Is a pirate class possbile and would it be like?(speculation)

[Elfezen]

You already have it its called Outlaw Rogue

[Kraddark]

Pirate isn't a class. Its a backstory. Outlaw is already hard to justify. Now you want an entire class built around such a niche theme? Can you imagine how weird it would look? "Pirate" being taken as seriously as Paladin or Mage? Hunters, Rogues and Warriors all have potential for pirate flavor. Just transmog the gear and pretend. That's what role-playing is.

To answer your question: No, a pirate class is impossible.

[OreoLover]

Nope, it's not possbile.

Not possbile at all.

0 possbility.

Impossbile.

Oh, use transmog and play the already existing classes.

[netherflame]

Okay, I already know what your all gonna say: "We already have pirates, just play a rogue" "We just got a new class in legion" "Blizz are too busy with Allied Races", well I say to you, "I want a dedicated pirate CLASS, not a spec" "Doesn't mean we can't have another one" "maybe, but I don't care"

okay so I'll go over my ideas for a special class capital, special features and specs for them

So I think they could congregate in either Freehold or Plunder Isle, where they will be able to choose which crew they will be affiliated with from the Bloodsail Blackwater, Southsea Freebooters, Red Blade, and the 3 crews you encounter in the Freehold dungeoun Council O' Captains fight, and each crew would give you a bonus
Bloodsail; you can purchase blood red pirate themed clothing and are automatically friendly with the Bloodsail Buccaneers faction
Blackwater; you get bonus reputation with any goblin cartel
Southsea; you loot more junk off of enemies
Red Blade; you can choose to become a vampyr
Blacktooth; you are able to fight while disarmed
Bilge Rats; you can give your enemies rabies
Cutwater; you get 2% more gold from quests

Pirates will use leather armor, and be able to have pets in the form of crew members, which can be recruited from humanoid, undead, demons and aberrations, and possibly giants

Each spec focuses on a different form of pirate combat

Buccaneer(tank); you are a brutal brawler experienced with 2 handed combat and are able to stun enemies with swift kicks and punches, as well as a good helping of knockbacks
Gunner(damage); you use explosive shots, and spread explosives around the battlefield which explode after a short duration ,you are able to call upon your ship to unleash sweeping cannon fire as a powerful CD
Privateer(damage); you use 1 handed weapons to strategically hinder your opponents and give you and your allies an advantage
Sea Priest(healing);(thank you @CreatureLives for your suggestion) a melee oriented healer using one 1 hander, and using the power of water to heal your allies

I would love a pirate class, hold on let me log out of my outlaw rogue......before I type the rest of this.....
I don't understand why people want more classes when we already struggle to have the already present classes balanced.

[Lord Pebbleton]

As I always say:
I would have LOVED a pirate classes. I imagined it as wearing a mix of leather and mail (to fit the "scavenge and plunder" theme) and use one-handed weapons and one-handed rifles/guns/crossbows (also allowing hunters to get a dual wield DPS choice).
But as you said, since they gave rogues the pirate treatment, I think that there would be a class fantasy overlap, so we're out of luck.

[yetgdhfgh]

Pirates wasnt some mystical class of warriors from lore they was literally just sailors who went rogue and decided to pillage using what tools they had and what tools they could steal.

Pirates really are just common thieves except they worked at sea instead of the back alleys of London or any other city at the time.

There is nothing special about being a pirate

[Deleted]

OP is actually insane.

[Hottage]

It would be something like a rogue... a Combat Rogue.

We already have a pirate spec: dual wield swords, Pistol Shot. What more do you want?

[Alkizon]

Combat were never pirates/corsairs (even Swashbuckler won't be exactly needed word, but at least it can be usable for your concept). Original branch idea had nothing to do with pirates, like the whole class. Class is what was a key (class isn't something that is defined by its name (since it's not an abstract, but game concept), which is even more true for branch, it's just direction of its development, but not turning it into something different) - there weren't "spec" s*t and never should happened.

