View Poll Results: Is the ETC a viable class concept?

Voters
200. This poll is closed
  • Heck Yeah!

    62 31.00%
  • Heck No!

    138 69.00%
Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    Considering that Chen's presence in TFT has been lore since Vanilla (and frankly before that point since the WC RPG books were canon when they were published), I don't see how you can make that argument.

    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.
    Incorrect. There will always be some variations from hero to playable class due to spec requirements.

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

    You were the one who equated dragons to evokers because of abilities. That's the same logic.
    Well yes because Evokers can do everything Alexstraza and other dragons can do (and more). A Mage cannot do everything a Blademaster can do. Not even close in fact.

  2. #322
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Considering that Chen's presence in TFT has been lore since Vanilla
    I never said he wasn't canon. I only pointed out how Chen never was a "major lore character" before the Mists of Pandaria expansion. Face it: Hogger and Russell Brower were more "major" than Chen at the time, by virture of actually existing in the game, being interactable, and actually participating in the story.

    I don't see how you can make that argument.
    My argument is that Chen was never a "major lore character" in the Warcraft franchise before MoP.

    Incorrect. There will always be some variations from hero to playable class due to spec requirements.
    But you're still equating it to the ETC character.

    Headcanon.
    It still debunks your headcanon, that claims she somehow can't because of "long lasting injuries from her time in captivity".
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  3. #323
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I never said he wasn't canon. I only pointed out how Chen never was a "major lore character" before the Mists of Pandaria expansion. Face it: Hogger and Russell Brower were more "major" than Chen at the time, by virture of actually existing in the game, being interactable, and actually participating in the story.
    Again, there's more to Warcraft than just WoW, and Chen wasn't completely absent from WoW either.

    My argument is that Chen was never a "major lore character" in the Warcraft franchise before MoP.
    Uh, he was literally all over the Warcraft franchise before MoP.

    But you're still equating it to the ETC character.
    Sure, just like I'm equating the Evoker to Alexstraza, the Monk to Chen, the Demon Hunter to Illidan, and the Death Knight to LK Arthas.

    It still debunks your headcanon, that claims she somehow can't because of "long lasting injuries from her time in captivity".
    Yeah, about those Dracthyr visage forms;



    Looks pretty mortal to me.

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Sure, just like I'm equating the Evoker to Alexstraza, the Monk to Chen, the Demon Hunter to Illidan, and the Death Knight to LK Arthas.
    But you admit ETC isn't a major lore character.

    Why would you consider him equivalent to Alexstrazsa, Illidan and Arthas?

  5. #325
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But you admit ETC isn't a major lore character.

    Why would you consider him equivalent to Alexstrazsa, Illidan and Arthas?
    You're missing the context of that comment.

  6. #326
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Again, there's more to Warcraft than just WoW,
    The only thing that matters for Warcraft canon is WoW, the Warcraft games, and the novels. RPG, TCG and other toys don't matter.

    and Chen wasn't completely absent from WoW either.
    I never said he was. I simply pointed out how he is an obscure character for not existing within the WoW game aside from one singular mention of him in the form of a small, obscure optional three-part quest chain.

    Uh, he was literally all over the Warcraft franchise before MoP.
    That is not what "major lore character" means. Here's a hint: the term is "major L O R E character". Can you spot the key word?

    Sure, just like I'm equating the Evoker to Alexstraza, the Monk to Chen, the Demon Hunter to Illidan, and the Death Knight to LK Arthas.
    Which you equate because of gameplay. Which means you want the class to be "100% like the ETC".

    Yeah, about those Dracthyr visage forms;
    Trying to dodge the subject now? Let's go back to Alexstrasza. After that, then we can move on to the dracthyr.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  7. #327
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The only thing that matters for Warcraft canon is WoW, the Warcraft games, and the novels. RPG, TCG and other toys don't matter.
    At the time of their publication, the RPG books were lore. They weren't de-canonized until MoP.

    Which you equate because of gameplay. Which means you want the class to be "100% like the ETC".
    Nope, as I mentioned with the other class examples, the class would be a playable version of the ETC character.

