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

[Syegfryed]

He's not a trainer anymore, is he?

people, even npcs retire.

Anyways, just because he used to be a warrior trainer doesn't make him a warrior.

it mean just that

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".

you want to invalidade the entire thing just because there is some unique individuais, that does not matter, Anduin is a priest with heavy armor and sword anyway, you cannot say he is not a priest because he is using other equipment, that also does ot mean priests do that, he is an offshot.

But the blademaster who are tagged as warriors are not, because there is others, there is other npcs who also only use warrior skills and so on, its too much "data"

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?

so the fact that landtressor and other blademasters using warrior-skills only does not count? tHe is tagged as "arms spec" because its what blademasters are.

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

nope, it don't, false equivalence.

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.

First of all the flavor of wind walk is they goign to fast and apepar to be invisible, is not a real stelth in their fantasy/thematic, it is in the game for gameplay purposes:

So adept and agile are the blademasters that they can move so quickly that they appear to be invisible to the naked eye

How they do that? probably using their own inner power/energy, it is explained by bladestorm that they channel warrior energies:

By focusing their warrior energies, blademasters can become living cyclones of fighting rage. Spinning their great blades faster than the naked eye can see, they are capable of simultaneously damaging any enemy troops in their vicinity

not everything revolves around mana, and rage and "energy" used by rogues, monks are more or less the same thing.

Learn to discern hyperbole.

Learn how yo make an argument without restorting to that

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.

Warrior class right now empasses all warrior cultures playable, its broad and every race can fit in, i didn't know i ahd to be specific on this, but im talking about be broad and encompass warrior cultures of wow races

You do in fact,g et blademaster representation in the arms spect, not 100%, true, but is there, is a fact.

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.

that is totally different points with totally different scnearios, you are again making an extrapolation, is like making horde races priests of elune, it does not work.

the class is already available for both races with warriors, they can save the time they would waste by simple giving more blademaster-ish features to arms, and they can seize the opportunity and give mroe mountain king-ish features to fury.

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

now they are not the "blademaster" the only blademasters are "those blademasters" that i arbitrary decided they are, yeah sure., new for you, blademaster is a title only, pretty much like far seer, spirit walker and etc.

[pacotaco]

Perhaps they could do something different - or try a different class for each faction. Just like in the past with priest abilities, which were faction and race-exclusive.

The Alliance could probably get Wardens (it's been in the game for a long time), and they seem quite popular.
The Horde could get something like Spellfencers (lots of nightborne NPCs in Suramar use spellswords), an interesting parallel to the Wardens.

Perhaps they could remain locked to night elves and nightborne for one expansion or something, and then have them teach their skills to other races, or make them available to both faction eventually, after seeing how they're received?

I doubt Blizzard would do something like Shaman/Paladin ever again. They removed the faction restriction exactly because they couldn't balance them without making them the same.
They even removed the priest racial abilities, and the paladin faction abilities for the same reasons.
So if we get something different for each faction in teh future, it will be in the form of cosmetic differences.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Well, before Legion, you could say the same for DH with the Warglaives of Azzinoth and the Cursed Vision of Sargeras.
So, still in the realm of possibility. If something, it makes it even more possible: it makes it seem that Blizzard is testing things to see how they work, and maybe use it in the future.
It looks how they work since Legion: they put powers into temp things (Artifacts, HoA, etc) that they leter make baseline.
Maybe some of the Covenant and Torghast powers can be reused for new specs/classes or replace current abilities.

[Ielenia]

it mean just that

No, it doesn't. And we have precedent: after all, the first paladins were taught by priests and knights, not paladins. By your logic, a paladin can only be taught by a paladin, yet that is not what happened.

you want to invalidade the entire thing just because there is some unique individuais, that does not matter, Anduin is a priest with heavy armor and sword anyway, you cannot say he is not a priest because he is using other equipment, that also does ot mean priests do that, he is an offshot.

But the blademaster who are tagged as warriors are not, because there is others, there is other npcs who also only use warrior skills and so on, its too much "data"

That is not data. Not in the way you're using it. By that logic we can also say there is "too much data" that indicates dark rangers are separate from hunters, and that bards are a valid and probable concept in WoW. Anyways, what I'm saying is my opinion is that the WoD mission table is unreliable because it uses player classes and specs to tag the followers not because they are of that exact class and spec, but because said class most closely resembles their concept. And, again, all the examples listed below.

so the fact that landtressor and other blademasters using warrior-skills only does not count? tHe is tagged as "arms spec" because its what blademasters are.

I'll repeat what I said before. Again:

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.

And also:

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.

nope, it don't, false equivalence.

You do know things don't work that way, right? Saying "you're wrong" and leaving at that as if it means anything... actually doesn't mean anything. You have to explain why you believe it's a "false equivalence".

First of all the flavor of wind walk is they goign to fast and apepar to be invisible, is not a real stelth in their fantasy/thematic, it is in the game for gameplay purposes:

How they do that? probably using their own inner power/energy, it is explained by bladestorm that they channel warrior energies:

not everything revolves around mana, and rage and "energy" used by rogues, monks are more or less the same thing.

I'll repeat what I said before: source your quotes. That said, I found this:
"One of the blademasters' more mystical abilities is to create duplicate phantom images of themselves. Though the phantom images can move about freely of their own volition, they are not true entities unto themselves."
So it's evidence that blademasters might use magic. And on top of that, some Blademasters have been shown to use fire magic.

Warrior class right now empasses all warrior cultures playable, its broad and every race can fit in, i didn't know i ahd to be specific on this, but im talking about be broad and encompass warrior cultures of wow races

You do in fact,g et blademaster representation in the arms spect, not 100%, true, but is there, is a fact.

