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

[panda040]

Dragonsworn might be cool, kinda similar to Dragoons from ffxiv

[Falkeshall]

Wouldn't mind being a Spirit Healer. Just let me float around res'ing people.

[Syegfryed]

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.

because you dismiss the things does not mean are "opinions" or not valid, the garisson is more hard proof that you can get otherwise, the blademasters in the game too, but again, "i don't like it, therefore it does not count"

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

because you are using a false equivalence, something not related trying to proof your point, you don't see paladin trainers who are priests in wow, neither priest trainner that are paladins, as class professions, simple as that

It's not double-standards. When we're talking about the idea that "the warrior player class represents the blademaster concept", abilities are important,

blademaster use warrior abilities and warrior use blademaster abilities = those don't count
warriors not having wind walk and mirror image, regardless of tons of blademasters ingame not using those as well = now suddenly abilities counts

its not just double standards is straight up hypocrisy.

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.

you want to compare something a tooltip of a npc say, comapred to something a playable class have, who would obusoulyl be mroe polished, is bafling.

Again, it is stated in their lore they do not use magic, they set their weapons ablaze

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.

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

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

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

and? just because they favor haste they can't have crit? your arguments are just becoming poor by the time the discusson goes long

"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.

not it don't, there is no correlation to those exampls, as always a false equivalence.

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

they did countless of times, in the warrior trainer, in the npcs, in the garrison followers, is just you arbitrary ignoring then because it does not fit your agenda.

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

all the evidence, in lore fantasy and theme show that the warrior class does indeed represent the blademaster, real concept, not the one you think there is, its not just fully represented, because the lack of 2 skills, but, since the blademaster concept, fantasy and theme, does not revolve around just those 2 skills, we are good.

[Triceron]

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.

Multiple classes can have the same fantasy and different abilities too.

Warlocks and Demon Hunters had the same fantasy of being a Fel-powered class that can fight in Demon Form, with the Warlock even having a melee option with Glyph of Demon Hunting.

Paladins and Priests share the same fantasy, especially when it comes to healing with holy magic.

Shamans and Monks share the same fantasy of using Spirit-based elemental magic in combat and for healing.

These are different classes that all share the same themes and fantasy, and they have a direct connection with each other.

Classes aren't added to the game because they have a theme that is unused by any other class. If this were true, Demon Hunters could never be added because of how similar they are to Warlocks.

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

Certain Blademaster NPCs are represented as Warriors. Again, nothing indicates that this applies to the Warrior Player class. You're only pointing at NPCs.

The Warrior class is not a Blademaster.

The Warrior player class *can be* a Blademaster, but only of Blizzard formally addresses the connection. NPCs do not define player classes.

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

Then you see my point. Blademaster is not actually being represented in the Warrior class.

Blademaster in WC3 and Samuro in Heroes of the Storm and the WoD Burning Blade Blademasters all have exhibited gameplay that is not represented by the Warrior class.

If the Warrior actually represented that missing gameplay, then yes you could argue that the Warrior is a Blademaster. However the Warrior has *NONE* of the gameplay style that defines a Blademaster. The only Blademaster gameplay fantasy that exists in the Warrior class is one that you have to RP and Transmog as.

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

That's no different than assuming 'just give Warlock a warglaive as a transmog is just whats it take' to play as a Demon Hunter. You're wrong to assume this.

Ask yourself this question:

What can a Demon Hunter actually do that Blizzard couldn't give to a Warlock instead? Is this enough of an argument to not have a Demon Hunter class?

[Ielenia]

because you dismiss the things does not mean are "opinions" or not valid, the garisson is more hard proof that you can get otherwise, the blademasters in the game too, but again, "i don't like it, therefore it does not count"

It is not hard proof. Myself and others have demonstrated how the WoD mission table followers are assigned player classes and specs not because they are of that specific class and spec, but because, of what we have, are what most closely represent them. Myself and others have given you several examples. Fury warriors with one single weapon, and even Nat Pagle being a "survival hunter", despite him never even picking up a bow or doing anything "hunter-y". Or anything other than fishing, for that matter.

because you are using a false equivalence, something not related trying to proof your point, you don't see paladin trainers who are priests in wow, neither priest trainner that are paladins, as class professions, simple as that

