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

[Ielenia]

You're describing the game in general. I meant Vanilla's storyline in particular.

The incursion of the undead of Naxxramas is not a good fit for the paladin and priest?

Oh, lelenia... you have no idea.
I'd ask Triceron again, but he didn't reply to me last time.

If he didn't answer you the first time, I suppose that should tell you something. Anyways. There is no "secret competition". This nothing but pure conspiracy theory.

Which, you decided what's important or not.
Vampires didn't, always, have those traits.

But the vampire of the popular myths do. And as for your accusation of "deciding what's important or not", it also goes equally for you. You're deciding which traits are important to be fully represented and which aren't.

Yet, they are separate playable races, aren't they?
As for the matter of reproduction among the Venthyr, it is artificial, not an affliction.
Thin Kul Tirans will, probably, be used for another allied race.

Hence me saying "race" and "playable race" are different terms. And the venthyr's "reproduction" not being an affliction, that further separates them from the popular mythos they represent.

Exactly. So, the first ones to be vampires can be the true vampires, and the affliction aspect can be discarded since it's not crucial to their existence in the first place.

Those that come after, "born" out of a vampire bite, are also "true vampires".

You, really, think they would implement a werewolf race, but won't put a vampire race in the game because you don't want them?

One: who said I don't want a vampire race? Two: this is completely irrelevant about the discussion about them being an actual race or not.

If you don't care, why do you argue about vampires?
That's a double-standard. Clearly, coming from your lack of desire to have ones.

First: if you want to talk fallacies, start by looking at your own post, considering you took my response toward trolls and applied it to our discussion about vampires. And second, I can still engage in the discussion of ideas, can I not?

Once again, applying a standard to some races, but not the others.
"The tauren are based upon the Minotaur, a part man, part bull monster from Greek mythology, and the tauren were originally referred to as minotaurs during the early stages of development for Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. The name "Minotaur" is either derived from Ancient Greek ταῦρος/taûros or Latin taurus, both meaning "bull".
Do Orcs have the same background as in mythology? do Gnomes, Dwarves, Trolls, Elves, Goblins and Worgen? No. Blizzard can take a creative direction with those mythological creatures to fit their own game.

Using a certain standard for a certain race, but not for the others is being biased. You can't just dismiss the ones you don't care about, yet use a strict set of rules to define the others you distaste. It's a recurring theme with you. Avoiding answering certain questions, and claiming you're not wrong because you refuse to do so.

I'm not using "different standards". I simply said I don't care about discussing those other races. I never claimed that the tauren were not inspired on the minotaur mythos. I simply said they're not minotaurs, in my eyes.

Again, for you.
Who are you to decide what they should or shouldn't base their races on?
For me, it's good enough. Is your opinion better than mine?
If you ask me, they can't retread the San'layns, otherwise they would be considered rip-offs of them.

I'll repeat, again, for the umpteenth time: I never said venthyr weren't inspired or based on the vampire. I simply said the venthyr are not vampires. Saying "they are not X" is not the same thing as saying "they were not based on X".

You do have to. That's the whole part of arguing. Those who don't provide them, like Sygfreyd, end up on the losing side.

I don't have to. I don't have to have a detailed map of every single country in the entire world to know that the name São Paulo and Buenos Aires are not the name of cities of the United States.

"My criteria", "in my eyes". Don't you see the bias in your arguments? You're acting the same way Sygfeyed does when he evaluates the Blademaster.

Suuuuuuuper wrong, there. Me saying that these are "my criteria" and "in my eyes" is me admitting I'm using my own opinions, and that alone already puts me leagues above Syegryed, considering he has yet to admit, in these 100+ pages of discussion, that what is he is spouting is his opinion, and continues to put forth his opinions as objective fact.

In fact, I consider equating myself to Syegfryed to be a huge insult against my person, and I ask you to refrain from doing so in the future.

Once again, you're declaring yourself as right while admitting you lack knowledge. I hope you sober up...

And now you're attacking me again. I never "declared myself as right".

- - - Updated - - -

you just can't keep to yourself your opinions about this right? cause everything here is your opinion, thinking elite guards are sneaky and WARRIORS fight with deceit and tricks. I though we already had set that out that your knowledge about warriors and blademasters are pure your opinion, why keep pushing?

You can put that word in bold, italic, different size, different font, or in any combination of those that you want, and you can shout that word out as loud and as many times as you want, until you're blue in the face. Saying my opinion is just an opinion does not debunk, counter, or even address my arguments. Worse: it's a gigantic, dishonest cop-out because everything you wrote here is also an opinion. Your opinion.

and we already know that is false and pure opinion of yours,

And one that is shared by others in this thread. But hey, our opinions are just opinions, but your opinions are divinely inspired, objective, uncontestable facts, right? The big, almighty Syegfryed is never wrong, even when he is shown to be wrong, it's the world that is wrong, not him, right?

since you didn't play Wc3 and don't know how warriors play

This is just not only false, but also a "poisoning the well" fallacy.

