Alexstraza doesn't take a full visage form,

Because she doesn't want to.

and I don't believe that matters.

It means she doesn't want to.

What matters is that the Dracthyr Evoker has a visage form,

What matters is that no dracthyr looks 100% like a mortal, unlike dragons, which lends credence their version of the visage ability is lesser than the dragons, which makes sense considering they're draconic hybrids, not full dragons.

[Teriz]

He was an optional character back in the WC3:TFT bonus campaign. If you didn't come across him, you could still complete the campaign without any problems. Then you have the fact that Chen Stormstout himself not only did not exist in NPC form in WoW until MoP, not only he was never mentioned in any story quest arc, but also his only mention was in an optional side quest in vanilla where you had to find a singular barrel laying on the ground in a random are in the Barrens. To make matters worse, at the time quest-starting objects did not glow or have a golden '!' above their heads.

Hogger was more of a "major character" than Chen back then.

I don't see how it being an optional campaign is relevant. Plenty of WC3 players played that campaign and knew of Chen Stormstout way before MoP happened. That's what made him a major character, not whether or not the events of the campaign were canon. Also once it was confirmed that Chen existed in the lore (which the Keg quest confirmed) then the events of the founding of Orgrimmar instantly became canon anyway.

Because you're ignoring all the other expansion box arts that debunk your claim that those characters are on the box art "because we have a class based off them", when in reality they're there because they're either what the expanison's story is about, or at the very least important to the story itself.

I never made that claim. I said that new expansion classes play as the characters displayed on the cover of the expansion they're introduced in. I'm not getting why you're having such a hard time understanding this.

And they don't have to. Just like the evoker, they can create the class "from nothing". After all, dracthyrs didn't exist in the Warcraft franchise, much less dracthyr evokers, and that debunks your claim that "we must have bard heroes before the class is created."

Again, the Dracthyr Evoker is merely the platform that allows players to be playable versions of the draconic heroes of Warcraft. Blizzard themselves have stated as such. Again, you're using lore to ignore clear and obvious design decisions.

Considering, like I mentioned above, we didn't have a single evoker in WoW until Dragonflight, that "wait time" can also be zero.

We didn't have dragons that could transform/disguise themselves as mortals and utilize the powers of the dragonflight until the upcoming expansion?

All irrelevant. Because we're talking about her being on the box art. Unless you're trying to claim she's on the box art because she exists in HotS and has all those game mechanics... and in that case, it's still all irrelevant.

Again, I'm not saying that she's on the box art BECAUSE of the Evoker, I'm saying that expansion classes are playable versions of the characters on the cover of the expansion they're introduced in.

Because she doesn't want to.

And this is headcanon.

What matters is that no dracthyr looks 100% like a mortal, unlike dragons, which lends credence their version of the visage ability is lesser than the dragons, which makes sense considering they're draconic hybrids, not full dragons.

And this is more headcanon which is completely irrelevant. The Dracthyr visage form literally gives your party members a bonus in HP regen because they feel more at ease with your visage form than your draconic form, a direct nod to the lore behind the visage form that came from WoW's draconic lore figures.

[Ielenia]

I don't see how it being an optional campaign is relevant.

Being optional means it's not important.

Plenty of WC3 players played that campaign and knew of Chen Stormstout way before MoP happened. That's what made him a major character,

That does not make him a major character.

Also once it was confirmed that Chen existed in the lore (which the Keg quest confirmed) then the events of the founding of Orgrimmar instantly became canon anyway.

First: it didn't. It only confirmed that Chen existed. The item description, nor any of the three quests it spawns mention him helping found Orgrimmar. Second: that still doesn't make him a "major" character. Because he was still obscure. No NPC presence, no story told aside from mentions of him and his love of alcohol, nothing.

I never made that claim. I said that new expansion classes play as the characters displayed on the cover of the expansion they're introduced in.

No, you're changing your arguments. You always said that those characters are on the cover art because they represent the class the expansion is introducing. Which is, again, wrong. Because the reason they are there is because they are significant to the story being told.

