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

[jellmoo]

And if i want to play like the DH in the RTS in wow i can't, thats why im saying your point is nonsensical, you keep adding stuff to make a hyperbole and a caricature of the blademaster, you can't play like a RTS in a MMORPG

Look at the similarities between the DH in WC3 and the DH in WoW. Same stat. Same armor. Same aesthetic. Same function. 2/3 abilities represented.

Look at the Blademaster as a Warrior. Different stat. Different armor. Different aesthetic. Different function. 1/3 abilities represented.

These aren't the same thing.

you can play like a blademaster period. because they have everything a blademaster have, missing two skills and again, the class is not revolved around those two skills, neither in play style neither in the lore, they still are blademasters without those skills, to say you can't, you either didn't played blademasters in the RTS, or just played wrong

Stop with that bullshit. The Blademaster entirely revolved around stealth and trickery. That's what they did. That was their whole schtick. You contineu with your hand waiving. Their whole fucking point was to sneak up on the enemy and wreak havoc. That's what they were designed to do. That's not what Warriors in WoW do.

Those two abilities they are missing? THEY ARE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BLADEMASTER. Have you ever played WC3? Because so help me, I don't think you ever have. Read their fucking write up: http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/units/blademaster.shtml

Take a look at how things like tricking the enemy, sneaking behind enemy lines, tricking creeps into attacking the enemy...

[Syegfryed]

Look at the similarities between the DH in WC3 and the DH in WoW. Same stat. Same armor. Same aesthetic. Same function. 2/3 abilities represented.

ah yes, look, totally the same aesthetic

the "same armor" *look at the dude shirtless*, hum yes we defintly can say what armor he is using

Same stat, humm yes *Look at the Demon hunter with much higher Strenght than agility*

2/3 abilities represented, yes, no ranged metamorphosis, no mana burn.

Look at the Blademaster as a Warrior. Different stat. Different armor. Different aesthetic. Different function. 1/3 abilities represented.

Ah yes, totally different Aesthetic, they don't look alike at all, you are right

different? Armor? ah yes, the guy who have the same armor rate as the Knights who use Heavy armor, more armor than death knights and Mountain kings.

Different stat? yep, their stat gain is different, their Strength score still is as much as their agility.

Different function? they have the same function, they are warriors that go head on into the fray, showed countless of times, they are not sneaky rogues.

And yes, they don't have two skills, already mentioned.

These aren't the same thing.

They aren't, because you are making shit up

Stop with that bullshit. The Blademaster entirely revolved around stealth and trickery. That's what they did. That was their whole schtick. You contineu with your hand waiving. Their whole fucking point was to sneak up on the enemy and wreak havoc. That's what they were designed to do. That's not what Warriors in WoW do

.

No they aren't, again, go play with a blademaster in the RTS and try to win the game by going for trickery and "stealth", you will lose hard

The "closest" thing they can do like that is go invisible to the enemy base, because wind walk give then bonus to speed and kill their workers, then get out, because the bonus to movement without being caught, not because "sneaky rogues" and this only work at early low leves and stop being a thing after the enemy create brains and do towers, later they only walk with the army and destroy the enemy focusing on targets like spell casting and heroes, such thing warriors do with their mobility and power.

Im leading to believe you only played with easy bots and cheats, or not played the game at all, to think a blademaster role in the RTS was that "trick creeps into attack the enemy"

Those two abilities they are missing? THEY ARE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BLADEMASTER.

They are not, rly, stop, Blizzard already made sure of that but not giving much shit about it with tons of blademasters in wow not having that nither being part of their lore across the years

This is the whole point of the problem, you are made that up and can't accept another thing

[Triceron]

Like i said, yes, they don't have 100% the blademaster spells, but does not mean they aren't, and does not mean they can't change those abilities to fit the MMO mechanics

Then they must do this first before we can all regard them as Blademasters. If they can't fulfill the full theme through the most iconic WC3 abilities, then no Blademaster fan who expects to play as a WC3 Blademaster is going to be satisfied with this incomplete concept. As I said, everyone who is responding to you has been telling you this same thing. The concept is incomplete, whereas we HAVE a fulfilled concept for the Beastmaster, Chieftain and the Mountain King.

Heroes like the Demon Hunter, Death Knight and Brewmaster are all fully represented in the classes they got.

Blademaster is not fully represented by the Warrior class. Same can be said of the Dark Ranger not fully represented in the Hunter class. Neither are widely considered as playable in WoW, which is why people want to see more representation for them in the game.

They did that with Avatar and Stormbolt, it would be the easiest thing to do,but trying to make up a entire different class that would dilute and rip off the warrior? to justify two spells? and with more than one spec? is just nonsensical

If the Warrior isn't fully representing the Warcraft 3 Blademaster, then there's no reason to consider it as being fully playable in WoW. If it's not fully playable in WoW, then people will continue demand the very things that are missing from the WC3.

You agree that they do not have 100% Blademaster spells. You also regard that Blizzard can change those abilities into MMO mechanics, like they did for Avatar and Stormbolt.

So why can't we reach a middle ground and simply agree that Warriors can become Blademasters as long as Blizzard does this same treatment for Windwalk and Mirror Image? Is it such a crazy idea that this is impossible to you? We already have Avatar and Stormbolt added to the Warrior when they originally did not have these abilities. This has turned the Warrior from simply being a Dwarf Warrior into a full representable Mountain King. These abilities allow people to fully represent the Warcraft 3 Hero, even if not in a perfect or exact way. The Vanilla WoW MK was not anywhere close to being fully represented, and would have just been a Dwarf Warrior. Even if Warriors had Thunderclap, it would not really be considered a playable Mountain King without the full package.

We are still missing abilities that fully represent a Blademaster. The concept is not complete, and we are unable to play as a Blademaster as it was in Warcraft 3.

Every time you're talking about any NPC that doesn't have those missing abilities, you're using false equivalency. NPCs are not playable, so you're not addressing the problem of not having any representation for Windwalk and Mirror Image in the Warrior class. Do you understand?

[Syegfryed]

Then they must do this first before we can all regard them as Blademasters.

Nope, they don't to do that, because blademasters are still blademaster even if they lack those two skills, something you can get away with it

then there's no reason to consider it as being fully playable in WoW.

Like i said, i never made that claim, you are attacking a strawman

So why can't we reach a middle ground and simply agree that Warriors can become Blademasters as long as Blizzard does this same treatment for Windwalk and Mirror Image?

Because that would imply a warrior/blademaster is only a blademaster if it have those two skills, in this case, if blizzard give then windwalk/mirror image in someway, and that is false, because a blademaster/warrior still is a blademaster even without those skils.

Every time you're talking about any NPC that doesn't have those missing abilities, you're using false equivalency. NPCs are not playable, so you're not addressing the problem of not having any representation for Windwalk and Mirror Image in the Warrior class. Do you understand?

For someone who entire basis of argument is false equivalence, you don't get to say that, even because NPCS are direct representation the blademasters we have, we are not talking about one, particular NPC, one who run from the rule, like shaman thrall and anduin priest using plate armor, we are talking about several npcs, several appearances and mentions in the game and lore, we spend months in old draenor, learning about the clan and no focus on mirror image neither windwalk,

[sam86]

I personally don't think anyone is really optimistic, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing all the time for what the *next* class would be instead of being open to just discussing what could be possible. Classes are so uncommon and the dev team is so ass-backwards with their class design that it's become more and more frustrating to even discuss a single concept without someone else trying to dismiss the idea entirely because it somehow threatens their own hopes for a different class.

Blizzard has molded too much fantasy out of borrowed power. It's really about time they scale back on it

Well if u want some optimistic thoughts we have a LOT of spells from the rpg books we still didn't see in wow, some are flat out broken OP
Berseker charge for example is one that just cross my mind that still doesn't exist in wow

[username993720]

This is absurd, none of the heroes in the RTS play exactly like their versions in wow

A Death Knight in wow don't play like the Death Knight in the RTS

A demon hunter don't play Like the Demon hunter in the RTS

A warrior don't play like the warriors in the RTS

That must be shocking for you, but they are different games, not just a different game but with a different setting, a RTS compared to a MMORPG

We don't, really, expect the Blademaster to play exactly like the RTS incarnation (or even the HotS iteration). But we do expect more than just 1 ability and a transmog set.

How can you "measure" their possibilities? especially in the table where giving something to the class is much more easier and simple than ripping off their things and creating a new class just to introduce those 2 skills? seems dumb.

That's the problem with guys like you and alike. You assume people want 1-2 abilities to be able to play a certain concept. When, in reality, a class contains much more than 4 abilities. You, and others here (like the Dark Ranger deniers) lack imagination, and cannot imagine a concept that holds more than 4 abilities. That's why like-minded people here suggest a Black Arrow and transmog for Hunters, and actually expect others to be satisfied with it (like it, somehow, literally embodies an entire class).

A Demon Hunter is an example of ripping off an existing class. Yet, now that it is in the game, you guys have nothing to say about it.

"players define who are blademasters and who aren't discarding blizzard take on this matter" more news at your favorite mmo-forums

i never disregard warcraft 3, i actually take a lot of the rts to enforce how blademasters are legendary orc warriors and that is their definition in the RTS, but seems that sometimes is nice to disregard that in your part, to show other races in the prol to give blademaster "class" to then, is a funny double standard

A Blademaster is a samurai, in the end of the day. So, expanding it beyond the RTS is not a crime (as long as you keep faithful to that archetype).

WC3 also describes Beastmaster, Brewmasters, Demon Hunters and Headhunters as warriors. You don't, really, view them as such, do you?
The problem is, your concept of a Warrior comes from WoW and WoW alone. So, everything that uses a melee weapon and physical damage you view as a warrior.

pretty hypocrite coming from someone wh said that a blademaster is only a blademaster if he does have two skills, that is the definition of short sighted.

A Blademaster is a Blademaster, regardless of abilities, just like Dark Rangers, in-game, lack the skills of the WC3 unit. But, that doesn't make them Hunters, much like how it doesn't make Blademasters Warriors.

so you are 100% confirming you are doing this just for bait and seek confrontation, trying me to "change" my pov, sadly(or Lucky) for you, isn't gonna happen, that is not my opinion, Warriors are blademasters and blizzard made sure to not make me doubt, by doubling down on that with countless of examples in the MMO.

I've changed my mind on Dark Ranger races, due to how they handled Death Knight races. Why can't you?

If blizzard change that in the game and change their lore, i change pov, isn't a mmo shitposter who will do.

Lore doesn't need to be changed. Dark Rangers having Ranger in their names and using bows doesn't make them Hunters. Why can't you realize them same for Blademasters?

No, you are acting like the blademaster is just wind walk and mirror image

And you are acting like it is only Bladestorm and transmog.

and DH ahve mroe STR and STr gain thana gility

In WoW. It makes sense, because their agility and maneuverability is like the Japanese samurai (probably based on the Japanese demon slayer archetype).

that is cute comign from you, who point cmoing from the hots meme game, lets just assume your giant ass post as not trolling, you are so much over your head that you are just saying nonsense if you made a "deep analyzis" of WC3 and the blademaster in general across wow the media, you would know the blademaster like mountain king and tauren chieftain are the warrior we current have, missing two skills that can easily be give to warriors.

Why consider WC3 as a legitimate source, but not HotS? it, literally, uses the same abilities and even expands upon them. I, really, don't get where you and other come from. Ridiculous skins? have nothing to do with gameplay. Wild, made-up scenarios? it is not Hearthstone. You can see how much the Heroes there are close to in-game classes. Heck, the Demon Hunter is closer to that of HotS than that of WC3. Yet, you dismiss it based on some arbitrary hatred.

If you, really, delved into the Blademaster concept, and not just a general outline of it, you'd see that like the Dark Ranger not being a Hunter (even though the similarity in abilities, gameplay and lore) The Blademaster isn't in the Warrior as it should be, and therefore a potential class (and before you suggest adding 2 abilities, a class is much more than just 4 abilities).

the only thing missing are two skills, that only you and some people are categorizing as "important and crucial features" and saying since we don't have two skills, then everything else is invallid and tey are not the same class, faalling flat to the same fallacy.

The problem with you is you, really, expect people to be satisfied with 3 abilities and a transmog. That's not how roleplaying works. No matter how much a Warlock tried to imitate a Demon Hunter, the feeling was not there.

not being fully represented don't mean is not playable

Yes, it does.
Demon Hunter being half-assed into the Warlock is a prime example.

Except it's not really, though. The vengeance demon hunter is still faithful to the WC3 DH hero unit. It transforms into a demon, uses warglaives, and can self-immolate.

Never was it a form the Demon Hunter takes, in any other sources.

It is, though, since the two concepts have different gameplay.

It isn't. It's like saying the WC3 iteration isn't a Demon Hunter because it plays differently to the WoW one.

Yes, it almost made the cut, i.e., was almost the one selected to become the expansion's new class. Blizzard doesn't make all the concepts into actual playable classes before deciding which one to use as the expansion's new class, so all this "did it have abilities, animations, spell effects, etc" is a meaningless argument.

Almost made the cut - regarding consideration. It wasn't near being playable in any form. Blizzard ditches concepts at 90% completion, like any gaming company, what are you talking about?

None of that proves your claim, though, that the race was "almost ready". In fact, it even disproves your claim, since it expressly says that it was changed mid-development. Unless you're one of those who think a half-finished product is a finished product, like EA and many other gaming companies?

More than the Runemaster, that's for sure. One, because it wasn't integrated into another thing, like it. And two, because it was introduced in Mists due to the lift of a legal ban. That's technicality, not ditching the idea.

Probably because the warrior class was created prior to the pandarens? I mean, can you see anything "blood elf" in the warrior class? Or Worgen? Or goblin? Or draenei?

I meant, the "Pandaren Warrior" art piece is nothing more than a Monk wielding those Ninja Turtle weapons.

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong, here. We don't need Warcraft 3 for new classes, period. The runemaster proves that almost as a fact. Because if we did need Warcraft 3, the runemaster concept wouldn't even be considered in the first place.

Again, disregarding reality. In the end, it lost. Just like the Necromancer, and was integrated into not one, but two classes. Ask yourself this: why everything that eventually makes it into the game is based on a Warcraft 3 Hero (and not a unit or an RPG concept).

No, we don't. Again, I don't have to point to a specific book, movie, comic or game to know that the 'drunken fight' motiff of the brewmaster came from pop culture, for example.

There's nothing wrong in expanding the class concept, based on other sources. Heck, even the Blademaster cannot stay true to Hero unit only. Further Samurai inspiration is required. But, at the end of the day, it is based on a WC3 Hero unit.

Who said it doesn't? "Some Forsaken priests continue to wield the Holy Light. While it is possible for them to use or be healed by the Light to its full effect like any living humanoid, it is accompanied by intense pain, making it require notable willpower to suffer through. Though painful, this does not cause any actual harm or damage on their undead bodies, even over long periods of time. In fact, some Forsaken with persistent contact with the Light over many years have even started to experience a return of their senses, which is not a pleasant experience given their rotted state."

Read again. "For gameplay reasons". Meaning, it doesn't stun you or damages you. Same can happen with the Venthyr.

Bash from the mountian king is missing, the spell immunity from then is missing :^)

always with the same double standards, false equivalence.

There was. It was called Mace Specialization.
Abilities don't have to work exactly like they do in WC3, as long as they are present (considering if they are still relevant today).

i can cut people with my sword, i can crit, i can kill and i can bladestorm hitting many peoples at once, i am the master of my blade,. i can play just like the rts

I can use gadgets and explosives with Engineering. That probably means i'm a Tinker (to show you how ridiculous that is).

Are you unaware he was made into a Raid Boss and still had nothing noteworthy of being related whatseover to the Dark Rangers of WC3?

I don't read the technical parts of patch notes. What does it say?

Regardless, if Blizzard officially makes a Dark Ranger class, they could choose to implement it or ignore it. That's up to them to decide.

I mean, they gave us a Demon Hunter that doesn't have a ranged Metamorphosis, and they kept with the flavour of HOTS Illidan instead as a fully melee character. As long as that satisfies the full class identity, that is what is important. I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing skeletons.

Neither do i.

Consider that the design of the last new class was also pretty shallow. 2 Specs, gutted multiple classes, and has gameplay consisting of a 2 button rotation.

I am basing these speculations on Blizzard's own trends. We're pretty much beyond the point of innovation and redemption. At most I see is a Tinker or Dragonsworn, and from there Blizzard is pretty much creatively bankrupt.

What about the Shadow Hunter? it's, pretty, unique if you ask me.

They can add a spec to the Demon Hunter. Check out my thread:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

If those were major points, blizzard would make sure to highlight that in their lore in wow, in the blademaster npcs, and the blademaster playable class, aka warrior, But they didn't, they seem fine with just bladestorm being enough.

I think they should still add those skills to the warrior yes.

If manipulation was part of the Ranger it would be more accentuated. Yet, is it not part of the concept with Possession and Mind Control?

Aesthetic only matter when it suits you apperently? you can literally play as a shirtless orc warrior in wow, you said you don't, you were wrong

I have to agree with you on that.
Blademasters will wear full-on armor, as well, much like other samurais.

Is not hard to understand we have that, we don't have the entirety of the abilities neither the exact same playstyle, true, because its impossible to put the same playstyle from a RTS to a MMORPG, others don't have it too, a DH in WoW don't play exact the same like in the RTS, asking for another DH class because is not the same is as much nonsensical

Let's see, shall we?

Demon Hunter
Metamorphosis ✓
Immolation Aura ✓
Blur ✓
Mana Rift ✓

Warlock (WotLK to WoD)
Metamorphosis✓
Immolation Aura ×
Evasion ×
Mana Burn ×

You see how the Warlock scenario matches what we have with the Blademaster right now?

And for one who have it, ten don't, like i said, pretty bad job if it is to show this is a key factor to then if blizzard almost never put on then

Samuro is more iconic than Jubei'thos (serving as the art concept for the entire class idea).

They have spell reflection to highlight a "deceptive", since it is directly a damage redirection mechanic.

Like i said, yes, they don't have 100% the blademaster spells, but does not mean they aren't, and does not mean they can't change those abilities to fit the MMO mechanics, They did that with Avatar and Stormbolt, it would be the easiest thing to do,but trying to make up a entire different class that would dilute and rip off the warrior? to justify two spells? and with more than one spec? is just nonsensical

Spell reflection is nothing deceptive. It used to raise your shield and reflect direct, incoming, spells - it is a very common fantasy and trope.

They can, literally, do that with every class. So, does that mean no new classes? just add a few abilities to an existing one?
Nothing dilutive or ripping off from the Warrior. The Warrior is, hardly, the Samurai archetype.

And others were completed cut

Like i said, the "problem" you saying it is exist, can simple resolved by adding those skills to the warrior, one way or another, there is no logical reason to rip off warriors and make an entire new class to justify two skills

This solution can be applied to any class and is a cheap one, as we've seen with the Metamorphosis in the Warlock.
There are more than 2 abilities. That's what you don't grasp. You can't see the bigger picture. A whole class contains much more than 4 abilities.

And if i want to play like the DH in the RTS in wow i can't, thats why im saying your point is nonsensical, you keep adding stuff to make a hyperbole and a caricature of the blademaster, you can't play like a RTS in a MMORPG

you can play like a blademaster period. because they have everything a blademaster have, missing two skills and again, the class is not revolved around those two skills, neither in play style neither in the lore, they still are blademasters without those skills, to say you can't, you either didn't played blademasters in the RTS, or just played wrong

At least there is the Demon Hunter class, which you can't say about the Blademaster. They could add a ranged specialization to that class, because it's not a play pretend like with the Warlock.

Can you play the Hero unit of WC3, or Samuro in HotS, without those abilities? you should ask yourself that... Because it would massively minimize the gameplay.

2/3 abilities represented, yes, no ranged metamorphosis, no mana burn.

You didn't even try to match the looks with those Demon Hunter pictures. (biased much?)

And, by the way, Demon Hunters have Metamorphosis, Immolation Aura, Blur and Mana Rift. So everything is accounted for.

No they aren't, again, go play with a blademaster in the RTS and try to win the game by going for trickery and "stealth", you will lose hard

And you can with Bladestorm only?

Ask yourself this: can a Demon Hunter get along with Metamorphosis only? Can a Dark Ranger get along with Black Arrow only? can a Brewmaster be one with Storm, Earth and Fire only?

They are not, rly, stop, Blizzard already made sure of that but not giving much shit about it with tons of blademasters in wow not having that nither being part of their lore across the years

There are tons without Bladestorm, either. Yet, you keep forgetting to mention them, on purpose.

Nope, they don't to do that, because blademasters are still blademaster even if they lack those two skills, something you can get away with it

They can't, really. You're just playing "imagine" with your character. That's like RPing a Warlock with Metamorphosis as a Demon Hunter. Heck, people used to wear the Dreadgear armor in vanilla, as Warriors, and pretend that they are Death Knights.

Because that would imply a warrior/blademaster is only a blademaster if it have those two skills, in this case, if blizzard give then windwalk/mirror image in someway, and that is false, because a blademaster/warrior still is a blademaster even without those skils.

A Blademaster is a Blademaster no matter the abilities. That comes to show you how irrelevant in-game NPCs are, because there is no consistency.

For someone who entire basis of argument is false equivalence, you don't get to say that, even because NPCS are direct representation the blademasters we have, we are not talking about one, particular NPC, one who run from the rule, like shaman thrall and anduin priest using plate armor, we are talking about several npcs, several appearances and mentions in the game and lore, we spend months in old draenor, learning about the clan and no focus on mirror image neither windwalk,

The problem with you is you're taking examples from non-representative NPCs. If any of them were important to the class, they'd get a Hero representation in HotS. But, it is not the case. Samuro is. Thrall and Anduin are, actually, representatives of their classes. Armor and weapons don't, really, matter. That's a matter of transmog. But, when it comes to abilities and gameplay, you can clearly see that Anduin is a Priest and Thrall is a Shaman.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Well if u want some optimistic thoughts we have a LOT of spells from the rpg books we still didn't see in wow, some are flat out broken OP
Berseker charge for example is one that just cross my mind that still doesn't exist in wow

Implementing RPG spells and abilities into an MMORPG will always meet limitations sooner than later. Alot of it comes from the basic difference that in RPGs you usually have character mechanics that aim to deal decisive blows because combat is already rather prolonged, wheres in a multiplayer videogame you need to keep the gameplay loop running while also making an epic prolonged fight - especially in games like wow that focus way too much on raiding. That is why in a TTRPG a meteor spell levels a mountain top/village and in WoW it can't even kill a bunch of minion mobs reliably.

I don't really see many cool spells from the old books making it into the game tbh, so I'm not sure how we could be optimistic here. If I wanted to be optimistic, I would argue that once the game plummets beneath a certain popularity threshold, Blizzard will open the flood gates and might rethink their current bare-bones design approach and come up with a few more class/spec concepts - or you know, finally give us another fucking talent row instead of lame barely related borrowed powers .

[jellmoo]

ah yes, look, totally the same aesthetic

Sure, let's play a game of cherry picked pictures. Why not. Only mine aren't transmogged. Mine are literally what you see when you decide to create a brand new character.

Let's look at an Orc Warrior shall we?




How weird, neither one looks anything like a Blademaster. Why don't we look at two Demon Hunters now? Again, no transmog, just two characters freshly made.




Huh. What do you know. looks pretty much just like the Demon Hunter from Warcraft 3. Weird.

the "same armor" *look at the dude shirtless*, hum yes we defintly can say what armor he is using

And yet your character is wearing plate. The actual armor you are wearing is heavy plate armor.

Same stat, humm yes *Look at the Demon hunter with much higher Strenght than agility*

And what is the Demon Hunter's primary ability? What is it? Go on, I'll wait while you check.

2/3 abilities represented, yes, no ranged metamorphosis, no mana burn.

Read what I've written countless times. All we need is a representation of the abilities. We don't Mirror Image exactly like in WC3. We don't need Wind Walk exactly like it was in WC3. We need abilities that represent those functionalities. The Demon Hunter has exactly that.

Ah yes, totally different Aesthetic, they don't look alike at all, you are right

It's almost like aesthetic means moire than just appearance and skin deep looks. Weird.

different? Armor? ah yes, the guy who have the same armor rate as the Knights who use Heavy armor, more armor than death knights and Mountain kings.

Shirtless guy vs guy with full plate. Huh, it's almost like these things aren't the same.

Different stat? yep, their stat gain is different, their Strength score still is as much as their agility.

Please tell me what the primary stat of the Blademaster is. And then, so you can have some understanding of WC3, read the following to get an idea of how stats work in the game.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/basics/heroes.shtml

Different function? they have the same function, they are warriors that go head on into the fray, showed countless of times, they are not sneaky rogues.

Blademaster role: Sneak and trick the enemy.
Warrior role: Smash the enemy.

Pretty fucking different.

And yes, they don't have two skills, already mentioned.

Meaning that two thirds of their kit is missing.

They aren't, because you are making shit up

What exactly did I make up?

No they aren't, again, go play with a blademaster in the RTS and try to win the game by going for trickery and "stealth", you will lose hard

The "closest" thing they can do like that is go invisible to the enemy base, because wind walk give then bonus to speed and kill their workers, then get out, because the bonus to movement without being caught, not because "sneaky rogues" and this only work at early low leves and stop being a thing after the enemy create brains and do towers, later they only walk with the army and destroy the enemy focusing on targets like spell casting and heroes, such thing warriors do with their mobility and power.]

Did you read the fucking link I gave you? The one that describes the playstyle of the unit? How the abilities are used? How they are countered?

Because all you have is your bullshit anecdotal evidence.

Im leading to believe you only played with easy bots and cheats, or not played the game at all, to think a blademaster role in the RTS was that "trick creeps into attack the enemy"

If you used only 1/3 of their toolkit and didn't actually play them the way they're designed, I think I might have found the guy that doesn't know how to play the damn game.

They are not, rly, stop, Blizzard already made sure of that but not giving much shit about it with tons of blademasters in wow not having that nither being part of their lore across the years

This is the whole point of the problem, you are made that up and can't accept another thing

Yes they fucking are. This isn't hard. Two thirds of their toolkit involve surprise and trickery. You are simply pretending it doesn't or it magically doesn't matter because it wrecks your moronic theory that Blademasters are Warriors and fully playable in the game. That's the only reason you're slamming your head into the keyboard and fighting this when person after person after person is telling you that you are wrong.

You are trying to tell me that a unit that is based on sneaking past the enemy and then tricking them with an ability that makes duplicates forcing the enemy to hunt down the real Blademaster is represented by the HULK SMASH aesthetic of an Arms Warrior. Again and again and again you hand waive away the differences. You lie about what the focus of the WC3 unit was. You try and tell me that two things that are more different than they are the same are identical.

Everyone in this thread has continually proven you wrong and yet somehow you sit in your corner and pretend you're right. Everyone else must be wrong. It's getting embarrassing dude.

[Ielenia]

That is not magic, and Warriors can do things like that already, like dragon roar, shockwave, thunderclap etc

Except it is magic. You basically confirmed that when you called those skills "mystical". Mystical implies magic. The warrior class is not a mystical concept. The blademaster concept is. The blademaster concept in WC3 heavily implies the use of magic considering it can go invisible-- not stealth, but actually invisible-- and can create illusory images of themselves. Recent WoW blademasters also support this through the ability to use fire magic.

- - - Updated - - -

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ca2hxEUZTIU/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.redd.it/4w36h5assi6y.png

ah yes, look, totally the same aesthetic

the "same armor" *look at the dude shirtless*, hum yes we defintly can say what armor he is using

Same stat, humm yes *Look at the Demon hunter with much higher Strenght than agility*

2/3 abilities represented, yes, no ranged metamorphosis, no mana burn.


https://i.imgur.com/5bCVb9G.png

Ah yes, totally different Aesthetic, they don't look alike at all, you are right

different? Armor? ah yes, the guy who have the same armor rate as the Knights who use Heavy armor, more armor than death knights and Mountain kings.

Different stat? yep, their stat gain is different, their Strength score still is as much as their agility.

Different function? they have the same function, they are warriors that go head on into the fray, showed countless of times, they are not sneaky rogues.

And yes, they don't have two skills, already mentioned.

Oh my god, you couldn't be any more dishonest if you tried. You show a picture of a blood elf DH intentionally transmogrified to look like anything but a DH, while using an orc warrior intentionally transmogrified to look like a blademaster.

By that same dumb logic, I can post a screen shot of my night elf rogue looking just like a demon hunter: blindfold, warglaives, shirtless and all.

Not to mention you forget that:
• The demon hunters are an actual realized class;
• Warglaives were added as an actual weapon into WoW with the class' introduction;
• Leather armor from the Legion expansion looks different on the demon hunter than on the other leather-wearer classes to show off more skin.

- - - Updated - - -

Never was it a form the Demon Hunter takes, in any other sources.

The main concept of the demon hunter was not turning into "that particular demon form", but "turning into a demon", which is fully represented in WoW.

It isn't. It's like saying the WC3 iteration isn't a Demon Hunter because it plays differently to the WoW one.

Not really. Both are demon hunters, just they play different because they're different iterations of the concept.

Almost made the cut - regarding consideration. It wasn't near being playable in any form. Blizzard ditches concepts at 90% completion, like any gaming company, what are you talking about?

No, they don't. Again, when they decide what class they'll make, they study a list of possibilities, before starting to design them into an actual class in the game. Creating ten or five or three playable classes and then deciding which one to add to the expansion and which ones to discard is an asinine process at best. They first decide which one to pursue and then start building it up.

More than the Runemaster, that's for sure. One, because it wasn't integrated into another thing, like it. And two, because it was introduced in Mists due to the lift of a legal ban. That's technicality, not ditching the idea.

That is irrelevant, though, as it does nothing to counter the argument that we don't need to use Warcraft 3 units to make a playable concept valid in WoW.

Again, disregarding reality. In the end, it lost. Just like the Necromancer, and was integrated into not one, but two classes. Ask yourself this: why everything that eventually makes it into the game is based on a Warcraft 3 Hero (and not a unit or an RPG concept).

It's amusing how you accuse me of "denying reality" since I never said that the runemaster lost to the death knight in the end. But you are denying reality by insisting we need a Warcraft 3 unit to base a WoW class on, despite the fact that the runemaster concept, who never had any unit in Warcraft 3, or hero in the lore of WC3 or WoW, was a concept that beat other concepts like tinker and demon hunters, who do have WC3 units and heroes in the lore. If WC3 was a requirement, the runemaster concept wouldn't even make it to the list. But it did.

There's nothing wrong in expanding the class concept, based on other sources. Heck, even the Blademaster cannot stay true to Hero unit only. Further Samurai inspiration is required. But, at the end of the day, it is based on a WC3 Hero unit.

Not really. It is arguable that the entire concept was based off external media, and the WC3 hero unit was used for flavor.

Read again. "For gameplay reasons". Meaning, it doesn't stun you or damages you. Same can happen with the Venthyr.

So you're asking to remove/ignore an important characteristic of the race as a whole?

- - - Updated - - -

So why can't we reach a middle ground and simply agree that Warriors can become Blademasters as long as Blizzard does this same treatment for Windwalk and Mirror Image? Is it such a crazy idea that this is impossible to you? We already have Avatar and Stormbolt added to the Warrior when they originally did not have these abilities. This has turned the Warrior from simply being a Dwarf Warrior into a full representable Mountain King. These abilities allow people to fully represent the Warcraft 3 Hero, even if not in a perfect or exact way. The Vanilla WoW MK was not anywhere close to being fully represented, and would have just been a Dwarf Warrior. Even if Warriors had Thunderclap, it would not really be considered a playable Mountain King without the full package.

My one problem with this idea is that it undermines the concept of the warrior class (a tough fighter designed to take blows) and might fundamentally change the class' gameplay style by adding stealth and trickery mechanisms, not unlike how it happened to the demonology spec of the warlock class with the addition of metamorphosis. And metamorphosis made sense to add, in a way.

[Triceron]

Nope, they don't to do that, because blademasters are still blademaster even if they lack those two skills, something you can get away with it

Yet the fact remains - the Blademaster isn't actually playable in WoW. Arms Warrior does not represent the Blademaster just because it happens to use swords and has Bladestorm. Blizzard has not made any official connection beyond this.

Like i said, i never made that claim, you are attacking a strawman

Your argument is centered on that claim, whether you acknowledge it or not. Whether you realize it or not, your argument is full of hyperbole.

Any claim that a certain class is playable implies they are fully represented.

If I said Dark Ranger is playable in WoW, what does that mean to you? Would you agree that Dark Rangers are already playable in WoW?

Because that would imply a warrior/blademaster is only a blademaster if it have those two skills, in this case, if blizzard give then windwalk/mirror image in someway, and that is false, because a blademaster/warrior still is a blademaster even without those skils.

And where in the game is the Warrior Player class openly referred to as a Blademaster? There is zero connection to the Blademaster identity now that even the Blademaster trainer is no longer classified as 'Warrior Trainer'. The connection has been severed.

And NPCs are non playable representations. Again, no different than any of the Demon Hunter or Death Knight NPCs.

Do you acknowledge that Demon Hunter NPCs had Rogue abilities and Death Knight NPCs had Warrior abilities? You seem to never address these points, so I have to keep bringing these up. You always skip over this for some reason.

For someone who entire basis of argument is false equivalence, you don't get to say that, even because NPCS are direct representation the blademasters we have, we are not talking about one, particular NPC, one who run from the rule, like shaman thrall and anduin priest using plate armor, we are talking about several npcs, several appearances and mentions in the game and lore, we spend months in old draenor, learning about the clan and no focus on mirror image neither windwalk,

I've pointed out Death Knight NPCs with Warrior abilities for months. I saw absolutely no reply from you on this issue, you always skipped over it. It's on you.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't read the technical parts of patch notes. What does it say?

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Nat...ller_(tactics)

He's a Death-themed Hunter, with absolutely nothing actually tied to the Dark Ranger Hero as we know it from WC3.

If we based a Dark Ranger on him, then one could argue that Dark Rangers are just Hunters who have a dark variation of all their abilities. Plague tipped arrows, Dark Revival for undead pets, Shadowburn shot which was pretty much their Classic version of Black Arrow without the pet raising, and a slew of other generic Hunter offshoots.

Which is why I used him as an example. He was made into a World Boss, given a bunch of abilities unique to him, and all of them are just modified Hunter abilities instead of anything coming directly from the Dark Ranger hero of WC3. Nathanos does not exhibit any of the supernatural powers of a Dark Ranger which includes charm/possession, life drains, ability to raise skeletons and silence enemies through magical means. For a more modern representation, we look to Sylvanas from HotS and her use of Haunting Wave, Wailing Arrow and Shadow Daggers, mixing those same supernatural elements into weaponry. We have some of that coming with her Bow and Quiver drops, which is a good bonus, but we're still far from having any true playable Dark Ranger.

What about the Shadow Hunter? it's, pretty, unique if you ask me.

I agree the concept is unique and I consider it to be very open. I have my interpretations on what it could be, though it would take the class very far from its roots.

I'd personally model it closer to the D3 Witchdoctor, where the Shadow Hunter is a mediator of the Loa and their abilities would be based largely on Spirit Animals as attacks. Basically take the theme of Serpent Totem and flavour each ability with their connections to animal Loa, the way the D3 Witchdoctor uses flaming bats or plague frogs as an attack ability. The concept is that the communion with Loa would be opened up to many different races, and as a result new loa we have never seen in the world would represent different animals around the world just like we've seen with the different animal Loa in Northrend, Zul'Aman and in Zandalar. There could be Loa on Draenor, there could be Loa in the forests of Kalimdor, there could be plenty more we haven't seen in the underground lairs of the Gnomes and Goblins even. Shadow Hunter would be broadened to different races through the newfound Loa connections, while Voodoo remains something specific to the Troll culture; much like how we have different variations of Paladins who all use the Light, but the Holy Light religion is unique to the Humans and Dwarves of the Alliance.