No, we don't. We really don't. Having one single ability from the WC3 unit and wielding one two-handed weapon like the WC3 unit sprite, while having none of the gameplay associated with it is not representing the concept. That's like saying the rogue "represents" the demon hunter because it has evasion, and can dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold.

that is totally different points with totally different scnearios, you are again making an extrapolation, is like making horde races priests of elune, it does not work.

Again, saying "you're wrong" without explaining why you think I'm wrong does not work as a rebuttal. You have to explain why.

the class is already available for both races with warriors,

Arguably it isn't, as demonstrated several times.

they can save the time they would waste by simple giving more blademaster-ish features to arms,

And completely change the arms spec' concept of a slower, more methodical fighter to fit a concept more fit for the fury spec? The blademaster concept is one of an agile fighter. I mean, the blademaster's main stat in WC3 is agility, not strength.

now they are not the "blademaster" the only blademasters are "those blademasters" that i arbitrary decided they are, yeah sure.

I didn't say they aren't. I said maybe they are not.

[Syegfryed]

No, it doesn't. And we have precedent: after all, the first paladins were taught by priests and knights, not paladins. By your logic, a paladin can only be taught by a paladin, yet that is not what happened.

that is not a precedent, that was before wow time, and it was the creation of the class, you don't find priests training paladins, neither paladins training priests as npcs in world of warcraft.

That is not data. Not in the way you're using it. By that logic we can also say there is "too much data" that indicates dark rangers are separate from hunters, and that bards are a valid and probable concept in WoW.

both things are right.

Anyways, what I'm saying is my opinion is that the WoD mission table is unreliable because it uses player classes and specs to tag the followers not because they are of that exact class and spec, but because said class most closely resembles their concept. And, again, all the examples listed below.

And what if, it tag then like that, because is what they are?

Of course Npcs can do some amusing things, like shamans and priests with plate, or a NPC being "two specs" but in the end, they can, mostly, be organized in the 3 specs, very few cannot

I'll repeat what I said before: source your quotes.

literally said it is the bladestorm ability.

"One of the blademasters' more mystical abilities is to create duplicate phantom images of themselves. Though the phantom images can move about freely of their own volition, they are not true entities unto themselves."
So it's evidence that blademasters might use magic. And on top of that, some Blademasters have been shown to use fire magic.

mystical abilities does not necessary mean magical in the context to use mana or arcane

Blademasters in wow do not use "fire magic" they set their swords in fire and use oil to do so.

No, we don't. We really don't. Having one single ability from the WC3 unit and wielding one two-handed weapon like the WC3 unit sprite, while having none of the gameplay associated with it is not representing the concept. That's like saying the rogue "represents" the demon hunter because it has evasion, and can dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold.

the concept of the blademaster, especially in wow, is being a legendary warrior who master the use of blade, going forward in the battlefield focusing on doing damage, that is their gameplay, that is their lore and fantasy.

You cannot possibly copy the same gameplay of the RTS to wow, it was a different game with different purposes, it didn't happen with demon hunters neither with death knights, it will not start now

Again, we see plenty of blademasters in wow-lifetime and they didn't use wild-walk and mirror image, meaning it is not something entirely necessary or crucial and you can play like that, period.

Arguably it isn't, as demonstrated several times.

It is, because blademasters can be blademasters without wind-walk and mirror image, like demonstred several times

And completely change the arms spec' concept of a slower, more methodical fighter to fit a concept more fit for the fury spec? The blademaster concept is one of an agile fighter. I mean, the blademaster's main stat in WC3 is agility, not strength.

arms spec never "slower and more methodical fighter" that shit only came up recently, together with being a "bleed" spec, before it was more close to the definition of blademaster doing fast and stronger hits

And surprise for you, most of wow lifetime, at least for the time i played warriors, HASTE is almost always their main stats, agility friendo.

So yeah, making the arms spec more blademaster-ish, would make wonders to the class in general, making the spec better and more enjoyable.

[Triceron]

so the fact that landtressor and other blademasters using warrior-skills only does not count? tHe is tagged as "arms spec" because its what blademasters are.

So the issue here is that you're basing this on the Garrison Followers classification.

Not sure if you have noticed, but all the Garrison Follower classifications boil down any NPC into one of the playable classes. It is not a *canonical* classification of all Blademaster NPC Characters being of the Warrior class. The problem is that the follower system doesn't actually have caveats to present any unique classes. Every NPC is just shoved into an existing class role. You can't have Wardens and Shadow Hunters and Dark Rangers; they're all boiled down to existing Player Class definitions like Rogue, Hunter and Warrior, because that's the way Garrison Followers were designed. They're given generic Class abilities, like Arms Warrior has Heroic Leaps and Cleave, but there's zero room for any unique class abilities like a Blademaster follower using Windwalk or a Dark Ranger follower using Black Arrow or Wailing Arrow, or a Shadow Hunter follower using Hex and Chain Heal. Every one of these NPCs, from simple quest givers to profession trainers, are classified as a type of Player Class that uses Player Class abilities.

Dark Ranger Velonara and Shadow Hunter Rala are treated as Marksmanship Hunters. This isn't a canonical classification that all Dark Rangers and Shadow Hunters are just a type of Marksmanship Hunter. This is just how these characters happen to fit the Garrison Follower system that Blizzard designed. Every NPC is shoe-horned into one of the existing Player Class types. That's just how the system works, and it's a matter of game mechanics more than lore.

