Bard popularity in the eyes of the general audience

[Teriz]

@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.

Whoa now. Where did I say that there couldn't be a Bard class? I'm simply saying that a DnD-style Bard has never been elevated to the level of what would be required to be in consideration for a WoW class. Instead, Blizzard has been pushing this;



And Bard fans have a serious problem with it.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Because you're going from an electric guitar and rock music to riding on the back of a monster beating war drums.

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?

Riding on the back of creature alone changes the fundamental theme, because the point of the Kodo Rider isn't the drums, it's the Kodo eating things. You can equip wardrums without the Kodo.

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.

I never said they needed to stick to a heavy-metal theme, I said they needed to stick to the ETC theme, unless more prominent Bard characters arise in WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

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

No. And that's the fundamental issue in this thread; People don't like the Bard Blizzard is giving them.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant.

So you really think Blizzard is going to put a random NPC Bard on the cover of an expansion?

[Triceron]

Because you're going from an electric guitar and rock music to riding on the back of a monster beating war drums.

Where is the disconnect?

We have Human Priests who use the Holy Light to heal going to Void Elf Shadow Priests who tap into the powers of Old Gods.
We have Wicker Bears and Pterodactyl-men in the same class.

What's the difference? There isn't one. It's a matter of perception, and it's clearly you're blinded by bias. The root concept of a Bard is in performing music with instruments, and that's fundamentally what connects a Heavy Metal inspired concept to a traditional Wardrummer.

No different if your argument was between a Harpist and a Lute player and freaking out that they're using different instruments and wearing different outfits. It seems like you're more concerned about transmogs than the actual class and its mechanics.

Riding on the back of creature alone changes the fundamental theme, because the point of the Kodo Rider isn't the drums, it's the Kodo eating things. You can equip wardrums without the Kodo.

never said they needed to stick to a heavy-metal theme, I said they needed to stick to the ETC theme, unless more prominent Bard characters arise in WoW.

If that's your opinion, then it's clear we disagree.

As for the argument of needing to stick to an ETC at all, there's really no reason why.

What prominent Monk Hero could you point me to that used Mistweaving and Chi?

[Ielenia]

So you really think Blizzard is going to put a random NPC Bard on the cover of an expansion?

I never said that. And that was never the question. You just suddenly brought that out.

But to answer that question: they could also put the BBEG on the cover if it's an already known character, like they did for the Wrath of the Lich King and Cataclysm expansions. Or could just put the relevant races of the expansion on the cover, like they did for Mists of Pandaria and TBC.

[czarek]

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

I know they are. I mean i just dont get it. Music based class doesnt sound for as class anywhere. I know its fantasy but still. i just dont get it.

[Teriz]

Where is the disconnect?

We have Human Priests who use the Holy Light to heal going to Void Elf Shadow Priests who tap into the powers of Old Gods.
We have Wicker Bears and Pterodactyl-men in the same class.

Yes, with priests it's worshipping the light or worshipping the darkness (Old God). It's rather consistent thematically, because you can see how a light-based priest could fall to the whispers of the old gods.

It's far harder to see how a character goes from a rocking, head banging, electric guitar player to riding a Kodo and beating war drums.

What's the difference? There isn't one. It's a matter of perception, and it's clearly you're blinded by bias. The root concept of a Bard is in performing music with instruments, and that's fundamentally what connects a Heavy Metal inspired concept to a traditional Wardrummer.

Just like Monks use pandaren martial arts, not every style of martial arts on Azeroth.

No different if your argument was between a Harpist and a Lute player and freaking out that they're using different instruments and wearing different outfits. It seems like you're more concerned about transmogs than the actual class and its mechanics.

I've discussed the actual class and mechanics; Using 2h weapons and having them double as guitars. Tanks and DPS would split the weapon 50/50 between using the weapon like this;



and this;



And a healer would do the above all the time.

[Triceron]

Yes, with priests it's worshipping the light or worshipping the darkness (Old God). It's rather consistent thematically, because you can see how a light-based priest could fall to the whispers of the old gods.

It's far harder to see how a character goes from a rocking, head banging, electric guitar player to riding a Kodo and beating war drums.

That's all fine and dandy, but you could start by addressing what you said about the concept having to stick to ETC, unless Blizzard creates more Bard Hero characters.

