If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Triceron]

I find it dubious because the Death Knight had both the Runemaster ingrained within it in WC3

They did not.

If that is your reasoning, then you're kind of fooling yourself.

Though that explains why you think it's dubious too.

[Teriz]

They did not.

If that is your reasoning, then you're kind of fooling yourself.

Though that explains why you think it's dubious too.

When they finally reached Ner'zhul's icy fortress in Northrend they had become dark and brooding. The Lich King offered them untold power in exchange for their services and loyalty. The weary, vengeful warriors accepted his dark pact, and although they retained their humanity, their twisted souls were bound to his evil will for all time. Bestowed with black, vampiric Runeblades and shadowy steeds, Death Knights serve as the Scourge's mightiest generals.

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

[Triceron]

*Runeblades*

So you think Arthas had Runemaster ingrained in him in WC3?

[Imperator4321]

I find it dubious because the Death Knight had both the Runemaster and Necromancer concept ingrained within it in WC3, yet amazingly those related concepts were supposedly in the running to be individual classes. Again, a little too convenient considering the same scenario couldn't happen if the other two choices were chosen instead.

Your kind of stretching a single line "Bestowed with black, vampiric Runeblades" in their description to say it encompasses the entire concept of a runemaster, non of their WC3 abilities involve runes (and are really just evil version of paladin abilities).

From what little we know about the Runemaster concept they had it was a monk or rogue-like melee fighter who "wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers" which is similar to the RPG class in concept.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Runemaster#In_the_RPG

[Teriz]

So you think Arthas had Runemaster ingrained in him in WC3?

Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

- - - Updated - - -

Your kind of stretching a single line "Bestowed with black, vampiric Runeblades" in their description to say it encompasses the entire concept of a runemaster, non of their WC3 abilities involve runes (and are really just evil paladin abilities).

From what little we know about the Runemaster concept they had it was a monk or rogue-like melee fighter who "wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers" which is similar to the RPG class in concept.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Runemaster#In_the_RPG

None of their WC3 abilities needed to involve Runes, all they needed was a basis for the expansion of the concept. Them using Runeblades, and the Lich King used Frostmourne (From which the DKs are based on) being a Runeblade gave them that expansion point.

As for TTRPG Runemasters, Runemasters in WoW itself have never demonstrated Monk-like abilities in any of their appearances. This leads me to believe that the Monk variety of Runemasters is only within the TTRPG environment, and probably discarded completely in favor of the Pandaren monks we eventually got. Which again displays a preference of WC3 concepts over other iterations.

[Triceron]

Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

Then you answered your own question, and you shouldn't have any dubious thoughts regarding Runemaster.

Runemaster has relevance from WC3 and Wrath of the Lich King if you believed Arthas was a Runemaster by default.

[Teriz]

Then you answered your own question, and you shouldn't have any dubious thoughts regarding Runemaster.

Runemaster has relevance from WC3 and Wrath of the Lich King if you believed Arthas was a Runemaster by default.

Except the belief is that Runemaster was a stand alone class concept. Since Death Knight were already runemasters, then the stand alone class concept never really existed in the first place.

[Triceron]

Except the belief is that Runemaster was a stand alone class concept. Since Death Knight were already runemasters, then the stand alone class concept never really existed in the first place.

Right.

Which means your belief was wrong, since the Devs have confirmed their Class considerations goes against your belief, and not in favour of it.

But hey, the koolaid is stronger than truth I guess. I mean, if you think Arthas using runes makes him a Runemaster, you might as well go all the way and say he's a Demon Hunter too since he hunted Demons. Who are we to argue what you believe?

[Imperator4321]

Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

Priests had mana burn a Demon Hunter ability, does that make Priests Demon Hunters? Rogues had evasion does that make Rogues Demon Hunters? Warlocks had metamorphosis for years but that didn't make them "demon hunters" in concept

Pre-WoLK the only example of a character, class or anything WoW related bearing the name "runemaster" was the TTRPG Runemaster, which is a monk-like unarmed fighter who enhances themselves with runes.

