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

[draugril]

I'm very open to the idea of Dragonsworn because it simply makes sense. We have Dragon Isles coming up, Dragons are by far a central figure to the Warcraft lore and universe, and their powers and theme are relatively untapped by the classes.

However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system. There are some things that I see in my mind that work better if they approached it as a Covenant system, like splitting each Dragonflight into their own subfaction instead of dividing them up into specs. It'd be difficult to explain how one class has access to all dragonflight powers without it being a case of 'borrowed power' too, since usually Dragonsworn in lore would be followers of just one Dragonflight. It's too early to tell right now, since we know nothing about what they would do with Dragon Isles and how it fits with the overall story.

I honestly think I would be done with WoW entirely if Dragonflights are relegated to a new Covenant system. It would prove they they are entirely bereft of creativity and that there is ultimately nothing to hope for in the future of the game if all they're interested in is preserving a stale status quo.

[Syegfryed]

So you have one example? One single example does not a rule make.

you want to dismiss the example because its just one?

He still was a warrior trainner and a blademaster, point valid.

The mission tables don't exactly match what the characters' classes actually are. They are given "player classes" and "player specs" for ease of understanding and to make the list more concise, as far as I can tell. After all, we have some "Rangaris" being hunters, and others being rogues. And draenei cannot be rogues. And then we have robots without two-handed weapons who are "arms warriors". Then we have Arakkoa being druids despite their lore not exactly fitting the druid thematic. And then we have "fury warriors" wielding a single weapon.

you better pic other examples, cause everything you said fit pretty well, rangari is a organization that does have hunters and rogues, yes, the class option is not available to draeneis, but whats the matter? we still have, to this very day, class options only available to npcs and not players (orc druid, night elf paladin, tauren rogue, goblin monk, etc)

On top of that, Lantressor and other blademasters, have warrior skills only, like i commented before, warrior need to be broad and have other fantasies, the class cannot be blademaster focused only because that is a orcish thing first and foremost, it would not feel right to alliance players, just like its not mountain king only, because is a dwarf thing, and would not feel right to horde, thats why the warrior class is a mix of then and would not make much sense create new classes based on mountain king and blademaster, when they are essentially playable already.

[Ielenia]

you want to dismiss the example because its just one?

He still was a warrior trainner and a blademaster, point valid.

But it doesn't mean "blademasters = warriors".

you better pic other examples, cause everything you said fit pretty well, rangari is a organization that does have hunters and rogues, yes, the class option is not available to draeneis, but whats the matter? we still have, to this very day, class options only available to npcs and not players (orc druid, night elf paladin, tauren rogue, goblin monk, etc)

It's still a demonstration of how the mission table is not a precise (i.e. not reliable) way to determine what is the "class" and "spec" of a character. The rangari were NOT the only examples I mentioned.

On top of that, Lantressor and other blademasters, have warrior skills only,

Just like death knights had warrior and warlock skills? Also, I'll repeat what I said before:

I have not found a single warrior trainer named or titled "blademaster". Also, what exactly to you mean by "tagging blademasters as arms warriors"? I don't think blizzard tags NPCs with "specializations" or even "classes". They just give them abilities that abilities that fit their concept, using abilities from classes when they are "close enough" (like giving Fireball to a tinker) or creating new ones when what they have are not good enough. Again, same link.

I mean, we even have Blademasters with mana. The warrior class doesn't use mana.

Which leads me to believe that the Blademaster, despite its name, could have some spellcasting added to it, considering their ability to go invisible/stealth and to create duplicate images of themselves.

like i commented before, warrior need to be broad and have other fantasies,

"Being broad" does not mean "automatically encompasses everything that wields a weapon".

the class cannot be blademaster focused only because that is a orcish thing first and foremost,

Wasn't the monk class a "pandaren thing first and foremost"?

it would not feel right to alliance players, just like its not mountain king only, because is a dwarf thing, and would not feel right to horde,

We'll cross that bridge when someone advocates for a "mountain king" class. Right now, we're focusing on the Blademaster, and the class' name doesn't really sound like "Horde-only". I see no problem in having human blademasters, draenei blademasters, dwarven blademasters or night elf blademasters, for example.

thats why the warrior class is a mix of then and would not make much sense create new classes based on mountain king and blademaster, when they are essentially playable already.

Not really. The blademaster is arguably not playable considering I don't have the blademaster gameplay on my warrior. I cannot go invisible/stealth and I cannot summon illusory images of my character to confuse the enemy.

