1. #6221
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    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 would personally make the class be Twilight Dragons (it's not a stretch to think they could use some variation/corrupted version of the 5 dragonflights they used to creat them). They will be mainly on humanoid form, any current race with draconic customization (scally/sha-touched skin/fur, glowin eyes, horns, weird hair color, maybe some void-corrupted accents) or maybe update the draconid model to allow player customization, and show their dragon form to fly and/or when they do certain abilities.

  2. #6222
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    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.
    I would rather have the dragon form be the major CD with affects based around the spec. The only time I would want them to really be the dragon is akin to something like druid's travel form. I only just joined the thread now so I can't say for arguments before hand, but I think there's a way to make powerful races possible as a playable one with cool classes. But at the same time, I also do agree that we really don't need more at this point, and just having fun thinking about it is more enjoyable for me personally.

    As for armor types, I would say that if the issue is tied into whether mail armor affects the survivability of the classes that utilize them in-game than that itself is the main issue, rather than the armor itself. Don't feel strongly either way about it, but I do see your point.

  3. #6223
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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
    One blademaster NPC being tagged as a warrior is simply because the WoD mission table uses player classes and specs to sort their followers. Which is why Nat Pagle is classified as a hunter despite him never, ever displaying any hunter qualities. Every time he shows up, he's a fisherman, and nothing but a fisherman.

    Blademaster NPCs having warrior abilities, again, is simply because Blizzard uses abilities that already exist in the game when they do a close enough job to represent the concept the NPC is supposed to represent. Blizzard does not create entirely new abilities for every new NPC they create. They only do so when the NPC is supposed to do something the game's current array of abilities (both player and NPC) does not fit.

    Having a blademaster be a warrior trainer does not mean that all blademasters are warriors and nothing but warriors. Both blademasters and "warriors" are melee fighters who depend on their weapons, and it's this overlap that allows one to teach the other. Like priests taught the first paladins.

    None of the arguments you presented so far "proves that blademasters = warriors" like you have repeatedly claimed. They may give some credence to your opinion, but they do not prove it as fact.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    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 mentioned this before. We have a total of five "major" dragonflights: red, black, blue, yellow, green. And here is the issue I have with the idea of it being a class: if we were to make it in a class, we run into two problems:
    • Assuming a three-spec class and each spec focuses on one dragonflight, that means either two dragonflights won't be representing.
    • Assuming a four-spec class, that means one is left behind. Is it possible to have a five-spec class? Yes. Probable? I don't think so.
    • Assuming a three-spec class and wanting to represent all five dragonflights, that means two of the specs would have to have two dragonflights "mashed together" in them, like Green and Red being the healer spec. That, for me, does not work for two reasons: one, it kind of defeats the purpose of the dragonsworn swearing themselves to a dragonflight. Second, it prevents the spec from truly focusing on one aspec.

    But if we were to make the dragonflights into a Covenant-style feature, we have five different "covenants", each with their own special ability(ies), buffs and rewards. Which, on paper, works. But then there is one issue with it that I see: the cosmetic rewards. The dragonflights are all dragons. Save for small differences, they all look the same. How different could it be a "dragon-based armor" from the red dragonflight, and the blue dragonflight?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  4. #6224
    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post
    I would personally make the class be Twilight Dragons (it's not a stretch to think they could use some variation/corrupted version of the 5 dragonflights they used to creat them). They will be mainly on humanoid form, any current race with draconic customization (scally/sha-touched skin/fur, glowin eyes, horns, weird hair color, maybe some void-corrupted accents) or maybe update the draconid model to allow player customization, and show their dragon form to fly and/or when they do certain abilities.
    I'm not sire thsI'm not sure that the interest is there for the Twilight Dragonflight. Most WoW fans are likely invested in the original flights. I could of course be wrong, but I think there would be some disappointment if those Flights weren't represented in the game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I mentioned this before. We have a total of five "major" dragonflights: red, black, blue, yellow, green. And here is the issue I have with the idea of it being a class: if we were to make it in a class, we run into two problems:
    • Assuming a three-spec class and each spec focuses on one dragonflight, that means either two dragonflights won't be representing.
    • Assuming a four-spec class, that means one is left behind. Is it possible to have a five-spec class? Yes. Probable? I don't think so.
    • Assuming a three-spec class and wanting to represent all five dragonflights, that means two of the specs would have to have two dragonflights "mashed together" in them, like Green and Red being the healer spec. That, for me, does not work for two reasons: one, it kind of defeats the purpose of the dragonsworn swearing themselves to a dragonflight. Second, it prevents the spec from truly focusing on one aspec.
    Honestly? I don't think there's a ton to rebut what you've laid out. A 4 spec class is incredibly unlikely to happen again, much less a 5 spec one.

    I could potentially see Flights being left out. Black and Red are about as certain as you can get for inclusion, and I would assume Blue would be the third. That would work pretty well to have tank/heal and dps specs respectively. The narrative could easily have the other flights taking a back seat for the expansion. But I agree that this is far from elegant.

    Mashing the Flights together isn't outside the realm of possibility, assuming the narrative is another "all flights come together to fight a common foe". The could work into the class a mechanic that allows the player to build up power to a respective Flight in combat for different bonuses. Sort of demonstrating that they use the power of the appropriate flight when it makes the most sense. But again, this is not exactly elegant.

    But if we were to make the dragonflights into a Covenant-style feature, we have five different "covenants", each with their own special ability(ies), buffs and rewards. Which, on paper, works. But then there is one issue with it that I see: the cosmetic rewards. The dragonflights are all dragons. Save for small differences, they all look the same. How different could it be a "dragon-based armor" from the red dragonflight, and the blue dragonflight?
    I agree that this is the most likely scenario, even if it's the most boring (for me anyway, as another expansion of borrowed power is... ugh). But you are right that the difference between the flights might not feel robust enough for people. There's a world of difference between supporting vampires vs supporting faeries, but is there enough of a difference between supporting the red vs the green dragonflight?

    I actually think the armor is less of an issue, since they could be stylistically pretty different, but they likely wouldn't be particularly iconic.

    The problem with the Dragonsworn as a concept, ultimately, is the more I think about it, the less excited I get. It seems really fun in the abstract, but the dragon is in the details.

  5. #6225
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If we're talking about lore, then Paladins are also Warriors.

    They were, 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.

    Again, with another false equivalence, i wonder how you guys cannot make an argument without goingo for absurd comparisons, none of those things happened in wow, none of those are ingame trainners, none, its not the same thing

    When you find, a paladin trainner, in the game, training priests, or a Warlock trainner, training demon hunter, then, you can say thaey are the same.