Again, the Dracthyr Evoker is merely the platform that allows players to be playable versions of the draconic heroes of Warcraft.

It doesn't matter. Because your rules say that "we need VIP NPC of X class in the game before we can add X playable class", which means, if you are right-- which you aren't, but for the sake of argument-- that means we needed an VIP NPC evoker in the game prior to Dragonflight. And we had none. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Blizzard themselves have stated as such.

Which demonstrates how little Blizzard cares for your arbitrary rules, considering they didn't follow them when creating the evoker class.

We didn't have dragons that could transform/disguise themselves as mortals and utilize the powers of the dragonflight until the upcoming expansion?

We didn't have dracthyr nor evokers until DF. Which is the point since, according to your rules, the evoker class should not be able to exist.

Again, I'm not saying that she's on the box art BECAUSE of the Evoker, I'm saying that expansion classes are playable versions of the characters on the cover of the expansion they're introduced in.

Either way, you're wrong. They're there because they're important to the story being told. Any and all correlations to a class being added-- if any exists-- are merely coincidence.

And this is headcanon.

So is your claim. Double-standards much?

And this is more headcanon which is completely irrelevant. The Dracthyr visage form literally gives your party members a bonus in HP regen because they feel more at ease with your visage form than your draconic form, a direct nod to the lore behind the visage form that came from WoW's draconic lore figures.

"Irrelevant" is your argument here since you're using game mechanics. Again, the fact that no dracthyr can fully take on a mortal form indicates that their version of the visage ability is lesser compared to the ability of actual dragons, which again lends credence ot the idea that dracthyr are not dragons. Just hybrids of draconic descent.

[Triceron]

Uh no. None of those characters come close to Onyxia in terms of impact on lore. Onyxia was a major antagonist in early WoW.

It should be obvious who’s a major lore character and what isn’t.

So in your own words, why is ETC a major lore character in WoW? He's not a major lore character who would come close to Onyxia either. Why would you choose him as the only a viable Bard Hero character?

I wouldn't imagine you'd say because he's a playable character in Heroes of the Storm, because you've already dismissed Hogger.

[Teriz]

Being optional means it's not important.

But it was important, since it showed a pivotal point in the history of Orgrimmar. Further, WoW players experienced it and had no belief that it was lore or not, most more than likely thought it was lore.

That does not make him a major character.

One of the characters who helped Thrall establish the capital of the Horde and defended the Horde against early alliance threats isn't a major character?

First: it didn't. It only confirmed that Chen existed. The item description, nor any of the three quests it spawns mention him helping found Orgrimmar. Second: that still doesn't make him a "major" character. Because he was still obscure. No NPC presence, no story told aside from mentions of him and his love of alcohol, nothing.

If Chen existed, the optional campaign occurred. MoP later confirms this.

No, you're changing your arguments. You always said that those characters are on the cover art because they represent the class the expansion is introducing. Which is, again, wrong. Because the reason they are there is because they are significant to the story being told.

Where did I say that?

It doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. If the design goal of the class is for players to be playable versions of the draconic characters of WC lore, then the Evoker class comes from those characters, since that's where the abilities and concepts are derived from.

Which demonstrates how little Blizzard cares for your arbitrary rules, considering they didn't follow them when creating the evoker class.


We didn't have dracthyr nor evokers until DF. Which is the point since, according to your rules, the evoker class should not be able to exist.

If they didn't follow the "rules" why can Evoker players be a playable version of Alexstraza, Kairoz, Onyxia, Kalecgos, Nozdurmu, Ysera, etc.?

So is your claim. Double-standards much?

I'm not pretending that my headcanon matters.

"Irrelevant" is your argument here since you're using game mechanics. Again, the fact that no dracthyr can fully take on a mortal form indicates that their version of the visage ability is lesser compared to the ability of actual dragons, which again lends credence ot the idea that dracthyr are not dragons. Just hybrids of draconic descent.

And once again, this is nothing more than your headcanon, since major dragons like Alexstraza, Ysera, and Wrathion also don't fully take mortal forms.