[Revamp Man]

I honestly think I would be done with WoW entirely if Dragonflights are relegated to a new Covenant system. It would prove they they are entirely bereft of creativity and that there is ultimately nothing to hope for in the future of the game if all they're interested in is preserving a stale status quo.

Idk why people think it would be better as a covenant when if you add the BfA dragon stuff to Wrathion having his agents you can essentially make a class that is based off of the black dragon empowering you and then you gain the others through the intro quest

[draugril]

To get outside the realm of "possibility" discussion (anything is possible - an artist hid panda doodles, and we got a continent, race, class and expansion out of it), let's talk possible implementation.

Concerning Blademasters, I don't think there's enough to the concept to get a full class out of - I think it much more suitable for it to be a fourth spec for Rogues or Monks. I would have included Warriors, but I think the concept strays too far from Warriors at their core (heavily-armoured brutes) for it to fit in there. They're about finesse, agility, and misdirection, which would fit in well with either of the aforementioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Idk why people think it would be better as a covenant when if you add the BfA dragon stuff to Wrathion having his agents you can essentially make a class that is based off of the black dragon empowering you and then you gain the others through the intro quest

I don't think anyone is saying that another Covenant system is their preference - only that it might be Blizzard's preference. It does fit in very cleanly with the cookie cutter they've been using for the past few years.

[Triceron]

Concerning Blademasters, I don't think there's enough to the concept to get a full class out of - I think it much more suitable for it to be a fourth spec for Rogues or Monks. I would have included Warriors, but I think the concept strays too far from Warriors at their core (heavily-armoured brutes) for it to fit in there. They're about finesse, agility, and misdirection, which would fit in well with either of the aforementioned.

4th spec is possible, but I think just as unlikely as it being its own class. We haven't even seen Dark Ranger added as a class or a spec, and the closest we've ever gotten are two items off Sylvanas. I have a feeling this is the extent that Blizzard is willing to bridge the concepts; just as mere homages rather than incorporating the full kit.

[draugril]

4th spec is possible, but I think just as unlikely as it being its own class. We haven't even seen Dark Ranger added as a class or a spec, and the closest we've ever gotten are two items off Sylvanas. I have a feeling this is the extent that Blizzard is willing to bridge the concepts; just as mere homages rather than incorporating the full kit.

Fair. Although I think this more speaks more to the creative rut that Blizzard is in than anything else. They're completely unwilling to challenge their own model and do anything unpredictable.

[Revamp Man]

I don't think anyone is saying that another Covenant system is their preference - only that it might be Blizzard's preference. It does fit in very cleanly with the cookie cutter they've been using for the past few years.

It fits the class set ups they have used as well
Start off weak and discover powers as you quest for each flight getting introduced to base and spec abilities

[Varaben]

I'd much rather see them create new specs vs. new classes. Add in more ranged specs especially to melee-only classes. Add in a Rogue spec that specializes in throwing weapons and guns, Holy damage paladin and priest, Pet/disease DK (Necro?), ranged DH with eyebeam/bow, you get the idea. Too many melee DPS classes right now vs. their desirability in group PVE. I just think there's so many classes and specs already that the bases are kind of covered.

One thing I'd love to see that will never happen is "support" type specs. Rather than the 1/1/3 setup for dungeons, do a 1/1/1/2 setup where you've got buff/debuff/control classes that specialize in CC, light healing, light damage, buffing, etc. These would largely only be able to do group content, but that's 90% of the end game anyway. Imagine a spec that has AOE stuns and debuffs, instead of healing you'd do combat buffs to the DPS classes, etc. Probably not super useful in dungeons, but in larger group content they would help out with mechanics and stuff like that.

[Triceron]

Was out most of the day, so now I have time to properly respond:

nah, you want to make those things equal, but they are as different as oil and water, and most what i did was to say blademaster are already a thing, and people coming with pichforks saying it wasn't, cause the "real blademaster" is from hots and all other bullshit nonsense, that is beyond their hability or capability of retconing stuff, which i never said was not possible.

Because nothing is mutually exclusive. All of those statements can be true. As we've said, Blizzard has left it completely ambiguous.

They've shown Blademasters with Warrior abilities, and they've shown Blademasters without Warrior abilities. They've made Blademasters who are Warrior Trainers, and they have Blademasters who have nothing to do with the Warrior class. They have Legendary Orc Blademasters, and they have Blademasters of other races that have nothing to do with the Burning Blade clan.

Everything is true. A Blademaster is a type of Warrior. A Blademaster is also its own concept and class. A Warrior NPC can become a Blademaster. A Warrior is also its own Playable class that is not a Blademaster. Nothing here is particularly untrue.

