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

[username993720]

Again, that is confirmation bias. You're looking at all the stuff that backs up your already established conclusion, while ignoring and/or dismissing what doesn't. And this "map" you speak of? It doesn't exist. Or at least it has never been confirmed, or even rumored to exist. As far as I know, you literally made that up on the spot, here.

"Reading the map" is a figure of speech. Stop taking everything literally.
Ignoring/dismissing what doesn't? what, exactly, am i ignoring/dismissing?
If i was so biased i'd say they are setting the Blademaster, as well, but i don't have anything to back that up.

Because it would require a complete rework of one of the death knight specs, to have a spec dedicated to bone magic. Either "blood" will have to stop being about blood magic, Frost will have to stop being about frost magic, or Unholy will have to stop being about diseases.

Would it?

Bonestorm
Talent
10 to 100 Runic Power
Instant cast 1 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Blood)
Requires level 50
A whirl of bone and gore batters up to 8 nearby enemies, dealing (19.65% of Attack power) Shadow damage every 1 sec, and healing you for 3% of your maximum health every time it deals damage (up to 15%). Lasts 1 sec per 10 Runic Power spent.


Bone Shield
Instant
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 23
Surrounds you with a barrier of whirling bones, increasing Armor by (70 * Strength / 100).

Each melee attack against you consumes a charge. Lasts 30 sec or until all charges are consumed.


They can add Diablo 3's Necromancer's Bone Spikes, Bone Spear, Bone Spirit and Bone Prison.

And I never mentioned the diablo 3 necromancer, so I don't know why you felt like making that mention.

Any of Diablo's necromancer incarnations.

We're just assigning arbitrary classifications to NPCs that aren't following any of the usual Player Class guidelines.

That's why you've decided to classify some as Grunts and Admiral and Archers and Riflemen. None of these are playable classes, right? And yet just being in a cinematic doesn't give them more weight in being chosen to be made playable.

And with Greymane, we absolutely don't know what he is, nor does it matter if we should or not. He could be a 'Berserker' for all we know, but it doesn't mean he's an example of what new class should be playable because he's just an NPC featured in a cinematic doing some cool shit. It's not an indicator that Blizzard is considering doing something with the game to reflect his portrayal in the cinematics; Worgen still aren't able to fight unarmed through transmogs, and they have no access to Shamans and Monks who are classes that fight with Fist weapons.

At the end of the day, Greymane fights with bare claws because that's cool for a cinematic, same way Saurfang is given the ability to catch a stealthed Rogue in mid-attack and snap its neck while its still invisible. These aren't making their way into the game as class mechanics, just as we're not gonna get Anduin's in-combat mass battle res or Sylvanas' crazy banshee powers and flight.

Greymane portrays what Worgen Form should have been. It is not like that for gameplay purposes. It has nothing to do with Shamans and Monks. He rips his targets apart with his claws, like a Worgen should. It is just not reflected in the racial.

Mass Resurrection
0.8% of base mana 100 yd range
10 sec cast
Requires Priest (Discipline, Holy)
Requires level 37
Brings all dead party members back to life with 35% health and mana. Cannot be cast when in combat.

Maybe he's out of combat. How do you know?

I don't know about her flight, but Banshee form is possible:
Shadow Power
Draw in the power of the shadows, gaining X% of all damage done as HP for Y seconds.

She does stuff that no other Dark Ranger, not even in Warcraft 3, is capable of. Even recently in her fight with Bolvar, we see her using some straight-up Jailer themed chain arrows and other super powers that no Dark Ranger has ever been shown to be capable of. Her Banshee powers seem unique to herself.

While I would be on the side to argue that we could have a Dark Ranger class that has these abilities, I would not say that we *should* have them because we seen them all in a cinematic. Blizzard doesn't operate on this kind of logic. They aren't telegraphing what new classes they plan to make years ahead of time through their cinematics. They will just introduce a new class whenever they see fit, regardless of what we've seen in previous cinematics. If cinematics are really the concern, then there's no reason why we would have had a Monk before a Demon Hunter considering how even the MOP cinematic doesn't really show off Chen doing anything particularly special about being a Monk.

Cinematics are just gonna be cinematics. We've had Naga featured in cinematics and Metzen openly wanting them to be playable races, yet here we are without playable Naga in the game, and with Void Elves and Nightborne and Lightforged Draenei and Vulpera well before we even have a chance of seeing any playable Naga. If we're just talking about possibility, then sure, it's possible, and they'll be on the same waiting list that the Dark Ranger is while Blizzard opts to push out some other status-quo race and class options that suit the needs of their design and story telling.

By all means, a Dark Ranger has a pretty darn low chance following up in the near future when they're so recently putting Dark Ranger abilities onto a Legendary Bow and Quiver in the next patch. I think it'd be quite counter-intuitive to their design, because why would they even bother putting these abilities on items when they could be reserving them for a new class next expansion? It doesn't even make sense 'to test these abilities' because they're designed specifically for hunters as 'borrowed power' class mechanics.

Let me show you your logic:
"Demon Hunters and Death Knights are not going to get Arthas' and Illidan's abilities, since they are unique. Only Illidan consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and got his eyes seared by Sargeras. Only Arthas (up until Bolvar) had the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne. Did we get their abilities, eventually? hell yeah. Summoning a Frostwyrm was seen as something unique to Arthas.

As for her arrow chains - it can, definitely, be a Dark Ranger ability:
Entangling Shot
Imbue an arrow with shadow energy that deals X% damage and entangles up to Y enemies, slowing their movement by Z% for A seconds.



Why would they put abilities in her bow? same as with the Demonology Warlock having Demon Hunter abilities. To fill that gap in the meantime. It'd be like asking why Hunters had Black Arrow in the past. You know, weapons are often discarded after a patch or expansion, just like any borrowed power. So, you can't expect that to stay around for long.

[Triceron]

I don't know about her flight, but Banshee form is possible:
Shadow Power
Draw in the power of the shadows, gaining X% of all damage done as HP for Y seconds.

I don't see how you're building a case for playable Dark Rangers if you're pointing out the ability is already in the game.

same as with the Demonology Warlock having Demon Hunter abilities. To fill that gap in the meantime.

They didn't just add metamorphosis to the Warlock as a testbed for Demon Hunters. Xelnath actively TRIED to absorb the Demon Hunter completely into the Warlock. Meta had to be forcefully removed from the Warlock in the most indignifying way, and left Warlocks with a Demonology spec that didn't function correctly for years after. This isn't something to look lightly on. Your perception of 'filling a gap' is actually the Warlock dev not caring about a Demon Hunter class at all, and trying to scavenge every last drop of its identity to bolster his vision of the Warlock class, glyph of Demon Hunting and all.

Dude has a literal blog about doing this over years of post-mortem articles on his site.

Let me show you your logic:
"Demon Hunters and Death Knights are not going to get Arthas' and Illidan's abilities, since they are unique. Only Illidan consumed the Skull of Gul'dan and got his eyes seared by Sargeras. Only Arthas (up until Bolvar) had the Helm of Domination and Frostmourne. Did we get their abilities, eventually? hell yeah. Summoning a Frostwyrm was seen as something unique to Arthas.

Yes.

Eventually. Over the course of literal years.

To classes that have been in the game for years. Including giving cursed vision to anyone who could use a blindfold.

We should be talking about cinematics and how they indicates a new class, not just granting abilities to existing classes. Illidan did nothing in the cinematics that wasn't already in the game by the time Demon Hunters were made into a class. The decision to make Demon Hunters a playable class goes well beyond just taking what was cool in the cinematics and making it playable. It goes much deeper than just devs pointing at Illidan and saying 'make it a class!' because everything cool about him was already being shoved off to Rogues and Warlocks. And they had to GUT the Warlock AND only release two specs in order to even make it happen.

I doubt Blizzard would repeat that for Dark Ranger, otherwise they would already be playable instead of leaving us with no new class this expansion.

As for her arrow chains - it can, definitely, be a Dark Ranger ability:

Sure.

And by the time a Dark Ranger actually comes, would those arrow chains even be relevant after we beat down the Jailer and 'redeemed' the Maw? The abilities we see in the cinematic are going to be as relevant as Covenant abilities and Legendary items. It's borrowed power from the Maw.

If we have a Dark Ranger, it should have come with this expansion where its most relevant. They can set up for a Dark Ranger in the future, but the more time passes the more different it will be from what Sylvanas originally portrayed, since she is ultimately going to have less relevance to the future of the story.

They made DKs when Arthas was relevant. They brought back Illidan to usher in the Demon Hunters. They're ending Sylvanas' story and role, so what's it going to take to bridge in a Dark Ranger class that is supposed to be relevant to Sylvanas? Whatever it is, it's not likely to happen soon after the next Raid and Sylvanas' fall. If they want Dark Rangers to be playable, they wouldn't be writing her out as a supporting villain to the big bad of the expansion and as a raid boss who drops special weapons that grant Dark Ranger abilities.

I'm literally talking about plausibility right now, and if you can't see this as a warning flag that it's not a good sign for Dark Rangers in the near future, you're just overly hopeful of what you want to see rather than look at how the devs are actually taking the direction of the game and their class design intentions.

If you were planning to make a Blademaster class, would it make sense to you to make Samuro a raid boss who gives Warriors a Legendary Katana that gives them windwalk and mirror image in the current expansion?

Blizzard is giving Hunters the ability to RP as a Dark Ranger. They're seemingly concluding Sylvanas' story. We're very likely going to beat the Jailer and leave the Shadowlands and all the Covenant powers by the end of the expansion. Let's address the elephant in the room before we start theorizing how the other Dark Rangers in the forsaken would suddenly gain Banshee powers and start using Jailer-style Chains of Domination and Maw powers.

[Varodoc]

I'd vastly prefer a Void Ranger/Umbral Ranger class over a Dark Ranger class. You could come up with more unique abilities if you mixed the Void and Archery. And we're due for a Void expansion, so a new Void-based class is obvious.

It's late for Dark Rangers. We already had the Death-themed expansion, twice. And neither times they even mentioned Dark Ranger as a potential class.

[username993720]

I don't see how you're building a case for playable Dark Rangers if you're pointing out the ability is already in the game.

It doesn't. It's a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter ability.

They didn't just add metamorphosis to the Warlock as a testbed for Demon Hunters. Xelnath actively TRIED to absorb the Demon Hunter completely into the Warlock. Meta had to be forcefully removed from the Warlock in the most indignifying way, and left Warlocks with a Demonology spec that didn't function correctly for years after. This isn't something to look lightly on. Your perception of 'filling a gap' is actually the Warlock dev not caring about a Demon Hunter class at all, and trying to scavenge every last drop of its identity to bolster his vision of the Warlock class, glyph of Demon Hunting and all.

Dude has a literal blog about doing this over years of post-mortem articles on his site.

I'm aware of it. As are all other classes that are being pushed into existing classes. Warlocks had the Death Knight's Death Coil. Priests had the Demon Hunter's Mana Burn. Rogues have the Demon Hunter's Evasion. Dark Ranger's Black Arrow was a Hunter ability. Warriors have the Blademaster's Bladestorm. Druids have the Priestess of the Moon's Starfall. Rogues have the Warden's Fan of Knives. The Shaman has the Shadow Hunter's Healing Wave and Hex. You see, the Demon Hunter is not a special case. They just put more effort into it.

Yes.

Eventually. Over the course of literal years.

To classes that have been in the game for years. Including giving cursed vision to anyone who could use a blindfold.

We should be talking about cinematics and how they indicates a new class, not just granting abilities to existing classes. Illidan did nothing in the cinematics that wasn't already in the game by the time Demon Hunters were made into a class. The decision to make Demon Hunters a playable class goes well beyond just taking what was cool in the cinematics and making it playable. It goes much deeper than just devs pointing at Illidan and saying 'make it a class!' because everything cool about him was already being shoved off to Rogues and Warlocks. And they had to GUT the Warlock AND only release two specs in order to even make it happen.

I doubt Blizzard would repeat that for Dark Ranger, otherwise they would already be playable instead of leaving us with no new class this expansion.

Does it matter when it happened? Do classes need to gain veteran status over the years to justify an ability added to them? They, probably, just hadn't thought to add that ability at the time. Very much like we weren't these god-like characters up until recently. Did we not deserve to be? no, we killed badass characters before. They just hadn't thought, back then, to make us such. That doesn't invalidate anything.

You are unaware of how things change over the years. If cinematics used to just showcase different classes/races or the big boss of the expansion, these days they are much more indicative of what's to come. Go see my expansion prediction thread:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ure-expansions

They won't repeat the Demon Hunter with the Dark Ranger, because:
1. it would not just be the Dark Ranger. It would, most likely, include the Priestess of the Moon and Warden in it.
2. Hunters would be revised to something like this, that completely lacks archery, magic or ranger:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s)-should-have

Sure.

And by the time a Dark Ranger actually comes, would those arrow chains even be relevant after we beat down the Jailer and 'redeemed' the Maw? The abilities we see in the cinematic are going to be as relevant as Covenant abilities and Legendary items. It's borrowed power from the Maw.

If we have a Dark Ranger, it should have come with this expansion where its most relevant. They can set up for a Dark Ranger in the future, but the more time passes the more different it will be from what Sylvanas originally portrayed, since she is ultimately going to have less relevance to the future of the story.

They made DKs when Arthas was relevant. They brought back Illidan to usher in the Demon Hunters. They're ending Sylvanas' story and role, so what's it going to take to bridge in a Dark Ranger class that is supposed to be relevant to Sylvanas? Whatever it is, it's not likely to happen soon after the next Raid and Sylvanas' fall. If they want Dark Rangers to be playable, they wouldn't be writing her out as a supporting villain to the big bad of the expansion and as a raid boss who drops special weapons that grant Dark Ranger abilities.

