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

[jellmoo]

If the helm has a connection to the Shadowlands (as we learn that Bolvar has been getting glimpses into the Shadowlands since donning the helm), I imagine it would require powerful magic to have a connection that transcends planes of existence, and when the helm breaks, the magic goes 'haywire' and causes the barrier between dimensions to shatter. That's my interpretation, anyways.

I think the disconnect for me is that they seem to have framed this as part of the Jailer's master plan. Which I guess it's possible that he could have compelled the Lich King to destroy the helm on his own, but it really feels like he had to have planned for a Lich King to elude his control, which is just a weird thing to plan for.

[Ielenia]

I think the disconnect for me is that they seem to have framed this as part of the Jailer's master plan. Which I guess it's possible that he could have compelled the Lich King to destroy the helm on his own, but it really feels like he had to have planned for a Lich King to elude his control, which is just a weird thing to plan for.

I don't think they framed it as "the Jailer planned this all along". To me it feels like a backup plan at best, and a "McGyver thing" at worst, like something that wasn't planned but could be made to happen that way.

[HansOlo]

Well, my bard back in 3º edition a couple decades away was quite the DPS. Sure, not as much as a sorcerer or wizard, but his fireball hurt. And so is the bard in my current group.

- - - Updated - - -


That is false.
• Even back in Vanilla, we had Hearthsinger Forresten in Stratholme. A bard.
• In Cataclysm and onward, we have Russell Brower. Another bard.
• We have song-based spells since, if I'm not mistaken, TBC.
• Shadowlands also is leaning heavily on 'music as magic' with Revendreth, Ardenweald and Bastion.

You know there is productive and creative talk. Just because some bard sounding names and RP exists in the game - is not the same as realistic or ideal.

We all know that bard doesn't work in this game - simple because how of the raids and PvP works. Would it be cool? Yes - in another game and in another universe.

Lore wise every class been in the original WC1/2/3. Otherwise you can just put Ash Ketchum as class, because some people likes to be creative.

[jellmoo]

We all know that bard doesn't work in this game - simple because how of the raids and PvP works. Would it be cool? Yes - in another game and in another universe.

Er... No, no we don't know that. There's zero mechanical reason that a Bard class couldn't be made for the game.

[Syegfryed]

So, no answer, then? Because "obvious and/or logical" is a meaningless answer. Up until the Legion expansion, it was "obvious" and "logical" that the demon hunter would never be a class of its own, according to many people.

your point is based around wrong community take? just because some people said it does not mean it was "obvious and logical" DH were always a possibility.

[Ielenia]

You know there is productive and creative talk. Just because some bard sounding names and RP exists in the game - is not the same as realistic or ideal.

But it is both realistic and ideal. Everything a bard needs to be realized already exist in the game. And bards do exist in the game:
""Words and Music by Russell Brower the Bard and <name> the <Class>."

That's got a nice ring to it."

We all know that bard doesn't work in this game - simple because how of the raids and PvP works. Would it be cool? Yes - in another game and in another universe.

It does work in the game, though. The problem is that people like you equate the bard concept as "is support and only support never anything more than support". Which is a false statement support.

Lore wise every class been in the original WC1/2/3. Otherwise you can just put Ash Ketchum as class, because some people likes to be creative.

Except monk. Most of the monk did not exist in the previous warcraft games. At best, we had a drunkard chinese pandaren in WC3.

[Triceron]

your point is based around wrong community take? just because some people said it does not mean it was "obvious and logical" DH were always a possibility.

What is a right community take, then? What exactly makes them wrong?

[Ielenia]

your point is based around wrong community take? just because some people said it does not mean it was "obvious and logical" DH were always a possibility.

Then perhaps you should take your own advice, considering you said this:

lets just say it is something logical and/or obvious.

So, by your own words: "just because some people said it does not mean it is "obvious and logical"".

Bards, dark rangers, necromancers, runemasters and many other fan concepts are still a possibility.

[Syegfryed]

Then perhaps you should take your own advice, considering you said this:

So, by your own words: "just because some people said it does not mean it is "obvious and logical"".

Bards, dark rangers, necromancers, runemasters and many other fan concepts are still a possibility.

i never, once, said those concepts are not a possibility, you just want to get some hot confrontation aren't you?

- - - Updated - - -

What is a right community take, then?

that DH were a possibility, they could or could not be playable based on blizzard desire

[Ielenia]

i never, once, said those concepts are not a possibility, you just want to get some hot confrontation aren't you?