- - - Updated - - -

So in your own words, why is ETC a major lore character in WoW? He's not a major lore character who would come close to Onyxia either. Why would you choose him as the only a viable Bard Hero character?

I wouldn't imagine you'd say because he's a playable character in Heroes of the Storm, because you've already dismissed Hogger.

That's exactly what I would say. He's the closest Bard character to a possible class implementation. Once again, that doesn't make him very viable, but I would say he's more viable than Amun's concept.

[Triceron]

That's exactly what I would say. He's the closest Bard character to a possible class implementation. Once again, that doesn't make him very viable, but I would say he's more viable than Amun's concept.

And if Amun's concept had any connection to ETC, enough to represent a playable version of him, it'd become just as viable as April Fools Guitar Hero then?

[Teriz]

And if Amun's concept had any connection to ETC, enough to represent a playable version of him, it'd become just as viable as April Fools Guitar Hero then?

Sure. I'd be very interested to see that.

[VinceVega]

This is the only viable option until it is not. Which is when blizz decides that they need a bard class.
New lore can be created and an ETC class ist NOT something that will ever be a class.

It is a joke. Nothing more. A loveproject from Blizz devs.
Does anyone actually think this would make it to the game? (as a playable class)

Also while scrolling through this thread, is this even still about bards or a discussion about the same again between two people who i am more sure every week are the same person with two accounts. Or a marrie couple. One or the other^^

[Teriz]

This is the only viable option until it is not. Which is when blizz decides that they need a bard class.
New lore can be created and an ETC class ist NOT something that will ever be a class.

It is a joke. Nothing more. A loveproject from Blizz devs.
Does anyone actually think this would make it to the game? (as a playable class)

I agree with this assessment.

[Ielenia]

But it was important, since it showed a pivotal point in the history of Orgrimmar.

No, it's not. This "pivotal point in the history of Orgrimmar" is completely independent of Chen's presence. Proof of that is that you can complete the bonus campaign without Chen and nothing changes.

One of the characters who helped Thrall establish the capital of the Horde and defended the Horde against early alliance threats isn't a major character?

Correct. Because Chen was an optional character.

If Chen existed, the optional campaign occurred. MoP later confirms this.

Confirmation that didn't exist until MoP came along. Which is the entire point.

Where did I say that?

... Are you seriously going to play coy now? That has always been your argument against other classes, that they don't have a "VIP NPC to showcase on the box art".

Of course it matters. If the design goal of the class is for players to be playable versions of the draconic characters of WC lore, then the Evoker class comes from those characters, since that's where the abilities and concepts are derived from.

You make a leap of logic that doesn't exist. You're stating your opinion as fact that the evoker "comes from those characters" because they're major characters from the lore. That is not how it works.

Not to mention that your entire argument also works against you in regards to the bard class, because your thread here says that "bards must be 100% like ETC", yet here you are arguing that classes don't have to be "100% like VIP characters" to be viable.

If they didn't follow the "rules" why can Evoker players be a playable version of Alexstraza, Kairoz, Onyxia, Kalecgos, Nozdurmu, Ysera, etc.?

Except we can't, since those examples of yours aren't dracthyrs or evokers. That's like saying my human can be King Ymiron.

I'm not pretending that my headcanon matters.

Except you are, considering you're using it as argument.

And once again, this is nothing more than your headcanon, since major dragons like Alexstraza, Ysera, and Wrathion also don't fully take mortal forms.

And here is where your headcanon comes into play, as you claim that those dragons don't because they can't, despite we having evidence that lesser dragons can take fully humanoid forms without any draconic characteristics.

[Teriz]

No, it's not. This "pivotal point in the history of Orgrimmar" is completely independent of Chen's presence. Proof of that is that you can complete the bonus campaign without Chen and nothing changes.


Correct. Because Chen was an optional character.


Confirmation that didn't exist until MoP came along. Which is the entire point.

I think we've reached the point here where you're simply arguing your opinion. Clearly, Chen was a major lore figure, which is why we got MoP.