Now, you CAN legitimately consider this to be a canonical representation that Lantresor the Blade is an Arms Warrior, however that is just one example of an NPC. This is not a full classification that all Blademasters are types of Arms Warriors just because Lantresor is, just like Shadow Hunter Rala being a Marksmanship Hunter doesn't mean all Shadow Hunters are Hunters. We know the Shaman class has Hex and Chain Heal which were Shadow Hunter abilities, and that Troll Hunters do not use Voodoo magic whereas Troll Shamans would. Vol'jin himself uses Shaman abilities, and no Marksmanship Hunter abilities, and he was the prime Shadow Hunter. Shadow Hunters have a closer connection to Shamans than they do to Marksmanship Hunter, and even then a Shadow Hunter is defined as its own concept and not exactly a Shaman or a Hunter.

The Garrison Follower system is not something we can reliably define every Blademaster, Dark Ranger, and Shadow Hunter as. If you want to make a case that Lantresor is an Arms Warrior, then we can regard that to be true, but Lantresor is not *all Blademasters* in the game, just like Shadow Hunter Rala does not represent *all Shadow Hunters*.

It is, because blademasters can be blademasters without wind-walk and mirror image, like demonstred several times

Which is true for NPCs, but not if we're talking about a potential playable class that is called a Blademaster.

Blizzard regards Artificer name for both Jewelcrafting and Engineering professions, but the Garrison followers are Warriors and Paladins. It doesn't mean all Artificers are Warriors and Paladins. It just means these two characters happen to be represented by these classes, because they *have* to fit one of the Player Classes due to the way the Garrison Follower system's design. Even Weldon Barov, the questgiver in Plaguelands, was classified as a Rogue even though he had nothing to do with the Rogue class prior to WoD. It's just a matter of game mechanics.

[Syegfryed]

So the issue here is that you're basing this on the Garrison Followers classification.

no, im using that as one of the arguments, that is not the only one, is one of many, and you grabing that to isolate and nitpick is not going to dismiss the entire point.

[Triceron]

no, im using that as one of the arguments, that is not the only one, is one of many, and you grabing that to isolate and nitpick is not going to dismiss the entire point.

I'm arguing against the system itself and how it mis-appropriates NPCs as any particular class due to the way it shoehorns everyone into the closest Player Class equivalent. Shadow Hunter Rala is just one example. Artificers is another.

A system that sources Nat Pagle as a Hunter who uses Multi Shot and Disengage is not what I consider as a reliable source of canon. He is a fisherman NPC in the lore, not a Hunter who uses Hunter abilities.


The Garrison Follower classification is the only source that outright lists any Blademaster in the game as an 'Arms Warrior'. Consider that your argument that Blademaster is an Arms Warrior circles back to this single source of information, as any Blademaster NPC outside of this that simply uses Warrior abilities isn't actually tied to any particular spec. I am willing to settle on the argument that a Blademaster is represented in WoW as a type of Warrior, but not that all Blademasters are Arms Warriors based on an unreliable source such as this.

As I've pointed out, NPCs will use existing class abilities because that's how Blizzard treats any NPC. Shadow Hunters will use Hunter and Shaman abilities. Priestess of the Moon will use Hunter, Druid and Priest abilities. This is just how they treat NPC characters. If they had the resources to create 100% new abilities for each, they would, and we are seeing more of this happen in recent times like Dark Rangers using Shadowburn shots, Wailing Arrows and their own variation of Black Arrow, or Blademasters using Blade Dash and Molten Strike. This opens up the possibility that they could be their own concept, rather than just an offshoot of an existing class.

As I said, it is absolutely ambiguous, because all the facts you're basing it on are unreliable. NPCs and Follower system are simply a result of game mechanics. Warrior Trainer title of an NPC is also unreliable, since Shadowlands has since taken it away from that character. We can't look at NPC game mechanics as a template for any Player class, the same way we can't look at the Engineering Profession and how NPC Engineering Vendors and Trainers are called Tinker as evidence that this is what a Tinker can only be.

As a consistent argument, we should avoid this type of misappropriation for the purpose of discussingany and all potential classes. This isn't a matter of considering any of these as realistically becoming their own class. This is for the purpose so we can discuss a Bard class even though the only Bards in WoW are quest givers, or the purpose of discussing an Alchemist class, even though Alchemists are already covered by a profession. This is not a matter of arguing that these classes have a high possibility, just that there *is* a possibility and that it can be discussed.

If you are someone who doesn't think they should be discussed at all, you can feel free to abstain from discussion. There's no reason to try and prove that they are unlikely since the information you're operating on relates only to Non-Player classes in the game, and nothing relating to the potential of a Player Class or the likelyhood of Blizzard choosing to stick to their NPC lore instead of outright retconning it.

Just because there are many examples of Blademaster NPCs being connected to the Warrior class doesn't really prove anything. Blizzard has *never* stuck to NPC definitions as a hard rule for what defines a Player class.

[Ielenia]

that is not a precedent, that was before wow time, and it was the creation of the class, you don't find priests training paladins, neither paladins training priests as npcs in world of warcraft.

Class design has nothing to do with lore. If you're claiming that "blademasters are warriors because blademasters teach warriors" then it's a lore issue. It has nothing to do with class design. And as a lore issue, we have lore examples of a "class" teaching a different "class".

And what if, it tag then like that, because is what they are?

"What if" for "what if", then "what if they're not"?

Of course Npcs can do some amusing things, like shamans and priests with plate, or a NPC being "two specs" but in the end, they can, mostly, be organized in the 3 specs, very few cannot

It's not about that. You're using the WoD's mission table to claim that Lantressor is an "arms warrior" because that is what the mission table says he is. But I've demonstrated that the mission table is not a reliable source of information regarding what a NPC class is because of all those you dismissed as "off-shots".

literally said it is the bladestorm ability.