Death Knights possessing a runeblade doesn't make them "runemasters" because thats a more specific concept that existed in the TTRPG, before Runemasters appeared in WoW and before Death Knights were given rune-based abilities beyond flavor text.

[Triceron]

Priests had mana burn a Demon Hunter ability, does that make Priests Demon Hunters? Rogues had evasion does that make Rogues Demon Hunters? Warlocks had metamorphosis for years but that didn't make them "demon hunters" in concept

Well, he did argue for years that Demon Hunters weren't gonna be playable because of all the reasons you just posted :P

[Teriz]

Right.

Which means your belief was wrong, since the Devs have confirmed their Class considerations goes against your belief, and not in favour of it.

And again, we have multiple examples of WoW devs being dishonest about future classes and content.

But hey, the koolaid is stronger than truth I guess. I mean, if you think Arthas using runes makes him a Runemaster, you might as well go all the way and say he's a Demon Hunter too since he hunted Demons. Who are we to argue what you believe?

Considering that we have no clear definition of what a Runemaster is, why couldn’t a master user of a rune blades not be considered a “runemaster”?

[Triceron]

Considering that we have no clear definition of what a Runemaster is, why couldn’t a master user of a rune blades not be considered a “runemaster”?

We have a clear definition of what Necromancer is and you still consider the Death Knight to be a Necromancer.

I mean, what point is there to have a clear definition or not? You'd just as likely argue that Arthas was a Demon Hunter because he hunted Demons. Heck, he's even a Blademaster since he mastered the use of a bladed weapon, Frostmourne.

[Teriz]

Priests had mana burn a Demon Hunter ability, does that make Priests Demon Hunters? Rogues had evasion does that make Rogues Demon Hunters? Warlocks had metamorphosis for years but that didn't make them "demon hunters" in concept

Demon Hunters were a defined concept, crystallized by Illidan, the hero unit, and Demon Hunters in TBC. Runemasters had nothing like that.

Pre-WoLK the only example of a character, class or anything WoW related bearing the name "runemaster" was the TTRPG Runemaster, which is a monk-like unarmed fighter who enhances themselves with runes.

And it was never a well defined concept outside of the TTRPG.

Death Knights possessing a runeblade doesn't make them "runemasters" because thats a more specific concept that existed in the TTRPG, before Runemasters appeared in WoW and before Death Knights were given rune-based abilities beyond flavor text.

The problem is that we never saw such a concept in WoW itself. Instead, the concept of runeblades were carried over from WC3 and expanded upon within the DK class. The TTRPG runemaster concept was completely ignored. Even the Runemasters that appeared in WoW were not Monk-like, and actually reinforced the runic concept pushed by the DK class.

[Imperator4321]

And again, we have multiple examples of WoW devs being dishonest about future classes and content.

Considering that we have no clear definition of what a Runemaster is, why couldn’t a master user of a rune blades not be considered a “runemaster”?

Except the Runemaster was a clear concept, from the TTRPG who enhances themselves with runes and fights unarmed

"Runemasters are monk-like arcane spellcaster and melee fighters who empower themselves with magical energies by inscribing runes onto their bodies."
"He merges brute strength with arcane magic, covering his body with mystic tattoos and often imbuing them with magical energies to increase his skill in hand-to-hand combat. "
"Runemasters fill many roles. They are adept melee combatants. They possess runes to enhance themselves and their allies, as well as to ward certain areas and otherwise make life difficult for their opponents."

All of this comes from the TTRPG released years before Wrath of the Lich King.

Death Knights beyond flavor text and lore had no explicitly rune-based powers or abilities, runic power, runeforging all of that was added in Wrath which is after the Death Knight absorbed concepts surrounding the other runner-ups the Runemaster and Necromancer (from which it also got abilities like corpse explosion)

And it was never a well defined concept outside of the TTRPG.

Do you think Blizzard wasn't taking inspiration from the TTRPG when they though of a monk-like fighter who enhanced themselves with Runes? sharing the exact same name as it's TTRPG counterpart?