[Katchii]

you said the irony is hilarious and immediately process to do exactly what i said, in defining what is what is not, and saying they are not represented

But they aren't.

You've spent the last I don't even know how many pages essentially agreeing with my sentiment. Except you're saying they ARE represented because the warrior is close enough to RP as one.

I'm saying being close enough to RP as one is NOT the same as being represented.

[Aucald]

This rolling back and forth argument about what is or isn't a Blademaster and whether or not Venthyr are vampires is having the effect of sucking all the proverbial air out of the room. Let's pivot away from the giant argumentative posts and give some room for some other ideas and/or conversations to occur.

[username993720]

The incursion of the undead of Naxxramas is not a good fit for the paladin and priest?

That only accounts for 2 classes out of the 9.

If he didn't answer you the first time, I suppose that should tell you something. Anyways. There is no "secret competition". This nothing but pure conspiracy theory.

What is that supposed to mean?
Who said it was "secret"? Everyone and their mother knows gaming companies compete with each other for subscribers, just like any other business.

Since Aucald said we can no longer discuss vampires, i can't answer the rest of your replies to me.

(Aucald - if you view this comment as a breaking of the rules, delete it instead of infracting. Your warning is kinda vague as to what is allowed or not).

[Cosmic Janitor]

This rolling back and forth argument about what is or isn't a Blademaster and whether or not Venthyr are vampires is having the effect of sucking all the proverbial air out of the room. Let's pivot away from the giant argumentative posts and give some room for some other ideas and/or conversations to occur.

I have the feeling that everything that could be said alreay has been said. The other 300 pages are the same 5-10 people arguing in circles for the sake of arguing in circles. The only reason the thread isn't already burried is because of these circular arguments. You forcefully changing the topic from class A vs B to C vs D doesn't really change the way of the thread though, you just change the battleground .

[Aucald]

I have the feeling that everything that could be said alreay has been said. The other 300 pages are the same 5-10 people arguing in circles for the sake of arguing in circles. The only reason the thread isn't already burried is because of these circular arguments. You forcefully changing the topic from class A vs B to C vs D doesn't really change the way of the thread though, you just change the battleground .

That's fine, really. If the thread stops churning and falls off the front page then that's the nature of the beast. If a new argument starts up at least it will be a change of scenery with hopefully new participants.

[Clucky2988]

+1 for tinker

[FossilFree]

I think we could get dragonsworn as a class, and it would certainly be cool. I don't see them making it a 5 (or even 4) spec class though, that is way more effort than they would put in imo. So instead of one spec per dragonflight, I think we would see dragonflights being combined into 3 specs. Blue and bronze are natural pairings, one is arcane the other time. That would be a ranged dps spec. Green and red both have strong healing aspects, red has the healing fire and green the power of life, so they would combine to form the healer spec. Since there is an odd number of dragonflights, black can be by itself as a dragonknight tank that uses earth and fire.

[RemasteredClassic]

Tinker, what else!

[Revamp Man]

So we are about 6 months from a 9.2 reveal
If they burn galakrond and dragon isles then dragon knight is off the table otherwise with the ties to titans I think it’s likely

Assuming it’s not then I would love the warden from Runes of Magic style class
Think kinda like BM but with a cd that allows you to merge with the pet and based on which one you get different bonuses (yes it’s a sac lock but it has more than one ability)

- - - Updated - - -

Now if we wanna get really crazy
New class: maw walker
4 specs based on the covenants
Kyrian: healer
Divine toll and some shielding abilities with weapons of order being the big CD

NecroLord: tank
Flesh craft and bone shield stuff

Night fae: dps
Ranged support designed around lowering allies CDs

Venthyr: dps
Melee with an execute rotation

[Cosmic Janitor]

I think we could get dragonsworn as a class, and it would certainly be cool. I don't see them making it a 5 (or even 4) spec class though, that is way more effort than they would put in imo. So instead of one spec per dragonflight, I think we would see dragonflights being combined into 3 specs. Blue and bronze are natural pairings, one is arcane the other time. That would be a ranged dps spec. Green and red both have strong healing aspects, red has the healing fire and green the power of life, so they would combine to form the healer spec. Since there is an odd number of dragonflights, black can be by itself as a dragonknight tank that uses earth and fire.

The problem with that approach is that you essentially just create another arcane/frost mage, restro druid and glyphed prot warrior that way. While I agree that the pairings make sense and I would do them the same way, at the end of the day some classes already have thematic connections to the dragon flights. You only have the red and black dragon flights not used tbh. The green and blue flights have a very strong connection to 2 classes already (especially the greens to druids) and arguably mages also have a less strong connection with the bronze.

