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

[username993720]

Well if its only for the title "ranger", we also have the Draneai, the Pandaren and it can be debated, that the Gnomes also have rangers.

Note: I guess the Zandalari, though they normally use spears

I'm aware of it.

Gnomes seem to be more technological, rather than traditional rangers.
And Zandalari seem to be spear users, like headhunters, rather than bow users.

Why not? It uses runeblades and runes, and generates runic power. How are DKs NOT runemasters?

One, there are several different types of runes.
Two, Runemasters do not use Runeblades.
It's one aspect out of two. The other being Monk (martial arts).
You can see that Mages, also, use Runes. Blood elves, Vrykul, and many other races employ it in their cultures. Nothing, really, too specific to Death Knights. It doesn't even say Runemasters use Domination type of runes.

[Teriz]

One, there are several different types of runes.

There's also different types of Druid forms beyond Cat, Bear, Moonkin, and Tree. Doesn't mean we're not playing as Druids.

Two, Runemasters do not use Runeblades.

Where is this stated?

It's one aspect out of two. The other being Monk (martial arts).

From a non-canon source.

You can see that Mages, also, use Runes. Blood elves, Vrykul, and many other races employ it in their cultures. Nothing, really, too specific to Death Knights. It doesn't even say Runemasters use Domination type of runes.

Races using Runes is irrelevant when we're talking about classes. The mage class doesn't use Runes to the extent that DKs do. DKs use runes extensively in multiple forms. I'm not seeing how they can't be considered runemasters. They should be considered such based on their resource alone.

[razorpax]

There's also different types of Druid forms beyond Cat, Bear, Moonkin, and Tree. Doesn't mean we're not playing as Druids.



Where is this stated?



From a non-canon source.



Races using Runes is irrelevant when we're talking about classes. The mage class doesn't use Runes to the extent that DKs do. DKs use runes extensively in multiple forms. I'm not seeing how they can't be considered runemasters. They should be considered such based on their resource alone.

DK uses them more than mages but DH uses them more than both so....illidan rune master??

[Teriz]

DK uses them more than mages but DH uses them more than both so....illidan rune master??

What are some rune-based DH abilities? Keep in mind, DKs use runes and runic power as a resource. That's pretty extensive in of itself. Not to mention the multiple runes they affix to their weapons, rune forging, and their rune-based abilities.

But yeah, what runic abilities are DHs utilizing?

[username993720]

There's also different types of Druid forms beyond Cat, Bear, Moonkin, and Tree. Doesn't mean we're not playing as Druids.

Not the same thing, i'm afraid.
As you can see, not all Runes belong to the Death Knight (see: Rune of Power). Doesn't make the Mage a Death Knight.

Where is this stated?

Let's not be naive.
That would be like asking you to provide me with a source that states that Death Knights do not use martial arts.

From a non-canon source.

No, actually. We know they integrated it into the Monk.

Races using Runes is irrelevant when we're talking about classes. The mage class doesn't use Runes to the extent that DKs do. DKs use runes extensively in multiple forms. I'm not seeing how they can't be considered runemasters. They should be considered such based on their resource alone.

That's because you're oblivious to lore and only see what's infront of you.

"Runic magic is a magic that employs runes/sigils, symbols that hold magical power. Types of magic that runes can access include light, void, fel, arcane, and death."

We know that Demon Hunters use sigils and that Death Knight do not use light, void, fel or arcane in their spells.

"The Warlock sect demands payment in precious metals for any services they may offer, as it is then converted into the mystic symbols used in their castings. Metal cages in which to place the subjects of the Warlocks' experiments must be constructed, as well as the ornate metal runes that need to be built into the stone floors for the Warlocks' spells of summoning."

