Bard popularity in the eyes of the general audience

[czarek]

Ill never get that idea of "bard" beein a thing in any game as playable class. No for me. I just cant go throu this.

[Teriz]

Care to repeat that again? After all, this is what Wrathion says to the dracthyr when you finish their intro experience and learn to use visage in Stormwind.
So, no. "According to lore" it is not the same as what dragons use.

Looks like another example of lore following gameplay limitations.

So now you moved the goalposts from "lore" to "what Blizzard took inspiration from"?

No, they share lore AND Blizzard took the concept from Chromatic dragon lore.

But it didn't "come to us". It came to the faction leaders, and the heroes did what heroes do by answering the call to adventure.

And the Lich King called on us to fix the problem. Again, we didn’t seek it out, it came to us. YOU said that isn’t what a hero does,

Which further disqualifies Alexstrasza as an "evoker representative" since she fails to meet even the baseline requirements.

She partially does, since she is using part of their magic. A fire mage is still a mage for example.

As always, you're blatantly and demonstrably wrong. Repeating a bald-faced lie over and over doesn't make it any less of a bald-faced lie.

Uh how? ETC shows up in WoW. ETC got a HotS hero. ETC shows up in WC3:R. Blizzard just gave the ETC an Hearthstone expansion largely based on its concept. No other Bard concept in WoW is even close to that level of franchise penetration.

Like it or not, if Blizzard makes a Bard class, it’s going to be based on ETC unless something else comes along to supplant the concept.

- - - Updated - - -

Ill never get that idea of "bard" beein a thing in any game as playable class. No for me. I just cant go throu this.

What about a ETC-based bard that can tank, heal, and DPS with 2h Axe, Mace, and Sword guitars.

[Ielenia]

Looks like another example of lore following gameplay limitations.

And this is another example of you backpedaling: "Lore says this!" "Actually, lore says the opposite!" "It's like I've always said: lore follows gameplay!"

No, they share lore AND Blizzard took the concept from Chromatic dragon lore.

Hence: parallels.

The dracthyr have nothing to do with the Chromatic Dragonflight and vice-versa, aside from "both were created by the black dragonflight".

And the Lich King called on us to fix the problem. Again, we didn’t seek it out, it came to us. YOU said that isn’t what a hero does,

The heroes answered the call. That is "seeking adventure". The heroes are not part of a military and have to obey a general. They go if they want. If someone isn't seeking adventure, they wouldn't have answered the call. That's how it works.

She partially does, since she is using part of their magic. A fire mage is still a mage for example.

Except she still isn't an evoker, because Alexstrasza is a dragon, not a dracthyr, which is a requirement to be an evoker as per Blizzard's definition of the class. Also, going off on your example "fire mages are still mages", well, Alextrasza can't use blue dragonflight magic, so she can't even be considered a "devastation evoker" even if we ignore the "not dracthyr" part.

Uh how? ETC shows up in WoW. ETC got a HotS hero. ETC shows up in WC3:R. Blizzard just gave the ETC an Hearthstone expansion largely based on its concept. No other Bard concept in WoW is even close to that level of franchise penetration.

And once again you backpedal, as your initial claim was "the ETC is the only thing we have for bards":

While ETC is a joke that has questionable canon, it’s really all we got for Bards.

And that is the lie I'm calling you out on.

Like it or not, if Blizzard makes a Bard class, it’s going to be based on ETC

Like it or not, you're just deluding yourself if you think your own opinions and wishful thinking are mandatory rules Blizzard is required to follow. Especially since you've been shown to be wrong in that claim over and over in this thread by me and other posters. As long as you keep trying to push the ETC as "the only possible bard for WoW"-- which is clearly done with the obvious intention to discredit the class concept-- people will continue to call you out on it.

[Teriz]

And once again you backpedal, as your initial claim was "the ETC is the only thing we have for bards":

And that is the lie I'm calling you out on.

That hasn’t changed. The ETC IS the only thing WoW has in terms of Bards.

Like it or not, you're just deluding yourself if you think your own opinions and wishful thinking are mandatory rules Blizzard is required to follow. Especially since you've been shown to be wrong in that claim over and over in this thread by me and other posters. As long as you keep trying to push the ETC as "the only possible bard for WoW"-- which is clearly done with the obvious intention to discredit the class concept-- people will continue to call you out on it.

The evidence speaks for itself. Blizzard is pushing a Bard concept, and it’s a Tauren with an electric guitar.

[Ielenia]

That hasn’t changed.

We all know you'll continue repeating your lies no matter how many people correct you and how often they do that.

The ETC IS the only thing WoW has in terms of Bards.

Again, blatantly and demonstrably wrong. Again, your opinion is not fact.

The evidence speaks for itself.

A pity you're not listening to it. You should do that, and stop pushing your own opinion as fact.

[Vaedan]

That hasn’t changed. The ETC IS the only thing WoW has in terms of Bards.

No, it is not. We provided you with evidence. Even if you disregard warsong Battle drummers and other magical uses of music, there is still Winslow, a Death Minstrel, which is clearly bard character in WoW.