Except that is not what it says in the WC3 website, nor WoWhead. I was ready to dismiss what you wrote as headcanon when I just happened to find it by pure accident while I was searching for Mirror Images in WoWPedia. Again: link your sources.

mystical abilities does not necessary mean magical in the context to use mana or arcane

Blademasters in wow do not use "fire magic" they set their swords in fire and use oil to do so.

The tooltip of this ability used by this blademaster which I already linked before says: "Enchants the caster's weapon with molten fire, inflicting Fire damage on each melee attack." It says right there: "enchant". Not "coats the weapon in oil" or anything. It says, unambiguously, "enchants the weapon".

the concept of the blademaster, especially in wow, is being a legendary warrior who master the use of blade, going forward in the battlefield focusing on doing damage, that is their gameplay, that is their lore and fantasy.

Source for that claim, please?

You cannot possibly copy the same gameplay of the RTS to wow, it was a different game with different purposes, it didn't happen with demon hunters neither with death knights, it will not start now

We kinda can, though. Because if we make the blademaster an agile class (i.e. AGI main stat) using two-handed swords (and maybe axes) who wear leather (or maybe mail) who is a melee character with magic that allows them to go invisible or summon mirror images of themselves. And then we add in fire magic that could be used to enhance their blades, and we got ourselves a class that has all the opportunities to play vastly different than the warrior class.

It is, because blademasters can be blademasters without wind-walk and mirror image, like demonstred several times

You can't play as a blademaster without having the blademaster abilities. That's like saying you can play a demon hunter without having demon hunter abilities, in other words, just a rogue with the warglaives and the blindfold and done, you're a demon hunter.

arms spec never "slower and more methodical fighter" that shit only came up recently, together with being a "bleed" spec, before it was more close to the definition of blademaster doing fast and stronger hits

Arms was never a fast spec. Having gaps on their rotation because of rage starvation was a hallmark of the class that only recently has been fixed. And bleeds were never a trademark of the blademaster.

So yeah, making the arms spec more blademaster-ish, would make wonders to the class in general, making the spec better and more enjoyable.

In your personal opinion. In mine, it would just change the spec into something it is not.

[Triceron]

Well, before Legion, you could say the same for DH with the Warglaives of Azzinoth and the Cursed Vision of Sargeras.
So, still in the realm of possibility. If something, it makes it even more possible: it makes it seem that Blizzard is testing things to see how they work, and maybe use it in the future.
It looks how they work since Legion: they put powers into temp things (Artifacts, HoA, etc) that they leter make baseline.
Maybe some of the Covenant and Torghast powers can be reused for new specs/classes or replace current abilities.

I agree with this.

We can see from the latest interview with Preach that they even went through iterations on Sylvanas' Bow powers:

"Sylvanas's bow and unique drops are because she is a special boss fight.
The initial unique bow ability was too hard to balance, and so it was changed to what it is right now."

I can see them taking and modifying it to adapt to a class.

Their statements about borrowed power also seem like they're interested in trying to balance it out and not just stick to any one system, so that is a good sign towards another class in the future.

I do think that this may be too soon for a Dark Ranger to be considered though, considering DH came in years after Warglaives of Azzinoth and Cursed Vision were added to the game, and even years after Metamorphosis had been integrated into the Warlock. Only now are Hunters getting any real access to Sylvanas' unique powers, and I don't think we would see these abilities turned into class abilities for quite some time.

[mitre27]

Something range, tired of them stacking more and more melee classes while also making melee the least desired.

[Kokolums]

new class: Gasser

races: sporelings (alliance), orcs (red alliance)

abilities: propel fumes out of various sacs to confuse, shroud, choke or harm enemies. healers can emit a cloud of healing vapors. Also have a menu of spits to deal single target damage. Lore home is Sporeggar.

"Why did you die?"
"An Orc spit on me"

[Syegfryed]

Class design has nothing to do with lore.

im not talking about "class design" im literally talking abou lore and the creation of the paladin class, in the lore.

If you're claiming that "blademasters are warriors because blademasters teach warriors" then it's a lore issue. It has nothing to do with class design. And as a lore issue, we have lore examples of a "class" teaching a different "class".

that is not a "issue", its the truth, blademasters are warriors period, of course they can be warrior trainners, because is what they are

in wow we do not have other classes teaching others, youd on't find a DH teaching warlocks, youd on't find priests teaching paladins, or vice versa

"What if" for "what if", then "what if they're not"?

that woudl require too much change in their alreayd established lore

It's not about that. You're using the WoD's mission table to claim that Lantressor is an "arms warrior" because that is what the mission table says he is. But I've demonstrated that the mission table is not a reliable source of information regarding what a NPC class is because of all those you dismissed as "off-shots".

Like i said, if you ignroe the table, his skills alone show him with warrior arms skills only, like many other blademasters, is a matter of you guys nitpicking the mision table just because its not always correct

Except that is not what it says in the WC3 website, nor WoWhead. I was ready to dismiss what you wrote as headcanon when I just happened to find it by pure accident while I was searching for Mirror Images in WoWPedia. Again: link your sources.

it is on the blademaster wiki page, rofl, might read tha tup before discusing about blademasters

The tooltip of this ability used by this blademaster which I already linked before says: "Enchants the caster's weapon with molten fire, inflicting Fire damage on each melee attack." It says right there: "enchant". Not "coats the weapon in oil" or anything. It says, unambiguously, "enchants the weapon".

Sticky, smelly, and highly flammable, blazegrease is liberally applied to the swords and axes of the Burning Blade clan before battle. Though some warriors choose to ignite their weapons before battle, most let the inevitable contact of blades and armor spark the blazegrease for unpredictable intimidation

they do not use magic

Source for that claim, please?