"The casting of ancient and powerful Runes enables the Ogre-Mage to lay an abstruse trap for those hapless enough to enter into it. When these Runes explode, they cause massive damage to anyone standing over them as well as all those in adjacent areas. Those who are diligent and watchful will catch a glimpse of the Rune as they approach it. The chaotic forces that make up this enchantment can not discern between ally or enemy and will kill a friend as surely as a foe. Heed these warnings well, as even staying near these Runes can be hazardous - for when the dwoemer dissolves, they explode as if their magiks had been triggered."

"Runes feature in the Inscription profession".

"The Shadowmoon clan uses runes for protecting the Shadowmoon Burial Grounds. Shadowmoon runecarvers were notable, responsible for the runes used by the clan. Runes were inscribed on the flesh of the Shadowmoon clan in order to more clearly speak to their ancestors and the elements. The Kirin Tor seem to use runes, as an incarceration rune was used on Garona."

"The Highborne used spell runes, and the scholars of Nar'thalas Academy in Azsuna were renowned for their knowledge on them. The Legion used runes to corrupt the land with fel energy. The Army of the Light use [Lightbound Runestone] to transport their troops to distant worlds."

"The Drust and their offshoot the Thornspeakers use runes for empowerment, protection, and as tools. The Tidesages use runes for controlling machines, and for protecting their ships into dangerous territory like Fate's End."

"Warlocks use runic symbols in their summoning circles. The key to binding a wrathguard is to reduce the number of runic symbols used in the summoning circle".

What are some rune-based DH abilities? Keep in mind, DKs use runes and runic power as a resource. That's pretty extensive in of itself. Not to mention the multiple runes they affix to their weapons, rune forging, and their rune-based abilities.

But yeah, what runic abilities are DHs utilizing?

Sigil of Misery
30 yd range
Instant 3 min cooldown
Requires Demon Hunter (Vengeance)
Place a Sigil of Misery at the target location that activates after 2 sec.

Causes all enemies affected by the sigil to cower in fear, disorienting them for 20 sec.

Sigil of Flame
30 yd range
Instant 30 sec cooldown
Requires Demon Hunter (Vengeance)
Requires level 12
Place a Sigil of Flame at the target location that activates after 2 sec.

Deals (11.5% of Attack power) Fire damage

Vengeance (Level 22)
and an additional (28.38% of Attack power) Fire damage over 6 sec

to all enemies affected by the sigil.

Sigil of Silence
30 yd range
Instant 2 min cooldown
Requires Demon Hunter (Vengeance)
Requires level 39
Place a Sigil of Silence at the target location that activates after 2 sec.

Silences all enemies affected by the sigil for 6 sec.

Sigil of Chains
Talent
30 yd range
Instant 1.5 min cooldown
Requires Demon Hunter (Vengeance)
Requires level 40
Place a Sigil of Chains at the target location that activates after 2 sec.

All enemies affected by the sigil are pulled to its center and are snared, reducing movement speed by 70% for 6 sec.

[FossilFree]

I'll never understand the desire for a Bard class in WoW. There's no point to it from a gameplay or lore perspective. It's quite telling that in the history of Warcraft, there has never been a Bard class or Bard hero. There wasn't even a Bard unit in any WC game.

And before you trot out the Kodo Rider, I mean a unit actually called Bard.

It's very pedantic to get hung up on the name "bard," especially when I called them wardrummers (which is the name for them in Legion and BFA).

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/War_Drummer

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=126907/wardrummer-zurula

Here is a class with WC3 lore that hasn't been fully realized in playable form. It is the perfect class addition, and fits the theme of warcraft as these drummers drum the rhythm of battle. It thematically fits the game even better than a traditional bard class does (like the ones in Everquest or Final Fantasy 14), because it can apply to savage races like orcs without clashing with their aesthetic.

[Ielenia]

I'm talking about the five base (generic) RPG classes;

Fighter/Warrior, Thief/Rogue, Archer/Hunter, Wizard/Mage, Cleric/Priest

Bards are also part of the "base (generic) RPG classes" as you call them. They're present in D&D, arguably THE most famous TTRPG, have been present in many other games like Final Fantasy XIV, Ragnarok Online, Everquest, etc.

