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

[Ielenia]

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.

No, it doesn't. You're arguing semantics to back up your points. It doesn't mean "dragons first and foremost."

If the Evokers are playable versions of Alexstraza, how can she not be the hero that spawned the class?

Because, BY YOUR OWN RULES, we need to have a VIP NPC representative of the class to allow for the class to be introduced. This is what you always say: "we need a BARD hero with unique BARD abilities".

And despite me and others constantly asking you, so far you have been unable to provide even a single EVOKER hero, much less one with unique EVOKER abilities.

Yeah, but we didn't have any Death Knights from Archerus who could wield frost magic and blood magic.

Weren't you the one who argued that "vampiric runeblade = blood magic" and "Icecrown/Frostmourne = frost magic"? Yes, you were.

Nor did we have any Death Knights that were Draenei, Goblin, Worgen, Blood Elf, Gnome, etc.

The death knight class isn't defined by "being human", so this point of yours is irrelevant.

Are we now going to say that the DK class came from nothing?

You're being dishonest. I can point at WC3 where we have a unit called death knight, and I can also point at several mobs in WoW pre-WotLK that are called death knight, as well as point out a VIP NPC in the lore that is called a death knight.

So far, you have repeatedly failed to do the same for the evoker.

They don't share the abilities of those NPCs. They share abilities with NPCs like Onyxia.

But Onyxia is not an evoker, which is the whole point of your arguments. You argue that we "need a VIP NPC of the class" before it can be made into a playable version, and, like I pointed out, you failed, repeatedly, to provide a single example of an evoker that existed before the Dragonflight expansion.

So they're not Evokers because the Evoker abilities that they use are not all housed under one roof like the Evoker class?

They're not evokers because they fail at the fundamental definition of the evoker class: to be able to use all five of the dragonflights' powers interchangeably and at the same time.

I already have, multiple times.

You wrongly believe you have. Because, again, dragons are neither dracthyr, not evokers.

Yet Alexstraza does not.

Because she wants to.

She's the hero this class is largely based on.

So you like to claim. Yet I haven't seen any evidence that the class is "based on Alexstrasza". And considering we also have the other four dragonflights in the class, that is unlikely.

The poll says otherwise.

It doesn't. Your poll is misleading, because it's asking a different question than your OP's title and thread.

It came out exactly as I suspected it would.

Because you know that when people think of the bard concept, they don't think of the ETC. Again, your entire OP and poll question were manipulative.

Which doesn't bode well for a Bard class in WoW until a more suitable hero character emerges.

It doesn't mean anything. Because, as per what the monk class has demonstrated, we don't need a pre-existing "major lore character", or even need a hero at all, as shown by the evoker class.

[Teriz]

No, it doesn't. You're arguing semantics to back up your points. It doesn't mean "dragons first and foremost."

No. "Draconic" means dragons and dragon-adjacent

In other words, it means dragons first and foremost.

Because, BY YOUR OWN RULES, we need to have a VIP NPC representative of the class to allow for the class to be introduced. This is what you always say: "we need a BARD hero with unique BARD abilities".

And despite me and others constantly asking you, so far you have been unable to provide even a single EVOKER hero, much less one with unique EVOKER abilities.

A strange argument to make considering that the Evoker is a playable version of a hero character who had unique abilities that the Evoker class now possesses.....

Weren't you the one who argued that "vampiric runeblade = blood magic" and "Icecrown/Frostmourne = frost magic"? Yes, you were.

Why yes, but there wasn't a DK or DK NPC who had those abilities until WotLK.

The death knight class isn't defined by "being human", so this point of yours is irrelevant.

But it was defined by being former Paladins. The DK class abandoned that requirement and established new lore. According to you, that new lore means that the DK class "came from nowhere".

You're being dishonest. I can point at WC3 where we have a unit called death knight, and I can also point at several mobs in WoW pre-WotLK that are called death knight, as well as point out a VIP NPC in the lore that is called a death knight.

So far, you have repeatedly failed to do the same for the evoker.

So your issue is that a WC hero with Evoker abilities was never specifically called an Evoker?

