1. #6261
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Lets just say that the chances of a class that is not already in the game, under another name, are higher
    Yes. I can agree on that, but it doesn't make it any more likely that Blizzard would nake it a class either.

    Tinker has always been more possible than Demon Hunters. Always. And we still don't have them in the game. Do you not find that curious yourself?

    if a man doesn't have his legs he stop being a man?
    An Orc with no legs is still an Orc. It doesn't mean they are anything but an Orc

    Blademaster is not a race, and can not be equated as such.

    Cute, coming from someone saying the absurd comparisons who have no equivalence at all

    Blademaster are warriors, and warriors are blademasters, just like mountain king, tauren chieftain, grunt, footman, and so on, they not having the entire tookit from a RTS game does not make then less so, none of the heroes of the RTS play exact the same as the RTS anyway, abilities change, other were cut that is the evolution of the game.
    Look above. ThreeFive people on this page are saying otherwise. This isn't even counting the numerous others who have chimed in on the subject. Open your eyes, my friend. Maybe, just maybe, what you say is not not true if multiple people are telling you otherwise. Just saying we are all on the wrong side doesn't make you any more right on the subject, especially if no one here is backing you up on your own statements.

    We all are open to the idea that Warriors do not 100% represent Blademasters, that Warriors are not Blademasters unless we individually choose to RP as one. That is enough to warrant discussion of it as its own class.

    If there was enough material in WoW for everyone to consider a Blademaster as already playable, then we don't need to discuss it at all. Yet multiple people are all talking about the same thing - that even though elements of the Blademaster already exist on the Warrior class, it's not enough to satisfy the full Blademaster identity that people expect from Warcraft 3. And we're all saying the same thing - the Warcraft 3 Blademaster concept is what we should be talking about when we talk about a Blademaster class. Anything less than that is pointless to debate, because we're not talking about how a Warrior is able to RP as a Blademaster. We're talking about the potential for a playable Blademaster that has its identity fulfilled, we are talking about a class that is not 100% representable in game right now. Even now the Warrior class is unable to fully represent Blademasters from Warcraft 3, they can only RP as a WoW Blademaster NPC that doesn't have any if its WC3 abilities. No different than Rogues RPing as Demon Hunter without any of their iconic abilities except 'Evasion'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-02 at 05:11 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.

  2. #6262
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    this is not about me or you, is about the truth buddy, those skils are called ultimate, for a reason.
    If you're calling this "truth", then you don't know what the word "truth" really means. If we're talking "iconic" and "defining", we're talking about a subjective definition. I mean, if you go around and ask people "what is the most defining, iconic characteristic of Superman to you?", people will give you different answers.

    That is you brining up the absolutism fallacy, they "don't need to say" in the way you think, they adding blademaster elements to warrior speak for itself.
    It's not an "absolutism fallacy". If you want to state something as a fact, then you need conclusive evidence. In other words, you are the one who needs "absolute evidence" to back up your case. If anything, you are the one making a fallacy here-- the "stating opinion as facts" fallacy.

    That is like, just your wrong opinion man
    Ah, there you go, stating your opinions as fact, speaking for Blizzard and being the gatekeeper. I do have an opinion about this, yes. But my opinion isn't wrong.

    Yes, It shows that you were wrong and nitpicking a strawman
    I'm not, though. And I'll repeat my question you're avoiding:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Okay. Cataclysm, not WoD. Does it make any real difference, though? We still have three iterations of the game with blademasters without abilities. Also, are Ishi's abilities "warrior abilities" because.... why? Because they share warrior ability icons? Because they do "similar things" (a charge and a PBAoE attack)? Again: why? Explain.
    On top of that, in Hellfire Citadel, we have the blademaster abilities given to a blademaster.

    Lets just say that the chances of a class that is not already in the game, under another name, are higher
    In your opinion.

    Cute, coming from someone saying the absurd comparisons who have no equivalence at all
    And every single time you accused others of "false equivalence" and "absurd" you never explained why you believe it is a "false equivalence" or "absurd". You just said it was, and left it at that. Not unlike how a bratty kid would say "nuh-uh!" as if it meant anything.

    Blademaster are warriors, and warriors are blademasters,
    In your opinions. Others disagree.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  3. #6263
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    one thing is see the class and say what they are, other is make up a new one, im calling blademasters samurais, because is what they are, is their basic concept, a samurai orc
    No, what you're doing is saying that the character concept I'm identifying as inherent in the Blademaster is invalid, and the one you identify is the only one applicable.

    thats because you can't


    Sure I can. I just don't want to. I can make an argument that the Demon Hunter or Death Knight from WC3 isn't accurately displayed in WoW. I don't feel the need to, but I can. I can argue that the Shadow Hunter isn't playable in WoW. I'm just not doing it right now. If I want to argue for or against the Tauren Chieftain or Mountain King being playable as concepts in WoW I can do that too.

    Don't confuse what I can do with what I feel like doing.

    the point is you can play the blademaster archetype in wow, that is a fact, is not 100% equal to the rts? yes, is not, but that is the same to every other hero from the rts.
    It isn't a fact. A fact is that I can play a Warrior. Or a Paladin. Or a Blood Elf. Or a character that is green. These are facts. You're stating your opinion. Don't confuse the two.

    ...there is armor in other parties of his body
    His chest and head, the areas that are literally the most vulnerable on the body have no armor on them. The dude is unarmored. The best ankle protection in the world isn't going to protect you when literally every enemy is going to be iming for the biggest, meatiest, most likely to kill you part of your unprotected body.

    "wind walk", bladestorm and "mirror images" design, is something you can find anywhere
    So? A character concet is more than a single thing. It's the combination of many things. Not just abilities. But aesthetic. Lore. Function.

    they don't use that, to defeat their enemies, that is for escape and cause confusion, to defeat the enemy is to use your sword.
    That's like saying that Rogues don't use stealth to defeat their enemies, they use daggers.

    and for you saying we can't have that archetype

    literally, a shirtless warrior with a 2h
    Except I still can't/ I can't use the abilities from the Blademaster. There is zero subterfuge or trickery. There is no use of agility as his primary stat. There is no fast attacking, oly slow, ponderous strikes. There is no agile, unarmored combat. Just transmog to make the heavy armor disappear.

    Your argument amounts to "I can play the concept so long as I compromise everything that makes the concept interesting".

    Which amounts to no, no I cannot play the concept.

  4. #6264
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,684
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    No, what you're doing is saying that the character concept I'm identifying as inherent in the Blademaster is invalid, and the one you identify is the only one applicable.
    So, the character concept that you made up is "inherent" in the blademaster, and say that you can't play the concept you create, is that so?