    Except the Warrior class was never hinted as being a Blademaster.
    - Blademaster as warriors trainner
    - Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions
    - Blademasters NPCs being tagged as Warriors in different stances/Scenarios
    - Arms spec literally called master of weapons IE. Master of blades too.
    - Warrior having blademaster skills.
    - Lore flat out stating that blademaster are legendary warriors
    - Their theme and fantasy revolving around they being skilled and ultimate" warriors, pure warriors, fighting head-on into combat
    - they both use plates, they both use blades, they both are melee focused fighters
    - The blademaster being a title as much as far seer, just different ways to call warriors and shamans.(Far Seers are ancient Orcs who represent the pinnacle of Shamanistic power.)

    Come here and dare to say everything i pointed out happened to warlocks and shamans, i know you will do, but you have to understand the amount of bullshit you have to pull trying to

    Don't pick just one and nittpick that, that would be cherypicking fallacy, i want to know if they ahve all the same things.

    It has become a Warrior talent that has little to do with Blademaster themes or fantasy.
    That is again, flat out wrong, cause they have everything to do with blademaster theme and fantasy, maybe not the one you made up with your headcanon+hots.



    Having an ability does not mean it represents the fantasy.
    Then why you think to represent the fantasy warriors should have windwalk/wrilind/ AKA having those abilities... IF YOU LITERALLY SAID HAVING AN ABILITY DOES NOT MEAN IT REPRESENT THE FANTASY?

    You are literally refuting yourself, you said in all words, warriors don't need to have wind walk and mirror image to represent the blademaster fantasy, and that is completely right, because there is blademaster ingame who don't.

    The Warrior class does not *represent* Blademasters. It actually works the other way around where Blademaster NPCs represent Warriors



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

    Absurd.
    abusrd is your comparisons, but yeah, they being ranged, is something crucial in their fantasy and gameplay that are vastly different.

    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.
    plaayble warrior doing what blademaster npcs can do is literally a indacted of warriors being blademaster.


    the whole root of this onversation is again, you basing the argument of blademaster being something else than a tittle , a different name for the warriorclass, just like far seer, tauren chieftain and mountain king, all of those are names for shamans and warriors, they are not their own class, much less "their own PlAyAbLe clAsS"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    One blademaster NPC being tagged as a warrior is simply because the WoD mission table uses player classes and specs to sort their followers
    that is your opinion., in other hand, they do that because is what they are, just like Blizzard rightfully tagged Death knights under their 3 specs

    . Which is why Nat Pagle is classified as a hunter despite him never, ever displaying any hunter qualities. Every time he shows up, he's a fisherman, and nothing but a fisherman.
    fisherman area type of hunters lmao, they "hunt fish", you are just being short sighted.
    Blademaster NPCs having warrior abilities, again, is simply because Blizzard uses abilities that already exist in the game when they do a close enough job to represent the concept the NPC is supposed to represent. Blizzard does not create entirely new abilities for every new NPC they create. They only do so when the NPC is supposed to do something the game's current array of abilities (both player and NPC) does not fit.
    that is of course, your opinion


    This could be, simple, because blademasters are warriors, and thats why blizzard put them with warrior skills, in the entire wow lifetime
    Having a blademaster be a warrior trainer does not mean that all blademasters are warriors and nothing but warriors. Both blademasters and "warriors" are melee fighters who depend on their weapons, and it's this overlap that allows one to teach the other. Like priests taught the first paladins.
    that is of course, your opinion, they are training warriors, simple because they are warriors. and nothing more occult or deep like your headcanon says.

    the priest and paladin is another false equivalence, because they taught the first paladin when there was no paladin, obviously, a paladin cannot train a paladin because they didn't existed yet, if you find me a priest as paladin trainer, in wow, when paladins already have other paladins to teach, they i will consider your opinion other than rubbish.

    None of the arguments you presented so far "proves that blademasters = warriors" like you have repeatedly claimed. They may give some credence to your opinion, but they do not prove it as fact.

    once again, you dismisinng the evidences and cherypicking other on top of your opinion, does not make then less true, which is extremely funny coming from a person who fight against tinker so much saying they were just profession = engineer, the hypocrisy is hilarious

  6. #6226
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Again, with another false equivalence,
    Again, meaningless, empty attempt at rebuttal. You have to explain why you think it's a false equivalence. Just saying it is without explaining is the equivalent of saying "nuh uh!"

    that is your opinion.,
    Unlike you, I never claimed otherwise, so I don't see why you thought it necessary to point that out.

    in other hand, they do that because is what they are
    And that is your opinion, not fact.

    just like Blizzard rightfully tagged Death knights under their 3 specs
    Because death knights are an actual class and those characters are actual death knights.

    fisherman area type of hunters lmao, they "hunt fish", you are just being short sighted.
    Wow. By that logic, demon hunters are also "a type of hunter" because they "hunt demons", therefore they cannot exist as a class. Either that, or the existence of demon hunters, who are "a type of hunter", validate the blademasters as a separate class of their own.

    that is of course, your opinion
    I'll repeat: I never claimed otherwise, so I don't see why you thought it necessary to point that out. You, on the other hand, keep stating your opinion as if it's hard fact.

    This could be, simple, because blademasters are warriors, and thats why blizzard put them with warrior skills, in the entire wow lifetime
    They may be "just warriors", or maybe they're not "just warriors". Blizzard has never unambiguously stated either way. As for the part I bolded out? That's false. Blademasters never had a single ability, warrior or otherwise, until WoD. And then came BfA with non-warrior abilities for the blademaster.

    that is of course, your opinion,
    This is getting tiresome. I never said this is anything but my opinion. I never stated things as fact.

    they are training warriors, simple because they are warriors.
    And that is your opinion. You're the one that need this reminder, not me. Again: Blizzard has never unambiguously stated if blademasters are "just warriors" or not.

    the priest and paladin is another false equivalence, because they taught the first paladin when there was no paladin, obviously, a paladin cannot train a paladin because they didn't existed yet,
    It's still the case of one class training another. And then we have Muradin (a warrior) training Arthas (a paladin) in Warcraft 3, a game in which paladins have already existed for quite some time, considering Uther was already a full-fledged, veteran paladin.

    they i will consider your opinion other than rubbish.
    It's downright amazing how you keep dismissing what I say as "opinion". It almost feels like you're trying to compensate for something.

    once again, you dismisinng the evidences
    I'm not dismissing evidence. I addressed all your points and every piece of evidence you brought to the table. If there is anyone dismissing anything here, it's you, as your rebuttals here are literally just "it's your opinion". With a "false equivalence" accusation. All of which boil down to "nuh-uh" because you never explain why you consider it a false equivalence.

    and cherypicking other on top of your opinion,
    REALLY overcompensating for something, there.

    does not make then less true,
    You haven't yet proven it as true, though. That's the problem. You think you have it proven as a fact, but you haven't. All those "smoking guns" you think you have, have been addressed by me and others and have revealed why they're not as "conclusive" as you think they are. And then you just dismiss and handwave away what we tell you.