But Onyxia is not an evoker, which is the whole point of your arguments. You argue that we "need a VIP NPC of the class" before it can be made into a playable version, and, like I pointed out, you failed, repeatedly, to provide a single example of an evoker that existed before the Dragonflight expansion.

Which NPC is the Evoker class closer to? Onyxia or those Evoker NPCs you listed?

And you call me dishonest.

They're not evokers because they fail at the fundamental definition of the evoker class: to be able to use all five of the dragonflights' powers interchangeably and at the same time.

So Chromatic dragons are Evokers then?

You wrongly believe you have. Because, again, dragons are neither dracthyr, not evokers.

Blizzard says otherwise.

So you like to claim. Yet I haven't seen any evidence that the class is "based on Alexstrasza". And considering we also have the other four dragonflights in the class, that is unlikely.

Wouldn't the multiple HotS mechanics and abilities transferred over be considered evidence?

Also it's rather obvious why Blizzard wouldn't limit the class to a single dragonflight. Just like they didn't limit DKs to Unholy, Monks to the Brewmaster, and Demon Hunters to Havoc. It's called expanding the initial concept. It's a rather common occurance via class creation.

It doesn't mean anything. Because, as per what the monk class has demonstrated, we don't need a pre-existing "major lore character", or even need a hero at all, as shown by the evoker class.

Hey, look what character my Evoker can play like;

[Triceron]

Hey, look what character my Evoker can play like

Blood Elf Mage can use fire spells just like her too though.

[Ielenia]

In other words, it means dragons first and foremost.

... Because I put the word "dragons" first? That is semantics. Fine. I'll reword it: "it means dragon-adjacent and dragons". Better?

A strange argument to make considering that the Evoker is a playable version of a hero character who...

Who is not an evoker.
Who is not an evoker.
Who is not an evoker.

I'll repeat: a character that is not an evoker.

And by your own arbitrary rules, an evoker hero must exist before the class is created. And we have absolute zero evoker heroes, much less NPCs, that represent the playable class in the game or lore.

Why yes, but there wasn't a DK or DK NPC who had those abilities until WotLK.

Which doesn't matter. Because the concept of the death knight was expanded. For the evoker, we don't even have an evoker NPC to expand from.

But it was defined by being former Paladins.

No, it wasn't. It was defined as a dark knight who utilizes the powers of death.

According to you, that new lore means that the DK class "came from nowhere".

Wrong again. Because we can point at death knight NPCs in the game and lore prior to WotLK.

So your issue is that a WC hero with Evoker abilities was never specifically called an Evoker?

Wrong once again. My issue is that we have no evoker hero that embodies the very concept of the evoker, i.e., being able to use the powers of all five dragonflights at the same time.

Which NPC is the Evoker class closer to? Onyxia or those Evoker NPCs you listed?

It's based on no existing NPC evoker. Which, by your own rules, means the class should not exist. Which is the point.

So Chromatic dragons are Evokers then?

Are you going to claim now that Alexstrasza is a chromatic dragon? Are you going to move the goalposts from "based on Alexstrasza" to "based on the chromatic dragons"?

Blizzard says otherwise.

You are not Blizzard. You are the only one who claims Alexstrasza is a dracthyr.

Wouldn't the multiple HotS mechanics and abilities transferred over be considered evidence?

The same level of evidence of calling Samuro a mage because of mirror image and invisilibity.

Also it's rather obvious why Blizzard wouldn't limit the class to a single dragonflight. Just like they didn't limit DKs to Unholy, Monks to the Brewmaster, and Demon Hunters to Havoc. It's called expanding the initial concept. It's a rather common occurance via class creation.

It doesn't matter. The point here is that Alextrasza (and all the other dragons of the five dragonflights) fail to adhere to the definition of what an evoker is.

Hey, look what character my Evoker can play like;

So can my mage, flinging fire spells all over. Toss on some cool transmog like this headpiece and it gets even better.

[Teriz]

... Because I put the word "dragons" first? That is semantics. Fine. I'll reword it: "it means dragon-adjacent and dragons". Better?

I do believe semantics is ignoring the fact that draconic means dragon simply because you want to highlight the fact that it ALSO means dragon-adjacent.

Who is not an evoker.
Who is not an evoker.
Who is not an evoker.

I'll repeat: a character that is not an evoker.