The stuff that they pushed with Legion changes - artificial, unviable, utilitarian and limits both representatives of branch as part of the class and separate idea itself. The same goes for survival hunters. This is stupid and not needed.

On the other hand, a separate pirate class could be a little narrow, it might be possible to unite several ideas in one, but what they did is just silly and not true.

If you're smart enough, then you can try to develop working concept (made own, but with more designated key part), in contrast to those scraps that Blizzard offered players.

ps. There is no specialization and its fantasy and should never have been. There is Class and its "class mechanics" and this is only what is really important.

[Psykho]

OP is actually insane.

Have you read my name?

- - - Updated - - -

As I always say:
I would have LOVED a pirate classes. I imagined it as wearing a mix of leather and mail (to fit the "scavenge and plunder" theme) and use one-handed weapons and one-handed rifles/guns/crossbows (also allowing hunters to get a dual wield DPS choice).
But as you said, since they gave rogues the pirate treatment, I think that there would be a class fantasy overlap, so we're out of luck.

I have been thinking recently to change my OP to have them wear mail, also, I think blizz could easily just change the theme of Outlaw spec, make the abilities more thieve or bandit like, wouldn't need to change anything else, perhaps with a gambler undertone

- - - Updated - - -

It would be something like a rogue... a Combat Rogue.

We already have a pirate spec: dual wield swords, Pistol Shot. What more do you want?

How about a spec focused on different types of explosives and mines,

[jackofwind]

does anyone even read the OP these days, I put some pretty cool ideas in it even if I do say so myself

Except you didn't.

Go play Outlaw, there's not enough to support an entire Pirate class. Pirates are just one of the sides of the traditional rogue/scoundrel/swashbuckler/thief archetype.

- - - Updated - - -

How about a spec focused on different types of explosives and mines,

That's no more piratical than a French Grenadier class would be. It's not enough.

You also already have Survival Hunters.

[Tommi]

Buccaneer(tank); you are a brutal brawler experienced with 2 handed combat and are able to stun enemies with swift kicks and punches, as well as a good helping of knockbacks

So Brewmaster?

Gunner(damage); you use explosive shots, and spread explosives around the battlefield which explode after a short duration ,you are able to call upon your ship to unleash sweeping cannon fire as a powerful CD

Old survival hunter?

Privateer(damage); you use 1 handed weapons to strategically hinder your opponents and give you and your allies an advantage

Rogue/Windwalker hybrid?

Sea Priest(healing);(thank you @CreatureLives for your suggestion) a melee oriented healer using one 1 hander, and using the power of water to heal your allies

So old Mistweaver?


So what you want is a monk? :P

[Fritters154]

Look at the top paragraph

Edit; knew I'd get this kind of stuff, even gave it specs as different from Outlaw Rogues as I could

Except Blizz gave all the pirate lore to rogues anyway, so lorewise there is no place for a non-rogue pirate class.

[Stardrift]

a pirate does not have enough lore to dictate a whole class, it does have enough for a spec though, and we have one, rogue has "rogue" "Ninja" and "Pirate"

Don't talk lore until you know lore. Lol
Lore is also a horrid excuse to say no to the possibility of a class. Monks, for example. Demonhunters even. DHs so much so that people often said "DHs are just melee warlocks". (And Blizz agreed)
We've seen time and time again that Blizz can add depth to ideas that seemed too similar and shallow.

Let's get this out there. You just don't like the ideas of pirates as a playable class and that's that. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Crimsonfiend76]

You guys are terrible and remind me of how Demon Hunter wasn't possible because it would kill Rogues and Demo Locks. ...

Well to be fair, as much as I like demon hunters, there was only enough there to pull together one dps spec, plus, have you seen demo locks in legion?? That spec is for all purposes (outside of certain snowflakes out there that stubbornly keep playing it) it is dead and has taken a whole expansion before getting any type of credible rework.

