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

[jellmoo]

thats because you have a wrong idea of what it is the archetype of the blademaster, blademasters use more armor than tauren chieftain, than grunts, wolf rainders and so this is not an argument. The blademaster archetype, to put simple like you did, is the good old master of blades warrior using a 2h weapon and you can play that:

The archetype I'm talking about is the Kensei or Sword Saint. A swordsman of extreme calibre that eschews armor and has mystical abilities. The Blademaster is a rough approximation of this in WC3, since he wears very little armor, wields a large blade, and has mystical abilities. The Eastern influence and kensei aesthetic oozes off of the Blademaster. The Blademaster is very clearly not wearing much in the way of armor in WC3.

If you want to include that warriors should be the "deceptive" then you ahve to include how mountain king can be immune to magic and tauren cheiftain can literally ressurect when killed

Why do I have to do that? Again, I'm talking archetype, nothing more. I can fill the archetype of a heavily armored Dwarf Warrior. I can fill the archetype of a giant Tauren Brute. Heck, If I pick the Shaman class I can resurrect if I want to.

What I can't do, is play a lightly armored or unarmored master of a large sword that uses Eastern themed mysticism to defeat his enemies. There is no class in the game that allows for this.

[Therougetitan]

People talking about blademaster when the last 3 classes added have been melee and melee take up almost half of the spots a ranged does in a mythic raid.

We need more ranged classes. Necromancer would have been cool this expansion but that's too late now. The dragonsworn idea is cool.

[jellmoo]

People talking about blademaster when the last 3 classes added have been melee and melee take up almost half of the spots a ranged does in a mythic raid.

We need more ranged classes. Necromancer would have been cool this expansion but that's too late now. The dragonsworn idea is cool.

Nobody is suggesting that the Blademaster should be the next class introduced to the game. Only that it's a possible class as the archetype currently isn't playable. I think most people agree that a ranged class makes the most sense.

[Triceron]

People talking about blademaster when the last 3 classes added have been melee and melee take up almost half of the spots a ranged does in a mythic raid.

We need more ranged classes. Necromancer would have been cool this expansion but that's too late now. The dragonsworn idea is cool.

Agreed.

The reason I argue for Blademaster is for Class skins. At some point the list of potential heroes is going to run thin, and I think that would be a prime opportunity to add in all the missing flavour classes that everyone has been asking for.

Necromancers, Runemasters, Spellbreakers, Wardens, Blademasters, Shadow Hunters and Wardens could all be added as alternate Class options that use existing class gameplay but with new themes, new talents, new spell FX and animations.

[Malania]

The Demon Knight or Death Hunter obviously.

[Syegfryed]

The archetype I'm talking about is the Kensei or Sword Saint. A swordsman of extreme calibre that eschews armor and has mystical abilities. The Blademaster is a rough approximation of this in WC3, since he wears very little armor, wields a large blade, and has mystical abilities. The Eastern influence and kensei aesthetic oozes off of the Blademaster. The Blademaster is very clearly not wearing much in the way of armor in WC3.

like i said, you are just creating your own idea of what this archetype is and giving to blademasters, thats why it falls flat, bhlademasters are not "kensei who don't use armor" theya re literally, samurais that also use armor

Why do I have to do that?

to make a fair comparison? otherwise you are just cherypicking what you want to fit the archetype you made up, to say "blademasters are kensei with mystical abilities" and use that to say we can't play that archetype is liek saying "tauren cheiftain are undying juggernauts who come back to life" and saying we can't play that as well.

What I can't do, is play a lightly armored or unarmored master of a large sword that uses Eastern themed mysticism to defeat his enemies. There is no class in the game that allows for this.

- Blademasters are not "lightly or unarmored" they use relatively low armor as npcs because orcs in general don't use much armor
-"easter themed mysticism? you can hardly say that is eastern.
-"mystic to defeat his enemies? blademaster don't do that, they use their swords and their strenght.