Incorrect, people are "denying my claim" saying bullshit like: 1- blademasters are not warriors, 2-Warrior class have nothing to do with blademasters 3-warriors and blademasters have different themes, fantasy and even skills, 4- blademaster is a monk spec. (all of those points are false btw corrected many times)

1- Blademasters are types of Warriors, but are not formally part of the WoW playable Warrior class.
2- Warrior class has a connection to Blademasters. We know there is a connection because they made a Blademaster NPC a Warrior trainer, meaning that a Blademaster NPC does have connection to Warriors.
3- The Warrior class does not fully represent the Blademaster's themes and concepts. It has critical strikes and Bladestorm, but it does not have Windwalk and Mirror Image.
4- Blademaster is not represented as a playable concept, either by title or gameplay, in WoW. They are neither an Arms Warrior or a Monk Spec. There is factually no way to truly play as a Blademaster in WoW.

What I've presented above are the most factual explanations for the Blademaster. From there, people can take this information and categorize themselves into whichever side they choose; for or against. It ultimately doesn't matter to me because ultimately, the facts are not situated in any way to support one argument more than another. The facts simply tell us that Blizzard has left this concept completely ambiguous whether they intend to have Warriors fully represent a Blademaster or not.

There is no way to 100% define a Blademaster because they have not treated it as its own class or fully integrated it into the Warrior.

i never said it was "impossible" that blizzard did some nonsensical and utterly bullshit thing to just retcon their game and add the same class again under another name with HOTS skills, this is you assuming that.

What i said is: it is highly unlikely that they do that, because warriors are blademasters and already share theme and fantasy(because again, same class), and, is way more likely, aka more possible, to simple give the arms spec more blademaster-ish features or even add a 4th spec to warriors.

Even as a specialized title, we know that Blizzard keeps a fair distance between existing and potential class concepts. Even if they are as closely defined as a Sunwalker is to a Paladin, there is enough for us to define a difference since Sunwalkers specifically derive their powers from the Sun. This is enough to say regard that there *IS* a difference between a Sunwalker and a typical Holy Light-based Paladin. The connection is enough that we can say Sunwalkers are Paladins, but we can't turn it around and say Paladins are Sunwalkers.

Same difference applies to Blademasters. Warriors are not Blademasters the same way Paladins are not Sunwalkers. Sunwalker is a very specific type of Paladin, and even if Blizzard has no intention to make a 'Sunwalker class', it is enough to warrant a distinction in conversation. We can't simply regard all Paladins as being Sunwalkers just because Blizzard has a Sunwalker doing everything a Paladin does. A Paladin can do everything a Sunwalker can do, but they are still rooted with a conceptual difference - that being where they derive their source of energy. We clearly know that there is a difference here, otherwise Blizzard could have simply allowed Tauren to use the Holy Light like Humans and Dwarves alike. It wouldn't even be that out of the question, considering Tauren could opt to learn other cultural things already like Druidism or Gnomish/Goblin Engineering, and their Priests can use old god Shadow magic.

We have to respect the titles and their meanings. If Blizzard has not made all Warriors into Blademasters, then there's really no need to consider that to be a fact. It's not a fact that Paladins are Sunwalkers. It's not a fact that Warriors are Blademasters. You could say all Tauren Paladins are Sunwalkers, and that would work, but you can't apply this in a playable fashion to the Blademaster. The only way this works is if you say all Burning Blade clan Orc Warriors are Blademasters; but we can't formally play as a Burning Blade clan Orc. We simply play as an Orc that is not specifically branded to any particular clan. Not all Orc Warriors are Blademasters either.

There is no case where the Warrior class can actually represent Blademasters any more than the Engineering profession could represent Tinkers. Tinker is a type of Engineer, but Engineers are not Tinkers. Blademaster is a type of Warrior, but Warriors are not Blademasters.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing I'd love to see that will never happen is "support" type specs. Rather than the 1/1/3 setup for dungeons, do a 1/1/1/2 setup where you've got buff/debuff/control classes that specialize in CC, light healing, light damage, buffing, etc. These would largely only be able to do group content, but that's 90% of the end game anyway. Imagine a spec that has AOE stuns and debuffs, instead of healing you'd do combat buffs to the DPS classes, etc. Probably not super useful in dungeons, but in larger group content they would help out with mechanics and stuff like that.

Modern WoW is too heavily focused on homogenized balance. It's never going to stray into looser forms of raid compositions as we had in Vanilla.