    Of course the ETC doesn't really have much of a character because he's a spoof. So....


    Trying to dodge the subject now?
    Nope, trying to bring it back to the relevant point; The Dracthyr visage form is a fine equivalent to the visage form of the major dragon characters.

  8. #328
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    At the time of their publication, the RPG books were lore. They weren't de-canonized until MoP.
    They were never canon. The RPG books were already non-canon. Blizzard just officially explicitly stated non-canon later.

    Nope, as I mentioned with the other class examples, the class would be a playable version of the ETC character.
    In other words: 100% like the ETC.

    Of course the ETC doesn't really have much of a character because he's a spoof. So....
    Funny how no bard advocate wants a class "based on ETC"...

    Nope, trying to bring it back to the relevant point;
    Of which your claim about Alexstrasza is a big part of. Let's address that first, then we can move on.

    And speaking of "addressing something first before moving on", are you going to answer my question:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    That is not what "major lore character" means. Here's a hint: the term is "major L O R E character". Can you spot the key word?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  9. #329
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    They were never canon. The RPG books were already non-canon. Blizzard just officially explicitly stated non-canon later.
    http://web.archive.org/web/200712060...y/index.html#3

    Scroll down to the RPG books.

    Again, considered part of the lore at one time, but Blizzard later came back and de-canonized them.

    In other words: 100% like the ETC.
    If that's your interpretation. As with most things you state, it's far from reality.

    Funny how no bard advocate wants a class "based on ETC"...
    Indeed. That doesn't bode well for the concept. Hopefully, an actual Bard hero will emerge that its fans can rally behind.

    Of which your claim about Alexstrasza is a big part of. Let's address that first, then we can move on.
    That entire back and forth is irrelevant. Again, the relevant point is that the Dracthyr's visage form is a fine playable equivalent to the visage forms of the draconic heroes of Warcraft.

    And speaking of "addressing something first before moving on", are you going to answer my question:
    Sure, after you show how this question is relevant.

  10. #330
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    http://web.archive.org/web/200712060...y/index.html#3

    Scroll down to the RPG books.

    Again, considered part of the lore at one time, but Blizzard later came back and de-canonized them.
    They weren't. Because, as I believe @Triceron once showed examples, the RPG books were in direct conflict with the actual official lore, indicating that they were non-canon, because two conflicting pieces of information cannot both be canon at the same time.

    As with most things you state, it's far from reality.
    This is incredibly ironic and one of the heaviest projections coming from you, considering you still insist Chen Stormstout is a "major lore character".

    Indeed. That doesn't bode well for the concept.
    I think the best answer to this statement comes from you:
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    As with most things you state, it's far from reality.

    Hopefully, an actual Bard hero will emerge that its fans can rally behind.
    Thankfully, Blizzard has demonstrated we don't need one, now that they made the evoker, a class that literally did not exist in the lore of Warcraft.

    Sure, after you show how this question is relevant.
    It is relevant because directly addresses your erroneous claim that Chen Stormstout somehow was a "major lore character" before the Mists of Pandaria expansion.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  11. #331
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    They weren't. Because, as I believe @Triceron once showed examples, the RPG books were in direct conflict with the actual official lore, indicating that they were non-canon, because two conflicting pieces of information cannot both be canon at the same time.
    And yet we have Blizzard stating that they were lore on their own website back in 2007;

    Quote Originally Posted by Blizzard
    Want to know more about the lore of World of Warcraft? Although the game doesn't require any prior knowledge of Warcraft lore to enjoy, you may appreciate the broader understanding of the setting and characters in the game that you will gain from learning about the lore. Here are some resources that are available:

    History of Warcraft
    Lore
    Novels
    EBooks
    RPGs
    Previous Warcraft Games

    Warcraft Role-Playing Games provide a wealth of information about Warcraft lore.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20071206...y/index.html#3

    This is incredibly ironic and one of the heaviest projections coming from you, considering you still insist Chen Stormstout is a "major lore character".

