1. #6321
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Dude. Everyone arguing against you have addressed all of your points.
    im glaly you adressed this post and others with your opinion, but isn't a matter of opinion, bias or what you feels, but thanks anyway for adding more(?) to this conversation

  2. #6322
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    bringing that up, and actually sticking with that is totally different things
    more than a half of those people don't understand the blademaster concept from wc3 and are projecting like you did in the other thread using hots as reference, like thinking blademaster is some sort of rogue when windwalk was more of a escape mechanism and boost to speed than anything

    The wc3 concept is only valid when you and other people deem necessary regard to wind walk and mirror image and those two skills alone, while ignoring how warriors have literally, everything else, 2h, same lore, same role in combat, same concept, same fantasy even the war banner [/quote]

    Sure, they can have everything else.

    But consider that even with a War banner, even with a 2H sword, even with everything else that you're talking about - this does not actually make the Warrior play like the Warcraft 3 Blademaster. This does not befit the fantasy of the Warcraft 3 Blademaster.

    At the end of the day, multiple people all responded to you about the Warcraft 3 Blademaster. You haven't addressed any of the issues brought up, you've only managed to dismiss them.

    Agi based? You said ignore it.
    Windwalk and Mirror Image? You're saying the Warrior has everything else, so you haven't addressed this at all. You're ignoring the issue again.
    Asian themes? You've dismissed this again, simply saying the Blademaster doesn't need it.

    All in all, you're not actually talking about the same Blademaster concept as everyone else is. And I've pointed it out pretty clearly that you're the only one who is deciding to talk about the Blademaster NPC in WoW as though this is what the Blademaster should be, when the rest of us are talking about the Warcraft 3 Hero. You've said nothing that actually addresses the concept that people want to see, which is the Warcraft 3 Blademaster.

    All you've done is said that a Warrior *could* be given Windwalk and *could* be given Mirror Image. Well, yes, that is possible. So is giving these abilities to a new class. Both possibilities are equal because Blizzard hasn't indicated any interest in putting these abilities into the game at all, and Windwalk could just as easily never be given to any playable class. Your suggestions are just suggestions, and no different than someone else suggesting a new class. The only difference is you personally don't feel it's needed because the Warrior the rest of the kit; which is fine as an opinion but we both know you're being too stubborn to admit it as a personal opinion and you want to pass it off as a fact.

    That's really what it comes down to. You being too stubborn to see it as an opinion. Honestly I'm not sure why, because we're not opposed to you having an opinion, we're opposed to you passing it off as a fact.

    I, in other hand, am not so short sighed, i can see warriors are blademasters
    You can see Blademaster NPCs in WoW as Warriors. You are still disregarding Warcraft 3. If you're not talking about the Warcraft 3 Blademaster, you're talking about the wrong thing. All the points you're addressing are based on the wrong concept, one who no one except you are talking about. You're not short sighted about the warrior, but you're being short sighted about what the Blademaster in Warcraft 3 actually is.

    Again, I've said it at the very start. As soon as you admit it as your opinion, I'd be 100% happy to agree with you. You don't see me arguing anyone else in this thread who has said Blademaster should not be made into a class. It's because they're not passing that opinion off as a bullshit fact.

    Non Player Characters are not Player Classes, and that alone is a false equivalence. Your argument pretty much kills itself right there.

    If we're all just talking about WoW NPCs being playable, why would we have to say Warcraft 3 Blademaster? It's pretty clear that Lantresor as an Arms Warrior is not the type of Blademaster being talked about. We are talking about Samuro of WC3 and Heroes of the Storm. I'm sure you might not give a rats ass about any difference between the two, but that's your opinion. The simple fact is that the WC3 Blademaster is not playable and not fully reperesented in WoW
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-03 at 10:50 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.

  3. #6323
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    im glaly you adressed this post and others with your opinion, but isn't a matter of opinion, bias or what you feels, but thanks anyway for adding more(?) to this conversation
    Um... actually... it is a matter of opinion. No more, no less. We're talking about future classes, meaning the entire thing is about conjecture, hypothesis, guesses and, last but not least, opinions.

    You say you bring facts to the table. And you do. For example: Lantresor is indeed classified as an Arms Warrior in the WoD garrison follower table. However, the crux of the issue here is that you don't seem to do your due diligence and you don't thoroughly examine what you bring forth as evidence, as you seem to either miss or completely ignore the flaws in what you bring to the table. Using that same example: the WoD garrison follower table has some debatable issues, like for example classifying Nat Pagle as a hunter, despite the character never having been shown to hold anything other than a fishing pole in his hands.

    And when that is brought up to you, you dismiss it. You hand-wave it away as being "not important", or "off-shoot", without ever explaining why you believe it is such. The same thing every time you deem something a "false equivalence" or "hypocrisy" or "double-standard" or "a lie".

    This is far from the first time I'm pointing this out to you. And every single time, what have you done? You ignored everything I wrote.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-05-03 at 10:23 PM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  4. #6324
    Sorry for the late reply. I was banned during these past few weeks. Please, if you find it outraging, do not rush to report. Simply, tell me if it bothers you and i will stop. (Aucald, please be gentle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And ignore what goes against your narrative. Again, the monk class largely comes from sources outside Warcraft.
    So is the Vengeance Demon Hunter. Does that mean that the Demon Hunter is from outside sources?

    But it is a completely different beast in terms of playability, abilities and strategy. Which is the whole point. Saying that the WoW class' design and playability is inspired largely on the HotS Illidan hero is not the same thing as saying its design and playability is "largely inspired on the WC3 DH."
    It's the same class. The Demon Hunter. Whether or not they pulled more from HotS' incarnation is irrelevant.

    Warcraft 3 heroes are useless. Again, the runemaster concept almost making the cut for Wrath debunks that claim.
    Almost making the cut? Did it have abilities, animations, spell effects, armor sets and customization options? It was considered, not ready to be launched.

    "They had the race almost ready for TBC". Funny how Blizzard never, ever said that. All they did was that they once considered the pandaren for the Alliance.
    "The pandaren were initially planned to be the new playable race for the Alliance in World of Warcraft's first expansion, The Burning Crusade, but about halfway through development they were replaced with the draenei. In a Q&A thread on Reddit in April 2020, former Blizzard artist Trent Kaniuga stated that this was because the Chinese government told Blizzard that they couldn't use pandas in the game. By that point, the artists had already created concept art for pandaren cities and buildings, but the change happened early enough in development that not much content was cut. The developers would not get permission to implement pandas until 5 years later. Stephen Glicker of the website Gaming Steve—who claimed to have unofficial contacts at Blizzard—stated that when editors from various gaming magazines were brought to Blizzard's offices to view The Burning Crusade for the first time, they saw dozens of posters and artwork depicting pandaren as the new Alliance race. Glicker further stated that, at the time, Blizzard had been "80% certain" that the pandaren would be the new Alliance race, but due to the political reasons surrounding the issue there was now a "zero percent chance" of the race making it into the game. Rumors persisted that the developers had originally planned to use pandaren instead. Blizzard would not confirm or deny these rumors directly until BlizzCon 2011, when Chris Metzen revealed during an interview with Direct TV that this was indeed the case."

    You mean the pandaren geomancer's prestige class "Transcendent"?

    You mean the Pandaren Warrior? The rest are too small for me to care.
    Yes. It was combined into the Monk. That's why the Monk has elemental aspects. Same as with the "Pandaren Warrior". You don't see Pandaren techniques in the Warrior class, do you?

    Again, that's irrelevant. The concept was considered viable, or else it would never even be considered in the first place. Or do you think that if Blizzard picked up the runemaster, and when they went into the design process, they would go like "hey, the runemaster has no WC3 units. Let's discard it and pick something else"?
    No. I think they saw the Death Knight, and the same as with the Necromancer, they saw how it could contain both of them, as it is a Hero unit.

    "Monk" in that context is just a word. A name. There is nothing else about their monk philosophies and practices.
    How convenient. How am i the one ignoring whatever doesn't fit my narrative?

    Again, we don't have to. Because we don't have to 'pinpoint to a specific character' at all, especially when we're talking about mish-mashes of concepts.
    Actually, we do. Because that would give us an insight into Blizzard's class addition patterns.

    That's still irrelevant. The naaru can't make the Light not hurt the venthyr any more than Thrall cannot make fire magic not burn.
    But, Blizzard can. If the Light smites undead in lore, but doesn't affect Forsaken characters, then it shows you how the lore can be changed for gameplay purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And no no. I don't need to show shit. You made the claim that runemaster and necromancer wholly became DK. So either show your proof or stop making ridiculous claims.
    "When the designers were discussing what the new hero class in Wrath of the Lich King would be, the runemaster was again brought up as a possibility. It was envisioned as a rogue- or monk-type melee class who wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers. The runemaster was eventually merged into the death knight (along with the necromancer)[3][6] and later with the monk."

    [3] - Bo Bell and Alexander Brazie on Reddit (2018-09-13).

    [6] - BlizzCast Episode 7 (2009-01-29).

    "The necromancer class was one of three front runners to becoming the first hero class released with Wrath of the Lich King, however, the ideas surrounding them were incorporated into the death knight. (The two other front runners being runemasters and monks.)[42]"

    [42] - BlizzCast Episode 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And Dragonsworn could be followers of Wrathion. That's the connection. Who is going to be blessing these guys with powers of a Dragon? It will more likely be Wrathion IMO, because the Aspects would not likely 'share' their followers to allow one mortal to be blessed with all powers of each dragonflight whereas this crazy scheme would be right up Wrathion's alley.



    They're still just used as figureheads for the classes. What form they are or what titles they use don't really change that aspect.

    Same could apply for Wrathion, since he is primarily shown in his mortal form using Draconic powers.
    That still doesn't make Wrathion a Dragonsworn. It makes him a Dragon.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Council View Post
    ignoring the ability issues.

    there is no one left to train new dark rangers.
    Plenty of Dark Rangers out there.
    And, by the way, you killed Sylvanas and Nathanos off before they even officially died for good.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I hate to agree with Teriz but he's right. Sylvanas is the ONLY dark ranger that is a banshee. All other dark rangers are just undead quel'dorei hunters. They don't have a single banshee ability. Sylvanas is a unique case that no other character shares in any way.
    And so were Illidan and Arthas.
    You can't, really, expect minor characters to have grandiose abilities like main characters.
    Banshee abilities are a trait of the Dark Ranger, and could be taught to new students, just like Lich abilities are part of the Death Knight, even though we are not Liches.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    There were felsworn with similar mutations but yes, no demon hunters. But we did know the fel can cause those mutations. When it comes to Sylvanas, she is the ONLY banshee inhabiting a body. Her case is unique and really should not be used as an example for dark rangers at all. Because every other dark ranger is, as I said, just undead quel'dorei hunters and nothing more.
    Every main character is unique.
    It should, definitely, be part of the Dark Ranger.
    Dark Ranger NPCs use Wailing Arrow, which is a shot imbued with a Banshee's wail. How do they do that if they not connected to Banshees, whatsoever?
    By the way, Death Knights have Anti-magic Shell, which was a Banshee ability in WC3. How do they gain access to that ability if they are not Banshees?
    Forbidding a class from using some types of abilities because of no-named NPCs is redundant.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    That is nothing but an example of Blizzard's laziness and isn't canon. Canonically, Sylvanas is the ONLY Banshee to inhabit a body. All the dark rangers are just undead quel'dorei hunters and nothing else. You're literally taking offhand flavor text as gospel. And yes we absolutely do know she is the only banshee to inhabit a body. There has never been another character that did the same thing. She is a unique case.

    Dark Rangers containing banshee spirits won't be addressed because they simply don't exist. https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Banshee
    Every single banshee NPC is a spirit except sylvanas.