Support specs would be ideal, but implausible at this point. This is why I do wish that they could dedicate a team to making a proper Classic+ that adds in parallel content, much like how Old School Runescape adds modern features to the original game, but only features that the audience votes to be added.

I'd imagine an extension of Classic WoW could add in any number of classes like DKs, Runemasters, Necromancers and Bards because the raid compositions were so loose back then, and you're literally bringing a class for their buffs and abilities. It'd just be treated more like Everquest style design, which has tons of different classes, and the game has been so defined that no one cares if you're bringing dead weight to the raid so long as everyone knows the mechanics enough to get a full clear. The individual class balance and chart-topping is less of an incentive to be brought to raid as much as you simply playing a class that brings a certain buff or utility. That's enough to warrant any gimmick class like a Bard or Necromancer to exist.

[draugril]

It fits the class set ups they have used as well
Start off weak and discover powers as you quest for each flight getting introduced to base and spec abilities

Of course! I'm all for it! Nothing would get me more excited for WoW again than a dragon-centric class.

But all I envision is them putting together 5 new sets, making you choose your dragonflight to access those sets, and reskinning a shared new ability or two five times to match each individual flight. That just seems to be the way the wind is blowing.

[Ielenia]

4th spec is possible, but I think just as unlikely as it being its own class. We haven't even seen Dark Ranger added as a class or a spec, and the closest we've ever gotten are two items off Sylvanas. I have a feeling this is the extent that Blizzard is willing to bridge the concepts; just as mere homages rather than incorporating the full kit.

What gives people hope is this is exactly what happened to the demon hunter, is it not? Just 'mere homages rather than incorporating the full kit' with Illidan's warglaives and blindfold back in TBC. And the demon hunter also was considered "too specialized for it to be its own class". And yet we still got the DHs years down the line.

And then we had 'homages' for the monk class in the form of the pandaren monk pet. I don't know, I think it's just as likely, if not more so, that it could become its own class instead of just an "off-spec".

- - - Updated - - -

1- Blademasters are types of Warriors, but are not formally part of the WoW playable Warrior class.
2- Warrior class has a connection to Blademasters. We know there is a connection because they made a Blademaster NPC a Warrior trainer, meaning that a Blademaster NPC does have connection to Warriors.

Honestly, I think the connection between blademasters and the warrior class is not too different from the connection between priests and paladins. One helped teach other other, they share similarities, but are not the same thing.

[Triceron]

What gives people hope is this is exactly what happened to the demon hunter, is it not? Just 'mere homages rather than incorporating the full kit' with Illidan's warglaives and blindfold back in TBC. And the demon hunter also was considered "too specialized for it to be its own class". And yet we still got the DHs years down the line.

And then we had 'homages' for the monk class in the form of the pandaren monk pet. I don't know, I think it's just as likely, if not more so, that it could become its own class instead of just an "off-spec".

Just having hope is meaningless if there's no indication of intent for Blizzard to pursue it.

We know that Demon Hunters had a strong popularity and demand backing it to warrant it being added. It was enough to have an entire expansion be based on tying in loose ends of the Legion invasion of Azeroth, that was hinted at earlier in both MoP and WoD. We have nothing to suggest this same very thing for Blademasters; and their roots are tied to the Burning Blade who don't really play a big role in the foreseeable future.

We don't really have any homages to the Blademaster class at all in terms of hinting at a bigger role in the near future.

At most, I could see them adding them as a part of many other 'Class Skins'. I don't really see 4th spec or their own class being a thing, really. If Dark Ranger was already considered too much effort to add beyond a couple items with Sylvanas HOTS abilities, then I don't see them doing anything special for Blademaster either. They definitely don't have the pull that Demon Hunters would have.

Honestly, I think the connection between blademasters and the warrior class is not too different from the connection between priests and paladins. One helped teach other other, they share similarities, but are not the same thing.

The question is - If the Paladin class did not already exist, would Blizzard go out of their way to add one today. Seeing how they added Demon Hunters so poorly doesn't give me much confidence in their overall class design.

As I said above, if Blizzard stuck more closely to the original Everquest style design where each class has a unique feature and was brought for the class/spec rather than for the player, we'd have a better chance of seeing more races than anything. Right now Blizzard is so laser-focused on maintaining balance that they're opting for borrowed power mechanics and systems that only last for the duration of a given expansion rather than adding a new permanent fixture to the game.

It's really up in the air on what Blizzard chooses to add next, and my money is still on Tinker and Dragonsworn as the top two most plausible concepts, just because of their relevance to future potential concepts and the general popular demand. And overall, If Necro and DR didn't get picked for Shadowlands, I consider Blizzard being overly-careful in choosing any class that is less-than-ideal.