[h4rr0d]

So basically you want a brewmaster monk, pre legion survival hunter, a support (debuffer) spec and restoration shaman to become a new class. I do love pirates as much as the next guy, but pirate isn't class, it's a career.

Much like some of the priests/mages/paladins/warriors became heroes and are now the player characters, some are still serving more mundane jobs in churches, monasteries or serve as guards, anyone can become a pirate really. Just check the Bloodsail. They have mages, melee guys, even priests.

[Alkizon]

Greathoudini
Don't talk lore until you know lore. Lol
Lore is also a horrid excuse to say no to the possibility of a class. Monks, for example. Demonhunters even. DHs so much so that people often said "DHs are just melee warlocks". (And Blizz agreed)
We've seen time and time again that Blizz can add depth to ideas that seemed too similar and shallow.

Let's get this out there. You just don't like the ideas of pirates as a playable class and that's that. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think he doesn't want it, he is just lack of imagination. I have already said that neither new "survival" nor outlaw are fit their classes, so they must be unambiguously saved from these stupid "fantasies". As soon as Blizzard decided something, he obediently refuses his words. He doesn't interfere, devs interfere with their limitations and short-sightedness.

Crimsonfiend76
Well to be fair, as much as I like demon hunters, there was only enough there to pull together one dps spec, plus, have you seen demo locks in legion?? That spec is for all purposes (outside of certain snowflakes out there that stubbornly keep playing it) it is dead and has taken a whole expansion before getting any type of credible rework.

There shouldn't be any demon hunters as class, it should have been a faction (the same thing they're doing now with allied races, this stupid idea and all of them almost fully goes against adequate lore - consequences: whole world is drawn into the war between alliance and horde and is therefore divided into 2 camps (just bipolar, no neutrals or allied/hostile to both), quite obvious stupidity; there shouldn't be allied races, only certain neutral/(not)friendly factions; cause the same story as DH - no lore, just money). They have too narrow specialization and they're too limited in own interests (they are active as long as there is their purpose, and their purpose is very narrow direction). No one will do Argent Crusade/Argent Dawn classes - it's stupid, so why it's not stupid to make demon hunters? It's just a marketing class, that's all. Money, no lore. They abandoned this idea in TBC for a reason, from quite weighty considerations (although, of course, I shouldn't formulate it in such categorical way, but everything speaks for it - in fact, we fought against this faction during TBC).

CreatureLives
Maybe a hero class.

They could use the "Sea Priest" that we keep hearing about.

It could have a Pirate theme. It could use water magic. Uses only one weapon and casts magic with the other. It could also heal while in Melee range.

Think something like this:
Only water instead of fire.

I never like idea of hero classes. Monks have been well introduced in this sense. No hero classes!

...and no *** any stupid spec over class fantasy!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Well+, let's say something simple for understanding. Something that just put the direction. Something that is not a concept, but just some preliminary distant sketch. Let's call this with word I used in previous message - Swashbucler ...something like that.

First of all, we return third functional slot for distance weapons/class' stuff (marks, totems, librams, relics). At the same time we return to all classes what was taking away like panels of aspects/auras/stances/totems and others. Forgetting about stupid ideas such as narrow melee hunter and outlaw. Would not hurt to return also most of cut off characteristics, at least because we need to buff something. Putting Ion's fingers in doorpost, un-pruning all specs of all classes and throw everything that was previously done by Holinka/Celestalon in trash Also we remove all stupid bonuses for "right armor type" - it's not RPG or fantasy. I would remove armor restrictions altogether, but this is too deep, and probably even in a remote perspective isn't very well founded. Just putting tick that max armor type for this class will be mail.

Did you notice anything unusual? YES! Exactly! Blizzard cut RPG component in latest expansions so much that there is nothing to work with, they killed soul of this game, its content and purpose (you even can roughly say that this component is removed, mha-ha-ha, even First Aid will be deleted in BfA (distributing between others)). Therefore, they not just would have problems with something like "new" classes, they have nothing good with what already in game. Further...