A prominent hero character would be a good first step.

Not really, as the runemaster concept has shown.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not.
You're just accusing without backing your arguments or suggesting an alternative.

It's not without evidence. You are constantly trying to create arbitrary differences between "expansion classes" and "vanilla classes" that are, as I pointed out multiple times, just subjective. Blizzard has never made that distinction, and yet you claim there is one. Because you want to there be one so your arguments don't fall over.

Not at all. You're nitpicking. Calling it a different concept would imply of it not being a Demon Hunter.

I literally explained how the concepts are different.

Go ahead. Find a general method that works.

How about watch what Blizzard is doing right now with the game, which characters and concepts are they adding? Like how Shadowlands literally has expanded the idea that music on its own can have magical power?

Which is from the Pandaren Brewmaster Hero unit and other non-canon Pandaren sources.

Mostly the sources outside Warcraft, really.

The Pandaren RPG does, though.

Being chinese themed does not mean "martial arts monk."

I meant that they, already, had a notion of a Pandaren and Monk prior to Mists of Pandaria. They didn't need to draw from outside sources of Pandas using martial arts.

Again, not really. They had the pandaren, and had this idea that the pandaren are about ales and are Chinese-themed. More than that, came from outside sources.

We'll have to ask ourselves to what stage did it get in the development process.

We don't have to, because Blizzard themselves told us: "the runemaster was one of the three runner-ups" means that the runemaster made it up until the point where they decide which concept to realize into an actual class in the game.

Of course they are. Indirectly.
Because Blizzard, already had pandas and martial arts in their lore that was based upon that. No need to draw from it once again to create the Monk class. Supplement - yes. Base - no

But the majority of the class' concept has been taken from outside sources. The basis of the class itself (the 'monk') is also sourced from outside Warcraft since the franchise did not have oriental style monk characters.

You're right about that.
Though, it seems Prince Renathal has made a connection with Z'rali.

No, he hasn't. All they have argued about is that Z'rali is now the jailer of Sire Denathrius. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Teriz]

Not the same thing, i'm afraid.
As you can see, not all Runes belong to the Death Knight (see: Rune of Power). Doesn't make the Mage a Death Knight.

I never said they did. I’m saying that DKs use runes and runic magic more extensively than any other class. It’s a major theme within their concept.

Let's not be naive.
That would be like asking you to provide me with a source that states that Death Knights do not use martial arts.

No one is arguing that Death Knights use martial arts, however you’re arguing that Runemasters don’t use blades. Where’s your evidence?

No, actually. We know they integrated it into the Monk.

What Runemaster abilities were placed into the Monk class?

That's because you're oblivious to lore and only see what's infront of you.

"Runic magic is a magic that employs runes/sigils, symbols that hold magical power. Types of magic that runes can access include light, void, fel, arcane, and death."

Sigils are not the same as runes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aminoap...1mwbBKnRrebdBR

- - - Updated - - -

Bards are also part of the "base (generic) RPG classes" as you call them. They're present in D&D, arguably THE most famous TTRPG, have been present in many other games like Final Fantasy XIV, Ragnarok Online, Everquest, etc.

I’m talking about the original RPG classes. In many games, Bards are offshoots of Thieves or Archers. Considering that Bards are found in the Rogue class hall, that’s more than likely the case for WoW as well.

Not really, as the runemaster concept has shown.

What Runemaster concept?

[Ielenia]

I’m talking about the original RPG classes. In many games, Bards are offshoots of Thieves or Archers. Considering that Bards are found in the Rogue class hall, that’s more than likely the case for WoW as well.

Again, bard is one of the "original RPG classes". D&D is almost as old as it gets and it's one of its core classes. And bards showing up in the rogue class hall doesn't mean anything, considering that bards are not a playable class currently, so they have no class hall of their own. Remember I pointed out tinkers (gnomes skilled enough in technology to build sentient robots) in the hunter class hall.