I'm literally talking about plausibility right now, and if you can't see this as a warning flag that it's not a good sign for Dark Rangers in the near future, you're just overly hopeful of what you want to see rather than look at how the devs are actually taking the direction of the game and their class design intentions.

If you were planning to make a Blademaster class, would it make sense to you to make Samuro a raid boss who gives Warriors a Legendary Katana that gives them windwalk and mirror image in the current expansion?

Blizzard is giving Hunters the ability to RP as a Dark Ranger. They're seemingly concluding Sylvanas' story. We're very likely going to beat the Jailer and leave the Shadowlands and all the Covenant powers by the end of the expansion. Let's address the elephant in the room before we start theorizing how the other Dark Rangers in the forsaken would suddenly gain Banshee powers and start using Jailer-style Chains of Domination and Maw powers.

Yes, they would. It's like saying defeating N'zoth would have abolished Azshara's Old God powers, or defeating the Legion would have abolished Gul'dans Fel powers.

Only if it came alone. Dark Ranger+Priestess of the Moon+Warden doesn't, necessarily, fit the expansion 100%. Besides, Demon Hunters had the same case in TBC, yet they still came in Legion. Saying it would be different is like saying Demon Hunters are different from Illidan because of the 8 year gap between TBC and Legion.

Never claimed it's gonna happen after Sylvanas' fall in 9.1 (if she even does. You're just assuming she will). Need i remind you that Illidan fell at the Black Temple only to be revived in Legion?

Why wouldn't she be villain? Arthas was a villain. Illidan was a villain. Illidan became a protagonist later on. Invalidating a class due to a bow dropping is like saying Demon Hunters would have never happened, because we looted Illidan's glaives in TBC.

I'm blind to what's going on?
Jesus christ... read the surface. There's no need to show Sylvanas and her abilities for 3 (4, even) consecutive cinematics when it causes fatigue. There's no need to tie-in Wardens to Dark Rangers with War of Thorns. There is no need to expand Tyrande's story with the Night Warrior and give her glaives. There's no need to set Vol'jin to be reborn. There's no need for Mekkatorque, specifically, to be a raid boss with what seems like Tinker abilities.

Yes, it would. Because, like Samuro, other classes have been raid bosses: Arthas & Illidan. You could even loot Illidan's glaives. That's just for flavour in the meantime. Learn from the past. Did having abilities in a class, especially borrowed ones, ever restricted a class from being added? it wasn't. You're just making an imaginary case for yourself.

Exactly. You answered yourself. RP. That's all you can do with that bow, right now. Nothing more.
"They're concluding Sylvanas' story" - how pretentious of you. We don't even know if she dies in the end. She is getting a new book just as she is about to be eliminated for good?

There's no reason why they wouldn't get. Again, claiming Sylvanas is a special case, but Illidan and Arthas not, and still getting abilities based on them, is the most demagogy thing someone can say.

I'd vastly prefer a Void Ranger/Umbral Ranger class over a Dark Ranger class. You could come up with more unique abilities if you mixed the Void and Archery. And we're due for a Void expansion, so a new Void-based class is obvious.

It's late for Dark Rangers. We already had the Death-themed expansion, twice. And neither times they even mentioned Dark Ranger as a potential class.

There's no established Void Ranger/Umbral ranger class in lore. Just a name for a race/class combination. When they get abilities associated with them, then it is a possible option. Same with Sunwalkers.

[Varaben]

And do you know why it's so *smiles slyly* this all happens for the same reason, since there is no clear separation of scope of class and specialization, which I have mentioned in this topic more than 10 times already. Specializations in current hierarchy plays classes' role, and formalized integral concept as "class" has long ceased to exist either in players' minds, or even more so among main ones to blame for current state of things - devs themselves

There is no sense to expect something better on the future, until this position gets off the ground. This is almost the very bottom, dead end of design of such element.

In other words, you're absolutely correct in describing what you see by looking at situation with "current approach to design", it's exactly confusing/strange/contradictory/puzzling as it should look with such philosophy.

Fair enough - I see what you mean like if you compare a ret paladin to a holy paladin, they're really not that similar. For whatever reason, Blizzard decided that Specs ARE classes. That kind of makes sense, but I kind of wish we could go back to being a class, not a spec.

[Triceron]

It doesn't. It's a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter ability.

Then it has zero relevance to Dark Rangers or WoW.

I'm not asking for examples of possibility, you should very well know who you are talking to and what my stance is on Dark Rangers. I am not a Dark Ranger denier that needs to be convinced that abilities could be added to represent Sylvanas' power. I'm pointing out that Blizzard has indicated zero interest in doing so for the Dark Ranger narratively, as if they ever would then they should have by now when it's most narratively relative to associating those powers with all of the class.

Dark Rangers do not have the priveledge of having as distinct a definition as Demon Hunters did. Even now, the Dark Rangers represented in WoW have been purposefully associated with Hunters to the point where Blizzard intentionally avoids giving them proper uniqueness, for whatever reason they have not to.

Rather than make a greater distinction between Hunter and Dark Ranger, they actively bridge it. Rather than share Sylvamas' traits with the other Dark Rangers, they keep it relative only to her.

I am pointing out that the idea that another Death Knight and Demon Hunter scenario happening for Dark Ranger class is increasingly slim as we approach the end of Shadowlands. We will reach a point where it becomes counter intuitive for Blizzard to put any effort at all in designing it as its own class while writing a story that intentionally separates Dark Rangers thematically and narratively from Sylvanas, and then write off a majority of her powers as being borrowed power from the maw and transferrable to Legendary items for Hunters.

This is far different from Illidan because Demon Hunters were always going to remain on the table as we knew an eventual return of the Legion and Sargeras was planned for the future. That isn't what we're getting with Sylvanas, where she has been playing a major role for multiple expansions and with less and less connections to the class she's most associated with, to the point where the class itself has zero relevance to the ongoing plot moving forward. Dark Rangers have no narrative significance to being introduced to the Alliance and the Horde, because they are already a part of it.

I wouldn't consider Blizzard actively developing Dark Ranger as the next or incoming playable class because I interpret them writing out the Dark Ranger and giving them a less significant role in the future. They had the prime spot to be the main focus of the Shadowlands expansion, and Blizzard chose not to pursue that route. Dark Rangers did not join the Alliance and Horde to act out vengeance or redeem themselves as a class. They are sitting out the very expansion where we deal with Sylvanas.

What I see is Blizzard giving Dark Ranger abilities to Hunters through weapons _because_ they have no intention of making the class right now. Just like Meta was given to Warlocks, excepts it seems no one is actually intending internally for Dark Ranger to be playable, otherwise they are repeating the same mistake of giving out Dark Ranger abilities as Borrowed Power rather than intentionally holding out for a Dark Ranger class to be made. We know why it happened to the Demon Hunter, we know why it happened to Death Knight. The game was still at a time when it was too early to design them as new classes, and the excuse of 'give out their abilities for now' made sense. So what is the Developer's excuse for pawning off iconic Sylvanas abilities from HOTS to the Hunter right now?

It indicates they have no intention of making a Dark Ranger class right now, for the near future.

I'm aware of it. As are all other classes that are being pushed into existing classes. Warlocks had the Death Knight's Death Coil. Priests had the Demon Hunter's Mana Burn. Rogues have the Demon Hunter's Evasion. Dark Ranger's Black Arrow was a Hunter ability. Warriors have the Blademaster's Bladestorm. Druids have the Priestess of the Moon's Starfall. Rogues have the Warden's Fan of Knives. The Shaman has the Shadow Hunter's Healing Wave and Hex. You see, the Demon Hunter is not a special case. They just put more effort into it.

The Demon Hunter served two major purposes. It is a fan favourite that fit the narrative of the expansion they wished to pursue, and they are a hype machine that players were actively asking for because Illidan is a hot sell.

Dark Rangers only have a Sylvanas connection being a hot sell. Blizzard has narratively written them out of the story, and places the NPCs in a tertiary role in the lore where they can literally pass off as Forsaken Hunters since the connection to Sylvanas and her unique powers is being actively severed. Yes, we can have a flashback questline that sets them up with unique powers just like we had for Demon Hunters, but what relevance will they have in the narrative when we actively see them being brought back into the Forsaken in BFA? It's not an outsider being brought into the Alliance and Horde, it's a faction that has been _given_ a narrative conclusion before we even set foot in Shadowlands.

If you want to convince me of a playable Dark Ranger, present to me how they would fit in the narrative after being written out of it, even though they were FRONT and CENTER of most of BFA! By all means, this is not how you go about hyping up a new class. The eventual shift towards Shadow vs Light does not indicate that Dark Rangers would have a significant role to play in all this.

Does it matter when it happened? Do classes need to gain veteran status over the years to justify an ability added to them? They, probably, just hadn't thought to add that ability at the time. Very much like we weren't these god-like characters up until recently. Did we not deserve to be? no, we killed badass characters before. They just hadn't thought, back then, to make us such. That doesn't invalidate anything.

And I'm not invalidating anything. I am pointing out that what could happen would not be happening so soon after Sylvanas' fall. Narratively speaking they're doing the opposite of Demon Hunters. They built hype of the Legions return, which makes sense to usher in Demon Hunters as a class. They are concluding Shadowlands and we are moving towards Shadow vs Light, where Dark Rangers will have much less significance to the overal plot.

They won't repeat the Demon Hunter with the Dark Ranger, because:
1. it would not just be the Dark Ranger. It would, most likely, include the Priestess of the Moon and Warden in it.
2. Hunters would be revised to something like this, that completely lacks archery, magic or ranger:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s)-should-have

Sure, you can say all this. You can believe it if you want. There's zero connection between POTMs and Dark Rangers right now other than them using a bow. It's as bad as connecting them to Hunters for the same reason.

The Nightwarrior is ending next patch, if you weren't aware. Tyrande gets redeemed as if Night Warrior was just a phase she was going through. Again, Blizzard writing narrative dead ends.

Yes, they would. It's like saying defeating N'zoth would have abolished Azshara's Old God powers, or defeating the Legion would have abolished Gul'dans Fel powers.

No, it's more like me asking you when Dark Rangers would be most relevant to a future expansion where they fit into the story as well as Demon Hunters fit into Legion. Remember, the reason they aren't playable right now is because Blizzard said they didn't feel a class jumped out at them as DH did for Legion, so if Dark Ranger wasn't significant to the literal Shadowlands where Sylvanas has sourced much of her recent powers, then when would they be significant in the near future?

We're talking about -far future- if we are talking about a return to the Shadowlands or some future undead expansion.

I'm blind to what's going on?
Jesus christ... read the surface. There's no need to show Sylvanas and her abilities for 3 (4, even) consecutive cinematics when it causes fatigue. There's no need to tie-in Wardens to Dark Rangers with War of Thorns. There is no need to expand Tyrande's story with the Night Warrior and give her glaives. There's no need to set Vol'jin to be reborn. There's no need for Mekkatorque, specifically, to be a raid boss with what seems like Tinker abilities.

And where has that headed narratively?

Dark Rangers were being set up strongly at the start of BFA. We had strong possibilites of connections to Night Warriors and Wardens. At the start of BFA.

But it's pretty clear that whatever plans they could have had for Dark Ranger, they've shelved it and gave them the Necromancer/Runemaster treatment, by purposefully writing out narrative possibilities and passing off abilities to existing classes rather than save room to narratively explore in the future. This is happening specifically to the Dark Ranger and Necromancer with Shadowlands, considering Covenants has completely replaced the need for more Undeath Classes by giving out Undeath themed Borrowed Power.

This hasn't happened to the Tinker, from a narrative or thematic point of view. Mekkatorque wasn't dropping legendaries that gave out Tinker abilities to players. Tinkers aren't narratively being written out of the story. We don't have an Undermine expansion where they deliberately withheld the addition of new classes that would be relevant to the setting and story. I'm not favoring Tinker at all here, I'm pointing out that Blizzard has not narratively written themselves into a hole for this potential class with what they've done with Mekkatorque as a Raid Boss. We know they put him out of commission in order to build up the Mechagnomes introduction and ties to the Alliance, in reviving Mekkatorque and giving him a mechanical heart.

It'd be one thing if I were to write the Dark Ranger out of the story with the hopes of adding them back later, and another to significantly diminish a Dark Ranger's relevance in the story to the point where there's no need to give them an elaborate introduction because they already returned, and all the while passing out their unique abilities to an existing class. The last time they did this for Demon Hunters, we had to wait 10+ years until the next relevant story/setting for Demon Hunters to enter the fray.

"They're concluding Sylvanas' story" - how pretentious of you. We don't even know if she dies in the end. She is getting a new book just as she is about to be eliminated for good?

Yes, she's getting a new book. Did you look into it at all? It's a record of her early history similar to the Arthas novel. It has nothing to do with continuing her story in the future.

And I said her story is ending. If she's dropping her bow for players to pick up and use, it means she's defeated. If she's defeated, then the Jailer isn't going to be keeping her around as a useful pawn; she would have simply served her purpose. Whatever story is left for her remains to be seen.

Of course it's still possible for Blizzard to make a Dark Ranger class. What I'm focused on is Blizzard is actively giving away the Dark Ranger's unique design space to the Hunter right now. That alone might not seem significant if not for the context of the narrative that also coincides with this all; Hunters are getting these abilities *because Sylvanas is going to be defeated*. Contextually, there is not much room for Dark Rangers to be introduced as their own class when one of the primary reasons for them to join (revenge against Sylvanas ala DK; or patronage under Sylvanas ala DH) will very likely be concluded by the end of the expansion.

Had we not gotten all this information about Sylvanas' bow and quiver, of her being a raid boss, and of her seemingly being defeated by the end of the next raid, I would still have considered Dark Ranger a strong contender as a potential class. But like I said, I update my predictions based on information we gain through the story and the intentions of the devs, and honestly I don't see where they would go with a Dark Ranger class if they're doing all these things right now that are counter-intuitive to a (near future) Dark Ranger class.