Yet is the source of the class' attributes and abilities. It's like saying the DKs have no connection to the Lich King because he's called the Lich King and they're called Death Knights.

And by your own arbitrary rules, an evoker hero must exist before the class is created. And we have absolute zero evoker heroes, much less NPCs, that represent the playable class in the game or lore.

Again, Alexstraza and the dragons of WC are those heroes, since they are the source of the class' abilities.

Which doesn't matter. Because the concept of the death knight was expanded.

And the Dracthyr Evoker is an expansion of WC dragon lore.

No, it wasn't. It was defined as a dark knight who utilizes the powers of death.

From WC3:

Death Knights were once virtuous defenders of Humanity. However, once the Paladin ranks were disbanded by the failing Alliance, many of these holy warriors traveled to the quarantined lands to ease the suffering of those left within the plague-ridden colonies. Though the Paladins were immune to disease of any kind, they were persecuted by the general populace who believed that they had been infected by the foul plague. A small band of Paladins, embittered by society's cruelty, traveled north to find the plague's source. These renegade Paladins succumbed to bitter hatred over the course of their grueling quest. When they finally reached Ner'zhul's icy fortress in Northrend they had become dark and brooding. The Lich King offered them untold power in exchange for their services and loyalty. The weary, vengeful warriors accepted his dark pact, and although they retained their humanity, their twisted souls were bound to his evil will for all time. Bestowed with black, vampiric Runeblades and shadowy steeds, Death Knights serve as the Scourge's mightiest generals.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

Wrong again. Because we can point at death knight NPCs in the game and lore prior to WotLK.

And I can point to dragon NPCs in the game lore prior to Dragonflight who housed Evoker abilities and concepts.

Again, your hangup here seems to be that Blizzard didn't call dragons Evokers, which is a rather silly hill to die on.

Wrong once again. My issue is that we have no evoker hero that embodies the very concept of the evoker, i.e., being able to use the powers of all five dragonflights at the same time.

We don't have a hero that has a visage form, can turn into a dragon via certain abilities, and has multiple Evoker abilities?

Are you going to claim now that Alexstrasza is a chromatic dragon? Are you going to move the goalposts from "based on Alexstrasza" to "based on the chromatic dragons"?

Alexstraza HotS had abilities that were later atributed to the green dragonflight in the Evoker class.

So in a way, yes.

You are not Blizzard. You are the only one who claims Alexstrasza is a dracthyr.

You have it backwards. I'm saying that Dracthyr are dragons like Alexstraza, and Evoker is just a name used to categorize the set of abilities utilized by the Dragonflights.

The same level of evidence of calling Samuro a mage because of mirror image and invisilibity.

Let me know when my Mage can play like Samuro from HotS or even a Blademaster from WC3.

So can my mage, flinging fire spells all over. Toss on some cool transmog like this headpiece and it gets even better.

Your Mage can turn into a dragon and fly around burning enemies with flames from above while also healing thier allies?

Show me the video.

- - - Updated - - -

Blood Elf Mage can use fire spells just like her too though.

Where's the multiple fire-based healing spells?

Where's the ability to transform into a dragon?

Where's the flying abilities?

[Ielenia]

I do believe semantics is ignoring the fact that draconic means dragon simply because you want to highlight the fact that it ALSO means dragon-adjacent.

You're treating them as if "draconic" and "dragon" are synonyms. Which they aren't. Again: what you're doing is akin to saying "humanoid" means "human".

Yet is the source of the class' attributes and abilities.

But not an evoker. Which is the whole point since by your rules, the evoker class cannot exist since we don't have evoker NPCs, much less a VIP NPC evoker before Dragonflight.

Again, Alexstraza and the dragons of WC are those heroes,

Again, by your own rules, they're not. Because they're not evokers.

And the Dracthyr Evoker is an expansion of WC dragon lore.

Not even close. Those two are different things.

From WC3:

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

Irrelevant. Because, again, the concept of the death knight is not based on "being an ex-paladin".

And I can point to dragon NPCs in the game lore prior to Dragonflight who housed Evoker abilities and concepts.

Again, irrelevant, because they're not evoker NPCs.