The problem is that we never saw such a concept in WoW itself. Instead, the concept of runeblades were carried over from WC3 and expanded upon within the DK class. The TTRPG runemaster concept was completely ignored. Even the Runemasters that appeared in WoW were not Monk-like, and actually reinforced the runic concept pushed by the DK class.

We never saw Mistweaving until MoP, the same expansion it was introduced in, same with celestials, chi, chinese style martial arts, there are like 5 NPC's in the whole game who use the title Runemaster, thats like judging what the Monk class would be entirely from the this NPC or judging everything the Demon Hunter class would do from the mobs found in BC.

[Ielenia]

I'm merely asking in what scenario do you have a WotLK expansion and your three choices are DK, Runemaster, and Necromancer and you DON'T go with the DK.

Ask the developers. They're the one that thought the runemaster was a worthwhile addition. And the fact the runemaster was considered, it not only counters the idea that we need WC3 units as a basis, but it also counters the notion that a class must be tied to a 'big hero/villain' in the expansion.

Not to mention your argument here is an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy: "there's no way any other class could be considered because I cannot think of anything."

But those ideas from the other concepts were already wrapped up in the DK concept long before WotLK came around. Again, DKs had concepts from both Runemasters and Necromancers, so in what scenario do you go with those options when you have the more popular concept that encapsulates your other concepts?

They haven't, though. Being able to use necromancy is not exclusive to necromancers. Death knights and dark rangers also use necromancy. And wielding weapons (or amor) with runes engraved on them certainly does not mean the class is a "master of runes", either. Otherwise, my paladin is a runemaster too, then.

Perhaps the same reason they lied about having "no plans" for the Demon Hunter class in early 2015, only to announce the Demon Class in August of the same year.

Wrong. That was not what they said. They said they had no plans to share about the possibility of a demon hunter class, not that they didn't have any plans for the demon hunter.

Or how Blizzard denied that Mists of Pandaria was the next expansion, only to announce Mists of Pandaria as the next expansion a few months later.

Those are nowhere near the same thing as "lying about what classes they have once in the past considered." The Demon Hunter and Mists of Pandaria were only they had no plans they wanted to share, considering that speaking of those ahead of time would spoil the surprise of the reveal. With the runemaster? What exactly are they spoiling about revealing that they once considered the runemaster as a potential expansion class? Nothing.

And again: Teriz, stop dismissing what the developers say when it doesn't fit your narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

Are you really arguing that wielding a runeblade makes one into a runemaster by default?

[choom]

The rune carving aspects of Runemasters was obviously absorbed by Death Knights and the Martial Arts aspect was obviously absorbed by Monks. There's also the problem that we see literally zero Runemasters throughout the entire lore of the playable game. Runemaster is a half baked concept to begin with, cool but it isn't canon.

[Teriz]

Except the Runemaster was a clear concept, from the TTRPG who enhances themselves with runes and fights unarmed

And it isn't canon.

"Runemasters are monk-like arcane spellcaster and melee fighters who empower themselves with magical energies by inscribing runes onto their bodies."
"He merges brute strength with arcane magic, covering his body with mystic tattoos and often imbuing them with magical energies to increase his skill in hand-to-hand combat. "
"Runemasters fill many roles. They are adept melee combatants. They possess runes to enhance themselves and their allies, as well as to ward certain areas and otherwise make life difficult for their opponents."

All of this comes from the TTRPG released years before Wrath of the Lich King.

And again, it isn't canon. In addition, the Death Knight hero predates the TTRPG. Further, we have no example of a TTRPG Runemaster in WoW itself.

Death Knights beyond flavor text and lore had no explicitly rune-based powers or abilities, runic power, runeforging all of that was added in Wrath which is after the Death Knight absorbed concepts surrounding the other runner-ups the Runemaster and Necromancer (from which it also got abilities like corpse explosion)

Again, Arthas using Frostmourne goes beyond simple flavor text. That ties the Death Knight concept to the use of runes and runic power, and the flavor text simply backs up what we see Arthas do throughout RoC and TFT. The hero unit doesn't need explicit abilities to further that theme, it's a part of the lore of the Death Knight itself.