What Runemaster concept?

The one that almost made the cut for the Wrath's expansion class.

[Imperator4321]

What Runemaster concept?

The one that existed in the TTRPG (monk-like fighter who empowered themselves with runes), released 4 years before Wrath of the Lich King gave the Death Knight any rune-based abilties of any degree of significance, the Runemaster that also happens to be pretty similar to what Blizzard conceptualized for Wrath of the Lich King before it was "absorbed" into the eventual Death Knight Class.

The RPG books are non-canon now (it was in 2011 that they were declared non-canon), but everything in them as they were released was approved and known by Blizzard. It's not hard to imagine they saw the Runemaster class that existed in the TTRPG and considered it's implimentmented as a WoW Class since the Monk and Death Knight class didn't exist then.

Is the idea really incomprehensible that they could take inspiration from the TTRPG?

You can listen to the Blizzcast right here (around 2:50) Kaplan says "think rogue or monk type character" when talking about the Runemaster, the TTRPG runemaster has fantasy monk staples like Flurry of Blows and lack of armor, their abilties to inscribe runes on themselves for effects sounds like what the runeforging mechanic DK's got (abiet with weapons).

We have others developers talking about how the Runemaster was considered for classic, Jeff Bell, John Staats, Kevin Jordan, Bo Bell, Alexander Brazie are all of these developers lying just to obfuscate their class selection process and pretend the only concepts that consider for classes are WC3 hero units?

"Necromancer, Runemaster and Death Knight - all got rolled together into DK." - Alexander Brazie

"Several classes were scrapped early. The one big one that broke my heart was the Runemaster. " - Bo Bell

"After we had the basics covered, we also wanted to have a freak class that was unusual and different from the standard RPG tropes. It came down to two choices. The Warlock and the Runemaster. Warlock KO'd Runemaster! :P" - Kevin Jordan

some of them are former devs at the time they stated these, they have no interest in protecting Blizzards class selection or design process

[Teriz]

Again, bard is one of the "original RPG classes". D&D is almost as old as it gets and it's one of its core classes. And bards showing up in the rogue class hall doesn't mean anything, considering that bards are not a playable class currently, so they have no class hall of their own. Remember I pointed out tinkers (gnomes skilled enough in technology to build sentient robots) in the hunter class hall.

Original Dungeons & Dragons[edit]
In the original Dungeons & Dragons boxed set, there were only three main classes: the Cleric, the Fighting man, and the Magic-User. The first supplement, Greyhawk, added the Thief as a fourth main class, as well as the Paladin as a Fighting Man subclass. These four fantasy gaming archetypes represent four major tactical roles in play: the Fighter offers direct combat strength and durability; the Thief offers cunning and stealth; the Cleric provides support in both combat and magic; and the Magic-User has a variety of magical powers. In many ways, other classes are thought of as alternatives that refine or combine these functions. Dwarves and Halflings were restricted to the Fighting Man class, and Elves were restricted to the Fighting Man and Magic-User classes; all three non-human races had limited level advancement.

The Bard came after that, and was more of a prestige class.

In any case, there's next to zero basis for a Bard class in WoW. Blizzard has made sure of that.

The one that almost made the cut for the Wrath's expansion class.

Cool. Describe it to me.

- - - Updated - - -

The one that existed in the TTRPG (monk-like fighter who empowered themselves with runes), released 4 years before Wrath of the Lich King gave the Death Knight any rune-based abilties of any degree of significance, the Runemaster that also happens to be pretty similar to what Blizzard conceptualized for Wrath of the Lich King before it was "absorbed" into the eventual Death Knight Class.

If Blizzard intended to create a Runemaster WoW class with Monk like abilities, why have we never seen such a character in WoW? WoW Runemasters are more along the lines of spell casters than hand to hand fighters.

Is the idea really incomprehensible that they could take inspiration from the TTRPG?

