The Bard will be the next class in WoW. Here's why...

[anaxie]

Yeah a tinker is forced to take alchemy and enginnering.

Just like mage is forced to take Enchanting and Inscription and surely not blacksmithing and mining.

Your logic is terrible.

[Ruud]

Deja vu 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 .... you get the point.

[Ielenia]

I was looking at fantasy character archetypes on tvtropes, and it seems a good deal of them are covered in WoW classes, except for a few. To explain, I'll list the current classes, and the archetypes they fulfill. <snip>

For once, just once, I'd like that people who believe their class idea(s) has/have a chance of becoming reality would stop posting theories and opinions as hard facts, starting with the title of the thread...

and as usual:

The only armor class without three classes is mail, meaning the next class is likely to be a mail-wearer

It means absolutely nothing. Nowhere in the game, or the website, or game manual, or anywhere at all saying that we should have an equal number of classes of a specific armor type.

Why the Bard is more likely than the Tinker
But....Demon Hunters....

You're debating opinions. Opinions are not reasons.

But, Bard is a support role, and that's not part of the Holy Trinity

Not only that, but also every class have buffs and CC abilities, making them basically, a 'support'. To make a bard viable as a 'support role', most classes will have to lose their buff and CC abilities.

What about weapons? Don't Bards use musical instruments instead?
As I see it, there are a few ways to accomplish this, all relatively simple to do.

Method 2: Blizzard does not want to add class-restricted items. They're already peeved that bows/guns/crossbows serve a single class after the removal of the 'ranged weapon' slot.

[Coynage]

Yeah a tinker is forced to take alchemy and enginnering.

Just like mage is forced to take Enchanting and Inscription and surely not blacksmithing and mining.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't enchanting get magical power from the dusts/shards used, and inscription from imbued ink/specific scribed words (outside sources), while mages are trained to tap into arcane power (sources they have to expend themselves)?

On the other hand, engineers get their power from physics (outside source), alchemy from magical chemistry (outside source), and Tinkers would likely also derive power from these outside sources, unless they're using technomancy, which I'm not sure exists in the Warcraft universe.

I see that enchanting and inscription use powers similar to mages, but the sources are at least different, at least as far as I can tell.

[Mormolyce]

While this is true, Bards are certainly less objectionable than Tinkers or xXiLLiDanXxs running around. They could easily whip up some Bard lore that's less flimsy than some of the things WoW has had in the past.

Mmm, Tinkers do make sense it's just that way too much of that niche is already occupied by Engineering.

Demon Hunters make so much sense that if it weren't for the fact they were sort of incorporated into Warlocks I'd almost say they're inevitable.

- - - Updated - - -

It means absolutely nothing. Nowhere in the game, or the website, or game manual, or anywhere at all saying that we should have an equal number of classes of a specific armor type.

And indeed WoW has never had an equal number of classes per armour type.

But WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF THERE WAS!?

[Misuteri]

I don't think you're going to see any more classes in this game.

With how few monks were rolled in this expansion as a percentage of played characters, despite being absolutely ridiculous in their assigned roles, I can't see how anyone could be properly motivated to want to level a future class from 1-105/110.

Monks were given every benefit during MoP so they weren't just FOTM they were flavor of the expansion. Yet they were still not widely adopted because 1-90 is just too far to ask casual players to go. Throw in another 20 levels on whatever max level will be two expansions from now and it just isn't going to happen.

If anyone played Phantasy Star Universe, the expert classes concept that game introduced would be far more interesting than a 12th class that even fewer players would ever play at max level than played monks.

[Hitei]

WoW is not designed to allow for a support class, it would either be mandatory or completely useless.

It's not impossible to balance so that it is neither mandatory nor useless, and considering that the vast majority of the game doesn't follow min/max, it really doesn't matter.

If you have 5 DPS, and each does exactly 100,000 DPS, and you have 4 DPS who do 100,000 DPS and a bard who does 80,000 DPS but provides a passive aura that increases party member damage by 5%, both groups will have 500,000 DPS.