[Ielenia]

Just having hope is meaningless if there's no indication of intent for Blizzard to pursue it.

And we don't know if there is or isn't any, just like we didn't know if there was any for Wrath, MoP and Legion before those expansions went live and revealed their new classes.

The question is - If the Paladin class did not already exist, would Blizzard go out of their way to add one today. Seeing how they added Demon Hunters so poorly doesn't give me much confidence in their overall class design.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. The demon-hunter is a super-specialized concept, while the paladin concept is a broad one: we have the healer, the shield-bearer and the inquisitor roles.

[Syegfryed]

Because nothing is mutually exclusive. All of those statements can be true. As we've said, Blizzard has left it completely ambiguous.

there is nothing ambiguous, unless you are acting like the conspiracy theories, that it most be something grand behind everything.

Everything is true. A Blademaster is a type of Warrior. A Blademaster is also its own concept and class. A Warrior NPC can become a Blademaster. A Warrior is also its own Playable class that is not a Blademaster. Nothing here is particularly untrue.

"not everything is true", blademaster is not his own class, blademaster is a concept/a theme of warriors, that mastered the blade, this is not a matter of finding common ground, blademasters are warriors period, the arms spec is essentially the blademaster in the warcraft fantasy, they share theme, fantasy and skils, period.

They are not a carbon copy because again, warrior need to be broad to fit other themes, it can't be just blademaster, it need to be mountain king, tauren chieftain and others as well.

1- Blademasters are types of Warriors, but are not formally part of the WoW playable Warrior class.

Blademasters are warriors, and, the warrior class, specifically the arms spec is their representation playable.

2- Warrior class has a connection to Blademasters. We know there is a connection because they made a Blademaster NPC a Warrior trainer, meaning that a Blademaster NPC does have connection to Warriors.

We know they have because blademasters are warriors and the arms spec is basically a blademaster.

3- The Warrior class does not fully represent the Blademaster's themes and concepts. It has critical strikes and Bladestorm, but it does not have Windwalk and Mirror Image.

The point is not how much it does, the point is that, inded, represent then, and if they just miss 2 skills, they can just add then and its done, without the necessity of the sutpidy to create a new class for that.

The class theme and concept is not entirelly hostage of those skills, like i said, those skills are more related to the orcish side of the warrior fantasy, it would not feel good to alliance to mimic a horde hero class entirelly, like it would if the fury warrior were just mountain king.

4- Blademaster is not represented as a playable concept, either by title or gameplay, in WoW. They are neither an Arms Warrior or a Monk Spec. There is factually no way to truly play as a Blademaster in WoW.

It is represented by the warrior class, specifically the arms spec, and yes, there is nothing about monks to tie with blademaster.

no way to trully play a blademaster? you have to say what is the "true blademaster" friend, because right now, arms warriors can de facto, play as blademaster without mirror image and windwalk, and surprise, there is blademasters npcs in the game, without those two skills, so you are indeed, playing like a blademaster, just not like all of then

What I've presented above are the most factual explanations for the Blademaster.

nope, its not

There is no way to 100% define a Blademaster because they have not treated it as its own class or fully integrated it into the Warrior.

Blademasters are warriors, that is just facts, they are not treated as its own class, because they aren't, they are not fully integrated into warriors because like i said, two skills is not what define the class and there is reasons of why the spec is not a carbon copy of a horde hero unit.

Even as a specialized title, we know that Blizzard keeps a fair distance between existing and potential class concepts. Even if they are as closely defined as a Sunwalker is to a Paladin, there is enough for us to define a difference since Sunwalkers specifically derive their powers from the Sun. This is enough to say regard that there *IS* a difference between a Sunwalker and a typical Holy Light-based Paladin. The connection is enough that we can say Sunwalkers are Paladins, but we can't turn it around and say Paladins are Sunwalkers.

If you ignore the facts and start going for ehadcanon? yes, "powers derived from the sun" is not a "real" thing, there is no difference in powers betwheen a sunwalker and a paladin, there is no 'light of the sun" and "holy light", both are light, the only difference is the faith, the taurens worship the sun.