It would be more believable if the concept wasn't so far outside of WoW's actual expansion classes. The DK, Monk, and DH all have similar pedigree, and that pedigree is far different than the Runemaster from the TTRPG.

You can listen to the Blizzcast right here (around 2:50) Kaplan says "think rogue or monk type character" when talking about the Runemaster, the TTRPG runemaster has fantasy monk staples like Flurry of Blows and lack of armor, their abilties to inscribe runes on themselves for effects sounds like what the runeforging mechanic DK's got (abiet with weapons).

Yeah, I simply don't buy any of that. Like I said, it's awfully convenient that the Death Knight already had a basis in runic magic from WC3 and you could simply roll the rune master concept into the DK class and never think of it again. We also know that Blizzard had a monk class concept brewing that eventually became the Pandaren Monk class. Are we to believe that WoW planned to create two monk classes? It simply doesn't add up.

[Imperator4321]

If Blizzard intended to create a Runemaster WoW class with Monk like abilities, why have we never seen such a character in WoW? WoW Runemasters are more along the lines of spell casters than hand to hand fighters.

Where is the shaolin unarmed fighting windwalkers, or the mistweaving monks prior to MoP? Monks prior to MoP are usually associated with the Light (argent monks, scarlet monks) Death Knights prior to WoLK didn't use unique abilties (let alone explicitly rune-based ones) they used a warrior/warlock abilities

heres every NPC that bears the name/title "runemaster".

Dregmar Runebrand - added in WoLK
Runemaster Molgeim - added in WoLK
Iron Rune Runemaster -added in WoLK
Gorian Runemaster -added in WoD
Runemaster Skomjorn -added in Legion
Runemaster Mavrok -added in SL
Mawsworn Runemaster -added in SL

All of them were added after the idea of a Runemaster class ran it's course, Blizzards not obligated to make sure "runemasters" are accurate to the TTRPG version because it never materialized as a playable class, they didn't feel obligated to design Monks or Death Knights NPC's prior to MoP and WoLK in ways accurate to what the playable versions would be, why would they feel obligated to do so for npc "Runemasters" added to the game after the Runemaster was absorbed into the Death Knight class.

It would be more believable if the concept wasn't so far outside of WoW's actual expansion classes. The DK, Monk, and DH all have similar pedigree, and that pedigree is far different than the Runemaster from the TTRPG.

Stop trying to pretend theres a pedigree to the degree you seem to think there is, your confirmation bias regarding whats a prerequisite has become so strong that when theres information from multiple different developers and sources that contradicts the prerequisites you've invented, you intead assume theres a deliberate obfuscation on the devs part (which i will repeat some of them weren't even working for Blizzard anymore at the time they said the Runemaster was considered as a class, they would have no interest in "protecting" blizzards class selection process)

Yeah, I simply don't buy any of that. Like I said, it's awfully convenient that the Death Knight already had a basis in runic magic from WC3 and you could simply roll the rune master concept into the DK class and never think of it again.

It's also convientent that the Runemaster runner-up that got absorbed into the DK class also happens to be a Monk-like character who enhances themselves with Runes, exactly what the TTRPG runemaster does, that came out 4 years before WoLK in a TTRPG offically licensed and approved by Blizzard, once again is it inconceivable that Blizzard would consider a concept in a related media that they themselves licensed.

We also know that Blizzard had a monk class concept brewing that eventually became the Pandaren Monk class. Are we to believe that WoW planned to create two monk classes? It simply doesn't add up.

A: MoP was released in 2012, 4 years after the runemaster was considered in WoLK (Kaplan says the runemaster concept they had was a Monk-like character)
B: Runemaster showed in the magic & mayhem sourcebook, released in June 2004, before WoW was released in november 2004, we know that some form of a Runemaster was considered for implimentation in WoW as a "freak" class that differed from standard RPG tropes but lost to the Warlock, since they existed in development at around the same time it's not inconceivable that the TTRPG runemaster was in some ways similar to what was planned for classic but lost to the warlock.