It's not false equivalence. We do have examples in the lore of priests teaching the first paladins. It's an example of a "class" teaching a different "class".

blademaster use warrior abilities and warrior use blademaster abilities = those don't count

"Blademasters using warrior abilities" has been addressed already: Blizzard does not create brand new abilities for every single named and nameless NPC they create. Instead they use abilities that already exist in the game, player class abilities included, for their NPCs, only resorting to creating brand new abilities when what they already have does not do what they intend the NPC to do. And "warrior using blademaster abilities" has also been addressed: not only it's a misleading statement, considering the warrior has only a single blademaster ability (hence using plural is misleading) the class does not represent the gameplay one would expect of a concept such as the blademaster.

warriors not having wind walk and mirror image, regardless of tons of blademasters ingame not using those as well = now suddenly abilities counts

The abilities count not because of the abilities themselves, but because they represent an important part of the blademaster concept: an agile fighter that specializes in light armor and two handed bladed weapons (swords, axes and polearms).

you want to compare something a tooltip of a npc say, comapred to something a playable class have, who would obusoulyl be mroe polished, is bafling.

The blademaster class is not playable, so we have nothing to compare the tooltip to. And as I've pointed out: Blizzard has made expressly clear through tooltip text when a weapon is coated in liquid, and when it is enchanted. Read the rogue's poison abilities' tooltips I linked several posts back. If the tooltip says the weapon is enchanted, then there is magic involved.

Again, it is stated in their lore they do not use magic, they set their weapons ablaze

Once more, we have a claim and not a single source. More headcanon?

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

I'll start dismissing everything you write as headcanon. Let's hope you finally learn to source your claims. That said, considering it's an archaeology item, meaning it's a representation of how things happened in the past, it could be argued that is how they used to ignite their weapons originally, but no longer use oils and now use magic, instead.

and? just because they favor haste they can't have crit? your arguments are just becoming poor by the time the discusson goes long

But here's the thing, though. By examining the blademaster unit in WC3, it leads us to believe that the class cannot be represented by the WoW warrior class because of the three abilities missing in the warrior class, two of them simply do not fit the warrior concept. On top of that, the blademaster unit is an agility-based unit, on top of being lightly armored. Again, two things that, on their own, invoke gameplay ideas that do not fit a strength-based, heavy-armored class.

not it don't, there is no correlation to those exampls, as always a false equivalence.

Again: just saying "you're wrong" and not explaining why you think I'm wrong doesn't work as a rebuttal. I believe the correlation works because it's another example of a class concept never using something in the past (frost magic) but now it does. Liberally, too.

they did countless of times, in the warrior trainer, in the npcs, in the garrison followers, is just you arbitrary ignoring then because it does not fit your agenda.

They haven't. Blizzard never said that blademasters are warriors. Every single one of your examples does not conclusively point to your conclusion alone. Every single one of your examples has been addressed: the mission table does not properly represent the NPCs. We have examples of one class teaching another. Etc, etc.

all the evidence, in lore fantasy and theme show that the warrior class does indeed represent the blademaster, real concept, not the one you think there is, its not just fully represented, because the lack of 2 skills, but, since the blademaster concept, fantasy and theme, does not revolve around just those 2 skills, we are good.

It is your opinion that the warrior class represents the blademaster concept. Many do not share your opinion, and have given various reasons for their opinions, some of which I share, such as the fact the warrior gameplay does not represent the kind of gameplay one would expect of the blademaster class.

- - - Updated - - -

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

You say that rogues could just dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold is somehow now the same thing as playing a demon hunter. But here you are saying "just transmog your stuff and you're a blademaster."

And you accuse me of hypocrisy.