What prominent Monk Hero could you point me to that used Mistweaving and Chi?

I've discussed the actual class and mechanics; Using 2h weapons and having them double as guitars. Tanks and DPS would split the weapon 50/50 between using the weapon like this;

Which is really no different in concept from this

[Teriz]

That's all fine and dandy, but you could start by addressing what you said about the concept having to stick to ETC, unless Blizzard creates more Bard Hero characters.

What prominent Monk Hero could you point me to that used Mistweaving and Chi?

There was no need to use mistweaving or chi. All you needed was Pandaren martial arts. Mistweaving and Chi emerges from those concepts.

Which is really no different in concept from this

Functionally no, stylistically yes.

[Vaedan]

Functionally no, stylistically yes.

So is mistweaver and windwalker monk stylistically different to brewmaster. So is the vengeance demon hunter stylistically different to havoc.

Different specs have different flavors.

Which is really no different in concept from this

I can certainly imagine bard being incorporated in this way. Honestly, transmog would do a lot, since that affect your character appearance mostly. There is lot of potential for many genres.

[Ielenia]

There was no need to use mistweaving or chi. All you needed was Pandaren martial arts. Mistweaving and Chi emerges from those concepts.

In other words, those concepts came from outside of the WC3 unit. Which mean the concept did not stick solely to the WC3 unit. But for some reason the bard class "has to stick" to the ETC character?

Functionally no, stylistically yes.

How can you say it's "stylistically different" but still say that a bear made of twigs and mud and an anthropomorphic pterosaur are "stylistically the same"?

[Triceron]

There was no need to use mistweaving or chi. All you needed was Pandaren martial arts. Mistweaving and Chi emerges from those concepts.

What concepts? Your entire argument is that the concepts HAVE to be derived from a pre-existing Hero character. There is no way to derive Mistweaving and Healing concepts directly from Chen. That is what you mean when you say Bard has to be based on ETC unless they created a new Bard character.

At no point are you allowing traditional music to stem from basic themes of Performance and Musical aptitude. Why? No reason other than an excuse.

You're effectively saying now that they didn't need to make a Monk Hero that had mistweaving in order to create that identity for the Monk. This would apply to Bard then.

Functionally no, stylistically yes.

But specs within a class are also both functionally and stylistically different from one another.

Guardian Druid does not functionally play the same as a Balance Druid or a Resto Druid. And a Wicker Bear is stylistically different from a Zandalari Ankylosaur.

These are still the same class we are talking about.

[Teriz]

So is mistweaver and windwalker monk stylistically different to brewmaster. So is the vengeance demon hunter stylistically different to havoc.

No and no.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, those concepts came from outside of the WC3 unit. Which mean the concept did not stick solely to the WC3 unit. But for some reason the bard class "has to stick" to the ETC character?

Pandaren martial arts = Pandaren Monk = Chi + Mistweaving

Simple.

How can you say it's "stylistically different" but still say that a bear made of twigs and mud and an anthropomorphic pterosaur are "stylistically the same"?

You’re talking about stylistic differences based on race (each race gets unique forms). That’s not the same as stylistic difference within a class based on specialization.

- - - Updated - - -

What concepts? Your entire argument is that the concepts HAVE to be derived from a pre-existing Hero character. There is no way to derive Mistweaving and Healing concepts directly from Chen. That is what you mean when you say Bard has to be based on ETC unless they created a new Bard character.

Again Pandaren Martial Arts = Pandaren Monk = Chi + Mistweaving.

Simple.

At no point are you allowing traditional music to stem from basic themes of Performance and Musical aptitude. Why? No reason other than an excuse.

Traditional minstrel music from the Middle Ages (aka traditional, stereotypical Bard) doesn’t work with a character that plays rock music, powerslides around, and swings around an electric guitar.

You're effectively saying now that they didn't need to make a Monk Hero that had mistweaving in order to create that identity for the Monk. This would apply to Bard then.

But they made a monk hero. The thing is that once they made a monk, they felt it needed a healing spec, thus misteeaver was born.

But specs within a class are also both functionally and stylistically different from one another.

Guardian Druid does not functionally play the same as a Balance Druid or a Resto Druid. And a Wicker Bear is stylistically different from a Zandalari Ankylosaur.