Balancing support against DPS/healers isn't impossible, it just requires a little more thinking than the trinity does.

[Shrouded]

It's not impossible to balance so that it is neither mandatory nor useless, and considering that the vast majority of the game doesn't follow min/max, it really doesn't matter.

If you have 5 DPS, and each does exactly 100,000 DPS, and you have 4 DPS who do 100,000 DPS and a bard who does 80,000 DPS but provides a passive aura that increases party member damage by 5%, both groups will have 500,000 DPS.

Balancing support against DPS/healers isn't impossible, it just requires a little more thinking than the trinity does.

Considering WoW already had a support class once, the shadow priest, yes, it's definitely possible.

[Misuteri]

It's not impossible to balance so that it is neither mandatory nor useless, and considering that the vast majority of the game doesn't follow min/max, it really doesn't matter.

If you have 5 DPS, and each does exactly 100,000 DPS, and you have 4 DPS who do 100,000 DPS and a bard who does 80,000 DPS but provides a passive aura that increases party member damage by 5%, both groups will have 500,000 DPS.

Balancing support against DPS/healers isn't impossible, it just requires a little more thinking than the trinity does.

This makes them a mandatory class then for high level PVP. With as bad as they screwed up necessitating Guardian druids in RBG's you're never going to see anything resembling that kind of necessity ever again.

If you have a pretty much dedicated support class that is neither pure tank/DPS/heal it becomes a 4th de-facto role that must be filled for groups bigger than 5.

I only wish that shadow priests had maintained that useful support role instead of being so easily replaced by another DPS.

[Coynage]

It's not impossible to balance so that it is neither mandatory nor useless, and considering that the vast majority of the game doesn't follow min/max, it really doesn't matter.

If you have 5 DPS, and each does exactly 100,000 DPS, and you have 4 DPS who do 100,000 DPS and a bard who does 80,000 DPS but provides a passive aura that increases party member damage by 5%, both groups will have 500,000 DPS.

Balancing support against DPS/healers isn't impossible, it just requires a little more thinking than the trinity does.

This is how I was thinking it would be, you're not losing any dps, just restructuring where it comes from, as well as providing small benefits to the tank(s) and healer(s). It would just be another option on fights where having fewer, but stronger dps sources could be better than more, but average, sources

[Durandro]

Considering WoW already had a support class once, the shadow priest, yes, it's definitely possible.

And that nich is being removed because its impossible to balance properly. So why would they add MORE support roles that are impossible to balance properly?

[Gsara]

Considering WoW already had a support class once, the shadow priest, yes, it's definitely possible.

Lets not forget vanilla wow warlocks. Until AQ, they were mostly just for imp buff on tanks, curses(debuffs) and banish on basically one fight.

OT: Bards will either be full on dps or healing because support rolls arent needed at all. All the buffs and debuffs in the game are covered easily in a 10/25 man and 20 man mythic will be no different, perhaps even easier.

[Issalice]

I've always wanted a Bard class, and I think Blizzard could do it really well. I'd be excited, think it could be neat.

[ro9ue]

I don't think you're going to see any more classes in this game.

With how few monks were rolled in this expansion as a percentage of played characters, despite being absolutely ridiculous in their assigned roles, I can't see how anyone could be properly motivated to want to level a future class from 1-105/110.

Monks were given every benefit during MoP so they weren't just FOTM they were flavor of the expansion. Yet they were still not widely adopted because 1-90 is just too far to ask casual players to go. Throw in another 20 levels on whatever max level will be two expansions from now and it just isn't going to happen.

If anyone played Phantasy Star Universe, the expert classes concept that game introduced would be far more interesting than a 12th class that even fewer players would ever play at max level than played monks.

I don't think Monks weren't popular because no one wants new classes, it's just no one wanted the Monk. Blizzards version of the monk is terrible. DKs were introduced and became super popular. Their flavor was cool and they were interesting.

[FuxieDK]

I was looking at fantasy character archetypes on tvtropes, and it seems a good deal of them are covered in WoW classes, except for a few. To explain, I'll list the current classes, and the archetypes they fulfill.