[LilSaihah]

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

blademasters are monks which master the use of weapons

[Syegfryed]

snip

Oh God, it didn't take too long for the same fallacy of warlocks and Dhs once again, i should nknow better, there is no point in discussing this any longer with you two, especially after showing the double standarts against tinker and in favor of blademaster, is like a circus

snip

ok, since the nittpicking is just becoming exausting, i will talk about the points that are more absurd

it could be argued that is how they used to ignite their weapons originally, but no longer use oils and now use magic, instead.

you fill your mouth to say "you are using headcanon," your opinion" and yet, when we have another proof, the first thing you do is trying do dismiss by assumptions and headcanon as well, is hilarious, just like you tried to invalidate/dismiss other proofs before, like the countless of blademasters in the game, saying they don't count, because "you don't think so"

No matter how the blademasters are portrayed, as warriors, how they are tagged as warriors, and how even they can be found as warrior trainers, "that does not count", but its also hilarious, how the same arguments don't apply to "tinker" when they are just a "profession", thats where the hypcorsy comes to play

You say that rogues could just dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold is somehow now the same thing as playing a demon hunter. But here you are saying "just transmog your stuff and you're a blademaster."

because DH use demon magic, rogues don't, Blademaster are master of blades, just like arms warriors, thats why there is hypocrisy here, is in the false equivalences, just like wanting to compare the warlock/dh scenario..

- - - Updated - - -

blademasters are monks which master the use of weapons

if they master weapons, they are not monks, they are warriors.

[Triceron]

Oh God, it didn't take too long for the same fallacy of warlocks and Dhs once again, i should nknow better, there is no point in discussing this any longer with you two, especially after showing the double standarts against tinker and in favor of blademaster, is like a circus

Because you're dying on a hill using that same fallacy but with Blademaster instead.

Again, there's nothing you've said that actually favours your argument that wasn't already brought up years before in the Warlock/DH arguments that existed in this very forum.

Same arguments, different class. Both situations involved people who regarded Demon Hunters and Tinkers as already being in the game because some NPCs have Warlock and Engineering abilities.

Metamorphosis was made into a Warlock ability, just as Bladestorm was made into a Warrior ability. The argument against Blademaster is that Warriors can just transmog their weapon, which is the same as what people said about Demon Hunters if Warlocks simply got Warglaives. It was a bad faith argument either way you look at it. That you think a Warrior class is already a Blademaster is no different than the people who thought Warlocks were already Demon Hunters because of the spells and glyphs and the green fire quest literally saying they learned all this from observing Illidan.

You're using the same fallacy.


At no point have you ever actually addressed the points I've made that equate the argument. All you've ever done is dismiss it on the basis that you believe Demon Hunters can be their own concept and are different from Warlocks, but you don't actually address the arguments that others have had that believed they were just Warlocks with Warglaives. This very connection was based on Demon Hunter NPCs in the game that used Warlock abilities, like Banish, Metamorphosis, Curses and Shadowbolt.

[Ielenia]

ok, since the nittpicking is just becoming exausting, i will talk about the points that are more absurd

Except it's not nitpicking. You're just dismissing it as nitpicking. I went as far as I could to make the explanations detailed and simple for you to understand, yet you don't even bother reading it, considering you continue making the exact same arguments that have been addressed by not just me, but others as well.

you fill your mouth to say "you are using headcanon," your opinion" and yet, when we have another proof, the first thing you do is trying do dismiss by assumptions and headcanon as well, is hilarious, just like you tried to invalidate/dismiss other proofs before, like the countless of blademasters in the game, saying they don't count, because "you don't think so"

I use the word "headcanon" against you because it seems to trigger you and forces you to actually source your quotes. I have to resort to that because I keep having to ask you to link to your sources.

And I'll say this again: watch your wording. You don't have proof. First, because the word "proof" is a mathematical thing. Second, because the colloquial usage of the word "proof" refers to conclusive evidence that points to one conclusion and one conclusion only. And you don't have any of that. What you have is evidence that supports your opinion, but none of what you have is conclusive. Everything you presented has been demonstrated to be flawed, like the "WoD table followers" evidence, the "NPC using class abilities" evidence... everything has been addressed and demonstrated it's not conclusive.

No matter how the blademasters are portrayed, as warriors, how they are tagged as warriors, and how even they can be found as warrior trainers, "that does not count", but its also hilarious, how the same arguments don't apply to "tinker" when they are just a "profession", thats where the hypcorsy comes to play

Except we have blademasters actually being portrayed differently than warriors. We have blademasters using fire magic, for example. That is something the warrior player class has never been demonstrated to be able to do.

because DH use demon magic, rogues don't, Blademaster are master of blades, just like arms warriors, thats why there is hypocrisy here, is in the false equivalences, just like wanting to compare the warlock/dh scenario..