[Varaben]

Not really. Blademasters are just as different from Rogue/Warrior as DHs are from Rogues.
The same with Tinkers and Hunter (shooting guns)/Shaman (planting turrets/totems).
The problem with the Necromancer is more gameplay (Warlock is too close) but not thematically.

It just depends on making the flavor different enough from the others even if they share some aspects.
Why people focus so much on this when we have druids with spec that are copies of other clases is beyond me.

As another poster pointed out, the line between class and spec is pretty blurry right now. It's like a blademaster probably is its own class, but because each spec is so different they now each seem like classes themselves. Before "specializations" when we just had talent trees, the bonuses were mostly passive. So a assassination rogue played extremely similar to a combat rogue just with different weapons and maybe a different spender or builder. but each spec basically had access to all the same skills. But now the toolkits are totally different (sometimes in name only), so Assass rogue is really a different class than outlaw rogue. They both use combo points (which monks and ret pally uses too) and slice and dice and some of their big cooldowns, but it's more like 80/20 (different/same) whereas in the past it was the inverse.

[Ielenia]

"Reading the map" is a figure of speech. Stop taking everything literally.

In other words, it's something that does not exist. Something you made up. This is an admission of confirmation bias.

Ignoring/dismissing what doesn't? what, exactly, am i ignoring/dismissing?

How this non-existent "map" applies to basically almost all fan class concepts. How none of the present expansion classes ever had a "map" to begin with.

If i was so biased i'd say they are setting the Blademaster, as well, but i don't have anything to back that up.

That goes with what I said above, regarding confirmation bias. There is plenty of evidence to construct a "so-called map" for the blademaster, that has been presented in this thread, alone.

Would it?

Bonestorm
Talent
10 to 100 Runic Power
Instant cast 1 min cooldown
Requires Death Knight (Blood)
Requires level 50
A whirl of bone and gore batters up to 8 nearby enemies, dealing (19.65% of Attack power) Shadow damage every 1 sec, and healing you for 3% of your maximum health every time it deals damage (up to 15%). Lasts 1 sec per 10 Runic Power spent.
https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/scree...-bonestorm.jpg

Bone Shield
Instant
Requires Death Knight
Requires level 23
Surrounds you with a barrier of whirling bones, increasing Armor by (70 * Strength / 100).

Each melee attack against you consumes a charge. Lasts 30 sec or until all charges are consumed.
https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/scree...one-shield.jpg

Yes. Yes, it would. Because the blood spec's theme is not bone. It's blood, with a few bone abilities added for flavor. That's like saying the blood spec is a "frost" spec because it has Icebound Fortitude and Lichborne.

They can add Diablo 3's Necromancer's Bone Spikes, Bone Spear, Bone Spirit and Bone Prison.

Not really. Those abilities go against the blood spec's theme. The theme of the spec is not bone. That's like saying the windwalker monk's spec is based around drinks, not martial arts.

Any of Diablo's necromancer incarnations.

And that's a fallacy, considering I specifically mentioned the Diablo 2 necromancer when I spoke of bone magic.

Also, if you're going to post dozens upon dozens of images in a single post, I ask you to either scale them down to a less spam-crazy size, or start linking to them, instead.

[username993720]

Then it has zero relevance to Dark Rangers or WoW.

Of course it has. Don't you see the similarities between Diablo 3 Demon Hunter's appearance and abilities to that of the Dark Ranger?
Heck, they we've got overlapping abilities from both games, be it Barbarian and Warriors, Wizards and Mages or Crusaders and Paladins.
Don't you find it a bit suspicious that both abilities are shadowy arrows that chain their targets?

I'm not asking for examples of possibility, you should very well know who you are talking to and what my stance is on Dark Rangers. I am not a Dark Ranger denier that needs to be convinced that abilities could be added to represent Sylvanas' power. I'm pointing out that Blizzard has indicated zero interest in doing so for the Dark Ranger narratively, as if they ever would then they should have by now when it's most narratively relative to associating those powers with all of the class.

Same was said about the Demon Hunter in TBC. That it was, probably, its best and only option to be added.

Dark Rangers do not have the priveledge of having as distinct a definition as Demon Hunters did. Even now, the Dark Rangers represented in WoW have been purposefully associated with Hunters to the point where Blizzard intentionally avoids giving them proper uniqueness, for whatever reason they have not to.

What?
Death Knights NPCs had Warlock and Warrior abilities before their addition. Does it mean they were represented by them?
Warlocks had the Demon Hunter abilities. Does it mean they represented them?
That sure doesn't sound like you, at all. You know better than this.

Rather than make a greater distinction between Hunter and Dark Ranger, they actively bridge it. Rather than share Sylvamas' traits with the other Dark Rangers, they keep it relative only to her.

Same as with other class NPCs. Did Death Knight NPCs had Arthas' capabilities? did Demon Hunter had Illidan's? They are unique NPCs in that they are the representatives of their respective classes. You can't expect them to share their abilities, or background, with other low-significance NPCs.
What happened to you? you know all that.

I am pointing out that the idea that another Death Knight and Demon Hunter scenario happening for Dark Ranger class is increasingly slim as we approach the end of Shadowlands. We will reach a point where it becomes counter intuitive for Blizzard to put any effort at all in designing it as its own class while writing a story that intentionally separates Dark Rangers thematically and narratively from Sylvanas, and then write off a majority of her powers as being borrowed power from the maw and transferrable to Legendary items for Hunters.

Nothing separates her from Dark Rangers, as much as Death Knight NPCs were separate from Arthas or Demon Hunter NPCs were from Illidan. You don't seem to get the point of big-name characters, like them.
I see those powers as a way to expand upon the Dark Ranger concept. Giving more abilities and talents for them to utilize.
The Hunter bow is useful to pump-up players for the possibility of playing one.

This is far different from Illidan because Demon Hunters were always going to remain on the table as we knew an eventual return of the Legion and Sargeras was planned for the future. That isn't what we're getting with Sylvanas, where she has been playing a major role for multiple expansions and with less and less connections to the class she's most associated with, to the point where the class itself has zero relevance to the ongoing plot moving forward. Dark Rangers have no narrative significance to being introduced to the Alliance and the Horde, because they are already a part of it.

What?
You are talking in hindsight. You never knew that Demon Hunters were on the table and that the Burning Legion was set to return after TBC. Illidan was seen as a done deal after Black Temple, as we dealt with him in a raid. No one expected him to be revived and TBC lore to be retconned. Blizzard saw the community's affection for him, so they acted on it. Almost everyone discarded the possibilty of playable Demon Hunters as nothing more than wishful thinking. So, don't try to act all wise right now that we have Demon Hunters.

Less and less connections? She's the perfect representative of the class. What? is Nathanos what a Dark Ranger should be? or one of these unnamed NPCs people use here as examples?

Already a part of the Alliance? none of them are.

I wouldn't consider Blizzard actively developing Dark Ranger as the next or incoming playable class because I interpret them writing out the Dark Ranger and giving them a less significant role in the future. They had the prime spot to be the main focus of the Shadowlands expansion, and Blizzard chose not to pursue that route. Dark Rangers did not join the Alliance and Horde to act out vengeance or redeem themselves as a class. They are sitting out the very expansion where we deal with Sylvanas.

*Cough* Illidan in TBC *cough*

What I see is Blizzard giving Dark Ranger abilities to Hunters through weapons _because_ they have no intention of making the class right now. Just like Meta was given to Warlocks, excepts it seems no one is actually intending internally for Dark Ranger to be playable, otherwise they are repeating the same mistake of giving out Dark Ranger abilities as Borrowed Power rather than intentionally holding out for a Dark Ranger class to be made. We know why it happened to the Demon Hunter, we know why it happened to Death Knight. The game was still at a time when it was too early to design them as new classes, and the excuse of 'give out their abilities for now' made sense. So what is the Developer's excuse for pawning off iconic Sylvanas abilities from HOTS to the Hunter right now?

Just because you don't have an idea why they do it now, because they didn't release a blog about their hindsight of the addition of Dark Rangers, doesn't mean it's not the same case as the Demon Hunter and Warlock. Especially when we're talking about an equippabble item and not actual abilities like the Warlock had. Nothing more temporary than that.

It indicates they have no intention of making a Dark Ranger class right now, for the near future.

It indicates nothing about the future of the class. I can claim that they use it as a way to excite the playerbase. What makes you more right than i am?

The Demon Hunter served two major purposes. It is a fan favourite that fit the narrative of the expansion they wished to pursue, and they are a hype machine that players were actively asking for because Illidan is a hot sell.

I don't see it much different to Sylvanas' case. You might not like her that much, but that doesn't mean she isn't as popular. As for the narrative, the guy featured in two expansions that may have served as an ideal one for its class. But, only one made it in.

Dark Rangers only have a Sylvanas connection being a hot sell. Blizzard has narratively written them out of the story, and places the NPCs in a tertiary role in the lore where they can literally pass off as Forsaken Hunters since the connection to Sylvanas and her unique powers is being actively severed. Yes, we can have a flashback questline that sets them up with unique powers just like we had for Demon Hunters, but what relevance will they have in the narrative when we actively see them being brought back into the Forsaken in BFA? It's not an outsider being brought into the Alliance and Horde, it's a faction that has been _given_ a narrative conclusion before we even set foot in Shadowlands.

Demon Hunters NPCs were nothing more than just Night elf/Blood elf NPCs with Metamorphosis. Some of them even helped us through quests. Heck, we had en entire questline about a Warlock turning into a Demon. So, basically, Blizzard was pushing for the Warlock Demon Hunter in both abilities and story.
Did these NPCs, which had almost none of Illidan's abilities, invalidate the Demon Hunter class? no, it didn't. So, stop using them as examples.

If you want to convince me of a playable Dark Ranger, present to me how they would fit in the narrative after being written out of it, even though they were FRONT and CENTER of most of BFA! By all means, this is not how you go about hyping up a new class. The eventual shift towards Shadow vs Light does not indicate that Dark Rangers would have a significant role to play in all this.

1. Saying Sylvanas is a done deal is mere hypothesis as of right now.
2. You're forgetting the Night Warrior and Wardens that could serve as leverage for the class.
3. Light and Void would not add them. If it would add anything it would be a Shadow Hunter. I'm gonna go with an ancient Kalimdor expansion, which actually adds Zin Azshari and Dire Maul as they are depicted in the chronicles for such an Elf-centric class.

And I'm not invalidating anything. I am pointing out that what could happen would not be happening so soon after Sylvanas' fall. Narratively speaking they're doing the opposite of Demon Hunters. They built hype of the Legions return, which makes sense to usher in Demon Hunters as a class. They are concluding Shadowlands and we are moving towards Shadow vs Light, where Dark Rangers will have much less significance to the overal plot.

*Or Dragons.
You're right. That would not be the orthodox way of adding a class. All i can say is Death Knights were not hyped before WotLK and Monks were not before MoP. Besides, you possibly have to account for Priestess of the Moon and Warden, too, which they haven't been hyping up as much as Sylvanas.

Sure, you can say all this. You can believe it if you want. There's zero connection between POTMs and Dark Rangers right now other than them using a bow. It's as bad as connecting them to Hunters for the same reason.

Not really.
With Elune being the sister of the Winter Queen she has a conncetion to the Shadowland and Death, and might be an Eternal One. Secondly, they are connecting Wardens to Dark Rangers, who are believers of Elune like PotM. Night Warrior being a dark entity and being used by other Shadowlands' denizens hints at further connection.

The Nightwarrior is ending next patch, if you weren't aware. Tyrande gets redeemed as if Night Warrior was just a phase she was going through. Again, Blizzard writing narrative dead ends.

The Night Warrior is not going anywhere. There is no point in introducing that concept in the first place. Again, speculating too soon off of PTR, like the assumed death of Sylvanas.

No, it's more like me asking you when Dark Rangers would be most relevant to a future expansion where they fit into the story as well as Demon Hunters fit into Legion. Remember, the reason they aren't playable right now is because Blizzard said they didn't feel a class jumped out at them as DH did for Legion, so if Dark Ranger wasn't significant to the literal Shadowlands where Sylvanas has sourced much of her recent powers, then when would they be significant in the near future?

Told you what i think is plausible. an Elf-centric expansion that would account for Wardens and PotM, as well

We're talking about -far future- if we are talking about a return to the Shadowlands or some future undead expansion.

It doesn't have to be a death expansion.

And where has that headed narratively?

Dark Rangers were being set up strongly at the start of BFA. We had strong possibilites of connections to Night Warriors and Wardens. At the start of BFA.

But it's pretty clear that whatever plans they could have had for Dark Ranger, they've shelved it and gave them the Necromancer/Runemaster treatment, by purposefully writing out narrative possibilities and passing off abilities to existing classes rather than save room to narratively explore in the future. This is happening specifically to the Dark Ranger and Necromancer with Shadowlands, considering Covenants has completely replaced the need for more Undeath Classes by giving out Undeath themed Borrowed Power.

Any Dark Ranger abilities in the covenant system?

This hasn't happened to the Tinker, from a narrative or thematic point of view. Mekkatorque wasn't dropping legendaries that gave out Tinker abilities to players. Tinkers aren't narratively being written out of the story. We don't have an Undermine expansion where they deliberately withheld the addition of new classes that would be relevant to the setting and story. I'm not favoring Tinker at all here, I'm pointing out that Blizzard has not narratively written themselves into a hole for this potential class with what they've done with Mekkatorque as a Raid Boss. We know they put him out of commission in order to build up the Mechagnomes introduction and ties to the Alliance, in reviving Mekkatorque and giving him a mechanical heart.