• Warrior--Fighter/Barbarian
• Paladin--Paladin (oddly enough)
• Death Knight--Dark Knight/Magic Knight/Necromancer
• Hunter--Ranger
• Shaman--Cleric/Elementalist
• Rogue--Rogue/Swashbuckler
• Druid--Druid (another strange origin)
• Monk--Monk/Samurai
• Priest--Cleric/Psion (for shadow)
• Mage--Magician/Wizard
• Warlock--Sorceror/Summoner

Of these archetypes, there are many that aren't exactly fulfilled, but are close enough to a class that their addition would likely be an additional spec (Warlord for Warrior, Templar for Priest/Paladin, DW Ranger/Dark Ranger for Hunter, etc.). Therefore, I feel that the only solid roles that a new class could come from would be the Bard, or a mixture of Engineer/Alchemist (likely in a Tinker class). A more fleshed out Psion could also possibly work, but with all the mind-using powers of the shadow priest, I'm not as sure as with the others.

The only armor class without three classes is mail, meaning the next class is likely to be a mail-wearer

Using D&D as an example, Bards are able to wear chainmail armor without a problem

Why the Bard is more likely than the Tinker

The Tinker, if it became a class, would be highly reliant on technological/magitech creations and various elixirs (if the Alchemist archetype was added, as it was in Guild Wars 2). In my opinion, this would be too close to the in-game professions of Engineering and Alchemy. I really don't see a way this class and profession(s) could coexist. Would Tinkers be forced to take Engineering and Alchemy as professions? Why couldn't someone with those professions have access to a large amount of Tinker spells? Blizz could retcon it as a Tinker having far greater knowledge than Engineers/Alchemists, but surely someone with 600+ points in the professions knows more than low level Tinker.

The Bard, however, has little problem with this. Only a few items (mostly trinkets or 2-handed axes) have anything to do with music, and those can be explained away easily, as non-bards can still play music, Bards would just be taught how to fuse magic with music. Easy peasy.

But....Demon Hunters....

I want Demon Hunters as much as the next guy. Glaives look awesome, blindfolds look awesome, and being Illidan Jr. is pretty awesome. However, I think Blizzard is making it pretty clear that characters wanting to be Demon Hunters should play Warlocks instead, and the likelihood of the DH as a class is getting pretty slim. Here's why,

1. Glyph of Demon Hunting exists, turning Warlocks into psudo-tanks by giving them some demonic features. Warriors don't get Glyph of Paladin-ing, giving them iconic paladin characteristics. It seems like this Glyph was supposed to be the fan service for Demon Hunter enthusiasts
   
2. Demon Hunter spells from Warcraft 3 were given to other classes. Mana Burn was given to Priests, Evasion was given to Rogues, and Immolation and Metamorphosis were given to Warlocks. Monks and Death Knights, on the other hand, kept their WC3 powers.
   
3. It would've been a good time for them in WoD. We're headed back to Draenor, which was Illidan's romping grounds (in the original reality). Demon Hunters could have been placed in as a class very easily here, but they weren't.

How would Blizzard fit Bards into the lore?

Extremely easily. Bards basically sing/tell tales of heroic deeds, and there have been a LOT of heroic deeds in WoW, especially in the last few years. Bard could easily pop up to sing about heroes stopping KJ/killing Arthas/fixing the Cataclysm/defeating Gary/whatever we do in Draenor. In fact, I'm surprised there aren't a ton of bards in-game already singing our praises.