Teriz, we're talking about your rules. Your rules that state evoker NPCs should exist before the class is implemented. You are the one ignoring and/or twisting your own rules when it suits you. That's double-standards.

Again, your hangup here seems to be that Blizzard didn't call dragons Evokers, which is a rather silly hill to die on.

Blizzard isn't calling dragons evokers because dragons aren't evokers. Again: the core characteristic of an evoker is being able to use all five of the dragonflights' powers. Which the dragons you so love to claim are the basis of the class cannot.

We don't have a hero that has a visage form, can turn into a dragon via certain abilities, and has multiple Evoker abilities?

Dracthyr and evokers don't turn into dragons, either. But no, we don't have any evoker characters in the lore.

So in a way, yes.

Just to make this clear: you are abandoning your "evoker is based on Alexstrasza" claim, and substituting it with "evoker is based on the chromatic dragonflight", and you're also now claiming Alexstrasza somehow no longer is a red dragon, but a chromatic dragon now?

You have it backwards. I'm saying that Dracthyr are dragons like Alexstraza,

They're not. That's like equating earthen to mountain dwarves, vrykul to humans, and trolls to elves.

and Evoker is just a name used to categorize the set of abilities utilized by the Dragonflights.

Demonstrably false by definitions both in and out of game.

Let me know when my Mage can play like Samuro from HotS or even a Blademaster from WC3.

So now you're moving goalposts (again)? Because first it was "abilities and mechanics" but now it has to play like the character in HotS too? By that logic, you can't play as Alexstrasza from HotS either, considering she fights in visage form, only transforming into an (actual) dragon for a skill that essentially functions like the DH's metamorphosis.

Your Mage can turn into a dragon

Dracthyr can't turn into dragons, either.

But hey, I can use the Vial of the Sands to turn into a dragon.

and fly around burning enemies with flames from above while also healing thier allies?

Weren't you the one who said a class doesn't have to 100% play like the NPCs?

[Teriz]

You're treating them as if "draconic" and "dragon" are synonyms. Which they aren't. Again: what you're doing is akin to saying "humanoid" means "human".

You do know that if something is related to dragons, that also means dragon correct? Like if I'm talking about something that is car-adjacent, I'm still talking about cars.

But not an evoker. Which is the whole point since by your rules, the evoker class cannot exist since we don't have evoker NPCs, much less a VIP NPC evoker before Dragonflight.


Again, by your own rules, they're not. Because they're not evokers.

We don't have a hero NPC called an Evoker, yet we do have a hero that has the Evoker's attributes and abilities.

Not even close. Those two are different things.

And how are they different?

Irrelevant. Because, again, the concept of the death knight is not based on "being an ex-paladin".

It was originally, until WoW.

Again, irrelevant, because they're not evoker NPCs.

Teriz, we're talking about your rules. Your rules that state evoker NPCs should exist before the class is implemented. You are the one ignoring and/or twisting your own rules when it suits you. That's double-standards.

And like I've said several times, we have Alexstraza HotS who has multiple Evoker abilities and attributes. Her not being called an Evoker is irrelelvant. She has the attributes and abilities of the class, which is why the class in turn is a playable version of her character.

You're doing nothing here but making a semantic argument.

Blizzard isn't calling dragons evokers because dragons aren't evokers. Again: the core characteristic of an evoker is being able to use all five of the dragonflights' powers. Which the dragons you so love to claim are the basis of the class cannot.

And again, what is the name of the class for a dragon that can use the magic of the dragonflights? It isn't dragon because there are dragons who can't use the powers of the dragonflight.

Just to make this clear: you are abandoning your "evoker is based on Alexstrasza" claim, and substituting it with "evoker is based on the chromatic dragonflight", and you're also now claiming Alexstrasza somehow no longer is a red dragon, but a chromatic dragon now?

I'm saying that Alexstraza HotS had abilities that are now associated with the green dragonflight within the Evoker class, which once again lends to the fact that the Evoker class is largely based on her character from HotS.

They're not. That's like equating earthen to mountain dwarves, vrykul to humans, and trolls to elves.

Blizzard never called Earthen Mountain Dwarves, Vyrkul Humans, or Trolls Elves.

They called Dracthyr dragons multiple times. Would you like me to provide quotes, or will you ignore them like you did last time?