[loras]

Honestly a bard would bring something new to the table as well, and tinker would obviously fit quite well in warcraft as well.

Many other suggestions are just variations of something already there, basically having too little to work with.
I mean it was already a travesty that they made a class with just two speccs in demon hunters imo, it's a good indication that stuff like necromancers, dark rangers, blademasters, etcetera are just not enough on their own in the slighest without major overhauls.

Practically though you could introduce them as a subclass of an existing or new class, but the thing is that they lack a sufficient amount of meat on 'em to be a meal on their own, both thematically and mechanically.

[Syegfryed]

I don't understand what you even mean.

They didn't give every DK Death Coil.

They didn't give every Demon Hunter Metamorphosis.

Why would you expect every Blademaster to have Windwalk and Mirror Image?

exactly, why they would do that? there is no reason for, because those skills are not a defining trait of blademasters, bladestorm is more, is their ultimate IE, their more important skill, akin to metamorphosis, that is enough to fulfil the blademaster fantasy in blizzard eyes

later, maybe they should/could add the other ones as talents or in the spellbook, but to create another entire class to justify those? is compltely obnoxious.

Because NPCs aren't proper representations of the class, they're incomplete translations of the Warcraft 3 and Heroes of the Storm concept *WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT*.

"npcs are not proper representations of the class, we should use the npcs of warcraft 3 and heroes of the storm"

and I've been trying to hammer in your head that the Warrior class does not carry all the themes or fantasy of the Blademaster.

And i never said the warrior carry 100% of the blademaster pacage, once again youa re arguing against something i enver claimed.

the Warrior class does not reflect 100% blademaster, neither reflect 100% the tauren cheiftain, neither 100% the mountain king, that is goddamn obvious, because the class needs tob e broad to fit all those warrior archetypes and not be just one, but you keep arguing that since blademaster is not 100% in the warrior class(like the others) warriors don't represent the archetype/theme or fantasy, when literally does.

Not only that, but you have made other baseless arguments like that there is no demand for it.

There is no demand for it as their "owen class", at least not valid ones, like i said, people asking pointless or impossible stuff is not somethign to hold ground, even the treads suggesting a "blademaster class" is not a blademaster but a shaman, rofl

Made the warrior MORE like the blademaster? more than he already is? sure.

I've seen zero demand for MKs and Chieftains as their own class. I've seen numerous threads asking for Blademasters. If everyone regards Blademasters as Warriors, why would anyone be asking for Blademasters to be playable? Why do Blademaster threads exist, but not Mountain King or Chieftain threads? You regard that Chieftain has missing avilities too right? It's because there are people who identify the Blademaster as a concept that hasn't been fully represented by the Warrior class.

lets pretend for a while that this relation of "there is no topics about one and there is about others" mean something, you are straight up using the fallacy of popular belief, just because some people believe something don't mean is true, or more true because more people do that with blademasters and not about others.

funnily enough the blademaster fantasy is more covered by the warrior class than tauren chieftain, so your last stance does not hold much, the mob ask for things they either don't know fully, don't understand, or assume, regardless, just like the other thread asking for a blademaster, who might as well have another name, cause it was just a shaman tanker with a sword, having NOTHING to do with blademasters at all, case on point, people to this very day, keep asking the same race to be introduced again in the game, but with another name

Same reason why people still ask for Dark Rangers and Necromancers, but no one asks for Beastmasters. The Necro and Dark Ranger are archetypes that people feel are not properly represented by any playable class, while the Beastmaster's concept is.

that is jsut the epitome of bias, and nothing more, "what people feel and what they don't"

- - - Updated - - -

Blademasters never had any abilities until WoD.

????

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Ishi MOP

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=37847/mankrik#abilities CATA

[jellmoo]

like i said, you are just creating your own idea of what this archetype is and giving to blademasters, thats why it falls flat, bhlademasters are not "kensei who don't use armor" theya re literally, samurais that also use armor

Of course I am, it's what everyone does. But we can all identify fantasy archetypes within the game. You're just doing the ame thing yourself. You're calling Blademasters "Samurais that also use armor".