You are focusing on the specific examples I gave, and forgot you did the same for the blademaster. You dismiss the blademaster concept, and here you literally used the very argument that you dismissed as wrong, which is "claiming is logical and obvious", claiming "stating so does not make it so."

that DH were a possibility, they could or could not be playable based on blizzard desire

So you're using hindsight to decree which takes are 'right' and which are 'wrong'. That's a fallacy. Because back then we had meta on the warlock class, evasion on the rogue class, and mana burn on the priest class. There was nothing for the demon hunter.

[Triceron]

that DH were a possibility, they could or could not be playable based on blizzard desire

What makes a community right and wrong in these assumptions? I mean, the only way I see to prove it is if Blizzard actually makes the class happen. If Demon Hunters weren't already playable, we'd still be in the same death-loop that Tinkers are stuck in and people debating whether they are possible or not.

What makes the community right for deciding Blademasters aren't playable? Are they more right because of obvious logic? Because it's obvious that Blizzard hasn't made them playable, and hasn't formally inducted them into the Warrior class. This is based on the same logic for Tinkers, since Blizzard didn't make them playable and hasn't formally merged their concept with the Engineering profession, which covers everything a Tinker could potentially do.

[Syegfryed]

You are focusing on the specific examples I gave, and forgot you did the same for the blademaster. You dismiss the blademaster concept, and here you literally used the very argument that you dismissed as wrong, which is "claiming is logical and obvious", claiming "stating so does not make it so."

i dismissed the "blademaster concept" because that is not a blademaster, is another class, that a guy put the blademaster name on it.

it was if i make a dragon knight class and called death knight.

if he finds another name for it, i guess so, but again, is more of a shaman than anything else.

What makes a community right and wrong in these assumptions?

what makes wrong is saying there was not possibility or saying they would never be playable, based on pure on wishful thinking or personal taste

The thing with blademasters is they are already playable, under the warrior class

[Ielenia]

i dismissed the "blademaster concept" because that is not a blademaster, is another class, that a guy put the blademaster name on it.

it was if i make a dragon knight class and called death knight.

if he finds another name for it, i guess so, but again, is more of a shaman than anything else.

But none of that changes one simple fact: you literally dismissed your very own argument when you said "claiming it's obvious and logical does not make it so".

what makes wrong is saying there was not possibility or saying they would never be playable, based on pure on wishful thinking or personal taste

The thing with blademasters is they are already playable, under the warrior class

That is your opinion, and your opinion only. By that same token, I can point out that the warrior class does not possess the invisibility and mirror image of the blademaster class. Having just one single ability of them. That's like saying the rogue is the demon hunter class because they had one single ability from the WC3 demon hunter: evasion. Or that warlocks were playable through the warlock class since they had the "signature ability" of the WC3 unit: metamorphosis.

[Syegfryed]

But none of that changes one simple fact: you literally dismissed your very own argument when you said "claiming it's obvious and logical does not make it so".

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

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

That is your opinion, and your opinion only..

nope, blizzard made sure to show warriors, specific arms, as blademasters, is just a title for the existing class, among some individuals.

[Triceron]

what makes wrong is saying there was not possibility or saying they would never be playable, based on pure on wishful thinking or personal taste

The thing with blademasters is they are already playable, under the warrior class

Except Blademasters aren't formally under the Warrior class. So what you're operating on is either headcanon, based on willing ignorance that a Blademaster is its own concept, or you're straight up lying. Either way, it's factually wrong, because the Blademaster has never been formally inducted into the Warrior class.

And you wonder why class debates drag on? It's because of people like you making these wild assumptions and passing them off as some sort of fact. You think your words are gospel just because you see Warriors with Bladestorm and think that Warriors and Blademasters must be one and the same. That there is no possibility for a Blademaster to be its own class concept.

If you truly believe that Blademasters are already playable, then it's no different than those who thought Demon Hunters were already playable because Warlocks had Metamorphosis and Glyph of Demon Hunting. You're part of the 'wrong community take'. You're applying the same fallacious logic on a different class concept. Instead of Demon Hunter, it's Blademaster. And to be frank, it's no different than the people who apply this to Tinkers as well.

A Blademaster is not playable unless Blizzard refers to the Blademaster by name

If we go by the facts, then you're operating on 'what ifs'.

Is Blademaster just a title for Warriors?
- It could be.

Is Blademaster represented by Arms Warrior gameplay?
- It could be.

Could Windwalk and Mirror Image be given to Warriors?
- It could be.

Can Blademaster be its own Playable class concept?
- It could be.



There are no definitive answers for any of these. If we are talking about possibilities, then nothing actually *denies* the possibility that a Blademaster can be its own class, because all of the above *could be* possible. And there is no substantial proof to say that they are formally part of the Warrior class.

Even with all the Dark Ranger connections we're getting in Shadowlands with Sylvanas and the Hunter class, they're not formally a 'Dark Ranger' class. Whether Blizzard chooses to formally bridge the connection is still up to them. Anything *could* happen.

[Ielenia]

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

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

It's still literally the exact same thing, here: your argument was "it is logical and obvious". And then on your very next post you dismiss "it is logical and obvious" arguments because "just saying so does not make it so".

This is literally you being hypocritical. No "ifs" and "buts" about it.

nope, blizzard made sure to show warriors, specific arms, as blademasters, is just a title for the existing class, among some individuals.

No, it's your opinion, and your opinion only. Until you have Blizzard saying "the WoW warrior class is the WC3 blademaster" then all you have is your opinion and nothing but your opinion.

[Syegfryed]

Except Blademasters aren't formally under the Warrior class. .

except they are, already pointed out many times with lore and gameplay, if blizzard want to retcon everything, and start introducing the same class again, but with different that is something up to then and another enire cam of worms to open and talka bout

- - - Updated - - -

It's still literally the exact same thing, here: your argument was "it is logical and obvious". And then on your very next post you dismiss "it is logical and obvious" arguments because "just saying so does not make it so".

it is more logical to expect playable classes based around blizzard ideas, not fanmade ideas, because how many fanmade concepts were added to the game? i don't remember any

This is literally you being hypocritical. No "ifs" and "buts" about it.

and you know very about hypocrisy too

No, it's your opinion, and your opinion only. Until you have Blizzard saying "the WoW warrior class is the WC3 blademaster" then all you have is your opinion and nothing but your opinion.

this is you with the absolutism fallacy once again, you want an "absolute proof" that fulfil your own personal and arbitrary metrics, We already ahve plenty of proof about the blademasters being warriors with a fancy name and some unique npc skills, like npcs get all the time

[Triceron]

except they are, already pointed out many times with lore and gameplay, if blizzard want to retcon everything, and start introducing the same class again, but with different that is something up to then

Right.

It's not impossible for reasons like they are already playable. And we know that yes, Blizzwrd can change anything, which makes nothing truly impossible.

It's not a reason to stop all discussion, its a reason not to use baseless 'facts' like Blademaster is playable as if Blizzard couldn't change that to make a new Blademaster class.

Same applies to any class concept.

This is why we suggest not using hyperbole like Can't or Impossible, because it doesn't help any argument since we collectively regard impossibilities to be untrue.

[Syegfryed]

Right.

It's not impossible for reasons like they are already playable. And we know that yes, Blizzwrd can change anything, which makes nothing truly impossible.

It's not a reason to stop all discussion, its a reason not to use baseless 'facts' like Blademaster is playable as if Blizzard couldn't change that to make a new Blademaster class.

Same applies to any class concept.

the fact that blademaster is already playable under the warrior class, because it is a fact that blademasters are warriors.

If they want to rip off and retcon their thing and do a redundant class, now that is another point, "possible"? well the possibility exist in the matter of tis there, but it will be done, or should be done is also another point.

[Ielenia]

it is more logical to expect playable classes based around blizzard ideas, not fanmade ideas, because how many fanmade concepts were added to the game? i don't remember any

Doesn't matter. The point here is that you made an argument saying "it is logical and obvious" and then on the very next post, you dismissed "it is logical and obvious" arguments because "just saying so does not make it so".

You are using double standards. You are being hypocritical.

and you know very about hypocrisy too

Of course I do. You gave me so many examples to learn from.

this is you with the absolutism fallacy once again, you want an "absolute proof" that fulfil your own personal and arbitrary metrics,

If you're going to claim something is a fact, then yes, we need "absolute proof". Because if you're going to claim as a fact that you have living pink magical unicorm in your garage, we are going to need "absolute proof" that this is a fact, and not just statements like "yeah, I heard some neighs coming from his garage".

We already ahve plenty of proof about the blademasters being warriors with a fancy name and some unique npc skills, like npcs get all the time

We don't. We really don't. We have your opinion that his is the case. Obviously some people disagree, so your opinion is not fact.