Where are Tinkers in the Shadowlands?
They would have fitted perfectly in either WoD or BfA due to the heavy technological themes.

It'd be one thing if I were to write the Dark Ranger out of the story with the hopes of adding them back later, and another to significantly diminish a Dark Ranger's relevance in the story to the point where there's no need to give them an elaborate introduction because they already returned, and all the while passing out their unique abilities to an existing class. The last time they did this for Demon Hunters, we had to wait 10+ years until the next relevant story/setting for Demon Hunters to enter the fray.

Could happen with them. Who knows.

Yes, she's getting a new book. Did you look into it at all? It's a record of her early history similar to the Arthas novel. It has nothing to do with continuing her story in the future.

Why do you need a background added to her? isn't she, already, a very fleshed out character?
Yeah... food for thought (Illidan's novel).

And I said her story is ending. If she's dropping her bow for players to pick up and use, it means she's defeated. If she's defeated, then the Jailer isn't going to be keeping her around as a useful pawn; she would have simply served her purpose. Whatever story is left for her remains to be seen.

-_-

Illidan dropped his glaives.
We got thrall's hammer.
We got Alleria's bow.
None of them were a sign of them being retired.

Of course it's still possible for Blizzard to make a Dark Ranger class. What I'm focused on is Blizzard is actively giving away the Dark Ranger's unique design space to the Hunter right now. That alone might not seem significant if not for the context of the narrative that also coincides with this all; Hunters are getting these abilities *because Sylvanas is going to be defeated*. Contextually, there is not much room for Dark Rangers to be introduced as their own class when one of the primary reasons for them to join (revenge against Sylvanas ala DK; or patronage under Sylvanas ala DH) will very likely be concluded by the end of the expansion.

What, a bow with one or two abilities accounts for an entire class? yeah... that's like equating the Warlock to a Demon Hunter off of 2 abilities.
Ever heard of a redeem story?

Had we not gotten all this information about Sylvanas' bow and quiver, of her being a raid boss, and of her seemingly being defeated by the end of the next raid, I would still have considered Dark Ranger a strong contender as a potential class. But like I said, I update my predictions based on information we gain through the story and the intentions of the devs, and honestly I don't see where they would go with a Dark Ranger class if they're doing all these things right now that are counter-intuitive to a (near future) Dark Ranger class.

We knew of her being a raid boss before.
The bow and quiver are, really, your cut and done deal of the class?
That's like Alleria's bow and quiver as Marksmanship Hunter artifact weapon. Lasted an expansion.

I'm once again asking, stop writing as if you're writing an article. It's exhausting.

In other words, it's something that does not exist. Something you made up. This is an admission of confirmation bias.

You know Drax of Guardians of the Galaxy?
yeah... he couldn't get metaphors, as well.

Now, for real. Do you not know what reading the map means?

How this non-existent "map" applies to basically almost all fan class concepts. How none of the present expansion classes ever had a "map" to begin with.

All? it doesn't apply to Blademasters, Necromancers, Bards, Dragonsworn and others, as of right now.

The Demon Hunter had. With the heavy demonic hints of MoP and WoD. Death Knight and Monk didn't, though.

That goes with what I said above, regarding confirmation bias. There is plenty of evidence to construct a "so-called map" for the blademaster, that has been presented in this thread, alone.

Like what? (expansion-wise)

Yes. Yes, it would. Because the blood spec's theme is not bone. It's blood, with a few bone abilities added for flavor. That's like saying the blood spec is a "frost" spec because it has Icebound Fortitude and Lichborne.

Blood and bone go together. They are internal organs and fluids. You've got Marrow(rend), which is the stuff inside bones, and Ossuary which is a container for bones.

Not really. Those abilities go against the blood spec's theme. The theme of the spec is not bone. That's like saying the windwalker monk's spec is based around drinks, not martial arts.

It does, actually. Because blood and bone go together. same as tissue, muscles, veins and other organs.
What? you example is like saying it belongs to the Unholy, because there is a drinking spec for the Monk (which, isn't so far-fetched, as undead and bone are closely related).

And that's a fallacy, considering I specifically mentioned the Diablo 2 necromancer when I spoke of bone magic.

I was referring to blood being used to heal allies.

Also, if you're going to post dozens upon dozens of images in a single post, I ask you to either scale them down to a less spam-crazy size, or start linking to them, instead.

How do i do that?

P.S. - am i the only one getting stuck at page 328 when it shows that there are 331 pages?

[Ielenia]

Now, for real. Do you not know what reading the map means?

It means "engaging in confirmation bias". Because this "map" is literally something you constructed by putting together all the evidence that supports your already established conclusion, while dismissing or ignoring everything that does not.

All? it doesn't apply to Blademasters, Necromancers, Bards, Dragonsworn and others, as of right now.

It does, though. A "map" can be made up for any of those class concepts.

The Demon Hunter had. With the heavy demonic hints of MoP and WoD.

It didn't. Really, it didn't.

Like what? (expansion-wise)

How about the fact we get to meet the Burning Blade clan and their blademasters, finding out they can manipulate fire, and in Hellfire Citadel, a blademaster boss has abilities reminiscent of the WC3 abilities, and in BfA we have another blademaster who can manipulate fire.

Blood and bone go together. They are internal organs and fluids. You've got Marrow(rend), which is the stuff inside bones, and Ossuary which is a container for bones.

Again, no. The theme focus for the spec is blood. Bone is tangentially related to blood. That's like saying wind magic and frost magic "go together" because of stuff like blizzards, winds cool things down, etc. No, the death knight's tank spec is themed after blood. Which leaves any new class (or potential fourth spec) to be bone magic-related.

I was referring to blood being used to heal allies.

And I never referenced any of the Diablo necromancers for that. My idea for blood healing is completely within Warcraft.

How do i do that?

Just drop the links to the images instead of posting them.

[Triceron]

Of course it has. Don't you see the similarities between Diablo 3 Demon Hunter's appearance and abilities to that of the Dark Ranger?
Heck, they we've got overlapping abilities from both games, be it Barbarian and Warriors, Wizards and Mages or Crusaders and Paladins.
Don't you find it a bit suspicious that both abilities are shadowy arrows that chain their targets?

We're not talking about Diablo 3.

Let's get things straight. I said that Cinematics are not a good way to gauge what Blizzard will choose to make as a new class, and that they are not bound to represent everything they show in the cinematics in playable form in WoW. If you then point me to an ability in another game for another class that has no direct relationship to the Dark Ranger, then I'm dismissing that example on the basis of it having zero relevance to the context of my argument.

I've been talking about how the cinematics are a bad way to gauge what goes into WoW, and that Blizzard simply picks and chooses what they want to design as a class regardless of the cinematic media content. Your example has nothing to do with how Banshee form has not been actually reflected in WoW other than on a singular NPC for Raid Boss purposes. Diablo 3's Shadow Power has nothing to do with my point, so I'm not sure why you felt it was convenient to bring up. As I said, I am not arguing that Blizzard could not invent new mechanics or be creative and create a Dark Ranger class, I am making a point that they are not bound to having to reflect what they show in cinematics as playable class mechanics.

Same was said about the Demon Hunter in TBC. That it was, probably, its best and only option to be added.

Yes, and there was a 10-year gap between what happened and an actual Demon Hunter class. We never had a situation where they inserted some 'hints' then suddenly got a new class by the next expansion. Can we agree on this point?

What?
Death Knights NPCs had Warlock and Warrior abilities before their addition. Does it mean they were represented by them?
Warlocks had the Demon Hunter abilities. Does it mean they represented them?
That sure doesn't sound like you, at all. You know better than this.

It's difficult to use those as examples because yes, Blizzard *DID* intend the Warrior to represent Death Knights and Demon Hunters.
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hero_class

"For example, a night elven warrior could specialize into wielding two one-handed weapons and essentially be a demon hunter, while a dwarven warrior could fulfill the fantasy of a mountain king,[5][6] or a undead warrior could become a death knight.[7]"
This could be a reason why NPCs were designed with Warrior abilities; the other explanation simple being that they were too lazy to design new ones for a bunch of mooks.

However, what we are dealing with is the *modern* design team taking this approach, and simply giving the reason that they're doing this because they're doing a super-special raid boss event for Sylvanas (Ion in Preach's recent interview)
If they planned a Dark Ranger class in the near future, they wouldn't be pawning away its unique abilities to the Hunter class through legendary weapons. It's counter intuitive.

Feel free to disagree here. I'm just pointing out what seems obvious to me.

Nothing separates her from Dark Rangers, as much as Death Knight NPCs were separate from Arthas or Demon Hunter NPCs were from Illidan. You don't seem to get the point of big-name characters, like them.
I see those powers as a way to expand upon the Dark Ranger concept. Giving more abilities and talents for them to utilize.
The Hunter bow is useful to pump-up players for the possibility of playing one.

That's not how design works.

Read up on how the previous new expansion classes have been developed in the past. Read the developer post-mortems. There's no situation where they actively 'test' out a new class by pawning off their abilities onto other classes and 'building hype'. They only do that if they never intended to create that class in the first place.

Xelnath's own blog illustrates how he made a literal example of taking and using the Demon Hunter's abilities because there were no plans at the time to develop a Demon Hunter class. He shared this insight with other developers like Corey Stockton when approaching the design of the Death Knight, and which is a big part of why it had absorbed Necromancer and Runemaster concepts into its own.

Yet that design philosophy has gone away with the formal introduction of a new Demon Hunter class, and how Legion revamped certain Spec concepts to better suit the class fantasies. Demon Hunter was not an amalgam of different concepts, it is a *close to pure* Demon Hunter concept. They could have given it Warden style Avatar of Vengeance summons or give it a 3rd spec that has some Spellbreaker themes to go along with the anti-magic themes they had; but they did not do that. They stuck with one hero identity - the Demon Hunter.

At no point was Metamorphosis or Glaives of Azzinoth handed out to existing classes *for the purpose of hyping up a standalone Demon Hunter class*. We must be clear that the design reasons those abilities and features were pawned off was directly because *they had no intention of making a standalone Demon Hunter at the time*

We should also regard that TBC was when that trend of handing out weapons and RPing as another class first appeared, and we also know the original plan for 'Hero Classes'.

Less and less connections? She's the perfect representative of the class. What? is Nathanos what a Dark Ranger should be? or one of these unnamed NPCs people use here as examples?

Contextually, she has become more and more disconnected from the abilities a Dark Ranger *should* be capable of, because she is touting borrowed power from the Jailer and the Maw. She has become god-like, and the lines between what is borrowed power and what is sensible as a class mechanic is absolutely blurred.

Already a part of the Alliance? none of them are.

Agreed. I will rephrase to just the Horde, and to an extent, the Unseen Path which is a neutral Hunters Class Hall/faction.

I don't see it much different to Sylvanas' case. You might not like her that much, but that doesn't mean she isn't as popular. As for the narrative, the guy featured in two expansions that may have served as an ideal one for its class. But, only one made it in.

I didn't say I didn't like her. I said people are fatigued on her being at the forefront of the story after this long. That is an observation and a interpretation, considering even Blizzard is moving towards concluding her story. And yes, even Christie Golden and Danuser are big Sylvanas fans, but I doubt they would draw out her story or suddenly redeem her at this point when she's already pitted as a Raid Boss who will be defeated and dropping her weapons for the players. I personally see this being a big deal for the lore, like Fall of Arthas big. I don't see this as another 'merely a setback'. We already had that happen in BFA.

Demon Hunters NPCs were nothing more than just Night elf/Blood elf NPCs with Metamorphosis. Some of them even helped us through quests. Heck, we had en entire questline about a Warlock turning into a Demon. So, basically, Blizzard was pushing for the Warlock Demon Hunter in both abilities and story.
Did these NPCs, which had almost none of Illidan's abilities, invalidate the Demon Hunter class? no, it didn't. So, stop using them as examples.

Stop saying I'm invalidating them then. I've told you again I'm talking about plausability of Blizzard considering a Dark Ranger playable class in the near future. There's nothing I've said that invalidates them as never being playable as a class because of the NPCs. It's their intentional direction with the narrative that I'm talking about here.

It indicates nothing about the future of the class. I can claim that they use it as a way to excite the playerbase. What makes you more right than i am?
---
1. Saying Sylvanas is a done deal is mere hypothesis as of right now.
2. You're forgetting the Night Warrior and Wardens that could serve as leverage for the class.
3. Light and Void would not add them. If it would add anything it would be a Shadow Hunter. I'm gonna go with an ancient Kalimdor expansion, which actually adds Zin Azshari and Dire Maul as they are depicted in the chronicles for such an Elf-centric class.

It's a possibility for Nathanos to come back in the Shadowlands and start training new Dark Rangers too, but just because it's a possibility does not mean it's likely to happen in the narrative. Do you see the difference here? I'm literally pointing at certain events and saying 'Look here, they killed Nathanos, so it probably means he's not gonna train more Dark Rangers' while you're here arguing 'You haven't considered the possibility he could come back in Shadowlands and train new ones!'. At some point, the simply premise of a possibility is going to be disconnected from the actual intentions of the plot.

If they want Nathanos to train new Dark Rangers, then the most sensible thing to do is *not kill him in the first place*.

If they want Sylvanas to be redeemed into having some future role involving Dark Rangers as a class, then the most sensible thing to do is *not make her a villain and have her abandon all her loyal followers*.

Illidan died and dropped his Warglaives for players because they *DID NOT* have intentions to create a Demon Hunter class back in TBC, and continued to have no intentions to make one well into Mists.

There's nothing that makes me *more right* than you, but you have to consider how much sense the claim actually makes in the context of the narrative. Imagine if they released Wrath of the Lich King without DK's, would it be then sensible to claim we could still have playable DK's in the expansion that follows? Narratively speaking, it's disjointed to suddenly introduce a class that revolves around a connection to Arthas after we've concluded his whole story. The time to introduce them is *during* the ongoing conflict.