Which is really weird since they don't use armor, but I digress...

to make a fair comparison? otherwise you are just cherypicking what you want to fit the archetype you made up, to say "blademasters are kensei with mystical abilities" and use that to say we can't play that archetype is liek saying "tauren cheiftain are undying juggernauts who come back to life" and saying we can't play that as well.

I don't need to make a fair comparison. All I need to do is try and identify archetypes that were present in one game and see how I can play that archetype in another. If you feel that you cannot play a depiction of a Tauren Warchief in WoW, for example, then we can discuss what falls short for you. This isn't the case of there being a "right and wrong". It's not a binary situation. There is a high level of personal inspiration and idea behind what makes a concept valid to that individual.

Blademasters are not "lightly or unarmored" they use relatively low armor as npcs because orcs in general don't use much armor

I mean, you literally just contradicted yourself here. And the dude is topless. That's unarmored.

-"easter themed mysticism? you can hardly say that is eastern.

You yourself said that it was a samurai. So yes. Eastern.

-"mystic to defeat his enemies? blademaster don't do that, they use their swords and their strenght.

Yes, they do. They use these abilities to turn themselves invisible and make magical copies of themselves.

[Ielenia]

exactly, why they would do that? there is no reason for, because those skills are not a defining trait of blademasters, bladestorm is more, is their ultimate IE, their more important skill, akin to metamorphosis,

In your opinion. For me, the "mirror image" ability is more iconic than the bladestorm ability. Because that one is more unique in design.

that is enough to fulfil the blademaster fantasy in blizzard eyes

Except Blizzard never said that the warrior class "fulfills the blademaster fantasy". This is just you speaking for them about something they never made their position clear about.

"npcs are not proper representations of the class, we should use the npcs of warcraft 3 and heroes of the storm"

NPCs in WoW are more basic and "watered down" versions of player classes. They're not heroes, they're grunts, lackeys, trainees and non-combative versions. They lack features the player classes have. The WC3 and HotS units, though, they're heroes. If we are to make a comparison in real life, imagine the common NPCs in WoW being your average entrepreneur around the world. The WC3 and HotS heroes would be your Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. They're the heroes, not the foot soldiers.

Made the warrior MORE like the blademaster? more than he already is? sure.

The warrior is almost zero blademaster. Having one of the WC3 unit's abilities does not make the warrior class a blademaster. Otherwise the mage class is a blademaster too because it has mirror image.

that is jsut the epitome of bias, and nothing more, "what people feel and what they don't"

You didn't prove him wrong, though. Again: saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" is not a proper or valid rebuttal.

????

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Ishi MOP

https://www.wowhead.com/npc=37847/mankrik#abilities CATA

Okay. Cataclysm, not WoD. Does it make any real difference, though? We still have three iterations of the game with blademasters without abilities. Also, are Ishi's abilities "warrior abilities" because.... why? Because they share warrior ability icons? Because they do "similar things" (a charge and a PBAoE attack)? Again: why? Explain.

[Triceron]

that is jsut the epitome of bias, and nothing more, "what people feel and what they don't"

Weren't you the one that said there's nothing to discuss if everything is possible?

Well now you know that the inly thing to actually discuss other than what people feel they want

We know Blizzard has their own inner decisions beyond what we think is possible. There is nothing else to talk about but opinions.

That you think Tinker is more possible is that sane thing - an opinion. There is no evidence it would be the next class, right?

the Warrior class does not reflect 100% blademaster, neither

Then stop claiming Warriors are Blademasters.

Stop the hyperbole and say speak with regular factual statements rather than whatever you think it means to equate two things.

The entire time we all argue against you is just to stop you saying they are the same thing, because the Warrior class does not 100% reflect a Blademaster. And this is all we are talking about. No one says they _should_ be their own class, only that there us room to consider possibilities.