A ranged knockback damage ability could be a charging spirit Rhino, which could be glyphed to spirit Elekks or spirit Rams for other races. A ranged throwing attack could invoke a soaring bat, which could be glyphed to owls for Night Elves or parrots for Kul Tirans.

They can add a spec to the Demon Hunter. Check out my thread:

My personal interpretation - Blizzard was pretty clear on wanting to keep class fantasies pure in Legion. They had a whole bunch of concepts for a 3rd spec, and they said nothing really fit for them, so I agree with their decision.

They're not even giving them a Ranged spec, considering Metamorphosis in WC3 was originally a Ranged form. I don't see them adding in any other Hero themes like a Warden or Shadow Hunter, simply because they want this hero to be kept simple as a Demon Hunter. It's not an amalgamation the way the originally designed the Death Knight.

I feel like that indicates that they are no longer interested in the direction of taking multiple class concepts and bridging them as one. Personally, one of my favourite 'Fake Leak' concepts is the Shadow Stalker from the Dark Prophet; a Shadow Hunter/Dark Ranger hybrid that focuses on the use of ranged attacks and dark spiritual magic. It was a unique combination I hadn't considered before, and their connection seems a lot stronger than to Demon Hunters, since Voodoo has overlapping themes with Necromancy (Zombies, Voodoo Dolls connection to Possession) and Spiritual magic. I just don't think it fits in Blizzard's plans to make any new class like this.

It's why my bets are hedged on Tinker and Dragonsworn as the most likely concepts coming up. I actually don't put much faith in Blizzard being innovative or creative with their class design, and mixing things up the way they did for the DK.

[AzureMage]

They're not even giving them a Ranged spec, considering Metamorphosis in WC3 was originally a Ranged form. I don't see them adding in any other Hero themes like a Warden or Shadow Hunter, simply because they want this hero to be kept simple as a Demon Hunter. It's not an amalgamation the way the originally designed the Death Knight.

I feel like that indicates that they are no longer interested in the direction of taking multiple class concepts and bridging them as one. Personally, one of my favourite 'Fake Leak' concepts is the Shadow Stalker from the Dark Prophet; a Shadow Hunter/Dark Ranger hybrid that focuses on the use of ranged attacks and dark spiritual magic. It was a unique combination I hadn't considered before, and their connection seems a lot stronger than to Demon Hunters, since Voodoo has overlapping themes with Necromancy (Zombies, Voodoo Dolls connection to Possession) and Spiritual magic.

I think the issue was more inherent to the Demon Hunter as a class concept more than anything, Death Knights and Monks have existed in fantasy for longer than the WC3 Death Knight and the WC3 Brewmaster, theres a wide range of ways the archetype they represent can be taken, the Death Knight started as a stock anti-paladin/dark knight (with what amounted to evil-knockoff paladin abilities) but expanded to other death-related powers like frost and blood while still keeping with their general archetype, same with the Monk which incorperated other eastern martial arts archetypes, the hand-to-hand/shaolin style windwalker and the mystic-style mistweaver. Both could be expanded as concepts in ways that made sense and still kept within their defined archetype.

Demon Hunter meanwhile can only really be about Glaives, Mobility, Fel Magic and Demon-form as a concept, and there isn't really a fantasy archetype to fall back on. They are a very specific concept within the Warcraft universe tied to Illidan as a character, which meant all we really could get was two variations of a mobile glaive fighter who uses fel magic & demon form. One for tanking and one for melee dps, a Healer spec doesn't fit the concept, nor does the gameplay of a spellcaster really something you can slot into a highly mobile melee class without being highly out of place.

[Triceron]

I think the issue was more inherent to the Demon Hunter as a class concept more than anything, Death Knights and Monks have existed in fantasy for longer than the WC3 Death Knight and the WC3 Brewmaster, theres a wide range of ways the archetype they represent can be taken, the Death Knight started as a stock anti-paladin/dark knight (with what amounted to evil-knockoff paladin abilities) but expanded to other death-related powers like frost and blood while still keeping with their general archetype, same with the Monk which incorperated other eastern martial arts archetypes, the hand-to-hand/shaolin style windwalker and the mystic-style mistweaver. Both could be expanded as concepts in ways that made sense and still kept within their defined archetype.

Demon Hunter meanwhile can only really be about Glaives, Mobility, Fel Magic and Demon-form as a concept, and there isn't really a fantasy archetype to fall back on. They are a very specific concept within the Warcraft universe tied to Illidan as a character, which meant all we really could get was two variations of a mobile glaive fighter who uses fel magic & demon form. One for tanking and one for melee dps, a Healer spec doesn't fit the concept, nor does the gameplay of a spellcaster really something you can slot into a highly mobile melee class without being highly out of place.

I mostly agree, though I think there is case to expand on those concepts the same way they did for Brewmaster and the Monk.

I mean, we're talking about Fantasy concepts of a DK and Monk, then we can also apply that to a Demon Hunter which doesn't formally fit in any RPG archetype. It's actually got more freedom to be anything Blizzard wants it to be, if you really think about it.

DK's were given Frost and Blood. Well, Arthas never used either of these in any Warcraft depiction before Wrath of the Lich King, the very expansion which DKs were introduced. Monks all encompassed the use of Chi and Mist magic, concepts that didn't originate from the Brewmaster. We can see these as extensions of their identity. We have to consider why Blizzard actually felt the need to not pursue the same exploration for the Demon Hunter when considering the 3rd spec; and it's not because the original concept is limited, but that they *intentionally* want to limit it to maintain a very specific identity.

It wouldn't have been out of the question to have a Spellcaster spec when it's just a spec. I mean, Druids weren't known for turning into giant Owlbears and casting offensive spells from afar, the only representation of that was Druid of the Talon and Keeper of the Grove having magical auto attacks. Spellcasting in WoW is more or less an interpretation of WC3's ranged magical autoattacks, and the Demon Hunter had that through Metamorphosis. I think a direct re-use of the Warlock Metamorphosis as a ranged spec could have been possible. It's just that they would have had to design a bunch of new ranged abilities and created a whole ranged rotation to make it work, and I think it's a right decision to not shoehorn it just for the sake of it.

I mean we already see with some of the other pure DPS classes how they've been somewhat limited in what they can do with their design just because they're splitting the gameplay thin. I see this with how they made Survival into a melee spec as a likely means to keep Beastmastery and Marksmanship more distinct.

[AzureMage]

I mostly agree, though I think there is case to expand on those concepts the same way they did for Brewmaster and the Monk.

I mean, we're talking about Fantasy concepts of a DK and Monk, then we can also apply that to a Demon Hunter which doesn't formally fit in any RPG archetype. It's actually got more freedom to be anything Blizzard wants it to be, if you really think about it.

I'd say it's more a double edged sword, on the one hand they aren't bound by whats expected for the archetype they belong to, on the other hand they don't have anything to fall back on, i'd question if the Demon Hunter have enough things to it as a concept for more than 2 specs.

DK's were given Frost and Blood. Well, Arthas never used either of these in any Warcraft depiction before Wrath of the Lich King, the very expansion which DKs were introduced. Monks all encompassed the use of Chi and Mist magic, concepts that didn't originate from the Brewmaster. We can see these as extensions of their identity. We have to consider why Blizzard actually felt the need to not pursue the same exploration for the Demon Hunter when considering the 3rd spec; and it's not because the original concept is limited, but that they *intentionally* want to limit it to maintain a very specific identity.

Frost and Blood powers do fit the the archetype the Death Knight belongs to, even though Arthas (and DK's in general) never displayed said powers in any media before WoLK, Chi/Ki has always been as anpect of the fantasy monk archetype in addition to eastern martial arts, so adding Chi powers and other martial art styles to the Brewmaster for a more broadly applicable class (where the WC3 Brewmaster is simply one of the other archetypes within as the Drunken Boxer martial arts archetype)

It wouldn't have been out of the question to have a Spellcaster spec when it's just a spec. I mean, Druids weren't known for turning into giant Owlbears and casting offensive spells from afar, the only representation of that was Druid of the Talon and Keeper of the Grove having magical auto attacks. Spellcasting in WoW is more or less an interpretation of WC3's ranged magical autoattacks, and the Demon Hunter had that through Metamorphosis. I think a direct re-use of the Warlock Metamorphosis as a ranged spec could have been possible. It's just that they would have had to design a bunch of new ranged abilities and created a whole ranged rotation to make it work, and I think it's a right decision to not shoehorn it just for the sake of it.

Druids in fantasy have traditionally had full Spellcasting basically being the nature magic equivalents of a clerics divine magic and a wizards arcane magic, they've also always had elements of being a jack of all trades (WoW translates this to them being able to fulfill the tank, healer, melee and ranged dps roles), the expansion they were given from their WC3 roots isn't unexpected from their archetype.

I wonder if they did consider some sort of ranged dps (either glaive throwing or spellcasting) taking elements of the pre-legion Demonology Warlock and the WC3 DH's ranged meta, even Illidan in his boss fight has a phase where he drops his Warglaives and starts casting shadow and fire spells along with summoning fel elementals from his Warglaives, perhaps it would have been too similar to Destruction Warlock, or maybe a spellcaster spec wouldn't have worked well with the mobility inherent to the Demon Hunter class since spellcaster specs are by generally less mobile than melee/ranged weapon dps specs.

[Triceron]

I wonder if they did consider some sort of ranged dps (either glaive throwing or spellcasting) taking elements of the pre-legion Demonology Warlock and the WC3 DH's ranged meta, even Illidan in his boss fight has a phase where he drops his Warglaives and starts casting shadow and fire spells along with summoning fel elementals from his Warglaives, perhaps it would have been too similar to Destruction Warlock, or maybe a spellcaster spec wouldn't have worked well with the mobility inherent to the Demon Hunter class since spellcaster specs are by generally less mobile than melee/ranged weapon dps specs.

Yes, this is my point.

Illidan is the archetype for Demon Hunters, and we have to remember that Illidan himself started out as a Sorcerer and retains all the features of a Warcraft Spellcaster. It's just that they rarely portray him as a spellcaster in the game, since he's only used as a melee unit with a temporary ranged demon form.

I think they could have done this for the Demon Hunter class, but for whatever reason they chose to stick closest to the melee archetype. We can only guess to their reasons why they didn't expand on the concept the way they did for DK's and Monks.

I mean, they even went out of their way to design a wingless Demon Form for tanking. I can't imagine it was a lack of creativity or resources that lead to that decision. I can only see it as being an intentional decision to keep the fantasy focused on a very specific melee Demon Hunter identity.

As for summoning demons being too similar to Warlock, I can see that as a possibility, though it does make me question why they decided to give them a Demon summoning ability through Covenants -_-

[jellmoo]

I wonder if they did consider some sort of ranged dps (either glaive throwing or spellcasting) taking elements of the pre-legion Demonology Warlock and the WC3 DH's ranged meta, even Illidan in his boss fight has a phase where he drops his Warglaives and starts casting shadow and fire spells along with summoning fel elementals from his Warglaives, perhaps it would have been too similar to Destruction Warlock, or maybe a spellcaster spec wouldn't have worked well with the mobility inherent to the Demon Hunter class since spellcaster specs are by generally less mobile than melee/ranged weapon dps specs.

I think that Demon Hunters straddle such a thin line in the game when balancing their kit against that of the Warlock that it becomes troublesome to give them a spellcasting spec without it feeling too Warlocky. Thematically I think it can work. I mean, Illidan was a supremely powerful spellcaster at one point, having him blend arcane stylings with the fel magics he's since picked up makes a good deal of sense. Except at that point you pretty much have a Warlock.

[AzureMage]

Yes, this is my point.

Illidan is the archetype for Demon Hunters, and we have to remember that Illidan himself started out as a Sorcerer and retains all the features of a Warcraft Spellcaster. It's just that they rarely portray him as a spellcaster in the game, since he's only used as a melee unit with a temporary ranged demon form.

I think they could have done this for the Demon Hunter class, but for whatever reason they chose to stick closest to the melee archetype. We can only guess to their reasons why they didn't expand on the concept the way they did for DK's and Monks.

I mean, they even went out of their way to design a wingless Demon Form for tanking. I can't imagine it was a lack of creativity or resources that lead to that decision. I can only see it as being an intentional decision to keep the fantasy focused on a very specific melee Demon Hunter identity.

I think a recurring theme with the Demon Hunter is style over substance, they have a ton of work on their animations and visuals. Unique Customization, Glide, Double jump, stylish attack animations, (with a extremely simple rotation), their resource is a basic ability builder ability spender type (and havoc can make it passive with the demon blades talent) and their most unique aspect the demon form is for all intents and purposes a 3+ minute cooldown dps/tanking cd, aside from the visuals it's basically the same as any other classes big cooldown (only exception would be a few having talents for temporary demon form from ability usage or conditions).

Could be an indicator of the class design teams lack of creativity with the design team (look what happened to Shadow Priest going into Shadowlands, they pretty much took all the uniqueness from Insanity resource and Void Form), or an issue with trying to expand a concept like Demon Hunter to encompass more than 2 specs worth of gameplay ideas.

Guess we'll see if it becomes a trend with whatever the next class is.

[Teriz]

I still don't understand why we crossed 300 pages with how blizz released DH, why ppl are optimistic that blizz actually care to add a new class with new abilities? the 'best' we will get is a class that will cannibalize already existing abilities (tinker for example will just destroy engineering).

Considering that engineering has no abilities, your statement here is demonstrably false.

- - - Updated - - -

How about we all agree that its clear that fans of Warcraft/WoW as a franchise want something that plays like the WC3 blademaster in game and we have differing opinions on whether that would be a new class or spec, but ultimately we want it, just as it is in WC3.

If we were to poll this, I doubt the Blademaster would break double digits percentage wise.

[Syegfryed]

Sure, let's play a game of cherry picked pictures. Why not. Only mine aren't transmogged. Mine are literally what you see when you decide to create a brand new character.

that has to be one of the worst nitpickings i ever seen, literally showed you a transmog who look exactly like a blademaster and your complaint is how that is not the "base" cloth you have to wear, thats just like i said, youc reating a caricature

Huh. What do you know. looks pretty much just like the Demon Hunter from Warcraft 3. Weird.

Not even that that is true and the warrior still look like he is light armroed so your point still is invallid

And yet your character is wearing plate. The actual armor you are wearing is heavy plate armor.

And just like in the RTS, the blademaster use heavy armor and you can mog to look like you don't use a shirt

[/I]And what is the Demon Hunter's primary ability? What is it? Go on, I'll wait while you check.

why does it matter when it is strength that is higher and the source of their damage?

Read what I've written countless times. All we need is a representation of the abilities. We don't Mirror Image exactly like in WC3. We don't need Wind Walk exactly like it was in WC3. We need abilities that represent those functionalities. The Demon Hunter has exactly that.

They don't "exactly" that, like you said yourself no manaburn, and something to "represent that?" they can give tow arrior without creating a new class

It's almost like aesthetic means moire than just appearance and skin deep looks. Weird.

its almost like you are just nitpicking and have the same aesthetic if you want to

Shirtless guy vs guy with full plate. Huh, it's almost like these things aren't the same.

shirtless guy with heavy armor on the RTS, seems pretty hypocrite wanting the primary stat to ahve so much focus but ocompletly ignoring their armor

Please tell me what the primary stat of the Blademaster is. And then, so you can have some understanding of WC3, read the following to get an idea of how stats work in the game.

Like i said, the hypocrisy is huge when you boast about a "primary stat" who ahve the same value as others, while ignoring the rest like armor

Blademaster role: Sneak and trick the enemy.
Warrior role: Smash the enemy.

Pretty fucking different.

Just because you mad eup that they are "sneak and trick the enemy" don't mean they are, like i said, stop making up a caricature of what a blademaster is

Meaning that two thirds of their kit is missing.

2/4 since they do have the critic chances, and good thing they have the rest, like already mentioned.

Did you read the fucking link I gave you? The one that describes the playstyle of the unit? How the abilities are used? How they are countered?

nothing there says you are "tricky and sneaky to bait creeps intoa tacking enemies" like i said, go play the RTS and we can talk about it

If you used only 1/3 of their toolkit and didn't actually play them the way they're designed, I think I might have found the guy that doesn't know how to play the damn game.

Go watch some competitive games with orcs when they pick a blademaster and see if their "role" is being "sneaky and tricky"

no, actually i will link one video to you, one of the ebst orc players of the RTS and to show how you play an orc starting with a blademaster:



Mirror image is not even leveled

Hit and run tactics can be done with every hero

Windwalk was more of a mobility tool and escape if it was just the speed it would still work fine

Blademaster always going with the army unless is for a quick scout witht he bonus speed

Focus in the combat is do hulsk smash, killing people with powerful strikes

Bladestorm being key to the final fight daling absurd amount of damage to lots of enemies

You are trying to tell me that a unit that is based on sneaking past the enemy and then tricking them with an ability that makes duplicates forcing the enemy to hunt down the real Blademaster

Like i said, that is the role point of the problem, you already made that up, you already have a caricature idea of what the blademaster is and do and get so confused when you face reality.

If you think the RTS was like that, like i said, you either didn't play it, or played with cheats/for fun in he campaign

- - - Updated - - -

My one problem with this idea is that it undermines the concept of the warrior class (a tough fighter designed to take blows) and might fundamentally change the class' gameplay style by adding stealth and trickery mechanisms, not unlike how it happened to the demonology spec of the warlock class with the addition of metamorphosis. And metamorphosis made sense to add, in a way.

that is just bullshit, mages got mirror iamge and they are fine, isn't like a huge deal

Wind walk can be just a sprint like ability that may or may not turn invisible for a short time

- - - Updated - - -

Yet the fact remains - the Blademaster isn't actually playable in WoW.

the fact is that the playable blademaster lack his rts skills

Your argument is centered on that claim, whether you acknowledge it or not. Whether you realize it or not, your argument is full of hyperbole.

your argument is based on the false premise that a blademaster is only a blademaster with two skills.

If I said Dark Ranger is playable in WoW, what does that mean to you? Would you agree that Dark Rangers are already playable in WoW?

What is a dark ranger? if dark ranger is the undead rangers who use necrotic and dark magic, then they are not playable

and if you want to bait that intot he false comaprison of blademasters and warriros i suggest you to stop cause isn't going to work

[Triceron]

What is a dark ranger?

Have you seriously never played Warcraft 3?

Honest to god question here.

if dark ranger is the undead rangers who use necrotic and dark magic, then they are not playable

You are correct. They are not playable.

Yet the NPCs are as connected to Hunters as Blademaster NPCs are to Warriors.

Sylvanas' Dark Rangers have Hunter abilities. Nathanos was a Dark Ranger who was also a Hunter trainer. Dark Rangers can be found in the Hunter Class Hall, as a part of the Unseen Path. This is the same level of connection as a Blademaster has to Legion, to the point where a Dark Ranger is even a Marksmanship Hunter follower in WoD.

Yet you are correct. They are not playable.

The connection we have with NPCs is not represented in our playable classes.

Also, a Blademaster uses stealth where a Warrior does not. If the Warrior had a Stealth or Stealth-like ability, then we have something to talk about. We know that the WC3 Hero identity are not simply identified by their spells as a WoW class, it's by the core themes. A Dark Ranger uses dark magic, whereas a Hunter does not. A Blademaster uses stealth and illusions, mystical abilities that a Warrior does not have.

It's that simple. The WC3 Blademaster is not only known for using 2H swords, they have mystical abilities that allow them to stealth and create illusions. The Warrior has nothing to represent this aspect of a Blademaster, therefore the Blademaster is not actually part of the Warrior class.

What other connection can you point to in the Warrior class other than using 2H swords and Bladestorm? There is no lore that actually ties the Warrior to the Blademaster in the game, the connections to the Warrior trainer have already been cut. Single abilities can be shared between multiple archetypes, like how Druids and Priestess of the Moon both have Starfall. This isn't something I'm making up, this is how Blizzard treats these abilities.

[jellmoo]

snip

Let's just cut to the chase. I didn't "make up" the playstyle and focus of the Blademaster. He is based on sneaking and trickery because fully two thirds of his active abilities do just that. This isn't just my interpretation. It's exactly how the unit is designed. His abilities do just that. Whether you think they are important or not is utterly irrelevant. That's what the unit is.

You continue to hand waive away points that work against your conclusion without providing anything else. I have pointed out time and time again the differences present between the Blademaster and the Warrior. You have yet to demonstrate how they are similar enough so that the Warrior class fulfills the archetype. It literally has:

A Sword
Bladestorm

That's it. Please actually explain how these things are the same. Why is a Blademaster a Warrior and not, say a Rogue? A Rogue can Stealth, uses Agility as their primary stat and uses light armor. Why is the Warrior the representation of what a Blademaster is when it no more accurately depicts the concept than the Rogue does?

And stop telling me that adding abilities to the Warrior solves the problem. I quite literally don't care. If I let a Druid transform into a mech, does that mean the Tinker is playable? I don't care about what could be added to the game in the future. I care about now. Your argument is that the Blademaster is playable now, so fucking prove it. You can't, which is why you simply deem everything as unimportant.

Armor? Doesn't matter.
Primary stat? Doesn't matter.
Missing abilities? Don't matter.
Playstyle? Exactly the same so long as you ignore 2/3 of their abilities.

What else is there to say here? You're being wilfully ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest just to avoid admitting you're wrong.