Demonstrably false by definitions both in and out of game.

Then what are those set of abilities called?

So now you're moving goalposts (again)? Because first it was "abilities and mechanics" but now it has to play like the character in HotS too? By that logic, you can't play as Alexstrasza from HotS either, considering she fights in visage form, only transforming into an (actual) dragon for a skill that essentially functions like the DH's metamorphosis.

I'm not moving goalposts at all, I'm waiting for you to show me how a mage plays like a Blademaster in any form whatsoever.

Dracthyr can't turn into dragons, either.

You better tell that to Blizzard;

Blizzard
Blue Tracker | Official Post
Dragonflight introduces a new race and class in one known as the dracthyr Evoker, allowing players to play as a dragon (one that can still fit in a raid without crushing your allies.) This hero class begins at level 58 and will have its own starting zone. Players will be able to choose their alignment with the Horde or Alliance at character creation and will be able to take advantage of a slew of new customizations that allow them to match their dragon form closely with their humanoid visage.

Weren't you the one who said a class doesn't have to 100% play like the NPCs?

Except Alexstraza isn't a NPC, she's playable in HotS. Also there's a difference between not being 100% like the NPC, and not being like the NPC at all.

Beyond that, I'm going to take your whataboutism to mean "The Mage has no such abilities".

[Ielenia]

You do know that if something is related to dragons, that also means dragon correct?

Not necessarily. Which is the point. Are you talking about humans when you say 'humanoid'? Are trolls humans?

We don't have a hero NPC called an Evoker,

Then by your own rules, the class cannot exist.

yet we do have a hero that has the Evoker's attributes and abilities.

But does not embody the concept of the evoker, which, again, by your own rules, means the class cannot exist.

And how are they different?

Before WotLK was even announced, I could point out death knights in the lore and in the game. Such as the DKs from Naxxramas, Darion Mograine, and Arthas. I can't do that to evokers.

It was originally, until WoW.

It wasn't. It never was. "Being an ex-paladin" never was anywhere near a core characteristic of the death knight. You could remove the "ex-paladin" completely from the description, that the class remains the same: a dark knight who utilizes necromancy to raise the dead. That is the core definition of the death knight concept. Just like "one who can use all five dragonflights' powers at the same time" is the core definition of the evoker.

And like I've said several times, we have Alexstraza HotS who has multiple Evoker abilities and attributes. Her not being called an Evoker is irrelelvant.

By your own rules, that disqualifies her from being a basis for an evoker class. Especially since she can't do the the thing that is the most defining characteristic of an evoker.

And again, what is the name of the class for a dragon that can use the magic of the dragonflights? It isn't dragon because there are dragons who can't use the powers of the dragonflight.

Do I need to repeat myself? Dragons aren't evokers because they fail to meet the most basic requirement to be an evoker, which is the ability to freely use all five dragonflights' powers at the same time. So what is the name of Chromie's or Kalecgos' classes? I don't know, but I do know it's NOT evoker.

I'm saying that Alexstraza HotS had abilities that are now associated with the green dragonflight within the Evoker class, which once again lends to the fact that the Evoker class is largely based on her character from HotS.

That is not what I said. I asked if you now considering Alexstrasza to be a chromatic dragon, to which you said yes, here. And I'll remind you that HotS is not canon to WoW, and they can do anything they want in that game.

They called Dracthyr dragons multiple times. Would you like me to provide quotes, or will you ignore them like you did last time?

Just like you ignore when Blizzard calls them "hybrids of dragons and mortals"?

Then what are those set of abilities called?

I said definitions, not abilities. Do you think the meaning of "definition" and "ability" are one and the same? It'd explain a lot, if true.

I'm not moving goalposts at all, I'm waiting for you to show me how a mage plays like a Blademaster in any form whatsoever.

Your original argument was "X class is Y character because of W abilities and Z mechanics". The moving of goalposts happened when you added, after the fact, "has to play like it too."

You better tell that to Blizzard;

Don't worry, they know. After all, they have explained that the dracthyr are hybrids of dragons, not actual dragons themselves.

Except Alexstraza isn't a NPC,

... Alexstrasza isn't an NPC. Is that really what you're saying?