    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_ranger
    All dark rangers are simply undead quel'dorei and nothing more. Things have been explained, you just refuse to acknowledge it in favor of pushing for an unneeded dark ranger class. Delaryn is Sylvanas' servant because her free will was manipulated in her raising. It's really just that simple. You can try and say dark rangers can happen all day long but you'll be wrong every time. They are simply undead elven hunters. Nothing more.
    That's what, usually, happens before a class is added to the game.
    You're ignoring Arthas', Illidan's and even Chen's uniqueness in favor of dismissing the Dark Ranger.
    A Banshee inhabiting a body isn't a problem.
    If something isn't true right now, it can't be true in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    That wowpedia article lists every single Banshee NPC that's been in the game. Sylvanas is the ONLY one that managed to not only gain her body back but merge her powers with that body. There is absolutely no other examples of that happening in all of Warcraft lore.
    Well, wouldn't taking Banshees and giving them their bodies back be a thing in the future?
    That's like dismissing Death Knights before Wrath of the Lich King because non of them used Frost magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Dark rangers don't have banshee powers. Period. They are nothing more than undead elf hunters. There is nothing ambiguous about it. No other dark ranger can turn incorporeal and fly. No other dark ranger can pass through enemies and kill them in the process. ONLY Sylvanas can do that because she is the ONLY banshee that managed to merge with a physical body.

    All of the dark ranger NPCs in WoW just have hunter abilities. Wailing Arrow is literally just black arrow with different flavor text. All the dark ranger NPCs I've looked at so far don't have any ability to curse enemies in WoW.

    They have no banshee abilities. They are simply undead elf hunters and the NPCs in WoW reflect this.
    No one claims that they should be able to turn into a Banshee and fly around.
    Summoning Banshees is not different than summoning undead minions.
    Banshee's curse is not different to other curses.
    Becoming incorporeal isn't unique, either, as Death Knights have Wraith Walk.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And that's what I'm saying. Dark rangers in WoW DO NOT have Curses. None of the dark ranger NPCs I looked at had any curse abilities and wailing arrow is literally just black arrow with different flavor text.

    Dark rangers are just hunters with like...one necromancy ability sort of with wailing arrow. Even then that's a stretch because it functions exactly like black arrow did.

    HotS is utterly irrelevant. So don't use it as an example because it's not a canon Warcraft game. It doesn't matter what spells are in HotS. Unless they have made it into WoW and are applied the way you are claiming they are, it is all conjecture. Right now dark rangers literally are just undead quel'dorei hunters and nothing more.
    And Death Knights didn't have Lich abilities. You're narrowing it too thin. A class draws from several types, not just one. That's how a Death Knight uses Lich, Dreadlord, Necromancer, Runemaster and Banshee abilities.

    Wailing Arrow is not Black Arrow. The two do different things (even if they have shadowy animations).

    HotS is, extremely, relevant as Blizzard uses its abilities as inspiration and many of its Heroes' abilities are relevant to WoW classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Likely to further show they are completely dedicated to Sylvanas or something. I won't claim to know why it's described that way yet functions identically to the hunter's old black arrow spell.

    Your comparison is....ridiculous. Dark rangers have nothing unique about them. All of their spells are things hunters can do or have done in the past. There is literally nothing separating them from hunters aside from some flavor text.

    Dark rangers no longer have the ability to mind control humanoids. It was an ability in WC3 that didn't make it into WoW. Canon dark rangers now are just like hunters in their abilities.

    Hunters lost black arrow because having a necromancy ability just didn't fit the overall theme of hunters iirc. And since dark rangers are undead and the elite guard of Sylvanas, it would make sense they would have a necromancy ability. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a former hunter ability and the rest of dark rangers in WoW are no different to hunters at all.
    Black Arrow summoned an undead minion.
    Wailing Arrow, usually, silences.

    Of course there is uniqueness to them. That's like saying Demon Hunters aren't because Warlocks used to fill that role.

    That's what happen when a class is added. It is expanded. So, expect to see more abilities, like mind controlling.

    Exactly, necromancy didn't and doesn't fit the Hunter.
    and Metamorphosis was a Warlock ability. Doesn't make them Demon Hunters, though.
    All Death Knight NPCs prior to WotLK were no different to Warriors and Warlocks. Doesn't make them a Warrior or a Warlock now, does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Meanwhile, dark rangers in WoW are just hunters. There just isn't enough unique about them to justify a class. Maybe a hunter spec but certainly not an entire class.
    Same as any other class prior to its addition.
    You, clearly, lack imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    The answer is in the fact that there are dark rangers in WoW and never once have they mind controlled anyone. That pretty much shows that aspect of dark rangers wasn't kept when they moved to WoW. Asking for a direct quote about Blizzard saying they don't have the ability anymore is redundant.

    They use ONE necromancy oriented spell. Just one. And it functions completely like the hunters old black arrow spell.

    As for the class comments, false equivalency. Mages and warlocks actually don't really have overlap when it comes to in game abilities. So that's not a valid argument at all. The point I'm making is that dark ranger are not different enough from hunters to justify an entire class. The current NPCs in game all have present or former hunter abilities. Your comment about mages and warlocks is nothing but a strawman. I haven't been talking about lore. I'm talking about gameplay. Dark rangers are pretty much exactly like hunters from a gameplay mechanics perspective.
    Drawing from NPCs in WoW, especially unknown and minor ones, is not really and argument, as non of the Death Knight or Demon Hunter NPCs had a full set of abilities we have now, prior to their addition.

    By they way, in lore, Warlocks are former Mages (and Shaman, in the case of Orcs), who delved into the dark arts. So, if they received their own class, and weren't just an aspect of Mages, then your can expect the same for Dark Rangers.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    No they don't. What abilities do they have in WoW that hunters don't?
    Black Arrows, Life Drain, Wailing Arrow, Possession, Mind Control, Withering Fire, Evasive Fire, Banshee's Curse and much more.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    But dark rangers in WoW are literally just undead hunters. They don't have any abilities that separate them from hunters.
    There are. You're just ignoring them.
    You're making the same argument for Warlocks and Demon Hunters before Legion, and Death Knights being a combination of Warriors/Warlocks before WotLK.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    So basically you have absolutely no evidence that dark rangers are anything more than undead quel'dorei hunters. Because they absolutely do NOT raise skeletons in WoW nor do they possess mind control. Maybe follow your own comments. You have said since claw packs don't exist in WoW, that means they were dropped. Which means since dark rangers in WoW don't raise skeletons or possess mind control, those abilities were ALSO dropped.
    Dark Rangers used to raise skeletons in WC3 and could, definitely, raise skeletons with Black Arrow in WoW. You're just unaware of its existence. However, in order to avoid overlap with Death Knights and such, they changed the ability in HotS to stun, rather than raise undead.
    Dark Rangers could, also, mind control through possession back in WC3 and can still do that in HotS with possession and Mind Control. So, this aspect wasn't dropped.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    All right well I was wrong about Black Arrow. I didn't know it had that additional effect.

    And being manipulative and master of sowing dissent isn't implying mind control AT ALL. Are you going to say that people IRL who are manipulative actually have mind control?

    And I did read the dark ranger WoWpedia article. They are former quel'dorei rangers. And guess what? Ranger is just a title for hunters in quel'dorei society
    And so, you are wrong about many other things.
    For example, manipulation does imply on their mind controlling abilities, as they had Possession and have Mind Control in HotS, too.

    Guess what? Brewmaster was just a title for cooking profession trainers or vendors that specialized in alcoholic drinks.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Sure we do have examples of mind manipulation through magic and items. Dark rangers don't have those abilities though.

    Also, no. Death knights, when they were introduced in WC3, were paladins that traveled to the source of the plague and ended up at the Icecrown Citadel. They were offered power by the Lich King and they accepted. They then had their souls bound to the Lich King's will. They were then also granted vampiric runeblades and became the Scourge's strongest generals.

    So you're completely wrong about death knights being nothing but paladins before Wrath. Meanwhile, dark rangers literally are just undead quel'dorei rangers. And as I said, "ranger" is literally just another word for Hunter in elven society.
    Yes, they do. Possession and Mind Control.
    If Death Knights are former Paladins and are a different class, so are Dark Rangers being former Rangers a different class.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    The reason they're not like Sylvanas is because Sylvanas is a banshee/undead elf hybrid. Normal dark rangers are JUST undead quel'dorei. It's really that simple.
    Yet, they are both called Dark Rangers.
    Meaning, when the class is introduced, the Dark Ranger will get Banshee abilities. Simple as that. I don't get why it's so hard to comprehend.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    You can try and justify the flavor text all you want, all you're doing is grasping at straws. Nathanos is called a dark ranger most likely because he was boning Sylvanas and because he was put in charge of training more dark rangers that were risen. Delaryn is likely called a dark ranger because she's an ELF and ranger is a title for elite elven hunters. That's it. It's literally JUST a title. Delaryn isn't the only Kaldorei to be considered a "ranger" but the term is much more commonly used by quel'dorei and sin'dorei.
    They are all Dark Rangers. Read the lore.
    What you are doing is belittling to make it look like they aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I agree, tinker is just a title for engineer. I also agree with Blademaster. But your other examples? Yeah no.

    Shadow Hunters are NOT shamans. they are specifically warriors that use voodoo. Sure they have a few spells similar to shaman but everything else, including their power source, is entirely unique. They also wield glaives, something shamans CAN'T do. Wardens also seem to be a hybrid of various things. they can Blink like mages, fan of knives like rogues, create a powerful combat avatar, and can even resurrect units. So they are a lot more unique than rogues. When it comes to bards? I personally don't think bards fit in an MMO atmosphere at all. Great for tabletop but really not great in MMOs.

    I'm not arguing in bad faith. You're just utterly incapable of admitting you're wrong on the subject. I've pointed out numerous times why dark ranger simply wouldn't work as a class and you either disregard or use strawman arguments. There is absolutely nothing unique about dark ranger that would justify an entire class based around it. I can MAYBE see it as a hunter spec but even that's a bit of a stretch.

    So before you accuse me of bad faith again, maybe look up what that means. Because I have absolutely no intention of compromising when it comes to dark ranger being a class. It's nothing but a title used for elven hunters. Absolutely nothing more than that.
    So, basically, you pick and choose what you like or not. Tinkers are not engineers, as much as argue with the Tinker enthusiast guy. Blademasters are not Warriors, but samurais.
    You are, extremely, biased as you advocate for Necromancers while we have Death Knights, yet you dismiss the Dark Ranger.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And I'm dismissing the idea because it simply won't happen and would never be a class. Dark rangers would not work as an entire class since they are simply undead elf hunters. Nothing more. I'm not posting in bad faith because this is a thread about potential classes. All I'm saying is that dark ranger simply doesn't make any god damned sense because they function pretty much exactly like hunters in every way. That's not bad faith.
    Look here and tell me that they don't:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I never said Sylvanas wasn't a dark ranger. What I'm saying is that the majority of her abilities are abilities that only SHE has. Every other dark ranger don't have any of her more unique abilities. This is because Sylvanas is a banshee and other dark rangers are not. So using her as an example for something every dark ranger would do as a class is nothing more than you completely disregarding canon. And if dark rangers were still capable of mind control, at least ONE would have mind control but they don't. Sylvanas doesn't design the entire concept because she is an incredibly unique case since she's a banshee so that gives her more powers a player likely won't ever get any time soon.

    I'm not ignoring class discussion. I'm saying that dark ranger will not be a full blown class and that we should be talking about concepts that could feasibly become a class. Dark ranger is just hunter given Black Arrow again. So continuing to discuss dark ranger as a possible class is nothing but wasted time that could be better spent on more feasible classes.

    The only person who is arguing in bad faith is you, really. You disregard lore, put forth your own headcanons, make dishonest comments about potential classes like shadow hunters, and make baseless accusations. Just because I'm shooting down dark ranger as a class doesn't mean I'm arguing in bad faith. I'm more than willing to discuss other concepts like dragonsworn, shadow hunter, or runemaster because those three are unique enough to warrant an entire class. Dark ranger, on the other hand, absolutely does not have enough to unique about it to warrant anything more than MAYBE a spec for hunters.
    Just like the Lich King is a unique character. You wouldn't expect any Death Knight to get his abilities, right? except we did. Because classes are based on these prominent characters. Same as with the Dark Ranger. Expect us to have Sylvanas-like abilities.

    Reducing the Dark Ranger to a Hunter with a Black Arrow is like reducing a Demon Hunter to a Warlock with Metamorphosis.

    Again, showing your bias. Because the Runemaster is not unique, as it has been integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes and Dragonsworn would overlap with many other classes, like the Druid for example.

    Blizzard doesn't choose classes based on your personal preferences. For example, while i see the Bard, and maybe even the Dragonswon, as unique concepts, i don't advocate for them because i'm aware of Blizzard's class addition patterns. Meanwhile, while the notion of a Warden does not excite me, i advocate for them due to those reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Blizzard has NOT depicted the dark rangers as being just like Sylvanas. Because I'll say it again, she is an entirely unique subject. All the other dark rangers are not banshees like her. All the other dark rangers seem to function just like hunters and mostly only have current or past hunter spells. It's not a subjective opinion. It's facts that you are choosing to utterly disregard over and over again because they don't fit your narrative.

    "Bad faith is a concept in negotiation theory whereby parties pretend to reason to reach settlement, but have no intention to do so, for example, one political party may pretend to negotiate, with no intention to compromise, for political effect." I haven't been doing that. I even said I'm willing to discuss feasible class concepts like Dragonsworn. Stop calling it a bad faith argument just because I won't bend to your opinion and agree with everything you say. Also, dark rangers canonically don't have any banshee powers. So again, stop being dishonest with your comments. There was a new dark ranger NPC created recently and she didn't have any of sylvanas' abilities. So to continue to say "It's your headcanon that dark rangers don't have banshee abilities." is utterly asinine and annoying. Ranger is 100% nothing more than another name for hunters. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean make me saying that headcanon.

    Because continuing to debate about a class that is pretty much already represented in the game in the form of hunters does nothing but derail things. Saying WoW isn't a definitive source on the matter is another asinine comment. You're trying to say that topic about classes for WoW shouldn't use WoW as a definitive source. Do you really not see how incredibly ridiculous that comment is? The reason they won't get banshee abilities is because THEY'RE NOT FUCKING BANSHEES. THEY ARE UNDEAD ELVES. Holy shit, why do I need to keep repeating this?
    WoW does not need to depict the Dark Ranger as using Banshee abilities through minor NPCs in-game. Just like other Priestesses of the Moon do not operate like Tyrande. Those unique characters are the representatives of their class, and which the class is based on. not a random NPC you point at in-game.
    That's why we have other sources for that. If the Dark Ranger is depicted in a certain way in other games, like Warcraft 3, Heroes of the Storm or Hearthstone, you can bet you ass that the class will be based on those depictions and not on some unknown NPC that Blizzard was lazy enough to provide with a full set of abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Things that were in WC3 when it comes to spells didn't make it into WoW at all. Mind Control for dark rangers is one of those spells.

    You haven't pointed out any flaws. You've simply disregarded facts I've posted because they don't fit your narrative. It's incredibly annoying.

    I'm going to fucking say this again. Dark rangers are NOT banshees. Sylvanas is the only one in ALL OF WACRAFT'S LORE to be a banshee that regained their physical body. Dark rangers are more like the forsaken or maybe death knights in the sense they are just run of the mill undead. They're not banshees at all and therefore would not get banshee powers.

    Nathanos is the only exception when it comes to dark rangers with every single other dark ranger being elves. I'm not fucking twisting shit. I'm literally stating the current lore. So your accusation of me twisting the lore is utterly basis. You're the one guilty of that, not me. I won't consider the possibility of playable banshees. It's just not going to happen just like how dark ranger likely will never happen because we already have hunters. I'm not agreeing to disagree with people who are wrong. There is only one banshee that is a dark ranger and that's Sylvanas. She is the ONLY one in the lore. So I'm not going to discuss more dark rangers being banshees since the lore doesn't support it at all. If it was possible then Sylvanas wouldn't be the only one capable of banshee powers after reclaiming her body. Since she is the only one shown to be capable of doing this, there is no precedent for saying all dark rangers can be banshees especially since they are walking corpses and banshees are specifically incorporeal undead.
    Arthas was the only Lich King (back then), with the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne. Other Death Knights shouldn't have his abilities.
    Illidan was the only one whose got his eyes burned by Sargeras himself, consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and wielded Azzinoth's blades. Other Demon Hunters shouldn't have his abilities.
    You, clearly, don't get the point of unique representative characters.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Death knights getting frost magic is linked to an alteration of their runeblade. Weird but it's an easy connection. Making dark rangers banshees is altering not only what is established with dark rangers in lore but from a gameplay perspective, you're utterly warping your base RACE. Because banshee is not a CLASS. It's a creature type. Furthermore, all banshees are both elves and women. There are no other banshee races and there are no male banshee. This has been a constant since WC3. It's another reason why it just won't fucking happen.

    All you're doing is both disregarding lore and pushing for a class that is already represented with hunters.
    A runeblade doesn't have anything to do with Frost magic. It has to do with runic abilities. By the way, Death Knight were imbued with dark vampiric runeblades. The only case for Frostmourne was Arthas, which is a unique character. And, according to your weird logic, classes shouldn't be based on unique characters.
    By the way, their Frost magics comes from the Lich - showing you how they integrate other units to the class, like they would with the Banshee into the Dark Ranger. That's why as a Death Knight you have Lichborne, even though you are not a Lich.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    1)Saying you don't have to be a banshee in order to use banshee powers is a super fucking ridiculous thing to say. I don't even know how to address that point because it's so mind-numbing.
    2) Doesn't change the fact that they are incorporeal undead, something that players will likely never get access to.
    3)Banshee form is not just a fucking form. There is no banshee form. You either are a banshee or you're not. Period.
    4) Because you still retain most of the qualities of the base race. Banshees barely look like elves in most cases even though they are elven spirits. DKs and DHs still look mostly like their original race. Hell, death knights barely look different from their base race at all. they just get blue fire eyes and paler skin.

    Because every single other dark ranger in lore follows the same qualities. They're all elves, they're all undead, and they're all mostly ranged oriented with a bow. You're disregarding lore by only talking about Sylvanas since she is a special case and literally all other dark rangers in WoW are simply undead elf hunters. Before demon hunters were playable, they shared most of their abilities with Illidan. Dark rangers do NOT share most of their abilities with Sylvanas since she has a whole slew of abilities that dark rangers aren't capable of at all.

    Every single dark ranger pretty much only have hunter spells. If that isn't blatant evidence enough then you are either not properly looking or are being purposely obtuse to further your narrative.
    You are completely oblivious to abilities like Lichborne and Wraith Walk.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Banshee Form is something Sylvanas can do because...you know....SHE'S A FUCKING BANSHEE. So asking why players won't get banshee form is just you purposely being obtuse.

    Incorporeal undead have a whole host of complications. Mainly, I don't see players getting the ability to pass through solid objects.

    Regardless of art resources, they shared plenty of abilities with Illidan. Dark rangers share ONE ability with Sylvanas and that's Wailing Arrow. Which is the only spell they have that hunters don't have. One fucking spell isn't enough to justify playable dark rangers.

    Hunters used to have Black Arrow. Shadowburn Shot is LITERALLY just Explosive Shot that does shadow damage instead of fire damage. So yes, I'm going to dismiss it. I haven't been stating opinions. I've been stating facts that are shown to us in game. It's a fact that dark rangers really aren't nothing more than undead elf hunters. Just because you are either unwilling or incapable of accepting facts is a you problem.
    Summoning a Frostwyrm was something only the Lich King could do because, well, he is the Lich King. You argument is pointless and narrow-visioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    giving to other elf races, "just because they are elves" is "shallowing" the lore and by a stupid reason, which is worse

    Dark ranger already is a bad choice for new class, and very unlikely by itself, make it elf-centric would be just dumb


    "who i see"
    "what i consider"

    dude, again, you are not the one to decide those things, you are just blind by bias and what you like and prefer which is not the point of the topic
    You know what? i'm gonna cut you some slack, since not all Death Knights are former Knights. Since being raised is not based on personal choice, i can see Blizzard giving Dark Ranger to everyone, however silly that is

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I've explained things numerous times. You are now continuing to be purposely obtuse so I'm not going to humor any of the statements you made in this post. I shouldn't need to repeat myself just because you are unwilling to accept facts.

    For the record, I said I forgot black arrow summoned an undead minion. When hunters had it, it did that too but I had forgotten because it's been a while. But it backs up my statement that dark rangers are nothing more than undead elf hunters.
    Have you considered the fact that you forget many other things and ignore every information that is available to us out there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes, if Dark Rangers only summoned undead beasts, then they would be undead elf hunters. I would agree with you on that assessment.

    If all Dark Rangers exhibited Nathanos' abilities and only to the extent of his abilities, then I would agree with you that they could be considered Hunters. He uses pets, he uses melee weapons, and he doesn't really touch on any magical or supernatural abilities. He's simply a Ranger/Hunter who is undead.

    But as I've stated, Dark Rangers use Black Arrow which summons skeletons, and they use Wailing Arrow which emits Banshee screams. These are supernatural abilities that the Hunter never had. There is a clear difference here that you're still unwilling to admit to.
    Nathanos is not developed enough. When he gets to be a raid boss, then we'd have an argument. Drawing from a couple of abilities isn't enough.

    By the way, i think the skeleton raising aspect is dropped, as Sylvanas in HotS doesn't do that. I guess it is vital in order to avoid overlap with the Death Knight.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Black Arrow functions the exact same way. Whether it's a beast or skeleton is utterly irrelevant.
    That's like saying Beasts, Demons, Undead and Elementals are all the same, as in the end of the day, they are all minions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    You keep trying to make this point that dark rangers are different enough from hunters because of two spells. Yet you keep disregarding the fact that hunter has had Black Arrow in the past and that Wailing Arrow is just Explosive Shot that does shadow damage and has a silence effect. The mechanics dark rangers have shown in the game since it started is no different than hunters. You keep pushing Wailing Arrow's flavor text like that somehow changes gameplay when it doesn't. You keep ignoring established lore for dark rangers by saying things like "They can take on Banshee form" despite none of them being banshees.
    Warlocks had Metamorphosis in the past and Immolation Aura is just an AoE Immolation.
    You are ignorant to the assortment of other abilities Dark Rangers have and could, possibly, have.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    No. I'm not going to look at games other than Warcraft games. HotS is a MOBA and functions in a COMPLETELY different way so there is no way in hell I'm going to take it seriously when talking about potential classes for WoW.
    So, that's the problem. Your inability to be open-minded. They are Blizzard games, after all. You think they, arbitrarily, pick abilities for them?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Unlike death knights, dark rangers weren't granted a completely new set of abilities. So the comparison is just you being purposely misconstruing things to fit your narrative.
    Yes, they were. Look at Warcraft 3. The Dark Ranger is a Hero unit the same way a Death Knight is.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    "Basically" is not the same as "Actually incorporeal". You still can't phase through objects with Disperse.

    Shamans are channeling the elements to take on a hybrid elemental form. Demon hunters are channeling their inner demon to take on a demonic form. Banshees are incorporeal spirits with no physical form so I really don't see dark rangers capable of doing that at all. The fact that I need to explain this is ridiculous.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Charm is literally an ability that allows you to take control of an enemy unit. Just because it's not CALLED Mind Control doesn't change the fact that it IS mind control.

    Though dark rangers in WoW don't have any form of mind control in WoW so it's safe to say that was scrapped in the transition.
    Turning into a Spirit isn't an issue. Wraith Walk and Spirit Walk are two examples. You're just looking for ways to dismiss it.

    It wasn't lost in translation because you disregard other games on purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I'm not advocating for introducing another class that is race specific. I'd prefer if a new class can be played by ALL races.
    Where's the uniqueness in that?
    That would be spitting on the lore and RP.
    Why not, in the process, just give every class thr ability to do everything?
    Heck, get rid of classes and get one big masterclass. That way, there's no discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I'm not even going to humor dark ranger becoming a class. The most it could be is a hunter spec and even then that's REALLY stretching it. There is absolutely nothing unique about dark rangers that would justify an entire class. You can say there is until you're blue in the face but you'll be wrong each and every time.

    I have looked at dark ranger. They have Black Arrow(A former hunter spell), Multi-shot(A hunter spell), Shoot(A hunter auto-attack), and Wailing Arrow(Explosive Shot that does shadow damage and adds a silence). Oh and some have Hooked Net(Which is a different animation for Steel Trap on Survival hunters). They really have absolutely nothing unique about them to justify an entire class.
    Yet, a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter can be an entire class?

    You forget Life Drain, Possesion, Mind Control, Withering Fire, Banshee's Curse, Shadow dagger and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    No I didn't. Wailing Arrow is BARELY reason enough to give them their own class at all because, as I said, it's just explosive shot with an added effect. As for Black Arrow, it was a hunter staple for the longest time so using that as justification for why dark ranger is pretty ridiculous. Though your comment about ascendance is in bad faith because it doesn't function AT ALL like Metamorphosis. As for the mage and warlock example, I agree. It's really fucking lazy on Blizzard's behalf. And I'd rather not have MORE laziness. Dark ranger could maybe be a new hunter spec but making it an entire class would be a waste of resources that could have been spent on something more unique like Dragonsworn.

    This thread isn't "Should Dark Ranger be the next class?" This is a thread about future potential classes. Dark ranger would make no fucking sense and I'm not arguing in bad faith just because I won't bend for an idea that shouldn't really be discussed because it's a dead end.
    Every class overlaps. There is so much you can come up with before the mechanics become too similar. That's not a reason not to add more classes. Your Dragonsworn would overlap with Druids (green and red dragonflights), Mages (blue and bronze dragonflights) and Shamans (earth warder).

    The Dark Ranger would not be a standalone. It would be combined with the Priestess of the Moon/Night Warrior and, either Sea Witch or Warden.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I'd address everything you said but since you're deadset on using the term "bad faith argument" wrong over and over, I'm not going to bother. All I will say is that just because I'm not willing to humor ONE (bad) class idea doesn't mean I'm arguing in bad faith. I don't need to agree with everything you say in order to not be discussing things in bad faith. I'm willing to talk about legitimate concepts that could made into a full-fledge class. Dark ranger isn't one of those concepts. Especially since you are insisting on twisting things to fit your narrative even if it's an inaccurate comparison.
    And you pick those based on what you look cool.
    If you'd have asked me in the past "would Dark Rangers become a class?", i'd say no because they are, basically, "hunters". But, seeing Blizzard's class addition patterns, and after seeing the Demon Hunter get added (even though many dismissed it as a Warlock or a Rogue), and checking the Warcraft 3 Hero units - i've realized they are not part of the Hunter class and are, definitely, a viable option.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    It's not going to happen as a class and the concept literally just sounds like a hunter spec. If this was a thread about new future specs, that'd be fine. But it isn't.
    *Your personal opinion that is based on lack of knowledge, foresight and the ability to see past minor NPCs.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And once again, we already have a class that ONLY elves can play.
    That can be expanded to races like Orcs, Trolls, Draenei, Nightborne, Void elves, Humans and Forsaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Except the dark rangers are not involved at all in this expansion. Sylvanas being part of it is meaningless, because she is a lone agent. Her Dark Rangers did not follow her.
    He doesn't seem to get that:
    Wrath of the Lich King - Knights of the Ebon Blade/Scourge = Death Knights
    Legion - Illidari = Demon Hunters
    Shadowlands - Mawsworn =/= Dark Rangers?
    There is no dedicated Dark Ranger group this expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.
    The Priestess of the Moon/Night Warrior.
    In Heroes of the Storm, Tyrande is a Healer.
    It uses a bow and magical arrows, like a Dark Ranger, and uses glaives and elune abilities, like a Warden. Now that Elune is, probably, a death entity - it all lines up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    The thing with blademasters is they are already playable, under the warrior class
    No, they are not. Samurais are a unique japanese archetype, not fulfilled by the Warrior class.

    It's kind of hypocritic to view Necromancers and Runemasters a possible, like you told lelenia, when they were integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes, yet dismiss the Blademaster as a Warrior over 1 ability and a mastery over weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    no, not rly, again, two different things, i didn't mind the concept, for another class, but that is not the blademaster class, because its already in the game.

    Plus, that is a fanmade idea, isn't like tblizzard will get things from the fandom like that



    nope, blizzard made sure to show warriors, specific arms, as blademasters, is just a title for the existing class, among some individuals.
    They haven't showed anything.
    You're belittling the class like people used to do with Demon Hunters and are doing with Dark Rangers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    except they are, already pointed out many times with lore and gameplay, if blizzard want to retcon everything, and start introducing the same class again, but with different that is something up to then and another enire cam of worms to open and talka bout
    That's because you view the blademaster as a sword-swinger and nothing else. The Japanese Samurai archetype and fantasy is much more than that.

    this is you with the absolutism fallacy once again, you want an "absolute proof" that fulfil your own personal and arbitrary metrics, We already ahve plenty of proof about the blademasters being warriors with a fancy name and some unique npc skills, like npcs get all the time
    That's because you are unaware of the fact that Blizzards blends identities before a class is, really, implemented in-game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    the fact that blademaster is already playable under the warrior class, because it is a fact that blademasters are warriors.

    If they want to rip off and retcon their thing and do a redundant class, now that is another point, "possible"? well the possibility exist in the matter of tis there, but it will be done, or should be done is also another point.
    You sound like another user here who claims Dark Rangers are, merely, Hunters.

    What makes Necromancers and Runemasters so unique that they deserve their own class, like you claimed before?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    im gonna just throw out, again that comparing blademaster to dark rangers or other more fleshed out classes is a false equivalence, and they are akin to far seers, tauren, chieftain and mountain king, and the possibility of those classes is lower(to not say zero for you guys don't come with torches and pitchforkes) than other classes period.
    Far Seer's abilities are all in the Shaman (you can even see Thrall as an example).
    Tauren Chieftain's abilities, aside from Reincarnation (which might not be relevant anymore) are all in the Tauren race and Warrior class.
    Mountain King's abilities are all in the Warrior class (you can see Muradin for that).
    Blademaster abilities, however, are all over the place: Bladestorm is in the Warrior, Mirror Image is in the Mage, Wind Walk doesn't exist and Critical Strike (even though a stat) ignites your weapon with fire, which non of the Warrior's abilities do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    by blizzard never adding the same class changed a little, and always adding a new class all together

    but hey, thats does not count for you am i right
    *Ahem* the Demon Hunter * Ahem* and the Demonology Warlock.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    those are facts, blizzard never made a fan idea into the game in adding new races and classes department, that is no subjective, is a fact, the likelihood of a new class being like the other is higher than a fanmade idea/concept, this is not "my own personal" interpretation
    *Cough* Allied races and customization options *Cough* based on an MMO-Champion user's thread showcasing 3D models (which, was really popular).

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

    Also, the lack of future theme? seriously? there still the undermine all the subterranean plot with the blingtron hinting a possible enemy they can use for a next expansion, is not much but hey, what is the future theme to introduce blademasters? and i was called a hypocrite
    A bunch? you call 1 ability and mastery over weapons the entire blademaster concept? Where's the deceit and guile? the Warrior is hardly the agile, fast paced, japanese-based samurai class.

    What theme? an asian theme, of course. Just like Mists of Pandaria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    that is much my opinion as it is a blizzard opinion putting and tagging bladmeasters as arms warriors, as warrior trainners and so on, the warrior class is a mix of blademaster, tauren chieftain, mountain king and other warrior-ish units, one of the reasons they are not carbon copies of any of those, blademaster is as much possible or PLaUsIBlE as mountain king and tauren chieftain class.
    You are right about Blizzard combining different warriors into the Warrior class. Yet, unlike the other two, which are represented by their race/class combination, the Blademaster is not fully (and will not fully be) in the Warrior class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    nah, you want to make those things equal, but they are as different as oil and water, and most what i did was to say blademaster are already a thing, and people coming with pichforks saying it wasn't, cause the "real blademaster" is from hots and all other bullshit nonsense, that is beyond their hability or capability of retconing stuff, which i never said was not possible.
    You have a better depiction of a Blademaster? (filled with abilities, talents and animations)

    Incorrect, people are "denying my claim" saying bullshit like: 1- blademasters are not warriors, 2-Warrior class have nothing to do with blademasters 3-warriors and blademasters have different themes, fantasy and even skills, 4- blademaster is a monk spec. (all of those points are false btw corrected many times)

    i never said it was "impossible" that blizzard did some nonsensical and utterly bullshit thing to just retcon their game and add the same class again under another name with HOTS skills, this is you assuming that.

    What i said is: it is highly unlikely that they do that, because warriors are blademasters and already share theme and fantasy(because again, same class), and, is way more likely, aka more possible, to simple give the arms spec more blademaster-ish features or even add a 4th spec to warriors.

    in return what i got is that was not enough because, of course, the 4 points i mentioned early, i literally had people saying they cannot give warriors mirror image and wind walk because ~~reasons~~, when they actually not just can but did similar skills before.
    1 - Blademasters were half-assed integrated into the Warrior class to appease the playerbase for the meantime.

    2 - Not fully, that is. Having Bladestorm and mastery over blades doesn't make them a full-on blademaster, just like how a Warlock with Metamorphosis and fel magic doesn't make it a Demon Hunter.

    3 - They do. The asian, samurai themes of the Blademaster are not accentuated in the Warrior class, just like the Monk asian themes weren't in the Priest, despite being a religious archetype.

    4 - Makes a lot of sense, since its asian based and Wind Walk sounds like Windwalker.

    Blademasters are not fully represented by the Warrior class, and it is unlikely to receive a Mirror Image or Wind Walk abilities. That'd be like giving Warlocks current Demon Hunter abilities because they both wield fel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster_Ronakada

    he was a warrior trainer before he retired
    "retired"
    What? is he old now? injured? a real-life entity with the ability to make decisions? no. It is Blizzard who decided to remove his title, because the Blademaster is not part of the Warrior class. And they're making sure people get it by doing that. Besides, the NPC is a tribute to one of their employees.

    tagging then as such in things like mission tables, garrison tables.

    Lantressor of the blade is a blademaster and is called a arms warrior in the game:

    But of course, this will not matter, i can already see you saying how those examples means nothing, are not enough, yada yada, is like a deja vu, so please, do what you said you were going to do and end this already.
    They tagged Rexxar as a Survival Hunter, even though he is, clearly, a Beastmaster.
    That's what they do. They categorize NPCs by using existing concepts in game, like they would a Dark Ranger and a Marksmansip Hunter. Doesn't mean it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    On top of that, Lantressor and other blademasters, have warrior skills only, like i commented before, warrior need to be broad and have other fantasies, the class cannot be blademaster focused only because that is a orcish thing first and foremost, it would not feel right to alliance players, just like its not mountain king only, because is a dwarf thing, and would not feel right to horde, thats why the warrior class is a mix of then and would not make much sense create new classes based on mountain king and blademaster, when they are essentially playable already.
    And there are Blademasters who use Wind Walk and Mirror Image.
    You're making the same mistake as TheRevenantHero, by attributing this possibility to minor NPCs in-game. The guy claims Dark Ranger are not possible due to NPCs not exhibiting enough Dark Ranger abilities. Yet, you believe the class is viable (according to what you said to lelenia). So, how would you debunk him if he uses the same argument as you do?