It does not matter that he is a minor character. He is the evidence of bards existing within universe.

[Teriz]

No, it is not. We provided you with evidence. Even if you disregard warsong Battle drummers and other magical uses of music, there is still Swinslow, a Death Minstrel, which is clearly bard character in WoW.

It does not matter that he is a minor character. He is the evidence of bards existing within universe.

When I say the ETC is the only thing WoW has in terms of Bards, I’m saying ETC is the only bardic concept likely to be elevated to a class by Blizzard.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, blatantly and demonstrably wrong. Again, your opinion is not fact.

You’re free to give an example of another bardic character that appears in multiple Blizzard products on the level that the ETC does.

[Vaedan]

When I say the ETC is the only thing WoW has in terms of Bards, I’m saying ETC is the only bardic concept likely to be elevated to a class by Blizzard.

When you said that, you chose to ignore facts that does not suit your claims.
You also can't say what concepts will Blizzard elevate and which will be ignored, because nobody knows that. You might be right, but also completely wrong.
As it was repeated multiple times, IF Blizzard chose to introduce Bards, it's completely up to them to build the class. From all implemented classes, they always expanded niche concept into more robust one. It is extremely likely that IF wow gets bards, they will be more than just ETC.

[Teriz]

When you said that, you chose to ignore facts that does not suit your claims.

What facts am I ignoring?

You also can't say what concepts will Blizzard elevate and which will be ignored, because nobody knows that. You might be right, but also completely wrong.

Again, Blizzard has elevated the ETC concept and there’s no evidence of them propping up any other bardic concept. I’m simply saying that based on the current evidence, the ETC is the most likely candidate to form the basis of WoW Bard class.

As it was repeated multiple times, IF Blizzard chose to introduce Bards, it's completely up to them to build the class. From all implemented classes, they always expanded niche concept into more robust one. It is extremely likely that IF wow gets bards, they will be more than just ETC.

But they would have to follow the thematics established by the ETC. So you wouldn’t get a dnd Bard or a Kodorider. You’d get a derivative of the ETC.

[Triceron]

So then you agree that if made playable, Chromatic dragons would also be considered Evokers?

No

I would agree if Blizzard made Chromatic dragons playable, and also allowed them to be Evokers.

No different than asking what other races can be Demon Hunter. Just because a race is playable and the class can be trained doesn't mean we have an answer right now.

At no point could you say Gnomes can be considered Demon Hunters because they are playable and DH is a trainable class concept. Demon Hunter is exclusive to Night elf and Blood Elf, until Blizzard says otherwise, and not any time before that.

Not one note; It's called consistency.

Nah, it's called an excuse.

Your goal is to make the Bard concept look as unappealing as it could be, no different than arguing Monks could only have a singular Alcohol theme to stay consistent, or only use Red dragon magic to stay consistent.

Excuses. Terrible excuses.

The concepts you provided above? They'd still be using the same core abilities, and unique ones based in their specs. Ni different than posting a pic of a Kul Tiran Guardian Druid and a Zandalari Balance Druid. They'd be the same class.

[Vaedan]

What facts am I ignoring?



Again, Blizzard has elevated the ETC concept and there’s no evidence of them propping up any other bardic concept. I’m simply saying that based on the current evidence, the ETC is the most likely candidate to form the basis of WoW Bard class.



But they would have to follow the thematics established by the ETC. So you wouldn’t get a dnd Bard or a Kodorider. You’d get a derivative of the ETC.

As was said thousand times before, Blizzard always expand their class concepts when they implement them in game. It happened on all new classes added to game.

The same will happen for every other new class that will be added, be it bard or whatever else. It is quite clear that bard archetype has lots of potential, which is largely unused within WoW. Bard might not be most request pick for a class, but that might change. Same applied for Dragon based class, which was not really top request either.

Unless you have a crystal ball which shows you the future, you can't say something will or will not happen in some way.

[Urti]

Bards kinda sound like an asspull honestly. Outside of the ETCs, are there ANY noteworthy bardlike characters in Warcraft?
But, Im all for more options over fewer, so what the hell. I'll never play one, but if it makes other people happy, its no skin off my ass.

[Ielenia]

You’re free to give an example of another bardic character

People here have given you many examples, which you all handwaved away because they don't fit your own personal subjective criteria that Blizzard has demonstrated they don't follow.

that appears in multiple Blizzard products on the level that the ETC does.

Irrelevant.

[Teriz]

Nah, it's called an excuse.

Your goal is to make the Bard concept look as unappealing as it could be, no different than arguing Monks could only have a singular Alcohol theme to stay consistent, or only use Red dragon magic to stay consistent.

Except the Monk theme IS consistent. Every Monk spec uses Pandaren Martial Arts, Pandaren Iconography, and can use brews.

You would expect the same from a ETC-based bard.

Excuses. Terrible excuses.

The concepts you provided above? They'd still be using the same core abilities, and unique ones based in their specs. Ni different than posting a pic of a Kul Tiran Guardian Druid and a Zandalari Balance Druid. They'd be the same class.