Do you think Blizzard wasn't taking inspiration from the TTRPG when they though of a monk-like fighter who enhanced themselves with Runes? sharing the exact same name as it's TTRPG counterpart?

I don't know where Blizzard took the inspiration for the TTRPG Runemaster from. However, it's awfully interesting that the DK had a hero character (Arthas), had a WC3 hero to define its abilities (DK), and had DKs appear in WoW before its introduction. The Runemaster had none of that treatment. So it's a little hard for me to believe that it was on equal conceptual footing with the DK concept.

We never saw Mistweaving until MoP, the same expansion it was introduced in, same with celestials, chi, chinese style martial arts, there are like 5 NPC's in the whole game who use the title Runemaster, thats like judging what the Monk class would be entirely from the this NPC or judging everything the Demon Hunter class would do from the mobs found in BC.

You're comparing a spec to an entire concept. The Monk class had Chen Stormstout, the WC3 Brewmaster hero, and the entire Pandaren lore and concept. Again, the Runemaster had nothing like that.

[Imperator4321]

The rune carving aspects of Runemasters was obviously absorbed by Death Knights and the Martial Arts aspect was obviously absorbed by Monks. There's also the problem that we see literally zero Runemasters throughout the entire lore of the playable game. Runemaster is a half baked concept to begin with, cool but it isn't canon.

I don't think the Runemasters viability as a class is the question (as you said it's two major aspects runecarving and martial arts have gone to different classes) but the fact that it was considered twice for implimentation (once in classic and again with WoLK) shows that Blizzard doesn't only consider WC3 hero units when it comes to new classes since the Runemaster as a class only existed in the TTRPG

Are you really arguing that wielding a runeblade makes one into a runemaster by default?

You can also add Fire Mages to the list of Runemasters since they used a Runeblade Felo'melorn throughout the entire Legion expansion.

[Teriz]

Ask the developers. They're the one that thought the runemaster was a worthwhile addition. And the fact the runemaster was considered, it not only counters the idea that we need WC3 units as a basis, but it also counters the notion that a class must be tied to a 'big hero/villain' in the expansion.

Except we never got a Runemaster class. Instead every class we got since Vanilla has had a WC3 basis, and is tied to a big hero/villain in the expansion.

Not to mention your argument here is an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy: "there's no way any other class could be considered because I cannot think of anything."

I never made that argument. I'm saying that the supposed conceptual classes which were competing with the DK were already a part of the DK concept, which makes it doubtful that they were ever truly possible independent class concepts.

BTW, the lack of a Necromancer class in Shadowlands reinforces this argument.

They haven't, though. Being able to use necromancy is not exclusive to necromancers. Death knights and dark rangers also use necromancy. And wielding weapons (or amor) with runes engraved on them certainly does not mean the class is a "master of runes", either. Otherwise, my paladin is a runemaster too, then.

You're seriously comparing an item to integral lore surrounding the Death Knight?

Those are nowhere near the same thing as "lying about what classes they have once in the past considered." The Demon Hunter and Mists of Pandaria were only they had no plans they wanted to share, considering that speaking of those ahead of time would spoil the surprise of the reveal. With the runemaster? What exactly are they spoiling about revealing that they once considered the runemaster as a potential expansion class? Nothing.

I never said they were lying. I said that they have been dishonest or misled in the past. For example, Tom Chilton stating rebuking rumors around MoP being the next expansion;

https://web.archive.org/web/20110925...1191590p1.html



What's the reason? As I said before, it makes future classes rather easy to predict. So why not toss a few non-starters into the mix to make people believe they have hundreds of class concepts while we ignore the fact that the last three expansion classes are all from WC3, all major hero characters, and were hinted at years before their debut.

[draugril]

What's the reason? As I said before, it makes future classes rather easy to predict. So why not toss a few non-starters into the mix to make people believe they have hundreds of class concepts while we ignore the fact that the last three expansion classes are all from WC3, all major hero characters, and were hinted at years before their debut.

If I recall correctly, the developers that gave commentary concerning Runemasters had long since left Blizzard.

What motive would they have for lying?