    By the way, the other Warrior archetypes are all accounted for in terms of abilities (except reincarnation - which, we don't know if it's still relevant). The Blademaster, however, is only partially integrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by draugril View Post
    Concerning Blademasters, I don't think there's enough to the concept to get a full class out of - I think it much more suitable for it to be a fourth spec for Rogues or Monks. I would have included Warriors, but I think the concept strays too far from Warriors at their core (heavily-armoured brutes) for it to fit in there. They're about finesse, agility, and misdirection, which would fit in well with either of the aforementioned.
    I would advise you to look at "For Honor", for example, to see how versatile the Samurai archetype is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    "not everything is true", blademaster is not his own class, blademaster is a concept/a theme of warriors, that mastered the blade, this is not a matter of finding common ground, blademasters are warriors period, the arms spec is essentially the blademaster in the warcraft fantasy, they share theme, fantasy and skils, period.

    They are not a carbon copy because again, warrior need to be broad to fit other themes, it can't be just blademaster, it need to be mountain king, tauren chieftain and others as well.
    I would disagree. That'd be like claiming Demon Hunters are a concept/theme of a Warlock that mastered demon-shaping.
    The Arms Warrior shares nothing other than mastery over weapons and Bladestorm. Where is the guile and deception with Wind Walk and Mirror Image?
    Your conclusion-making is too hasty. You see a Bladestorm and a spec description and you, immediately, claim a definite connection.

    Blademasters are warriors, and, the warrior class, specifically the arms spec is their representation playable.
    Wrong. It seems so, but it isn't. Blizzard may have tried to base the spec on the closest thing they had available, but the Arms Warrior is far from being a Samurai in any way.

    We know they have because blademasters are warriors and the arms spec is basically a blademaster.
    Repeating the same mantra doesn't make it any truer. You sound like the Tinker guy when you do that.

    The point is not how much it does, the point is that, inded, represent then, and if they just miss 2 skills, they can just add then and its done, without the necessity of the sutpidy to create a new class for that.

    The class theme and concept is not entirelly hostage of those skills, like i said, those skills are more related to the orcish side of the warrior fantasy, it would not feel good to alliance to mimic a horde hero class entirelly, like it would if the fury warrior were just mountain king.
    Adding these would be like adding Mana burn and Evasion to Warlocks, back in the day. It doesn't solve the problem.

    Yet, unlike the Blademaster, Stormbolt, Avatar and Thunder Clap are all there.

    It is represented by the warrior class, specifically the arms spec, and yes, there is nothing about monks to tie with blademaster.

    no way to trully play a blademaster? you have to say what is the "true blademaster" friend, because right now, arms warriors can de facto, play as blademaster without mirror image and windwalk, and surprise, there is blademasters npcs in the game, without those two skills, so you are indeed, playing like a blademaster, just not like all of then
    Wind Walk ties them to Windwalker Monks.
    There's only one version of Blademaster - the Warcraft 3 one (and to extent the HotS incarnation). These lame NPCs you keep bringing are nothing more than a pseudo-Blademaster. The fact that you have to try, really, hard to roleplay as a Blademaster says something about its representation. That's like claiming you can play as a Shadow Hunter with a Shaman, using toys, some abilities and an armor set.

    Blademasters are warriors, that is just facts, they are not treated as its own class, because they aren't, they are not fully integrated into warriors because like i said, two skills is not what define the class and there is reasons of why the spec is not a carbon copy of a horde hero unit.
    That is not a fact. Stop pertaining to know everything like the Tinker guy does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    it indeed does, because what other class was a trainner for another one?

    and thank god its not the only factor and we have many to combine
    So, that would be calling a Dark Ranger a Hunter, because Nathanos was one. Yet, you still see it as a possibility, do you not?

    just because there is some off-shots doe snot mean its not valid, the mission table support things we already knew, Lantressor of the blade was aalwas a blademaster, used warrior skills and is tagged as arms spec, like others
    The mission table, arbitrarily, attributed specs to NPCs because they had to. Come on, is Rokhan a Shaman?

    no, you are again using extrapolationa arguments of bygone times
    No, he's right.
    Every NPCs representing a class (before its addition) were using existing spells and abilities from other classes.

    Nope, none of their skills require mana, this is more or less a reminiscent of the wc3 game, their skills are not magic, therefore its does not need mana, they could use with rage just fine, in fact, in the wc3 they specifically mention "warrior energies" aka, rage.
    It might apply to the Burning Blade clan of Orcs. Not so much to other races.

    yes, and? pandarens were not an enemy race, the monk class was introduced at the same time as the pandarens, pandarens were training disciples among horde and alliance, is completely nonsensical to believe the blademaster arts, which are rare even among orcs, would be teached to every warrior race in the alliance.
    Again, you're not taking other races into consideration. There's nothing orcish about the Blademaster abilities (except, maybe lighting your weapon on fire).

    and thats the thing, what is a blademaster for you? if its just the mirror image/wind walk guy, that both is an orcish thing only, how it would feel right to a human use that? they trained with orcs? they made up the same techinique on their own? is just nonsensical as a new class entirelly.

    But, times are indeed evolving in the lore in general, and after the class halls, ic an see knowledge among people of the same class being shared, so, some orc blademaster could share their ancestral and ancient techniques to other races, even when that sounds stupid, and the warrior class gain more blademaster-ish abilities, but as a new class? inope, redudnant, pointless and dumb in general
    Same class. Different races.
    Again, with your personal opinion.... *sigh*

    there is tons of blademasters in the game who do not use wind-walk and mirror image, we can use then as basis and see that we indeed are playing then
    Whoopi-doo.
    That's just selectively picking NPCs and claiming they represent the concept.

    Monk concept is literally no arms combat as their main thing, and weapons being a side, while blademasters are all about the blade, rogues are also sneaky assassins, something blademasters aren't.
    Wind Walk is not sneaking around?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    people, even npcs retire.
    Back when class trainers were made obsolete, in Mists, not now in Shadowlands - 7 years later. That indicates that they want to distinguish between the Warrior and the Blademaster.

    you want to invalidade the entire thing just because there is some unique individuais, that does not matter, Anduin is a priest with heavy armor and sword anyway, you cannot say he is not a priest because he is using other equipment, that also does ot mean priests do that, he is an offshot.
    The armor and sword are, completely, cosmetic in HotS. He doesn't not use them, whatsoever. By the way, armor and weapons are not what distinguishes between classes. Abilities do. Take the Chieftain, for example. They wear light armor, like leather, despite being Warriors.

    so the fact that landtressor and other blademasters using warrior-skills only does not count? tHe is tagged as "arms spec" because its what blademasters are.
    Disregarding others who use Wind Walk and Mirror Image and brushing them off as "unique cases", while your warrior examples are taken as representatives. Not biased at all, huh?

    nope, it don't, false equivalence.
    Yes it does. Because that's what happened everytime a class is added. People like Tinker guy here would claim Demon Hunters do not deserve their own class, and when the class appeared they, immediately, change their attitudes and claim that they knew how unique they were all along.

    First of all the flavor of wind walk is they goign to fast and apepar to be invisible, is not a real stelth in their fantasy/thematic, it is in the game for gameplay purposes:
    And Rogues use the Shadows to become invisible and Hunters use their surroundings to blend in. The point is, it still renders them invisible, whether you like it or not.

    How they do that? probably using their own inner power/energy, it is explained by bladestorm that they channel warrior energies:
    Stop trying to explain everything.
    "Warrior energies" to become fast, come on...
    They are like that because they are a samurai fantasy-based.

    not everything revolves around mana, and rage and "energy" used by rogues, monks are more or less the same thing.
    They would probably get another resource, because nothing about them (only orcs) is rage-oriented.

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

    You do in fact,g et blademaster representation in the arms spect, not 100%, true, but is there, is a fact.
    Depends what you categorize as a warrior. In Warcraft 3, Pandaren brewmaster, Demon Hunter, Beastmaster and Headhunters were all described as warriors.

    that is totally different points with totally different scnearios, you are again making an extrapolation, is like making horde races priests of elune, it does not work.
    If they want this class to be added, then yes.
    Demon Hunters were Night elf-only, Death Knights were Human-only and Brewmasters were Pandaren-only back in WC3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    that is not a precedent, that was before wow time, and it was the creation of the class, you don't find priests training paladins, neither paladins training priests as npcs in world of warcraft.
    That is the lore, though, for Human Paladins. Do you dismiss that?

    both things are right.
    Yet, there are Dark Ranger Hunter trainers and you don't seem to dismiss them as a class.

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

    Of course Npcs can do some amusing things, like shamans and priests with plate, or a NPC being "two specs" but in the end, they can, mostly, be organized in the 3 specs, very few cannot
    What if not, and that's just Blizzard's way of appeasing the playerbase?
    Can Shadow Hunters be categorized by any of the 3 Shaman specs? can Dark Rangers or Priestesses of the Moon fit in either of the Hunter specs? is Warden accounted for in any of the Rogue specs?

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

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

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

    Again, using NPCs, which have been proven as a wrong method. There are other who don't use Bladestorm, or Warrior abilities, at all. Why don't you mention them? Are they sufficient enough to be called a Blademaster? You just pick what you like...

    It is, because blademasters can be blademasters without wind-walk and mirror image, like demonstred several times
    And can be without Bladestorm or any Warrior ability. Would you say they are a perfect representation and embodiment of the concept?

    So yeah, making the arms spec more blademaster-ish, would make wonders to the class in general, making the spec better and more enjoyable.
    Making it more Tauren Chieftainy would make it better. See how i can use my personal preferences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    that is not a "issue", its the truth, blademasters are warriors period, of course they can be warrior trainners, because is what they are
    Again, expressing like the Tinker guy. You cannot claim things as facts. It's aggravating and exhausting.

    that woudl require too much change in their alreayd established lore
    How so, and how is that a problem?

    Like i said, if you ignroe the table, his skills alone show him with warrior arms skills only, like many other blademasters, is a matter of you guys nitpicking the mision table just because its not always correct
    If it's not, always, correct then you can't use it.

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

    you do ahve blademaster abilities

    And you are acting like only abilities, and two of then, is what make the blademaster, a blademaster, when not even the npcs blademasters do.
    That is called incomplete.
    You disregard the other two aspects like they are not part of the Blademaster fantasy.

    as a arms warrior since cataclysm and even prior in privates, i do say it was indeed a fast spec, especially in MOP. Bleeds were also never a trademark of blademaster, only recently.
    So, that is it, basically.
    You just don't want your character to change and you consider, probably even RP, the character as a Blademaster. Am i correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    so you are telling me there is two different blademasters, or even 3 or four, one that is "blademaster, the other who is "blademaster" and so on? one is vallid the others don't? come on now, this is becoming absurd.
    There is only one Blademaster. and, it doesn't use Warrior abilities other than Bladestorm. These NPC abilities are just supplementary and are not representative of the class.

    And by your logic, you want then to be like blademasters, yet, when defining death knights in the mission table, they nailed then, one is "right" the other is "wrong", why are you putting the blademaster in the same side of shadow hunters, when they clearly are in the same side of death knights?
    They are more like a Shadow Hunter because like it, they are not fully represented in their class.

    Blademasters are wariors, already showed countles of proof on that, you not wanting to accep then is irrelevant
    NPCs aren't proofs.

    the change would be required, because atm blademasters are warriors, and they would have to change that, making another thing, invalidating their already established lore and progress in wow.
    What are you talking about?
    They are Samurais and would, always, remain ones.

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

    If they don't, why are people using then as rule to make the "ideal" and the "true" blademaster? that is double standarts.
    WC3 Hero unit and HotS Samuro are not WoW NPCs. Learn the difference. They are hell of a lot more important than your no-name NPC examples.

    generic death knights still was a compeltely different class and concept, and were bound by the limitations of the engine/time, we have blademasters acrross all the wow lifetime, to vanilla till recent days, and they were always constant with their class and concept, being warriors with warrior skills
    Oh, really?
    Bladestorm was not added until WotLK.

    the crit is inherently in the warrior skillset, it does not need their own ability, and they have other abilities to increase the crit rate, like i said, there is other blademasters in the game who does not use mirror image and wind walk, if they are blademasters, without those, so is the player, nice try witht he DH and rogue false equivalence, but never in wow story they said rogues were DH, and there is no DH with just rogue skills etc.
    Non of them set the weapon on fire.
    There are Dark Rangers in game who do not use Black Arrow, and their still Dark Rangers. Doesn't make them Hunters, though. So, your argument is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    and yet, is only one class, the same thematic, same fantasy, they just have different abilities

    just like warriors, who are blademaster, they have the same fantasy but sometimes different abilities.
    Did it occur to you that the Blademaster could have different aspects, and not just that seen in the orcish Blademaster? Brewmaster was just one spec of the Monk and Illidan never used a Vengeance demon form.