... Are you seriously going to play coy now? That has always been your argument against other classes, that they don't have a "VIP NPC to showcase on the box art".

Which goes back to the fact that expansion classes are tied to major lore characters. Hence why the latter shows up on box art; Because they are major lore characters.

You make a leap of logic that doesn't exist. You're stating your opinion as fact that the evoker "comes from those characters" because they're major characters from the lore. That is not how it works.

They clearly come from major lore characters because you can be a playable version of those characters as an Evoker.

Not to mention that your entire argument also works against you in regards to the bard class, because your thread here says that "bards must be 100% like ETC", yet here you are arguing that classes don't have to be "100% like VIP characters" to be viable.

Please quote where I said that a Bard must be "100% like the ETC".

Except we can't, since those examples of yours aren't dracthyrs or evokers. That's like saying my human can be King Ymiron.

Well no because no class possesses Ymiron's abilities. However, an Evoker player can rather easily emulate the appearance and abilities of Alexstraza.

Except you are, considering you're using it as argument.

And here is where your headcanon comes into play, as you claim that those dragons don't because they can't, despite we having evidence that lesser dragons can take fully humanoid forms without any draconic characteristics.

I'm simply claiming that the Dracthyr have visage forms that come directly from major draconic lore figures, which further disproves the notion that they came from "nowhere". There's no headcanon involved with that.

[Calfredd]

I think we've reached the point here where you're simply arguing your opinion.

You have no room to talk, no room! This has been you from day one. Stop being such a hypocrite.

[Ielenia]

I think we've reached the point here where you're simply arguing your opinion.

The hypocrisy. Oh, dear lord, the hypocrisy! In this entire thread, Teriz-- no, in your entire presence in this forum-- you've done nothing but argue your opinions.

Clearly, Chen was a major lore figure, which is why we got MoP.

He was never a major lore figure. "Major lore figures" have actual presence in the story of the game, and Chen Stormstout didn't even have an NPC in the game until MoP, and we only had a single instance where Chen is mentioned in the entire game, prior to MoP, and even then it's just about his love of alcohol.

Hogger was way more of a "major lore figure" than Chen up until that point. At least he not only actually existed in the game, but also impacted the story twice, by being a murderous outlaw in Elwynn forest, and then organizing a prison revolt in the Stockades.

Which goes back to the fact that expansion classes are tied to major lore characters.

An argument of yours that was debunked a decade ago when MoP came along, and we have an obscure character now on the spotlight, since Chen Stormstout was never a "major lore character". Saying Chen Stormstout was a "major lore character" before MoP is one of the most dishonest things you've done in this forum. In the top 10, easily.

Please quote where I said that a Bard must be "100% like the ETC".

How about you read your own OP, then? Because you literally pointed the ETC as "the only viable option".

I'm simply claiming that the Dracthyr have visage forms that come directly from major draconic lore figures,

Not quite, considering their ability to use visage is apparently quite lesser when compared to the ability of actual dragons, as I pointed out numerous times.

which further disproves the notion that they came from "nowhere". There's no headcanon involved with that.

Your headcanon is equating evokers to dragons, which is the same thing as equating the WoW mage class to WC3 Blademaster since it has mirror image.

[Teriz]

You have no room to talk, no room! This has been you from day one. Stop being such a hypocrite.

Oh? By all means, where did I argue my opinion?

[Triceron]

Clearly, Chen was a major lore figure, which is why we got MoP.

Actually, it's quite obvious he was never a major lore figure.

That's why your argument is so fucked up, lol. Blizzard made a WoW class out of just an obscure easter egg character from an optional RPG map. You can call him a popular character, you can call him a popular WC3 Tavern hero, but by no means was Chen a 'Major lore figure'. I'd argue he is absolutely comparable to ETC - Nothing more than an obscure easter egg character. What you're failing to recognize is that Blizzard created the Monk class and sourced an obscure, non-major lore character to do so.

Like I said, when it's convenient to you, but not to anyone else.