Dark Rangers have that opportunity right now, and if it's not now then they'd have to wait for the next big narrative opportunity to join. Remember, I'm operating this logic based on Blizzard's own intentions of with-holding a new class *because it does not fit the story and setting as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion*; meaning that if Dark Rangers weren't even considered relevant to Shadowland's story and setting, then the question is *what future expansion setting* would they actually be MORE relevant?

The way I see it, they've missed the biggest window of opportunity right now, and Blizzard has deliberately intended not to have this class and deliberately continued on with a narrative that involves a Death-themed setting, with continuing and potentially concluding Sylvanas' story, and by making heavy use of borrowed power that will likely remain exclusive to Shadowlands.

Besides, you possibly have to account for Priestess of the Moon and Warden, too, which they haven't been hyping up as much as Sylvanas.

I don't believe I do, because this is your personal wish fullfilment class concept, not an actual thing in Warcraft.

If you'd like to discuss these classes separately, I would be fine. But as long as you're going to regard them as an extension of the Dark Ranger, then I honestly don't need to regard it at all any more than if you were one of the people who regarded POTM or Dark Ranger as an extension of the Hunter. And let's be honest, we know there are people who do believe Dark Rangers are just Hunters, and I choose not to regard that opinion as legitimate to the lore.

As long as Blizzard treats Dark Ranger as its own entity, then I will not regard it as having a shared concept with any other class, be it POTM, Warden or Hunter. It's not even a matter of 'what if' for the future, because we're never really given any scenario where they ended up taking two distinct class concepts and merged them into one.

Even the Death Knight is just a Death Knight, and not an actual Necromancer or Runemaster archetype despite taking up some of their abilities and themes.

Why do you need a background added to her? isn't she, already, a very fleshed out character?
Yeah... food for thought (Illidan's novel).

We know the book itself is a lead up to what happens in this raid. It's about her reflecting on her actions leading up to the corruption of Anduin, touching on events from Warcraft 3 all the way up into early WoW.

"While some World of Warcraft novels are about bridging the gap between expansions and wrapping up certain stories, Sylvanas will likely be closer to Arthas: Rise of the Lich King or Illidan, in that it will be a character study. The book goes back to Sylvanas’ early life and tracks her progression through Warcraft 3 and early World of Warcraft, before sharing her current status and goals." - Polygon

"The power to achieve her goals has never been closer, as Sylvanas works alongside the Jailer to liberate all Azeroth from the prison of fate. Her final task? Secure the fealty of their prisoner—King Anduin Wrynn.

To succeed, Sylvanas will be forced to reflect on the harrowing path that brought her to the Jailer’s side, and reveal her truest self to her greatest rival. Here, Sylvanas’ complete story is laid bare: from the breaking of the Windrunner family and her rise to Ranger-General; to her own death at the hands of Arthas and her renewed purpose in founding the Forsaken; to the moment she first beheld the Maw, and understood the true consequences of what lay beyond the veil of death. But as her moment of victory draws near, Sylvanas Windrunner will make a choice that may ultimately come to define her. A choice that’s hers to make." - Official website


It's not a book about the future of WoW beyond the point of the next Raid.

[username993720]

It means "engaging in confirmation bias". Because this "map" is literally something you constructed by putting together all the evidence that supports your already established conclusion, while dismissing or ignoring everything that does not.

What it means is "looking at what's going on". Say, if i'm so biased, why won't you tell what's going on?

It does, though. A "map" can be made up for any of those class concepts.

Go ahead. Do it.

It didn't. Really, it didn't.

That's what called "turning a blind eye". If the Legion was hinted so strongly throughout two prior expansions, what do you think they would have added, class-wise?

How about the fact we get to meet the Burning Blade clan and their blademasters, finding out they can manipulate fire, and in Hellfire Citadel, a blademaster boss has abilities reminiscent of the WC3 abilities, and in BfA we have another blademaster who can manipulate fire.

That's just pointing at one aspect of an expansion. It didn't coincide with the demonic themes being spread all over.

Again, no. The theme focus for the spec is blood. Bone is tangentially related to blood. That's like saying wind magic and frost magic "go together" because of stuff like blizzards, winds cool things down, etc. No, the death knight's tank spec is themed after blood. Which leaves any new class (or potential fourth spec) to be bone magic-related.

You want a fourth spec?
Go see my thread about it, where i suggest a first generation Death Knight or a fire Death Knight spec:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

And I never referenced any of the Diablo necromancers for that. My idea for blood healing is completely within Warcraft.

Is it? can i have a source for that?

Just drop the links to the images instead of posting them.

I mean, how do i make them smaller?

We're not talking about Diablo 3.

It doesn't matter. When creating a class concept, you have to be open to more ideas and sources, otherwise you're very limited. And it so happens that the Demon Hunter of D3 fits rather smoothly with the Dark Ranger (ranged, hooded, red eyed figure with shadowy powers).

Let's get things straight. I said that Cinematics are not a good way to gauge what Blizzard will choose to make as a new class, and that they are not bound to represent everything they show in the cinematics in playable form in WoW. If you then point me to an ability in another game for another class that has no direct relationship to the Dark Ranger, then I'm dismissing that example on the basis of it having zero relevance to the context of my argument.

It would be true, but you seem to be unaware of the differences between current cinematics and old cinematics. Blizzard, clearly, has been shifting their cinematics, in some way, from general entertainment to more predictor ones.

I've been talking about how the cinematics are a bad way to gauge what goes into WoW, and that Blizzard simply picks and chooses what they want to design as a class regardless of the cinematic media content. Your example has nothing to do with how Banshee form has not been actually reflected in WoW other than on a singular NPC for Raid Boss purposes. Diablo 3's Shadow Power has nothing to do with my point, so I'm not sure why you felt it was convenient to bring up. As I said, I am not arguing that Blizzard could not invent new mechanics or be creative and create a Dark Ranger class, I am making a point that they are not bound to having to reflect what they show in cinematics as playable class mechanics.

Are you, seriously, not seeing the similarities between the two abilities?
Furthermore, why are you using in-game NPCs as examples? we've, already, established that that's bullshit.

Yes, and there was a 10-year gap between what happened and an actual Demon Hunter class. We never had a situation where they inserted some 'hints' then suddenly got a new class by the next expansion. Can we agree on this point?

Really? they haven't?
Look at MoP's and WoD's Burning Legion hints and then come back and tell me that that's not what's going on.

It's difficult to use those as examples because yes, Blizzard *DID* intend the Warrior to represent Death Knights and Demon Hunters.
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Hero_class

It was a concept, not implemented in WoW.
It further supports my argument that other classes are just there to serve as vessels in the meantime for non-existent classes. Look at the Dreadnaught gear and the hungering cold weapon of vanilla. If Blizzard wasn't intending on Warriors to roleplay as Death Knights with that, then i don't know what they intended:

"For example, a night elven warrior could specialize into wielding two one-handed weapons and essentially be a demon hunter, while a dwarven warrior could fulfill the fantasy of a mountain king,[5][6] or a undead warrior could become a death knight.[7]"
This could be a reason why NPCs were designed with Warrior abilities; the other explanation simple being that they were too lazy to design new ones for a bunch of mooks.

1. They used Warlock abilities, as well. How do you explain this?
2. Exactly. If they were too lazy to design special abilities for mook NPCs, why are you using Dark Ranger NPCs as examples of Dark Rangers being different from Sylvanas? You've just contradicted your own argument.

However, what we are dealing with is the *modern* design team taking this approach, and simply giving the reason that they're doing this because they're doing a super-special raid boss event for Sylvanas (Ion in Preach's recent interview)
If they planned a Dark Ranger class in the near future, they wouldn't be pawning away its unique abilities to the Hunter class through legendary weapons. It's counter intuitive.

Why not? It's an equippable item, discarded once it's not useful anymore. Heck, we've seen how you can easily get rid of Demon Hunter abilities in the Warlock, being used for so long, and give them to a Demon Hunter class. I don't get this mindset that everything is set in stone and is immovable.

That's not how design works.

Read up on how the previous new expansion classes have been developed in the past. Read the developer post-mortems. There's no situation where they actively 'test' out a new class by pawning off their abilities onto other classes and 'building hype'. They only do that if they never intended to create that class in the first place.

-_-

*Looking at the Demon Hunter in the Warlock*

And yeah, i know it was a dev pushing for integration, but we both know how that ended up.

Xelnath's own blog illustrates how he made a literal example of taking and using the Demon Hunter's abilities because there were no plans at the time to develop a Demon Hunter class. He shared this insight with other developers like Corey Stockton when approaching the design of the Death Knight, and which is a big part of why it had absorbed Necromancer and Runemaster concepts into its own.

Again, a weapon changing your abilities vs abilities being given as baseline.

The Death Knight can absorb the Necromancer and Runemaster due to its Death and Rune themes. How can a Hunter absorb necromancy and manipulation into its core themes when its wilderness (or explosiveness) based? Do you propose archery would be in the Hunter while the Death would be delivered to the Death Knight?

Yet that design philosophy has gone away with the formal introduction of a new Demon Hunter class, and how Legion revamped certain Spec concepts to better suit the class fantasies. Demon Hunter was not an amalgam of different concepts, it is a *close to pure* Demon Hunter concept. They could have given it Warden style Avatar of Vengeance summons or give it a 3rd spec that has some Spellbreaker themes to go along with the anti-magic themes they had; but they did not do that. They stuck with one hero identity - the Demon Hunter.

Why would you give it a Warden aspect? because of glaives? Maiev, literally, hunted Illidan. Talking about counterintuitive. And spellbreaker? That's part of the Blood elven magic proficiency. You're just assigning random archetypes based on loose connections. For example, i didn't connect the Warden, initially, to the Dark Ranger. Yet, after seeing Blizzard's attempt i now know that the Sea Witch is less likely.

At no point was Metamorphosis or Glaives of Azzinoth handed out to existing classes *for the purpose of hyping up a standalone Demon Hunter class*. We must be clear that the design reasons those abilities and features were pawned off was directly because *they had no intention of making a standalone Demon Hunter at the time*

No. But, we still had them so people could pretend they're Illidan. So, stop using a weapon to invalidate a Dark Ranger.

We should also regard that TBC was when that trend of handing out weapons and RPing as another class first appeared, and we also know the original plan for 'Hero Classes'.

Wrong. Vanilla had the dreadnaught armor set and cold hunger weapon.

Contextually, she has become more and more disconnected from the abilities a Dark Ranger *should* be capable of, because she is touting borrowed power from the Jailer and the Maw. She has become god-like, and the lines between what is borrowed power and what is sensible as a class mechanic is absolutely blurred.

What? what do you know what a Dark Ranger is or what it can or cannot do? That could, easily, be an attempt to expand upon the Dark Ranger repertoire, the same way Night Warrior expands upon the Priestess of the Moon. Of course we would not be as powerful as her. Just like Death Knights aren't as powerful as Arthas or Demon Hunters as Illidan. I thought you knew that.

Agreed. I will rephrase to just the Horde, and to an extent, the Unseen Path which is a neutral Hunters Class Hall/faction.

Therefore, we are yet to have them in the Alliance. Don't you see the attempt with Night elf Dark Rangers and Dark Wardens to introduce them to both factions? Dark Rangers are Horde-exclusive and Warden were Alliance-exclusive. Night Warrior having more races than just Night elf shows it further.

I didn't say I didn't like her. I said people are fatigued on her being at the forefront of the story after this long. That is an observation and a interpretation, considering even Blizzard is moving towards concluding her story. And yes, even Christie Golden and Danuser are big Sylvanas fans, but I doubt they would draw out her story or suddenly redeem her at this point when she's already pitted as a Raid Boss who will be defeated and dropping her weapons for the players. I personally see this being a big deal for the lore, like Fall of Arthas big. I don't see this as another 'merely a setback'. We already had that happen in BFA.

Exactly. Why would you put her for 4 consecutive (almost) cinematics? They saw how players were fatigued about Orcs and Demons with MoP and WoD or WoD and Legion. So, keeping her front and center for so long is counterintuitive for keeping subscribers.
I wouldn't compare her to Arthas, as she isn't the big bad boss of the expansion. I would compare her to Azshara (the sidekick of the big bad). And where is she? went to another place after we dealt with her in her own raid and in a raid where she was being tortured.

Stop saying I'm invalidating them then. I've told you again I'm talking about plausability of Blizzard considering a Dark Ranger playable class in the near future. There's nothing I've said that invalidates them as never being playable as a class because of the NPCs. It's their intentional direction with the narrative that I'm talking about here.

Fair enough. Never said it has to happen right now.

It's a possibility for Nathanos to come back in the Shadowlands and start training new Dark Rangers too, but just because it's a possibility does not mean it's likely to happen in the narrative. Do you see the difference here? I'm literally pointing at certain events and saying 'Look here, they killed Nathanos, so it probably means he's not gonna train more Dark Rangers' while you're here arguing 'You haven't considered the possibility he could come back in Shadowlands and train new ones!'. At some point, the simply premise of a possibility is going to be disconnected from the actual intentions of the plot.

Why does it have to be Nathanos or Sylvanas? maybe their going to make Velonara a big shot character in the future. You know, after their leadership is missing, so someone has to fill it.

If they want Nathanos to train new Dark Rangers, then the most sensible thing to do is *not kill him in the first place*.

1. We haven't killed him in the Shadowlands yet.
2. It doesn't have to be him.

If they want Sylvanas to be redeemed into having some future role involving Dark Rangers as a class, then the most sensible thing to do is *not make her a villain and have her abandon all her loyal followers*.

That's the whole point of redemption.
Wasn't Illidan a villain in TBC turned to a misunderstood protagonist in Legion?