Beyond that, I'm going to take your whataboutism to mean "The Mage has no such abilities".

My mage has fire magic, just like Alexstrasza, can turn into a dragon, just like Alexstrasza, and, since you said we don't have to be 100% "like the NPC", then we don't need the healing fire. Although technically you can count "cauterize" as healing fire.

[OMGTwitchTV]

Oh Look... it's a fight between the same two people for the last 10 years. I am pretty sure the OP made this outrageous suggestion simply to illustrate even TINKERS would be preferred to this hot garbage. And this thread will devolve the same way the last 15-20 have. Teriz and Ielenia having a go at one another.

[Teriz]

Not necessarily. Which is the point. Are you talking about humans when you say 'humanoid'? Are trolls humans?

I'm talking about dragons when I said draconic.

Then by your own rules, the class cannot exist.

Where did I ever say that the class has to share the same name as the hero character's class that it's based on?

But does not embody the concept of the evoker, which, again, by your own rules, means the class cannot exist.

Alexstraza HotS has abilities from the Red and Green Dragonflights.

Before WotLK was even announced, I could point out death knights in the lore and in the game. Such as the DKs from Naxxramas, Darion Mograine, and Arthas. I can't do that to evokers.

Because you're being dishonest.

By your own rules, that disqualifies her from being a basis for an evoker class. Especially since she can't do the the thing that is the most defining characteristic of an evoker.


Do I need to repeat myself? Dragons aren't evokers because they fail to meet the most basic requirement to be an evoker, which is the ability to freely use all five dragonflights' powers at the same time. So what is the name of Chromie's or Kalecgos' classes? I don't know, but I do know it's NOT evoker.

The defining characteristic of a Dracthyr Evoker is being and playing a dragon, per Blizzard.

That is not what I said. I asked if you now considering Alexstrasza to be a chromatic dragon, to which you said yes, here. And I'll remind you that HotS is not canon to WoW, and they can do anything they want in that game.

I said "in a way", since she uses Red and Green abilities. And HotS not being canon is irrelevant to the fact that Blizzard is pulling class abilities and concepts from that game.

Just like you ignore when Blizzard calls them "hybrids of dragons and mortals"?

I didn't ignore that. I ignored your opinion that that makes them non-dragons.

I said definitions, not abilities. Do you think the meaning of "definition" and "ability" are one and the same? It'd explain a lot, if true.

You're avoiding the question. Let's try again; What is that set of abilities called? Also what is the class name for Alexstraza, Kalecgos, Wrathion, Chromie, etc.?

Your original argument was "X class is Y character because of W abilities and Z mechanics". The moving of goalposts happened when you added, after the fact, "has to play like it too."

If the class is derived from that character they should play like them as well. DKs play like a playable version of the Lich King. Monks play like a playable version of Chen Stormstout. DHs play like a playable version of Illidan. Evokers play like a playable version of Alexstraza.

Now where is the video showing Mages playing like Samuro?

Don't worry, they know. After all, they have explained that the dracthyr are hybrids of dragons, not actual dragons themselves.

And where is the quote where Blizzard says hybrids are not dragons?

My mage has fire magic, just like Alexstrasza, can turn into a dragon, just like Alexstrasza, and, since you said we don't have to be 100% "like the NPC", then we don't need the healing fire. Although technically you can count "cauterize" as healing fire.

Alexstraza's fire magic heals others, and act as healing spells. Where's the Mage's spells that do that? Also feel free to list the Mage ability that transforms them into a dragon. Please don't list Dragon's Breath. Summoning a magical dragon head isn't turning into a dragon.

[Triceron]

Where's the multiple fire-based healing spells?

Where's the ability to transform into a dragon?

Where's the flying abilities?

Where'a the Evoker'a ability to turn into a Dragon?

Where is their sacrifice life-to-heal spell?

Where is their ability to match health of an ally or heal them to your own max life?

Where is the ability to launch fireballs from the sky to heal allies?

[Teriz]

Where'a the Evoker'a ability to turn into a Dragon?

https://www.wowhead.com/beta/spell=372014/visage

Where is their sacrifice life-to-heal spell?

Not there due to balance reasons.