This also is a thing i said before, you are confusing titles, names and actual classes, just like far seer are not their own class, blademasters aren't, they are names for a orc shaman and a orc warrior, but, to the ones who "reach greater lv/power"

a paladin, a human paladin, is not a sunwalker because he does not worship the sun, and that is their only difference

Same difference applies to Blademasters. Warriors are not Blademasters the same way Paladins are not Sunwalkers. Sunwalker is a very specific type of Paladin, and even if Blizzard has no intention to make a 'Sunwalker class', it is enough to warrant a distinction in conversation. We can't simply regard all Paladins as being Sunwalkers just because Blizzard has a Sunwalker doing everything a Paladin does. A Paladin can do everything a Sunwalker can do, but they are still rooted with a conceptual difference - that being where they derive their source of energy.

no... Literally, paladins and sunwalker is the same thing, the only difference is their faith, not the source of energy, just like the only difference ebtween a warrior and a blademaster is a name , since some of then aren't considered blademaster, just like not all shamans are far seers, this don't make then their own class, at best a prestige class in rpg terms.

We have to respect the titles and their meanings. If Blizzard has not made all Warriors into Blademasters, then there's really no need to consider that to be a fact.

.

that is absurd, we don't ned to blizzard to make every warrior a blademaster to consider this a fact, is just absurd.

There is no case where the Warrior class can actually represent Blademasters any more than the Engineering profession could represent Tinkers. Tinker is a type of Engineer, but Engineers are not Tinkers. Blademaster is a type of Warrior, but Warriors are not Blademasters.

The thing is tinker can actually be a class, because fuck a shit profession, nobody cares about it and the class will not make the profession any less relevant, there is significant and substantial differences between a profession and an actual class in the battlefield and those are compltely different from the same class with another name, who will, totally steal and delute the actual playable class.

[Triceron]

And we don't know if there is or isn't any, just like we didn't know if there was any for Wrath, MoP and Legion before those expansions went live and revealed their new classes.

We don't know, you are absolutely correct.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. The demon-hunter is a super-specialized concept, while the paladin concept is a broad one: we have the healer, the shield-bearer and the inquisitor roles.

I honestly don't see a difference.

Classes can be specific or broad depending on how Blizzard chooses to implement the class concepts. There's no one way to approach any class design.

Paladin only has 3 roles because Vanilla happened to give them 3 roles, and the game has grandfathered that design to modern day. If we look at the actual role of the Paladin back in Vanilla, it really only existed as a jack of all trades that would have only been brought to raids for the buffs. You weren't even allowed to tank or DPS; you literally were brought to buff. There was no real 'Shield bearer' identity since only Warriors tanked, there was no real 'Inquisitor' since Paladin originally had almost zero offensive Holy abilities, and all DPS was auto-attack + melee procs. The original identity of the Paladin was very basic, and super niche, if they didn't expand on the concept over the years and give them unique traits like Avengers Shield, Beacon of Light and the Holy Power resource.

We don't have that benefit today, where they could just add a Blademaster that was added to the game just because it had Bladestorm, Windwalk and Mirror Image, and over 15+ years get its themes expanded upon and grown to be different from existing Warriors, Monks and Rogues. Today, they would have to retrofit it the same way they did for Demon Hunter, and take abilities and themes from existing classes to carve out space to do so. I mean, we all like to think Blizzard could be more creative, but as I point out I'm basing my expectations on what Blizzard has already done, and they took the path of least resistance for the DH by gutting Warlocks and Monks and reusing their concepts for a new class just so it fits.

I'm not a fan of the modern class design philosophies.

[Syegfryed]

But it doesn't mean "blademasters = warriors".

it indeed does, because what other class was a trainner for another one?

and thank god its not the only factor and we have many to combine

It's still a demonstration of how the mission table is not a precise (i.e. not reliable) way to determine what is the "class" and "spec" of a character. The rangari were NOT the only examples I mentioned.

just because there is some off-shots doe snot mean its not valid, the mission table support things we already knew, Lantressor of the blade was aalwas a blademaster, used warrior skills and is tagged as arms spec, like others

Just like death knights had warrior and warlock skills?

no, you are again using extrapolationa arguments of bygone times

Which leads me to believe that the Blademaster, despite its name, could have some spellcasting added to it, considering their ability to go invisible/stealth and to create duplicate images of themselves.

Nope, none of their skills require mana, this is more or less a reminiscent of the wc3 game, their skills are not magic, therefore its does not need mana, they could use with rage just fine, in fact, in the wc3 they specifically mention "warrior energies" aka, rage.

"Being broad" does not mean "automatically encompasses everything that wields a weapon".

who said that? again, stopa ssuming thing si enver said, im saying it encompasses different warrior cultures among wow races., thats why it can't be focused on only one.

Wasn't the monk class a "pandaren thing first and foremost"?

yes, and? pandarens were not an enemy race, the monk class was introduced at the same time as the pandarens, pandarens were training disciples among horde and alliance, is completely nonsensical to believe the blademaster arts, which are rare even among orcs, would be teached to every warrior race in the alliance.