    And, since blademasters are warriors, they work the same.
    Not entirely. And that's where a problem arises.

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

    thats because this si a gameplay thing, it had before, it does not anymore for gameplay purposes
    Wrong. It had mace specialization, as well as sword and axe ones.

    just put a blade as transmog is just whats it take.
    If it was that easy, no one would have requested the class. That's like RPing as a Demon Hunter with a Warlock or a Rogue. It just doesn't fit quite well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    because you dismiss the things does not mean are "opinions" or not valid, the garisson is more hard proof that you can get otherwise, the blademasters in the game too, but again, "i don't like it, therefore it does not count"
    It is, because those are weak arguments. Using random NPCs as proofs is, hardly, a solid argument.

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

    blademaster use warrior abilities and warrior use blademaster abilities = those don't count
    warriors not having wind walk and mirror image, regardless of tons of blademasters ingame not using those as well = now suddenly abilities counts
    One ability. Bladestorm. Which, apparently, is all it takes to make someone a Blademaster. Your standards are low.

    not it don't, there is no correlation to those exampls, as always a false equivalence.
    There is. Because you dismiss the concept based on NPCs, which never represented their class appropriately before their addition.

    they did countless of times, in the warrior trainer, in the npcs, in the garrison followers, is just you arbitrary ignoring then because it does not fit your agenda.
    It's for the meantime. Just like Dark rangers and Shadow Hunters. You don't, really, believe them to be Hunters and Shamans.

    all the evidence, in lore fantasy and theme show that the warrior class does indeed represent the blademaster, real concept, not the one you think there is, its not just fully represented, because the lack of 2 skills, but, since the blademaster concept, fantasy and theme, does not revolve around just those 2 skills, we are good.
    You just answered yourself. It's not fully represented. Like all class additions. Death Knights and Demon Hunters were not, really, represented in the Warlock and Rogue classes, even though they had the right themes and abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    because DH use demon magic, rogues don't, Blademaster are master of blades, just like arms warriors, thats why there is hypocrisy here, is in the false equivalences, just like wanting to compare the warlock/dh scenario..
    Warlocks use Demonic magic. Heck, even their description, back in the day, was "transform into a demon..." like you say for the Arms Warrior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    you are trying to make warlocks and DH comparison to blademaster and warriors when nothing supports your argument, your base of "yep warlocks had metamorphosis, just like warriors have bladestorms, so they are the same. is already a statement based on something false
    How is this false?
    They were trying to force the Demon Hunter fantasy and gameplay into the Warlock.

    your false premise is that to be a blademaster, one need to have those two skills, while in the wow lifetime is show that to be a blademaster those two are not completely necessary, because there is a lot of blademasters, confirmed blademasters, who don't.
    So, Metamorphosis is enough to make someone a Demon Hunter? Death Coil is enough to make someone a Death Knight?
    Classes are not made of 4 abilities, you know. The Demon Hunter, Death Knight and Monk have much more than their core WC3 abilities. So, telling someone to suffice with 1 ability and a transmog is like flipping them off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    And warriors and blademasters have both, they have the SAME skills and they are referred, tagged as the same, and even had a blademaster as warrior trainer, something that never happened to warlocks and DH, therefore, you are cherrypicking evidence trying to make then the same
    Which, again, is a weak argument - same as with Dark Rangers, based on NPCs.

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

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

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

    And since the question of the topic lies on: If they made a new class in the future, what would it be? the answer is definitly, not blademaster, even tinkers are more possible
    You have a narrow vision of what a Blademaster is. There are more races and clans than just the orcs and the Burning Blade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    just because he retired does not mean he wasn't, the story and the lore was not erased, no matter how you try that.
    it means Blizzard is not viewing them as the same thing. Read the hints.

    come on, you are literally grasping at straws, warlocks were never even hinted as demon hunters, they had everything else different, unlike blademasters and warriors, rly, stop trying to say they are the same
    Never hinted? they had an entire spec dedicated to the Demon Hunter gameplay, fantasy and abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    plaayble warrior doing what blademaster npcs can do is literally a indacted of warriors being blademaster.
    No, it isn't. Using that logic would invalidate Death Knights, Demon Hunters, Dark Rangers, Shadow Hunters, Wardens and many more...

    the whole root of this onversation is again, you basing the argument of blademaster being something else than a tittle , a different name for the warriorclass, just like far seer, tauren chieftain and mountain king, all of those are names for shamans and warriors, they are not their own class, much less "their own PlAyAbLe clAsS"
    It isn't. Because unlike the others, it's not fully flashed out in the Warrior class.

    that is your opinion., in other hand, they do that because is what they are, just like Blizzard rightfully tagged Death knights under their 3 specs
    *facepalm*

    Death Knight is in the game.
    Wrongfully tagging is Dark Ranger as Hunter or Shadow Hunter as Shaman.

    that is of course, your opinion


    This could be, simple, because blademasters are warriors, and thats why blizzard put them with warrior skills, in the entire wow lifetime
    Again, being smug like the tinker guy, claiming facts when there aren't any.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    It is a false equivalence because they are not equivalent, already explained countless of times, warlocks having meta is not equal as warriors having bladestorm, a group of priests training a group of warrior to first create the class is not the same as having an actuall class trainner in wow, this is pure simple a fallacy, thinking just because two different things share a random property they are the same, is pathetic and there is no reason to further go down in this rabbit hole..
    You act like everything in WoW is holy and sacred, and other sources are not viable.
    Things change in the game. Nothing stays the same. Something true in the past could turn out false in the future and vice-versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Who said that? and who is you to decide that? this is jsut your arbitrary take, blizzard don't agre with that, thats why tons of npcs and lore figures do not have mirror image and wind walk, therefore, you are wrong.

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

    By example LAntressor of the Blade is one of the blademaster most well knows in the game, they didn't give him those skills, neither in tbc or wod, but they ddi give to jubeithos, in hellfire citadel, you want to say only one is a blademaster, and the other is not, of just accept that blizzard see both as blademaster and those skills are not encessary?
    The most iconic and important Blademaster use them: Samuro.
    That's like saying Sylvanas isn't the representative of the Dark Ranger and that the concept shouldn't be based on her.

    and had a bash passive ability that warriros don't have:
    They had. It was called Mace Specialization.

    With tauren chieftain, we literally have only one of their skills that is shockwave, we don't have war stomp, we don't have endurance aura and we don't have reincarnation.
    Tauren have Warstomp and Endurance (another iteration of the WC3 ability). The only thing missing is Reincarnation, which we don't know if it's still relevant.

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

    No, blizzard already gave plenty of examples of why it don't, by not giving npcs those.
    Not giving NPCs those? Kanrethad, literally, transforms into a Demon during the green fire questline. Nothing more obvious than that.

    that is because you already put in your head, that blademaster class fantasy is fromm hots, when its not, we alreayd saw blademaster class fantasy in wow, several times, with several npcs, all of then is the same warrior-ish fantasy
    It is a perfect representative of it, since it builds-up on the WC3 unit. Unlike the WoW NPCs, which are all over the place in terms of representation.

    You must be playing another game, because option B happened since vanilla, that blizzard showed, several times, that blademasters can be blademasters withut two two skills.
    Since vanilla? When Warriors only got Bladestorm in WoTLK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    no it snot, we clearly can see its not, like i said,y ou would use this argument, by its fails when since vanilla to shadowlands blademaster description and abilities is pretty consistent.
    No. It was, clearly, changed and expanded on with the WoD expansion. Blademasters were never associated with fire before.

    the thing is: you are wrong, we can play those 3 concepts, because blizzard already tied the concepts together, by giving us blademaster abilities, weapons, armor and etc, we can't play exactly like the RTS, and that is ok, [I]because none of the classes play like the RTS anyway.
    We can't play it, at all, because we only have one ability and a toy.

    And they did that is blademasters as well, cause what another orcish hero unit do you think they were talking about when they mention "orc berserker"? they even gave then blademaster later, clearly intentionally ting then together dude., the warrior ahve the 2 main abilities and ultimate from the mountain king and the blademaster, avatar and bladestorm.
    Blademaster is not an orc Berserker.

    And they can do just that with blademaster as well, like i've being saying, no point in making another class and diluting warrior fantasy
    Not diluting, whatsoever. Losing one ability is not the end of the world.

    there is no demand for blademaster either, just a random thread wanting then to be shamans mixed with a moba game,, and that is the point here, there is no reason to dilute their fantasy and make some weird shenanigan and create an entire new class diluting the warrior one, this is not like just taking metamorphosis from warlock, who never had in the first place., because warlocks were never night elves DH, while blademasters always were orc warriors
    Warriors got Bladestorm the same expansion the Warlock got Metamorphosis.

    There's no diluting. The Warrior never encompassed the samurai fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    thats because you have a wrong idea of what it is the archetype of the blademaster, blademasters use more armor than tauren chieftain, than grunts, wolf rainders and so this is not an argument. The blademaster archetype, to put simple like you did, is the good old master of blades warrior using a 2h weapon and you can play that:
    Cool transmog, i have to admit.
    Yet, the gameplay is still missing.

    If you want to include that warriors should be the "deceptive" then you ahve to include how mountain king can be immune to magic and tauren cheiftain can literally ressurect when killed
    Again, Warstomp and Endurance was given to the Tauren race. Only Reincarnation is missing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    ??????? this make no sense a dn does notanswer why blizzard didn't give blademaster those two skills when they could, again,a ccept this is not as much iportant as you think it is, if tis not for then
    It is. Bladestorm was, also, not given to many. Isn't it crucial to the identity of the Blademaster?
    The reality is NPCs are worth shit nothing in terms of representation.

    do all blademasters have it? or just very, very few ones?
    Do all Blademasters have Warrior abilities? or just very, very few ones?

    Realize how absurd is to compare a rogue and a DH with warrior and blademaster, you already part in the false pressupost that warriors and blademaster are totally different because current warriors have no wind walk and mirror image, and try to say this is the same as DH and rogues or DH and warlocks, when they are totally different.
    No, they aren't. Warlocks are masters of fel and demonic magics. They just lack the glaive part of it. Sounds familiar? "Warriors are masters of the blade, they just lack guile and deception"

    You can ven see how a blademaster fought, like a gladiator against varian in the horde rings its not "deception and stealth" is not a rogue. is a fighter, is a warrior.
    Samurais are not Gladiators.

    like i said, not me, its blizzard, since they didn't give those to the blademasters ingame and the plaayble one
    In-game NPCs don't mean shit.

    cause what i said is "there are blademasters with warrior skills only" so, since you cannot refute that, because is a fact, you create a strawman, like always.
    You take them at face value, like they are the representatives of the concept. They're not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Agreed.

    The reason I argue for Blademaster is for Class skins. At some point the list of potential heroes is going to run thin, and I think that would be a prime opportunity to add in all the missing flavour classes that everyone has been asking for.

    Necromancers, Runemasters, Spellbreakers, Wardens, Blademasters, Shadow Hunters and Wardens could all be added as alternate Class options that use existing class gameplay but with new themes, new talents, new spell FX and animations.
    Everything could be that. That's like saying no new classes. That's kinda shallow. It's like implementing only allied races from now on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    -"easter themed mysticism? you can hardly say that is eastern.
    -"mystic to defeat his enemies? blademaster don't do that, they use their swords and their strenght.
    Are you kidding? not eastern? everything about the samurai is Japanese (which is the Blademaster).
    Using strength? not at all. It uses guile and deception. You're mixing the race with the class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    exactly, why they would do that? there is no reason for, because those skills are not a defining trait of blademasters, bladestorm is more, is their ultimate IE, their more important skill, akin to metamorphosis, that is enough to fulfil the blademaster fantasy in blizzard eyes
    Then, a Warlock with Metamorphosis is enough to be a Demon Hunter. You just defeated your own argument.


    "npcs are not proper representations of the class, we should use the npcs of warcraft 3 and heroes of the storm"
    *Units and characters, not NPCs.*

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    You can't. You can just play "pretend".

    "wind walk", bladestorm and "mirror images" design, is something you can find anywhere
    Where?

    and for you saying we can't have that archetype

    literally, a shirtless warrior with a 2h
    Basically, confirming what i said. Play "pretend" with transmog. Nothing less nothing more.

    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.
    And that Ultimate would make Warlocks Demon Hunters, and Priestess of the Moon Druids.

    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.
    No, it doesn't. That would make Warlocks Demon Hunters and Death Knights, Hunters Dark Rangers and Priestesses of the Moon, Shamans Shadow Hunter, Rogues Warden and so on. Integrating elements is for gameplay purposes only and to appease, for the meantime, the community.

    Lets just say that the chances of a class that is not already in the game, under another name, are higher
    Wrong. We saw it play out with the Demon Hunter.

    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.
    Yet, Death Knights, Demon Hunters and Monks have more than what the RTS provides, right?
    So, why expect the Blademaster to be satisfied with one ability only?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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?
    Because it is not properly represented in the race/class combination like the other ones.

    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.
    That is transmog. Not gameplay.

    the entire concept of rogues is being sneaky, well, rogues, that is not a concept of the blademaster, neither their definitive trait.
    *Cough* Wind Walk *Cough*

    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's Mana rift. And unlike Mana Burn, Wind Walk and Mirror Image were translated into HotS.

    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.
    You expect them to use strength?

    your argument is making up a concept, that is not in wow, and saying you can't play that thing.
    Nothing is made up. It is all based on the Blademaster and Samurai, in general, at the end of the day.

    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
    You can't. You just imagine you are.

    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.
    Demon Hunter refutes this argument.

    A blademaster without two skills still is a blademaster because a blademaster only stop being one when he have no blade at all
    That is simplifying the concept, massively. It's like saying every melee with a weapon is a warrior.

    tauren cheiftain only have one of their skills in the warrior, but they are somehow covered
    The race's racials cover half.

    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
    False. That's is just ignoring lore and other NPCs.

    Even more because what it takes is to give those two skills to warriors and be done with it by everyone else logic
    Only yours and other class concept deniers here. Want Dark Ranger? just give the Hunter 3 abilities. Want Shadow Hunter? just give the Shaman one ability. Want Warden? just give Rogues 2 abilities? want Priestess of the Moon? just give Hunters 1 ability. That will solve everyone's problems, right? That is a cheap and lackluster solution to class concepts.

    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)
    Nothing Samuraish about the Warrior.
    They, also, lack the deception and guile which you keep ignoring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Blademaster being agility was merely a mechanic thing to compensate the other heroes who were INT(far seer) and tauren chieftain(STR) the base of the blademaster is being strong and pwoerful, look how fucking ripped he is my dude.
    So is Illidan, yet Demon Hunters use Agility.

    you closing your eyes and sayign youc an't play sekiro does not mean youc an play a wow baldemaster, yes, sekiro isn't playable, what is playable is the wow blademaster, that is not "me" saying, it is in the game, warriors using blademasters skills weapons and appearence, is their fantasy, master of blades, which warriors are.
    Once again, ignoring Wind Walk and Mirror Image like all it takes to play a WC3 Blademaster is Bladestorm.

    even when you put mirror image and wind walk the role of the blademaster is the same role of the warrior, kill the enemy fast
    That is abroad term. Rogues and Demon Hunters also check this criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    "i never said it was all what he was, this is you making up. They are agile yes, like warriors are, they have as much armor as any other warrior and the use of trickery and stealth is something minor compared to their main point, you can't do that but you can do the rest, saying you literally can't because two mussing skills is just asinine.
    You act like you can play a WC3 Blademaster or Samuro with just Bladestorm alone. That is not feasible.

    "has asian theme"? that is just transmog, orcs had that ever since.
    Samuro has Japanese-named talents in HotS. Heck, the whole Samurai concept is Japanese. You can't just say it is just the 'looks'.

    The only thing missing is wind walk and mirror imagge, and they can put that into the warrior toollkit, there is no reason for a new class
    And they can do that with any other class.

    I, in other hand, am not so short sighed, i can see warriors are blademasters(you know, by playing in it, by reading their lore, their fantasy, by acknowledging and not ignoring their similarities) like the other hero classes(mountain king and tauren chieftain), but some of their skill are cut to adapt into the mmo side of the game and, i can totally see, they adapting those two skills and giving to warriors to enhance their blademaster side. since mountain king is already well corevered.
    You are, because you are ignoring other aspects of the concept to fit your outlook on it. If you had made a deep analysis of WC3 heroes and WoW racials, you'd know the Blademaster is missing.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-05-03 at 11:05 PM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  5. #6325
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    - this does not actually make the Warrior play like the Warcraft 3 Blademaster.
    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

    Agi based? You said ignore it.
    this is not an argument, this is something bound to the RTS because the tauren was the STR hero, this is the epitome of nitpicking, things change to adapt and reflect better compared to something that was pure a gameplay chose for balance in the RTS.

    Both possibilities are equal
    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.

    You can see Blademaster NPCs in WoW as Warriors. You are still disregarding Warcraft 3.
    "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

    but you're being short sighted about what the Blademaster in Warcraft 3 actually is.
    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.

    Again, I've said it at the very start. As soon as you admit it as your opinion, I'd be 100% happy to agree with you. You don't see me arguing anyone else in this thread who has said Blademaster should not be made into a class. It's because they're not passing that opinion off as a bullshit fact.
    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.

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

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    You act like you can play a WC3 Blademaster or Samuro with just Bladestorm alone. That is not feasible.
    No, you are acting like the blademaster is just wind walk and mirror image
    So is Illidan, yet Demon Hunters use Agility.
    and DH ahve mroe STR and STr gain thana gility

    You are, because you are ignoring other aspects of the concept to fit your outlook on it. If you had made a deep analysis of WC3 heroes and WoW racials, you'd know the Blademaster is missing.
    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.

  6. #6326
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    This is absurd, none of the heroes in the RTS play exactly like their versions in wow
    No one is asking for exact.

    We are asking for full representation.

    We are talking about the Warcraft 3 Blademaster as a playable concept in WoW. If the Warrior is missing such important features and abilities like Wind Walk, Mirror Image, Burning Blade customizations and more, then we can argue that the Warrior class as it exists now does not do enough to fully represent a Blademaster as we'd expect from Warcraft 3.

    If we look at the Death Knight and the Demon Hunter, we can also regard many differences. DK's don't have Animate Dead and Unholy Aura. However they have Army of the Dead and Unholy Essence; these are fine as long as the key representation is there. The full function of raising and commanding undead is present in the kit. Demon Hunter is the same where Metamorphosis is a whole different ability than the WC3 counterpart, but the full fantasy of a Demon Hunter that is capable of spell locking enemies and turning into a big demon is all represented in this class. You could not say this about a Warlock or Rogue which were missing many key features.

    The Warcraft 3 Blademaster is not fully represented in WoW. If you believe it is, then that's fine for you to believe, but it's not a fact. The fact is the Blademaster is not playable.
    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.

  7. #6327
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    No one is asking for exact.

    We are asking for full representation.
    you are just contradicting yourself.

    If the Warrior is missing such important features and abilities like Wind Walk, Mirror Image
    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 Warcraft 3 Blademaster is not fully represented in WoW. If you believe it is, then that's fine for you to believe, but it's not a fact. The fact is the Blademaster is not playable.
    you are again contradicting yourself, and with the same circular logic, your "conclusion" is base from a premise based on your own conclusion.

    i never said is fully implement, but it is implement, you are literally attacking an argument i never made with a lame strawman, not being fully represented don't mean is not playable

  8. #6328
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    you are just contradicting yourself.
    Do you not know the difference between exact and full representation?

    The Beastmastery spec is a full representation of a Beastmaster, but it is not an exact representation of the WC3 Hero. Hunters can't dual wield two axes in melee, Hunters can't play as a Mok'nathal. Even though the representation is not exact, it contains all the necessary features that satisfy the Beastmaster identity. We don't need to ask for a Beastmaster class because Hunters already have *everything* that a Beastmaster is known to do. I'm explaining here that no one is asking for *exact* when a *full representation of the WC3 Hero* is enough.

    A Warrior fully represents the Mountain King of WC3, even though it is not an exact representation. You can only dual wield in Fury spec, you don't have access to both Stormbolt and Avatar at the same time, so it is not exactly the WC3 MK. What is important is that all of the elements are there to fully represent a Mountain King. It is enough material where we don't have to argue for a MK class on its own, because the Warrior has everything you need to play as a Mountain King. Stormbolts, Thunder Claps, the ability to use Avatar and Stoneform; that is all available to a Dwarf Warrior.

    The Blademaster of WC3 is not a full represented by the Warrior class. Windwalk and Mirror Image are missing. The asian themes of the Blademaster of WC3 are also missing and not even available in the game. The Blademaster is only *partially* represented in the Warrior through Arms having Bladestorm. That's it. An Orc has no racials that promotes the Blademaster identity the way a Tauren and Dwarf helps the MK and Chieftain.

    I know you will want to say that the Blademaster doesn't need full representation because the NPCs and all, but as I said that answer really only works for your personal taste. You have to realize that this isn't what the rest of us regard as a Blademaser playable in WoW. If everyone is bringing up Windwalk, then that isn't something you can just dismiss and pretend is unnecessary. That's just you being disrespectful to the nature of the conversation and using a bad faith argument, of having no intention to meet a middle ground and address the issues or even consider if there would be any meaningful middle ground. All you want to do is silence others by saying they don't need what they are asking for because Blademaster NPCs don't have it.


    i never said is fully implement, but it is implement, you are literally attacking an argument i never made with a lame strawman, not being fully represented don't mean is not playable
    Yes, and Engineering doesn't fully represent Tinkers, but it represents the same themes that Tinkers use. I mean, Blizzard even calls an Engineering Vendor and Trainer a Tinker. Would you consider this to be an example of a playable Tinker? That all Tinkers are Engineers?

    Canonically in WoW, Tinkers are just Engineers. The Engineering profession gives you access to explosives and mechs usuable in combat. Yet at no point does *some* representation mean it is playable.

    We are all looking for a fully playable representation of a WC3 Hero in WoW. It doesn't have to be in the form of its own class, but it should be fully represented whether it be a Spec, a Profession or a whole new class. That's what I think is most important to discussion, not simply pointing at what already exists in the game and considering it as being playable just because it shares some themes.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-04 at 12:29 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.

  9. #6329
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    So is the Vengeance Demon Hunter. Does that mean that the Demon Hunter is from outside sources?
    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.

    It's the same class. The Demon Hunter. Whether or not they pulled more from HotS' incarnation is irrelevant.
    It is, though, since the two concepts have different gameplay.

    Almost making the cut? Did it have abilities, animations, spell effects, armor sets and customization options? It was considered, not ready to be launched.
    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.