    Sure I can. I just don't want to. I can make an argument that the Demon Hunter or Death Knight from WC3 isn't accurately displayed in WoW. I don't feel the need to, but I can. I can argue that the Shadow Hunter isn't playable in WoW. I'm just not doing it right now. If I want to argue for or against the Tauren Chieftain or Mountain King being playable as concepts in WoW I can do that too.
    And if none then is accurately displayed, if and if there is other who don't get their "entire concept playable" why it will be somehow different with blademasters? just because your idea of awhat a blademaster is?

    It isn't a fact. A fact is that I can play a Warrior. Or a Paladin. Or a Blood Elf. Or a character that is green. These are facts. You're stating your opinion. Don't confuse the two.
    Warriors are blademasters, therefore you can play as a blademaster, is a fact, you can play a shirtless master of the blade with asian thematic/samurai vibe, that is not "my opinion" and people have being doing for years by now.

    His chest and head, the areas that are literally the most vulnerable on the body have no armor on them. The dude is unarmored. The best ankle protection in the world isn't going to protect you when literally every enemy is going to be iming for the biggest, meatiest, most likely to kill you part of your unprotected body.
    ......... that is how orcs live my friend, not exclusive to blademasters, see Garrosh and grom, no armor, you can find tons of other warriors who don't use armor, and find blademasters in wow with armor head to toe, this is not a vallid argument.

    So? A character concet is more than a single thing. It's the combination of many things. Not just abilities. But aesthetic. Lore. Function.
    need to keep this in mind for the next part, save this

    That's like saying that Rogues don't use stealth to defeat their enemies, they use daggers.
    the entire concept of rogues is being sneaky, well, rogues, that is not a concept of the blademaster, neither their definitive trait.

    Except I still can't/ I can't use the abilities from the Blademaster.
    So? A character concet is more than a single thing. It's the combination of many things. Not just abilities. But aesthetic. Lore. Function.
    And you are wrong you can use, just not all of then

    There is zero subterfuge or trickery.
    Blademasters are not about subterfuge and trickery as much as they are warriors mastering their blade, this is a thing blizzard just drop like mana burn, is not their main thing. And they can still revive as talents or new spells, claiming that there is reason for an entire new class for just that is asinine.

    There is no use of agility as his primary stat. There is no fast attacking, oly slow, ponderous strikes. There is no agile, unarmored combat. Just transmog to make the heavy armor disappear.
    Now their "primary agility stat" is somehow something valid? come on, this is just grasping at straw, nobody cares about that, this was just a gamplay thing for the RTS.

    There is, fast attacking, and the whole point of blademaster is fast and powerful strikes, there is agility yes, since warriors have great movement with charge and heroic leap and "unarmed combat" is something you are assuming becaus orcs don't use much armor

    Your argument amounts to "I can play the concept so long as I compromise everything that makes the concept interesting".

    Which amounts to no, no I cannot play the concept.
    your argument is making up a concept, that is not in wow, and saying you can't play that thing.

    A blademaster? a warrior stylish samurai? you can play that, you don't 100% need two skills of the rts game, especially when you already have their ultimate

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes. I can agree on that, but it doesn't make it any more likely that Blizzard would nake it a class either.
    Like i said, i have in mind that blizzard will first, go for the "non-playable class" first, before even attempting to revist the concept that she already made playable, thats jsut how obvious things are, ther eis no point in going for another place when there is plenty of resources to dig, especially not another melee one.
    Tinker has always been more possible than Demon Hunters. Always.
    that is you saying that

    An Orc with no legs is still an Orc. It doesn't mean they are anything but an Orc
    A blademaster without two skills still is a blademaster because a blademaster only stop being one when he have no blade at all

    A blademaster without a blade is no blademaster at all.”
    — Lantresor of the Blade
    Look above. ThreeFive people on this page are saying otherwise. This isn't even counting the numerous others who have chimed in on the subject. Open your eyes, my friend.
    Appeal to Popularity is an example of a logical fallacy, making an argument that something is the right or correct because a lot of people agree with it. This type of fallacy is also called bandwagon.
    And this is even more funny if you are assuming the asinine comparison between "hp and armor" from the mountain king and blademaster is somehow is valid, cause i didn't comment on that because is just burning neurons for nothing.

    We all are open to the idea that Warriors do not 100% represent Blademasters, that Warriors are not Blademasters unless we individually choose to RP as one. That is enough to warrant discussion of it as its own class.
    there is a gigantic difference between not representing 100% and not being a blademaster at all

    This argument is even more hypocrite when many other classes in the game lack their RTS abilities or have their abilities massively changed to not even be the same anymore, but somehow, they are fine, but with blademaster? that is just gamebreaking.

    Demon hunters? lost their passive evasion, lost mana burn, and their metamorphosis is not ranged anymore. Mountain king? your magical hammer is not so magical anymore, bash? you don't have it, and you are not immune to spells anymore, you literally cannot play exact like the demon hunter or the mountain king in the RTS, period, why the warrior need to be a carbom copy if others aren't? tauren cheiftain only have one of their skills in the warrior, but they are somehow covered

    But wait, skills don't matter, only when it is regarded to two skills of the blademasters, their ultimate? we don't even care.

    but wait, i can see the future, you will say we can't play blademasters, because blademaster whole "theme" is about "deception trickery and stealth" regardless if their depiction trough wow lifetime, the RPG, their lore and even the RTS are not like that

    If there was enough material in WoW for everyone to consider a Blademaster as already playable, then we don't need to discuss it at all. Yet multiple people are all talking about the same thing
    That is not even a vallid argument to make it is? cause there is enough material in the world to not consider the eath as flat, and people discuss about that, "multiple people believing in something" don't make it more true.

    Even more because what it takes is to give those two skills to warriors and be done with it by everyone else logic

    Blademasters from Warcraft 3, they can only RP as a WoW Blademaster NPC that doesn't have any if its WC3 abilities. No different than Rogues RPing as Demon Hunter without any of their iconic abilities except 'Evasion'.
    With it is different, because once again, you dumb down things to make up for the false equivalence, rogues aren't blind, rogues didn't eat a demon, rogues can't use fel magic and metamorphosis, while in other hand, Demon hunters do not use daggers, they do not rely on stealth and poisons, and so on.

    while both warriors and blademasters share the same skills(aka their ultimate), they share the same weapons (2h blades), they share the same theme(master of blades/weapons) they share the same fantasy(legendary samurai warriors)

    but this is pointless and everything will be ignored, you already made up in your mind that blademasters are some sort of rogue, who fundamental trait is deception and "trickery"(regardlss of their lore showing otherwise), therefore, their main abilities are wind walk and mirror iamge, fuck bladestorm, their ultimate, that does not count, and since the game should not evolve for blademasters, just for other classes, a blademaster is only playable if "rping" like a rogue and a DH, cause there is no real elements of a blademaster in warrior, once again, fuck bladestorm, but their amstery over blades, their style of fast and potent strikes.

    and please save our time trying to say bladestorm does not count because meta was with warlocks, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    snip
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    In your opinion
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2021-05-02 at 12:05 PM.