[Rocksteady 87]

There nothing that states a bard must be a 'support' class.

Heck TBC even had a sound elemental who destroyed entire planets. They'd probably make the healer spec resemble the more classical bard, with the DPS being the heavy metal thing like the OP suggested.

The cleric also served the role of buffer in D&D and they transition to healer/dps as priest just fine.

Good job at reading the entire post.

Excellent job in fact.

Fantastic work.

Bravo.

[Teriz]

The hypocrisy. Oh, dear lord, the hypocrisy! In this entire thread, Teriz-- no, in your entire presence in this forum-- you've done nothing but argue your opinions.

He was never a major lore figure. "Major lore figures" have actual presence in the story of the game, and Chen Stormstout didn't even have an NPC in the game until MoP, and we only had a single instance where Chen is mentioned in the entire game, prior to MoP, and even then it's just about his love of alcohol.

And yet we have this;



Showing that Blizzard clearly disagrees with you.

How about you read your own OP, then? Because you literally pointed the ETC as "the only viable option".

That isn't the same as "The Bard must be 100% like the ETC".

Not quite, considering their ability to use visage is apparently quite lesser when compared to the ability of actual dragons, as I pointed out numerous times.

You need to check out the dressing room on wowhead. You can remove pretty much every indication of dragon from the visage form. Meanwhile, the major draconic character this class is based on has massive dragon horns on her head....

Your headcanon is equating evokers to dragons, which is the same thing as equating the WoW mage class to WC3 Blademaster since it has mirror image.

I wasn't aware that mages could weild 2h swords, fight in melee, and preform Bladestorm. Please post a video.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it's quite obvious he was never a major lore figure.

That's why your argument is so fucked up, lol. Blizzard made a WoW class out of just an obscure easter egg character from an optional RPG map. You can call him a popular character, you can call him a popular WC3 Tavern hero, but by no means was Chen a 'Major lore figure'. I'd argue he is absolutely comparable to ETC - Nothing more than an obscure easter egg character. What you're failing to recognize is that Blizzard created the Monk class and sourced an obscure, non-major lore character to do so.

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:
https://crystal-cdn3.crystalcommerce...mstout_976.jpg
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

Quite the obscure character....

You should probably read this as well;

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/His...en_in_Warcraft

[Triceron]

And yet we have this;



Showing that Blizzard clearly disagrees with you.

No, it's actually confirming exactly what I said, lol

Chen is an obscure, minor lore character, and Blizzard unapologetically picked him to front a new Class and a new expansion. It's absolutely contrary to your argument that only Major lore characters would be viable representatives for new classes. Minor ones work just as well, as we see with Chen.

They did this because despite being a minor lore character, the Pandaren were in fairly high demand, and they made him the face of all Pandaren.

It actually works with your entire premise in the OP. You picked ETC as the character to usher in the Bard, despite admitting that he doesn't fit WoW, and that he isn't a Major Lore figure.

[Ielenia]

And yet we have this;

https://www.mobygames.com/images/cov...tosh-other.jpg

Showing that Blizzard clearly disagrees with you.

It's actually the other way around. MoP disagrees with you because Chen Stormstout was never a "major lore figure". He was always an obscure figure in the lore of the franchise: again, zero NPC presence, and only one singular reference to him in eight years of WoW. And yet he was still chosen to be put to prominence and on the spotlight for the expansion, debunking your claims that we need "major lore figures".

Hogger and Russell Brower had more presence in the lore than Chen before MoP, by virtue of actually existing in the game, not to mention also participating in the story.

That isn't the same as "The Bard must be 100% like the ETC".

If your argument is "this character is the only option", that means it has to be 100% like him. Because not being "100% like him" means said character is not the only option.

Meanwhile, the major draconic character this class is based on has massive dragon horns on her head....

Again, purely by choice, not because lack of ability.

I wasn't aware that mages could weild 2h swords, fight in melee, and preform Bladestorm. Please post a video.

You were the one who equated dragons to evokers because of abilities. That's the same logic.