We'll cross that bridge when someone advocates for a "mountain king" class. Right now, we're focusing on the Blademaster, and the class' name doesn't really sound like "Horde-only". I see no problem in having human blademasters, draenei blademasters, dwarven blademasters or night elf blademasters, for example.

Well thats you, and you alone, i would not, just like i would not like a mountain king in the horde, it does not feel right

The name, was horde only for a long time, until recent times, with some off-shots,

and thats the thing, what is a blademaster for you? if its just the mirror image/wind walk guy, that both is an orcish thing only, how it would feel right to a human use that? they trained with orcs? they made up the same techinique on their own? is just nonsensical as a new class entirelly.

But, times are indeed evolving in the lore in general, and after the class halls, ic an see knowledge among people of the same class being shared, so, some orc blademaster could share their ancestral and ancient techniques to other races, even when that sounds stupid, and the warrior class gain more blademaster-ish abilities, but as a new class? inope, redudnant, pointless and dumb in general

Not really. The blademaster is arguably not playable considering I don't have the blademaster gameplay on my warrior. I cannot go invisible/stealth and I cannot summon illusory images of my character to confuse the enemy.

there is tons of blademasters in the game who do not use wind-walk and mirror image, we can use then as basis and see that we indeed are playing then

- - - Updated - - -

Concerning Blademasters, I don't think there's enough to the concept to get a full class out of - I think it much more suitable for it to be a fourth spec for Rogues or Monks. I would have included Warriors, but I think the concept strays too far from Warriors at their core (heavily-armoured brutes) for it to fit in there. They're about finesse, agility, and misdirection, which would fit in well with either of the aforementioned.

the thing is, blademasters are far more different of rogues and monks combined than warriors.

Monk concept is literally no arms combat as their main thing, and weapons being a side, while blademasters are all about the blade, rogues are also sneaky assassins, something blademasters aren't.

Blademaster are armored as much as orc warriors are, in general, so not a point, but if we are putting 5 specs into play, it would make even more sense to make a spec for warriors, making somewhat a different kind of gameplay, pretty much like some classes ahve dps/tank or ranged/melee dps

[Triceron]

there is nothing ambiguous, unless you are acting like the conspiracy theories, that it most be something grand behind everything.

Then how do you account for all the Blademasters who aren't using Warrior abilities? Who do not use any Warrior abilities whatsoever?

You're implying that a Blademaster that uses zero Warrior abilities to still be a Warrior based on your own belief that they are one and the same.

Warriors do not use any sort of elemental/magical blade enhancements, do not use Windwalk or Mirror Image. We are shown certain Blademaster NPCs who use these abilities, some which do not use any Arms warriors abilities whatsoever.

They are not a carbon copy because again, warrior need to be broad to fit other themes, it can't be just blademaster, it need to be mountain king, tauren chieftain and others as well.

Blademasters are warriors, and, the warrior class, specifically the arms spec is their representation playable.

But it can't be a Blademaster either. All of the MK and Tauren Chieftain tools are represented, but the same can't be said about Blademasters. We know this as a fact. Bladestorm is the *only* ability that the Warrior has that is related to the Blademaster.

On top of this, Arms Warriors can use any weapon. Tthere is no benefit for using bladed weapons, and no indication of any particular mastery of them in the Warrior class. You can swap from a Sword to a Mace and still use Bladestorm. That is not the Blademaster identity. That is a Warrior identity.

The Blademaster is a very niche concept, and a Warrior class breaks all of the niche rules. Same reason why we wouldn't attribute Demon Hunters to Rogues or Warlocks.

We know they have because blademasters are warriors and the arms spec is basically a blademaster.

Arms Warriors use non-bladed weapons equally. More aptly, an Arms Warrior is a Weapons Master, while a Blademaster is a much more dedicated and niche subtype that specializes in Blades, as well as the use of mystical abilities like Windwalk and Mirror Image. It's a concept that Blizzard has not formally inducted into the Warrior at all.

If you're just talking about a Warrior who uses Katanas, then you're not talking about a Blademaster like Samuro.

The point is not how much it does, the point is that, inded, represent then, and if they just miss 2 skills, they can just add then and its done, without the necessity of the sutpidy to create a new class for that.

Yes, so until they add those missing skills, they are not actually Blademasters. You see the paradox you're facing right?