---

Branches of class tree (conditionally, without resources/most of abilities use limitation, just preference in operation, you remember that class is key part for us, but not artificial concept as "spec"). So, Honor(int)(bard!+), Luck(agi)(pirate), Courage(str)(headhunter/grenadier).

in suppositive: bard "with magic"+"agile/cunning fighter"+"straight fighter", so they'll withstand own "Jacks of all trades” status
feasible support and help, entertainment and pranks, inspiring by own courage
depending on preferred armor's characteristics spirit/mp5/intellect/agility/strength/defense (according to sequence above) screw a.restrictions

---

Pets ("stances"). (there is link below to concept, in which this role could be played by several musical instruments, also good idea, which removes pets, of course, but unties hands/simplifies stuff in terms of using weapons vs instruments) All representatives begin with a tit/sparrow/grey warbler("bard abilities'/main-resource maintained stance"), a piglet/bunny/mouse("pirate abilities/main-resource maintained stance") and a puppy/kitten/rat("headhunter abilities'/main-resource maintained stance") (naturally, not all at once, but during "stance" switching and developing further with character grows) something like stances/aspects - with pet icons on separate(=auras) panel or may be even better like something chakra alike interface. They are required to use(/substitute) certain abilities, they also can give (hang) buffs (debuffs) to (on) ally (enemy) during battle, but don't participate "actively" in combat (untargetable), actually representing themselves as graphic effects of these abilities, and rest of time spends in random, useless and sometimes funny actions near the owner (rubs against leg, makes pirouettes in the air, teases and stuff). Later, each branch can develop them more deeper (or there may be a separate development panel for animals, but this could be too much). I won't point at branches, but for example - parrot/rooster/hawk/owl/eagle(for honor stance), monkey/rabbit/teddy-bear/hog/war-bear(for luck stance), rat/dog/war cat/panther/wolf(for courage stance) - anything from this (maybe someone else will think up more different). Also for example, most powerful of them could be called up as combat allies (as [warlocks' demons]/[shamans' golems], with big CD, mostly for 1-3 abilities; alternative or illusions) for a short time period. Naturally, all this works with obey standard rules of balance (= if something is good here, then will be worse in another place).

---

Others mechanics and resources:
~morality~ kind of anti-rage: current preferences in using fair/imbue/assist=raise vs dirty/rude/offending=withdraw, their effectiveness indicator (same relation in party members' buffs on its high/low): the higher morale - first abilities works/are-buffed more efficiently, the lower - second ones, condition of some abilities (could be even "stance"-switching, but not very demanding(low/high)/intrusive and still not something that you can forget about completely, eg. 40↑60↓20↔80 if 100 being max value, also could be in -50~+50 span) is certain below/above level of this indicator and rest use just "inspiration", non-consumable → mostly eclipse alike interface?
~vivacity~ "switchable" option: fast vs slow = non-consumable, like [efficiency/quality] vs [speed/quantity] (could also affect movement speed) source more likely as kind of option, player's current choice in fight's dynamism - style, combo-points' area alike (but manipulative - "music's beats/pitch" increase/decrease) interface?
~fortune~ kind of very-slow/characteristics'-depended and stackable resource-buff: failure vs luck, in(resist, dodge chance etc.)/out(crit, hit chance etc.) current actions' success and effectiveness indicator, situational and specially almost uncontrollable, just partially or self-replenished, successful(resource downsizing)/unsuccessful+self-replenished-in-time(resource rising) events and certain abilities could receive the greatest bonus from it being 100% successful and therefore greatly reducing this indicator, hence getting some kind of large CD = restriction in use frequency (moreover, abilities of this category could also “buff” mass ordinary buffs, which will share this resource to other raid/group members, minor temporary fortune buff of buff; or even like: "more or less" significant one-person buff vs light buff to everyone), while others simply don't have “lucky” parameters (they [can't be critical, but are strong enough by themselves]/[can't miss, but have CD/too low effectivity] or something else = balance)
~inspiration~ mana/energy(focus)/rage for separate stances drying mechanics (since they have different source of inspiration = required spent on abilities, kind of as druids; in worst case, resource could be same, but behaves differently depending on “stance”, which, however, isn't so easy to implement, because of possible “quantitative” dependence on characteristics, conversion in this case will have to be carried out based on percentage ratio, so) but! they continue to be spent and piled up during "stances/chakras"-switching as if they were active (they aren't lost with every switch, but continue to grow from mechanics accumulating them (like mana for spirit/mp5, energy by "self-replenishing", rage by auto-hitting, can only with certain penalty for non-compliance with "stance", for example, through x2 increase of "decreasing/consuming" mechanisms and decrease in accumulation, but not to the extent that it constantly begin to disappear after switch, just light penalty), and spent on those that require them (because rare cross-stance abilities will require to consume "inactive" resource from time to time too, but its directly "management" abilities will be completely tied to stances/chakras), since “pets = stances/chakras” are by no means limiters for them or every ability, just only part of it; formally, all 3 resources are constantly actively used): all abilities either have a CD or(/and) consume/restore(/aren't affect) some part of this resource.