Blademasters, also known as blade masters, are legendary orc warriors of the Burning Blade clan, known for their mastery over swords, axes and polearms.

the seasoned blademasters represent an elite fighting force within the Horde. These skilled swordsmen were once part of the ill-fated Burning Blade clan which consumed itself in the throes of demonic corruption

And in the Black Temple of Magtheridon himself, several blademasters led legions of fel orcs in defense. Illidan, Kael'thas, Lady Vashj, and Akama had great battles against the fel orc blademasters both in and outside of the temple

Garrosh Hellscream employed several blademasters during the campaign in Pandaria, with the Mag'har orc Ishi serving as his champion and with several blademasters stationed at Domination Point in Krasarang. He also recruited so-called Blind Blademasters into his True Horde during the Siege of Orgrimmar.

“A blademaster without a blade is no blademaster at all.”

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster

and this is not counting the rpg part

We kinda can, though.

again, you can't, different game, and they did different things

Because if we make the blademaster an agile class (i.e. AGI main stat) using two-handed swords (and maybe axes) who wear leather (or maybe mail) who is a melee character with magic that allows them to go invisible or summon mirror images of themselves. And then we add in fire magic that could be used to enhance their blades, and we got ourselves a class that has all the opportunities to play vastly different than the warrior class.

there is no fire in wc3, they do not use magic on their abilities, they use as much plate as the grunts(warriors) and the current warrior could use mirror iamge and wind walk fine.

You can't play as a blademaster without having the blademaster abilities. That's like saying you can play a demon hunter without having demon hunter abilities, in other words, just a rogue with the warglaives and the blindfold and done, you're a demon hunter.

you do ahve blademaster abilities

And you are acting like only abilities, and two of then, is what make the blademaster, a blademaster, when not even the npcs blademasters do.

Arms was never a fast spec. Having gaps on their rotation because of rage starvation was a hallmark of the class that only recently has been fixed. And bleeds were never a trademark of the blademaster.

as a arms warrior since cataclysm and even prior in privates, i do say it was indeed a fast spec, especially in MOP. Bleeds were also never a trademark of blademaster, only recently.

Rage starvation was not a problem in MOP and the spec was fast and strong

In your personal opinion. In mine, it would just change the spec into something it is not.

as a arms warrior player opinion, if youa sk anyone else, everyone will appreciate the difference in pace it would make the class more like its own.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm arguing against the system itself and how it mis-appropriates NPCs as any particular class due to the way it shoehorns everyone into the closest Player Class equivalent. Shadow Hunter Rala is just one example. Artificers is another.

Again, you cannot dismiss the entire thing just because it got some things wrong, when they nailed different NPCs, you can argue that Lanressor and other are "wrongly tagged like that" like others, but his abilities, and other blademasters only orroborate to show that like other NPCs they are tagged right.

Just because there are many examples of Blademaster NPCs being connected to the Warrior class doesn't really prove anything.

it literally does, because is what they are, they are not "connected" they are then.

at this point not even if Metzen, Ion or anyone else come to say they are warriors, you guys will claim it was not proving anything, i saw this delusion before.

[Triceron]

Again, you cannot dismiss the entire thing just because it got some things wrong, when they nailed different NPCs, you can argue that Lanressor and other are "wrongly tagged like that" like others, but his abilities, and other blademasters only orroborate to show that like other NPCs they are tagged right.

it literally does, because is what they are, they are not "connected" they are then.

at this point not even if Metzen, Ion or anyone else come to say they are warriors, you guys will claim it was not proving anything, i saw this delusion before.

What you're proving is that some *NON PLAYABLE CHARACTER* Blademasters are being represented as Warriors.

That is all.

When we're talking about Playable Classes, you can not use evidence of NPCs as a standard for what Blizzard can and will do with a playable class.

As I said, we have Shadow Hunter NPCs that are being tied to Marksmanship Hunters and others that are tied to Shamans, yet the truth is that Blizzard doesn't actually use these NPCs to define what a Shadow Hunter actually is. If they wanted to make a Shadow Hunter class, they could go right ahead and do it, and it wouldn't even require changing any of the NPCs for it to happen. They just treat old stuff as old stuff, just like how Naxxramas Death Knights still have Warrior abilities like Intimidating Shout and Cleave.

We're talking about connections that are loosely defined by gameplay, and even then are not good examples because they can be utterly changed and swapped out.


Also, Metzen doesn't even work at Blizzard any more, and Ion doesn't control the lore, so there's really no reason those guys would use the game to prove anything anyways. Metzen himself has been over-ruled by the designers on many fronts, including having Druids be playable on the Horde when he wanted them to be exclusive to Night Elves. Metzen did not have full control over Warcraft's lore, and the Game Designers have much more sway, which is why we have stupid things like Shamans on the Alliance and Blood Elves on the Horde side just because the Alliance population was 2:1 higher than Horde because of the lack of a pretty race, and more Horde were raiding more than Alliance because Shaman had strong buffs that the Paladin couldn't make up for.

From post mortem interviews, we KNOW that the Warlock designer Xelnath tried to poach the entire Demon Hunter identity and cram it directly into the Warlock. We have proof from his own mouth that he tried to integrate the Demon Hunter directly into the Warlock (he was the main guy behind them having Metamorphosis and Glyph of Demon Hunting) and that the other devs kept him from completely doing so. This is how much power the game designers have over these character identities. They have full control over it, and we're *lucky* that Xelnath did not get his way and fully integrate the DH into the Warlock. We are lucky that the other devs had the senses to create an actual Demon Hunter class on its own today, though we know that is not always the case since they could always do what they did to the Necromancer and Runemaster, and simply salvage those identities for parts for another class.

It's literally a matter of a vote of confidence to go from picking a Death Knight as the playable class for Wrath, or a completely new concept like the Runemaster. Or choosing between an Alternate reality Draenor over choosing the Mongrel Horde which we've seen with full concepts.