    "The pandaren were initially planned to be the new playable race for the Alliance in World of Warcraft's first expansion, The Burning Crusade, but about halfway through development they were replaced with the draenei. In a Q&A thread on Reddit in April 2020, former Blizzard artist Trent Kaniuga stated that this was because the Chinese government told Blizzard that they couldn't use pandas in the game. By that point, the artists had already created concept art for pandaren cities and buildings, but the change happened early enough in development that not much content was cut. The developers would not get permission to implement pandas until 5 years later. Stephen Glicker of the website Gaming Steve—who claimed to have unofficial contacts at Blizzard—stated that when editors from various gaming magazines were brought to Blizzard's offices to view The Burning Crusade for the first time, they saw dozens of posters and artwork depicting pandaren as the new Alliance race. Glicker further stated that, at the time, Blizzard had been "80% certain" that the pandaren would be the new Alliance race, but due to the political reasons surrounding the issue there was now a "zero percent chance" of the race making it into the game. Rumors persisted that the developers had originally planned to use pandaren instead. Blizzard would not confirm or deny these rumors directly until BlizzCon 2011, when Chris Metzen revealed during an interview with Direct TV that this was indeed the case."
    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?

    Yes. It was combined into the Monk. That's why the Monk has elemental aspects. Same as with the "Pandaren Warrior". You don't see Pandaren techniques in the Warrior class, do you?
    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?

    No. I think they saw the Death Knight, and the same as with the Necromancer, they saw how it could contain both of them, as it is a Hero unit.
    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.

    Actually, we do. Because that would give us an insight into Blizzard's class addition patterns.
    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.

    But, Blizzard can. If the Light smites undead in lore, but doesn't affect Forsaken characters, then it shows you how the lore can be changed for gameplay purposes.
    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."
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  10. #6330
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    A Warrior fully represents the Mountain King of WC3, even though it is not an exact representation. Dual Wielding is only available in Fury and its talents are not all accessible at once. However the representation within the Warrior class is complete, even if it is not exact.
    you are aware how you are literally using double standards here right? i mean, you are, aren't you? you already made clear that you are just baiting "until i admit" you can't be saying those things with a straight face.

    Windwalk and Mirror Image are missing.
    Bash from the mountian king is missing, the spell immunity from then is missing :^)

    always with the same double standards, false equivalence.

  11. #6331
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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
    I can summon undead minions, throw bolts of undeath to damage foes and heal friendly units, and sacrifice minions to get health back. I can play just like the RTS.

    A demon hunter don't play Like the Demon hunter in the RTS
    I can transform into a demon, self-immolate, and be incredibly nimble to dodge attacks. I can play just like the RTS.

    A warrior don't play like the warriors in the RTS
    I can thunderclap, use Avatar and throw a hammer. I can play just like 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
    It doesn't mean the inherent gameplay style that is born out of the concept is not the same or similar. You seem to think that "gameplay = buttons to press", and not consider the whole style that is born out of the concept.

    this is not an argument, this is something bound to the RTS because the tauren was the STR hero, this is the epitome of nitpicking, things change to adapt and reflect better compared to something that was pure a gameplay chose for balance in the RTS.
    Except the RTS unit's main stat reflects the kind of gameplay style the class would have in WoW. Strength units become front-line classes, agility units become ranged/agile classes, and intellect become casters.

    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.
    It's arguably not easier, though. Giving all the blademaster abilities to the warrior class would fundamentally change its theme and gameplay style.

    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.
    He never said that, though? Actually, scratch that: no one ever said that.

    and DH ahve mroe STR and STr gain thana gility
    Yet if you give them strength-boosting items, it won't increase its damage, because its main stat is agility.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  12. #6332
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I can summon undead minions, throw bolts of undeath to damage foes and heal friendly units, and sacrifice minions to get health back. I can play just like the RTS.
    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

  13. #6333
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    you are aware how you are literally using double standards here right? i mean, you are, aren't you? you already made clear that you are just baiting "until i admit" you can't be saying those things with a straight face.
    How is he using double standards? Again you just dismiss what people write without explaining why.

    Bash from the mountian king is missing,
    Warriors had the "bash" passive at one point in the game. I've pointed that out to you already.

    the spell immunity from then is missing :^)
    The Avatar ability exists. and is a representation of the Avatar ability from WC3, especially considering Magni has it.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  14. #6334
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    snip
    Again, you just dismiss every argument that you can't counter as 'unimportant'. It's tired.

    You are trying to tell me that Warrior = Bademaster despite the fact that:

    Primary stat: Different
    Armor type: Different
    Abilities: 66% Not available
    Aesthetic and Theme: Different
    Playstyle: Different

    The only similarities are one ability and the use of a sword. That's literally it. You're trying to tell me that two things that are way more different than they are similar are the same thing. Do you realize how monumentally fucking stupid that is?

    It's like I went to a car lot to buy a brand new Tesla Model 3. I want a sleak coupe that's an electric vehicle and comes with an ultra minimalist interior. You decide to try and sell me a Cadillac Escalade. A very large, gas guzzling SUV that has a busy and luxurious interior. You try and tell me that they are the same thing. They're both vehicles. They both are made of plastic and steel and drive you places.

    I point out all the differences and you tell me they don't matter. I should just be happy with the Cadillac because it's close enough.

    Do you not see how fucking stupid an argument this is?

    You keep saying that things don't matter, as though that makes it okay that the two things are different You insist that that sneaking and subterfuge aren't a large part of the Blademaster's schtick despite 66% of his toolkit being dedicated to that very thing.

    Your argument boils down to "they're the same because I say they're the same and all of the differences you're noting don't matter". I've very fucking clearly laid out how they are not the same. The fact that you don't think the differences are important is utterly irrelevant. Either construct an actual argument or realize that maybe when everyone is asking for the same thing from you, that maybe, just maybe you're wrong.

  15. #6335
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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
    You do know what you wrote there literally backs what I said, right? Because I see some critical stuff missing from that description, like the ability to confuse my foes with illusory images of myself, and the ability to escape or surprise my enemies by going invisible.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  16. #6336
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    what i've being doing this whole thread is "proving" it, you guys are the one wand waiving ignoring everything they and warriors have with projections and headcanon that does not exist in this game.



    "i never said it was all what he was, this is you making up. They are agile yes, like warriors are, they have as much armor as any other warrior and the use of trickery and stealth is something minor compared to their main point, you can't do that but you can do the rest, saying you literally can't because two mussing skills is just asinine.
    If you think that the use of trickery/stealth is a minor point when half of their abilities in WC3 were stealth/trickery and in HOTS its 17/20 then whats the point having this debate with you. If you think thats asanine then god knows.

    We've had this debate a million times. A rogue using swords/daggers is technically a 'warrior'. A survival hunter is technically a warrior. A paladin is a warrior. They all wear various forms of armour and wield various light/heavy weaponry, it dosent make them all a WoW warrior. Blademaster is as unique as rogue.

    But im not going to hold a debate with you again because I dont want to just get reported for 'trolling' when you get annoyed.

    Literally everyone is telling you that you are wrong, and actually providing proof and facts like WC3 references, HOTS etc. Yet you're right in your world because you say so. Interesting.

  17. #6337
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    He can't do it because he doesn't regard the Warcraft 3 Blademaster as anything other than a Warrior in WoW.

    "you only have to ignore the primary stat" pretty much speaks everything. Just ignore the things that makes a Blademaster unique and you have a Warrior. That's how he chooses to see the Blademaster.
    I honestly don't know what else to say. Debate is fun. Honest debate and discussion about classes is my favourite forum activity. I've grown somewhat used to intellectual dishonesty and simply avoid those arguments now. But wilful ignorance? Nearly incomprehensible arguments? Hand waiving away anything as though it magically invalidates a point?

    I can understand somebody saying that they don't think the archetype is important to represent. I can understand somebody saying existing classes are close enough. I can understand somebody saying that the abilities were doled out to other classes and it would take stealing from them to make it work. I might not agree with the arguments but they would make sense.

    Trying to insist that two demonstrably different things are the same and then pretending the differences don't matter "just cuz"? It's practically the dollar store equivalent of what a decent argument should be.

  18. #6338
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Nathanos is not developed enough. When he gets to be a raid boss, then we'd have an argument. Drawing from a couple of abilities isn't enough.
    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?

    By the way, i think the skeleton raising aspect is dropped, as Sylvanas in HotS doesn't do that. I guess it is vital in order to avoid overlap with the Death Knight.
    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.

    Everything could be that. That's like saying no new classes. That's kinda shallow. It's like implementing only allied races from now on.
    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.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I honestly don't know what else to say. Debate is fun. Honest debate and discussion about classes is my favourite forum activity. I've grown somewhat used to intellectual dishonesty and simply avoid those arguments now. But wilful ignorance? Nearly incomprehensible arguments? Hand waiving away anything as though it magically invalidates a point?

    I can understand somebody saying that they don't think the archetype is important to represent. I can understand somebody saying existing classes are close enough. I can understand somebody saying that the abilities were doled out to other classes and it would take stealing from them to make it work. I might not agree with the arguments but they would make sense.

    Trying to insist that two demonstrably different things are the same and then pretending the differences don't matter "just cuz"? It's practically the dollar store equivalent of what a decent argument should be.
    His use of hyperbole is definitely aggravating. I can understand his intention, but he is unwilling to use the right arguments to convey his message.

    I mean, I personally don't even think a Blademaster class should be made, and I can't get him to agree with me on this point. He just keeps saying Blademasters are already playable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Bash from the mountian king is missing, the spell immunity from then is missing :^)

    always with the same double standards, false equivalence.
    Bash and spell immunity are translated into WoW mechanics. Stuns can't be made into baseline passives, so they are implemented as stun and interrupt abilities. Spell immunity is also translated into mechanics such as Spell Reflection and the Dwarf's Stoneform racial which can clear magical debuffs. The fantasy of a MK is fully represented, even if the mechanics have to be translated into a way that makes sense in WoW.

    Animate Dead is not in WoW, but we have Army of the Dead that translates its mechanics into WoW. Army of the Dead represents the Death Knight's ability to raise a small army of Undead units. We know this is a significant part of the DK's identity that needed to be represented, and without it we could argue that it was not being fully represented.

    A Blood Mage, for example, is not fully represented in WoW. We have a Mage and Warlock who both use fiery spells and can banish elementals and demons, but we don't have the full representation fo a Blood Mage in WoW. All we have is partial representation, and that's not enough to consider the Blood Mage as being playable, even if we already know their themes and fantasy are very well connected to the Fire Mage and Destruction Warlock specs.

    When we look at the WC3 Blademaster, what is the translated mechanics of Windwalk and Mirror Image? The Warrior has nothing to represent these abilities, or even the theme of these abilities. These are deception mechanics, and the Warrior has zero representation for this. The most you can do is take up Engineering which lets you deploy holographic Decoys or a belt mod that lets you Stealth, but these are not themes and flavours of a Blademaster hero. The Warrior class is lacking abilities that represent this significant aspect of the WC3 Blademaster hero.

    It does not have to be an *exact* translation of mechanics. It simply has to be represented.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-04 at 01:17 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.

  19. #6339
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Bash and spell immunity are translated into WoW mechanics. Stuns can't be made into baseline passives, so they are implemented as stun and interrupt abilities.
    Actually, just to clarify this point, but the warrior class did have the "bash" as a passive back during vanilla WoW and now in Classic WoW. It's the "Mace Specialization" talent.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  20. #6340
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Again, you just dismiss every argument that you can't counter as 'unimportant'. It's tired.
    i literally refute everything you said with examples, ingame even the dumb armor argument

    I literally showed you Blademaster armor is higher than mountain king, paladins and DeathKnights, yet, you keep saying blademaster is "unarmored" or "don't use armor", phrasing, you are still ignoring somethign that direct contradict your idea of what a blademaster is

    you entire argument is making something up, a caricature of what a wow blademaster based on other games, and being made when pointed that is not the case here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    If you think that the use of trickery/stealth is a minor point when half of their abilities in WC3 were stealth/trickery and in HOTS its 17/20 then whats the point having this debate with you..
    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.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Actually, just to clarify this point, but the warrior class did have the "bash" as a passive back during vanilla WoW and now in Classic WoW. It's the "Mace Specialization" talent.
    just like https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Swo...arrior_talent) and https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Poleaxe_Specialization providing extra critical

    abilities being removed/new being added, gameplay evolving trough the years, who would know
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2021-05-04 at 01:31 AM.

Posting Permissions

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