  5. #6265
    Dreadlord bloodkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in your mind
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Magister of Quelthalas View Post
    Tinkerer seems to be the most likely but that's said, who knows what Blizzard is planning? You can make valid arguments for every class.
    Like Necromancers. A lot of people say since we have DKs Necromancer class fantasy is fullfilled through them but i disagree. I say when we have Priests (ranged caster light wielders) and Paladina (melee combat light wielders) there is no reason to not have both DKs and Necromancers. Same with Blademasters. There are enough arguments for and against them. And at the end of the day Blizzard will do what Blizzard will do.
    The reason we don't have a necromancer class is probably because of the 'in lore' negative stigma against it: it's directly attributed to the scourge, just like the DK. After the original intro to the DK, every DK had to go ask for a pardon from the king not to be killed on the spot, this would probably also go for a necromancer. Personally, I'm not against such a class and would happily see it alongside the DK. As for blademasters, I think that they are kind of a bridge between monks, warriors and shamans. There's not too much that makes them incredibly unique as a class, but then again we have multiple classes that overlap with each other already, so not much that would be a strong argument against them (I'm also quite amused that this thread is still filled with shitposting even after teriz left, gotta say it really attracts some very special posters, if anyone is reading this and feels offended, take a hard look in the mirror).

    as for tinker, I personally feel that this concept doesn't have much traction to make a functional class: tech (that isn't based on a form ofmagic) in warcraft is whimsical and dysfunctional at best, with little actual functionality beyond harming it's users, which would make a very poor basis voor a class. However like you said, blizz will do whatever they think will be fun and interesting, whether we like it or not.
    'Something's awry.' -Duhgan 'Bel' beltayn

    'A Man choses, a Slave obeys.' -Andrew Rayn

  6. #6266
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodkin View Post
    The reason we don't have a necromancer class is probably because of the 'in lore' negative stigma against it: it's directly attributed to the scourge, just like the DK. After the original intro to the DK, every DK had to go ask for a pardon from the king not to be killed on the spot, this would probably also go for a necromancer. Personally, I'm not against such a class and would happily see it alongside the DK. As for blademasters, I think that they are kind of a bridge between monks, warriors and shamans. There's not too much that makes them incredibly unique as a class, but then again we have multiple classes that overlap with each other already, so not much that would be a strong argument against them (I'm also quite amused that this thread is still filled with shitposting even after teriz left, gotta say it really attracts some very special posters, if anyone is reading this and feels offended, take a hard look in the mirror).

    as for tinker, I personally feel that this concept doesn't have much traction to make a functional class: tech (that isn't based on a form ofmagic) in warcraft is whimsical and dysfunctional at best, with little actual functionality beyond harming it's users, which would make a very poor basis voor a class. However like you said, blizz will do whatever they think will be fun and interesting, whether we like it or not.
    It surprise me how people keep arguing with certain posters that openly said they're here not to discuss. We already have about 30 pages of those people saying "nah, you wrong, bacuase I say so". They have no intention of talking about what can or can't be, or what changes they'd do to make it possible. They are just here to derail the thread and for the attention. Just put them on ignore and go back to the topic.

  7. #6267
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    And this is even more funny if you are assuming the asinine comparison between "hp and armor" from the mountain king and blademaster is somehow is valid, cause i didn't comment on that because is just burning neurons for nothing.
    Unsurprisingly, you're using the "appeal to popularity" fallacy wrong, here. Because we're not saying "we are right because we are many". We're not saying we are right. We're saying you are wrong, because you keep spouting your opinion as a fact. You're taking your own subjective take and asserting it as objective fact. And you have zero conclusive evidence of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    snip
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    In your opinion.
    Wow. You really ran out of arguments, didn't you?

    It's funny, though. You keep replying with "it's your opinion" and "it's your wrong opinion", and yet when I point out what the conclusions you're posting are just your own opinion, not facts, you get triggered and "snip" my entire reply and in an attempt to be cute you use one of my own replies to claim what I posted is "just my opinion".

    No shit, Sherlock. I've already admitted it's my own opinion. And I never said it's not my opinion, either.

    So how about you try to be mature about this and stop stating your opinions as fact? And while you're at it, how about answering the question you've avoided for two posts in a row?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodkin View Post
    The reason we don't have a necromancer class is probably because of the 'in lore' negative stigma against it: it's directly attributed to the scourge, just like the DK. After the original intro to the DK, every DK had to go ask for a pardon from the king not to be killed on the spot, this would probably also go for a necromancer.
    To keep things in perspective, the death knight was not the only time something like that happened: the warlock class, in the beginning, were also heavily mistrusted. To the point that they were relegated to the Cleft of Shadows in Orgrimmar and a secluded basement in the corner of the Mage District in Stormwind.

    As for blademasters, I think that they are kind of a bridge between monks, warriors and shamans. There's not too much that makes them incredibly unique as a class, but then again we have multiple classes that overlap with each other already, so not much that would be a strong argument against them
    I believe they can be their own thing. I can easily imagine the blademaster as being a leather-wearer agility-based melee two-handed-blade wielding class with a spec dedicated to 'subterfuge' (by going invisible briefly and summoning phantom images of themselves) and a melee spec based on fire damage, since we have seen blademasters using fire magic.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-05-02 at 02:48 PM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  8. #6268
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    So, the character concept that you made up is "inherent" in the blademaster, and say that you can't play the concept you create, is that so?
    I made up a common fantasy trope? No, I wish I did, I'd be a wealthy man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekiro:_Shadows_Die_Twice
    https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Kensai
    https://dndtools.net/classes/kensai/

    It's a very common trope in fantasy, anime and video games. The Blademaster is WC3's version of a very popular archetype.

    And if none then is accurately displayed, if and if there is other who don't get their "entire concept playable" why it will be somehow different with blademasters? just because your idea of what a blademaster is?
    It's not different about Blademasters, that's the point. If somebody makes an argument about another class, more power to them. I'm just not doing so. I'm only talking about the artchetype that Bademasters represent that is currently not playable in WoW.