Yet if they haven't openly connected the class to the concept, then we should not simply assume it to be the same just because some NPCs are connected. If they wish to completely absorb the Blademaster's other abilities into the Warrior, they absolutely have the power to do so, just like Xelnath had the power to add Metamorphosis to the Warlock. Yet until they actually formally do so. There's no reason to just assume that the Blademaster would not be its own class just because some Blademaster NPCs are treated as Warriors. There's no reason to assume that Blademaster is already playable for the very same reason why it was wrong for people to assume that Demon Hunters were already represented by Warlocks, even if that was the intention of the Warlock designer who added Metamorphosis to them.

http://xelnath.com/2016/09/13/post-m...-design-space/

This is a good source of insight on how the devs think when it comes to picking and choosing classes, and how they consider abilities that are already being used in the game or tackling design space issues.

These are the same kind of issues we can assume would exist if a Blademaster were to be considered since the Warrior already exists. It's the same for the DK having to take gameplay space away from Warlocks, and then again when Demon Hunters were added. We have to consider that even for a Blademaster, the design space would be considered. It's not as simply as just saying 'Warlocks have minions so we don't need another Summoner', which is something Xelnath brings up as a point against the DK's. It's a consideration of what would make a new class fresh and interesting.

If we're talking about a Blademaster concept on its own, then really it's not enough to consider it to be a completely fresh and invigorating idea. However, there are elements from it that they could use to create a brand new class that has a 'Blademaster' spec to it if they wanted to, that actually brings in all the Windwalking and Mirror Images. That's a stronger possibility than simply assuming a Blademaster is just a type of Warrior. And we know they can do this because of the insight we have with the Death Knight - they had 3 class choices and they ended up with a DK that uses the Runemaster's Rune system and summons minions like a Necromancer. It's very possible that they could do this again in the future with another class, though it's harder to tell what exact concepts could be or would be used.

[LilSaihah]

Nah, blademasters are monks. They just use swords rather than fists.

[Ielenia]

that is not a "issue", its the truth, blademasters are warriors period, of course they can be warrior trainners, because is what they are

Opinions are not fact. Your opinion is not fact.

in wow we do not have other classes teaching others, youd on't find a DH teaching warlocks, youd on't find priests teaching paladins, or vice versa

Except we do have examples in the lore of "classes" teaching "other classes" with the paladin.

that woudl require too much change in their alreayd established lore

No change would really be required. Plus, this argument of yours don't hold water. Blizzard made created a metric-ton of lore to explain why a concept that was evil now is no longer evil and is helping us: the death knights. Blizzard made a metric-ton of lore, creating an entire continent and lore for the monk class. Etc, etc, etc.

Like i said, if you ignroe the table, his skills alone show him with warrior arms skills only, like many other blademasters, is a matter of you guys nitpicking the mision table just because its not always correct

Abilities don't mean much when we're talking about what "player class" a NPC is, though. Tyrande is both a hunter, a priest and a druid. Anduin is both a paladin and a priest. NPCs do not follow player class rules. Blizzard just gives them abilities that closely match their concept, using player abilities when they are "close enough" and making new ones when what the player classes have don't fit. We have several examples of that. So saying "Lantresor uses warrior abilities therefore he is a warrior" is not exactly a very sound argument to make. For all we know, that's what he uses because Blizzard has not yet created a Blademaster class to give them those abilities. Just like genertic death knights had mostly warlock and warrior abilities back in vanilla.

it is on the blademaster wiki page, rofl, might read tha tup before discusing about blademasters

It doesn't matter. It's not my job to go after evidence for your own claims. Do your job and link your sources.

they do not use magic

They do. And that tooltip proves that. It literally uses the word enchant which means magic is involved. It does not say "apply an oil" or "coat" or anything of the sort. And before you say anything, I will also add that the game makes an unambiguous distinctions between "enchanting" and "coating" weapons. Look at the rogue's poison abilities' tooltip text.

again, you can't, different game, and they did different things

I can, and I have, in that very same paragraph.

there is no fire in wc3, they do not use magic on their abilities, they use as much plate as the grunts(warriors) and the current warrior could use mirror iamge and wind walk fine.

I have literally proven you wrong. Blademasters do use fire magic to imbue their weapons and abilities with fire.

you do ahve blademaster abilities

One. One ability. The other three are nowhere to be found in the warrior class. That's like saying the rogue is the demon hunter class because it has the WC3 DH's evasion ability.

as a arms warrior since cataclysm and even prior in privates, i do say it was indeed a fast spec, especially in MOP. Bleeds were also never a trademark of blademaster, only recently.

So you agree that bleeds are not part of the blademaster concept?

[Syegfryed]

What you're proving is that some *NON PLAYABLE CHARACTER* Blademasters are being represented as Warriors.

so you are telling me there is two different blademasters, or even 3 or four, one that is "blademaster, the other who is "blademaster" and so on? one is vallid the others don't? come on now, this is becoming absurd.

As I said, we have Shadow Hunter NPCs that are being tied to Marksmanship Hunters and others that are tied to Shamans, yet the truth is that Blizzard doesn't actually use these NPCs to define what a Shadow Hunter actually is.

And by your logic, you want then to be like blademasters, yet, when defining death knights in the mission table, they nailed then, one is "right" the other is "wrong", why are you putting the blademaster in the same side of shadow hunters, when they clearly are in the same side of death knights?

Again, blademaster is not a class, is a tittle, like far seer, mountain king, tauren cheftain, like spirit walker, they are not their own class, and unless you udnerstand/accept that, you will always part on the false pressupost that they are their own different thing/entity and thats why this conversation wll not end.