All indicators' (base) range can have universal numerical indicator in form of eg. ±10(0), but also (and which is more cunning and more interesting) - depend on certain equipments' characteristics, which in turn, together with character's resources manipulation, will influence choice of your role in current encounter. Complicated? Well, maybe, I don't know. Doesn't matter. Next!

---

Songs and music.
- - - - -
let's face it, Blizzard not going to make separate bard class, they don't have enough imagination, because they had many ways, ex. even to add music through professions (remember drums (leatherworking)), or as it was done with inscription and engineering; for example, give "entertainment" interclass status of additional kind of profession, most of which will be cosmetic fun elements (both in battle and outside of it, effects/character's animations(change or even add/customize some usual macros/emoticons/Dance studio?)/sounds/anything of entertainment), but also part of those used in (before) battle tied to general requirements/bonus-buffs for one or another role (buffing regen and/or giving certain small amount of passive bonus depending on chosen profession's specialization and/or class, while performer loses some part of time and(or) resources-reagents/drops out of active combat to add this buff and then it lasts for some conditionally insignificant time) - in other words, within framework of encounter, adds some useful buttons to characters who aren't much "leaders" for the end result (encounter is closed by elitists without them, but in casual cases, by agreement, "bards" would changing each other adding one or another bonus) - so, with such stuff, anyone could be bard after all // very poor implementation, given their legacy from role-playing lore, but... an option
- - - - -

Bards' discussion was strongly "touched" lately, but! it have a lot of text about music, yes of course it's integral part of their basic lore, but still not only, in this case "speech" is also important, and not only voice and its manipulations, but also specifically “what” character will say/persuade. This mechanic overlaps with priests' "Word:" one, but type of magic there is light/shadow, at the same time, sound manipulations of other classes in vast majority are physic type... still bards, as far as I understand from sources, use for this arcane magic... which a priori cancels relationship of their magic with other similar effects. Am I sinning with logic here?

Abilities of this area have either status “music” (most of which, without talents, can be used only in “channeled” way), or “song”, or both at once. Opponent can interrupt “songs” as magic, all other types of control will suspend abilities' "aura" effect. Works as a buff-group/self-aura (totem that attached to character) and is depicted as effect of barely noticeable[long in time and distance/weak]/vivid[short/strong] waves on surface/sphere with "performer" being their center. Effect accumulates while ally/enemy is in the area of their action, and the closer character is to its center, the more intensively positive/negative effect is stacked, and the longer - the more duration of consequences will be (= opposite effect occurs, if character leaving spell area); not infinite, of course, only to a certain value. Some - preliminary (out of combat), some - channeled, and some can "sing" in battle (in likeness of cries for warriors, this didn't go to deep for them in development, but could; and if we'll also remember banners' system... mmm) and talents, for example, can somewhat change/make their such status more convenient for use. Pirates' branch "songs" are for example with many short/midlle (distance/duration) with an average cd; bard - very long, more radius and varied with little/no cd and lesser "bonus", but with opportunity to stack more/with a higher max potential; headhunters - the shortest (distance/duration), but the most effective and with biggest cd (almost as active screams/cries). Again, these are directions of branches, not restrictions in use (class is all, spec is nothing). Songs of honor, luck and courage (marches to improve movement, battle cries for the battle, and cheerful music for cheering up and entertainment).

---

Additional third slot item. Gentleman's set - icon with "pistol+cannonball with burning wick+lute+whip filling background" (again like librams/totems/marks/relics). I don't like idea of giving any of above, as separate additional weapon, because I don't like when they have restrictions on classes. Let's be honest - Blizzard has problems with balance on all fronts and they don't need any extra weapons, which they had to remember. Cosmetically (visually), it can change along with "pet" during "stances" switching (pistol/lute/cannonball (or whip, or lantern) attached with something to working/secondary arm).
- - - - -
in the worst case, they could just add additional "specific" range weapon (third slot) in the form of double-pistols/pistol+bomb (which will untie their hands regarding use of crossbows, bows and guns by this class, which, however, would much lucker be "glyphic" (one-handed crossbow or other stylistically acceptable mechanism) and “transmogged" range weapon part of G's-set, moreover, its music instrument, like many customizable stylistic little things (totems, traps, etc.), can also be either “selective” or “race-dependent”), and hide other stuff under magic abilities giving to lute "class offhand weapon" status (which will make two-handed weapons partly inaccessible to them, since abilities with “music” status will require this offhand weapon presence), but this is as last resort
- - - - -
Also, speaking of stylistics and transmogrification, there could be introduced class' “gloves” and “boots” that completely replace part of arm/leg with for example... hook, peg leg(s), etc.

Basically, it would be very good for immersion (not for this particular sketch, but in general) to return not only 3rd weapon slot, but also add class&profession backpack, in which character could keep track of own class/professional utilitarian working tools, which were received by passing corresponding quests/qualifications or purchased from merchants/trainers/by self (possibly even with prospect of replacing/upgrading in the future), as well as making most of them involved in the process of interacting with game - requiring use at least upon action's initiation or tied to some "non-combat" abilities.

...and that's it.

---

As for abilities. A lot is logical from what one can guess from the names. They can (which doesn't mean they must and doesn't mean that everything ) shoot pistols, throw some harpoons/hooks/spears, fight with two-handed and one-handed weapons, use whips/lashes/ropes/nets, hitting/throwing bottles, kind of lute hit, different kinds of music/songs stuff or subpar material+, use stuff with coins/dice/cards fantasy, rush with a small amount of explosives and chemicals (not specializing in it, but just as an element, it doesn't take away other classes fantasy due to limited use of such abilities by this particular one) = set ground on fire, cause artillery strikes/broadside and ordinary explosions (also a little self hurt, but a lot hurt to enemy), make a smoke stuff and toxic/disorienting (powder) clouds, anything that is associated with. I repeat, idea isn't attempt to take away tinker or rogue fantasy - only as not a strong, but functional element of class. DH didn't need to take away meta from warlocks permanently, no one would object, it was only Blizzard decision.

In this sense, I somewhat disagree with mention about robots in friend's concept for alike class+ (link in my previous post), but I don't think this was really a concept, rather an attempt to draw company's attention on clear and obvious problem for those classes

wow, two hours, I was a little carried away...

ps. Don't be afraid. Many scold Tinker+, Dragonsworn, Necromancer(old, some words about DKs are different), Chronomancer or Dark Ranger+(some my words about witches) concepts, also Bard alternative ("bard"er, more iconic), but they do exist, people have worked on them in a very good way. Everything is in your hands, go for it

Dusk22
So you pretty much want to strip outlaw and survival away from hunter and rogue and add a bard spec.