All it takes to make a Hawaiian pizza is add pineapples to a ham pizza. Would you still call it a Hawaiian pizza if it didn't have pineapples? You're using specific terms for something that isn't actually being represented. Bladestorm is just the Ham; something which any Warropr spec could use. Only recently did they change it to be default to Arms and as a Talent pick for Fury. The ability is generic enough that even Felguards had it in TBC in the form of Felstorm.

All you have is the ham, and you're missing the other key ingredients to make it Hawaiian. Warriors have the *potential* to become Blademasters, just as a Ham pizza has the *potential* of becoming a Hawaiian pizza. But until that key missing ingredient is added, you can't really push them as being one and the same.

Everyone who knows what a Hawaiian pizza is will knowingly expect to see pineapple. Anyone who knows what a Blademaster is will expect to see Windwalk and Mirror Image.

And even if you personally think Blademasters are Warriors, you're really not fooling anyone else if you think anyone else considers the Arms Warrior without Windwalk and Mirror Image is going to be passable as a Blademaster. Everyone is expecting the missing ingredients if you're going to be using the name.

I mean everyone will agree if you say Hawaiian is a type of Ham Pizza, but there's no way you can have a Hawaiian pizza without the pineapples.

[Ielenia]

it indeed does, because what other class was a trainner for another one?

He's not a trainer anymore, is he? Anyways, just because he used to be a warrior trainer doesn't make him a warrior. Ever heard of the old saying "I've taught you all you know, but I haven't taught you all I know"?

and thank god its not the only factor and we have many to combine

Except that is the only factor about that particular NPC.

just because there is some off-shots doe snot mean its not valid,

So.... does "some off-shots" count, or do not count? Because above you are counting the single "ex-trainer" blademaster NPC despite being what could be called "an off-shot", but here you are dismissing several off-shots as being "just off-shots".

the mission table support things we already knew, Lantressor of the blade was aalwas a blademaster, used warrior skills and is tagged as arms spec, like others

Again: the "tagged as arms spec" can be explained as just being WoD's table way of adequating NPCs to player classes for a simpler and concise list. Need I remind you of all those "off-shots" you just dismissed?

no, you are again using extrapolationa arguments of bygone times

If the argument still holds up today, I can use it.

Nope, none of their skills require mana, this is more or less a reminiscent of the wc3 game, their skills are not magic, therefore its does not need mana, they could use with rage just fine, in fact, in the wc3 they specifically mention "warrior energies" aka, rage.

Then explain to me how can someone go invisible (not stealth, but invisible) without using magic. And on that same boat, do explain how one can create duplicates of themselves without using magic as well.

who said that? again, stopa ssuming thing si enver said, im saying it encompasses different warrior cultures among wow races., thats why it can't be focused on only one.

Learn to discern hyperbole. And again: just because the warrior class is "broad" it doesn't mean it encompasses all the warrior cultures. Especially since we consider that the warrior class, just like all the classes in the game-- broad or not-- is limited in what it can represent due to the way Blizzard designs the classes' specs. You don't get "blademaster" representation from any of the warrior specs, just like you don't get "dark ranger" representation from any of the hunter specs.

yes, and? pandarens were not an enemy race, the monk class was introduced at the same time as the pandarens, pandarens were training disciples among horde and alliance, is completely nonsensical to believe the blademaster arts, which are rare even among orcs, would be teached to every warrior race in the alliance.

The death knight is a class exclusive to an "enemy race" (the Scourge) and yet literally every member of both factions can make death knights. If Blizzard wants to make blademasters playable, they'll find a way to make the class available for both sides.

and thats the thing, what is a blademaster for you? if its just the mirror image/wind walk guy, that both is an orcish thing only, how it would feel right to a human use that? they trained with orcs? they made up the same techinique on their own? is just nonsensical as a new class entirelly.

Same as above.

there is tons of blademasters in the game who do not use wind-walk and mirror image, we can use then as basis and see that we indeed are playing then

Which could mean that they are "blademasters" in title only, and not the actual "blademaster" we saw in Warcraft 3.

[Notnow]

A new class, never before seen but always needed.
Chef, two dps specs and a healing spec. All using the mechanic of combining different spells (ingredients) to get a desired effect.

Healing spec works with buffs that can change effect or change how certain damage works.
One for spec based on poison damage (bad cooking)
And one based on fire and melee.(grills and propane)

The dps specs use mail and the healing uses cloth.
The fantasy is the cooking trainers have all learned to fight in their own ways, their exposure to magic and the shady underworld of your factions capital have changed how they do business, they can protect their OWN interests.

You go out into the world to prove yourself and bring back ingredients that no one thought possible.