    It is relevant because directly addresses your erroneous claim that Chen Stormstout somehow was a "major lore character" before the Mists of Pandaria expansion.
    Considering he participated in the founding of Durator, was a champion of the Horde, was all over the Warcraft franchise and ended up being on the cover of an expansion, I would say it's fairly obvious that he was a major lore character.

    Thankfully, Blizzard has demonstrated we don't need one, now that they made the evoker, a class that literally did not exist in the lore of Warcraft.
    We had a class of draconic characters that could turn into mortals and wield the powers of the Dragonflight in the lore of Warcraft for decades. Blizzard simply decided to name the class Evoker, since there wasn't a name for the class before.

  12. #332
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And yet we have Blizzard stating that they were lore on their own website back in 2007;
    They didn't say it was. You can find lore on Warcraft on non-canon sources. Not to mention, reading the original statement from 2011, you can understand that the RPG books were created with the intention of being non-canon:
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?

    A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated.
    Considering he participated in the founding of Durator,
    His participation in the founding of Orgrimmar was not canonized until MoP.

    was a champion of the Horde,
    He was not a champion of the Horde.

    was all over the Warcraft franchise
    Except where it really matters: the franchise's lore. No NPC and only one singular hidden easter egg mention in eight years.

    and ended up being on the cover of an expansion,
    Which debunks your claim that only "major lore characters" can be shown on box cover art.

    I would say it's fairly obvious that he was a major lore character.
    And you would be objectively wrong. Or, in your own words, it's "far from reality".

    We had a class of draconic characters
    You're no longer referring them as "dragons" anymore. That's some progress, at least.

    Blizzard simply decided to name the class Evoker, since there wasn't a name for the class before.
    Lowkey admitting that the class did not exist in the lore before it was made playable, basically debunking himself. Congratz?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  13. #333
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    They didn't say it was. You can find lore on Warcraft on non-canon sources. Not to mention, reading the original statement from 2011, you can understand that the RPG books were created with the intention of being non-canon:
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?

    A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated.
    Like I said, they were originally canon, and were de-canonized by Blizzard right before MoP. Which is why I posted an archived website from 2007 when they were considered canon.

    His participation in the founding of Orgrimmar was not canonized until MoP.
    It was canonized as soon as Chen was mentioned in WoW.

    He was not a champion of the Horde.
    See above.

    Except where it really matters: the franchise's lore.
    Actually no. Where it matters is visibility. If Blizzard is putting a character in various products, it indicates that that character is a major character.

    Which debunks your claim that only "major lore characters" can be shown on box cover art.
    You're welcome to that (ridiculous) opinion.

    You're no longer referring them as "dragons" anymore. That's some progress, at least.
    "Draconic" means dragon.

    Lowkey admitting that the class did not exist in the lore before it was made playable, basically debunking himself. Congratz?
    So we had all the material of a class except the name, and you think because of that lack of a name the concept didn't exist?

    Gotta love that "logic".

  14. #334
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Like I said, they were originally canon, and were de-canonized by Blizzard right before MoP. Which is why I posted an archived website from 2007 when they were considered canon.
    That text literally implies that the RPG books were made with the knowledge they would be non-canon. The fact they were made by third-party companies should've clued you in on that.

    It was canonized as soon as Chen was mentioned in WoW.
    That's not how it works. It only canonized Chen's existence.

    Actually no. Where it matters is visibility. If Blizzard is putting a character in various products, it indicates that that character is a major character.
    You can't be a "major L O R E character" (like you have been claiming non-stop) without having prominence in the lore. Which Chen had next to zero. Again, Hogger and Russell Brower had more prominence in the lore than Chen up until that point.

    You're welcome to that (ridiculous) opinion.
    You mean facts.

    "Draconic" means dragon.
    No. "Draconic" means dragons and dragon-adjacent, such as dragonkin and dracthyr.