Also do you think Blizzard was planning for MoP and the Monk class back in 2004-8? Runemaster being "Monk-like" back in 2008 (and possibly 2004) doesn't mean anything for the fact that the Monk class came out in 2012,

What are you arguing here? that Blizzard doesn't consider any concepts outside of WC3 hero units worth consideration as classes? the statements of Jeff Bell, John Staats, Kevin Jordan, Bo Bell, Alexander Brazie and Jeff Kaplan already prove that wrong because all of them have said that Runemaster was considered as a class at different times and in different circumstances.

the Runemaster existed in the TTRPG as a concept 4 years before Wrath, it had rune-based powers involving inscribing them for enhanced abilities along with monk-like unarmed ability, we know from Kaplans statements that a "Monk-like" Runemaster was considered for WoLK but you refuse to accept that ideas surrounding a runemaster class were incorperated into the Death Knight class (like say the runeforging mechanic thats pretty similar to the "enhance body with runes" concept in the TTRPG runemaster) because the Death Knight description had a single line saying they were given vampiric runeblades? or that Arthas used frostmourne? thats the "runemaster" you think existed to be absorbed into the DK? not the "monk-like" runemaster that existed in the TTRPG?

[Teriz]

Where is the shaolin unarmed fighting windwalkers, or the mistweaving monks prior to MoP? Monks prior to MoP are usually associated with the Light (argent monks, scarlet monks) Death Knights prior to WoLK didn't use unique abilties (let alone explicitly rune-based ones) they used a warrior/warlock abilities

That really isn't the same situation. The Monk class in WoW was based on the Pandaren Brewmaster hero. There's nothing concrete to base the Runemaster on, since we have the TTRPG Runemaster, the Spell-casting Runemasters in WOTLK, the Runemaster concept implemented into the DK class, and various rune abilities in the Mage class. if we had a Runemaster hero to base this concept on, it would be a different story entirely.

heres every NPC that bears the name/title "runemaster".

Dregmar Runebrand - added in WoLK
Runemaster Molgeim - added in WoLK
Iron Rune Runemaster -added in WoLK
Gorian Runemaster -added in WoD
Runemaster Skomjorn -added in Legion
Runemaster Mavrok -added in SL
Mawsworn Runemaster -added in SL

All of them were added after the idea of a Runemaster class ran it's course, Blizzards not obligated to make sure "runemasters" are accurate to the TTRPG version because it never materialized as a playable class, they didn't feel obligated to design Monks or Death Knights NPC's prior to MoP and WoLK in ways accurate to what the playable versions would be, why would they feel obligated to do so for npc "Runemasters" added to the game after the Runemaster was absorbed into the Death Knight class.

Except both the DK and Monk received abilities from the WC3 heroes they were largely based on, so yes there are playable aspects of these classes that the player gets to utilize before they become classes. This is another aspect that all of the expansion classes share (in fact, all WoW classes share this) but the Runemaster does not possess.

Stop trying to pretend theres a pedigree to the degree you seem to think there is, your confirmation bias regarding whats a prerequisite has become so strong that when theres information from multiple different developers and sources that contradicts the prerequisites you've invented, you intead assume theres a deliberate obfuscation on the devs part (which i will repeat some of them weren't even working for Blizzard anymore at the time they said the Runemaster was considered as a class, they would have no interest in "protecting" blizzards class selection process)

How is it confirmation bias when EVERY expansion class shares those traits? Yes, there is a pedigree that expansion classes share. Where is the counter example to the examples from the expansion classes? A so-called class concept that more than likely never existed?

It's also convientent that the Runemaster runner-up that got absorbed into the DK class also happens to be a Monk-like character who enhances themselves with Runes, exactly what the TTRPG runemaster does, that came out 4 years before WoLK in a TTRPG offically licensed and approved by Blizzard, once again is it inconceivable that Blizzard would consider a concept in a related media that they themselves licensed.

Really? What abilities from the TTRPG Runemaster were brought over to the DK class?