    Warriors are blademasters, therefore you can play as a blademaster, is a fact, you can play a shirtless master of the blade with Asian thematic/samurai vibe, that is not "my opinion" and people have being doing for years by now.
    Again, not a fact. You can claim things are facts until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it so. It is a conclusion you've reached. Not a fact. More importantly, I don't care if Warriors are Blademasters. Because I'm not even talking about that.

    I'm talking about the archetype that Blademasters represent, which isn't playable in WoW. Because you seem to think the entire concept is just a shirtless dude with a sword, when it very much isn't.

    ......... that is how orcs live my friend, not exclusive to blademasters, see Garrosh and grom, no armor, you can find tons of other warriors who don't use armor, and find blademasters in wow with armor head to toe, this is not a vallid argument.
    Just because one archetype involves not wearing armor doesn't mean it's the only archetype that involves not wearing armor.

    So yeah, it's a valid argument.

    the entire concept of rogues is being sneaky, well, rogues, that is not a concept of the blademaster, neither their definitive trait.
    So the Blademaster isn't sneaky, despite having an ability that the opposing team very much needed to plan against, that allowed him to sneak? Being sneaky and using subterfuge is literally their thing. You're railing against this only because it pokes holes in your Warrior theory.

    And you are wrong you can use, just not all of then
    One out of three abilities. The wrong primary stat. The wrong armor type. The wrong attack speed. A bunch of abilities that don't fit the concept. No flavour around the concept.

    Blademasters are not about subterfuge and trickery as much as they are warriors mastering their blade, this is a thing blizzard just drop like mana burn, is not their main thing. And they can still revive as talents or new spells, claiming that there is reason for an entire new class for just that is asinine.
    1) Stop trying to define the Blademaster in terms that ignore key elements of it just because you keep digging your heels into the ground about them being Warriors.

    2) I never claimed that the Blademaster should be a new class.

    Now their "primary agility stat" is somehow something valid? come on, this is just grasping at straw, nobody cares about that, this was just a gamplay thing for the RTS.
    Of course it's valid. There's a world of difference between a lumbering Strength using warrior, and a nimble warrior based off of agility. It's why classes in WoW use different stats. It's very valid when fulfilling archetypes.

    What's telling is how you attempt to invalidate everything that goes against your point with a hand waive, as though it doesn't matter simply because it pokes holes in your argument.

    There is, fast attacking, and the whole point of blademaster is fast and powerful strikes, there is agility yes, since warriors have great movement with charge and heroic leap and "unarmed combat" is something you are assuming becaus orcs don't use much armor
    Arms is literally the slowest spec in the game. You are trying to shoehorn is an agile, trickery based mystical swordfighter into a plodding class that is functionally a walking juggernaught. They aren't the same.

    your argument is making up a concept, that is not in wow, and saying you can't play that thing.

    A blademaster? a warrior stylish samurai? you can play that, you don't 100% need two skills of the rts game, especially when you already have their ultimate
    Please tell me how I can play a character with the following:

    1) Wears little to no armor
    2) Wields a large two handed sword
    3) Has Easter theme with a motif of mysticism
    4) Is fast and nimble, with Agility as the primary stat
    5) Has abilities that allow for roughly, not even exactly, just roughly, some form of stealth, the ability to have mirrored projections of himself, the ability to hit multiple enemies at once

    If you can tell me how to play this character concept in a satisfying way in World of Warcraft I will agree with you. Until then, all your doing is telling me that a popular fantasy concept is either invalid, or that I should just play what you tell me to play and be happy with it.

    You don't get to do that.
    Last edited by jellmoo; 2021-05-02 at 04:04 PM.

  9. #6269
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Like i said, i have in mind that blizzard will first, go for the "non-playable class" first, before even attempting to revist the concept that she already made playable, thats jsut how obvious things are, ther eis no point in going for another place when there is plenty of resources to dig, especially not another melee one.
    So why are you going out of your way to completely dismiss them if this is what you want to say? Why say that Blademasters are already Warriors if you are saying Blizzard can still revisit it? You're intentionally using words that dismiss the class as not being possible despite you explaining yourself that you aren't intending that. Again, your use of hyperbole is the problem here. What do you actually want to say and what you're actually saying are two different things.


    A blademaster without two skills still is a blademaster because a blademaster only stop being one when he have no blade at all
    And a Warrior does not properly represent a Blademaster since Warriors do not need to use Blades. Again, there is zero incentive for a Warrior to use any specific bladed weapon outside of RP purposes. All you can do is Roleplay a Blademaster, which is headcanon. The Warrior class itself is built to use Maces equally as they would any Sword or Axe, which is not what a Blademaster archetype is known for.

    And this is even more funny if you are assuming the asinine comparison between "hp and armor" from the mountain king and blademaster is somehow is valid, cause i didn't comment on that because is just burning neurons for nothing.
    If you had neurons to burn, sure.

    Warrior is a Str. based class. Blademasters were an Agi-based class. I mean, there's plenty more than the HP and Armor, but who am I to decide this? These are concepts that Blizzard implemented in the game, and as far as I care they could get rid of the STR/AGI/INT system altogether. They're the ones who defined the system.

    there is a gigantic difference between not representing 100% and not being a blademaster at all
    Yes but we regard representation in different ways.

    We could even say Rogues and Warlocks represent aspects of the Demon Hunter for having access to their weapons or to abilities that are unique to Demon Hunters. This is also *representation*. The Glyph of Demon Hunting was named this specifically to *represent* Demon Hunters in the Warlock class, but we can still determine that the Warlock itself was *NOT* a Demon Hunter. Blizzard eventually did right by honoring it as its own class.

    This argument is even more hypocrite when many other classes in the game lack their RTS abilities or have their abilities massively changed to not even be the same anymore, but somehow, they are fine, but with blademaster? that is just gamebreaking.
    Change is not a problem. Complete absence is a problem.

    Metamorphosis on Demon Hunters is a melee-based form instead of the Ranged based one that Warlocks had. This is not a problem because the full fantasy of a Demon Hunter is still represented in this class. They don't have Mana Burn, but they have Mana Break which is a fine replacement. They don't have Evasion, but they have Blur which suits them fine.

    When we regard a Blademaster, there are huge chunks of missing aspects that can't be covered with simply Transmog. You can get shirtless, but you can't get the Spirit Beads. You can get Bladestorm, but you don't have Windwalk or Mirror Image. You can be an Orc, but you can't have the long beards or the Burning Blade banner outside of using a temporary Toy effect. All of this equates to RP, same as a Rogue using Warglaives and Cursed Vision back in TBC. This is *incomplete representation* that can only be used for Roleplay.