    You act as if saying "it's just your OpInIoN" makes you a master of rebuttal. It doesn't.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-04-30 at 03:06 AM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  7. #6227
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Again, meaningless, empty attempt at rebuttal.
    Like i said, gladly you shared your opinion, in this matter, giving your opinion, thinking you "addressed" or even "refuted" anything, but like i said before, i am tired of false equivalences, red hearing, cherry picking and always trying to revisit the same redundant and false argument, im waiting though, to see the same double standard and hypocrisy when you keep saying tinkers are just engineers, because the irony is almost solid.

    you never explain why you consider it a false equivalence.
    It is a false equivalence because they are not equivalent, already explained countless of times, warlocks having meta is not equal as warriors having bladestorm, a group of priests training a group of warrior to first create the class is not the same as having an actuall class trainner in wow, this is pure simple a fallacy, thinking just because two different things share a random property they are the same, is pathetic and there is no reason to further go down in this rabbit hole..

  8. #6228
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Like i said, gladly you shared your opinion, in this matter, giving your opinion,
    Repeating this only makes you look like a fool. I have not proposed my opinion as fact here, and did not act as if what I'm writing is anything but my own opinion. Unlike you who have stated your own opinion as fact on every single post of yours in regard to this subject.

    thinking you "addressed" or even "refuted" anything,but like i said before, i am tired of false equivalences, red hearing, cherry picking and always trying to revisit the same redundant and false argument,
    We have, though. And it's really telling how you accuse of "cherry picking" and "dismissing" stuff when the only one-- and I repeat: the only one-- doing that here, is you. You never addressed a single argument. You just dismissed what people wrote as "false equivalence" and "just our opinion" like a young child says "nuh-uh!" when they try to argue.

    im waiting though, to see the same double standard and hypocrisy when you keep saying tinkers are just engineers, because the irony is almost solid.
    It's not, though. The only reason you believe it's double-standard is because you refuse to see the differences, here, between the blademaster concept and the warrior player class. Examples that have been demonstrated to you several times over, two of which being: agile quick fighters, and being able to use fire magic.

    It is a false equivalence because they are not equivalent, already explained countless of times,
    You haven't. Not a single time. You only asserted it is.

    warlocks having meta is not equal as warriors having bladestorm,
    Why not?
    a group of priests training a group of warrior to first create the class is not the same as having an actuall class trainner in wow,
    Why not? The World of Warcraft game is based off the same lore.
    this is pure simple a fallacy,
    Again: why? What fallacy is this?
    thinking just because two different things share a random property they are the same, is pathetic
    Once more: why? Not to mention you're misrepresenting the argument. It's not a "random property" but actually key abilities.
    and there is no reason to further go down in this rabbit hole..
    You dodged and weaseled your way of addressing the concerns and arguments presented, not a single time you properly responded to what people wrote in response to you. And again: saying "it's a fallacy" or "false equivalence" or "it's just your opinion" are not proper rebuttals.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  9. #6229
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post

    Again, with another false equivalence, i wonder how you guys cannot make an argument without goingo for absurd comparisons, none of those things happened in wow, none of those are ingame trainners, none, its not the same thing

    When you find, a paladin trainner, in the game, training priests, or a Warlock trainner, training demon hunter, then, you can say thaey are the same.
    No, even then you can't say they're the same. That is the case I point out. Game mechanics like class trainers are just representative of mechanics, not lore.

    They could have a fisherman teach you Hunter abilities and it does not mean Hunters are Fishermen. You understand this right? NPCs are just NPCs.

    - Blademaster as warriors trainner
    - Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions
    - Blademasters NPCs being tagged as Warriors in different stances/Scenarios
    - Arms spec literally called master of weapons IE. Master of blades too.
    - Warrior having blademaster skills.
    - Lore flat out stating that blademaster are legendary warriors
    - Their theme and fantasy revolving around they being skilled and ultimate" warriors, pure warriors, fighting head-on into combat
    - they both use plates, they both use blades, they both are melee focused fighters
    - The blademaster being a title as much as far seer, just different ways to call warriors and shamans.(Far Seers are ancient Orcs who represent the pinnacle of Shamanistic power.)
    None of that applies to the Warrior Player class. Everything mentioned here is either an example of an NPC or you literally making an observed comparison between two Plate wearing claases that uses blades. Guess what? DKs also use bladed weapons and wear plate. Also, Blademasters are depicted wearing very little armor in WC3 and Heroes of the storm, not heavy plate. Even in WoW we have many Blademasters who aren't heavily armored.


    Come here and dare to say everything i pointed out happened to warlocks and shamans, i know you will do, but you have to understand the amount of bullshit you have to pull trying to
    Half of the stuff you mentioned above was bullshit too. NPCs, and observations. You just believe it to be true when two classes using swords does not depict the Blademaster class fantasy.

    Don't pick just one and nittpick that, that would be cherypicking fallacy, i want to know if they ahve all the same things.
    Blademasters also need ALL of their fantasy yo be considered playable.

    You won't see me making this same argument against the Miuntain King or Chieftain, because we see ALL of their abilities and the entire class fantasy being represented in the Warrior class.

    Then why you think to represent the fantasy warriors should have windwalk/wrilind/ AKA having those abilities... IF YOU LITERALLY SAID HAVING AN ABILITY DOES NOT MEAN IT REPRESENT THE FANTASY?
    Because ONE ability does not represent a class. ALL abilities and adhering to the class fantasy does. Same reason why I mention the warlock example, becaause just having Metamorphosis was not enough to be considered having the DH class fantasy.

    Just having Bladestorm does not let Warriors play out the Blademaster class fantasy. If Blizzard did give them Windwalk and Mirror Image, then we can talk. But those abilities are NOT typical Warrior themed abilities, which is why Blizzard has not added them to the class.

    So either two things happen to make a Warrior play like Blademaster
    A) they give them Windwalk and Mirror Image and allow the Warrior to have stealth and deception mechanics, retconning the Warrior identity
    B) they officially regard the Blademaster as a part of the Warrior class while leaving out Windwalk and Mirror Image, retconning the Blademaster identity.

    Neither has officially happened.

    You are literally refuting yourself, you said in all words, warriors don't need to have wind walk and mirror image to represent the blademaster fantasy, and that is completely right, because there is blademaster ingame who don't.
    If that did count, then Shamans wear plate because Thrall could wear Doomhammer's plate armor. That is an NPC who is a Shaman who wears plate.