Blademasters can turn invisible and create illusory images of themselves, and warriors cannot. Blademasters have been shown to be able to use fire magic, warriors do not. Warrios use maces, which blademasters do not.

[Syegfryed]

Because you're dying on a hill using that same fallacy but with Blademaster instead.

you are trying to make warlocks and DH comparison to blademaster and warriors when nothing supports your argument, your base of "yep warlocks had metamorphosis, just like warriors have bladestorms, so they are the same. is already a statement based on something false

is a false equivalence, and i already spend too much time discussing this with you, in this and another topic, , this has become another fallacy(that also the other guy use a lot), by repeatedly and constantly revising the same argument to explain away the points.

Blademasters can turn invisible and create illusory images of themselves,

Again, ignoring the babling, that will not go nowere...

not all blademasters can do that, just a few, most blademasters use bladestorm and other warior abilities(because they are warriors), again you are wrong nittpicking things

you entire point is "warrior is not blademaster because they lack half of their skills present in the wc3 game, regardless if they have the other half"

your false premise is that to be a blademaster, one need to have those two skills, while in the wow lifetime is show that to be a blademaster those two are not completely necessary, because there is a lot of blademasters, confirmed blademasters, who don't.

And apprently, since that is the only thing that make a blademaster a blademaster byt this nonsensical logic, To "fix" this they merely had to add those 2 skills in the warrior spellbok or as talents, obivouslly not as a new and redundant class.

[Ielenia]

Again, ignoring the babling, that will not go nowere...

The only reason "it goes nowhere" is because you insist on stating your opinions as fact and dismiss any and all possibilities that go against your opinions.

not all blademasters can do that, just a few,

It's how the blademasters are represented in Warcraft 3. The unit's concept, backed by the concept behind those abilities, sets them apart from the WoW warrior class.

most blademasters use bladestorm and other warior abilities(because they are warriors),

You're stating your opinions as fact, here. If is your opinion that blademasters are warriors, not fact. This "blademasters use warrior abilities" argument has been addressed already. More than once. More than twice. While you, instead of addressing it, just dismiss everything as "nitpicking".

again you are wrong nittpicking things

The only one who's wrong here is you by stating your opinions as fact.

you entire point is "warrior is not blademaster because they lack half of their skills present in the wc3 game, regardless if they have the other half"

First: they don't have half. They have only one-fourth. Their "extra crit % and extra crit damage" does not exist in the WoW warrior class. Second: it's not just about the abilities. It's about the whole concept of the agile fighter. If anything, the blademaster resembles more a rogue wielding a two-handed weapon than a warrior, in terms of concept.

your false premise is that to be a blademaster, one need to have those two skills,

This is not my point. I keep going back to those abilities not because "the warrior class doesn't have them", but because of the concept behind those abilities back up the concept of the blademaster.

while in the wow lifetime is show that to be a blademaster those two are not completely necessary, because there is a lot of blademasters, confirmed blademasters, who don't.

And I can show you a bucket-load of "death knights, confirmed death knights," who didn't use frost magic prior to Wrath of the Lich King. And yet... the player class does.

And apprently, since that is the only thing that make a blademaster a blademaster byt this nonsensical logic, To "fix" this they merely had to add those 2 skills in the warrior spellbok or as talents, obivouslly not as a new and redundant class.

No. It doesn't. Adding those abilities to the warrior class would be the same thing as giving metamorphosis and self-immolation to the warlock. They'd do what a blademaster does, but they wouldn't be a blademaster. Just like a warlock pre-Legion would do what a demon hunter would, but wouldn't be a demon hunter. Again, the concept of a blademaster is of an agile fighter (it uses agility) that wears light armor (represented by the WC3 hero and many WoW NPCs wearing little to no armor) who may have mystical/magical abilities (represented by the WC3 mirror image and invisibility, as well as the WoW NPCs using fire magic).

EDIT: Also, as for your response to Triceron, I will repeat what I've already said before: saying "it's a false equivalence" and leaving at that without explaining why you think it's false equivalence don't work as a rebuttal. It's akin to saying just "nuh-uh".