    Same with Dark Rangers today. You can't actually play as a Dark Ranger. Even with the new weapons that Sylvanas drops, you will only be able to use a couple of her abilities, but otherwise we are no closer to actually playing as Dark Rangers as any time before. There are no Undead Elf options outside of the Death Knight class, and that is one of the necessary aspects that one would expect out of playing an actual Dark Ranger class. Anyone who simply points at Forsaken Hunters as being Dark Rangers would not be addressing the inability to 100% play as a Dark Ranger.

    We don't see this problem with Beastmasters in WoW because we do have a spec that fully represents the themes and identity of a Beastmaster. Even the lore regards Rexxar as a Hunter, and so this has become an intentional inclusion into the Hunter class. Dark Rangers however have not been formally integrated. They have a strong connection since they were seen in the Unseen Path, and Nathanos was a Hunter Trainer, but no Dark Ranger is specifically mentioned as a Hunter, and their abilities remain absent from the Hunter class.

    but this is pointless and everything will be ignored, you already made up in your mind that blademasters are some sort of rogue, who fundamental trait is deception and "trickery
    They *share themes* with a Rogue through the use of deception and stealth, that does not mean they are 'some sort of Rogue'.

    A Demon Hunter *shares themes* with Warlocks and Rogues. That does not mean they are 'some sort of Warlock or Rogue'. Demon Hunters are their own identity, would you agree with this?
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-02 at 08:55 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.

  10. #6270
    If 9.2 doesn’t have galakrond it will be dragonsworn and I’m prepared

  11. #6271
    Dreadlord bloodkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in your mind
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Unsurprisingly, you're using the "appeal to popularity" fallacy wrong, here. Because we're not saying "we are right because we are many". We're not saying we are right. We're saying you are wrong, because you keep spouting your opinion as a fact. You're taking your own subjective take and asserting it as objective fact. And you have zero conclusive evidence of that.


    Wow. You really ran out of arguments, didn't you?

    It's funny, though. You keep replying with "it's your opinion" and "it's your wrong opinion", and yet when I point out what the conclusions you're posting are just your own opinion, not facts, you get triggered and "snip" my entire reply and in an attempt to be cute you use one of my own replies to claim what I posted is "just my opinion".

    No shit, Sherlock. I've already admitted it's my own opinion. And I never said it's not my opinion, either.

    So how about you try to be mature about this and stop stating your opinions as fact? And while you're at it, how about answering the question you've avoided for two posts in a row?

    - - - Updated - - -


    To keep things in perspective, the death knight was not the only time something like that happened: the warlock class, in the beginning, were also heavily mistrusted. To the point that they were relegated to the Cleft of Shadows in Orgrimmar and a secluded basement in the corner of the Mage District in Stormwind.


    I believe they can be their own thing. I can easily imagine the blademaster as being a leather-wearer agility-based melee two-handed-blade wielding class with a spec dedicated to 'subterfuge' (by going invisible briefly and summoning phantom images of themselves) and a melee spec based on fire damage, since we have seen blademasters using fire magic.
    True, warlocks were in vanilla lore ostracized to a certain degree; dealing with daemons and demonic powers wasn't condoned, some NPC's had flavour text about it, although I don't remember anything about them having any quests in the same vein as DK's (not that it matters, it was established lore). However, do I see more of an opportunity to add necromancers after SL. It isn't all that hard to imagine that certain individuals would try and find their way into the shadowlands to help out their faction leaders. This would automatically lead down the path to necromancy and probably some help of the ebon blade (not all members are deathknights, some are craftsmen, which should include necromancers), or a story beat in the same trend. How the class would look like, isn't all that clear to me, but then again blizz class design has surprised me at times.

    For the blademaster, I'd think that leather or even agi cloth would work (leather agi pool is already the most crowded as it is0, this would work fine as just about all gear has interchangeable main stats already. 2 handed bladed weapons would work fine (axes, swords, polearm), with probably 2 or 3 elements worked in, maybe a focus per spec or something, fire is easy (and established) air for speed and air-based illusions and mabye water for balance between attack/defense. Honestly, there are a few good ways to make it unique, it's just that this trope isn't my cup of tea (but again, I could see this happen before certain other ideas).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post
    It surprise me how people keep arguing with certain posters that openly said they're here not to discuss. We already have about 30 pages of those people saying "nah, you wrong, bacuase I say so". They have no intention of talking about what can or can't be, or what changes they'd do to make it possible. They are just here to derail the thread and for the attention. Just put them on ignore and go back to the topic.
    gonna be honest, adding people to the ignore list works only in a limited way, as certain people will always find someone who takes the (troll) bait and keep at it. And although that's their own choice, it does lead to pages and pages of discussions that are completely off topic, not to mention that only seeing half of the post in a thread to to putting people on ignore doesn't make it more enjoyable/readable. It's pretty relaxed that certain people are getting banned, but some people still insist on being argumentative about other people's idea's. Now, it's ok to argue about them, but blatantly saying no without any good effort to refute them is lazy shitposting and a detriment to the thread (and I'd say this thread still has at least 1 poster I'd classify that way).

    It should be ok to put out your ideas and discuss them, even if it would bend the lore a bit (as blizz is extremely flexible with it as it is), but it should devolve into a shouting match, accepting feedback is just as hard as giving it, and some people here can't do one or both of these.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by zantheus1993 View Post
    If 9.2 doesn’t have galakrond it will be dragonsworn and I’m prepared
    Some people were dead certain we'd get tinkers after mechagon, but luckily we didn't get that, so why would we get dragonsworn just for patch 9.2? (not here to immediately debunk this, just curious why it would imply the class). Also, how do you see dragonsworn as a class, I don't have a clue as to how that would make a full class.
    Last edited by bloodkin; 2021-05-02 at 08:49 PM.
    'Something's awry.' -Duhgan 'Bel' beltayn

    'A Man choses, a Slave obeys.' -Andrew Rayn

  12. #6272
    Immortal sam86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    WORST country on earth (aka egypt)
    Posts
    7,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    I think the Demon Hunter renders a lot of arguments about "this class doesn't have enough to it" pointless.
    doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be
    The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I do not know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn
    Thrall
    http://youtu.be/x3ejO7Nssj8 7:20+ "Alliance remaining super power", clearly blizz favor horde too much, that they made alliance the super power

  13. #6273
    Dreadlord bloodkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in your mind
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be
    I agree with your statement to a certain degree, as I think that only applies to the current situation: the blizz devs that we have now seem to have very little in the way of originality in class design, hence the ongoing pruning, and then unpruning (which make it kind of look like they did something, while not doing anything useful) and the state of DH. I'm convinced that if DH had been out a few xpacs earlier, it would've been a complete class at it's release (3 specs, all kinds of spells etc) with just as many abilities as monks and DK's, as it seems that devs back then at least had the skill/imagination to design some interesting things and the balls to apply them. This is also were current design is still not optimal and why classis are still recovering from WoD's class desolation 3 xpacs later, I also think that the class artifacts/legiondaries etc were more harmful to classes.
    'Something's awry.' -Duhgan 'Bel' beltayn

    'A Man choses, a Slave obeys.' -Andrew Rayn

  14. #6274
    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be
    Personally I agree and I don't think DH should set a precedent for class design, however it does show that a concept that is very specific, lacking depth and not based in any common fantasy class archetype can be made into a class.