If they still reeealy wanted to make them, then I have to say it would probably make more sense to base them on the red, bronze and black instead, that way you don't have to water down the theme as much (healing fire, no nature/dream - decay/stasis spells, no arcane/frost magic).

[Revamp Man]

The problem with that approach is that you essentially just create another arcane/frost mage, restro druid and glyphed prot warrior that way. While I agree that the pairings make sense and I would do them the same way, at the end of the day some classes already have thematic connections to the dragon flights. You only have the red and black dragon flights not used tbh. The green and blue flights have a very strong connection to 2 classes already (especially the greens to druids) and arguably mages also have a less strong connection with the bronze.

If they still reeealy wanted to make them, then I have to say it would probably make more sense to base them on the red, bronze and black instead, that way you don't have to water down the theme as much (healing fire, no nature/dream - decay/stasis spells, no arcane/frost magic).

you see personally other than one mage spell and a few druid spells i dont see much in terms of them being tied to classes

yeah lorewise they are but you dont really see anything when you play a mage that makes you think "woot bronze dragons"

i believe they can use black as a base and the others as specs with things similar to what you would expect
blue as a spell caster
green as a healer
red as melee
bronze as a kind of tank (only due to the fact we have seen chromie act as a tank)

they could also just make black the tank and use the "missing bronze aspect" as the main story for the class intro

[Triceron]

The problem with that approach is that you essentially just create another arcane/frost mage, restro druid and glyphed prot warrior that way. While I agree that the pairings make sense and I would do them the same way, at the end of the day some classes already have thematic connections to the dragon flights. You only have the red and black dragon flights not used tbh. The green and blue flights have a very strong connection to 2 classes already (especially the greens to druids) and arguably mages also have a less strong connection with the bronze.

If they still reeealy wanted to make them, then I have to say it would probably make more sense to base them on the red, bronze and black instead, that way you don't have to water down the theme as much (healing fire, no nature/dream - decay/stasis spells, no arcane/frost magic).

The real problem is they created self imposed limits by associating different schools of magic with classes.

The lore has written itself into a hole by defining Arcane magic covering for practically everything magical, elemental and including time shenanigans. Then you have Druidic lore covering everything natural and dream-like. Shamanism covers fire and earth on top, and those three cover all the themes of Dragons.

I am not a big fan of the Aspects per Role design because it's almost too obvious, and becomes quickly uninteresting when you realize you're just gonna end up playing a class that has Mage DPS, Druid Heal and Shaman tanking specs.

I'd rather see a class that uses all aspect powers in each role, using them together like how Thanos uses the infinity glove or the Avatar in the last Airbender uses all elements to fight. It'd be far more interesting to master all the Dragon powers together rather than just a couple per spec.

[Revamp Man]

The real problem is they created self imposed limits by associating different schools of magic with classes.

The lore has written itself into a hole by defining Arcane magic covering for practically everything magical, elemental and including time shenanigans. Then you have Druidic lore covering everything natural and dream-like. Shamanism covers fire and earth on top, and those three cover all the themes of Dragons.

I am not a big fan of the Aspects per Role design because it's almost too obvious, and becomes quickly uninteresting when you realize you're just gonna end up playing a class that has Mage DPS, Druid Heal and Shaman tanking specs.

I'd rather see a class that uses all aspect powers in each role, using them together like how Thanos uses the infinity glove or the Avatar in the last Airbender uses all elements to fight. It'd be far more interesting to master all the Dragon powers together rather than just a couple per spec.

i only see the spec separation due to how the flights all work differently
yeah you could have the blue spec be "oh thats just a mage" if you have it use similar spells but depending on what they do it can be completely different.

the main thing taht most can agree on i think is when blizz goes crazy with class design
outlaw rogue was super cool and crazy
demon hunters were flashy af
shadow rework was legit the first time i even thought about going ranged....until they gutted surrender to madness

[Ielenia]

The problem with that approach is that you essentially just create another arcane/frost mage, restro druid and glyphed prot warrior that way. While I agree that the pairings make sense and I would do them the same way, at the end of the day some classes already have thematic connections to the dragon flights. You only have the red and black dragon flights not used tbh. The green and blue flights have a very strong connection to 2 classes already (especially the greens to druids) and arguably mages also have a less strong connection with the bronze.

If they still reeealy wanted to make them, then I have to say it would probably make more sense to base them on the red, bronze and black instead, that way you don't have to water down the theme as much (healing fire, no nature/dream - decay/stasis spells, no arcane/frost magic).

My problem with what you said is that this is an incredibly reductive way of seeing things. By that logic, the paladin is "just a shinier arms and prot warrior and the holy priest" class. The death knight is just a "melee frost mage and demonology/affliction warlock".