Whether Blizzard does it or not is not in your control. As I said, Demon Hunter was another melee class and they added it before any mail-based Ranged class. Could you predict that would happen?

[Syegfryed]

Of course I am, it's what everyone does. But we can all identify fantasy archetypes within the game. You're just doing the ame thing yourself. You're calling Blademasters "Samurais that also use armor".

Which is really weird since they don't use armor, but I digress...

one thing is see the class and say what they are, other is make up a new one, im calling blademasters samurais, because is what they are, is their basic concept, a samurai orc

I don't need to make a fair comparison.

thats because you can't

All I need to do is try and identify archetypes that were present in one game and see how I can play that archetype in another. If you feel that you cannot play a depiction of a Tauren Warchief in WoW, for example, then we can discuss what falls short for you.

the point is you can play the blademaster archetype in wow, that is a fact, is not 100% equal to the rts? yes, is not, but that is the same to every other hero from the rts.

I mean, you literally just contradicted yourself here. And the dude is topless. That's unarmored.

...there is armor in other parties of his body

You yourself said that it was a samurai. So yes. Eastern.

"wind walk", bladestorm and "mirror images" design, is something you can find anywhere

Yes, they do. They use these abilities to turn themselves invisible and make magical copies of themselves.

they don't use that, to defeat their enemies, that is for escape and cause confusion, to defeat the enemy is to use your sword.

and for you saying we can't have that archetype




literally, a shirtless warrior with a 2h

[FossilFree]

Since Warcraft III is where the Blademaster originated, I think we really have to compare that version. We've established that the Mountain King hero class was partly responsible for the inspiration in creating the warrior class of WoW. So let's compare the WC3 Blademaster to the WC3 Mountain King and see just how much they have in common:

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Bla...(Warcraft_III)
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Mou...(Warcraft_III)

Reading through the two, we can see some clear differences:

HP
Blademaster: 550
Mountain King: 700

Armor Type
Blademaster: Hero (I assume that means unarmored)
Mountain King: Metal

Movement Speed
Blademaster: Fast
Mountain King: Average

Strength
Blademaster: 18
Mountain King: 24

Agility
Blademaster: 24
Mountain King: 11

The Mountain King is much tankier than the Blademaster with higher HP and strength while wearing metal armor, and the Blademaster excels in agility and speed with light armor. These are not even remotely the same class, and as such, the Blademaster is unique and capable of being fully playable someday.

[Syegfryed]

In your opinion. For me, the "mirror image" ability is more iconic than the bladestorm ability. Because that one is more unique in design.

this is not about me or you, is about the truth buddy, those skils are called ultimate, for a reason.

Except Blizzard never said that the warrior class "fulfills the blademaster fantasy". This is just you speaking for them about something they never made their position clear about.

That is you brining up the absolutism fallacy, they "don't need to say" in the way you think, they adding blademaster elements to warrior speak for itself.

The warrior is almost zero blademaster.

That is like, just your wrong opinion man

Okay. Cataclysm, not WoD. Does it make any real difference, though?

Yes, It shows that you were wrong and nitpicking a strawman

- - - Updated - - -

That you think Tinker is more possible is that sane thing - an opinion. There is no evidence it would be the next class, right?

Lets just say that the chances of a class that is not already in the game, under another name, are higher

Then stop claiming Warriors are Blademasters.

if a man doesn't have his legs he stop being a man?

Stop the hyperbole and say speak with regular factual statements rather than whatever you think it means to equate two things.

Cute, coming from someone saying the absurd comparisons who have no equivalence at all

Blademaster are warriors, and warriors are blademasters, just like mountain king, tauren chieftain, grunt, footman, and so on, they not having the entire tookit from a RTS game does not make then less so, none of the heroes of the RTS play exact the same as the RTS anyway, abilities change, other were cut that is the evolution of the game.

