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

[Triceron]

As Ielenia said, a Bard is not relegated to a "support" role. People think that is the case because they don't seem to understand that D&D classes are not the same as MMORPG classes. The holy trinity (Tank, Damage, Heal) exists as it does for a reason. In World of Warcraft's case, the support role is split between all three of the combat roles.

I agree that a Bard would have limited mobility in their toolkit, which would be made up for by more support capability. As a matter of fact, Bards would have among the best support toolkits in the game. Not because that's all they can do but because it's what they do best. Themes are guidelines to follow, not creative prisons.

A lot of people believe it would have two DPS and a healing spec. Personally I believe it would be better oriented as one DPS and two heals. Although one of the healing specs would have a play style that strays from the classical healer. Essentially what I'm saying is that the Bard would be akin to a Priest in leather. One DPS spec, a melee-ranged hybrid, one "classical" healing spec and one alternative healing spec.

The problem is the way WoW is designed and what 'Support' actually means versus what people expect it to be.

Bards as a class have an association with being Support classes. You are correct that this doesn't have to be how it is translated into gameplay mechanics, but it's difficult to actually make an argument out of this without actual mechanics to discuss. We can just blanketly say that this class could have one of the best support toolkits in the game, but what does that mean overall? WoW has persistently *removed* the support aspect of the game and homogenized the class and spec system to a bare minimum of support, varying each expansion. It shows that Blizzard doesn't want to design WoW around co-dependancies in raids. They *don't want* niche Support classes the way they existed in previous iterations of the game, like wanting Druids for Innervate or bringing Shamans for Blood Lust. They even effectively toned down the requirement of classes bringing unique buffs to the raid.

They're also laser-focused on making roles very pure. Shadow Priest used to be considered a heavy support DPS role, but it's now designed to be pure DPS with very minor emphasis on the utility they bring. That's the way all classes are being addressed across the board; so if we are to consider any Bard concept it would have to be on the basis of it bringing a unique theme alone, and not on the basis of it providing a new standard or providing great utility. The way the game and roles are balanced, they'll simply have to be competitive DPS and Healers on their own merit. I don't think there's any way to properly associate them being 'best support toolkits' any more than you could associate that to Druids having innervates and battle res or Warlocks having soulstones and summons. They'd just be associated as unique Bard class mechanics.

The issues I see is that without a true Support niche to carve out its own, I don't think many people will be very open to a Bard DPS or Bard Healer class as a main-pick. It's not even as strong a concept as say Monks in WoW, and we all know how popular Monks are in WoW. I see the Bard concept missing the key 'Rule of Cool' gimmick that would get people hyped up on choosing them as a main, mostly due to its obvious associations as a Support-type class and not as a mainline archetypical DPS or Healer. It's a hard pill to swallow if Blizzard chooses to pour resources into designing a proper Bard class knowing all the other potential class concepts being passed up just to add (what I personally consider) a B-tier concept. Of all the potential classes to add to the game, why pick a Bard that has no proper Support role to fill? That's what many people will be expecting and asking. It's not a matter of whether Bards would fit into WoW, but a matter of whether they should be on the shortlist of classes people are anticipating to play. And as I explained, in terms of gameplay all we would be getting out of a Bard is its musical themes since the game is already fully embracing the Holy Trinity style of play.

[Ielenia]

The problem is the way WoW is designed and what 'Support' actually means versus what people expect it to be.

Here's the thing, though: the class does not have to be support. It doesn't have to offer any more support than, say, the paladin class used to until BfA, with their Blessings.

The class can easily be made to have two DPS specs and one healer spec, with just as many party buffs just like the other classes. This idea that "bard has to be support" and "must have support abilities" is something that is wrong and serves only to stifle the discussion.

[razorpax]

No support spec. The game does not support a support spec. But going for the names you mentioned, I can see the 'Blades' spec being the melee spec, the 'Valor' spec being the healer spec, and 'Eloquence' being the spellcaster spec.

- - - Updated - - -


Would be kind and not be dishonest by misrepresenting what other people post?

I never said I want the D&D bard nor have I ever said I want a support class or that bards "have to be" a support class. I only said to get inspiration of the concept of the bard, not the mechanics.

You are being incredibly obtuse and playing dumb, considering I've said, to you alone, that this concept that "bard must be support" is wrong three times already:



And yet you've apparently ignored it all the other times I've said that to you.

- - - Updated - - -


Not going to say it's impossible, but I will say I find it highly unlikely.

The whole idea of the bard is that they play the instruments and sing. Lucio... doesn't. He has everything pre-recorded and plays his music with his devices. Plus the bard wouldn't be anywhere near as mobile as Lucio is, too. In fact, I fully expect the class to be one of the least mobile in the game, if implemented.

Could have their abilities work similar to how some currently do

Judgement of light heals attackers
Wind fury totem and other buffs
The rest pally blessings from legion

The support aspect can work but it requires the output to be connected with the buffs some how

[draugril]

The problem is the way WoW is designed and what 'Support' actually means versus what people expect it to be.

Bards as a class have an association with being Support classes. You are correct that this doesn't have to be how it is translated into gameplay mechanics, but it's difficult to actually make an argument out of this without actual mechanics to discuss. We can just blanketly say that this class could have one of the best support toolkits in the game, but what does that mean overall? WoW has persistently *removed* the support aspect of the game and homogenized the class and spec system to a bare minimum of support, varying each expansion. It shows that Blizzard doesn't want to design WoW around co-dependancies in raids. They *don't want* niche Support classes the way they existed in previous iterations of the game, like wanting Druids for Innervate or bringing Shamans for Blood Lust. They even effectively toned down the requirement of classes bringing unique buffs to the raid.

They're also laser-focused on making roles very pure. Shadow Priest used to be considered a heavy support DPS role, but it's now designed to be pure DPS with very minor emphasis on the utility they bring. That's the way all classes are being addressed across the board; so if we are to consider any Bard concept it would have to be on the basis of it bringing a unique theme alone, and not on the basis of it providing a new standard or providing great utility. The way the game and roles are balanced, they'll simply have to be competitive DPS and Healers on their own merit. I don't think there's any way to properly associate them being 'best support toolkits' any more than you could associate that to Druids having innervates and battle res or Warlocks having soulstones and summons. They'd just be associated as unique Bard class mechanics.

The issues I see is that without a true Support niche to carve out its own, I don't think many people will be very open to a Bard DPS or Bard Healer class as a main-pick. It's not even as strong a concept as say Monks in WoW, and we all know how popular Monks are in WoW. I see the Bard concept missing the key 'Rule of Cool' gimmick that would get people hyped up on choosing them as a main, mostly due to its obvious associations as a Support-type class and not as a mainline archetypical DPS or Healer. It's a hard pill to swallow if Blizzard chooses to pour resources into designing a proper Bard class knowing all the other potential class concepts being passed up just to add (what I personally consider) a B-tier concept. Of all the potential classes to add to the game, why pick a Bard that has no proper Support role to fill? That's what many people will be expecting and asking. It's not a matter of whether Bards would fit into WoW, but a matter of whether they should be on the shortlist of classes people are anticipating to play. And as I explained, in terms of gameplay all we would be getting out of a Bard is its musical themes since the game is already fully embracing the Holy Trinity style of play.

Precisely.

I mean, just look at Enhancement Shaman. That was the class and specialization that I was sold on when I first played the game. It was advertised as the offensive support class. It realized this concept as best as WoW could. And then its niche - its very identity - was gutted from it. What is it, now? What niche does it fill? What sets it apart from all the other classes? And if you can provide an answer to any of those questions... try again without mentioning the thematics of the class.

Implementing a Bard is akin to starting off a class on the same shaky ground that Shaman finds itself in, with no real mechanical identity.

It's not that I don't want Bard - it's that I enjoy the concept too much to see it disrespected in the same way that the Shaman (and to a lesser degree, Paladin) class has been over the better part of two decades.

[Triceron]

Here's the thing, though: the class does not have to be support. It doesn't have to offer any more support than, say, the paladin class used to until BfA, with their Blessings.

The class can easily be made to have two DPS specs and one healer spec, with just as many party buffs just like the other classes. This idea that "bard has to be support" and "must have support abilities" is something that is wrong and serves only to stifle the discussion.

Then by that metric, the question is whether the Music theme is strong enough when placed up on the roster of potential classes not yet in the game.

When we still have major class concepts like Dark Rangers, Necromancers, Tinkers, Dragonsworn, does the Bard really hold widespread popular interest to warrant itself taking priority over the others? My perspective is if Blizzard took this concept and ran with it, they could absolutely make a full playable class out of it, but it would be a major head-scratcher for why go with a Musical themed class when it's not a widely expected (Expected, not to be confused with Accepted) class concept or theme in Warcraft.

The best way to illustrate expectations is Diablo Immortal. There is nothing wrong with Diablo Immortal as a game. An ARPG for mobile platform that was being widely well-accepted by people who played it at Blizzcon should have been widely praised. The problem is that there is widespread expectation for what the next Diablo game should be; and that would be either Diablo 4 or Diablo 2 Remaster. We all know what happened due to Blizzard failing to meet these expectations. That is something that *needs* to be considered if we are talking about new classes.

That is why I say Bard would work best as a Prestige type class, where it can be released alongside many other class concepts. On its own, I don't see it being very viable unless we're talking another 10+ years down the line. Bard and musical themes simply haven't permeated the Warcraft series enough; even the Warsong clan has completely distanced itself from its 'musical' roots rather than embrace it as a part of their culture the way it should always have been.

[draugril]

Then by that metric, the question is whether the Music theme is strong enough when placed up on the roster of potential classes not yet in the game.

When we still have major class concepts like Dark Rangers, Necromancers, Tinkers, Dragonsworn, does the Bard really hold widespread popular interest to warrant itself taking priority over the others? My perspective is if Blizzard took this concept and ran with it, they could absolutely make a full playable class out of it, but it would be a major head-scratcher for why go with a Musical themed class when it's not a widely expected class concept or theme in Warcraft.

Kinda like if we were talking about playable Kobolds; the question isn't whether they could be playable or whether they fit in Warcraft as a theme; the question is whether it meets expectations for what a future playable race/class would be. I simply don't see Bards meeting that potential when pitted up against so many other potential class concepts.

It's akin to replacing the Frostbolt animations with Clocks and calling it a Chronomancer or retheming Demonology as a Necromancer... even if the concepts are strong thematically, it isn't a good choice to base a class on it if you can't do something unique, mechanically, particularly when there are alternatives out there.

When people indignantly say, "Why is it so unbelievable that we can have a music-based DPS or healer in a world with X, Y & Z?!" my answer is that it isn't unbelievable at all. But that isn't the argument I'd make against the class. I want to know what makes it more than a skin on existing mechanics. What is the niche of the Bard in a game without support? They say it can be other things, sure. But what are those things?

[Echocho]

First off to everyone who wrote "Tinkerer"... blizzard always calls it Tinker.
As in he tinkers with stuff.
Not Thinkererererererererer.

Tinker is a verb, Tinkerer is a noun. You can't use verbs as class names, it would be like having the class be called Hunt instead of Hunter.

[Triceron]

It's akin to replacing the Frostbolt animations with Clocks and calling it a Chronomancer or retheming Demonology as a Necromancer... even if the concepts are strong thematically, it isn't a good choice to base a class on it if you can't do something unique, mechanically, particularly when there are alternatives out there.

When people indignantly say, "Why is it so unbelievable that we can have a music-based DPS or healer in a world with X, Y & Z?!" my answer is that it isn't unbelievable at all. But that isn't the argument I'd make against the class. I want to know what makes it more than a skin on existing mechanics. What is the niche of the Bard in a game without support? They say it can be other things, sure. But what are those things?

Exactly.

If we're going to use arguments that Bards can fit the WoW design and distance itself from the common metrics that make it unique (Support), then we're also going to be boiling down its concept to base solely off of theme.

And at that point, we really could be applying this to anything like Chronomancers and asking those same questions for why they should be legitimately considered as a standalone class concept. It's not merely a matter of possibility, but a matter of practicality.

[Ielenia]

Then by that metric, the question is whether the Music theme is strong enough when placed up on the roster of potential classes not yet in the game.

When we still have major class concepts like Dark Rangers, Necromancers, Tinkers, Dragonsworn, does the Bard really hold widespread popular interest to warrant itself taking priority over the others? My perspective is if Blizzard took this concept and ran with it, they could absolutely make a full playable class out of it, but it would be a major head-scratcher for why go with a Musical themed class when it's not a widely expected (Expected, not to be confused with Accepted) class concept or theme in Warcraft.

I honestly don't think Blizzard adds classes based on popularity.

I don't recall anyone wanting to play as a death knight, but I do remember people demanding, left and right, to play as demon hunters, tinkers and, to a lesser extent, necromancers. Well, we got demon hunters, finally, twelve years after they were first advertised, in the vanilla WoW box art. But we still have seen not even a hint of a necromancer or tinker class.

And yet we got the monk class. Which, if I recall correctly, wasn't exactly in the upper half of the 'most expected classes' lists for most people.

So, to answer your question: whether the music theme is strong enough when placed up on the roster of potential classes not in the game.

To me? I don't think it matters if it "holds up" or not when compared to others. What matters if it fits the expansion theme and story they're going to tell.

[Triceron]

Tinker is a verb, Tinkerer is a noun. You can't use verbs as class names, it would be like having the class be called Hunt instead of Hunter.

You definitely can because the 'Tinker' title and name is already used numerous times within Warcraft.

Mekkatorque is already 'High Tinker'. The Warcraft 3 hero is the Goblin Tinker. There are numerous Engineering trainer and vendor NPCs with the title of "Tinker'.

There's no problem with the name.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't think Blizzard adds classes based on popularity.

No, but they *heavily consider* it.

I don't recall anyone wanting to play as a death knight, but I do remember people demanding, left and right, to play as demon hunters, tinkers and, to a lesser extent, necromancers.

Everyone of course *WANTED* a Death Knight class, but expecting it was somewhat off the table due to the obvious exclusivity to the Scourge.

A lot of the expectations we have today concerning class possibilities are built on the precedents Blizzard themselves have opened up. If DK was never made playable, then it could still be assumed that any evil-associated classes would remain exclusive to the evil factions they serve. This includes factions like the Illidari Demon Hunters who served Illidan.

And yet we got the monk class. Which, if I recall correctly, wasn't exactly in the upper half of the 'most expected classes' lists for most people.

Pandaren were planned to be playable as far back as TBC, and were *very close* to happening until they decided to stick with Draenei. And this wasn't due to popularity, rather it seemed to have to do with politics

"The pandaren were initially planned to be the new playable race for the Alliance in World of Warcraft's first expansion, The Burning Crusade, but about halfway through development they were replaced with the draenei.[8][9][10] In a Q&A thread on Reddit in April 2020, former Blizzard artist Trent Kaniuga stated that this was because the Chinese government told Blizzard that they couldn't use pandas in the game. By that point, the artists had already created concept art for pandaren cities and buildings, but the change happened early enough in development that not much content was cut. The developers would not get permission to implement pandas until 5 years later. According to Kaniuga, "In reality it was probably just that they needed more time to negotiate it. Panda's[sic] are a national treasure in China, so it takes a lot of negotiating to work a deal to distribute characters that look like that in China."[11][12]"

While this might not be regarding the Monk Class itself, I would say the Pandarens being considered playable is what lead Blizzard to fully realize a class based on the race. It was part of a big package.

In context, I don't know if I see this sort of thing happening for a Bard. They would be a class on their own, considering how Music is simply an ever-present theme and not specifically tied to any particular potential theme, culture or location within Warcraft. It's hard to imagine an ETC-themed Rock expansion or something like that. The Warsong clan is literally the only thing I can think of that is musically and culturally rooted in WoW, and that's still a stretch to connect them to a specific Bard class.

So, to answer your question: whether the music theme is strong enough when placed up on the roster of potential classes not in the game.

To me? I don't think it matters if it "holds up" or not when compared to others. What matters if it fits the expansion theme and story they're going to tell.

Which again is the point I make. Blizzard can do it, but it would be a major headscratcher if they do. It would be Pandaria all over again; completely bittersweet and polarized into love it-hate it camps. The problem with Pandaria (as I see it) is that it completely missed expectations by following up very strong Major Villain/Threat themed expansions such as Wrath of the Lich King and Cataclysm. I personally love the aesthetic and enjoyed the concept, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that the overall acceptance of the Pandarens and Monk class are still today very mixed. I think it would have been much more acceptable if released during TBC when such concepts were still very open to be explored, not after Wrath and Cata and expecting something even bigger and grandiose. We're at a point where we're following up major world wars with Shadowlands and looking forward to Dragon Isles and conflicts with the Void Lords. It's best to have a new class that is on point with these concepts that people are anticipating.

I don't think Blizzard is at a point where they should bank on Bards as a major expansion feature. They need to continue on concepts that are expected and popular, and we already *have* a roadmap of what potential expansions are coming up. Dragon Isles, K'aresh, Void Lords. They *shouldn't* be pursuing more tangential concepts like Pandaria or Alternate Reality Draenor with the story moving forward.

[Unbelievable]

The concept just isn't 'cool' enough to exist. It's much too niche and there isn't a solid identity behind it the way other known Warcraft class tropes have been fleshed out. Even the Spellbreaker has a stronger identity to it than Bards do. I'd love to see Blizzard do a Bard concept, but I feel like it would have to be added as a Class skin along other B-Tier concepts, or perhaps as a Profession that allows active combat abilities, similar to Engineering or Profession buffs.


I think as a Profession, with the right support this idea could really take off and let anyone be a Bard alongside their main class. It wouldn't impact the current Holy Trinity dynamic, it would be able to provide plenty of Support, it maintains a full Musical theme, and it doesn't require adding new weapon drops throughout the game like Harps, Lutes or Drums with stats. As a profession, they could also tie in some actual music playing out of combat, letting people play actual songs or just troll away as they please.

I, too, believe it's not as strong of a contender as, let's say, Warcraft 3 hero unit classes.

I, too, believe it is much more plausible as a profession.

Yet, if not then, a Shaman spec (Murmur - an elemental), a Priest or a Mage spec ("From its Romanticist usage, the notion of the bard as a minstrel with qualities of a priest, magician or seer also entered the fantasy genre in the 1960s to 1980s"), a Druid or a Paladin ("One of the most notable bards in Irish mythology was Amergin Glúingel, a bard, druid and judge for the Milesians."), or a Rogue (Hired Bard is classified as a Rogue and Russel the Bard is a Rogue card in Hearthstone).

As for a class - we'll have to see...

Not going to say it's impossible, but I will say I find it highly unlikely.

The whole idea of the bard is that they play the instruments and sing. Lucio... doesn't. He has everything pre-recorded and plays his music with his devices. Plus the bard wouldn't be anywhere near as mobile as Lucio is, too. In fact, I fully expect the class to be one of the least mobile in the game, if implemented.

True. That's why i didn't list his skating abilities. By his abilities, i didn't really mean the class animations, so much as to what the abilities can do (knockback, heal, boost speed and so on...).

why do you care about bards so much?
i dont see how they fit.

Oh. So, you're back despite Teriz's ban...
Do you, actually, have something meaningful to contribute to the conversation other than complimenting Teriz all the time?

[Sagenod]

And that's the reason I'm nowadays more interested in the concept of class skins or possibly new specs rather a new class. I agree, the Bard would have trouble fitting in.

People don't discuss class skins anymore, what happened to that?

[Triceron]

And that's the reason I'm nowadays more interested in the concept of class skins or possibly new specs rather a new class. I agree, the Bard would have trouble fitting in.

People don't discuss class skins anymore, what happened to that?

Class Skins are a very divided concept here.

It's the best way (IMO) to integrate all the loose-end class concepts that may not be fully derserving of a full 3-spec system, but at the cost of having any unique gameplay or mechanics at all. It's literally going to be a skin of existing gameplay, and the biggest criticism is that it is literally a glorified 'transmog' system.

I personally think the class balance system can be retooled to better integrate deviations in gameplay, and Covenants are proving to be a nice first step in seeing how ability variation can play out for classes. People are still choosing optimal builds, of course, but the choice of Covenants opens up a lot of flavour as well.

I think if all classes were divided into 'Core Mechanics' and 'Specialty Talents', it could help bridge any number of future class concepts into the game.

Say we have a Priest class. The Core Mechanics would be anything related to the gameplay style of a Priest; the basic abilities, the rotations, the cooldowns etc. Specialty Talents would be anything that stands out as flavouring the Priest's Holy or Shadow themes; abilities such as Shadowfiend, Void Tendrils, Leap of Faith. These would be placed into their own category, the way Talents are already a sub-system of abilities and passives.

From there, new class concepts can be added using the Priest's core mechanics, while adding in new class themes and abilities as Specialty Talents. Most of these would likely be provided as alternatives to the base class, and could even be folded in as another tier of Talents for any Core class. The gameplay balance would be on the level of Covenants and how Blizzard is approaching those right now. Some abilities could be shared among multiple classes (Shamans and Witchdoctors sharing Totems, POTM and Druid sharing Starfall). It would be very closely modelled on the successful aspects of Covenant choice-based mechanics.

- Witchdoctors would bring in Totems, Brews and Hexes, specializing in Shadow themes. They could share Speciality Talents like having certain (Speciality Talent) Shaman Totems and Monk Brews, with a heavy Voodoo visual flavour. Unique Specialty Talents would be along the lines of Big Bad Voodoo or having a Bwonsamedi summon.
- Priestess of the Moon replaces visual channelled attack abilities (Penance) with Spirit Bow attacks, and incorporate more Owl and Moon/Star themed abilities. They can share Starfall with Druids as a Specialty Class Mechanic. They could even gain some limited Stealth mechanics.
- Bards and Wardrummers would use all of the Priest's core gameplay while replacing spells with Instrumental effects. Specialty mechanics would focus on Music and Songs. They could also share some Specialty Talents with certain Warrior Shouts.
- Battle Medics would provide a non-faith based alternative theme, focusing on Medicine and Technology instead. Any Holy or Shadow based themes would be given a completely new effects, and the class would be supported by a Medical Assistance Drone (similar to Kyrian Stewards) that translates any aggregious 'magical ability FX' into usable technology. Kinda like Mei's Drone assistant. They could potentially share a Healing Turret with Tinkers.

Game mechanics-wise, even though I illustrated very obvious Race-specific examples, I'd say keeping the combinations flexible to any race choosing any speciality would be best, since that's how Covenants work. People are already okay with a Paladin using Maldraxxian Necromancy, so having a Gnome Witchdoctor or a Night Elf Battle Medic isn't much of a problem in my books. Simply having the 'Lore savvy' choice to play as a Gnome Battle Medic or a Troll Witchdoctor is what is important.

[Traveler Voltin]

Oh. So, you're back despite Teriz's ban...
Do you, actually, have something meaningful to contribute to the conversation other than complimenting Teriz all the time?

i didnt even know he was.
you seem massively defensive.
so unless you plan to answer my questions then dont talk to me.

[AngerFork]

Class Skins are a very divided concept here.

-- snip --

Interesting thoughts. I'm having trouble finding where the difference would be between this and just adding in more specs for characters. Like these to me look like four new Priest specs sharing different sorts of spells & talents. If we were to assume that Blizz did only half of these per class, that's still 24 new specs to balance on top of the 36 they are already balancing. Compared to the 2-4 they would need to balance for a new class, that seems like a lot.

Part of where Covenants work that I feel this falls short is that the abilities are mostly shared by all classes. My Necro Monk has Bonedust Brew which is a special ability no other class has, but otherwise her spells are very much the same that a Necro Warrior would have. Different specialties, different choices, but still the same baseline abilities. This I feel would get unwieldy really fast.

That being said, Witchdoctors sound super fun to play, so I'm not totally opposed.

[Triceron]

Interesting thoughts. I'm having trouble finding where the difference would be between this and just adding in more specs for characters. Like these to me look like four new Priest specs sharing different sorts of spells & talents. If we were to assume that Blizz did only half of these per class, that's still 24 new specs to balance on top of the 36 they are already balancing. Compared to the 2-4 they would need to balance for a new class, that seems like a lot.

In my mind, it wouldn't be different specs, rather they would be variants of existing classes/specs. Think of it more like an extension of Talent options on top of customized visuals. Ideally it's an extended 'Covenants' (Specialty Talent) option over top the existing Class and Specs, with some existing Class mechanics (Totems, summonables) being moved over into Specialty Talents and being shared around. We already have some of this type of Ability sharing between classes (Bloodlust, Time Warp), and this idea is just an extension of that while controlling the ability weight to be more on par with how Talents are customizeable within a given spec.

Whereas Talents are customized abilities at a Spec level, Specialty Talents are customization at the Class level. If you are a Witchdoctor, then you can still play as Holy Discipline or Shadow, except you have access to special Witchdoctor Specialty Talents, and everything would be rethemed to support a proper Witchdoctor theme. If you want to play as a Priestess of the Moon, you are still playing Holy, Disc or Shadow with more of a Moon/Owl/Celestial theme, special attack animation visuals, and access to POTM Specialty Talents. The core gameplay of a Holy Priest or Disc Priest or Shadow Priest would mainly be in tact, with the variations coming from Talents. It's literally a Covenants system that is designed around Class Identities rather than representing broad factions.

To keep everything balanceable within reason, the Specialty Talents would likely be weighted similarly across the board, as well as letting classes share common Specialty Talents similar to how Covenants all have one Unique ability and one Shared ability. Having certain existing class abilities moved into Specialty type would also help homogenize this system, though every class can maintain its own unique balance. A Priestess of the Moon's Starfall doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same strength and ability as Balance Druid, it would be balanced to whatever fits best against the other Priest Specialty Talents. It may seem like a huge amount of balancing, but what I'm proposing is a *very* controlled system as opposed to simply giving Priests Starfall and calling it a day. This is more like bringing back the Vanilla WoW Priest Racials, but balancing them properly in the style of Covenant powers rather than say giving Dwarves a Fear Ward that made Dwarf Priest a must-have for certain boss fights.

I would also say that not every class would get an equal amount of 'Class skins'. I don't think it has to be equal any more than Race/Class combinations are equal. We have 21 races able to choose Priest, but only 2 races can choose Demon Hunter. At some point, the Racial diversity of Priests is being lost by having to spread itself amongst so many races, and my idea is to bring back some of that flavour through diversity. I'd favour using this system for specific Class concepts that have no place in the game on their own. Warcraft 3 is good starting basis for this, seeing how so many different tanky melee Heroes all got abridged into one singular 'Warrior' class, this is a time to spread them back out into the proper Chieftains and Blademasters and Mountain Kings (Gladiator) as they should have always been. Or, if some prefer, go ham with all the crazy combinations like Gnomish Blademasters and Draenei Gladiators. I personally see it that if races of multiple cultures can learn to adopt Night Elf Druidism and Pandaren Mysticism, then there's little reason to limit who can be a Witchdoctor or a Blademaster. It's just a race adopting another style of magic and combat.

I simply used Priest as an example because it's already an open-concept that lends itself to more variations of play, whereas a class like Demon Hunter is much more limited due to its unique mechanics. We could have 4 Priest variants and 4 Warrior variants (Chieftain, Blademaster, Gladiator, Warlord/Highlord), but maybe only 1 Warlock variant (Necromancer) or 1 Monk variant (Runemaster). The idea is to bridge in 'misfit' Class Concepts that people are already anticipating, rather than trying to shoehorn endless variations of Nature-themed Warlocks and Tech-themed Warlocks for the sake of meeting a status quo. Identity comes first, and I'd suggest this system be used to roll out Class Skin concepts over time rather than having it immediately work across the board. If 2 Priest variants and 2 Warrior variants work, then expand outwards. If it doesn't work out, then drop the system entirely and lore-it away by next expansion just like the Artifact Power or Covenants system.

[Revamp Man]

i didnt even know he was.
you seem massively defensive.
so unless you plan to answer my questions then dont talk to me.

ill answer

they are a medieval support style archetype that fits a sword and sorcery style game unlike steam punk midgets in zords

[Unbelievable]

And that's the reason I'm nowadays more interested in the concept of class skins or possibly new specs rather a new class. I agree, the Bard would have trouble fitting in.

People don't discuss class skins anymore, what happened to that?

Different thread:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...20-Class-skins

i didnt even know he was.
you seem massively defensive.
so unless you plan to answer my questions then dont talk to me.

Right...and i'm the queen of England.

As for your question: "why add a Bard class?"
Simple - it fills a roleplaying aspect that is missing from the game. Music and sound has not been, massively, represented in game, and is lacking a representative, just like your precious Tinker.

One could wonder, how does a music playing class can be taken seriously, as a fully functioning class. To that i say, look at the Priest. In life, Priests aren't much of a combatant profession yet, they have managed to make it a functional combative class.

Interesting thoughts. I'm having trouble finding where the difference would be between this and just adding in more specs for characters. Like these to me look like four new Priest specs sharing different sorts of spells & talents. If we were to assume that Blizz did only half of these per class, that's still 24 new specs to balance on top of the 36 they are already balancing. Compared to the 2-4 they would need to balance for a new class, that seems like a lot.

That being said, Witchdoctors sound super fun to play, so I'm not totally opposed.

I agree that they could be specializations, rather than fully-fledged classes.

If you're interested in the Witch Doctor - check out my Shadow Hunter class concept, a few pages ago.

[Amunrasonther]

@Amunrasonther once linked a NPC that could be interpreted as a "seed" for a future bard class, laying down the foundation for the idea of music having actual magic power.

So I came across said NPC in the world, and noticed three souls in the crypt behind him, all three tagged "Lost Chalice Band". One of the souls, Chiu Brightcast, says this when you speak to him:

So we have a NPC talking about the power of music, and a NPC who was part of a band talking about wanderlust and thirst for adventure. Looks to me like Blizzard might be really setting the foundation for a bard-like class.

This is really exciting to see! The Bard is a staple archetype that deserves to be in WoW. I'll also have you know, I'm ALMOST* finished with my Bard concept!

The concept just isn't 'cool' enough to exist. It's much too niche and there isn't a solid identity behind it the way other known Warcraft class tropes have been fleshed out. Even the Spellbreaker has a stronger identity to it than Bards do. I'd love to see Blizzard do a Bard concept, but I feel like it would have to be added as a Class skin along other B-Tier concepts, or perhaps as a Profession that allows active combat abilities, similar to Engineering or Profession buffs.

You'll be surprised to know then that in a recent poll on the main forums, when asked which class people would most like to become playable, Bards placed second with Necromancers being #1, a Dragon-based class being #3, and Tinkers being #4. The poll has over 643 votes, and for some unknown reason, it reset at one point and now the dragon-based class and tinkers are tied at 3rd (and now only showing 251 total votes).

Thread: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...ed-next/775610
Poll: https://www.strawpoll.me/42279947/r

So obviously, the potential popularity of a Bard class is present.

[Naiattavain]

instead of adding a new class making the game more complicated why not just design all the classes to work and have fun again. make rogues fun to play again.