Opinions are not fact. Your opinion is not fact.

Blademasters are wariors, already showed countles of proof on that, you not wanting to accep then is irrelevant

Except we do have examples in the lore of "classes" teaching "other classes" with the paladin.

give me examples in wow, when the classes are already established, then we can talk about it, the creation of the paladin lore-wise is nto a valid argument.

No change would really be required.

the change would be required, because atm blademasters are warriors, and they would have to change that, making another thing, invalidating their already established lore and progress in wow.

Abilities don't mean much when we're talking about what "player class" a NPC is, though.

sigh, is exausting how things suddently don't mean much, but other times does, the double standarts is just baffling, it does matter when its just about wind walk and mirror iamge, but when it is bladestorm and others it don't.

NPCs do not follow player class rules

If they don't, why are people using then as rule to make the "ideal" and the "true" blademaster? that is double standarts.

So saying "Lantresor uses warrior abilities therefore he is a warrior" is not exactly a very sound argument to make. For all we know, that's what he uses because Blizzard has not yet created a Blademaster class to give them those abilities. Just like genertic death knights had mostly warlock and warrior abilities back in vanilla.

generic death knights still was a compeltely different class and concept, and were bound by the limitations of the engine/time, we have blademasters acrross all the wow lifetime, to vanilla till recent days, and they were always constant with their class and concept, being warriors with warrior skills

They do. And that tooltip proves that.

Now you are just nittpicking the gameplay rofl, of course the tooltip says that because is the game mechanic, they say that with other skills as well, they don't actually use magic, and you were telling me the garrison was not something relevant pure gold

I have literally proven you wrong. Blademasters do use fire magic to imbue their weapons and abilities with fire.

Except you didn't, their lore explain very well they use oil to set their weapons ablaze, you bringing up tooltip in spell descriptions is a laughable last effort, and even more funnier when you were dismissing the garrison tables before.

One. One ability. The other three are nowhere to be found in the warrior class. That's like saying the rogue is the demon hunter class because it has the WC3 DH's evasion ability.

the crit is inherently in the warrior skillset, it does not need their own ability, and they have other abilities to increase the crit rate, like i said, there is other blademasters in the game who does not use mirror image and wind walk, if they are blademasters, without those, so is the player, nice try witht he DH and rogue false equivalence, but never in wow story they said rogues were DH, and there is no DH with just rogue skills etc.

So you agree that bleeds are not part of the blademaster concept?

blademaster=warriors, its funny how you didn't get the bit. but yeah bleed was not a trademark in the warrior class, thus, it is not a trademark from blademasters.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, blademasters are monks. They just use swords rather than fists.

being monk is literally be a master of the unarmed combat, a blademaster is a amster of the blade, they are different as water and oil

[LilSaihah]

being monk is literally be a master of the unarmed combat, a blademaster is a amster of the blade, they are different as water and oil

Not really, tons of big cheese monks use weapons. Chen uses a staff. Taran Zhu uses a mace. Player monks use weapons too.

Look at Samuro's concept art. He's wearing monk gear.

The only thing linking Blademasters to Warriors is that Warriors have Bladestorm.

[Triceron]

so you are telling me there is two different blademasters, or even 3 or four, one that is "blademaster, the other who is "blademaster" and so on? one is vallid the others don't? come on now, this is becoming absurd.

Look at how many different variations of Death Knight NPCs there are.

Zeliek is a DK who uses holy magic.
Kor'thazz is a DK who drops meteors.
There are DK NPCs that use Warrior abilities.
Teron Gorefiend in TBC is themed completely differently from the traditional Scourge DK, and yet he is still classified as a Death Knight.

These are all examples of NPCs that are VASTLY different from the playable DK that we have.

As I said, NPCs do not abide to any rules that our player classes are bound to. They can be defined however Blizzard chooses to define them, with zero consistency needed because they are all NPCs.

And by your logic, you want then to be like blademasters, yet, when defining death knights in the mission table, they nailed then, one is "right" the other is "wrong", why are you putting the blademaster in the same side of shadow hunters, when they clearly are in the same side of death knights?

Er, no. The point I made is that they've generalized specific NPCs that aren't already represented by a class into an existing Player Class type for the Follower system. That means anyone who represents a class or title that is not playable (Fisherman, Artificer, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster, Dark Ranger) is generalized into one of the playable Class types.

If you are using DK as an example, you totally missed the whole point. I'm talking about titles and archetypes of specific Follower NPCs. An example I gave was Nat Pagle, who is a Fisherman NPC. He is made into a Hunter as a Follower, because there is no classification for "Fisherman" in the Follower system.

The DK NPCs are already DKs, so of course they would be added as a DK just like all the Mages are Mages and all the Rogues are Rogues. Yet when it comes to NPCs that never had a formal class like Weldon Barov, they would have to lump him in as an existing Player class; Rogue for him even though as an NPC he had nothing to do with Rogues or being a Rogue.

being monk is literally be a master of the unarmed combat, a blademaster is a amster of the blade, they are different as water and oil

Being an Arms Warrior is a master of all Weapons, including blunt ones. That is as different to a Blademaster as water and oil as well. Blademasters are *Blade*masters. A Warrior does not gain any benefit from using Blades over any other weapon. To play a Blademaster through the Warrior class means you're gonna rely on transmogs more than the class itself provides you any real substantial Blademaster identity.

[Ielenia]

Blademasters are wariors, already showed countles of proof on that, you not wanting to accep then is irrelevant

You've shown a lot that support your opinion that blademasters are warriors. You haven't, however, shown anything that proves that as a fact. Which is why I continue to deny your claim: what you have is not conclusive evidence that proves blademasters are warriors as fact.

give me examples in wow, when the classes are already established, then we can talk about it, the creation of the paladin lore-wise is nto a valid argument.

Why do you need this caveat, "classes already established"? You're using it solely because it dismisses the paladin.

the change would be required, because atm blademasters are warriors, and they would have to change that, making another thing, invalidating their already established lore and progress in wow.

Okay, I'll bite: what, exactly, would have to be changed? "Blademasters are warriors" is your opinion, not established fact. And even if they were, the warrior class would be unchanged if blademasters became its own playable class. And blademasters could still be called 'warriors' because that word does not exist solely to be the name of a player class. It also exists as its own word that means "fighter" or "soldier", etc.

sigh, is exausting how things suddently don't mean much, but other times does, the double standarts is just baffling, it does matter when its just about wind walk and mirror iamge, but when it is bladestorm and others it don't.

It's not double-standards. When we're talking about the idea that "the warrior player class represents the blademaster concept", abilities are important, because when one is talking about player class, they're talking about gameplay. And abilities are important for gameplay. However, when we are talking about what concept a certain NPC is supposed to represent, we don't really need to know its entire array of abilities. I mean, Lantresor, for the longest time, did not possess a single ability. He only gained abilities in WoD. And people could still recognize him as a 'blademaster'. Because of how he looks, not because of what abilities he had. Which, again, he had none.

If they don't, why are people using then as rule to make the "ideal" and the "true" blademaster? that is double standarts.

That's not double-standards. Because we're not talking about specific abilities, but the character concept. We can look at the NPC and its concept and say "this could be a class of its own". And the only time we use their abilities is to set a concept, like when I pointed out blademasters can use fire magic. At no point I said that the class would have those specific abilities from the NPC.

generic death knights still was a compeltely different class and concept, and were bound by the limitations of the engine/time, we have blademasters acrross all the wow lifetime, to vanilla till recent days, and they were always constant with their class and concept, being warriors with warrior skills

Listen: even today, Blizzard doesn't design brand new abilities for every single NPC they create. They instead use what abilities they currently have in the game, including player class abilities, and only create new abilities when the NPC is supposed to do something that is not covered by the current arsenal of abilities in the game.

Now you are just nittpicking the gameplay rofl, of course the tooltip says that because is the game mechanic, they say that with other skills as well, they don't actually use magic, and you were telling me the garrison was not something relevant pure gold

Dude, I literally pointed and demonstrated how Blizzard makes it expressly clear when a weapon is being applied an oil or enchanted. The rogue class' poisons almost all of them expressly say they coat the weapon. If the blademaster was using some kind of flammable oil to ignite his blade, the tooltip would've said so. But it does not, leading us to believe that the fire is magical in origin because of the wording.

Except you didn't, their lore explain very well they use oil to set their weapons ablaze, you bringing up tooltip in spell descriptions is a laughable last effort, and even more funnier when you were dismissing the garrison tables before.

Oh look: you're once again making claims without linking to your sources, despite me asking you several times to source your claims. I'll just go ahead and call this your headcanon.

the crit is inherently in the warrior skillset, it does not need their own ability, and they have other abilities to increase the crit rate,

Weren't you who said that arms warrior's favored stat is haste, not crit? Yes, you were:

And surprise for you, most of wow lifetime, at least for the time i played warriors, HASTE is almost always their main stats, agility friendo.

If haste is the spec's favored stat, then that means it's further evidence that the blademaster is not properly represented considering it's a crit-oriented concept.

like i said, there is other blademasters in the game who does not use mirror image and wind walk, if they are blademasters, without those, so is the player,

"The NPCs don't have those abilities, therefore the class won't have those abilities". Wouldn't that exact same thing be said about death knights using frost magic? After all, no DK NPC prior to Wrath used frost magic.

nice try witht he DH and rogue false equivalence, but never in wow story they said rogues were DH, and there is no DH with just rogue skills etc.

And never in the history of WoW Blizzard ever said "blademasters are warriors". This is you stating your opinion as facts, here.

blademaster=warriors, its funny how you didn't get the bit.

Oh, no. I got it. It's your opinion that blademasters are warriors. I just don't share your opinion.

but yeah bleed was not a trademark in the warrior class, thus, it is not a trademark from blademasters.

Therefore we have more evidence that the warrior class does not properly represent the blademaster concept.

[Syegfryed]

Not really, tons of big cheese monks use weapons. Chen uses a staff. Taran Zhu uses a mace. Player monks use weapons too.

did you noticed how "staffs" and "maces" are not "blades", you know, items that "cut" and "slash"

monks use weapons as a sidething to enhance their unarmed combat trough martial arts, they do not master the use of weapons

- - - Updated - - -

Look at how many different variations of Death Knight NPCs there are.

and yet, is only one class, the same thematic, same fantasy, they just have different abilities

just like warriors, who are blademaster, they have the same fantasy but sometimes different abilities.

The DK NPCs are already DKs, so of course they would be added as a DK just like all the Mages are Mages and all the Rogues are Rogues.

And, since blademasters are warriors, they work the same.

Being an Arms Warrior is a master of all Weapons, including blunt ones. That is as different to a Blademaster as water and oil as well. Blademasters are *Blade*masters.

Thats just pure nittpicking, arms warrior is a master of all weapons, therefore, master of blades = blademaster, just because you added another proficiency in their pool, because the class is made tob e broad, you think it does not work.

A Warrior does not gain any benefit from using Blades over any other weapon.

thats because this si a gameplay thing, it had before, it does not anymore for gameplay purposes

To play a Blademaster through the Warrior class means you're gonna rely on transmogs more than the class itself provides you any real substantial Blademaster identity.

just put a blade as transmog is just whats it take.