[Magister of Quelthalas]

Tinkerer seems to be the most likely but that's said, who knows what Blizzard is planning? You can make valid arguments for every class.
Like Necromancers. A lot of people say since we have DKs Necromancer class fantasy is fullfilled through them but i disagree. I say when we have Priests (ranged caster light wielders) and Paladina (melee combat light wielders) there is no reason to not have both DKs and Necromancers. Same with Blademasters. There are enough arguments for and against them. And at the end of the day Blizzard will do what Blizzard will do.

[Triceron]

Lets just say that the chances of a class that is not already in the game, under another name, are higher

Yes. I can agree on that, but it doesn't make it any more likely that Blizzard would nake it a class either.

Tinker has always been more possible than Demon Hunters. Always. And we still don't have them in the game. Do you not find that curious yourself?

if a man doesn't have his legs he stop being a man?

An Orc with no legs is still an Orc. It doesn't mean they are anything but an Orc

Blademaster is not a race, and can not be equated as such.

Cute, coming from someone saying the absurd comparisons who have no equivalence at all

Blademaster are warriors, and warriors are blademasters, just like mountain king, tauren chieftain, grunt, footman, and so on, they not having the entire tookit from a RTS game does not make then less so, none of the heroes of the RTS play exact the same as the RTS anyway, abilities change, other were cut that is the evolution of the game.

Look above. ThreeFive people on this page are saying otherwise. This isn't even counting the numerous others who have chimed in on the subject. Open your eyes, my friend. Maybe, just maybe, what you say is not not true if multiple people are telling you otherwise. Just saying we are all on the wrong side doesn't make you any more right on the subject, especially if no one here is backing you up on your own statements.

We all are open to the idea that Warriors do not 100% represent Blademasters, that Warriors are not Blademasters unless we individually choose to RP as one. That is enough to warrant discussion of it as its own class.

If there was enough material in WoW for everyone to consider a Blademaster as already playable, then we don't need to discuss it at all. Yet multiple people are all talking about the same thing - that even though elements of the Blademaster already exist on the Warrior class, it's not enough to satisfy the full Blademaster identity that people expect from Warcraft 3. And we're all saying the same thing - the Warcraft 3 Blademaster concept is what we should be talking about when we talk about a Blademaster class. Anything less than that is pointless to debate, because we're not talking about how a Warrior is able to RP as a Blademaster. We're talking about the potential for a playable Blademaster that has its identity fulfilled, we are talking about a class that is not 100% representable in game right now. Even now the Warrior class is unable to fully represent Blademasters from Warcraft 3, they can only RP as a WoW Blademaster NPC that doesn't have any if its WC3 abilities. No different than Rogues RPing as Demon Hunter without any of their iconic abilities except 'Evasion'.

[Ielenia]

this is not about me or you, is about the truth buddy, those skils are called ultimate, for a reason.

If you're calling this "truth", then you don't know what the word "truth" really means. If we're talking "iconic" and "defining", we're talking about a subjective definition. I mean, if you go around and ask people "what is the most defining, iconic characteristic of Superman to you?", people will give you different answers.

That is you brining up the absolutism fallacy, they "don't need to say" in the way you think, they adding blademaster elements to warrior speak for itself.

It's not an "absolutism fallacy". If you want to state something as a fact, then you need conclusive evidence. In other words, you are the one who needs "absolute evidence" to back up your case. If anything, you are the one making a fallacy here-- the "stating opinion as facts" fallacy.

That is like, just your wrong opinion man

Ah, there you go, stating your opinions as fact, speaking for Blizzard and being the gatekeeper. I do have an opinion about this, yes. But my opinion isn't wrong.

Yes, It shows that you were wrong and nitpicking a strawman

I'm not, though. And I'll repeat my question you're avoiding:

Okay. Cataclysm, not WoD. Does it make any real difference, though? We still have three iterations of the game with blademasters without abilities. Also, are Ishi's abilities "warrior abilities" because.... why? Because they share warrior ability icons? Because they do "similar things" (a charge and a PBAoE attack)? Again: why? Explain.