A: MoP was released in 2012, 4 years after the runemaster was considered in WoLK (Kaplan says the runemaster concept they had was a Monk-like character)
B: Runemaster showed in the magic & mayhem sourcebook, released in June 2004, before WoW was released in november 2004, we know that some form of a Runemaster was considered for implimentation in WoW as a "freak" class that differed from standard RPG tropes but lost to the Warlock, since they existed in development at around the same time it's not inconceivable that the TTRPG runemaster was in some ways similar to what was planned for classic but lost to the warlock.

Yeah, that also makes no sense, considering that we had major Warlock characters in lore (Guldan, Archimonde), and Warlock abilities in WC2 and WC3 to pull concepts from. Again, nothing like that existed for the Runemaster, so it seems rather bizarre that those two concepts would be on equal footing. What I have heard is that the Warlock was a replacement for Necromancers, since Blizzard didn't want WoW to be too similar to Everquest. Considering that Necromancers had major characters and established abilities, that makes FAR more sense than the belief that Runemasters were in the running for anything other than a sub-theme in the DK class.

Also do you think Blizzard was planning for MoP and the Monk class back in 2004-8? Runemaster being "Monk-like" back in 2008 (and possibly 2004) doesn't mean anything for the fact that the Monk class came out in 2012,

Considering that Blizzard had plans for the Pandaren to be a new race in TBC and considering the popularity of Chen Stormstout and the Brewmaster in WC3, it's completely possible. Blizzard seeded the Monk class in WotLK, so it's completely possible that they were mulling over the concept for quite some time.

- - - Updated - - -

the Runemaster existed in the TTRPG as a concept 4 years before Wrath, it had rune-based powers involving inscribing them for enhanced abilities along with monk-like unarmed ability, we know from Kaplans statements that a "Monk-like" Runemaster was considered for WoLK but you refuse to accept that ideas surrounding a runemaster class were incorperated into the Death Knight class (like say the runeforging mechanic thats pretty similar to the "enhance body with runes" concept in the TTRPG runemaster) because the Death Knight description had a single line saying they were given vampiric runeblades? or that Arthas used frostmourne? thats the "runemaster" you think existed to be absorbed into the DK? not the "monk-like" runemaster that existed in the TTRPG?

Do I believe that a Runemaster concept existed? Yes.

Do I believe it was ever in serious consideration for WoW class inclusion? No.

[Syegfryed]

You shallow the lore.

this has to be a joke,. the guy saying dark ranger should be elfic centric because elf= ranger, what a gold joke

Point them out, then, if you claim i missed them.

literally pointed out the thunderlord rangers and the draenei rangari, in the very link you provided, stop pretending

It's weird that they call Thunderlord Hunters rangers. They are probably like Zandalari spearangers. Which, i'd define as Headhunters.

which you define? who the fuck are you? its for you to define or decide, they are rangers, period, you liking or not

If they are teaching dark rangers, every race can be, if void elves get, every other race should, period.

This is about your personal taste and headcanon, put that in your head, you are full of biases

[Teriz]

Nice to see Blizzard incorporate Sylvanas’ HotS abilities into her raid boss encounter. Bodes well for possible Tinker and Dragon Aspect concepts.

[Ielenia]

The Bard came after that, and was more of a prestige class.

Original Dungeons & Dragons[edit]
In the original Dungeons & Dragons boxed set, there were only three main classes: the Cleric, the Fighting man, and the Magic-User. The first supplement, Greyhawk, added the Thief as a fourth main class, as well as the Paladin as a Fighting Man subclass. These four fantasy gaming archetypes represent four major tactical roles in play: the Fighter offers direct combat strength and durability; the Thief offers cunning and stealth; the Cleric provides support in both combat and magic; and the Magic-User has a variety of magical powers. In many ways, other classes are thought of as alternatives that refine or combine these functions. Dwarves and Halflings were restricted to the Fighting Man class, and Elves were restricted to the Fighting Man and Magic-User classes; all three non-human races had limited level advancement.