Illidan died and dropped his Warglaives for players because they *DID NOT* have intentions to create a Demon Hunter class back in TBC, and continued to have no intentions to make one well into Mists.

Yet, they gave players the opportunity to play 'imagine' that they are Demon Hunters with that.
And, i disagree about MoP (unless you have a source) because they were, heavily, hinting at the return of the Burning Legion then.

There's nothing that makes me *more right* than you, but you have to consider how much sense the claim actually makes in the context of the narrative. Imagine if they released Wrath of the Lich King without DK's, would it be then sensible to claim we could still have playable DK's in the expansion that follows? Narratively speaking, it's disjointed to suddenly introduce a class that revolves around a connection to Arthas after we've concluded his whole story. The time to introduce them is *during* the ongoing conflict.

You are right. That is unorthodox. Yet, i haven't claimed it needs to happen right after Shadowlands. Especially if we're going to a Light/Void or a Dragon-themed expansions.

Dark Rangers have that opportunity right now, and if it's not now then they'd have to wait for the next big narrative opportunity to join. Remember, I'm operating this logic based on Blizzard's own intentions of with-holding a new class *because it does not fit the story and setting as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion*; meaning that if Dark Rangers weren't even considered relevant to Shadowland's story and setting, then the question is *what future expansion setting* would they actually be MORE relevant?

If they are brought alongside a Priestess of the Moon and Warden, then i guess an Elf-centered expansion like ancient Kalimdor.

The way I see it, they've missed the biggest window of opportunity right now, and Blizzard has deliberately intended not to have this class and deliberately continued on with a narrative that involves a Death-themed setting, with continuing and potentially concluding Sylvanas' story, and by making heavy use of borrowed power that will likely remain exclusive to Shadowlands.

I guess we'll have to see.

I don't believe I do, because this is your personal wish fullfilment class concept, not an actual thing in Warcraft.

No, it's not. I first thought of the Sea Witch, but saw that they were going a different way. Why would they make Dark Wardens if there are no intentions to relate them to Dark Rangers? There could have been Dark Sentinels, Dark Druids, Dark 'whatever', but they purposefully chose Wardens.

If you'd like to discuss these classes separately, I would be fine. But as long as you're going to regard them as an extension of the Dark Ranger, then I honestly don't need to regard it at all any more than if you were one of the people who regarded POTM or Dark Ranger as an extension of the Hunter. And let's be honest, we know there are people who do believe Dark Rangers are just Hunters, and I choose not to regard that opinion as legitimate to the lore.

1. Introducing the Dark Ranger on its own is not enough.
2. Introducing a bow using, magical arrows shooting and spellcasting class after the introduction of a Dark Ranger is highly unlikely, so combining the PotM with Dark Ranger seems natural to me (and so is Sea Witch, but they probably not going to introduce playable Nagas as i thought).
3. Introducing Wardens on their own is probably not enough, as well.

As long as Blizzard treats Dark Ranger as its own entity, then I will not regard it as having a shared concept with any other class, be it POTM, Warden or Hunter. It's not even a matter of 'what if' for the future, because we're never really given any scenario where they ended up taking two distinct class concepts and merged them into one.

1. Dark Wardens is a shared concept with the Dark Ranger.
2. They combined some of the Lich and Dreadlord Hero units into the Death Knight. So, they did do it in the past.

Even the Death Knight is just a Death Knight, and not an actual Necromancer or Runemaster archetype despite taking up some of their abilities and themes.

And, where do you think their Blood and Frost aspects came from?

We know the book itself is a lead up to what happens in this raid. It's about her reflecting on her actions leading up to the corruption of Anduin, touching on events from Warcraft 3 all the way up into early WoW.

Sounds like an attempt at redemption.

"While some World of Warcraft novels are about bridging the gap between expansions and wrapping up certain stories, Sylvanas will likely be closer to Arthas: Rise of the Lich King or Illidan, in that it will be a character study. The book goes back to Sylvanas’ early life and tracks her progression through Warcraft 3 and early World of Warcraft, before sharing her current status and goals." - Polygon

Exactly. Illidan. Who was turned into a protagonist in Legion after being a villain in TBC. and Arthas, who's being hinted as having redeemable qualities now that we know of the Jailer's domination magic. Look at the PTR and how Uther is regretting treating him that way (throwing him into the Maw).

"The power to achieve her goals has never been closer, as Sylvanas works alongside the Jailer to liberate all Azeroth from the prison of fate. Her final task? Secure the fealty of their prisoner—King Anduin Wrynn.

We, already, know she gave up on that and dominated Anduin with domination magic.
Besides, i see her 'altruistic' motive as a redeemable quality. Even the rest of the Shadowlands, like the Kyrians, are starting to realize that she's probably right (questioning their 'Path').

To succeed, Sylvanas will be forced to reflect on the harrowing path that brought her to the Jailer’s side, and reveal her truest self to her greatest rival. Here, Sylvanas’ complete story is laid bare: from the breaking of the Windrunner family and her rise to Ranger-General; to her own death at the hands of Arthas and her renewed purpose in founding the Forsaken; to the moment she first beheld the Maw, and understood the true consequences of what lay beyond the veil of death. But as her moment of victory draws near, Sylvanas Windrunner will make a choice that may ultimately come to define her. A choice that’s hers to make." - Official website

Sounds very sympathetic, if you ask me.
Besides, bringing back Alleria and reuniting them just to get rid of one sister doesn't seem right, to me.

It's not a book about the future of WoW beyond the point of the next Raid.

It's not supposed to be. That'd be spoiler. It's supposed to be like Illidan's novel, explaining the motives behind her actions and redeeming her in the eyes of the readers.

[Triceron]

It doesn't matter. When creating a class concept, you have to be open to more ideas and sources, otherwise you're very limited. And it so happens that the Demon Hunter of D3 fits rather smoothly with the Dark Ranger (ranged, hooded, red eyed figure with shadowy powers).

It matters when I'm talking about cinematics having little relevance to Blizzard choosing a class to design and not talking about how they go about designing a class once they've decided on one

There is a big disconnection in our discussion here, because you want to talk about the actual class as of the decision has already been made, while I am talking about the process for Blizzard deciding on a class (by using cinematics) is flawed.

I am aware they could make a Bard class with abilities from any number of sources including Naga Sirens, Sylvanas' Laments, Warsong Clan's War chants, etc. If we are discussing how there's no real indication that Blizzard has any real regard to make a Bard class, then none of these examples are relevant to actually proving that there is an interest from them to pursue an actual Bard class.

Understand? It's not about the possibilities, it's about the plausability.

We could talk about an Ogre race in the game and what racials it could have, but if the discussion was 'We should have playable Murlocs because we saw them in the original WoW cinematic!' and I make a point that this isn't how Blizzard pocks and chooses theor races, then telling me your ideas for Nurloc racials isn't relevant to what I'm talking about. You want to talk Murlocs, when I'm pointing out there isn't any indication that Blizzard would make them playable in the first place, and definitely not for the reason that 'they are in the cinematics!'.

I honestly think you have taken my argument quite out of context, so I will let you reflect on this, since I'm honestly not interested in arguing how Dark Rangers could be playable when I've always argued that Dark Rangers could be playable.

The more I tey to point out and focus the discussion on evidence and plausability, the more you bring up examples that do not reflect the current situation and narrative, and we're really not having the same conversation here.

None of your arguments cover _plausability_. Give me evidence that lends to Dark Rangers actually having relevance in being made as a class, and without piggybacking Nightwarriors and PotMs. There really isn't any strong potential for it any more.

It's not that Blizzard couldn't create a Dark Ranger class, it's that Blizzard has intentionally moved away from it with no real indication that they have an interest to revisit it as a standalone class. And yes, this is a standard that would have affected a Demon Hunter, yet we KNEW that the Legion was going to invade when Wrathion talked about it during MOP. That is what opened up the _plausability_ for Demon Hunters.

I am pointing out that the current narrative _does not_ have this kind of indication for Dark Rangers. I am talking about plausability, not possibility. Just as there is no indication in the narrative that Blizzard wants to make Murlocs or Bards as playable race/class.

Consider how Vulpera were plausible as a new allied race. We can say they are plausible because we know they had a connection to the Horde, as well as from a technical point of view they share the Goblin skeletons. These are facts we can use to base a guess. Same with Light-based Forsaken, which even though did not happen were still plausible because of rhe existence of Calia providing a precedence. This doesn't blanketly apply to any and all races, and there isn't a precedence for Murlocs as an allied race just because you can come up with some ideas for its racials and customization options. There is no narrative significance, no precedence for it to happen. It's just a wild guess more than anything.

I have no problems with wild guesses, and that is not what I spoke out against. I spoke out on the fallacy of using patterns such as Cinematics as a basis for what new class should be playable. Please understand that you replied to me without this context, and I have absolutely no reason to argue with you since we're both on the same page on what is possible, and for the most part we have our disagreements on what is plausible due to our different interpretations and beliefs on lore. There's really nothing left for us to discuss on the matter.

[Alkizon]

Varaben
So a assassination rogue played extremely similar to a combat rogue just with different weapons and maybe a different spender or builder.

(I played with most in assassination build during period of normal talent design, combat was strong option for pve, but I didn't like its playstyle, sub at that moment was difficult for me to master and seemed less balanced in terms of priorities/being more situational, albeit not weak, gameplay; there were many such people who were not guided by d/hps metric, this didn't have current catastrophic scale of distribution, namely, by its non-mediated participation in process, but all "specializations" somehow had their strong and ardent representatives = gameplay was different enough; in fact, argument is not mine, but my interpretation of one of discussions of old forum, with friend's participation; this argument won't have that weight in current game situation, outcome is too corrupted)

Well, this is something I don't quite agree with. I'll going to try to explain why. Gameplay between specializations as a whole differs primarily in abilities you prefer, it doesn’t mean that you don’t have right to use “neighbor” toolkit, it's available to you, especially functionally relevant secondary effects of abilities. You're absolutely correct about talents giving passive modifications, so area of ​​specialization is "designated" by priority of using upgraded by talents/glyphs abilities. Yes, you use them much more often than others and it's they who set the beat of your gameplay... but you don't lock yourself on them as the only ones available to you, you don't forget about "everything else" if necessary and for greater flexibility/variability. But now everything else is completely inaccessible for you, all previously available mechanics/class features are cut into 3 parts (and another piece from each is nibbled for PvP talents) and this is all, that you have. At the same time, most of talents provide "mandatory" active abilities for filling, and not passive ones, which means that choice between them is often too obvious and by making it you yourself limit your toolkit ≈ imposed by devs. Therefore, speaking of a toolkit, you need to understand that it's not so much different (wrong word), but one-sided, circumcised and partially veiled by "cosmetic substitution", which means, in essence, "same defective" for each of representatives.

(eg: mages had 3 shields, each of which had its own separate area of application/functionality, each of branches gave bonuses to one of them, but, if necessary, mages still changed them according to situation, since even basic "different one" was more useful in certain situations than talented one... but that opportunity was taken away = same toolkit as shield, but different, moreover, which is only third of original functional)

Should I also additionally mention here current design/degree of influence of "borrowed powers"

You choose not between passive properties of all abilities/mechanics available to your class, but between what was your momentary choice during the battle - now it has become long-term one, completely cut off from you.

Еven simpler: you have 3 talents in front of you, which are 3 buttons of abilities/mechanics, having previously made choice of one of them, you gave this ability/mechanic a slight advantage in your set (well, you like it more than others, it will be more useful for you more often), but now you completely lock yourself in this single button.

I don’t think you didn’t understand this, it's more just again for outlining concepts... so, difference between gameplay was imposed by choice of passive talents, they were responsible for priority of abilities and how they interact with each other, BUT this doesn't do gameplay between specializations "similar". Gameplay between specializations was very different (basic functionality was similar, yes, but not playstyle, which was different even for those who chose different talents within !same branch!), the most striking and wild example of this delusion were (and are to this day in discussions about old "specializations"; in general, I'm talking about period of "final" result in classical trees' development, not about raw vanilla, but rather about WotLK) hunters. Three absolutely different types of gameplay, with completely clear designation of priorities of abilities, but with full complex and variable toolkit, regardless of chosen specialization - gorgeous design. DK of WotLK period - gorgeous set of passive talents for choosing with having same toolkit... since we started talking about trees - boundaries of branches as a whole aren't really necessary for good talents' design/organization of different playstyles, they could absent and everything still will look holistic, full-fledged and functionally fulfill its role in hierarchy (some very light parody of this approach to talent existed in MoP).

Why did they cut off it all?
Balance? - not, nothing like that at all, it's much easier to balance on basis of general situation, instead of poking around with many too "valuable"/influential small elements. Result is no full-fledged balance, the whole metric revolves around d/hps logs, real players and their "actions" have long been forgotten.
(Already proven by time)
Playstyle? - not, no less stupidity, given their attempts to completely bind specializations within framework of "roles", do you know how many of them? - that's right, there will not be enough "separate" ones for each class, some classes aren't even quite enough if being the only consumer. Now, just imagine that 36 classes needed "individual" gameplay. Have you estimated the scale of disaster? Result is different icons and effects (cosmetics, still even those didn't get full way permission, and it seems to me that reason lies precisely in possible involuntary emphasis of obviousness of this paragraph's conclusions), while gameplay is more and more unified.
(Already proven by time)
Then may be...
Tear off growth of character's strengths from its real progress, thereby freeing hands of their "department of sick ideas" in terms of fee, getting them opportunity to legally "remove" all traces of their destructive actions, simplify work of automatic systems, and devalue as much as possible influence of player's real choice on final result, to make it as direct/predictable as possible, thereby cutting off all "unwanted" consequences. (I'm probably a little gloating that even these most obvious reasons for the most part have "failure" outcome, nevertheless) I tend to them as to root causes.

Oh yes, the topic!.. it's not about this, well then once again reminder:
dear devs, I'm waiting bards from you, not so much for play them, rather just to make fun of result, I don’t believe in you, you don’t give me a single reason to different attitude. My stingy regards

[Ielenia]

What it means is "looking at what's going on". Say, if i'm so biased, why won't you tell what's going on?

And "look at what's going on" is, again, confirmation bias. Because you're making your own interpretation of "what is going on" to fit your pre-conceived narrative for the dark ranger. Blizzard does not "get stuff going on" to prepare for future classes. None of the current expansion classes had "stuff going on" for them before their implementation.

Go ahead. Do it.

I literally did it in that exact same post you responded to:

How about the fact we get to meet the Burning Blade clan and their blademasters, finding out they can manipulate fire, and in Hellfire Citadel, a blademaster boss has abilities reminiscent of the WC3 abilities, and in BfA we have another blademaster who can manipulate fire.

I can even use your own logic to say that Blizzard added pennants and the Burning Blade banner toys as well as the ability to transmog invisible chest pieces as a "test bed" for blademasters.

That's what called "turning a blind eye". If the Legion was hinted so strongly throughout two prior expansions, what do you think they would have added, class-wise?

Hinting an expansion does not mean hinting a new class. And what other new classes could Legion have brought? Option one: none. Option two: runemasters. As for demon hunters, I'll remind you that, as far as we knew at the time, Illidan died at the Black Temple, and has been dead ever since, with barely a mention of him ever since.

That's just pointing at one aspect of an expansion. It didn't coincide with the demonic themes being spread all over.

WoD was not the only expansion I mentioned.

You want a fourth spec?

No. I don't. I think fourth specs are dumb.

Is it? can i have a source for that?

Source for what? Blood healing magic? I mean, you could read the link in my sig. On the very first page I say where I got the basis for my necromancer's blood healing spec.

I mean, how do i make them smaller?

Upload your image to an image hosting site and check their tools.

[username993720]

It matters when I'm talking about cinematics having little relevance to Blizzard choosing a class to design and not talking about how they go about designing a class once they've decided on one

Ask yourself this:
Has any other character, who represents a class, been featured in 3 consecutive (4, even) cinematics?

There is a big disconnection in our discussion here, because you want to talk about the actual class as of the decision has already been made, while I am talking about the process for Blizzard deciding on a class (by using cinematics) is flawed.

They're not using cinematics to choose a class.
They're using them to hint at their plans.

I am aware they could make a Bard class with abilities from any number of sources including Naga Sirens, Sylvanas' Laments, Warsong Clan's War chants, etc. If we are discussing how there's no real indication that Blizzard has any real regard to make a Bard class, then none of these examples are relevant to actually proving that there is an interest from them to pursue an actual Bard class.

Naga Sirens use water magic.
The thing is, there are already hints toward the Bard. Ask lelenia. Though, i don't think it will be a class, but rather a profession.

Understand? It's not about the possibilities, it's about the plausability.

It's plausible. The question is when.

We could talk about an Ogre race in the game and what racials it could have, but if the discussion was 'We should have playable Murlocs because we saw them in the original WoW cinematic!' and I make a point that this isn't how Blizzard pocks and chooses theor races, then telling me your ideas for Nurloc racials isn't relevant to what I'm talking about. You want to talk Murlocs, when I'm pointing out there isn't any indication that Blizzard would make them playable in the first place, and definitely not for the reason that 'they are in the cinematics!'.

You need to distinguish between old cinematics and new cinematics. Sylvanas wasn't there in the background, like those Murlocs in TBC. She was front and center.

I honestly think you have taken my argument quite out of context, so I will let you reflect on this, since I'm honestly not interested in arguing how Dark Rangers could be playable when I've always argued that Dark Rangers could be playable.

You seem to wonder how. So, i'm providing you with options.

The more I tey to point out and focus the discussion on evidence and plausability, the more you bring up examples that do not reflect the current situation and narrative, and we're really not having the same conversation here.

I don't have to. You're asking hypothetically, since you can't see how the narrative will introduce them after 9.1.

None of your arguments cover _plausability_. Give me evidence that lends to Dark Rangers actually having relevance in being made as a class, and without piggybacking Nightwarriors and PotMs. There really isn't any strong potential for it any more.

Was there evidence for Death Knights? for Monks? they just popped up one day. Again, using Sylvanas to such extent, without doing anything about it, is kind of a waste of time.

It's not that Blizzard couldn't create a Dark Ranger class, it's that Blizzard has intentionally moved away from it with no real indication that they have an interest to revisit it as a standalone class. And yes, this is a standard that would have affected a Demon Hunter, yet we KNEW that the Legion was going to invade when Wrathion talked about it during MOP. That is what opened up the _plausability_ for Demon Hunters.

Moving away from it? how do you know what the future holds? because she is being dealt with in 9.1?
Yes, knowing the Legion would invade 5 years after Illidan had his spotlight. We didn't even finish Shadowlands and you're, already, making conclusions as to what will happen with her, years in advance.

I am pointing out that the current narrative _does not_ have this kind of indication for Dark Rangers. I am talking about plausability, not possibility. Just as there is no indication in the narrative that Blizzard wants to make Murlocs or Bards as playable race/class.

You have to lay out the cards on the table. Which classes are plausible? Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon, Shadow Hunter, Tinkers and Wardens have all been relevant to the story in these past years. The question, as of right now, is what will be coming next and when. Their plausibility is not so much in question than the question "when is their time to shine?".

Consider how Vulpera were plausible as a new allied race. We can say they are plausible because we know they had a connection to the Horde, as well as from a technical point of view they share the Goblin skeletons. These are facts we can use to base a guess. Same with Light-based Forsaken, which even though did not happen were still plausible because of rhe existence of Calia providing a precedence. This doesn't blanketly apply to any and all races, and there isn't a precedence for Murlocs as an allied race just because you can come up with some ideas for its racials and customization options. There is no narrative significance, no precedence for it to happen. It's just a wild guess more than anything.

Calia and Derek -like Undead are still plausible and will happen (i strongly believe). Go look at my speculation threads (not simply "i want that race"):
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...e-allied-races
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...l-future-races

I have no problems with wild guesses, and that is not what I spoke out against. I spoke out on the fallacy of using patterns such as Cinematics as a basis for what new class should be playable. Please understand that you replied to me without this context, and I have absolutely no reason to argue with you since we're both on the same page on what is possible, and for the most part we have our disagreements on what is plausible due to our different interpretations and beliefs on lore. There's really nothing left for us to discuss on the matter.

Should? no. Would.
Take a look at how WoD cinematic heavily hinted at Legion with its heavy demonic themes. And what class can you add to that? Demon Hunter.

If you ask me, narrative-wise, BfA cinematic hints at a Light vs Void expansion, which can only introduce a Shadow Hunter if it adds a class, and Shadowlands cinematic hints at a dragon-themed cinematic, which you can argue for a Dragonsworn, but i don't believe so.

And "look at what's going on" is, again, confirmation bias. Because you're making your own interpretation of "what is going on" to fit your pre-conceived narrative for the dark ranger. Blizzard does not "get stuff going on" to prepare for future classes. None of the current expansion classes had "stuff going on" for them before their implementation.

-_-

I, already, showed you they did with the Demon Hunter. Massive hints of a demonic invasion in MoP and WoD.

I literally did it in that exact same post you responded to:

They were not pushing the Blademaster. They expanded a bit on it. If it was front and center or a repeating theme, then it would have been a hint. That's like taking the Maldraxxian Necromancers or Wrathion's new looks as evidence for a Necromancer or Dragonsworn. It's quite minor. And, i'm telling you that as a Blademaster advocate.

I can even use your own logic to say that Blizzard added pennants and the Burning Blade banner toys as well as the ability to transmog invisible chest pieces as a "test bed" for blademasters.

Nice try. But no.
I wish Vol'jin's serpent toy was a hint at Shadow Hunters, but it isn't. Demon Hunters, already, have lots of bare chested sets. Unlike these, Vol'jin being set to be reborn is a hint, because it's unnecessary once he's dead, unless...
I can only say for Blademasters that their most important character, Samuro, is not in-game and, therefore, it is due to add him at some point.

Hinting an expansion does not mean hinting a new class. And what other new classes could Legion have brought? Option one: none. Option two: runemasters. As for demon hunters, I'll remind you that, as far as we knew at the time, Illidan died at the Black Temple, and has been dead ever since, with barely a mention of him ever since.

Cinematics do not, always, hint at classes because they don't add a class every expansion. Runemasters? what do they have to do with Legion? besides, it was integrated into the Death Knight years before.

Exactly. So, if Illidan can come back, so can Sylvanas (if she dies). We know Vol'jin will be back at some point.

WoD was not the only expansion I mentioned.

Then, what else?

No. I don't. I think fourth specs are dumb.

Why?

Source for what? Blood healing magic? I mean, you could read the link in my sig. On the very first page I say where I got the basis for my necromancer's blood healing spec.

Is it so hard to write it here?
*sigh*... fine, i'll go have a look.

Edit: so, Blood Trolls and G'huun? do they have ally blood-healing abilities (can you link them here)? do they fit the necromancer? I'd say they fit the Shadow Hunter more (they even have a blood totem as an archaeology reward). My concept has the Shadow Hunter summon Locust Swarm and Acid Cloud, based on the powers of G'huun (who is also considered a loa) which, in turn, is based on D3 Witch Doctor's abilities.

Upload your image to an image hosting site and check their tools.

Too much work.

[Ielenia]

-_-

I, already, showed you they did with the Demon Hunter. Massive hints of a demonic invasion in MoP and WoD.

Again: that is confirmation bias, because a Legion invasion =/= demon hunter class. Hinting toward a possible future demon-themed expansion does not guarantee the demon hunter would be added as a playable class. The Legion expansion could have very well gone through without the demon hunters being added as a class.

They were not pushing the Blademaster. They expanded a bit on it.

Again, this is your confirmation bias showing. Because everything you call a "map", or "Blizzard setting it up" or "getting stuff going on" for the dark rangers, I can just as easily say Blizzard is "not pushing the dark ranger, just expanding on it."

That's like taking the Maldraxxian Necromancers or Wrathion's new looks as evidence for a Necromancer or Dragonsworn. It's quite minor. And, i'm telling you that as a Blademaster advocate.

Why not? Why are those examples not evidence for those aforementioned classes, but Sylvanas' new looks are evidence for dark rangers? Again, confirmation bias.

Nice try. But no.

Why not?

I wish Vol'jin's serpent toy was a hint at Shadow Hunters, but it isn't.

Why not?

I can only say for Blademasters that their most important character, Samuro, is not in-game and, therefore, it is due to add him at some point.

Why is the most important blademaster Samuro, and not Jubei'thos?

Cinematics do not, always, hint at classes because they don't add a class every expansion. Runemasters? what do they have to do with Legion? besides, it was integrated into the Death Knight years before.

Why are you talking cinematics, considering I never even mentioned cinematics?

Exactly. So, if Illidan can come back, so can Sylvanas (if she dies).

It's irrelevant. The point is that, as far as we knew, Illidan died at the end of TBC, meaning technically most of the chances of the demon hunter class becoming playable died with him, since he is the "prime demon hunter".

Then, what else?

It's right there in the post you quoted.

Why?

Because it takes away ideas and concepts from possible future classes and shoe-horns them into classes that don't really fit the mold, like "dark rangers" for hunters, "shadow hunters" for shamans, etc.

Edit: so, Blood Trolls and G'huun? do they have ally blood-healing abilities (can you link them here)? do they fit the necromancer? I'd say they fit the Shadow Hunter more (they even have a blood totem as an archaeology reward). My concept has the Shadow Hunter summon Locust Swarm and Acid Cloud, based on the powers of G'huun (who is also considered a loa) which, in turn, is based on D3 Witch Doctor's abilities.

Because blood magic is part of necromancy, and because of this ability. Blood necromancy is a big thing for the trolls of Nazmir, too, and none of the blood trolls look and/or act like shadow hunters.

Too much work.

Considering you seem to believe "one click and three pages scroll down" is too much work as well, I believe you.

[username993720]

Again: that is confirmation bias, because a Legion invasion =/= demon hunter class. Hinting toward a possible future demon-themed expansion does not guarantee the demon hunter would be added as a playable class. The Legion expansion could have very well gone through without the demon hunters being added as a class.

It doesn't?
What other class can you add in that expansion (if you add a class)?
It doesn't guarantee a class, but we got one.
And back then it was a class every other expansion, so it fitted that pattern.

Again, this is your confirmation bias showing. Because everything you call a "map", or "Blizzard setting it up" or "getting stuff going on" for the dark rangers, I can just as easily say Blizzard is "not pushing the dark ranger, just expanding on it."

You could say that.
Yet, there's no need to shove it down our throats for so long.

Why not? Why are those examples not evidence for those aforementioned classes, but Sylvanas' new looks are evidence for dark rangers? Again, confirmation bias.

Nah... Sylvanas got her looks updated twice now. It's not what's hinting. Her featuring so prominently is.

Why not?
Why not?

Because these are fun little things. Unless you take Teriz's Pandaren Monk pet as a hint toward Pandaren Monks becoming playable. Anyway, it could serve as hints. I just don't really see it so, as it is not that consistent with other hints or themes.

Why is the most important blademaster Samuro, and not Jubei'thos?

Because Samuro was the concept art Blizzard relied on to create the class in the first place.
Because Samuro is the representative of the class in HotS and Hearthstone, and not Jubei'thos.

Why are you talking cinematics, considering I never even mentioned cinematics?

My bad. Assumed you were referring to that. I meant themes. They don't, always, guarantee a class. But, if a class is added you can bet your ass it has something to do with those recurring themes.

It's irrelevant. The point is that, as far as we knew, Illidan died at the end of TBC, meaning technically most of the chances of the demon hunter class becoming playable died with him, since he is the "prime demon hunter".

So it would seem. and look where we ended up. This kind of revival can apply to other characters, as well. So, anyone relying on the premise that X is gonna fall tomorrow as a basis to no Y class, has to recheck his facts. Heck, it's Kel'thuzad's what? third time, already?

It's right there in the post you quoted.

You mean the toy banner and hide chest option? Personally, i'd love it if they turned out to be hints. They just don't seem significant enough for me.

Because it takes away ideas and concepts from possible future classes and shoe-horns them into classes that don't really fit the mold, like "dark rangers" for hunters, "shadow hunters" for shamans, etc.

Not really. Have you seen my thread? none of the possible future classes are being taken.
I wouldn't shoot myself in the leg like that.

Because blood magic is part of necromancy, and because of this ability. Blood necromancy is a big thing for the trolls of Nazmir, too, and none of the blood trolls look and/or act like shadow hunters.

They don't look like necromancers, either. Let's see... are they listed under necromancers?
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Necromancer#Known - No.
Other than raising the dead, it also shares characteristics with demonic magic:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blood_magic
By the way, if we supply the Shadow Hunter with D3 Witch Doctor abilities, then necromancy is part of their kit.
Point is, blood trolls are more tribal and primitive than anything. You won't see them studying books about necromancy like Kel'thuzad. They use G'huun's powers much like a Shadow Hunter would call upon a loa.

Considering you seem to believe "one click and three pages scroll down" is too much work as well, I believe you.

Great humor.

[Ielenia]

It doesn't?
What other class can you add in that expansion (if you add a class)?

Who said we have to have a class? Because it's an odd-numbered expansion patch? Shadowlands proved that this isn't the case.

It doesn't guarantee a class, but we got one.
And back then it was a class every other expansion, so it fitted that pattern.

Which Shadowlands has shown that this is nothing but our own brains seeking patterns that don't exist.

Yet, there's no need to shove it down our throats for so long.

Again: confirmation bias. They're not "shoving" anything down our throats. And they're not "pushing" for any concept to be a class, at all.

Nah... Sylvanas got her looks updated twice now. It's not what's hinting. Her featuring so prominently is.

That's meaningless. Important NPCs get updated looks once in a while, especially when they are to be featured so prominently. Anduin also got updated twice. From child to young adult priest, and then from wearing robes to wearing plate. Tyrande also got updated twice.

Because these are fun little things. Unless you take Teriz's Pandaren Monk pet as a hint toward Pandaren Monks becoming playable. Anyway, it could serve as hints. I just don't really see it so, as it is not that consistent with other hints or themes.

I can say the exact same thing for everything you used for this so-called "map" of yours: they're just fun little things. Again, this is confirmation bias.

Because Samuro was the concept art Blizzard relied on to create the class in the first place.

Class? Which class? There is no Blademaster class in WoW

Because Samuro is the representative of the class in HotS and Hearthstone, and not Jubei'thos.

I'm talking about Warcraft, though, not HotS or Hearthstone.

My bad. Assumed you were referring to that. I meant themes. They don't, always, guarantee a class. But, if a class is added you can bet your ass it has something to do with those recurring themes.

Why, it was never the case? Arthas didn't show up in a cinematic before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. Or Chen Stormstout. Hell, Chen Stormstout never ever showed up on the actual WoW game aside from a tiny handful of side mentions. And Illidan showed up in the TBC cinematic because he was set up as the 'big bad' of the expansion.

So it would seem. and look where we ended up. This kind of revival can apply to other characters, as well. So, anyone relying on the premise that X is gonna fall tomorrow as a basis to no Y class, has to recheck his facts. Heck, it's Kel'thuzad's what? third time, already?

That is not my argument. Your argument is that "Blizzard has been setting up the dark ranger to become a playable class", and my counter-argument to that is that Blizzard has never done any "set up" for future classes, and cited Illidan dying in TBC as an example of Blizzard going against that, by literally killing their icon that represented the demon hunter class.

You mean the toy banner and hide chest option? Personally, i'd love it if they turned out to be hints. They just don't seem significant enough for me.

Re-read your own statement, then re-read my answer to it.

Not really. Have you seen my thread? none of the possible future classes are being taken.
I wouldn't shoot myself in the leg like that.

I don't need to see your thread to give my own opinion regarding 4th specs. Not to mention adding one spec for every class is literally the same work, or even more so, than adding three classes at the same time.

They don't look like necromancers, either. Let's see... are they listed under necromancers?
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Necromancer#Known - No.

Yes.

Other than raising the dead, it also shares characteristics with demonic magic:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blood_magic

So what? It still fits the theme of necromancy. After all, the death knights do have a blood spec that uses blood magic?

Point is, blood trolls are more tribal and primitive than anything. You won't see them studying books about necromancy like Kel'thuzad. They use G'huun's powers much like a Shadow Hunter would call upon a loa.

And what stops studious necromancers from studying the blood magic used by the blood troll necromancers and using them for themselves, just like studious warlocks studied Illidan and copied his transformation?

[Triceron]

Ask yourself this:
Has any other character, who represents a class, been featured in 3 consecutive (4, even) cinematics?

It's plausible. The question is when.

We had Illidan front and center of multiple cinematics and we didn't get Demon Hunters until after Monks.

If we're talking about the question of when, then realize that I've been talking about that, and you've been simply dismissing all my reasoning rather than actually addressing the question.

Every time I talk about the relevance to the plausability of the near future, you simply reply with examples of things that happened much earlier in WoW's life, like at the Demon Hunter. And I've explained pretty clearly that the Demon Hunter was a pretty well known case of Blizzard having not kept room open for it as a class because they never intended to make it a class well into Mists of Pandaria. Even if they had planned it as far back as Wrath, it would have only been as a consideration that never made it past concept. We know they had dozens of Hero concepts lined up for Wrath, but the one they ultimately chose is the one that set a standard for how they want to present classes in the future - as relevant as possible to the setting and story of an expansion.

When I talk about plausability, I am trying to make an argument to differentiate hints and facts from the game and lore which we can formulate an educated guess from simply taking a wild guess at something out of our imaginations.

An example is Dragon Isles - we know this has been planned since the beginning, and has been established in the lore, and is still in the works to be brought into the game because of direct references from the game itself. This is very plausible, very likely.

K'aresh is also a place that is likely, because it is a planet that has ties with the Void and gateways to other places. The link is the Light and Void. If not for the Light and Void, then K'aresh would remain fairly neutral as 'a place that exists in the lore but isn't any more likely than any other place'.

Undermine - We've only been to a small section of Kezan and haven't actually been to Undermine. There's quite a bit of potential to explore here, but no direct indication in recent lore other than Gallywix having escaped. It remains fairly established since we know the Devs have been planning this one (like the Dragon Isles) since Vanilla, just never really fully formed. It remains to be seen whether they will give it a main expansion treatment. I almost see them treating this place more like Emerald Dream and Nazjatar, as a secondary setting to some bigger expansion plan.

Zin Ashari - Aszhara is still on the loose, so it's definitely a loose end that would need to be filled. However, Zin Ashari is simply a city within Nazjatar in the lore, and we've explored Nazjatar. What expansion setting are we looking at here exactly? Zin Aszhari itself as a continent? It's possible, but again no real hints towards this being a future setting yet. Just like Undermine, I would consider it plausible but not likely, especially so close after having explored Nazjatar and dealt with Azshara in BFA.

Nathrezim Homeworld of Xoroth - this one is up in the air, because it seems Nathrezim have been given a new origin story and Xoroth remains a Legion-based planet in the lore. On one hand, Nathrezim have been brought back into the lore, on the other Xoroth is a Legion homeworld, so it's both likely and unlikely at the moment depending on whether Blizzard will give more hints at the planet in the future, or simply let the Nathrezim's origins be 'retconned' and have a passing relevance to the story simply through the Shadowlands. I personally don't see narrative hints towards exploring their homeworld yet, and I don't think many other people do, so I would chalk this one up more towards being a 'wild guess'.

They're not using cinematics to choose a class.
They're using them to hint at their plans.

Except they're not.

Illidan having been featured in cinematics was not a hint towards a Demon Hunter class, considering the times he was ever featured in a cinematic matches the timeline when no Demon Hunter class was ever actually planned to be made. Again, Xelnath illustrates this.

We are seeing this again now with Sylvanas being in multiple cinematics, and again with Blizzard making no moves *towards* a Dark Ranger as a playable class. Every move made in the narrative has actually gone in the other direction.

It's like if we were to discuss what hints there are in the game that Blizzard intends to add Murlocs as a race, I would be focused on looking for hints and directions in their design to have them playable. There's not just *one singular* thing to look at, it's looking at the full picture. For Murlocs, they don't have a narrative or lore problem for being added to the game, since it's pretty easy to just make up a reasoning similar to Goblin and Worgens having been refugees. Even being accepted into the Alliance and Horde is no problem since we've had fairly weak reasons for Pandaren to join. The problem of Murlocs comes from a visual and technical standpoint - they don't mesh as a playable Race. They don't talk, they don't fit the mold of wearing standard armor, they don't have visible gender differentiations, plenty of reasons why it would be unlikely (not impossible) to be added as a race.

The way I see your argument is as if someone were trying to counter this analysis by saying there's nothing in the lore stopping Blizzard from adding them, and that there's hints that they would be playable because they are slaves of Azshara and we would be fighting Azshara in the future. And yes, all of that would be *possible*, but nothing about this is actually being hinted at or intended by Blizzard to happen in the first place. Instead of making a proper analysis based on what we know, this argument is formulated on taking a wild guess at what *could happen* to make Murlocs a playable race. And I'm not talking about what conditions *could* be created for a Murloc to be playable, I'm talking about what intentions Blizzard has to *make* them playable in the first place. As a whole, would Blizzard go out of their way to resolve all the visual and technical issues of a Murloc in order to make them playable, and if so what is the reason for them to devote all their resources to do so. It's simply unlikely because we already know the direction they take for Murlocs - they're intentionally designed to be creatures and creeps that we fight, and not as a playable race.

When I take a look at the Dark Ranger and how it would be deemed playable, we should address the full direction that Blizzard is intending for them. I'm looking at a bigger picture.
- Who would lead or train Dark Rangers? Well they've severed the Nathanos and Sylvanas connections. I mean, we're looking at a much smaller list of candidates, like Delaryn Summermoon and Dark Ranger Anya and Velonara.
- What races and factions would be Dark Ranger? BFA opened up Night Elves so we have a good Alliance connection, but the story had them all join the Forsaken with the rest of the Dark Rangers...
- What is their motivation to join the Alliance and Horde? Well traditionally, revenge is the strongest motivator for the Dark Rangers considering the origin of WC3 and how Sylvanas was driven to oppose Arthas; and now we have a situation where Dark Rangers were abandoned and betrayed by Sylvanas. Yet Blizzard chose to do nothing with this plot point, leaving the Dark Rangers without any real purpose in the story.
- What expansion setting could they introduce the Dark Ranger in the future? Yeah, about that....
- What special traits makes a Dark Ranger unique as its own class? There's plenty to build here like using Sylvanas as a prime model! And they're giving away two of her HOTS abilities to Hunters, while keeping her Banshee form and Maw-based powers exclusive to her, and having severed her connection to the other Dark Rangers all the while....

Overall, the picture is pretty bleak. It's not full of potential, it's full of dead ends.

If we look at something like the Tinker, we don't have these same types of issues in the way. If we look at the Bard, we don't have these same types of roadblocks in the way. These are fresh concepts with little known backgrounds, so Blizzard can build it up however they see fit. The Dark Ranger is different because _it is already an established faction_ that is part of the Horde, which has not splintered itself to both the Alliance and Horde, which remains to have zero purpose in the story. It's not like they can freshly re-introduce them with a new purpose. And when we consider that there's nothing really in the works for a future Dark Ranger-centric Expansion setting, the whole thing just doesn't seem worth Blizzard putting more resources into developing. Why go with Dark Ranger now when so much effort was put narratively to disconnect them from being playable?

Should? no. Would.
Take a look at how WoD cinematic heavily hinted at Legion with its heavy demonic themes. And what class can you add to that? Demon Hunter.

If you ask me, narrative-wise, BfA cinematic hints at a Light vs Void expansion, which can only introduce a Shadow Hunter if it adds a class, and Shadowlands cinematic hints at a dragon-themed cinematic, which you can argue for a Dragonsworn, but i don't believe so.

And what expansion setting are we looking at would support a future Dark Ranger class being added? One that we can see in the near future?

Like I said, there's nothing to draw from cinematics here that would be relevant to the Dark Ranger situation, because it's already written itself into a hole and I don't think Blizzard is actively interested in digging them out of it. They've actively placed them there after BFA, even though the beginning of BFA set them up to absolutely be playable.

This is why I say they are not very plausible, and why the cinematics themselves are a poor way to construct an argument for them because it wholly ignores all the other pieces of information (as I have analyzed above) that formulate a bigger picture for what is likely or unlikely as a near-future playable class.

Like you said, we have to make a differentiation on old and new cinematics, right? Well all the times we've seen Sylvanas in a cinematic is now old information considering the newest information regarding her is moving towards concluding her story. If we're talking about Dark Rangers being added as a class at the start of BFA or even the start of Shadowlands, then I would say they have a very strong likelyhood still. But after they've done things like kill off Nathanos, sever Sylvanas' connection to the other Dark Rangers, had all the Dark Rangers be integrated into one faction, and now give away some iconic Dark Ranger abilities to Hunters as borrowed power; all of this simply makes a Dark Ranger class much more unlikely to happen.