On top of that, in Hellfire Citadel, we have the blademaster abilities given to a blademaster.

Lets just say that the chances of a class that is not already in the game, under another name, are higher

In your opinion.

Cute, coming from someone saying the absurd comparisons who have no equivalence at all

And every single time you accused others of "false equivalence" and "absurd" you never explained why you believe it is a "false equivalence" or "absurd". You just said it was, and left it at that. Not unlike how a bratty kid would say "nuh-uh!" as if it meant anything.

Blademaster are warriors, and warriors are blademasters,

In your opinions. Others disagree.

[jellmoo]

one thing is see the class and say what they are, other is make up a new one, im calling blademasters samurais, because is what they are, is their basic concept, a samurai orc

No, what you're doing is saying that the character concept I'm identifying as inherent in the Blademaster is invalid, and the one you identify is the only one applicable.

thats because you can't

Sure I can. I just don't want to. I can make an argument that the Demon Hunter or Death Knight from WC3 isn't accurately displayed in WoW. I don't feel the need to, but I can. I can argue that the Shadow Hunter isn't playable in WoW. I'm just not doing it right now. If I want to argue for or against the Tauren Chieftain or Mountain King being playable as concepts in WoW I can do that too.

Don't confuse what I can do with what I feel like doing.

the point is you can play the blademaster archetype in wow, that is a fact, is not 100% equal to the rts? yes, is not, but that is the same to every other hero from the rts.

It isn't a fact. A fact is that I can play a Warrior. Or a Paladin. Or a Blood Elf. Or a character that is green. These are facts. You're stating your opinion. Don't confuse the two.

...there is armor in other parties of his body

His chest and head, the areas that are literally the most vulnerable on the body have no armor on them. The dude is unarmored. The best ankle protection in the world isn't going to protect you when literally every enemy is going to be iming for the biggest, meatiest, most likely to kill you part of your unprotected body.

"wind walk", bladestorm and "mirror images" design, is something you can find anywhere

So? A character concet is more than a single thing. It's the combination of many things. Not just abilities. But aesthetic. Lore. Function.

they don't use that, to defeat their enemies, that is for escape and cause confusion, to defeat the enemy is to use your sword.

That's like saying that Rogues don't use stealth to defeat their enemies, they use daggers.

and for you saying we can't have that archetype

literally, a shirtless warrior with a 2h

Except I still can't/ I can't use the abilities from the Blademaster. There is zero subterfuge or trickery. There is no use of agility as his primary stat. There is no fast attacking, oly slow, ponderous strikes. There is no agile, unarmored combat. Just transmog to make the heavy armor disappear.

Your argument amounts to "I can play the concept so long as I compromise everything that makes the concept interesting".

Which amounts to no, no I cannot play the concept.

[Syegfryed]

No, what you're doing is saying that the character concept I'm identifying as inherent in the Blademaster is invalid, and the one you identify is the only one applicable.

So, the character concept that you made up is "inherent" in the blademaster, and say that you can't play the concept you create, is that so?

Sure I can. I just don't want to. I can make an argument that the Demon Hunter or Death Knight from WC3 isn't accurately displayed in WoW. I don't feel the need to, but I can. I can argue that the Shadow Hunter isn't playable in WoW. I'm just not doing it right now. If I want to argue for or against the Tauren Chieftain or Mountain King being playable as concepts in WoW I can do that too.

And if none then is accurately displayed, if and if there is other who don't get their "entire concept playable" why it will be somehow different with blademasters? just because your idea of awhat a blademaster is?

It isn't a fact. A fact is that I can play a Warrior. Or a Paladin. Or a Blood Elf. Or a character that is green. These are facts. You're stating your opinion. Don't confuse the two.