    Doesn't mean every new class should follow that example since I think adding more DH-like (style over substance) classes (Dark Rangers for example) would be ultimately worse vs adding something with a bit more to it's concept like Tinkers or Dragonsworn

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodkin View Post
    I agree with your statement to a certain degree, as I think that only applies to the current situation: the blizz devs that we have now seem to have very little in the way of originality in class design, hence the ongoing pruning, and then unpruning (which make it kind of look like they did something, while not doing anything useful) and the state of DH. I'm convinced that if DH had been out a few xpacs earlier, it would've been a complete class at it's release (3 specs, all kinds of spells etc) with just as many abilities as monks and DK's, as it seems that devs back then at least had the skill/imagination to design some interesting things and the balls to apply them. This is also were current design is still not optimal and why classis are still recovering from WoD's class desolation 3 xpacs later, I also think that the class artifacts/legiondaries etc were more harmful to classes.
    I recall reading a Dev interview where they did say there was a lot of internal discussion over what a third spec could be but they ultimately decided nothing fit and just went with 2 specs.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-05-02 at 09:41 PM.

  15. #6275
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,684
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I made up a common fantasy trope? No, I wish I did, I'd be a wealthy man.
    i mean, those are not wow, that is the problem here, rpojection, yo want that wow mimic those other games, when they don't

    i mean, sekiro use way more armor than normal blademaster, wo this is rly some nitpicking about what counts and what don't.
    It's not different about Blademasters, that's the point. If somebody makes an argument about another class, more power to them. I'm just not doing so. I'm only talking about the artchetype that Bademasters represent that is currently not playable in WoW.
    The blademaster archetype, is plaayble wow, not sekiro, not kensei, not those other games, the wow blademaster is playble.


    Again, not a fact. You can claim things are facts until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it so. It is a conclusion you've reached. Not a fact. More importantly, I don't care if Warriors are Blademasters. Because I'm not even talking about that.

    I'm talking about the archetype that Blademasters represent, which isn't playable in WoW. Because you seem to think the entire concept is just a shirtless dude with a sword, when it very much isn't.
    you said you wanted to play a shirtless warrior with 2h hands and "mystical abilities" youc an do that, you can play the blademaster archetype, is not 100% a copy from rts, but again, nothing is.


    Just because one archetype involves not wearing armor doesn't mean it's the only archetype that involves not wearing armor.
    literally what.

    Armor does not matter, blademasters don't have much armor not because is "blademaster way" but because orcs don't use armor, and you can be like that.


    So the Blademaster isn't sneaky, despite having an ability that the opposing team very much needed to plan against, that allowed him to sneak? Being sneaky and using subterfuge is literally their thing. You're railing against this only because it pokes holes in your Warrior theory.
    Anyone who played the RTS knows the wind walk was more an escape ability than a "subterfuge" ability, it was more for the speed that gives than the actually invisibility, period, it allows you to reach the enemy fast, kill their peons and run away, "sneakier" is not the main thing on blademasters in their lore, we expand an entire expansion in Wod to see the old blademaster clan and you can find more of then playing with fire than with "subterfurge"

    One out of three abilities
    Just like other heroes
    The wrong primary stat.
    Not relevant, since things change from the RTs to the mmo, like metamorphosis not being ranged

    The wrong armor type.
    The armor is the same, since its about orcs not using armor.
    The wrong attack speed.
    literally grasping at straws, youc an comapre the attack speed of the rts with the mmo, pointless
    A bunch of abilities that don't fit the concept.
    That you think off, it fit plenty their concept, and thats why blizz gave tot he blademaster npcs

    No flavour around the concept.
    plenty of flavour with skills and transmog options.

    1) Stop trying to define the Blademaster in terms that ignore key elements of it just because you keep digging your heels into the ground about them being Warriors
    .

    "key elements" from other games? all right
    2) I never claimed that the Blademaster should be a new class.
    Then you are arguing for what? my entire point is how they can't be a new class, because they already are playable with warriros together with mountain king and tauren chieftain, the thing is to give then more flavour like abilities

    Arms is literally the slowest spec in the game. You are trying to shoehorn is an agile, trickery based mystical swordfighter into a plodding class that is functionally a walking juggernaught
    For my lifetime playing pvp warrior was never slow, you must be confusing then with Death Knights, between double charge, heroic leap and going back and forth with intervene, either specing to get free roots and snares with the war banner warrior mobility is pretty decent, case in point, war baner is something that rly do callback to the war banner

    So, yeah, they have plenty of mobility to be a skilled swordsman and not just a slow iron juggernaut, and they can upgrade on top of that

    They aren't the same.
    newsflash: none of then are the same anyway, not even demon hutners play the same, rts is a different from a mmo


    Please tell me how I can play a character with the following:

    1) Wears little to no armor
    2) Wields a large two handed sword
    3) Has Easter theme with a motif of mysticism
    4) Is fast and nimble, with Agility as the primary stat
    5) Has abilities that allow for roughly, not even exactly, just roughly, some form of stealth, the ability to have mirrored projections of himself, the ability to hit multiple enemies at once
    then you want a monk, ou can play a monk, if you want a blademaster they are there.

    This over fixation with the two skills like is crucial is laguhable, but they can add those to the warrior tollkit just fine with changed to fir the mmo gameplay

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    So why are you going out of your way to completely dismiss them if this is what you want to say?
    i mean, why are people fighting me over those pages if what is ay is wrong, i am wrong and everything is possible? i mean i know the other guy just like to fight and want to bait people into ifnractions, but seems not very productive to everyone else
    And a Warrior does not properly represent a Blademaster since Warriors do not need to use Blades.
    ????

    jesus rly? every time is a new absurd, they NEED a weapon, and the weapon can be a blade to show the blademaster and a blunt weapon to show the mountain king

    it is always you coming up with something that need to fir perfectly the same, when nothing suggest that, this is the good old perfectionist fallacy, if the warrior does not have 100% the skill set and the skills from the RTS, regardless if none of other heroes of the RTS does, regardless if blizzard depicted then different, etc etc.