What you are doing here is making a fallacious equivalence. You're seeing that a fan class concept shares a theme with an existing class, and immediately assuming that both classes (or specs) are the exact same.

A class currently in existence uses frost magic. Does that mean no future classes can use frost magic? If an existing class uses holy magic, does that mean no other class in the future can use holy magic? Themes and concepts can be shared. If you focus too much on the similarities, you miss the differences. That's like saying a kitchen knife and a katana are the same thing, because both are blades, both have their edge on only one side of the blade, both have a handle, both blades are made of metal, etc.

[Fantazma]

I would like to ask a SINGLE question about "new class" for Blizzard:

Why the class of the character that was the main thing in at least the last 3 or 4 cinematic of the game ... is not yet available for us to play ??

I would just ask this question ...

[Revamp Man]

I would like to ask a SINGLE question about "new class" for Blizzard:

Why the class of the character that was the main thing in at least the last 3 or 4 cinematic of the game ... is not yet available for us to play ??

I would just ask this question ...

??? What are you saying?

[Fantazma]

??? What are you saying?

I'm saying:
ILLIDAN is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. He is so popular that he has become the protagonist of a cinematic (TBC) and his class (Demon Hunter) is playable nowadays.
ARTHAS is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. He is so popular that he became a protagonist in a cinematic (WTLK) and his class (Death Knight) is playable nowadays.
SYLVANAS is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. She is so incredible that she became (side by Varian) a protagonist in LEGION cinematic, she is the protagonist in BFA cinematic and also, she is protagonist in SHADOWLANDS cinematic ... and ... wait !! Where is her class (Dark Ranger) playable nowadays ??

[Imperator4321]

ILLIDAN is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. He is so popular that he has become the protagonist of a cinematic (TBC) and his class (Demon Hunter) is playable nowadays.

It also took nearly a decade for Demon Hunters to become playable after Illidan got a "protagonist" role in the TBC cinematic, Sylvanas having a protagonist role in multiple cinematics since Legion doesn't nessessarily mean her class is going come with it.

ARTHAS is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. He is so popular that he became a protagonist in a cinematic (WTLK) and his class (Death Knight) is playable nowadays.

I'd say there is a difference in that the fantasy archetype Arthas represents (the dark knight/anti paladin) is one that has a long history within the fantasy genre, in addition to Arthas popularity as a character, it's also a class whos foundation is fairly easy to expand and build upon.

It should also be noted that according to interviews there were other runner-ups to be the the WotLK class, one that was related to the expansion concept (Necromancer) and one that wasn't (a Monk/Rogue-like "Runemaster), so there was a a time where the Death Knight potentially wasn't the class that would have came with WotLK,

SYLVANAS is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. She is so incredible that she became (side by Varian) a protagonist in LEGION cinematic, she is the protagonist in BFA cinematic and also, she is protagonist in SHADOWLANDS cinematic ... and ... wait !! Where is her class (Dark Ranger) playable nowadays ??

While Demon Hunter does give ground to the idea of more Demon Hunter-like classes getting into the game (overly specific concept, heavily rooted in a popular character that doesn't draw on any specific fantasy archetype), Dark Rangers honestly have even more hurdles that Demon Hunters, I think they have even less room for expansion than Demon Hunters did, I don't really see Dark Rangers as a tanking or healing class, it just doesn't really work the base concept, at most i'd see them as a 2 spec dps class.

Theres also how "unique" a class they actually are, while Sylvanas displays several unique powers (domination magic, chain arrows, banshee form, summoning banshees, throwing shadow blades) you go to more generic Dark Rangers and Nathanos who mostly just display necromancy-flavored Hunter abilities, i'd say this isn't a huge deal though, If a Dark Ranger class is ever on the table it would almost certainly be made to resemble Sylvanas' abilities regardless of how exclusive they were to her beforehand.

Besides if character popularity was a prerequestite for new Classes we would have never gotten Monks (I wouldn't exactly call Chen Stormstout a Illidan or Arthas tier character).

[Revamp Man]

I'm saying:
ILLIDAN is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. He is so popular that he has become the protagonist of a cinematic (TBC) and his class (Demon Hunter) is playable nowadays.
ARTHAS is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. He is so popular that he became a protagonist in a cinematic (WTLK) and his class (Death Knight) is playable nowadays.
SYLVANAS is an incredibly popular character in the wow lore. She is so incredible that she became (side by Varian) a protagonist in LEGION cinematic, she is the protagonist in BFA cinematic and also, she is protagonist in SHADOWLANDS cinematic ... and ... wait !! Where is her class (Dark Ranger) playable nowadays ??

ooohhhh

yeah im not touching this at all
completely avoiding it
there was already like 50 pages of dark ranger arguments before
from what blizz is showing us with the new hunter gear it is definitely a possibility but we dont know when
9.2 should show the possible remaining themes of next expansion