Warriors are blademasters, therefore you can play as a blademaster, is a fact, you can play a shirtless master of the blade with asian thematic/samurai vibe, that is not "my opinion" and people have being doing for years by now.

His chest and head, the areas that are literally the most vulnerable on the body have no armor on them. The dude is unarmored. The best ankle protection in the world isn't going to protect you when literally every enemy is going to be iming for the biggest, meatiest, most likely to kill you part of your unprotected body.

......... that is how orcs live my friend, not exclusive to blademasters, see Garrosh and grom, no armor, you can find tons of other warriors who don't use armor, and find blademasters in wow with armor head to toe, this is not a vallid argument.

So? A character concet is more than a single thing. It's the combination of many things. Not just abilities. But aesthetic. Lore. Function.

need to keep this in mind for the next part, save this

That's like saying that Rogues don't use stealth to defeat their enemies, they use daggers.

the entire concept of rogues is being sneaky, well, rogues, that is not a concept of the blademaster, neither their definitive trait.

Except I still can't/ I can't use the abilities from the Blademaster.

So? A character concet is more than a single thing. It's the combination of many things. Not just abilities. But aesthetic. Lore. Function.

And you are wrong you can use, just not all of then

There is zero subterfuge or trickery.

Blademasters are not about subterfuge and trickery as much as they are warriors mastering their blade, this is a thing blizzard just drop like mana burn, is not their main thing. And they can still revive as talents or new spells, claiming that there is reason for an entire new class for just that is asinine.

There is no use of agility as his primary stat. There is no fast attacking, oly slow, ponderous strikes. There is no agile, unarmored combat. Just transmog to make the heavy armor disappear.

Now their "primary agility stat" is somehow something valid? come on, this is just grasping at straw, nobody cares about that, this was just a gamplay thing for the RTS.

There is, fast attacking, and the whole point of blademaster is fast and powerful strikes, there is agility yes, since warriors have great movement with charge and heroic leap and "unarmed combat" is something you are assuming becaus orcs don't use much armor

Your argument amounts to "I can play the concept so long as I compromise everything that makes the concept interesting".

Which amounts to no, no I cannot play the concept.

your argument is making up a concept, that is not in wow, and saying you can't play that thing.

A blademaster? a warrior stylish samurai? you can play that, you don't 100% need two skills of the rts game, especially when you already have their ultimate

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. I can agree on that, but it doesn't make it any more likely that Blizzard would nake it a class either.

Like i said, i have in mind that blizzard will first, go for the "non-playable class" first, before even attempting to revist the concept that she already made playable, thats jsut how obvious things are, ther eis no point in going for another place when there is plenty of resources to dig, especially not another melee one.

Tinker has always been more possible than Demon Hunters. Always.

that is you saying that

An Orc with no legs is still an Orc. It doesn't mean they are anything but an Orc

A blademaster without two skills still is a blademaster because a blademaster only stop being one when he have no blade at all

“A blademaster without a blade is no blademaster at all.”
— Lantresor of the Blade

Look above. ThreeFive people on this page are saying otherwise. This isn't even counting the numerous others who have chimed in on the subject. Open your eyes, my friend.

Appeal to Popularity is an example of a logical fallacy, making an argument that something is the right or correct because a lot of people agree with it. This type of fallacy is also called bandwagon.

And this is even more funny if you are assuming the asinine comparison between "hp and armor" from the mountain king and blademaster is somehow is valid, cause i didn't comment on that because is just burning neurons for nothing.

We all are open to the idea that Warriors do not 100% represent Blademasters, that Warriors are not Blademasters unless we individually choose to RP as one. That is enough to warrant discussion of it as its own class.

there is a gigantic difference between not representing 100% and not being a blademaster at all

This argument is even more hypocrite when many other classes in the game lack their RTS abilities or have their abilities massively changed to not even be the same anymore, but somehow, they are fine, but with blademaster? that is just gamebreaking.