When I say “functionally” I’m talking about the core of a class. In case of Druids, that would be shapeshifting and the use of nature magic, not how different specializations play.

What I’m pointing out with the Bard you posted is the Bard using their instrument as a mace, so yeah it’s functionally similar, but it’s too far off from the style of the ETC to be considered in the same class.

[Triceron]

Nl
Traditional minstrel music from the Middle Ages (aka traditional, stereotypical Bard) doesn’t work with a character that plays rock music, powerslides around, and swings around an electric guitar.

Eh, it's worked since Warcraft 2.

It works fine with the above concept of a traditional bard. It works fine right now if she were rocking out with the Blood elf Electric guitar

But they made a monk hero. The thing is that once they made a monk, they felt it needed a healing spec, thus misteeaver was born.

And your argument has been clearly that healing spec would need to be based off an existing Hero character with that concept and identity.

There was no pre existing Monk character you could point to that used mistweaving. Who would that Monk Hero be? Can't be Chen since he never healed or used Mists. You are clear that it has to stick to the identity, and Chen never healed with Mists.

What Monk hero did that come from?

When I say “functionally” I’m talking about the core of a class.

What I’m pointing out with the Bard you posted is the Bard using their instrument as a mace, so yeah it’s functionally similar, but it’s too far off from the style of the ETC to be considered in the same class.

How is the traditional Bard concept I posted above different? It contains concepts of both playing music and using the lute as a weapon. Seems like you're just being intentionally ignorant here. You aren't addressing what's being presented in front of you, you're falling back on conjecture.

You're just repeating yourself without acknowledging the concept being presented. You're not explaining at all how it is functionally different, especially when you acknowledge it is similar.

And the bigger issue, why would it even matter considering you admit a Vengeance DH is functionally and stylistically different from Havoc.

[Ielenia]

Pandaren martial arts = Pandaren Monk = Chi + Mistweaving

Simple.

ETC = rock = music = bard = harp + lute.

Simple.

Yet according to you, that cannot happen to the bard, it has to stick to ETC and be ETC only, not allowing even a single deviation from the original concept. Despite each and every single class in this game, from the vanilla classes to every single expansion class proving you wrong.

You’re talking about stylistic differences based on race (each race gets unique forms). That’s not the same as stylistic difference within a class based on specialization.

A bear, a cat, an owlbear, a tree. Three very different styles for the same class, for the same race.

[Triceron]

I can certainly imagine bard being incorporated in this way. Honestly, transmog would do a lot, since that affect your character appearance mostly. There is lot of potential for many genres.

Considering this was a winner of the 2020 student art contest, I think even Blizzard considers there merit in the idea and that it indeed fits Warcraft.

[Teriz]

Eh, it's worked since Warcraft 2.

It works fine with the above concept of a traditional bard. It works fine right now if she were rocking out with the Blood elf Electric guitar

An electric guitar that doubles as an axe? yes. A lute? No.

Also that outfit really doesn’t match the theme of the ETC either.

And your argument has been clearly that healing spec would need to be based off an existing Hero character with that concept and identity.

Yeah, it’s based off of Chen Stormstout.

There was no pre existing Monk character you could point to that used mistweaving.

And there didn’t need to be. Once you establish that you’re creating a Pandaren martial arts character, a healing spec based on weaving the mists of Pandaria makes sense. I’m sure Blizzard took a few concepts from the last air bender as well.

How is the traditional Bard concept I posted above different? It contains concepts of both playing music and using the lute as a weapon.

Again, it’s too stylistically different. For example, using a lute as a weapon instead of a 2H mace, sword, or axe that doubles as an instrument.

You're just repeating yourself without acknowledging the concept being presented. You're not explaining at all how it is functionally different, especially when you acknowledge it is similar.

And the bigger issue, why would it even matter considering you admit a Vengeance DH is functionally and stylistically different from Havoc.

Where did I say that? I said that the DH specs are stylistically similar. All specs within a given class are. Specs are simply different iterations of the same class.

[Triceron]

An electric guitar that doubles as an axe? yes. A lute? No.

Also that outfit really doesn’t match the theme of the ETC either.

Transmog solves that issue. It's never been an issue since they opened up that concept in recent expansions to cover practically every piece of gear in the game.

Yeah, it’s based off of Chen Stormstout.

Then traditional music is still based on ETC in the same vein.

ETC = rock = music = bard = harp + lute.

And there didn’t need to be.

Which is the same answer applied to Bard. Where is ETC using traditional music? There doesn't need to be, because it's a reasonable assumption that the concept of traditional music stems from the common theme of performance using instruments. It's that simple.

Specs are simply different iterations of the same class.

Which could adequately explain any differences between an electric guitar and a lute.

Just like certain classes use different weapons in different specs for different roles. A Paladin using a 2H weapon for melee combat differs from a Paladin wielding a spell-mace and shield for healing. Electric guitar and Lute differences could easily be Spec-based.

Or like in the concept above, you could literally design a Lute or Harp to be a viable weapon just the same. Just look in the Blood Elf Bard lute player, she's about to strike with her Lute.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, it’s based off of Chen Stormstout.

And yet you refuse to extend the same courtesy to the bard concept. That's a double-standard.

[Teriz]

ETC = rock = music = bard = harp + lute.

Simple.

Well no. In the ETC concept, the weapon and the instrument are one. So you would have Axes, Swords, and Maces doubling as guitars;



Harps and Lutes wouldn't apply.

Yet according to you, that cannot happen to the bard, it has to stick to ETC and be ETC only, not allowing even a single deviation from the original concept. Despite each and every single class in this game, from the vanilla classes to every single expansion class proving you wrong.

I wouldn't consider the Mistweaver a deviation from the original concept. I would consider it an expansion of the original concept.

A bear, a cat, an owlbear, a tree. Three very different styles for the same class, for the same race.

All housed under the theme of shapeshifting into a creature to fit a specialization.

- - - Updated - - -

Transmog solves that issue. It's never been an issue since they opened up that concept in recent expansions to cover practically every piece of gear in the game.

Yeah, but there's no DnD-style lute weapons in the game. That guitar you posted IS called Sun-Lute of the phoenix king, but it has this in its description;

"Use: Bust out a Face-melter!"

So if you want to consider lutes like that, I suppose that's okay, as long as they continue the rock theme.

Then traditional music is still based on ETC in the same vein.

ETC = rock = music = bard = harp + lute.

See above. The only lute weapon in the game is also utilizing the rock theme from the ETC, not "traditional music".

Which is the same answer applied to Bard. Where is ETC using traditional music? There doesn't need to be, because it's a reasonable assumption that the concept of traditional music stems from the common theme of performance using instruments. It's that simple.

I disagree. Going from a rocker to the pied piper is a huge leap beyond the scope of specialization differences.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet you refuse to extend the same courtesy to the bard concept. That's a double-standard.

Not at all. I'm simply not seeing a framework that supports a traditional Bard, and a traditional Bard really doesn't mesh with the ETC concept.

Which is why on one side we have your idea of DnD style Bards, and on the other, we have Triceron talking about expansions based on Orc songs and dead Windrunners.

[Ielenia]

Well no. In the ETC concept, the weapon and the instrument are one. So you would have Axes, Swords, and Maces doubling as guitars;

Harps and Lutes wouldn't apply.

It would apply perfectly to the theme of the class, plus are perfect for a spellcasting and/or healer spec.

I wouldn't consider the Mistweaver a deviation from the original concept.

Except it literally is, since there is no "tea", no "chi", no "healing" and no "mist" in the original concept.

All housed under the theme of shapeshifting into a creature to fit a specialization.

Much like lutes, guitars, liras and harps would be housed under the theme of music to fit a specialization.

[Triceron]

Yeah, but there's no DnD-style lute weapons in the game.

Are you arguing that they can't create them? Or that they won't?

I disagree. Going from a rocker to the pied piper is a huge leap beyond the scope of specialization differences.

Yes, which is the same huge leap we have between wicker bears and pterodactyl men.

The leaps aren't important as long as there is a fundamental connection to core class themes; which would be centralized around performance and musical aptitude. What is the problem here? Nothing. You just personally don't think it works, and that's fine, it's just not a convincing argument to make. No one else but you has this issue. No one.

It's fine to have an unpopular opinion. As long as everyone clear that's all it is. Your opinion that a Bard built around ETC can absolutely not also contain any traditional music themes whatsoever, for no real reason other than you don't think it would happen. I have no problem with this as long as this is made clear.