    Or look how there were Druids who could use Elemental Fire abilities like Fandral Staghelm. This means Druids can use elemental fire magic, right?

    NPCs are not bound to class restrictions, and do not represent player classes. Just because we have Druids in the game who use fire and even got a staff that let us use the fire cat model does not mean Druids use elemental fire as a part of their class identity.

    You are purposefully being naive because you are only looking at WoW for examples of what a Blademaster is when the concept is already well defined in Warcraft 3, and WoW has done an inconsistent way of translating that identity into WoW just like it did a terrible job translating other NPCs.

    How do you regard DK NPCs that used warrior abilities and did not have Death Coil? A Death Knight Player class is a sum of all parts. It is not just any one ability, it has all the Death Knight abilities and the full class fantasy of being a Death Knight. Whether you play Warcraft 3 or Heroes of the Storm, the WoW DK class has a spec or build to play as that.

    You want to play as a MK in WoW? You can. You want to play as a Chieftain? You can. All the abilities are available in the class.

    You want to play as a Blademaster? Well you have to RP it just like people had to RP Demon Hunters before the class was added, or like Dark Rangers right now who have no true representation at all until next patch.

    There is no way to get the full Blademaster experience of WC3 in WoW, and that is what we are collectively talking about when we talk about a Blademaster concept.

    You are literally talking about RPing a Blademaster that does not have Windwalk and Mirror Image and wears heavy plate armor, and doesn't even need to use Bladed weapons. This is just describing the Warrior class.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-30 at 07:12 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  10. #6230
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    No, even then you can't say they're the same. That is the case I point out. Game mechanics like class trainers are just representative of mechanics, not lore.

    They could have a fisherman teach you Hunter abilities and it does not mean Hunters are Fishermen. You understand this right? NPCs are just NPCs.
    "npcs are just NPCS, but im basing things around npcs, i will use double standarts and only when they fit my perspective", beutiful.

    None of that applies to the Warrior Player class.
    ayyyy lmao
    Guess what? DKs also use bladed weapons and wear plate
    another false comparison
    Also, Blademasters are depicted wearing very little armor in WC3 and Heroes of the storm, not heavy plate. Even in WoW we have many Blademasters who aren't heavily armored.

    THeY aRe JuSt NpCs tHeY dO nOt CoUnT"


    And even that you are wrong, since there is examples of blademasters using heavy armor, you are jsut, once again, chery picking and ignoring things, they do not use much armor, in general, because orcs, do not use much armor, just Like Garrosh only had his pauldrons and he was not a monk

    Half of the stuff you mentioned above was bullshit too
    you mean literal facts that you tried dismiss by simple saying THeY aRe JuSt NpCs tHeY dO nOt CoUnT"

    You just believe it to be true when two classes using swords does not depict the Blademaster class fantasy.
    I never said that, i said this was one of the reasons, together with all of the others, you of course, are nitpicking and focusing entierly on "they both use swords" part
    Blademasters also need ALL of their fantasy yo be considered playable.
    Who said that? and who is you to decide that? this is jsut your arbitrary take, blizzard don't agre with that, thats why tons of npcs and lore figures do not have mirror image and wind walk, therefore, you are wrong.

    You can say "b-b-b-but its because the skills didn't exist, and thats why they can give the npcs those!", once again no, they give those skills only when they deem necessary.

    By example LAntressor of the Blade is one of the blademaster most well knows in the game, they didn't give him those skills, neither in tbc or wod, but they ddi give to jubeithos, in hellfire citadel, you want to say only one is a blademaster, and the other is not, of just accept that blizzard see both as blademaster and those skills are not encessary?

    You won't see me making this same argument against the Miuntain King or Chieftain, because we see ALL of their abilities and the entire class fantasy being represented in the Warrior class.
    You are literally lying, Mountain king use magic
    A magical hammer that is thrown at an enemy unit, causing damage and stunning the target.
    he become immune to spells:

    Activate Avatar to temporarily give the Mountain King 5 bonus armor, 500 bonus hit points, 20 bonus damage and spell immunity.
    and had a bash passive ability that warriros don't have:

    Gives a chance that the Mountain King's attack will do 25 bonus damage and stun his opponent for 2 seconds (1 second for Heroes).
    Duration (Hero)
    2 (1) sec.
    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mou..._III)#Reforged

    With tauren chieftain, we literally have only one of their skills that is shockwave, we don't have war stomp, we don't have endurance aura and we don't have reincarnation.

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Tau...(Warcraft_III)

    what we take from this is: you are not making the same argument by pure bias and doble standards

    Now this is a perfect and vallid comparison and equivalence, between those 3 heroes (not the kind of ones who guys are making up), Mountain king, Tauren chieftain, and blademaster are all warriors of their own race, that is their class, warrior. In wow, the warrior playable class, have elements of all of them and more, it cannot be just mountain king, it cannot be just tauren chieftain and it cannot be just blademaster, it need to be broad and adapted to fit different concepts, styles and fantasies

    Because ONE ability does not represent a class. ALL abilities and adhering to the class fantasy does. Same reason why I mention the warlock example, becaause just having Metamorphosis was not enough to be considered having the DH class fantasy.
    No, blizzard already gave plenty of examples of why it don't, by not giving npcs those.

    Just having Bladestorm does not let Warriors play out the Blademaster class fantasy.
    that is because you already put in your head, that blademaster class fantasy is fromm hots, when its not, we alreayd saw blademaster class fantasy in wow, several times, with several npcs, all of then is the same warrior-ish fantasy

    So either two things happen to make a Warrior play like Blademaster
    A) they give them Windwalk and Mirror Image and allow the Warrior to have stealth and deception mechanics, retconning the Warrior identity
    B) they officially regard the Blademaster as a part of the Warrior class while leaving out Windwalk and Mirror Image, retconning the Blademaster identity.

    Neither has officially happened.
    You must be playing another game, because option B happened since vanilla, that blizzard showed, several times, that blademasters can be blademasters withut two two skills.


    NPCs are not bound to class restrictions, and do not represent player classes. .
    Then why are you using the npcs to make up that blademaster is their own class, if they cannot represent one?