Not exactly. They have no stealth, no poisons, no other rogue features (all rogues must have this stuff, it's part of class fantasy), no active pet control (pets are only one of resources manipulation and ability limitations mechanisms), no normal distance weapons, no traps (these are what all hunters must have) - most of abilities have nothing to do with hunters or rogues. And yes, I really want to remove this muck from those classes. But, as always, this is only a recommendation (I'm not OP, if it comes to that). And by the way

Dusk22
I always envisions bards as mail class that can do melee dps, ranged dps and healer. Bards have a better chance of being a new class than a Pirate. There just isn't much you can do being a swashbuckler to justify a whole new class. You'd have to strip existing classes for a slightly different class. We don't need more melee classes.

None of the above contradict with what I suggested. Let's call it - middle-distance fighter, but you can call it Bards with benefits if you want. Or, if you prefer more distant class names, can something like "Witcher/Witch Hunter" suit you? No? Highwayman? Yeah, not much original with having "outlaw" already, also - with "gunslinger" being too narrow equivalent for such concept and not very convenient for interpretation in non-english game versions, maybe spellslinger then?.. And how about steampunk version of "Fortune teller"? Anyway, this would more reflected in concept's stylistic features (tiers/skills'names), rather than class mechanics. Although, more adequate option in this uncertain situation would probably be something like jester or harlequin or trickster (last one, albeit very attractive for this concept, but also can create certain difficulties in name's translation, unless it'd be taken as is). However, this all can greatly weaken bards' "traditionally beloved/characteristic" component. This is same performance, speech, lively mind, but also there is no much music in them. Actually, concept is written from calculation of dominant pirate/adventurer component to match this theme, therefore I fully understand kind of excessive dissatisfaction of some somewhat indignant people here. In any case, if, despite their crooked RPG component/design, a pure bard will somehow appear in game (what I'll be only glad about), then it'll be enough to cut/change part of "musical theme" to for example beguiler's mechanics, and they'll get absolutely "independent" and abstract... well, someone of ones mentioned above.

Hah, I'm not even playing this game anymore somewhat about 3 years (for some different reason, see signature, but who really cares about that?), recently returned for Classic. As I said earlier, modern WoW is too transparent, too superficial, not difficult to understand (I try to avoid word "stupid") in general (they added different unnecessary nonsense to confuse, but if talk in essence, not giving in detail to their erroneous particulars). You don't need to play it to understand where they are wrong with decision. The only required things are to remember game universe design fundamentals and rules and a little of google (or just some smart friends).

[Dusk22]

So you pretty much want to strip outlaw and survival away from hunter and rogue and add a bard spec. Reading all of your abilities sans songs this is exactly these two specs. Bards deserve much better than to be a spec in a rip off hunter rogue hybrid.

I always envisions bards as mail class that can do melee dps, ranged dps and healer. Bards have a better chance of being a new class than a Pirate. There just isn't much you can do being a swashbuckler to justify a whole new class. You'd have to strip existing classes for a slightly different class. We don't need more melee classes.

[Deleted]

Pirates wasnt some mystical class of warriors from lore they was literally just sailors who went rogue and decided to pillage using what tools they had and what tools they could steal.

Pirates really are just common thieves except they worked at sea instead of the back alleys of London or any other city at the time.

There is nothing special about being a pirate

WHat are you on about? There is plenty special about being a pirate. So much so that it in itself inspired one of the best selling movie franchises :/

Wake up...

[LoLcano]

Personally i wish they would give rogue another assassin ish kind of spec and made pirate a separate class instead of shoving a pirate spec into rogue .