Druids also have a high level of consistency, all classes do.

[Ielenia]

Bards kinda sound like an asspull honestly. Outside of the ETCs, are there ANY noteworthy bardlike characters in Warcraft?

We literally had no "noteworthy monk-like characters" in Warcraft either, before the Mists of Pandaria expansion, and then we got a continent full of them.

[Teriz]

As was said thousand times before, Blizzard always expand their class concepts when they implement them in game. It happened on all new classes added to game.

Certainly, but they aren't going to expand from the ETC to Winslow Whatever.

The same will happen for every other new class that will be added, be it bard or whatever else. It is quite clear that bard archetype has lots of potential, which is largely unused within WoW. Bard might not be most request pick for a class, but that might change. Same applied for Dragon based class, which was not really top request either.

Unless you have a crystal ball which shows you the future, you can't say something will or will not happen in some way.

It's not about a crystal ball for the future, it's about what we see now.

[Al Gorefiend]

@Teriz @Ielenia

I think both classes are interesting and worthy of Blizzard's consideration (Tinker & Bard).

I really cannot fathom how ridiculous the exchange between you two has become. You are both still debating and bringing up the same points over and over again in this decade long dance of dismissing one another's arguments and insisting the other makes more sense.

To what end? We just got Evoker, a class with absolutely fuck all ZERO basis in WoWs lore. They were made up on the spot and conceptualized within the last few years. Whatever arguments either of you have for a class needing lore, precedence, mass appeal or needing to fill a niche are irrelevant.

While I'm quick to dismiss concepts for classes like Dark Hunter, Necromancer, anything that's already "been done" or can be rolled into existing classes. Neither Bard or Tinker qualify. For every argument that a Tinker is too similar to a Hunter, one can be made a Bard is too similar to a Rogue.

And you know what Evoker is? A mid-range spellcaster that uses Earth, fire, wind and nature Magic, with a healing and DPS spec, and wears mail. Hmm.... HMMMMMMMMM, so exactly like a Shaman right? And now that Evoker exists, how many people think the class is too similar to Shaman? Sure on paper it sounds like a Shaman, it sounds like something done already. But it is nothing like a Shaman, it is an Evoker.

Every potential new class, from Tinker to Bard to Necromancer to Spellsword, can be created and implemented in a way to make all these "it doesn't fit" arguments moot. As much as I personally don't like the idea of a Necromancer or spellsword, it's possible.

I call you two out, because honestly we've all been reading this back and forth exchange between you two over the course of 6+ expansions. Teriz, you even dismissed Demon Hunter as something that will never happen, yep I remember all your threads over the years. I thought it was really cool to see so many of your ideas for Dragonsworn be implemented, some abilities even look like Blizz borrowed them from you directly.
But cmon man, it's getting ridiculous now. You know a Bard is just as feasible as a Tinker. Just because you don't personally want one, doesn't make it unlikely or improbable to happen.

[Triceron]

Except the Monk theme IS consistent. Every Monk spec uses Pandaren Martial Arts, Pandaren Iconography, and can use brews.

You would expect the same from a ETC-based bard.

And what isn't consistent about a Bard that is performing using musical instruments?

You're implying that cultural differences and preference of music somehow changes the fundamental themes of the class, but it's all easily understandable as playing music to provide spell buffs and utility. What would be the difference?

Druids also have a high level of consistency, all classes do.

Yes, as all classes do.

Which is why the Bard works perfectly fine having both Heavy Metal and Traditional (Folk) music themes. All you posted are pictures of different transmogs and instruments being used. No different if you wanted to post a pic of how a Wicker Bear is the same as a Pterodactly-man. They're the same class, regardless of any excuses.

You're free to disagree, all I'm pointing out is the flimsiness of the arguments being presented. You'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that Bards could only stick to a Heavy Metal theme, and that was already apparent in your creatively bankrupt class concept thread.

[Ielenia]

Except the Monk theme IS consistent. Every Monk spec uses Pandaren Martial Arts,

Which did not exist in the WC3 pandaren unit...

and can use brews.

Mistweaver use brews only as a spillover from the brewmaster spec, i.e. the Fortifying Brew ability. The spec itself is about chi healing (absent from the WC3 unit), mist healing (also absent from the WC3 unit) and special teas (also absent from the WC3 unit)

[Triceron]

Bards kinda sound like an asspull honestly. Outside of the ETCs, are there ANY noteworthy bardlike characters in Warcraft?
But, Im all for more options over fewer, so what the hell. I'll never play one, but if it makes other people happy, its no skin off my ass.

People tend to forget the entire Warsong clan was built to be the Warcraft version of music-inspired warriors. The Music-based Support gameplay was then condensed into the Kodorider unit in WC3, a wardrummer that boosts damage of nearby units. That's the type of theme that could be adapted into Warcraft beyond merely 'ETC'.

The Warsong clan was known for their battle-hymns, and using weapons that 'sing' in battle. There's plenty of room to expand on and explore there.