Demon hunters? lost their passive evasion, lost mana burn, and their metamorphosis is not ranged anymore. Mountain king? your magical hammer is not so magical anymore, bash? you don't have it, and you are not immune to spells anymore, you literally cannot play exact like the demon hunter or the mountain king in the RTS, period, why the warrior need to be a carbom copy if others aren't? tauren cheiftain only have one of their skills in the warrior, but they are somehow covered

But wait, skills don't matter, only when it is regarded to two skills of the blademasters, their ultimate? we don't even care.

but wait, i can see the future, you will say we can't play blademasters, because blademaster whole "theme" is about "deception trickery and stealth" regardless if their depiction trough wow lifetime, the RPG, their lore and even the RTS are not like that

If there was enough material in WoW for everyone to consider a Blademaster as already playable, then we don't need to discuss it at all. Yet multiple people are all talking about the same thing

That is not even a vallid argument to make it is? cause there is enough material in the world to not consider the eath as flat, and people discuss about that, "multiple people believing in something" don't make it more true.

Even more because what it takes is to give those two skills to warriors and be done with it by everyone else logic

Blademasters from Warcraft 3, they can only RP as a WoW Blademaster NPC that doesn't have any if its WC3 abilities. No different than Rogues RPing as Demon Hunter without any of their iconic abilities except 'Evasion'.

With it is different, because once again, you dumb down things to make up for the false equivalence, rogues aren't blind, rogues didn't eat a demon, rogues can't use fel magic and metamorphosis, while in other hand, Demon hunters do not use daggers, they do not rely on stealth and poisons, and so on.

while both warriors and blademasters share the same skills(aka their ultimate), they share the same weapons (2h blades), they share the same theme(master of blades/weapons) they share the same fantasy(legendary samurai warriors)

but this is pointless and everything will be ignored, you already made up in your mind that blademasters are some sort of rogue, who fundamental trait is deception and "trickery"(regardlss of their lore showing otherwise), therefore, their main abilities are wind walk and mirror iamge, fuck bladestorm, their ultimate, that does not count, and since the game should not evolve for blademasters, just for other classes, a blademaster is only playable if "rping" like a rogue and a DH, cause there is no real elements of a blademaster in warrior, once again, fuck bladestorm, but their amstery over blades, their style of fast and potent strikes.

and please save our time trying to say bladestorm does not count because meta was with warlocks, please.

snip

In your opinion

[bloodkin]

Tinkerer seems to be the most likely but that's said, who knows what Blizzard is planning? You can make valid arguments for every class.
Like Necromancers. A lot of people say since we have DKs Necromancer class fantasy is fullfilled through them but i disagree. I say when we have Priests (ranged caster light wielders) and Paladina (melee combat light wielders) there is no reason to not have both DKs and Necromancers. Same with Blademasters. There are enough arguments for and against them. And at the end of the day Blizzard will do what Blizzard will do.

The reason we don't have a necromancer class is probably because of the 'in lore' negative stigma against it: it's directly attributed to the scourge, just like the DK. After the original intro to the DK, every DK had to go ask for a pardon from the king not to be killed on the spot, this would probably also go for a necromancer. Personally, I'm not against such a class and would happily see it alongside the DK. As for blademasters, I think that they are kind of a bridge between monks, warriors and shamans. There's not too much that makes them incredibly unique as a class, but then again we have multiple classes that overlap with each other already, so not much that would be a strong argument against them (I'm also quite amused that this thread is still filled with shitposting even after teriz left, gotta say it really attracts some very special posters, if anyone is reading this and feels offended, take a hard look in the mirror).

as for tinker, I personally feel that this concept doesn't have much traction to make a functional class: tech (that isn't based on a form ofmagic) in warcraft is whimsical and dysfunctional at best, with little actual functionality beyond harming it's users, which would make a very poor basis voor a class. However like you said, blizz will do whatever they think will be fun and interesting, whether we like it or not.