    If you had neurons to burn, sure.

    uuh, we are getting frisky aren't we?

    im just going to ignore the rest after this massive burn, cause like i said, im rly tired of biased fallacies, keep your opinion i keep mine. and blizzard theirs.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be
    the excuse they give is how they didn't want to dilute the class, or put sausage just to fill the 3 class thing, but in other hand DH overall is just bland and braindead.

    This could be true, or just blizzard design is lacking past years, i mean, i think its since wod we don't get a new talent tree, is just those burrowed powers.

    But, with new things, they have more room to try more. Best options i think still are bard, tinker, necromancer and dragonsworn in regarding of those having more room to do more things and not be closed or very restrict

  16. #6276
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    i mean, why are people fighting me over those pages if what is ay is wrong
    Because what you are saying is wrong. I mean, how many more pages do we need to spell it out here?

    It's not your *intentions* that are wrong, its your arguments and the words you are using. Your use of hyperbole is what's wrong here. If you stopped making statements that sound like you're passing off factual claims, everything would be fine.


    jesus rly? every time is a new absurd, they NEED a weapon, and the weapon can be a blade to show the blademaster and a blunt weapon to show the mountain king
    Then what's the difference if a Monk uses a sword? You're still just RPing a Blademaster however you choose, with whatever class you choose. An Orc Monk can wear spirit bead armor and wield a 2H Sword and you can still use the Burning Blade banner toy. What's the difference really? You're talking about RP here, and we could apply that to practically any Orc class that wields a 2H sword.

    it is always you coming up with something that need to fir perfectly the same, when nothing suggest that, this is the good old perfectionist fallacy, if the warrior does not have 100% the skill set and the skills from the RTS, regardless if none of other heroes of the RTS does, regardless if blizzard depicted then different, etc etc.
    You admit that it's not perfectly the same. You are already fully aware.

    Why is it *me* coming up with something that needs to be perfectly the same when you're already aware that these two things aren't?

    If the Warrior doesn't portray the Blademaster fully, then you already know why people still ask for a Blademaster class. It's not *ME* asking for this class to be made, I'm just explaining to you why your bullshit reasoning doesn't actually address why people actually want a playable Blademaster.

    I don't really care if a Blademaster is playable or not, but I can recognize that there *is* demand for this to be fully represented and playable in some form. I think Blizzard is doing well to address the Dark Ranger, and they should always strive to do *more* for other class concepts. WHat they did for Beastmasters, Mountain Kings and Chieftains is already fully acceptable to me. We don't need those as playable classes because they have full representation of their themes and gameplay fantasy, even if I personally think Blizzard could still do more to fully realize those characters. For the most part, it satisfies the identity enough that there isn't really any demand for a separate Beastmaster or Mountain King class when the Warrior already fits.

    When we discuss the Blademaster, it's a literal debate, because opinions are absolutely mixed. I don't think it's as simple as dismissing it just because *your opinion* is that the Warrior covers enough that you are satisfied. You aren't looking at this objectively, and you choose not to. That's fine, but you can't pass it off as a statement of fact. You have to frame it as your opinion.
    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.

  17. #6277
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Because what you are saying is wrong.
    No, seems like im hitting a nerve here, and you guys jsut can't stop the sting, thats why the encessity over confratation, to get the last reply of something.

    I mean, how many more pages do we need to spell it out here?
    Spell out with what? false equivalences? assumptions? Lies? you will not change many views with that, some people will fall for it sure.


    Like i said, im done with with, at least with you, keep using the same "arguments" the topic have enough stuff to other people read and ahve fun.

  18. #6278
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    i mean, those are not wow, that is the problem here, rpojection, yo want that wow mimic those other games, when they don't

    i mean, sekiro use way more armor than normal blademaster, wo this is rly some nitpicking about what counts and what don't.
    Dude... This is what the word ARCHETYPE means. It means a representation of something commonly depicted. In the Warcraft universe, the archetype I am talking about was depicted with the Blademaster.

    The blademaster archetype, is plaayble wow, not sekiro, not kensei, not those other games, the wow blademaster is playble.
    It. Is. Not. The Blademaster as presented in Warcraft 3 is not playable in WoW. Anywhere. There is no class that takes the qualities of the class and translates them into World of Warcraft. It simply isn't there.

    you said you wanted to play a shirtless warrior with 2h hands and "mystical abilities" youc an do that, you can play the blademaster archetype, is not 100% a copy from rts, but again, nothing is.
    No. I didn't. I said that the archetype that the Blademaster represents in WoW isn't playable. For some reason you are hung up on that meaning nothing more than a shirtless Orc with a sword. If that's what the archetype was, then cool. Anything is playable at that point. But that's not how the archetype was presented in Warcraft 3. What was presented in Warcraft 3 is not playable in World of Warcraft.

    literally what.
    Multiple archetypes exist. The barbaric warrior/Barbarian/Berserzer is also an archetype that largely goes without armor. This is how we can have Orcs. like Garrosh, also go without armor without being of the same archetype as the Blademaster.

    Armor does not matter, blademasters don't have much armor not because is "blademaster way" but because orcs don't use armor, and you can be like that.
    You continue to try and tell me what does and doesn't matter. Stop it. You don't get to dictate what matters.

    There are plenty of examples of Orcs wearing armor. Hell, Saurfang wore armor. It's not just an "Orc thing". Even in WC3, the Orc units wore more armor than the Blademaster.

    Anyone who played the RTS knows the wind walk was more an escape ability than a "subterfuge" ability, it was more for the speed that gives than the actually invisibility, period, it allows you to reach the enemy fast, kill their peons and run away, "sneakier" is not the main thing on blademasters in their lore, we expand an entire expansion in Wod to see the old blademaster clan and you can find more of then playing with fire than with "subterfurge"
    False. players planned around Wind walk and used things like Silence to stop Wind Walk because Blademaster hit and run was so good. A Blademaster suddenly appearing and Bladestorming a clustered group of units was devastating.

    Just like other heroes
    Bullshit. What other unit got one of three abilities put into a class and we can confidently say "Yup, this class represents that"?

    Not relevant, since things change from the RTs to the mmo, like metamorphosis not being ranged
    Again, you don't get to decide what is and isn't relevant. More to the point, abilities change, what the primary stat is doesn't. Warriors in WoW are strength based for a reason. Rogues and Demon Hunters are Agility based for a reason. It fits part of their core archetype. You change the stat you change the archetype.