Literally, in your own quote, shows the paladin had "come later" and was literally a "prestige class". The same exact case you claim was of the bard.

In any case, there's next to zero basis for a Bard class in WoW. Blizzard has made sure of that.

Except that is objectively and demonstrably false. Music magic is a thing in the Warcraft franchise, and Shadowlands cemented that idea. Bards also do exist in Warcraft, as we saw in several iterations of the game. (vanilla, Cataclysm, Legion, BfA)

Cool. Describe it to me.

Ask Blizzard. I was not part of the team that came up with the concepts.

[Triceron]

Nice to see Blizzard incorporate Sylvanas’ HotS abilities into her raid boss encounter. Bodes well for possible Tinker and Dragon Aspect concepts.

Yup, very good news for Dark Rangers too. Good to see more HotS abilities make its way to WoW

[Teriz]

Literally, in your own quote, shows the paladin had "come later" and was literally a "prestige class". The same exact case you claim was of the bard.

Yes, and Blizzard had to heavily seed the Paladin before they brought it into WoW as a class.

Except that is objectively and demonstrably false. Music magic is a thing in the Warcraft franchise, and Shadowlands cemented that idea. Bards also do exist in Warcraft, as we saw in several iterations of the game. (vanilla, Cataclysm, Legion, BfA)

If Shadowlands cemented the idea, where is the character that encapsulates the concept? What are the list of abilities that make this concept cohesive? Also music magic exists within our existing class lineup, and its nothing different than standard magic or buffs.

Ask Blizzard. I was not part of the team that came up with the concepts.

I'm asking you because you're stating that Blizzard came up with a definable concept. Where and what is this concept?

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, very good news for Dark Rangers too. Good to see more HotS abilities make its way to WoW

Considering that Nathanos and Sylvanas are more than likely dead and forgotten by the end of the next patch, I'm not seeing a way forward for Dark Rangers. At best, I see some of Sylvanas' abilities like Wailing Arrow and Withering fire get trickled down into the Hunter class. With Haunting Wave possibly ending up in the Priest class.

We'll see though.

[Triceron]

Considering that Nathanos and Sylvanas are more than likely dead and forgotten by the end of the next patch, I'm not seeing a way forward for Dark Rangers. At best, I see some of Sylvanas' abilities like Wailing Arrow and Withering fire get trickled down into the Hunter class. With Haunting Wave possibly ending up in the Priest class.

We'll see though.

How do you figure this is good for Tinkers and Dragon Aspect concepts if you're implying HotS abilities would go straight to existing classes?

And why do you think Priests would be given a necromantic ability?

[Ielenia]

Yes, and Blizzard had to heavily seed the Paladin before they brought it into WoW as a class.

... What? Are you nuts, or something? They had one single unit, the Paladin, in Warcraft 3. And then the paladin, in WC2. How is that "heavily seed"? The rogue and priest were more "heavily seeded" than the paladin.

If Shadowlands cemented the idea, where is the character that encapsulates the concept? What are the list of abilities that make this concept cohesive?

We don't need characters with actual abilities listed in WoWHead to make a concept valid. There is a NPC in Revendreth that speaks how music can be used to redeem a soul. The entirety of Bastion revolves around music: search for "the instruments of Bastion". We also have the Vespers, in Bastion. We also have a world quest in Ardenweald where we use music to capture memories.

Also music magic exists within our existing class lineup, and its nothing different than standard magic or buffs.

And standard fire magic is nothing different than fel fire magic. And arcane frost magic is nothing different than elemental frost magic. Etc, etc. You're not seeing the forest for the trees, here.

I'm asking you because you're stating that Blizzard came up with a definable concept. Where and what is this concept?

I never said that. I only pointed out that Blizzard themselves said that the runemaster concept ended up one of the top three picks for the expansion class for Wrath. I never said they came up with a "definable concept".