But, Bard is a support role, and that's not part of the Holy Trinity

"World of Warcraft Lead System Designer Greg Street, aka ghostcrawler, along with the game's Technical Director Marco Koegler, told at ChinaJoy 2013 today that they are considering adding a supportive class that focuses on providing buff for the group. He didn't tell any other details about the new class. Another thing that can raise WoW fans' attention was that Greg Street teased this year's BlizzCon is a very good place and perfect time to announce the next expansion." --2p(dot)com/1081218_1/Blizzard-Considering-A-New-Supportive-Class-For-WoW(dot)htm

Even though Ghostcrawler is not on the team anymore, Blizzard could very well still be considering a "buff class." and Bard would be perfect for this. Instead of pumping out pure numbers, the Bard could inspire his allies to improve on their respective rolls, as well as cause the enemies to do less damage and take more. And that could be just one of the bard's spec. He could have another spec as a dedicated healer, mixing helpful buffs with direct healing, and a third spec as a full DPS, either using his jack-of-all-trades style to jump between melee and ranged, whichever suits him best, or attack from afar, mixing magic and music to damage mobs.

In that case, wouldn't you have to play the damage spec if you wanted to quest efficiently at all?

This is more my own speculation rather than reasons for Bard to be a class, but I believe a support/buff style spec would be fully capable of leveling alone. I feel this is accomplishable by writing the spells as such: "Increase X by Y% (split among a maximum of Z party members)." This way, bards are functional solo, in scenarios, in dungeons, and in raids. Say the spell increases damage by 10% split among 5 party members. In a group, everyone would receive a 2% boost, but solo the bard would receive all 10%, allowing him to deal reasonable damage by himself.

What about weapons? Don't Bards use musical instruments instead?

As I see it, there are a few ways to accomplish this, all relatively simple to do.

Method 1, The Monk solution: Similar to Monks, give the Bards whichever weapons needed, but rarely use them. Instead, design a lute (could be the same across the board, could vary based on faction/race/etc) and special strumming/singing animations for most attacks, much like how monks have special unarmed animations. The lute, in this case, would not be counted as an item.

Method 2, Instrumental Bungaloo: Add in instruments as a weapon category, with only Bards having proficiency. In this case, weapons could be either be off-hand weapons, hidden unless using them, or two-handed weapons, again with special animations. This would be more difficult than the first option, but not extremely. All that would need to be done would be sprinkling some instruments in various quests/dungeons, using a few different models for different expansions.

Method 3, the Method that nobody wants: No instrument/strumming animations at all, the bard simply sings. Easiest option, but also the most boring and disappointing. This would be like warriors without weapons, monks without kung fu, or death knights without noobs immediately rerolling to them upon level 55. It's simply iconic.

Nobody would take the Bard seriously, it would be the butt of so many jokes!

Gnomes are playable.

Bards in D&D was a sub-class of Thief, and as such, they wore Leather armor, NOT Chainmail.
For weapon, bows would be logical (could be expanded to crossbow and gun too), which would mean less ranged weapons get DE'ed, when 2 classes use them.

Damn, now it's a copy of Rift Bard....

[Darksoldierr]

Theres no support role anymore, like how paladins and shamans used to be, and a Bard is nothing but support. Doubt we ever see a Bard

[Aviditas]

It's hard to see a bard class come up because I dont recall ever seeing/reading any mention about anyone at all fitting this role. Would they just stubble on a random group of people who can magically sing? Id rather them build a class off current lore instead of spinning off once again to fit something in.

[Toobad]

And this will be the next tinker thread full of circlejerking and denial. Here's why...

Support/buff classes were abandoned long time ago. Ask any paladin how much fun it was to be the support class, when your only job was to constantly cast 5 minute blessings on 39 other people or as an enh shammy, rotate totems so that others could have fun.

Anyway, how would this "support" perform in raids, when you have 10-30 people? Would it stack? If so, wouldn't that be OP? Or would you only need 1 bard per raid? Or would it be only group-wide so that you would actually need 1/2/3/4/5/6 bards to buff each and every group?

Also we have lorewalkers and shit to sing about our heroic deeds, no need for them to take my raid spot.

[Powerogue]

I would want them to be able to attack with their instruments and I want to hear a discordant guitar-string snapping kachunk

The instrument would almost certainly not be a weapon itself if this happened, since classes have increasingly been able to use each other's weapons. Unless rogues are going to be able to dual-wield banjos (please).

[apepi]

But a joke class would never become a real class!.....