    Like i show, if "blademasters are not playable" then mountian king isn't, neither tauren cheiftain, because we cannot play like then and their fantasy, therefore, blizzard should make all 3 of then new classes

  11. #6231
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I'm not sire thsI'm not sure that the interest is there for the Twilight Dragonflight. Most WoW fans are likely invested in the original flights. I could of course be wrong, but I think there would be some disappointment if those Flights weren't represented in the game.
    The problem is that I can't see other lore-friendly way to make them to have all types of roles. The original flights are too restricted on that field, based on lore and different media.
    - Black -> They are the most physical. So they fit the melee/tank role.
    - Red and Green -> Healers
    - Blue -> Casters
    - Bronze -> They're the only ones shown in WoW to be able to fit any role, but they're mostly represented as casters.

    Meanwhile, the Twilight Dragonflight is more viable because they are all eggs from those flights infused with the magic of all the 5 through the Dragon Soul. So, while I admit its a stretch, it's less screeching than a blue dragon using healing flames or tanking.

  12. #6232
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Like i show, if "blademasters are not playable" then mountian king isn't, neither tauren cheiftain, because we cannot play like then and their fantasy, therefore, blizzard should make all 3 of then new classes
    Are you saying that we currently can't play a character that fulfills the Mountain King class fantasy? We can't play as a heavily armored Dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe and uses the Storm Bolt, Thunder Clap and Avatar abilities? Because I'm pretty sure we can.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post
    The problem is that I can't see other lore-friendly way to make them to have all types of roles. The original flights are too restricted on that field, based on lore and different media.
    - Black -> They are the most physical. So they fit the melee/tank role.
    - Red and Green -> Healers
    - Blue -> Casters
    - Bronze -> They're the only ones shown in WoW to be able to fit any role, but they're mostly represented as casters.

    Meanwhile, the Twilight Dragonflight is more viable because they are all eggs from those flights infused with the magic of all the 5 through the Dragon Soul. So, while I admit its a stretch, it's less screeching than a blue dragon using healing flames or tanking.
    It kind of seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. Using the actual Dragonflights is cumbersome/requires a ton of compromise, or going the Twilight Dragonflight route and you risk giving people something they kinda want, but not exactly.

    For the Flights, it could work if they essentially come together against a common foe, though this has essentially been done to death. So if you spec as a Tank, you are using the power of the Black Dragonflight. If you spec as a healer, you use the power of the Red. Spec as a DPS and you use the power of the Blue.

    Again, it's not terribly elegant. As much as I hate the idea, it really is feeling like the covenant system is the best way to pull off Dragonflight type powers in player characters.

  13. #6233
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    - Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions
    You do know this is not only objectively false, but also it's a demonstrable lie, right?

    Because there are blademasters who use abilities other than just the playable warrior class', (hence: the "objectively false" accusation) but also that you were already aware of that fact before you made that post because I pointed it out to you not just once, but twice. (Hence: the "demonstrable lie" accusation)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    ayyyy lmao


    another false comparison
    This is the epitome of bad attempts at rebuttals. Literally "nuh-uh!" I'll repeat what I said multiple times, already: explain why you think they're wrong.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  14. #6234
    By example LAntressor of the Blade is one of the blademaster most well knows in the game, they didn't give him those skills, neither in tbc or wod, but they ddi give to jubeithos, in hellfire citadel, you want to say only one is a blademaster, and the other is not, of just accept that blizzard see both as blademaster and those skills are not encessary?
    In TBC, the Blademasters weren't represented at all. Same as DKs, there were few NPCs that properly had Army of the Dead or Frost spells or even used Death Coil. Windwalk wasn't even a spell in the game at that time, they only recently added this ability in WoD. They only gave this ability to two NPCs in WoD, Jubei'thos and Akatha Blazeburn.

    Lantresor was purely modelled off a Warrior because he was a Follower who was built to be an Arms Warrior. No difference than Nat Pagle and Shadow Hunter Rala being classified as a Hunter in WoD. Lantresor was given Warrior abilities because the devs used him to represent Warriors in the Follower system. There is no 'Blademaster' with Blademaster abilities in the Follower system, and they modelled all of his abilities after a Warrior to maintain that consistency.

    It's a gameplay design decision similar to how all the Demon Hunters outside of Black Temple in TBC only had Rogue abilities, and none of them had a single Demon Hunter ability from WC3. Evasion at that point was given to the Rogue. They don't give NPCs consistent new class abilities unless there is an actual Player Class to take those abilities from. DK NPCs did not get actual DK abilities until Wrath, when the class was already designed. Before that they had Warrior abilities. If DK wasn't playable today, we'd still be looking at DK NPCs with Warrior abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Like i show, if "blademasters are not playable" then mountian king isn't, neither tauren cheiftain, because we cannot play like then and their fantasy, therefore, blizzard should make all 3 of then new classes
    You are actually correct on the first half of that statement. I have been trying to show you this since the other thread, that none of these concepts are actually playable. But you seem to only reason that if the concept is not the same, then Blizzard should make it playable. I never said Blademaster _should_ be playable, this is your own projected argument. We are saying that it _could_ be playable, because Blizzard has not completely tied the concepts together as one.


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

    "All the hero units of Warcraft III were originally supposed to become hero classes in World of Warcraft. Hero classes were still listed in 2005 on the "Under Development" page of the original website.[4] When a character hit level 40, it could start specializing in skills to become the same kind of hero. However, as Blizzard developed talent trees, they dropped the idea as they believed that the trees would provide enough customization. For example, a night elven warrior could specialize into wielding two one-handed weapons and essentially be a demon hunter, while a dwarven warrior could fulfill the fantasy of a mountain king,[5][6] or a undead warrior could become a death knight.[7]

    It was stated at the time by Nethaera that current plans were to introduce one new hero class per expansion set.[8]"
    https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comment...ordan_classes/

    Our original goal for the 9 classes we settled on was to bring in all the hero classes from the Warcraft RTS games. We also wanted them to be open ended concepts so that various races could attach to it and make it their own. For example, we didn't set out to make the Dwarven Mountain King, Tauren Chieftain and Orc Berserker. We made the Warrior, so that any of those could become a reality based on other choices made by the player (race, weapons, etc., note that this was before talents were dreamed up).
    We know the MK and Chieftain are in the Warrior class because the Devs formally mentioned them by name as an intentional part of its design. I even talked about this in another thread how Blizzard could do more to formally integrate MK and Chieftain themes into the Warrior class. You currently have to choose between MK talents, and can't even dual wield in the preferred spec. Racials also play into this, such as Dwarves having Stoneform (Avatar's stone form and spell immunity) to complete the Dwarven Mountain King fantasy, and Taurens having Warstomp which completes the Tauren Chieftain. Orcs don't actually have the racials that cover the Blademaster fantasy, they're more generalized towards the Grunts and Raiders.

    The Warrior class was made so broadly that it was supposed to be able to cover all the melee classes; Demon Hunters, Blademasters, Mountain Kings and even Death Knights. Some of that design has changed, and we see DK and Demon Hunters having their own classes. The same could be said about Mountain Kings and Chieftains, but the difference is we're not talking about either of these classes or their fantasy, we're talking about a Blademaster. No one is asking for a Mountain King or Chieftain to be separated into its own class, there is no demand for this. Blademaster is a different concept altogether, because despite my personal thoughts that a Warrior is perfectly fine representing the Blademaster (if Blizzard added more themes to it), I recognize that there are people who think that it has potential as its own class. That is why I am arguing that it is possible, even if it is not very plausible.

    We see NPCs with direct connections to the Warrior class because we are looking at design remnants that originally intended them to be playable through Warriors through this Hero system. Death Knights were a type of Warrior Hero class. You could argue personally that you don't view DK as a Warrior, but this is PROOF that Blizzard considered otherwise. Even with Demon Hunters, we see that there were *MULTIPLE* iterations of this from the perspective of different designers. This Hero system makes an example of Warriors as Demon Hunters. Xelnath tried to make the Warlock fully absorb the Demon Hunter identity. And now we have a Demon Hunter as a class. There is no one way to design any given concept, and that is why I am open to the Blademaster being its own concept. Not because Blizzard should do it, but because we can discuss it as a possibility based on Blizzard having shown they have considered other options.

    The warrior class itself doesn't do anything to represent the Blademaster any more than a Monk does, because at the end if the day you're RPing a dude with a sword and that's it. Arms Warrior lore is a weapons master, meaning they master any weapon. Nothing specific to exclusively using blades. How many people have responded to you that Blademaster is a Monk? It proves to me one thing - Blademaster is what any individual considers them to be. You just think they are Arms Warrior, no different from someone thinking they are Monk, no different than saying they are their own class. None of us are right, none of us are wrong, because Blizzard has kept it ambiguous.

    Warriors do not use the other Blademaster abilities EVEN THOUGH they are capable of using them, and that is the difference. The Warrior that can be RP'd as a Blademaster NPC from WoW, which is itself a representation of the Warrior class. The paradox is that the rest if the Blademaster theme, some elements which are covered by Rogues and Monks, are themes that the Warrior class does not reach into.

    If we're to talk about future Class concepts, one should actually look into how Blizzard designs classes. The Demon Hunter is the ideal specimen to break down and analyze, because it gives us insight on Blizzard's own thought processes and considerations. That you personally believe a Blademaster is an Arms Warrior is simply your belief, while I'm trying to show you that Blizzard doesn't actually buy into these hard definitions considering the many transitions that Demon Hunters had to go through until it got its own class. And we have that same happening to Blademasters, Wardens, Shadow Hunters and Dark Rangers today. It's ambiguous because we know Blizzard does not have any singular plan for these concepts; they have many plans which are left in various incomplete states.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-30 at 07:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  15. #6235
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Are you saying that we currently can't play a character that fulfills the Mountain King class fantasy? We can't play as a heavily armored Dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe and uses the Storm Bolt, Thunder Clap and Avatar abilities? Because I'm pretty sure we can.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It kind of seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. Using the actual Dragonflights is cumbersome/requires a ton of compromise, or going the Twilight Dragonflight route and you risk giving people something they kinda want, but not exactly.

    For the Flights, it could work if they essentially come together against a common foe, though this has essentially been done to death. So if you spec as a Tank, you are using the power of the Black Dragonflight. If you spec as a healer, you use the power of the Red. Spec as a DPS and you use the power of the Blue.

    Again, it's not terribly elegant. As much as I hate the idea, it really is feeling like the covenant system is the best way to pull off Dragonflight type powers in player characters.
    Yeah, if they want to give specifically the 5 main dragonflight powers, the easy way is the borrow power way.

  16. #6236
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,683
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Are you saying that we currently can't play a character that fulfills the Mountain King class fantasy? We can't play as a heavily armored Dwarf that wields a hammer and an axe and uses the Storm Bolt, Thunder Clap and Avatar abilities? Because I'm pretty sure we can.
    nope, we can't, because we don't have a magical damage hammer, we don't have the bash ability, we don't have the avatar ability like it was in the wc3, meaning, we don't have the exactm same gameplay of a rts game, therefore we can't fulfil that fantasy, just like we can't with blademaster

    by his logic of course

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    In TBC, the Blademasters weren't represented at all. Same as DKs, there were few NPCs that properly had Army of the Dead or Frost spells or even used Death Coil. Windwalk wasn't even a spell in the game at that time, they only recently added this ability in WoD. They only gave this ability to two NPCs in WoD, Jubei'thos and Akatha Blazeburn.
    then why they didn't give these abilities to the new blademaster? why not give then mirror iamge if the ability was in the game since wtLK since that expansion to mop to wod we see blademasters? all i see is excuses


    [QUOTE]It's a gameplay design decision similar to how all the Demon Hunters outside of Black Temple in TBC only had Rogue abilities[/QUOTE

    no it snot, we clearly can see its not, like i said,y ou would use this argument, by its fails when since vanilla to shadowlands blademaster description and abilities is pretty consistent.

    You are actually correct on the first half of that statement. I have been trying to show you this since the other thread, that none of these concepts are actually playable. But you seem to only reason that if the concept is not the same, then Blizzard should make it playable. I never said Blademaster _should_ be playable, this is your own projected argument. We are saying that it _could_ be playable, because Blizzard has not completely tied the concepts together as one.
    the thing is: you are wrong, we can play those 3 concepts, because blizzard already tied the concepts together, by giving us blademaster abilities, weapons, armor and etc, we can't play exactly like the RTS, and that is ok, because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway




    We know the MK and Chieftain are in the Warrior class because the Devs formally mentioned them by name as an intentional part of its design.
    And they did that is blademasters as well, cause what another orcish hero unit do you think they were talking about when they mention "orc berserker"? they even gave then blademaster later, clearly intentionally ting then together dude., the warrior ahve the 2 main abilities and ultimate from the mountain king and the blademaster, avatar and bladestorm.
    I even talked about this in another thread how Blizzard could do more to formally integrate MK and Chieftain themes into the Warrior class. You currently have to choose between MK talents, and can't even dual wield in the preferred spec.
    And they can do just that with blademaster as well, like i've being saying, no point in making another class and diluting warrior fantasy

    The Warrior class was made so broadly that it was supposed to be able to cover all the melee classes; Demon Hunters, Blademasters, Mountain Kings and even Death Knights. Some of that design has changed, and we see DK and Demon Hunters having their own classes. The same could be said about Mountain Kings and Chieftains, but the difference is we're not talking about either of these classes or their fantasy, we're talking about a Blademaster.
    first of all, no, it could not be said, dmoun hunters and death knight clearly used another form of magic, something warriros never did, death knight were also death and demon hunters use leather, warriors never had their skills, so there is a gigantic discrepancy to elave room for other classes, not the same thing as mudnane warriors.