Where is their ability to match health of an ally or heal them to your own max life?

https://www.wowhead.com/beta/spell=373270/lifebind and https://www.wowhead.com/beta/spell=3...ry-life-binder

Where is the ability to launch fireballs from the sky to heal allies?

https://www.wowhead.com/beta/spell=358267/hover + https://www.wowhead.com/beta/spell=361469/living-flame, or https://www.wowhead.com/beta/spell=359816/dream-flight

Your turn.

[FossilFree]

Sorry, but this isn't the only viable option for bard class. A viable option, sure. But not the only.

I could see a bard class with specs based on 3 things:

Hymnist - harp playing healer (heal-over-time) with all of that Kyrian musician lore
Illusionist - temporary pet (summon and sacrifice) dps/control spec based on the Ardenweald music lore
Wardrummer - dps/buffing spec built around the kodo rider Horde wardrummers with lore going back to WC3

[Teriz]

Sorry, but this isn't the only viable option for bard class. A viable option, sure. But not the only.

I could see a bard class with specs based on 3 things:

Hymnist - harp playing healer (heal-over-time) with all of that Kyrian musician lore
Illusionist - temporary pet (summon and sacrifice) dps/control spec based on the Ardenweald music lore
Wardrummer - dps/buffing spec built around the kodo rider Horde wardrummers with lore going back to WC3

The problem is that there is no cohesion in that class.

For example, what does a Kyrian musician have to do with a Kodo Rider?

[Triceron]

your turn.

None of those actually let you play like Alexatrazsa, they're just generic abilities.

A Mage could approximate all those same things. They even do, like Dragon's breath.

[Teriz]

None of those actually let you play like Alexatrazsa, they're just generic abilities.

You can literally play as a red dragon that can fly in combat and heal your allies and damage your enemies with dragon fire. Your ability to heal is also determined on your health or your targets health, you can bind your life to your target, and can also turn into mortal or a dragon. Where’s the difference from Alexstraza?

A Mage could approximate all those same things. They even do, like Dragon's breath.

Where do they use fire to heal others and bind their life to others? Where do mages transform into a dragon? That’s the core of Alexstraza’s concept as the Lifebinder and the Dragonqueen and Evokers can emulate it without a problem.

[FossilFree]

The problem is that there is no cohesion in that class.

For example, what does a Kyrian musician have to do with a Kodo Rider?

For me, I feel like bards should be available to every race from the start, since music is something common to all. These specs covering disparate themes allows bards to suit different races, rather than just being a human thing or whatever. Kyrian lore based hymnists can cover the human angle, along with their similars like worgen, kul tirans, dwarves, and gnomes (humanish but short). Ardenweald thematics cover the elves quite well, as well as trolls and some beast races. Wardrummers bring the much needed classic Horde thematics to balance out the equation, and can easily fit orcs, tauren, trolls, goblins, etc.

[Teriz]

For me, I feel like bards should be available to every race from the start, since music is something common to all. These specs covering disparate themes allows bards to suit different races, rather than just being a human thing or whatever. Kyrian lore based hymnists can cover the human angle, along with their similars like worgen, kul tirans, dwarves, and gnomes (humanish but short). Ardenweald thematics cover the elves quite well, as well as trolls and some beast races. Wardrummers bring the much needed classic Horde thematics to balance out the equation, and can easily fit orcs, tauren, trolls, goblins, etc.

Yeah, but that’s not how classes work. Classes all have a level of cohesion among all the specs. There are also core abilities that apply to all the class’ specializations. What would be the core abilities here with such disparate specializations?

In addition, you don’t need a class that is varied for it to be open to all races. Monks for example are entirely Pandaren based, yet open to many races.

[qwerty123456]

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.

Alexstraza is a NPC. Show me player Draenei that looks like Velen. Funny how now you are trying to say large differences means they are identical when earlier you were trying to say a slightly different shade of blue means it was totally different.

[Triceron]

You can literally play as a red dragon that can fly in combat and heal your allies and damage your enemies with dragon fire. Your ability to heal is also determined on your health or your targets health, you can bind your life to your target, and can also turn into mortal or a dragon. Where’s the difference from Alexstraza?

Plenty of difference. Let's start with the lack of a dragon form.

Can Evokers turn into a giant dragon like Alexatrasza? Yes or no?