    So we had all the material of a class except the name,
    Which just so happens to be the same case for bards, but I suppose it's "rules for thee but not for me", right?

    and you think because of that lack of a name the concept didn't exist?
    Okay. Name me one dracthyr evoker that existed in the lore before Dragonflight was announced.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  15. #335
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    That text literally implies that the RPG books were made with the knowledge they would be non-canon. The fact they were made by third-party companies should've clued you in on that.
    Text that appeared years after my link from 2007 where Blizzard themselves said they were sources of lore.

    You can't be a "major L O R E character" (like you have been claiming non-stop) without having prominence in the lore. Which Chen had next to zero. Again, Hogger and Russell Brower had more prominence in the lore than Chen up until that point.
    Again, the WC3 game and the RPG books were sources of lore for the Pandaren before MoP. If you wish to ignore that fact just to argue for the sake of arguing, knock yourself out. I'm done responding to this topic.

    No. "Draconic" means dragons...
    Which is exactly what I said.

    Which just so happens to be the same case for bards, but I suppose it's "rules for thee but not for me", right?
    Where's the Bard hero to codify the class' themes and abilities?

    Okay. Name me one dracthyr evoker that existed in the lore before Dragonflight was announced.
    Alexstraza, Kalecgos, Wrathion, Chromie, Deathwing, Nozdormu, Malygos, Kairozdormu, etc.

  16. #336
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Text that appeared years after my link from 2007 where Blizzard themselves said they were sources of lore.
    They didn't say they were canon. Sources of lore can be non-canon. I mean, I literally gave you a post from Blizzard themselves that heavily implies that the RPG and books were created already with the knowledge that they would be non-canon. And the fact that they were created by a third party further reinforces that notion.

    Again, the WC3 game
    Where he was just an optional character.

    and the RPG books
    That were non-canon.

    If you wish to ignore that fact
    Says the guy who keeps ignoring facts about how Chen was never a "major LORE character" before MoP...

    Which is exactly what I said.
    Wrong. Try not to quote-mine:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No. "Draconic" means dragons and dragon-adjacent, such as dragonkin and dracthyr.
    What you're doing is saying "humanoid" means human.

    Where's the Bard hero to codify the class' themes and abilities?
    Where's the E V O K E R hero to "codify the class' themes and abilities"? There's none. Because none is needed. The evoker is literally a class that came "from nothing".

    Alexstraza, Kalecgos, Wrathion, Chromie, Deathwing, Nozdormu, Malygos, Kairozdormu, etc.
    I asked for an example of a D R A C T H Y R E V O K E R. Your picks are neither dracthyr, nor evokers.

    Try again: give me the example of an actual D R A C T H Y R E V O K E R.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post

    Yeah, about those Dracthyr visage forms;



    Looks pretty mortal to me.
    Show me a mortal race that is identical to them. You can't.

  18. #338
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Wrong. Try not to quote-mine:
    So you’re saying that draconic doesn’t mean “dragon” when you said it did?

    Where's the E V O K E R hero to "codify the class' themes and abilities"? There's none. Because none is needed. The evoker is literally a class that came "from nothing".
    Alexstraza was that hero. Evokers are playable versions of the draconic heroes of WC. How can you say they came from nothing? This is like saying the WotLK Death Knights came from nothing simply because Blizzard created new lore to fit them into the classes.

    I asked for an example of a D R A C T H Y R E V O K E R. Your picks are neither dracthyr, nor evokers.

    Try again: give me the example of an actual D R A C T H Y R E V O K E R.
    What class is Alexstraza, Kalecgos, Chromie, Kairozdormu, Wrathion, etc.?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    Show me a mortal race that is identical to them. You can't.
    Show me a mortal race that looks identical to Alexstraza in mortal form. You can’t.

    On topic: It would appear that the idea of an ETC-based class is quite unpopular.

  19. #339
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So you’re saying that draconic doesn’t mean “dragon” when you said it did?
    It doesn't necessarily. Again, I'll repeat:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No. "Draconic" means dragons and dragon-adjacent, such as dragonkin and dracthyr.
    What you're doing is saying "humanoid" means human.

    Alexstraza was that hero.
    Alexstrasza is not and never was an evoker, which means by your own "rules" she cannot be the "hero that spawned the class".

    Evokers are playable versions of the draconic heroes of WC.
    But that goes against your rules, which say we need a pre-existing VIP NPC of the class to allow it to be added.

    How can you say they came from nothing?
    Because-- again: by your own rules-- we need a VIP NPC of the class to be added, like you've been saying time and again against the bard concept. And so far you haven't been able to point to a single pre-existing evoker from the lore.

    This is like saying the WotLK Death Knights came from nothing simply because Blizzard created new lore to fit them into the classes.
    Wrong. Because, before WotLK, we did have mobs and NPCs around the word named "death knight", and we also had a VIP NPC death knight in the lore: Arthas. Something we can't say the same about the evokers.

    Unless your argument is that your class is based on this NPC, this NPC, this NPC or maybe this NPC?

    What class is Alexstraza, Kalecgos, Chromie, Kairozdormu, Wrathion, etc.?
    Considering the very definition of being an evoker is "being able to freely use all of the five dragonflights' powers", it means that your examples are not evokers.

    I'll ask again: give me examples of pre-existing dracthyr evokers.

    Show me a mortal race that looks identical to Alexstraza in mortal form. You can’t.
    Chromie looks just like any gnome. Nozdormu looks like any other blood elf. Krasus looks like any other blood elf. There's more examples, of course.

    On topic: It would appear that the idea of an ETC-based class is quite unpopular.
    Well, duh. Wasn't that obvious from the get-go considering, in all those "multiple threads where the bard was constantly brought up", no one ever mentioned the ETC as a basis for the class? It's crystal-clear that your sole intent for this thread was to attempt to discredit the bard concept.

    Which failed spectacularly, mind you.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2022-09-04 at 03:48 PM.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  20. #340
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It doesn't necessarily. Again, I'll repeat:
    It literally says it means dragon in your quote. Yeah, it can ALSO mean dragon-adjacent, but it means dragon first and foremost. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

    Alexstrasza is not and never was an evoker, which means by your own "rules" she cannot be the "hero that spawned the class".


    But that goes against your rules, which say we need a pre-existing VIP NPC of the class to allow it to be added.


    Because-- again: by your own rules-- we need a VIP NPC of the class to be added, like you've been saying time and again against the bard concept. And so far you haven't been able to point to a single pre-existing evoker from the lore
    If the Evokers are playable versions of Alexstraza, how can she not be the hero that spawned the class? The class was designed to emulate her and her (and other similar dragon heroes') abilities.

    Wrong. Because, before WotLK, we did have mobs and NPCs around the word named "death knight", and we also had a VIP NPC death knight in the lore: Arthas. Something we can't say the same about the evokers.
    Yeah, but we didn't have any Death Knights from Archerus who could wield frost magic and blood magic. Nor did we have any Death Knights that were Draenei, Goblin, Worgen, Blood Elf, Gnome, etc. All of that lore emerged during WotLK. Are we now going to say that the DK class came from nothing?

    Unless your argument is that your class is based on this NPC, this NPC, this NPC or maybe this NPC?
    They don't share the abilities of those NPCs. They share abilities with NPCs like Onyxia.

    Considering the very definition of being an evoker is "being able to freely use all of the five dragonflights' powers", it means that your examples are not evokers.
    So they're not Evokers because the Evoker abilities that they use are not all housed under one roof like the Evoker class?


    I'll ask again: give me examples of pre-existing dracthyr evokers.
    I already have, multiple times.

    Chromie looks just like any gnome. Nozdormu looks like any other blood elf. Krasus looks like any other blood elf. There's more examples, of course.
    Yet Alexstraza does not. She's the hero this class is largely based on.

    Well, duh. Wasn't that obvious from the get-go considering, in all those "multiple threads where the bard was constantly brought up", no one ever mentioned the ETC as a basis for the class? It's crystal-clear that your sole intent for this thread was to attempt to discredit the bard concept.

    Which failed spectacularly, mind you.
    The poll says otherwise. It came out exactly as I suspected it would. Which doesn't bode well for a Bard class in WoW until a more suitable hero character emerges.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •