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

[Triceron]

That's not the argument. You're claiming bards cannot be added to the game and still be "bards" because you subscribe to this erroneous idea that "bards have to be support otherwise they're not bards". The bard concept can be made into a playable class within WoW using the game's "holy trinity" of class design, and still be a bard.

You're actually supporting his argument though.

Yes, a Bard concept can be made into a playable class within the Holy Trinity. But by that very logic, so could a Butcher class, or a Baker class, or a Candlestick Maker class. We're talking about taking the things that make a Bard class stand out iconic (in RPGs) and homogenizing it back into a shell of that identity in order to fit WoW.

The only important aspect of it would be the Music theme, and frankly that theme alone isn't really strong enough to make a convincing argument that it would be worth creating a WoW class out of; any more than we could be talking about Butchers Bakers and Candlestick Makers.

And let's be real here, Blizzard could absolutely make a Butcher or Candlestick Maker class. I don't think the argument of 'CAN it be made' is really what important at all. We can have a Candlestick Maker class, but it doesn't mean we should.

[Razion]

Dark Ranger by itself never much appealed to me because it didn't seem interesting enough by itself (subjective), but I think Priestess of Elune and Sea Witch as other specs for this new kind of magical archer archetype would be a lot more interesting than just Dark Ranger by itself. I could get on board with that, I think.

[Ielenia]

You're actually supporting his argument though.

Yes, a Bard concept can be made into a playable class within the Holy Trinity. But by that very logic, so could a Butcher class, or a Baker class, or a Candlestick Maker class. We're talking about taking the things that make a Bard class stand out iconic (in RPGs) and homogenizing it back into a shell of that identity in order to fit WoW.

The only important aspect of it would be the Music theme, and frankly that theme alone isn't really strong enough to make a convincing argument that it would be worth creating a WoW class out of; any more than we could be talking about Butchers Bakers and Candlestick Makers.

And let's be real here, Blizzard could absolutely make a Butcher or Candlestick Maker class. I don't think the argument of 'CAN it be made' is really what important at all. We can have a Candlestick Maker class, but it doesn't mean we should.

But that's not the point, though. His original argument is that the bard concept cannot be implemented into WoW as a playable class and still be a bard because, in his mind, bards cannot be anything other than "pure support". They cannot be a healer class, they cannot be a dps class. They have to be a support class.

The bard's type of spellcasting can also allow for Blizzard to do new things with spell damage, like allowing the bard spells to deal physical damage, or even make their songs into holy damage, or have them deal all sorts of different damage types (frost, shadow, holy, fire, etc).

[Triceron]

The bard's type of spellcasting can also allow for Blizzard to do new things with spell damage, like allowing the bard spells to deal physical damage, or even make their songs into holy damage, or have them deal all sorts of different damage types (frost, shadow, holy, fire, etc).

Sure, but so could a Candlestick Maker class by that means.

What is special about this Bard class if it's just a DPS/Healer that uses musical themes? What about this concept actually satisfies someone who is looking to play an archetypical RPG Bard? It's on the level of being a Class Skin when you consider that there's nothing outstanding about this being a concept of its own; and it avoids the primary basis of most Bard archetypes - being heavily based on Support. It's a style of gameplay that just doesn't work well conceptually in WoW.

We could be talking about a DPS/Healer Candlestick Maker class who uses Candles to fight and attack. But what about this class actually embodies Candlestick making, and why even choose this theme over something more well established in the lore? Overall there isn't much of an argument here to support it, and plenty against it.


When considering why people want a Bard class, 'I want a DPS/Healer that uses music' isn't the primary reason people want to play as one. A big part of the archetype is playing a Support character with a very defined role. The more that is distanced away from, the less it can be considered a 'Bard'; rather it is a 'Musical Priest that happens to be called a Bard'.


I would liken this to the idea of giving Warlocks a melee spec and calling it a Demon Hunter. The concept is just too far removed from what people would actually want out of the full package and the class archetype. Just because giving a Warlock a 4th Demon Hunter spec CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done, right?

[draugril]

That's not the argument. You're claiming bards cannot be added to the game and still be "bards" because you subscribe to this erroneous idea that "bards have to be support otherwise they're not bards". The bard concept can be made into a playable class within WoW using the game's "holy trinity" of class design, and still be a bard.

Just as a Warrior could heal with axes.

You can refuse to acknowledge the legacy of the class in the role-playing world. That's your decision. But my decision to respect it is not erroneous.

You can make a musical class in WoW. You can ever call it a Bard. But it will be a Bard in name alone, given the history of the class outside of WoW.

And as stated before, I would rather have classes implemented that can fully capitalize on all features of a new class: a fresh theme, unique mechanics, and honouring the franchise's history. Death Knight did that. Demon Hunter did that. Monk (to a lesser degree) did that. Calling a musical class a Bard only takes advantage of one of those features - the fresh theme. They will not bring unique mechanics: as much as you hate to acknowledge that the support role is an element of the Bard class, it indisputably is. Furthermore, the Bard has no history in the franchise outside of a few gags and Easter eggs.

Granted, an artist like to hide panda doodles, and we wound up with a race, class and expansion based on that small detail. So anything is possible. I'm not going to tell you that a Bard is impossible as an addition, or even unlikely.

I just don't want to see it disrespected by attempting to redefine it with WoW's limited scope.

- - - Updated - - -

I would liken this to the idea of giving Warlocks a melee spec and calling it a Demon Hunter. The concept is just too far removed from what people would actually want out of the full package and the class archetype.

The reaction to the Glyph of Demon Hunting when it was a thing was extremely telling - the only reason people used it (myself included!) was because it allowed us to ape the Demon Hunter playstyle. It was positively received by the small minority of the playerbase that enjoyed it, and they wrote voluminously on how to improve the implementation of the concept.

Almost as if trying to cram a different playstyle within the scope of an existing infrastructure wasn't working out and people wanted it to be expanded. Even if it was positively received by a few diehards, it was blatantly obvious that it was out of place and didn't meet the needs of those who actually wanted to play as a Demon Hunter.

Thankfully, the Demon Hunter playstyle, as established in the franchise, fit within the greater infrastructure of the game so it was able to transition to a class when the time came.

Bard cannot make that transition until the scope of the game expands to fit support roles again.

You can add a constrained mockery of the idea of a Bard, just as the Glyph above did for Demon Hunters, but you're never going to satisfy those that have a certain expectation of what the class is all about based on nearly a half-century of precedent.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it would be really fun to play and unique.

Howso? What about the Bard class appeals to you, mechanically?

There are all these sonic damage attacks we see NPCs use, but the player has no access to. Plus, there would be no overlap in theme. All new.

These are thematics, not mechanics. And yes, it would indeed be a fresh theme, almost wholly new to the franchise itself. I posit, however, that theme alone is not enough to sustain a class. I want to know what people envision a Bard doing - what is its niche in gameplay relative to other classes? What makes it unique mechanically?

- - - Updated - - -

The bard's type of spellcasting can also allow for Blizzard to do new things with spell damage, like allowing the bard spells to deal physical damage, or even make their songs into holy damage, or have them deal all sorts of different damage types (frost, shadow, holy, fire, etc).

You're really struggling to find something unique, aren't you?

Damage types mattered back during classic. Also when support was a relevant role. Both were removed as the scope of the game constricted. Damage types exist, but they don't matter. Resistances aren't a thing. Just as support abilities exist, but they don't matter since they're homogenized across all the classes.

[Swnem]

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.

The class can be called whatever Blizzard wants to call it. They originally called it Tinker.
I have seen mobs called Tinker and Tinkerer, but the most noticeable one is High-Tinker.

The hero has been called that in warcraft 3.
It's a fantasy game, not the dictionary. They can call their class what they want. If they wanted hunter to be called hunt, they could.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok about bards, i don't think they fit. We have never seen one in the middle of battle. I think that just cause some mobs use reverberating sound attacks we can't say that they fit with the traditional bard, which seems to be playing a small instrument.

There is a lot of work to be done there to make that fit. I think the existing material would result more naturally into an "instrumental tech" or something of that sort. Not so much to do with melodies, but how to use sound as a weapon.

The rock idea based on the tauren chieftains gels better. But, end of the day they are a joke. I don't think they are canon and even if they were, they don't battle with music. They are other classes playing music and i think that resumes where the idea is.

A roleplaying music instrument tool would be the best solution here. Dancing studio anyone? An evolution of that idea.

[Teriz]

This Bard discussion merely highlights why having a Warcraft hero accompanying a class concept is so important. The Warcraft hero gives you a foundation and a direction. Most importantly, it indicates what makes the class concept unique and distinctly Blizzard/Warcraft.

Without that you have.... the Bard.

[draugril]

This Bard discussion merely highlights why having a Warcraft hero accompanying a class concept is so important. The Warcraft hero gives you a foundation and a direction. Most importantly, it indicates what makes the class concept unique and distinctly Blizzard/Warcraft.

Without that you have.... The Bard.

There's a case to be made for that, sure.

I would put forth that, even more important than in-universe precedent, is ensuring that the concept is congruous with the rest of the game. Tinkers fit. Clear vision of what they are, both thematically and mechanically, and both have their place within the scope of the current game. That would still be true even if the Tinker hero unit never existed. But you can still come up with new ideas without having a strict in-universe precedent as long as they fit within the scope of the game.

It would be difficult to implement, say, LotR:O's Warden or Captain in WoW. The support and offtank roles have no place here. Thematically, both would easily segue into the WarCraft universe, even without direct precedent, but their mechanics just aren't supported by the game's structure.

[Teriz]

There's a case to be made for that, sure.

I would put forth that, even more important than in-universe precedent, is ensuring that the concept is congruous with the rest of the game. Tinkers fit. Clear vision of what they are, both thematically and mechanically, and both have their place within the scope of the current game. That would still be true even if the Tinker hero unit never existed. But you can still come up with new ideas without having a strict in-universe precedent as long as they fit within the scope of the game.

It would be difficult to implement, say, LotR:O's Warden or Captain in WoW. The support and offtank roles have no place here. Thematically, both would easily segue into the WarCraft universe, even without direct precedent, but their mechanics just aren't supported by the game's structure.

Sure, and you can still come up with new concepts even though the hero is in place. The Monk class being a prime example of this. They took the main concept of the Brewmaster and pretty much just ran with it, bringing in traditional monk and martial arts tropes. However, the Pandaren Brewmaster core of the Monk class gives a very distinct Blizzard/Warcraft flavor to the WoW Monk class that you really won't find in another game.

[razorpax]

Sure, but so could a Candlestick Maker class by that means.

What is special about this Bard class if it's just a DPS/Healer that uses musical themes? What about this concept actually satisfies someone who is looking to play an archetypical RPG Bard? It's on the level of being a Class Skin when you consider that there's nothing outstanding about this being a concept of its own; and it avoids the primary basis of most Bard archetypes - being heavily based on Support. It's a style of gameplay that just doesn't work well conceptually in WoW.

We could be talking about a DPS/Healer Candlestick Maker class who uses Candles to fight and attack. But what about this class actually embodies Candlestick making, and why even choose this theme over something more well established in the lore? Overall there isn't much of an argument here to support it, and plenty against it.


When considering why people want a Bard class, 'I want a DPS/Healer that uses music' isn't the primary reason people want to play as one. A big part of the archetype is playing a Support character with a very defined role. The more that is distanced away from, the less it can be considered a 'Bard'; rather it is a 'Musical Priest that happens to be called a Bard'.


I would liken this to the idea of giving Warlocks a melee spec and calling it a Demon Hunter. The concept is just too far removed from what people would actually want out of the full package and the class archetype. Just because giving a Warlock a 4th Demon Hunter spec CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done, right?

I love my D&D bard and enjoy the idea of buffing through music


Cutting words buffing your damage
An inspiration buff with 4 charges that does a different effect to the targets big CD orrrrr buffs the user depending on the spec

The main filler ranged ability being us swearing at the enemy

Most healing being focused on aoe and the healing mastery includes an aoe mechanic to your ST spells

Aura like buff or CD so depending on your spec it provides a large buff to you and the group and much like legion Ret the dps from the buffs go towards your numbers

[Ielenia]

Sure, but so could a Candlestick Maker class by that means.

What is special about this Bard class if it's just a DPS/Healer that uses musical themes? What about this concept actually satisfies someone who is looking to play an archetypical RPG Bard? It's on the level of being a Class Skin when you consider that there's nothing outstanding about this being a concept of its own;

You're being incredibly reductive, here. This argument of yours could be done to several of the present classes, here: "what's special about this mage class if it's just a dps that uses magic themes?"

and it avoids the primary basis of most Bard archetypes - being heavily based on Support. It's a style of gameplay that just doesn't work well conceptually in WoW.

It doesn't stop Blizzard from adding a bard class that can still buff their allies as a healer without being "support class". It doesn't stop Blizzard from adding a bard class that can still debuff their foes as a DPS without being a "support class".

- - - Updated - - -

Just as a Warrior could heal with axes.

This is absurd example, since there is no such thing as "healing by hitting with melee weapons".

You can refuse to acknowledge the legacy of the class in the role-playing world.

But I'm not. I'm simply choosing to not reduce the entire concept to that one single characteristic.

You can make a musical class in WoW. You can ever call it a Bard. But it will be a Bard in name alone,

And that is your opinion, not fact.

And as stated before, I would rather have classes implemented that can fully capitalize on all features of a new class: a fresh theme, unique mechanics, and honouring the franchise's history. Death Knight did that. Demon Hunter did that. Monk (to a lesser degree) did that.

And the bard can bring a fresh theme, unique mechanics, and honor the franchise's history.

They will not bring unique mechanics:

How do you know? Have you seen into the future? Have you spoken to all the WoW developers and they told you that there is no way at all that a bard class could have unique mechanics? I can come up with one new mechanic off the top of my head: chords. They would work exactly like the game Magicka: you have chords that, by themselves, do nothing. But if you cast the chords in specific orders, you get different effects.

You're really struggling to find something unique, aren't you?

Nope.

Damage types mattered back during classic.

So you're saying a spellcaster that does physical damage wouldn't be something different?

Damage types exist, but they don't matter.

They do. Interrupt a mage's frostbolt, and all their frost-damage spells are gone for a few seconds, while their arcane and fire spells can still be used.

- - - Updated - - -

This Bard discussion merely highlights why having a Warcraft hero accompanying a class concept is so important.

It's not, and it doesn't.

[Triceron]

You're being incredibly reductive, here. This argument of yours could be done to several of the present classes, here: "what's special about this mage class if it's just a dps that uses magic themes?"

Yes, you are correct.

And some of these classes actually *wouldn't* pass the test of being added in Modern design. Some classes we have are absolutely there because certain roles and archetypes needed to be filled, and were necessary to provide a broad range of gameplay.

Modern design has since homogenized the specs, roles and gameplay into a very focused system. What we consider today is *absolutely* reductive, to the point where any new class needs to consider the needs of a modern class. Is it just enough to add an X themed class because we don't yet have X theme? No, people *expect* more than just a theme.

Heck, if it were possible, I'm sure they would completely do away with the Class/Spec system and retool it in a way that is more appropriate to fulfilling Class Identities; such as not requiring classes to have 3 specs or broadening the scope of some like Priests to be able to fulfill Witchdoctor and Battle Medic fantasies; while others like Rogues or Hunters could do well enough with just 2 really solid specs. I think a lot of Modern class design is limited by the precedent set back in 2004; and the bandaid system we have today limits simply adding niche Core Classes to the game today like Witchdoctors or Bards.

It doesn't stop Blizzard from adding a bard class that can still buff their allies as a healer without being "support class". It doesn't stop Blizzard from adding a bard class that can still debuff their foes as a DPS without being a "support class".

Sure, but it doesn't mean it's a sensible idea either. You aren't convincing me that a Bard would fit as a WoW class just by saying Blizzard could do it. I'm not making an argument that BLizzard couldn't, my argument is that based on the Modern design, they wouldn't.

Blizzard could open up a Support role in the game too, Blizzard CAN do it. But how likely do you think it would be?

I'd say if we were talking about WoW circa 2004, Bard would be very possible. WoW 2021+? I'd have to be convinced.

[Ielenia]

And some of these classes actually *wouldn't* pass the test of being added in Modern design.

"Modern classes" wouldn't fare much better, really:
"What's special about this monk class if it's just a dps that uses martial arts themes?"
"What's special about this demon hunter class if it's just a dps that uses demon themes?"

Sure, but it doesn't mean it's a sensible idea either. You aren't convincing me that a Bard would fit as a WoW class just by saying Blizzard could do it.

But I'm not just "saying Blizzard can do it". I've given examples of how a bard class can work in WoW's "holy trinity" class system.

I'm not making an argument that BLizzard couldn't, my argument is that based on the Modern design, they wouldn't.

I don't think you know what the "modern design rules" are. You are only seeing some of their results.

[Triceron]

"Modern classes" wouldn't fare much better, really:
"What's special about this monk class if it's just a dps that uses martial arts themes?"
"What's special about this demon hunter class if it's just a dps that uses demon themes?"

What's special about them? They were in demand enough to be featured and help boost sales of WoW.

Fact is, that is the main reason any class would get added to the game. Not because of gameplay, not because of lore. Because it would help drive sales

Where does Bard fit into this. Would a Holy Trinity based Bard class that doesn't really have a Support role fulfill a demand and move sales? Highly doubtful. Bards aren't considered a significant part of the Warcraft universe.

But I'm not just "saying Blizzard can do it". I've given examples of how a bard class can work in WoW's "holy trinity" class system..

Which is supposed to now convince me that the idea works because you say it does?

Consider the Warlock 4th spec Demon Hunter example one more time. Would this satisfy a Demon Hunter fan? No, it would not. It fails to meet the expectations, and would be a _bad_ PR move for thr expansion that decides to add Demon Hunters as a 4th Warlock spec.

I'm not looking for examples of how it would work when the problem is how the entire premise completely misses the point of a Bard class.

That you think it works would be the same as someone who thinks Warlock 4th spec would be fine to represent DH. It would work for a tiny minority of people, while the majority who have expectations of what this class should be are left scratching their head.

[Unbelievable]

I think I can agree with this. I was just trying to put a spin on the lore to make more sense of it, at least in my mind




The Marvel examples are just my way of explaining it in laymans terms. In terms of actual lore, everything is already there and all I've done is string together different plot elements.

- The Guardians of Tirisfal were Mortals that were able to channel the collective powers of entire groups of Magi. They used this power to fight external threats to the world.
- A Guardian's powers and title can be passed down/transferred
- The Dragon Soul/Demon Soul was an artifact that contained the powers of 4 Dragonflights. This was the 'One Ring' of Warcraft.
- Mortals like Nekros and Thrall were able to use the power of the Dragon Soul. Thrall was even a fan front-runner to become Aspect of the Earth.
- Dragon Souls can be imbued in artifacts in the lore. Eranikus' soul is already in a Gem trinket, Tarecgosa is already bound in Dragonwrath legendary staff
- Wrathion's sole motivation is to protect Azeroth, and he's a 'any means necessary' sort of guy

As for the Dragonsworn lore that you're pulling from, unfortunately it's from the Pen and Paper RPGs that are not truly canonized. I think it's also considered a Prestige class in the RPG, design as a 'Class enhancement' that lets your core RPG class have Dragon breath attacks and stuff like that. I don't have Dark Factions with me right now to confirm.



I agree here. The other possibility could be to make Covenants out of the Dragonflights and just treat it all like Shadowlands. I can totally see Blizzard doing this too if they deem the Covenant system successful enough.

Yes but, why be a "Guardian of Tirisfal" or possess an immensely powerful artifact, when you can be blessed by the dragon aspects themselves after passing some trials?

I can see the guardian being a title and an artifact complementing your abilities. I don't know if it should be part of what defines you as a dragonsworn (again, all players being the ultimate guardian and possessing an overpowered artifact).

He and I are very much not the same person if that's what you are thinking. We've had long disagreements on how Tinkers would be implemented for example (limited races vs. most races, how specs would look, etc).

Beyond that though, I had not realized you were in that post trying to tie Priestess of the Moon & Sea Witch in for a full class. Those just looked like sample class ideas, especially with Warden shown right below them. Thinking on them, I'm not really sure I see any sort of connecting thread between the three, especially Sea Witch. Even Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon/Night Warrior feel very different within their source of power (Shadow vs. Elune). I'm still not sure what that would actually be class-wise with those three specs together. Tinker specs all have a common thread (Mechanization), Dragonsworn have a common thread (Dragonflights)...I'm not sure I see that common thread with your three specs.

The Ranger, of course. All three use bows and magical arrows in WC3:

"Rangers were eventually cancelled as a hero unit. Most of their abilities were given to the Priestess of the Moon instead, and their model was reused for the in-game appearances of Sylvanas Windrunner and Jennalla Deemspring. Shandris Feathermoon uses a night elf version of the Ranger. When the The Frozen Throne expansion was released, Cold Arrows was given to Naga Sea Witches, renamed to Frost Arrows and given a new icon."

Nope. Again in the case of Hunters versus Tinkers, it’s hand thrown versus launched by vehicle. Warlocks and Demon Hunters really have nothing to do with that comparison.



All of that is rather irrelevant. The point is that Vulpera are the most popular allied race, and its inclusion into the Tinker class continues the concept of smaller races using tech, and helps offset any “popularity issues.



Blizzard would simply adopt a claw pack design for a given race, much like Druid forms. Same abilities, different claw pack and mech for each race.

Listen. you can't apply real-life physics here because that would make the Hunter extremely underpowered compared to the Tinker. Shooting arrows or bullets? underpowered to a Tinker's explosives. sending your pet? underpowered against a Tinker's explosives. using traps and fighting with a spear? underpowered against a Tinker's explosives. using explosives? underpowered against the Tinker's explosives (according to you). The Hunter would have disadvantages in all aspects against the Tinker. That would cause balance issues and make the Hunter uncompetitive against other classes. The good thing is, this is a game. Therefore, the Hunter can compete with other classes, like the Mage or the Death Knight, because real-life power relations don't apply here. I'll give you an example:
In lore, Fel is stronger than Arcane. You can see it in the case of Sargeras vs the Pantheon and when Illidan fights the demonic invasion as a sorcerer. The thing is, it isn't applied in game, because, otherwise, the Mage wouldn't be able to compete against the Warlock and the Demon Hunter.
The fact that you can apply poisons, diseases, curses and bleed effects to mechanicals, and that you are slashing at a dragon's fingernails just comes to show you how real life logic isn't translated to the game.

The most popular allied race, according to what?
Small races using tech? would you say the Gilgoblins, Grummles, Kobolds, Sand Gnomes, Murloc, Podling, Fungarian, Grell, Goren, Ranishu, Sporeling, Virmen, Dredger, Faerie and Spriggan use tech, if they were ever playable?

And what, exactly, is limiting, size-wise, about a claw pack?

How exactly?

The music and sound theme no class has in game, maybe?

Howso, aside from the musical theme?

See answer above.

What makes “sonic damage” or sonic magic any different from other forms of magic?

That's like asking how would a Tinker's explosives be any different to a Hunter's explosives.

You're actually supporting his argument though.

Yes, a Bard concept can be made into a playable class within the Holy Trinity. But by that very logic, so could a Butcher class, or a Baker class, or a Candlestick Maker class. We're talking about taking the things that make a Bard class stand out iconic (in RPGs) and homogenizing it back into a shell of that identity in order to fit WoW.

The only important aspect of it would be the Music theme, and frankly that theme alone isn't really strong enough to make a convincing argument that it would be worth creating a WoW class out of; any more than we could be talking about Butchers Bakers and Candlestick Makers.

And let's be real here, Blizzard could absolutely make a Butcher or Candlestick Maker class. I don't think the argument of 'CAN it be made' is really what important at all. We can have a Candlestick Maker class, but it doesn't mean we should.

Can you see a baker class throwing pies at the enemy? a Butcher would behave like the Diablo one, i guess, which is no different to a Warrior. and a Candlestick maker - how much can you do with a candle?

"Murmur was so powerful that its entrance into existence shattered all reality around it. Mindless and existing only for chaos, its barest whisper was enough to destroy entire worlds". - I don't think food and candles can do such damage.

You gotta come up with better comparisons.

Dark Ranger by itself never much appealed to me because it didn't seem interesting enough by itself (subjective), but I think Priestess of Elune and Sea Witch as other specs for this new kind of magical archer archetype would be a lot more interesting than just Dark Ranger by itself. I could get on board with that, I think.

Good to hear.

I could be wrong, though, about the Sea Witch. Raising Dark Wardens in Darkshore might be an attempt to bring the concept closer to a Dark Ranger.

This Bard discussion merely highlights why having a Warcraft hero accompanying a class concept is so important. The Warcraft hero gives you a foundation and a direction. Most importantly, it indicates what makes the class concept unique and distinctly Blizzard/Warcraft.

Without that you have.... the Bard.

You mean like how the Dragonsworn has no Hero, no lore outside the RPG, and the abilities are drawn from Heroes of the Storm's dragon aspects, like how a Bard would take inspiration from E.T.C and Lucio?

Sure, but so could a Candlestick Maker class by that means.

What is special about this Bard class if it's just a DPS/Healer that uses musical themes? What about this concept actually satisfies someone who is looking to play an archetypical RPG Bard? It's on the level of being a Class Skin when you consider that there's nothing outstanding about this being a concept of its own; and it avoids the primary basis of most Bard archetypes - being heavily based on Support. It's a style of gameplay that just doesn't work well conceptually in WoW.

We could be talking about a DPS/Healer Candlestick Maker class who uses Candles to fight and attack. But what about this class actually embodies Candlestick making, and why even choose this theme over something more well established in the lore? Overall there isn't much of an argument here to support it, and plenty against it.


When considering why people want a Bard class, 'I want a DPS/Healer that uses music' isn't the primary reason people want to play as one. A big part of the archetype is playing a Support character with a very defined role. The more that is distanced away from, the less it can be considered a 'Bard'; rather it is a 'Musical Priest that happens to be called a Bard'.


I would liken this to the idea of giving Warlocks a melee spec and calling it a Demon Hunter. The concept is just too far removed from what people would actually want out of the full package and the class archetype. Just because giving a Warlock a 4th Demon Hunter spec CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done, right?

Sound can:
Heal (as in the case of Divine Hymn)
Buff (as in the case of the Bard being a support class)
Shield (if it can produce some kind of a sound barrier)
Crowd Control - fear (creepy sounds), stun/incapacitate (loud sounds), charm (enchanting music), snare (sound waves), mind control (the piper of hameline), Interrupt/silence (loud sounds/sound waves).
Damage - as in the case of Murmur's abilities.

What else do you want?

At the end of the day, i'm not an official Bard advocate. I'm not saying saying it is enough for a class. it might be enough for a spec, a profession or a class skin.

What i am saying is that the Music and Sound themes are unique in the Warcraft universe, as no one, hardly, ever uses them. That's why having a Sound Elemental, like Murmur, is so unique, because we haven't seen much of that side in the Elementals of WoW. Could a Shaman delve into a 5th element? could be...and it is intriguing as hell.

Just as a Warrior could heal with axes.

Sounds painful and unrealistic. Cauterize would have been a better example.

[Teriz]

Listen. you can't apply real-life physics here because that would make the Hunter extremely underpowered compared to the Tinker. Shooting arrows or bullets? underpowered to a Tinker's explosives. sending your pet? underpowered against a Tinker's explosives. using traps and fighting with a spear? underpowered against a Tinker's explosives. using explosives? underpowered against the Tinker's explosives (according to you). The Hunter would have disadvantages in all aspects against the Tinker. That would cause balance issues and make the Hunter uncompetitive against other classes. The good thing is, this is a game. Therefore, the Hunter can compete with other classes, like the Mage or the Death Knight, because real-life power relations don't apply here. I'll give you an example:
In lore, Fel is stronger than Arcane. You can see it in the case of Sargeras vs the Pantheon and when Illidan fights the demonic invasion as a sorcerer. The thing is, it isn't applied in game, because, otherwise, the Mage wouldn't be able to compete against the Warlock and the Demon Hunter.

Yeah you're missing the point (again). The point is that the majority of the Hunter's damage comes from arrows/bullets, and animal attacks. In the case of survival the majority of the damage comes from coordinated attacks with the pet and swings of their melee weapons. Explosives make up a smaller portion of their overall damage.

A Tinker on the other hand would probably have the majority of damage coming from explosives.

The most popular allied race, according to what?

And what, exactly, is limiting, size-wise, about a claw pack?

If a character is large, that means the claw pack would also be large. Look at the pack in comparison to a Goblin;



Now imagine something like that with a Draenei.

The music and sound theme no class has in game, maybe?

Warriors have shouts, Priests have Hymns and Words, multiple classes have sound-based buffs and abilities (Horn of Winter, Song of Chi ji, Bloody Screech, etc.). I mean you could combine all of that into one class, but what exactly would it do that's different than an existing class? Would is sing a song and shoot a fireball? That's no different than a mage saying an incantation and shooting a fireball.

That's like asking how would a Tinker's explosives be any different to a Hunter's explsives.

I've already explained that though; A Tinker is launching explosives from a mech. The Hunter is mainly tossing a small explosive with their hands, or shooting it from a musket or a bow and arrow.

You mean like how the Dragonsworn has no Hero

Wrathion.

no lore outside the RPG

We have examples of Dragons using mortal disguises.

and the abilities are drawn from Heroes of the Storm's dragon aspects, like how a Bard would take inspiration from E.T.C and Lucio?

Except Chromie, Deathwing, and Alexstraza are all from Warcraft and not joke characters. Lucio is from Overwatch, and the ETC is a massive joke character. Literally the Warrior healing with axes that @draugril was talking about.

Heal (as in the case of Divine Hymn or Holy Word: Salvation or Holy Word: Serenity)
Buff (as in the case of Power Word: Fortitude)
Shield (as in the case of Power Word: Barrier or Power Word: Shield or Holy Word: Concentration)
Crowd Control - fear (Psychic Scream), stun/incapacitate (Holy Word: Chastise), charm (Dominate Mind), mind control (Mind Control), Interrupt/silence (Silence).
Damage - as in the case of Shadow Word: Pain or Shadow Word: Death or Power Word: Solace.

Sounds like a Priest to me.

[Ielenia]

What's special about them? They were in demand enough to be featured and help boost sales of WoW.

I know demon hunters were in demand, but... was the monk class ever in demand? I don't remember ever seeing the class even show up on potential class polls.

Where does Bard fit into this. Would a Holy Trinity based Bard class that doesn't really have a Support role fulfill a demand and move sales? Highly doubtful. Bards aren't considered a significant part of the Warcraft universe.

That's the same case of the monk class. Monks (the asian style the class is based on) was never considered a "significant part of the Warcraft universe", or even "a part" of it.

I'm not looking for examples of how it would work when the problem is how the entire premise completely misses the point of a Bard class.

It doesn't. The bard fantasy is a traveling minstrel, jack-of-all-trades spellcaster who can affect allies and foes alike with the magic of their songs.

That you think it works would be the same as someone who thinks Warlock 4th spec would be fine to represent DH.

No. No, it's not. Because putting a class concept as just a single extra spec for an already existing class completely nullifies the idea of the fantasy. Using your example, warlocks are not a dual-wielding melee class and night elves can't be warlocks. On top of that, all NPCs lines and quest texts that address you by your class would call you "warlock" instead of "demon hunter", further nullifying the fantasy.

[Unbelievable]

Yeah you're missing the point (again). The point is that the majority of the Hunter's damage comes from arrows/bullets, and animal attacks. In the case of survival the majority of the damage comes from coordinated attacks with the pet and swings of their melee weapons. Explosives make up a smaller portion of their overall damage.

A Tinker on the other hand would probably have the majority of damage coming from explosives.







If a character is large, that means the claw pack would also be large. Look at the pack in comparison to a Goblin;



Now imagine something like that with a Draenei.



Warriors have shouts, Priests have Hymns and Words, multiple classes have sound-based buffs and abilities (Horn of Winter, Song of Chi ji, Bloody Screech, etc.). I mean you could combine all of that into one class, but what exactly would it do that's different than an existing class? Would is sing a song and shoot a fireball? That's no different than a mage saying an incantation and shooting a fireball.



I've already explained that though; A Tinker is launching explosives from a mech. The Hunter is mainly tossing a small explosive with their hands, or shooting it from a musket or a bow and arrow.



Wrathion.



We have examples of Dragons using mortal disguises.



Except Chromie, Deathwing, and Alexstraza are all from Warcraft and not joke characters. Lucio is from Overwatch, and the ETC is a massive joke character. Literally the Warrior healing with axes that @draugril was talking about.



Sounds like a Priest to me.

The amount of explosive abilities is not relevant to the discussion we had.

And, that graph is from when and where?

You forget Tauren and mounts.

Why would a Bard shoot fireballs?
It's using instruments.

And, unlike a spellcaster, a Bard's "magic" would be from an instrument.

Warthion is no Dragonsworn. He is a dragon.

Dragons using mortal disguises isn't a dragonsworn. A dragonsworn is a mortal who swears allegiance to a dragonflight and is, supposedly, given power and knowledge.

I didn't mean directly copy their abilities. Just inspiration on how a Bard class would, probably, play out like.

Words and mind manipulation is no music (or, hardly, sound). Your attempt at diminishing the class to, simply, a priest is a known tactic of yours and it does not work.

Clearly, you are unaware of thematic overlap between classes and what a Bard, actually, is (I'll let you in on a secret - it is no Priest).

[Triceron]

Sound can:
Heal (as in the case of Divine Hymn)
Buff (as in the case of the Bard being a support class)
Shield (if it can produce some kind of a sound barrier)
Crowd Control - fear (creepy sounds), stun/incapacitate (loud sounds), charm (enchanting music), snare (sound waves), mind control (the piper of hameline), Interrupt/silence (loud sounds/sound waves).
Damage - as in the case of Murmur's abilities.

What else do you want?

A cohesive class identity that properly represents a Bard class, which none of these disconnected ideas satisfy.

Consider that I could list out a dozen ways that Warlocks can become Demon Hunters through a 4th spec, and it would not properly represent a Demon Hunter. That is what I see for a Bard. The issue here is that the modern class design that WoW is based on doesn't lend itself to a Bard much more than simply being a 'Musical themed Priest'.

Everything here is Priest gameplay with a music theme. Why not make it a Class Skin instead, which would be a much more fitting idea based on the very concepts you've listed here

[Teriz]

The amount of explosive abilities is not relevant to the discussion we had.

If one class has several explosives and another has very few and instead has mainly arrow abilities, it's clear what the focus of those classes are.

And, that graph is from when and where?

You can do a reverse google search and find out.

You forget Tauren and mounts.

Yeah, a Draenei with a claw pack (or a mech) would be larger than a tauren. Also you can't use mounts in enclosed places. A Tinker would need to be able to use the claw pack or the mech in an enclosed space.

And, unlike a spellcaster, a Bard's "magic" would be from an instrument.

So what's the difference between a Bard blowing a horn and buffing someone, and a Death Knight blowing a horn (Horn of Winter) and buffing someone?

Warthion is no Dragonsworn. He is a dragon.

Dragons using mortal disguises isn't a dragonsworn. A dragonsworn is a mortal who swears allegiance to a dragonflight and is, supposedly, given power and knowledge.

That's the general direction we're going with though, because that's really the only way the class makes sense.

I didn't mean directly copy their abilities. Just inspiration on how a Bard class would, probably, play out like.

Words and mind manipulation is no music (or, hardly, sound). Your attempt at diminishing the class to, simply, a priest is a known tactic of yours and it does not work.

Words are common Bard abilities in D&D. Here you have a class loaded with Word spells a Hymn, and a Scream. To top it off, Priests are a support class. What's the problem?

Since we don't have a Warcraft hero to base a Bard on, it's quite possible that they purposely placed Bard concepts into the Priest class.