    And you said yourself why you don't talk about other, because you though we already had 100% their skills, and we clearly don't.
    No one is asking for a Mountain King or Chieftain to be separated into its own class, there is no demand for this. Blademaster is a different concept altogether, because despite my personal thoughts that a Warrior is perfectly fine representing the Blademaster (if Blizzard added more themes to it), I recognize that there are people who think that it has potential as its own class. That is why I am arguing that it is possible, even if it is not very plausible.
    there is no demand for blademaster either, just a random thread wanting then to be shamans mixed with a moba game,, and that is the point here, there is no reason to dilute their fantasy and make some weird shenanigan and create an entire new class diluting the warrior one, this is not like just taking metamorphosis from warlock, who never had in the first place., because warlocks were never night elves DH, while blademasters always were orc warriors


    And once again, the point of the thread, what the future class would it be? definitely not another melee focused hero who is just a redundant part ot the warrior class, they will more likely do a ranged based spec after 3 melee, there is too many established non playable classes to come first, for they to need to think in diluting other classes to make new ones, its easier to see blademaster/mountain/tauren chieftain as 4spec or rpestige shenanigans like in the RPG

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You do know this is not only objectively false, but also it's a demonstrable lie, right?
    are you rly just want to make a scene? stop nittpicking, for a bit, i never said there was no npcs who do not use other things, i said that there are blademaster npcs who just use only warrior abilities like lantressor of the blade who only use warrior skills, like Mankrik, and other. Dear god, talking about epitome of bad attempts at rebutal, this is always ironic.

  17. #6237
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    nope, we can't, because we don't have a magical damage hammer, we don't have the bash ability, we don't have the avatar ability like it was in the wc3, meaning, we don't have the exactm same gameplay of a rts game, therefore we can't fulfil that fantasy, just like we can't with blademaster

    by his logic of course
    I can't speak for anyone else, but for me when I look at what is and isn't playable in game, I'm looking at archetypes more than anything. So, if I look at the archetype that the Mountain King represents (Heavily armored Dwarf shock troop) I can say that it is easily playable in WoW with the Warrior. If I look at the Tauren Chieftain (Giant Battlefield Brute) I can see the concept filled in the Warrior and Shaman classes.

    When it comes to the Blademaster, I struggle to see how I can lay that archetype in game. A lightly armored or unarmored sword wielder with Asian flavour and mystical abilities to deceive. The Warrior class doesn't cover it since it's heavily armored and has few mystical abilities. The Monk has the light armor and Asian flavour, but doesn't master weaponry nor do his abilities have a slant towards deception. Rogues have the deception and light armor, but no Asian flavour nor do they use large swords.

    I don't particularly care one way or the other about Blademasters being incorporated into the Warrior class. What I personally care about is being able to fulfill classic fantasy archetypes in game. And I don't see a fun and engaging way to fulfill the archetype that the Blademaster represented in Warcraft 3.

  18. #6238
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    nope, we can't, because we don't have a magical damage hammer,
    We do have Storm Bolt.
    we don't have the bash ability,
    Warriors did have "bash" at one point.
    we don't have the avatar ability like it was in the wc3,
    We do have Avatar. And this "as it was in WC3" is a fallacy. Very few abilities in WoW are not "exactly like it was in WC3". I mean, look at the demon hunter. None of their abilities are like what it was in WC3: metamorphosis does not make the DH ranged. Self-immolation is not a toggle. Blur is not a passive 30% dodge bonus. And DHs don't have mana burn. By your logic, the WC3 demon hunter is not yet represented.

    meaning, we don't have the exactm same gameplay of a rts game, therefore we can't fulfil that fantasy, just like we can't with blademaster
    You're confusing "gameplay concept" with "having the exact same abilities". The two terms are not one and the same, and are barely related.

    there is no demand for blademaster either
    Was there any demand for the death knight class, or monk class?

    And once again, the point of the thread, what the future class would it be? definitely not another melee focused hero who is just a redundant part ot the warrior class,
    That is your opinion. I would not be against an agility-based melee class that wields two-handed swords, axes and polearms, who has the ability to create mirror images of itself and manipulate fire.

    are you rly just want to make a scene? stop nittpicking, for a bit,
    You're literally repeating false information. Worse: false information that has already been proven to be false. And also, you accuse us of 'double standards' and 'being wrong' and 'false equivalence'... yet not only this is a huge projection of yours, because we're not the ones doing anything of the sort, but you also adamantly refuse to explain why you believe we are "using double-standars" or "wrong" or "using false equivalences". And, to make matters even worse: you constantly state your opinion as if it's objective fact, despite it being anything but.

    i never said there was no npcs who do not use other things, i said that there are blademaster npcs who just use only warrior abilities like lantressor of the blade who only use warrior skills, like Mankrik, and other. Dear god, talking about epitome of bad attempts at rebutal, this is always ironic.
    You said, and I quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    - Blademasters NPCs having warrior skills only, in different expansions
    In other words: you did not say "some blademasters NPCs use only warrior skills". You outright said that blademasters NPCs only have warrior skills. Which has been conclusively demonstrated to be false. By me, with this example, and by Triceron, with this example.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-05-01 at 02:27 AM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  19. #6239
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    then why they didn't give these abilities to the new blademaster? why not give then mirror iamge if the ability was in the game since wtLK since that expansion to mop to wod we see blademasters? all i see is excuses
    Because they only give what they intended to make playable.

    We're talking about Vanilla WoW where Shadow Hunters, Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Death Knights, Demon Hunters, Brewmasters and Wardens did not have any of their own abilities.

    TBC is when they *started* adding some, and even then they didn't really do anything special for most NPCs. Demon Hunter NPCs outside Black Temple and the Demon Hunter in Nagrand didn't even have Metamorphosis even though the one in Aszhara did have it. I'm painting a picture here for you, that NPCs are inconsistent in their portrayal of the Warcraft 3 counterparts.

    Look at Dark Rangers. None of them even portray the Warcraft 3 version that is based heavily on Sylvanas. WoW simply treats all Dark Rangers as her followers, and they leave all the unique Banshee stuff to her. Yet we don't actually know if any of the Dark Ranger history in WoW actually involves a Banshee influence or not, we're just left with the assumption that Sylvanas is the only one capable. And now we have her dropping weapons that allow any Hunter to use her Wailing Arrow (Banshee scream) and Withering Fire (Shadow Images). So what do we actually know about Dark Rangers? Overall it's *still* an inconsistent mystery of what these characters actually are meant to be, now that they are no longer in service of Sylvanas.

    Blizzard would need to redefine the meaning behind these class concepts, and whether they are intended to be playable by existing classes or if there is room for a new class. Same question has existed for years for Demon Hunter, and people argued whether there was room for a Demon Hunter at all as its own class.

    It's a gameplay design decision similar to how all the Demon Hunters outside of Black Temple in TBC only had Rogue abilities[/QUOTE

    no it snot, we clearly can see its not, like i said,y ou would use this argument, by its fails when since vanilla to shadowlands blademaster description and abilities is pretty consistent.
    How is it consistent when we have WoD Blademasters who have Windwalk now, when they never had it before?

    It's not consistent at all if you consider some have these abilities, and some don't. It's not consistent when you consider a Lightforged Draenei in Legion is able to have Mirror Image while a Burning Blade NPC from TBC is only using Cleave and Heroic Leap.

    the thing is: you are wrong, we can play those 3 concepts, because blizzard already tied the concepts together, by giving us blademaster abilities, weapons, armor and etc, we can't play exactly like the RTS, and that is ok, because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway
    That is okay *for you*. Because you regard the Blademaster as a Warrior.

    That is no different than saying Demon Hunter doesn't need to be playable because Rogues could use Warglaives and Blindfolds and they don't need Metamorphosis because they don't need to play like the RTS, and that's okay because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway.

    It's a terrible argument to use because you're using opinion to define it. It's no different than the very opinions you disagree on regarding the Demon Hunter. It's the same bad faith argument being used here.

    And they did that is blademasters as well, cause what another orcish hero unit do you think they were talking about when they mention "orc berserker"? they even gave then blademaster later, clearly intentionally ting then together dude., the warrior ahve the 2 main abilities and ultimate from the mountain king and the blademaster, avatar and bladestorm.
    Grunts and Raiders in Warcraft 3 have a passive upgrade called "Berserker Strength". There are also Orc Berserkers in WoW. It's an archetype of a bloodthirsty, battle-hardened warrior.

    And they can do just that with blademaster as well, like i've being saying, no point in making another class and diluting warrior fantasy
    I agree. They can, and they don't have to make another class. Have you seen me disagreeing this point?

    first of all, no, it could not be said, dmoun hunters and death knight clearly used another form of magic, something warriros never did, death knight were also death and demon hunters use leather, warriors never had their skills, so there is a gigantic discrepancy to elave room for other classes, not the same thing as mudnane warriors.
    We have proof of a developer saying otherwise, and that Warrior was broad enough to cover any use of magic regardless of its source.

    And you said yourself why you don't talk about other, because you though we already had 100% their skills, and we clearly don't.
    Because I don't regard the Warrior actually being able to play as a Mountain King or Chieftain either. What I've pointed out is that a Warrior can competently represent them, because Blizzard has added all the themes and abilities needed to represent them. However I personally feel that they could *do better* in solidifying that connection, since MK's can't have access to all their abilities and Tauren Chieftains don't really have any access to their Runespears, or for that matter, the giant Totem weapons that the regular Tauren are known for.

    And in my opinion, Blizzard would not cross the line of their own Warrior design to give them Windwalk and Mirror Image, unless we're talking about a Weapon buff like we see with Sylvanas' bow, Cursed Vision of Sargeras for Rogues or the staff that turns Druids into a flaming kitty form. Nothing like this exists for Blademasters. And let me be clear - having access to these weapons simply enforces RP, not that you're actually playing as any of these classes.

    there is no demand for blademaster either, just a random thread wanting then to be shamans mixed with a moba game
    Then that is demand.

    You can't point at something that exists and say it's proof that it doesn't exist. Stop this use of hyperbole.

    My personal case to argue for Blademasters is because I believe Class Skins would be possible. Allied Races reskinned existing Races with new racials, visuals, customization and heritage armor/mounts. I can see them doing something similar for classes by adding new talents, themes, animations, transmog systems and spell visuals to completely retheme a class. These would be considered their own classes and not just a 'type of' the existing class it's based on.

    The obvious example is Necromancer Class Skin that has its own lore, history and is its own class. It summons various types of skeletons and undead, uses dark magic, and spreads various poisons/diseases/curses. The gameplay would be based on the Warlock class, and certain Talents could be changed out to give this more flavour while still keeping the overall gameplay relatively balanced. This means they can add in specific Necromancer abilities as talents without having a Warlock's gameplay get too close to a Death Knight or vice versa.

    This is where I see a Blademaster being possible since all you need is to apply a similar application to Warriors. A different set of talents allows you to have Mirror Image and Windwalk available to you. As a new class, the Weapon system can be altered to have an exclusivity to Polearms, Swords and Axes. New animations and transmogs could allow both specs to use a 2H weapon to maintain the Blademaster flavour.

    This is the potential I see for the game, but it's really up to Blizzard to decide whether it's even worth pursuing. We all know people want a Necromancer, but we know there's no room for it. We know people want a Blademaster, but there's no room for it. A Class skin system is the best way to add it all in without worrying about designing a completely new class or shoe-horning the concepts into existing classes.

    I point out the Blademaster in particular because I recognize that there is potential, and that there is demand, however small it may seem.

    And once again, the point of the thread, what the future class would it be? definitely not another melee focused hero who is just a redundant part ot the warrior class, they will more likely do a ranged based spec after 3 melee, there is too many established non playable classes to come first, for they to need to think in diluting other classes to make new ones, its easier to see blademaster/mountain/tauren chieftain as 4spec or rpestige shenanigans like in the RPG
    It will be whatever Blizzard chooses it to be, regardless of any actual discussion we have.

    The point of discussion is to share ideas of what we'd like to see. There is no reason to actually answer the question of 'what it will be' because only Blizzard can provide the answer.

    If this were 7 years ago, I would have just as easily said the Tinker is going to be the next class because there's no way Blizzard would add another Leather-wearing Agi-based Melee DPS/Tank that dual wields. But guess what? Blizzard added the Demon Hunter.

    They added another Leather wearing Melee class after the Monk, instead of a Tinker that could easily be a Melee/Ranged hybrid with a unique Tech theme. Think about that smart guy.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-30 at 11:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  20. #6240
    Pit Lord smityx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Walmart Basment FEMA Camp 7
    Posts
    2,323
    Leather class: Genderbender.
    Pronouns: He/She/WTF
    Race: Elf
    Prof: SJWarrior and White Knight Paladin
    Racial: Influencer - Has a 15% bonus to moral superiority over lesser classes
    Abilities: Can check almost all the Blue twitter check mark check boxes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •