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

[pacotaco]

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.

It surprise me how people keep arguing with certain posters that openly said they're here not to discuss. We already have about 30 pages of those people saying "nah, you wrong, bacuase I say so". They have no intention of talking about what can or can't be, or what changes they'd do to make it possible. They are just here to derail the thread and for the attention. Just put them on ignore and go back to the topic.

[Ielenia]

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.

Unsurprisingly, you're using the "appeal to popularity" fallacy wrong, here. Because we're not saying "we are right because we are many". We're not saying we are right. We're saying you are wrong, because you keep spouting your opinion as a fact. You're taking your own subjective take and asserting it as objective fact. And you have zero conclusive evidence of that.

snip

In your opinion.

Wow. You really ran out of arguments, didn't you?

It's funny, though. You keep replying with "it's your opinion" and "it's your wrong opinion", and yet when I point out what the conclusions you're posting are just your own opinion, not facts, you get triggered and "snip" my entire reply and in an attempt to be cute you use one of my own replies to claim what I posted is "just my opinion".

No shit, Sherlock. I've already admitted it's my own opinion. And I never said it's not my opinion, either.

So how about you try to be mature about this and stop stating your opinions as fact? And while you're at it, how about answering the question you've avoided for two posts in a row?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

To keep things in perspective, the death knight was not the only time something like that happened: the warlock class, in the beginning, were also heavily mistrusted. To the point that they were relegated to the Cleft of Shadows in Orgrimmar and a secluded basement in the corner of the Mage District in Stormwind.

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 believe they can be their own thing. I can easily imagine the blademaster as being a leather-wearer agility-based melee two-handed-blade wielding class with a spec dedicated to 'subterfuge' (by going invisible briefly and summoning phantom images of themselves) and a melee spec based on fire damage, since we have seen blademasters using fire magic.

[jellmoo]

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?

I made up a common fantasy trope? No, I wish I did, I'd be a wealthy man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekiro:_Shadows_Die_Twice
https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Kensai
https://dndtools.net/classes/kensai/

It's a very common trope in fantasy, anime and video games. The Blademaster is WC3's version of a very popular archetype.

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 what a blademaster is?

It's not different about Blademasters, that's the point. If somebody makes an argument about another class, more power to them. I'm just not doing so. I'm only talking about the artchetype that Bademasters represent that is currently not playable in WoW.

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.

Again, not a fact. You can claim things are facts until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it so. It is a conclusion you've reached. Not a fact. More importantly, I don't care if Warriors are Blademasters. Because I'm not even talking about that.

I'm talking about the archetype that Blademasters represent, which isn't playable in WoW. Because you seem to think the entire concept is just a shirtless dude with a sword, when it very much isn't.

......... 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.

Just because one archetype involves not wearing armor doesn't mean it's the only archetype that involves not wearing armor.

So yeah, it's a valid argument.

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

So the Blademaster isn't sneaky, despite having an ability that the opposing team very much needed to plan against, that allowed him to sneak? Being sneaky and using subterfuge is literally their thing. You're railing against this only because it pokes holes in your Warrior theory.

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

One out of three abilities. The wrong primary stat. The wrong armor type. The wrong attack speed. A bunch of abilities that don't fit the concept. No flavour around the concept.

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.

1) Stop trying to define the Blademaster in terms that ignore key elements of it just because you keep digging your heels into the ground about them being Warriors.

2) I never claimed that the Blademaster should be a new class.

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.

Of course it's valid. There's a world of difference between a lumbering Strength using warrior, and a nimble warrior based off of agility. It's why classes in WoW use different stats. It's very valid when fulfilling archetypes.

What's telling is how you attempt to invalidate everything that goes against your point with a hand waive, as though it doesn't matter simply because it pokes holes in your argument.

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

Arms is literally the slowest spec in the game. You are trying to shoehorn is an agile, trickery based mystical swordfighter into a plodding class that is functionally a walking juggernaught. They aren't the same.

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

Please tell me how I can play a character with the following:

1) Wears little to no armor
2) Wields a large two handed sword
3) Has Easter theme with a motif of mysticism
4) Is fast and nimble, with Agility as the primary stat
5) Has abilities that allow for roughly, not even exactly, just roughly, some form of stealth, the ability to have mirrored projections of himself, the ability to hit multiple enemies at once

If you can tell me how to play this character concept in a satisfying way in World of Warcraft I will agree with you. Until then, all your doing is telling me that a popular fantasy concept is either invalid, or that I should just play what you tell me to play and be happy with it.

You don't get to do that.

[Triceron]

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.

So why are you going out of your way to completely dismiss them if this is what you want to say? Why say that Blademasters are already Warriors if you are saying Blizzard can still revisit it? You're intentionally using words that dismiss the class as not being possible despite you explaining yourself that you aren't intending that. Again, your use of hyperbole is the problem here. What do you actually want to say and what you're actually saying are two different things.

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

And a Warrior does not properly represent a Blademaster since Warriors do not need to use Blades. Again, there is zero incentive for a Warrior to use any specific bladed weapon outside of RP purposes. All you can do is Roleplay a Blademaster, which is headcanon. The Warrior class itself is built to use Maces equally as they would any Sword or Axe, which is not what a Blademaster archetype is known for.

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.

If you had neurons to burn, sure.

Warrior is a Str. based class. Blademasters were an Agi-based class. I mean, there's plenty more than the HP and Armor, but who am I to decide this? These are concepts that Blizzard implemented in the game, and as far as I care they could get rid of the STR/AGI/INT system altogether. They're the ones who defined the system.

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

Yes but we regard representation in different ways.

We could even say Rogues and Warlocks represent aspects of the Demon Hunter for having access to their weapons or to abilities that are unique to Demon Hunters. This is also *representation*. The Glyph of Demon Hunting was named this specifically to *represent* Demon Hunters in the Warlock class, but we can still determine that the Warlock itself was *NOT* a Demon Hunter. Blizzard eventually did right by honoring it as its own class.

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.

Change is not a problem. Complete absence is a problem.

Metamorphosis on Demon Hunters is a melee-based form instead of the Ranged based one that Warlocks had. This is not a problem because the full fantasy of a Demon Hunter is still represented in this class. They don't have Mana Burn, but they have Mana Break which is a fine replacement. They don't have Evasion, but they have Blur which suits them fine.

When we regard a Blademaster, there are huge chunks of missing aspects that can't be covered with simply Transmog. You can get shirtless, but you can't get the Spirit Beads. You can get Bladestorm, but you don't have Windwalk or Mirror Image. You can be an Orc, but you can't have the long beards or the Burning Blade banner outside of using a temporary Toy effect. All of this equates to RP, same as a Rogue using Warglaives and Cursed Vision back in TBC. This is *incomplete representation* that can only be used for Roleplay.

Same with Dark Rangers today. You can't actually play as a Dark Ranger. Even with the new weapons that Sylvanas drops, you will only be able to use a couple of her abilities, but otherwise we are no closer to actually playing as Dark Rangers as any time before. There are no Undead Elf options outside of the Death Knight class, and that is one of the necessary aspects that one would expect out of playing an actual Dark Ranger class. Anyone who simply points at Forsaken Hunters as being Dark Rangers would not be addressing the inability to 100% play as a Dark Ranger.

We don't see this problem with Beastmasters in WoW because we do have a spec that fully represents the themes and identity of a Beastmaster. Even the lore regards Rexxar as a Hunter, and so this has become an intentional inclusion into the Hunter class. Dark Rangers however have not been formally integrated. They have a strong connection since they were seen in the Unseen Path, and Nathanos was a Hunter Trainer, but no Dark Ranger is specifically mentioned as a Hunter, and their abilities remain absent from the Hunter class.

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

They *share themes* with a Rogue through the use of deception and stealth, that does not mean they are 'some sort of Rogue'.

A Demon Hunter *shares themes* with Warlocks and Rogues. That does not mean they are 'some sort of Warlock or Rogue'. Demon Hunters are their own identity, would you agree with this?

[Revamp Man]

If 9.2 doesn’t have galakrond it will be dragonsworn and I’m prepared

[bloodkin]

Unsurprisingly, you're using the "appeal to popularity" fallacy wrong, here. Because we're not saying "we are right because we are many". We're not saying we are right. We're saying you are wrong, because you keep spouting your opinion as a fact. You're taking your own subjective take and asserting it as objective fact. And you have zero conclusive evidence of that.


Wow. You really ran out of arguments, didn't you?

It's funny, though. You keep replying with "it's your opinion" and "it's your wrong opinion", and yet when I point out what the conclusions you're posting are just your own opinion, not facts, you get triggered and "snip" my entire reply and in an attempt to be cute you use one of my own replies to claim what I posted is "just my opinion".

No shit, Sherlock. I've already admitted it's my own opinion. And I never said it's not my opinion, either.

So how about you try to be mature about this and stop stating your opinions as fact? And while you're at it, how about answering the question you've avoided for two posts in a row?

- - - Updated - - -


To keep things in perspective, the death knight was not the only time something like that happened: the warlock class, in the beginning, were also heavily mistrusted. To the point that they were relegated to the Cleft of Shadows in Orgrimmar and a secluded basement in the corner of the Mage District in Stormwind.


I believe they can be their own thing. I can easily imagine the blademaster as being a leather-wearer agility-based melee two-handed-blade wielding class with a spec dedicated to 'subterfuge' (by going invisible briefly and summoning phantom images of themselves) and a melee spec based on fire damage, since we have seen blademasters using fire magic.

True, warlocks were in vanilla lore ostracized to a certain degree; dealing with daemons and demonic powers wasn't condoned, some NPC's had flavour text about it, although I don't remember anything about them having any quests in the same vein as DK's (not that it matters, it was established lore). However, do I see more of an opportunity to add necromancers after SL. It isn't all that hard to imagine that certain individuals would try and find their way into the shadowlands to help out their faction leaders. This would automatically lead down the path to necromancy and probably some help of the ebon blade (not all members are deathknights, some are craftsmen, which should include necromancers), or a story beat in the same trend. How the class would look like, isn't all that clear to me, but then again blizz class design has surprised me at times.

For the blademaster, I'd think that leather or even agi cloth would work (leather agi pool is already the most crowded as it is0, this would work fine as just about all gear has interchangeable main stats already. 2 handed bladed weapons would work fine (axes, swords, polearm), with probably 2 or 3 elements worked in, maybe a focus per spec or something, fire is easy (and established) air for speed and air-based illusions and mabye water for balance between attack/defense. Honestly, there are a few good ways to make it unique, it's just that this trope isn't my cup of tea (but again, I could see this happen before certain other ideas).

- - - Updated - - -

It surprise me how people keep arguing with certain posters that openly said they're here not to discuss. We already have about 30 pages of those people saying "nah, you wrong, bacuase I say so". They have no intention of talking about what can or can't be, or what changes they'd do to make it possible. They are just here to derail the thread and for the attention. Just put them on ignore and go back to the topic.

gonna be honest, adding people to the ignore list works only in a limited way, as certain people will always find someone who takes the (troll) bait and keep at it. And although that's their own choice, it does lead to pages and pages of discussions that are completely off topic, not to mention that only seeing half of the post in a thread to to putting people on ignore doesn't make it more enjoyable/readable. It's pretty relaxed that certain people are getting banned, but some people still insist on being argumentative about other people's idea's. Now, it's ok to argue about them, but blatantly saying no without any good effort to refute them is lazy shitposting and a detriment to the thread (and I'd say this thread still has at least 1 poster I'd classify that way).

It should be ok to put out your ideas and discuss them, even if it would bend the lore a bit (as blizz is extremely flexible with it as it is), but it should devolve into a shouting match, accepting feedback is just as hard as giving it, and some people here can't do one or both of these.

- - - Updated - - -

If 9.2 doesn’t have galakrond it will be dragonsworn and I’m prepared

Some people were dead certain we'd get tinkers after mechagon, but luckily we didn't get that, so why would we get dragonsworn just for patch 9.2? (not here to immediately debunk this, just curious why it would imply the class). Also, how do you see dragonsworn as a class, I don't have a clue as to how that would make a full class.

[sam86]

I think the Demon Hunter renders a lot of arguments about "this class doesn't have enough to it" pointless.

doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be

[bloodkin]

doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be

I agree with your statement to a certain degree, as I think that only applies to the current situation: the blizz devs that we have now seem to have very little in the way of originality in class design, hence the ongoing pruning, and then unpruning (which make it kind of look like they did something, while not doing anything useful) and the state of DH. I'm convinced that if DH had been out a few xpacs earlier, it would've been a complete class at it's release (3 specs, all kinds of spells etc) with just as many abilities as monks and DK's, as it seems that devs back then at least had the skill/imagination to design some interesting things and the balls to apply them. This is also were current design is still not optimal and why classis are still recovering from WoD's class desolation 3 xpacs later, I also think that the class artifacts/legiondaries etc were more harmful to classes.

[Imperator4321]

doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be

Personally I agree and I don't think DH should set a precedent for class design, however it does show that a concept that is very specific, lacking depth and not based in any common fantasy class archetype can be made into a class.

Doesn't mean every new class should follow that example since I think adding more DH-like (style over substance) classes (Dark Rangers for example) would be ultimately worse vs adding something with a bit more to it's concept like Tinkers or Dragonsworn

I agree with your statement to a certain degree, as I think that only applies to the current situation: the blizz devs that we have now seem to have very little in the way of originality in class design, hence the ongoing pruning, and then unpruning (which make it kind of look like they did something, while not doing anything useful) and the state of DH. I'm convinced that if DH had been out a few xpacs earlier, it would've been a complete class at it's release (3 specs, all kinds of spells etc) with just as many abilities as monks and DK's, as it seems that devs back then at least had the skill/imagination to design some interesting things and the balls to apply them. This is also were current design is still not optimal and why classis are still recovering from WoD's class desolation 3 xpacs later, I also think that the class artifacts/legiondaries etc were more harmful to classes.

I recall reading a Dev interview where they did say there was a lot of internal discussion over what a third spec could be but they ultimately decided nothing fit and just went with 2 specs.

[Syegfryed]

I made up a common fantasy trope? No, I wish I did, I'd be a wealthy man.

i mean, those are not wow, that is the problem here, rpojection, yo want that wow mimic those other games, when they don't

i mean, sekiro use way more armor than normal blademaster, wo this is rly some nitpicking about what counts and what don't.

It's not different about Blademasters, that's the point. If somebody makes an argument about another class, more power to them. I'm just not doing so. I'm only talking about the artchetype that Bademasters represent that is currently not playable in WoW.

The blademaster archetype, is plaayble wow, not sekiro, not kensei, not those other games, the wow blademaster is playble.

Again, not a fact. You can claim things are facts until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it so. It is a conclusion you've reached. Not a fact. More importantly, I don't care if Warriors are Blademasters. Because I'm not even talking about that.

I'm talking about the archetype that Blademasters represent, which isn't playable in WoW. Because you seem to think the entire concept is just a shirtless dude with a sword, when it very much isn't.

you said you wanted to play a shirtless warrior with 2h hands and "mystical abilities" youc an do that, you can play the blademaster archetype, is not 100% a copy from rts, but again, nothing is.

Just because one archetype involves not wearing armor doesn't mean it's the only archetype that involves not wearing armor.

literally what.

Armor does not matter, blademasters don't have much armor not because is "blademaster way" but because orcs don't use armor, and you can be like that.

So the Blademaster isn't sneaky, despite having an ability that the opposing team very much needed to plan against, that allowed him to sneak? Being sneaky and using subterfuge is literally their thing. You're railing against this only because it pokes holes in your Warrior theory.

Anyone who played the RTS knows the wind walk was more an escape ability than a "subterfuge" ability, it was more for the speed that gives than the actually invisibility, period, it allows you to reach the enemy fast, kill their peons and run away, "sneakier" is not the main thing on blademasters in their lore, we expand an entire expansion in Wod to see the old blademaster clan and you can find more of then playing with fire than with "subterfurge"

One out of three abilities

Just like other heroes

The wrong primary stat.

Not relevant, since things change from the RTs to the mmo, like metamorphosis not being ranged

The wrong armor type.

The armor is the same, since its about orcs not using armor.

The wrong attack speed.

literally grasping at straws, youc an comapre the attack speed of the rts with the mmo, pointless

A bunch of abilities that don't fit the concept.

That you think off, it fit plenty their concept, and thats why blizz gave tot he blademaster npcs

No flavour around the concept.

plenty of flavour with skills and transmog options.

1) Stop trying to define the Blademaster in terms that ignore key elements of it just because you keep digging your heels into the ground about them being Warriors

.

"key elements" from other games? all right

2) I never claimed that the Blademaster should be a new class.

Then you are arguing for what? my entire point is how they can't be a new class, because they already are playable with warriros together with mountain king and tauren chieftain, the thing is to give then more flavour like abilities

Arms is literally the slowest spec in the game. You are trying to shoehorn is an agile, trickery based mystical swordfighter into a plodding class that is functionally a walking juggernaught

For my lifetime playing pvp warrior was never slow, you must be confusing then with Death Knights, between double charge, heroic leap and going back and forth with intervene, either specing to get free roots and snares with the war banner warrior mobility is pretty decent, case in point, war baner is something that rly do callback to the war banner

So, yeah, they have plenty of mobility to be a skilled swordsman and not just a slow iron juggernaut, and they can upgrade on top of that

They aren't the same.

newsflash: none of then are the same anyway, not even demon hutners play the same, rts is a different from a mmo

Please tell me how I can play a character with the following:

1) Wears little to no armor
2) Wields a large two handed sword
3) Has Easter theme with a motif of mysticism
4) Is fast and nimble, with Agility as the primary stat
5) Has abilities that allow for roughly, not even exactly, just roughly, some form of stealth, the ability to have mirrored projections of himself, the ability to hit multiple enemies at once

then you want a monk, ou can play a monk, if you want a blademaster they are there.

This over fixation with the two skills like is crucial is laguhable, but they can add those to the warrior tollkit just fine with changed to fir the mmo gameplay

- - - Updated - - -

So why are you going out of your way to completely dismiss them if this is what you want to say?

i mean, why are people fighting me over those pages if what is ay is wrong, i am wrong and everything is possible? i mean i know the other guy just like to fight and want to bait people into ifnractions, but seems not very productive to everyone else

And a Warrior does not properly represent a Blademaster since Warriors do not need to use Blades.

????

jesus rly? every time is a new absurd, they NEED a weapon, and the weapon can be a blade to show the blademaster and a blunt weapon to show the mountain king

it is always you coming up with something that need to fir perfectly the same, when nothing suggest that, this is the good old perfectionist fallacy, if the warrior does not have 100% the skill set and the skills from the RTS, regardless if none of other heroes of the RTS does, regardless if blizzard depicted then different, etc etc.

If you had neurons to burn, sure.

uuh, we are getting frisky aren't we?

im just going to ignore the rest after this massive burn, cause like i said, im rly tired of biased fallacies, keep your opinion i keep mine. and blizzard theirs.

- - - Updated - - -

doesn't DH also prove how they are bankrupt on new classes? it is only class with 2 specs and it has least amount of buttons in wow in general, not to mention it cannibalized demonology warlock to exist in first place, and demo became more like hunter BM but with magic instead of the unique spec it used to be

the excuse they give is how they didn't want to dilute the class, or put sausage just to fill the 3 class thing, but in other hand DH overall is just bland and braindead.

This could be true, or just blizzard design is lacking past years, i mean, i think its since wod we don't get a new talent tree, is just those burrowed powers.

But, with new things, they have more room to try more. Best options i think still are bard, tinker, necromancer and dragonsworn in regarding of those having more room to do more things and not be closed or very restrict

[Triceron]

i mean, why are people fighting me over those pages if what is ay is wrong

Because what you are saying is wrong. I mean, how many more pages do we need to spell it out here?

It's not your *intentions* that are wrong, its your arguments and the words you are using. Your use of hyperbole is what's wrong here. If you stopped making statements that sound like you're passing off factual claims, everything would be fine.

jesus rly? every time is a new absurd, they NEED a weapon, and the weapon can be a blade to show the blademaster and a blunt weapon to show the mountain king

Then what's the difference if a Monk uses a sword? You're still just RPing a Blademaster however you choose, with whatever class you choose. An Orc Monk can wear spirit bead armor and wield a 2H Sword and you can still use the Burning Blade banner toy. What's the difference really? You're talking about RP here, and we could apply that to practically any Orc class that wields a 2H sword.

it is always you coming up with something that need to fir perfectly the same, when nothing suggest that, this is the good old perfectionist fallacy, if the warrior does not have 100% the skill set and the skills from the RTS, regardless if none of other heroes of the RTS does, regardless if blizzard depicted then different, etc etc.

You admit that it's not perfectly the same. You are already fully aware.

Why is it *me* coming up with something that needs to be perfectly the same when you're already aware that these two things aren't?

If the Warrior doesn't portray the Blademaster fully, then you already know why people still ask for a Blademaster class. It's not *ME* asking for this class to be made, I'm just explaining to you why your bullshit reasoning doesn't actually address why people actually want a playable Blademaster.

I don't really care if a Blademaster is playable or not, but I can recognize that there *is* demand for this to be fully represented and playable in some form. I think Blizzard is doing well to address the Dark Ranger, and they should always strive to do *more* for other class concepts. WHat they did for Beastmasters, Mountain Kings and Chieftains is already fully acceptable to me. We don't need those as playable classes because they have full representation of their themes and gameplay fantasy, even if I personally think Blizzard could still do more to fully realize those characters. For the most part, it satisfies the identity enough that there isn't really any demand for a separate Beastmaster or Mountain King class when the Warrior already fits.

When we discuss the Blademaster, it's a literal debate, because opinions are absolutely mixed. I don't think it's as simple as dismissing it just because *your opinion* is that the Warrior covers enough that you are satisfied. You aren't looking at this objectively, and you choose not to. That's fine, but you can't pass it off as a statement of fact. You have to frame it as your opinion.

[Syegfryed]

Because what you are saying is wrong.

No, seems like im hitting a nerve here, and you guys jsut can't stop the sting, thats why the encessity over confratation, to get the last reply of something.

I mean, how many more pages do we need to spell it out here?

Spell out with what? false equivalences? assumptions? Lies? you will not change many views with that, some people will fall for it sure.


Like i said, im done with with, at least with you, keep using the same "arguments" the topic have enough stuff to other people read and ahve fun.

[jellmoo]

i mean, those are not wow, that is the problem here, rpojection, yo want that wow mimic those other games, when they don't

i mean, sekiro use way more armor than normal blademaster, wo this is rly some nitpicking about what counts and what don't.

Dude... This is what the word ARCHETYPE means. It means a representation of something commonly depicted. In the Warcraft universe, the archetype I am talking about was depicted with the Blademaster.

The blademaster archetype, is plaayble wow, not sekiro, not kensei, not those other games, the wow blademaster is playble.

It. Is. Not. The Blademaster as presented in Warcraft 3 is not playable in WoW. Anywhere. There is no class that takes the qualities of the class and translates them into World of Warcraft. It simply isn't there.

you said you wanted to play a shirtless warrior with 2h hands and "mystical abilities" youc an do that, you can play the blademaster archetype, is not 100% a copy from rts, but again, nothing is.

No. I didn't. I said that the archetype that the Blademaster represents in WoW isn't playable. For some reason you are hung up on that meaning nothing more than a shirtless Orc with a sword. If that's what the archetype was, then cool. Anything is playable at that point. But that's not how the archetype was presented in Warcraft 3. What was presented in Warcraft 3 is not playable in World of Warcraft.

literally what.

Multiple archetypes exist. The barbaric warrior/Barbarian/Berserzer is also an archetype that largely goes without armor. This is how we can have Orcs. like Garrosh, also go without armor without being of the same archetype as the Blademaster.

Armor does not matter, blademasters don't have much armor not because is "blademaster way" but because orcs don't use armor, and you can be like that.

You continue to try and tell me what does and doesn't matter. Stop it. You don't get to dictate what matters.

There are plenty of examples of Orcs wearing armor. Hell, Saurfang wore armor. It's not just an "Orc thing". Even in WC3, the Orc units wore more armor than the Blademaster.

Anyone who played the RTS knows the wind walk was more an escape ability than a "subterfuge" ability, it was more for the speed that gives than the actually invisibility, period, it allows you to reach the enemy fast, kill their peons and run away, "sneakier" is not the main thing on blademasters in their lore, we expand an entire expansion in Wod to see the old blademaster clan and you can find more of then playing with fire than with "subterfurge"

False. players planned around Wind walk and used things like Silence to stop Wind Walk because Blademaster hit and run was so good. A Blademaster suddenly appearing and Bladestorming a clustered group of units was devastating.

Just like other heroes

Bullshit. What other unit got one of three abilities put into a class and we can confidently say "Yup, this class represents that"?

Not relevant, since things change from the RTs to the mmo, like metamorphosis not being ranged

Again, you don't get to decide what is and isn't relevant. More to the point, abilities change, what the primary stat is doesn't. Warriors in WoW are strength based for a reason. Rogues and Demon Hunters are Agility based for a reason. It fits part of their core archetype. You change the stat you change the archetype.

The armor is the same, since its about orcs not using armor.

Again, not true.

literally grasping at straws, youc an comapre the attack speed of the rts with the mmo, pointless

We're comparing a fast attacking, agile swordsman to literally the slowest attacking spec in the game. This isn't grasping at straws, it's pointing out two completely different things.

That you think off, it fit plenty their concept, and thats why blizz gave tot he blademaster npcs

A series of abilities that require shields for a group that doesn't use shields. Abilities based on heavy armored shock troops. Slow, plodding attacks for an agility based swordsman.

They don't fit the concept.

plenty of flavour with skills and transmog options.

So essentially "plenty of flavout if somebody pretends really hard". Great. Every concept in the game is covered then. We can all pretend.

"key elements" from other games? all right

Key elements directly from Warcraft 3.

Then you are arguing for what? my entire point is how they can't be a new class, because they already are playable with warriros together with mountain king and tauren chieftain, the thing is to give then more flavour like abilities

Because you are trying to force your opinion that I can play an archetype in the game when I very much can't because to do otherwise might jeopardize your headcannon that Blademasters are Warriors and nothing more.

For my lifetime playing pvp warrior was never slow, you must be confusing then with Death Knights, between double charge, heroic leap and going back and forth with intervene, either specing to get free roots and snares with the war banner warrior mobility is pretty decent, case in point, war baner is something that rly do callback to the war banner

Not slow moving. Slow attacks. They have one of the lowest APMs in the game. Instead of fast cutting attacks, it's slow, ponderous strikes.

newsflash: none of then are the same anyway, not even demon hutners play the same, rts is a different from a mmo

But none are AS different. No class in WoW is so different as what you are trying to do by shoe horning the Blademaster into the Warrior class.

In order to say that the Warrior is the Blademaster I have to ignore the Blademaster abilities, the primrary stat, the armor type, the role it plays, the aesthetic and the flavour. I have to ignore everything about it that made it interesting.

Yay.

then you want a monk, ou can play a monk, if you want a blademaster they are there.

The Monk. The class that doesn't use two handed swords?

But Blademasters are there? Really? You found an agility based class that uses a two handed sword, little to no armor, has an Eastern aesthetic and uses abilities that let it stealth, create duplicates of itself and attack groups of enemies? Cool! Where was it hiding?

This over fixation with the two skills like is crucial is laguhable, but they can add those to the warrior tollkit just fine with changed to fir the mmo gameplay

Your entire argument boils down to: Everything is laughable or doesn't matter. All the differences? They don't matter. All the many, many things lacking, they don't matter. Anything that flies in the face of your argument? Don't matter.

Just stop. You are trying to tell me that a class that uses a different primary stat, a different armor type, a different attack speed, functions in a different way on the battlefield, has only 33% of the moveset, none of the aesthetic, none of the flavour is the same as the Blademaster, and it's so ridiculous that you are willing to die on this hill.

You're wrong. Ielania and Triceron have been crushing your arguments for I don't know hoe many pages now and you honestly don't seem to be able to clue into this, which is sad. If literally everyone is telling you you're wrong and your continued misuse of words is killing your credibility, maybe it's time you take a look in the mirror.

Nobody is trying to tell you how to play the game. You're trying to force your opinions on everyone around you and pretending they are facts. That's plain wrong.

[Triceron]

No, seems like im hitting a nerve here, and you guys jsut can't stop the sting,

What sting?

Of all the classes I play, Warrior isn't one of them. I don't play a Rogue either. I am not asking for a Blademaster to become playable, so you believing that they should sinply be part of the Warrior class is fine to me.

But that is different than saying they are already the Warrior class because they are not. There:s nothing to sting, I'm pointing out that you are factually wrong.

Spell out with what? false equivalences? assumptions? Lies? you will not change many views with that, some people will fall for it sure.

People want to play as the Warcraft 3 Blademaster. That is the only thing that needs to be discussed.

Whether you feel the WoW version of a Blademaster is sufficient to portray that is up to you. Let's just be clear that no one here is talking about a WoW Blademaster NPC when we talk about a Blademaster class.

[Ielenia]

True, warlocks were in vanilla lore ostracized to a certain degree; dealing with daemons and demonic powers wasn't condoned, some NPC's had flavour text about it, although I don't remember anything about them having any quests in the same vein as DK's (not that it matters, it was established lore). However, do I see more of an opportunity to add necromancers after SL. It isn't all that hard to imagine that certain individuals would try and find their way into the shadowlands to help out their faction leaders. This would automatically lead down the path to necromancy and probably some help of the ebon blade (not all members are deathknights, some are craftsmen, which should include necromancers), or a story beat in the same trend. How the class would look like, isn't all that clear to me, but then again blizz class design has surprised me at times.

For the blademaster, I'd think that leather or even agi cloth would work (leather agi pool is already the most crowded as it is0, this would work fine as just about all gear has interchangeable main stats already. 2 handed bladed weapons would work fine (axes, swords, polearm), with probably 2 or 3 elements worked in, maybe a focus per spec or something, fire is easy (and established) air for speed and air-based illusions and mabye water for balance between attack/defense. Honestly, there are a few good ways to make it unique, it's just that this trope isn't my cup of tea (but again, I could see this happen before certain other ideas).

I suppose an argument for mail armor could be done, considering how the WC3 unit and HotS Samuro have plates hanging off the sides of his waist. You make a good point regarding air, though. A physical melee spec using 'air magic' to deal more physical damage, like slicing winds and such. I don't think it needs another element, but we could have a tank spec focused on pure melee speed.

- - - Updated - - -

This over fixation with the two skills like is crucial is laguhable, but they can add those to the warrior tollkit just fine with changed to fir the mmo gameplay

Except you don't even care to learn why, though. It's not the abilities, but the concept and gameplay that those two abilities allude to, that is not present in the warrior class.

- - - Updated - - -

Spell out with what? false equivalences? assumptions? Lies? you will not change many views with that, some people will fall for it sure.

Except it's not "assumptions", "false equivalence" or "lies". At least, you never explained why you believe that. You just said they are, and left it at that.

By the way? "Lying" also means stating your opinion as fact, like you have.

Like i said, im done with with, at least with you, keep using the same "arguments" the topic have enough stuff to other people read and ahve fun.

The arguments are "repeated" because you don't address them. You just hand-wave them away.

[Revamp Man]

Some people were dead certain we'd get tinkers after mechagon, but luckily we didn't get that, so why would we get dragonsworn just for patch 9.2? (not here to immediately debunk this, just curious why it would imply the class). Also, how do you see dragonsworn as a class, I don't have a clue as to how that would make a full class.

if they dont burn the galakrond story in 9.2 then that saves him as a possible threat later
i didnt say we would get the class in 9.2 but if they burned that story in a patch it wouldnt be a dragonsworn


as for it being a full class
base abilities are black dragon
4 specs
1 for each flight

intro shows our serving wrathion and then doing whatever we do to get the other flights powers
each one represents a spec

abilities can be literally anything

- - - Updated - - -

also if anyone thought we were getting tinker after bfa its because they took the theme of leaks and twisted them to fit the class be it ghostbusters from the shadowlands leaks or dragon slaying robots from the dragon isles leaks

[Syegfryed]

Dude... This is what the word ARCHETYPE means. It means a representation of something commonly depicted. In the Warcraft universe, the archetype I am talking about was depicted with the Blademaster.

And you are confusing games, simple as that, sure the "archetype" of a samurai warrior is shared among then, but wanting the wow one to mimic the other is just bonkers

It. Is. Not. The Blademaster as presented in Warcraft 3 is not playable in WoW.

no hero from the RTS as they are rpesented in warcraft 3 is playable in wow, because theya re two different games, one is a RTS the other is a MMO, gameplay is different, things evolve, the skills eolve.

Multiple archetypes exist. The barbaric warrior/Barbarian/Berserzer is also an archetype that largely goes without armor. This is how we can have Orcs. like Garrosh, also go without armor without being of the same archetype as the Blademaster.

yes... and why being unarmored mean something when is somethign they all do? is a non argument

You continue to try and tell me what does and doesn't matter. Stop it. You don't get to dictate what matters.

Again, its not me, its blizzard, go lok for blademaster OF WOW to have some sort understand, do not look in other games, there are armored blademasters just fine, you arem making up that being "unarmored" or "lighty armored" their defact trait, when blizzard disagree with that/does not care

False. players planned around Wind walk and used things like Silence to stop Wind Walk because Blademaster hit and run was so good. A Blademaster suddenly appearing and Bladestorming a clustered group of units was devastating.

Yess, literally what i said, wind walk was a escape mecanism, and that can be put to the warrior class modified to fit the mmo playstyle just fine.

Bullshit. What other unit got one of three abilities put into a class and we can confidently say "Yup, this class represents that"?

Tauren chieftain, which i just brought up earlier, wwarriros only have shockwave, and it is different from the rts

Again, you don't get to decide what is and isn't relevant. More to the point, abilities change, what the primary stat is doesn't. Warriors in WoW are strength based for a reason. Rogues and Demon Hunters are Agility based for a reason. It fits part of their core archetype. You change the stat you change the archetype.

Blademaster being agility was merely a mechanic thing to compensate the other heroes who were INT(far seer) and tauren chieftain(STR) the base of the blademaster is being strong and pwoerful, look how fucking ripped he is my dude.

Again, not true.

Ttotally true, same armor as anything and you can literally look exactly like a blademaster

We're comparing a fast attacking, agile swordsman to literally the slowest attacking spec in the game.

Ok, i stop playing shadowlands for a while but i have need to need a soruce for that, cause when i first played warriros was not nearly clsoe the the "slowest" specailly witht he amount of procs of execute/condem

A series of abilities that require shields for a group that doesn't use shields. Abilities based on heavy armored shock troops. Slow, plodding attacks for an agility based swordsman.

They don't fit the concept.

you msut have the same problem the other guy have, not playing warrior at all, it gets worse when youa re so fixated with other games

Key elements directly from Warcraft 3.

which we already have some, and others can be added

Because you are trying to force your opinion that I can play an archetype in the game when I very much can't because to do otherwise might jeopardize your headcannon that Blademasters are Warriors and nothing more.

you closing your eyes and sayign youc an't play sekiro does not mean youc an play a wow baldemaster, yes, sekiro isn't playable, what is playable is the wow blademaster, that is not "me" saying, it is in the game, warriors using blademasters skills weapons and appearence, is their fantasy, master of blades, which warriors are.

Not slow moving. Slow attacks. They have one of the lowest APMs in the game. Instead of fast cutting attacks, it's slow, ponderous strikes.

the point of blademaster is fast and ponderous strikes, warrior being slow in shadowlands is a amtter of design problem that can be fixed fine, like it was in older versions

But none are AS different

it is, literally showed you how

"how much" is not ana rgument, since this boils down to bias and asusmption

In order to say that the Warrior is the Blademaster I have to ignore the Blademaster abilities, the primrary stat, the armor type, the role it plays, the aesthetic and the flavour. I have to ignore everything about it that made it interesting.

you only have to ignore the primary stat, cause the rest is the same as warrior, ok, they don't have two skills, but that is not the end of the world, they ahve the other, the ultimate, they even ahve a abiltiy that drop their war banner, even when you put mirror image and wind walk the role of the blademaster is the same role of the warrior, kill the enemy fast

"armor" is you making that up, cause you can't say what armor they use in the RTS,e very the armor is the same for heroes

check in point if we see their statics in the unit:

http://classic.battle.net/war3/human...tainking.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/u...demaster.shtml


Blademaster have more armour than the fully armored unit mountain king

http://classic.battle.net/war3/human.../paladin.shtml

Even have more armor than the fully armored paladin

http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/u...hieftain.shtml

more armor than the tauren chieftain

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

more armor than the Death knight

And notice another thing: while having Agility as their main status, their STR score is almost exact the same as their agility with 36 and 39 respectfuly, tbecause the blademaster is more "balanced" on that part since the tauren chieftain and the farr seer took both STR and INT, same as the shadow hunter who is more balanced, same can be pointed to how Demon hutners ahve more STR than AGI, so the fixation to the RTS in the MMO is just bonkers

The Monk. The class that doesn't use two handed swords?

use a polearm, is a blade

Your entire argument boils down to: Everything is laughable or doesn't matter. All the differences? They don't matter. All the many, many things lacking, they don't matter. Anything that flies in the face of your argument? Don't matter.

You focus on the differences, thinking they are meaningfull and groundbreaking, when they are minor things that can be added later to then, while ignoring the rest, that is cherrypicking to fit your agenda.

But maybe when world of warcraft shadows die thrice release they rip off more than half of the warrior legacy to create a sekiro here.

- - - Updated - - -

People want to play as the Warcraft 3 Blademaster. That is the only thing that needs to be discussed.

clearly not when what is brought up are different games and just making up a different thematic and concept for the RTS and MMO warcraft

[Ielenia]

no hero from the RTS as they are rpesented in warcraft 3 is playable in wow, because theya re two different games, one is a RTS the other is a MMO, gameplay is different, things evolve, the skills eolve.

You are wrong, though. The blademaster concept is not represented in WoW, much less playable. "Pretending" you are something does not mean you are actually playing as said something. That's the whole meaning of "pretend". As for "different games", that is irrelevant, because we're not talking about having the specific abilities as they are detailed in the RTS, nor do we want the "top-down, point-and-click, resource-gathering, unit-training" gameplay of the RTS. Instead, what people are talking about is the gameplay that the concept of the blademasters and their RTS abilities allude to.

Again, its not me, its blizzard,

No. It's you. It's purely you. You're stating as fact that Blizzard has represented the blademaster with the warrior class. And this is false, because Blizzard never said that. This is nothing but your opinion. You're taking circumstantial and weak evidence and drawing your own conclusions about it. That, in itself, is fine. After all, it's your opinion, and you're allowed to your own opinion. The problem is that you're stating your opinion as fact.

Yess, literally what i said, wind walk was a escape mecanism, and that can be put to the warrior class modified to fit the mmo playstyle just fine.

Not really. Giving an invisibility/stealth to the warrior completely changes the class' dynamic and gameplay.

Blademaster have more armour than the fully armored unit mountain king

So.... you complain and berate others when they use other games for the blademaster concept... but you don't see any problem at all using other games against the blademaster concept. You know what that is called? Hypocrisy. Double-standards.

use a polearm, is a blade

Which will remain on your back 100% of the time and your character will never use it to attack? Doesn't sound like a blademaster to me. That's akin to a mage doing nothing but melee attacks with their staff and not using magic.

You focus on the differences, thinking they are meaningfull and groundbreaking, when they are minor things that can be added later to then, while ignoring the rest, that is cherrypicking to fit your agenda.

No. No, they cannot. Not without heavily changing the concept and gameplay of the warrior class. The warrior class is not an agile, sneaky class.

[Triceron]

clearly not when what is brought up are different games and just making up a different thematic and concept for the RTS and MMO warcraft

Multiple people have pointed out we are talking about the WC3 Blademaster concept as a Playable class in WoW.

Why would you think anyone is talking about making the WoW Blademaster NPC into a new class? The NPCs are just Warrior derivatives using Warrior abilities. I mean, if you think that is a stupid argument, I'd agree with you, because Blademaster NPCs in WoW don't fulfill the WC3 Blademaster concept either.

We should be talking about Warcraft 3's concept.

You know, like how most people responding to you are talking about:

I said that the archetype that the Blademaster represents in WoW isn't playable. For some reason you are hung up on that meaning nothing more than a shirtless Orc with a sword. If that's what the archetype was, then cool. Anything is playable at that point. But that's not how the archetype was presented in Warcraft 3. What was presented in Warcraft 3 is not playable in World of Warcraft.

A Blademaster doesn't wear plate or any other weapon type besides two-handed swords.
Also, Warriors don't use abilities like Mirror Images or Windwalk.

Fact is, the playstyle of a Blademaster in Warcraft 3 is extremely close to that of your regular Rogue / Assassin type, fast, sneaky, high damage but rather squishy compared to your average Warrior hero.

Well equally we could go down that route with any class or spec forever, we can just infinitely change it, or we can take old reference material that people care about, such as myself, the Blademaster from WC3 is absolutely iconic as an 'orc warrior' and use those instead.

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:
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.

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.

It uses the same abilities as its Warcraft 3 counterpart: Mirror Image, Critical Strike, Bladestorm, Wind Walk - and expands upon it. I view it as a completely viable source.

Just a few I picked out. All but one are directly responding to you, and even then the one that wasn't responding to you did so indirectly by comparing WC3 Blademaster to MK for you to see.

I mean, how long is it going to take for you to see the forest for the trees?

[Triceron]

Just an FYI, a) you're not allowed to have an opinion on these forums, b) there was a thread warning a while back about the blademaster thing so be careful haha c) you're arguing with an actual wall who has 0 interest in holding a constructive back and forth debate nor giving 0 fucks what anyone says to him, he will never accept a different view. There could be 6,999,999,999 people saying they believe something vs him and he will still argue we're all wrong.

I agree, there's little chance of ever changing a mind or belief by arguing it, but as stubborn as others are, I'm even more stubborn.

Sorry to quote your thread, I realized I probably pinged a bunch of notifications by linking the quotes, but I wanted to at least provide the sources. The thread warning was for the Blademaster thread, not this one. The only warning I saw here was about Tinkers, which is why conversation ended up shifting to Blademasters instead