[Triceron]

you are trying to make warlocks and DH comparison to blademaster and warriors when nothing supports your argument, your base of "yep warlocks had metamorphosis, just like warriors have bladestorms, so they are the same. is already a statement based on something false.

Nothing supports either argument. I am discrediting the very method you have used to tie together Warriors as Blademasters. Everything boils down to examples of NPCs having warrior abilities or being referred to as warriors.

Isn't that what you think the Blademaster boils down to? NPCs being connected to the Warrior class.

Not one piece of evidence from you actually has a Warrior actually representing the Burning Blade Blademaster archetype. Everything just circles back to *some * NPCs with Warrior abilities, and we can find the same equivalent with Demon Hunters in Vanilla and TBC with the same thing.

Demon Hunters had Shadowbolt, Banish and used Curses. Those are Warlock abilities. That is literally no different than you saying Blademaster NPCs using Warrior abilities.

There is absolutely no direct connection that says a Warrior class actually is a Blademaster. The closest thing we have is roleplay, same as Rogues had with Cursed Vision and the Warglaives or Hunters have bow with Sylvanas' bow and quiver. These things don't discredit the possibility of a Blademaster class. We know for a fact that Blademasters have their own gameplay as defined in other games like Warcraft 3, where the concept originated. This was further expanded to a more modern concept that people can get behind, like Samuro in Heroes of the Storm.

Blizzard themselves created the concept, and made Samuro more than just an Arms Warrior in MOBA form.

[Syegfryed]

Nothing supports either argument. I am discrediting the very method you have used to tie together Warriors as Blademasters. Everything boils down to examples of NPCs having warrior abilities or being referred to as warriors.

And warriors and blademasters have both, they have the SAME skills and they are referred, tagged as the same, and even had a blademaster as warrior trainer, something that never happened to warlocks and DH, therefore, you are cherrypicking evidence trying to make then the same

Not one piece of evidence from you actually has a Warrior actually representing the Burning Blade Blademaster archetype

you must be fucking joking with me, the only thing i do is to show examples of the blademaster and some of then are direct from the burning blade clan, The warrior trainer was from the burning blade clan, even Mankrik was

Saying there is "absolutely no direct connection that says a warrior is a blademaster" is just a disonest and false take

Like i said, this problem lies down to you two literally having a wrong take on the thing, thinking they are a different class, and basing the entire argument on a false premise

And since the question of the topic lies on: If they made a new class in the future, what would it be? the answer is definitly, not blademaster, even tinkers are more possible

[Triceron]

And warriors and blademasters have both, they have the SAME skills and they are referred, tagged as the same, and even had a blademaster as warrior trainer, something that never happened to warlocks and DH, therefore, you are cherrypicking evidence trying to make then the same

And at the end of the day, you're still just referring to NPCs. None of these characters actually have anything to do with the Warrior Player Class becoming a Blademaster. None.

So what if you can train from a Blademaster NPC? You learn generic Warrior abilities that every other Warrior can use. Blademaster Rokanada teaches Prot skills to any shield-bearing tank who uses 1h Maces. Think about that.

you must be fucking joking with me, the only thing i do is to show examples of the blademaster and some of then are direct from the burning blade clan, The warrior trainer was from the burning blade clan, even Mankrik was

Saying there is "absolutely no direct connection that says a warrior is a blademaster" is just a disonest and false take

Read carefully.

There is no direct connection that says a Warrior is a Blademaster.

You have shown plenty of examples of Blademaster NPCs. I'm not talking about NPCs. I'm talking about the Warrior class.

The Player Warrior class does not represent anything about Blademasters whatsoever. The only Blademaster ability in the Warrior class is Bladestorm ability that can be used with any weapon equipped including Maces, and was originally usable by all specs including Prot.

The closest you can get is transmogging your Orc Warrior with a Katana, and using the Banner of the Burning Blade toy. That's it.

Like i said, this problem lies down to you two literally having a wrong take on the thing, thinking they are a different class, and basing the entire argument on a false premise

Except the premise isn't false. It's absolutely true considering there is no evidence that the Warrior class is a Blademaster.

And since the question of the topic lies on: If they made a new class in the future, what would it be? the answer is definitly, not blademaster, even tinkers are more possible

Again, up to Blizzard to decide.

The answer to this could just as possibly be No new class will ever be made and Demon Hunter is the last one we'll ever see. Consider the possibilities, right?

[El Gucaragua]

The Dragonsworn is the closest example to something that I personally would want.

But I would love to have customizability that allows the player to choose which flight they belong to, and the specs reflect that in their VFX.

[Syegfryed]

Keyword is *had*.

That Warrior trainer NPC no longer has the title of Warrior Trainer. The connection has since been severed.

just because he retired does not mean he wasn't, the story and the lore was not erased, no matter how you try that.

That connection never existed with Warlocks and DH? Perhaps not, but it just as well could have since we knew one Dev was aiming to do so. Read his blog, he details everything about what he thought about the DH and how he simply saw it as a means to flavour the Warlock further.

"it never had, it never was, but ti could be, so my point stand"

come on, you are literally grasping at straws, warlocks were never even hinted as demon hunters, they had everything else different, unlike blademasters and warriors, rly, stop trying to say they are the same

Read carefully.

There is no direct connection that says a Warrior is a Blademaster.

read again.

There is, direct connections, both in lore and in the game, choosing to flat out ignore then, or not accept then, is not going to change that

but the Warrior class does not represent anything about Blademasters whatsoever.

This is you assuming that(to not say lying), a warrior class literally represent the blademasters, not fully 100% but it does, saying they don't represent anything whatsoever is being flat out wrong.

It's like saying a Death Knight is a type necromancer

yet again with another false equivalence, you would be better comparing dh and warlocks with necromancer and DK, since they do share more similarities, even by being a ranged x melee spec.

Except the premise isn't false. It's absolutely true considering there is no evidence that the Warrior class is a Blademaster.

there is countless of evidences, posted a lot of times here and in the other topic, straight up ignoring then or not deming then suitable to your taste don't magically erase then.

[jellmoo]

The Dragonsworn is the closest example to something that I personally would want.

But I would love to have customizability that allows the player to choose which flight they belong to, and the specs reflect that in their VFX.

I think the challenge here is to figure out what a Dragonsworn actually is. Is it a mortal creature (playable race) being infused with the power of dragons to do their will? If so, is that better served as a Covenant style system? Is it the ability to play as an actual dragon? How can you incorporate all of the various flights into a single class?

I like the idea, but I think there's a wide gap when it comes to what people actually think of when it comes to the concept of the class.

The more I read the... um... interesting arguments regarding the Blademaster, the more the concept intrigues me. While I don't think the game needs an more melee classes, it is a classic fantasy archetype that's missing from the game that could make for a fun addition.

[Triceron]

just because he retired does not mean he wasn't, the story and the lore was not erased, no matter how you try that.

If we're talking about lore, then Paladins are also Warriors.

Arthas was trained by Muradin, a Warrior. The Knights of the Silver Hand were Priests who were trained in combat by Warriors, and Warriors who took up the Holy Light.

Paladins are Warriors too, but they are not represented in the game's Player Classes as having specific 'Warrior' abilities because of game mechanics. Blizzard could have made the Paladin a Warrior spec, but they chose specifically to give it its own class. Blademaster has not had this benefit, and remains unplayable and unrepresented in the game; just like Shadow Hunters, Wardens and Dark Rangers.

"it never had, it never was, but ti could be, so my point stand"

come on, you are literally grasping at straws, warlocks were never even hinted as demon hunters, they had everything else different, unlike blademasters and warriors, rly, stop trying to say they are the same

Except the Warrior class was never hinted as being a Blademaster. The Warrior class doesn't actually learn anything specific to Blademasters outside of the Bladestorm ability that was originally usable by all specs and all weapon types back in TBC. It has become a Warrior talent that has little to do with Blademaster themes or fantasy.

read again.

There is, direct connections, both in lore and in the game, choosing to flat out ignore then, or not accept then, is not going to change that

Those same connections exist between a Warrior and Paladin, Shaman and more. We're talking about lore, where Warriors literally trained the Paladins to fight in melee combat. Muradin trained Arthas. Blackmoore trained Thrall as a Warrior first, before he trained as a Shaman under Drek'thar. The lore of a Warrior is broadly applied to anyone who uses melee combat.