    The armor is the same, since its about orcs not using armor.
    Again, not true.

    literally grasping at straws, youc an comapre the attack speed of the rts with the mmo, pointless
    We're comparing a fast attacking, agile swordsman to literally the slowest attacking spec in the game. This isn't grasping at straws, it's pointing out two completely different things.

    That you think off, it fit plenty their concept, and thats why blizz gave tot he blademaster npcs
    A series of abilities that require shields for a group that doesn't use shields. Abilities based on heavy armored shock troops. Slow, plodding attacks for an agility based swordsman.

    They don't fit the concept.

    plenty of flavour with skills and transmog options.
    So essentially "plenty of flavout if somebody pretends really hard". Great. Every concept in the game is covered then. We can all pretend.

    "key elements" from other games? all right
    Key elements directly from Warcraft 3.

    Then you are arguing for what? my entire point is how they can't be a new class, because they already are playable with warriros together with mountain king and tauren chieftain, the thing is to give then more flavour like abilities
    Because you are trying to force your opinion that I can play an archetype in the game when I very much can't because to do otherwise might jeopardize your headcannon that Blademasters are Warriors and nothing more.

    For my lifetime playing pvp warrior was never slow, you must be confusing then with Death Knights, between double charge, heroic leap and going back and forth with intervene, either specing to get free roots and snares with the war banner warrior mobility is pretty decent, case in point, war baner is something that rly do callback to the war banner
    Not slow moving. Slow attacks. They have one of the lowest APMs in the game. Instead of fast cutting attacks, it's slow, ponderous strikes.

    newsflash: none of then are the same anyway, not even demon hutners play the same, rts is a different from a mmo
    But none are AS different. No class in WoW is so different as what you are trying to do by shoe horning the Blademaster into the Warrior class.

    In order to say that the Warrior is the Blademaster I have to ignore the Blademaster abilities, the primrary stat, the armor type, the role it plays, the aesthetic and the flavour. I have to ignore everything about it that made it interesting.

    Yay.

    then you want a monk, ou can play a monk, if you want a blademaster they are there.
    The Monk. The class that doesn't use two handed swords?

    But Blademasters are there? Really? You found an agility based class that uses a two handed sword, little to no armor, has an Eastern aesthetic and uses abilities that let it stealth, create duplicates of itself and attack groups of enemies? Cool! Where was it hiding?

    This over fixation with the two skills like is crucial is laguhable, but they can add those to the warrior tollkit just fine with changed to fir the mmo gameplay
    Your entire argument boils down to: Everything is laughable or doesn't matter. All the differences? They don't matter. All the many, many things lacking, they don't matter. Anything that flies in the face of your argument? Don't matter.

    Just stop. You are trying to tell me that a class that uses a different primary stat, a different armor type, a different attack speed, functions in a different way on the battlefield, has only 33% of the moveset, none of the aesthetic, none of the flavour is the same as the Blademaster, and it's so ridiculous that you are willing to die on this hill.

    You're wrong. Ielania and Triceron have been crushing your arguments for I don't know hoe many pages now and you honestly don't seem to be able to clue into this, which is sad. If literally everyone is telling you you're wrong and your continued misuse of words is killing your credibility, maybe it's time you take a look in the mirror.

    Nobody is trying to tell you how to play the game. You're trying to force your opinions on everyone around you and pretending they are facts. That's plain wrong.

  19. #6279
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    No, seems like im hitting a nerve here, and you guys jsut can't stop the sting,
    What sting?

    Of all the classes I play, Warrior isn't one of them. I don't play a Rogue either. I am not asking for a Blademaster to become playable, so you believing that they should sinply be part of the Warrior class is fine to me.

    But that is different than saying they are already the Warrior class because they are not. There:s nothing to sting, I'm pointing out that you are factually wrong.

    Spell out with what? false equivalences? assumptions? Lies? you will not change many views with that, some people will fall for it sure.
    People want to play as the Warcraft 3 Blademaster. That is the only thing that needs to be discussed.

    Whether you feel the WoW version of a Blademaster is sufficient to portray that is up to you. Let's just be clear that no one here is talking about a WoW Blademaster NPC when we talk about a Blademaster class.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-03 at 12:25 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.

  20. #6280
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,447
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodkin View Post
    True, warlocks were in vanilla lore ostracized to a certain degree; dealing with daemons and demonic powers wasn't condoned, some NPC's had flavour text about it, although I don't remember anything about them having any quests in the same vein as DK's (not that it matters, it was established lore). However, do I see more of an opportunity to add necromancers after SL. It isn't all that hard to imagine that certain individuals would try and find their way into the shadowlands to help out their faction leaders. This would automatically lead down the path to necromancy and probably some help of the ebon blade (not all members are deathknights, some are craftsmen, which should include necromancers), or a story beat in the same trend. How the class would look like, isn't all that clear to me, but then again blizz class design has surprised me at times.

    For the blademaster, I'd think that leather or even agi cloth would work (leather agi pool is already the most crowded as it is0, this would work fine as just about all gear has interchangeable main stats already. 2 handed bladed weapons would work fine (axes, swords, polearm), with probably 2 or 3 elements worked in, maybe a focus per spec or something, fire is easy (and established) air for speed and air-based illusions and mabye water for balance between attack/defense. Honestly, there are a few good ways to make it unique, it's just that this trope isn't my cup of tea (but again, I could see this happen before certain other ideas).
    I suppose an argument for mail armor could be done, considering how the WC3 unit and HotS Samuro have plates hanging off the sides of his waist. You make a good point regarding air, though. A physical melee spec using 'air magic' to deal more physical damage, like slicing winds and such. I don't think it needs another element, but we could have a tank spec focused on pure melee speed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    This over fixation with the two skills like is crucial is laguhable, but they can add those to the warrior tollkit just fine with changed to fir the mmo gameplay
    Except you don't even care to learn why, though. It's not the abilities, but the concept and gameplay that those two abilities allude to, that is not present in the warrior class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Spell out with what? false equivalences? assumptions? Lies? you will not change many views with that, some people will fall for it sure.
    Except it's not "assumptions", "false equivalence" or "lies". At least, you never explained why you believe that. You just said they are, and left it at that.

    By the way? "Lying" also means stating your opinion as fact, like you have.

    Like i said, im done with with, at least with you, keep using the same "arguments" the topic have enough stuff to other people read and ahve fun.
    The arguments are "repeated" because you don't address them. You just hand-wave them away.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

Posting Permissions

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