If we're talking about the specific Warrior Player Class, then they are not Paladins, Demon Hunters, Shamans or Blademasters. They are simply the Warrior class who has the *abilities* from heroes such as Mountain Kings, Chieftains, Blademasters, but nonetheless is a Warrior class. You aren't specifically a knight or a footman or a grunt, you are a Warrior class. That is different from the broad use of the term when applied to any other archetype, like how the Paladin is a Holy Warrior or the Blademaster is a legendary Warrior.

This is you assuming that(to not say lying), a warrior class literally represent the blademasters, not fully 100% but it does, saying they don't represent anything whatsoever is being flat out wrong.

Having an ability does not mean it represents the fantasy.

Druids have Starfall and Moon related magic. This is not a representation of the Priestess of the Moon. This is a *connection*, but it is not *representation*.

It's the same way we regard Warlocks and Demon Hunters. There is a connection, since Warlocks were able to learn Metamorphosis, but Warlocks never *represented* Demon Hunters.

The Warrior class does not *represent* Blademasters. It actually works the other way around where Blademaster NPCs represent Warriors, but it has never worked the other way around where any typical Warrior has in turn become a Blademaster.

yet again with another false equivalence, you would be better comparing dh and warlocks with necromancer and DK, since they do share more similarities, even by being a ranged x melee spec.

So what, you would only consider Blademaster has its own theme and fantasy if it were ranged?

Absurd.

Blademaster already has a distinct style of play that involves deception and stealth mechanics that are not found on the Warrior class. That is already the difference between Rogues and Warriors.

there is countless of evidences, posted a lot of times here and in the other topic, straight up ignoring then or not deming then suitable to your taste don't magically erase then.

Evidence of NPCs.

We're talking about Player Classes. Not one bit of evidence you have provided has indicated that the Warrior class is or can be an actual Blademaster.

All signs point to us being able to RP as one, just as Rogues were able to RP as Demon Hunters and Hunters will be able to RP as Dark Rangers. At no point does this mean these archetypes are actually playable.


Whether they should actually add a Blademaster class is not what I'm arguing against. I don't think Blizzard should have necessarily added the Demon Hunter either if I knew their approach was going to gut existing classes and only add them with 2 specs. It's a very nuanced subject considering Blizzard has made plenty of controversial choices in what new classes to add to WoW.

[El Gucaragua]

I think the challenge here is to figure out what a Dragonsworn actually is. Is it a mortal creature (playable race) being infused with the power of dragons to do their will? If so, is that better served as a Covenant style system? Is it the ability to play as an actual dragon? How can you incorporate all of the various flights into a single class?

I like the idea, but I think there's a wide gap when it comes to what people actually think of when it comes to the concept of the class.

The more I read the... um... interesting arguments regarding the Blademaster, the more the concept intrigues me. While I don't think the game needs an more melee classes, it is a classic fantasy archetype that's missing from the game that could make for a fun addition.

I do agree that the idea needs a comprehensive foundation before implementation. It's more just the one thing I've always wanted in this game as Dragons are my favorite mythical creature, and since WoW is filled with them it's always been a dream.

I more-so would want just one more mail wearer that can tank, or make a shaman spec tank. The Dragon I can dream about.

[jellmoo]

I do agree that the idea needs a comprehensive foundation before implementation. It's more just the one thing I've always wanted in this game as Dragons are my favorite mythical creature, and since WoW is filled with them it's always been a dream.

I more-so would want just one more mail wearer that can tank, or make a shaman spec tank. The Dragon I can dream about.

There was a a long back and forth way earlier in this thread which bantered back and forth the idea that the class could essentially be a playable Dragon. It's not something I personally am in favor of, as I'd prefer there be a seperation between the player character and extremely powerful races, but others do make a decent argument for having the class be essentially being a playable Dragon.

I think my preference at this point is to do away with the Mail tier of armor altogether, rolling everyone into Light (Cloth), Medium (Leather) and Heavy (Plate). Mail just doesn't seem to serve a purpose these days. Absolutely none of the survivability of either Hunters or Shaman is tied to their armor. It seems like it exists for reasons that just aren't in the game anymore.