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

[jellmoo]

He can't do it because he doesn't regard the Warcraft 3 Blademaster as anything other than a Warrior in WoW.

"you only have to ignore the primary stat" pretty much speaks everything. Just ignore the things that makes a Blademaster unique and you have a Warrior. That's how he chooses to see the Blademaster.

I honestly don't know what else to say. Debate is fun. Honest debate and discussion about classes is my favourite forum activity. I've grown somewhat used to intellectual dishonesty and simply avoid those arguments now. But wilful ignorance? Nearly incomprehensible arguments? Hand waiving away anything as though it magically invalidates a point?

I can understand somebody saying that they don't think the archetype is important to represent. I can understand somebody saying existing classes are close enough. I can understand somebody saying that the abilities were doled out to other classes and it would take stealing from them to make it work. I might not agree with the arguments but they would make sense.

Trying to insist that two demonstrably different things are the same and then pretending the differences don't matter "just cuz"? It's practically the dollar store equivalent of what a decent argument should be.

[Triceron]

Nathanos is not developed enough. When he gets to be a raid boss, then we'd have an argument. Drawing from a couple of abilities isn't enough.

Are you unaware he was made into a Raid Boss and still had nothing noteworthy of being related whatseover to the Dark Rangers of WC3?

By the way, i think the skeleton raising aspect is dropped, as Sylvanas in HotS doesn't do that. I guess it is vital in order to avoid overlap with the Death Knight.

Regardless, if Blizzard officially makes a Dark Ranger class, they could choose to implement it or ignore it. That's up to them to decide.

I mean, they gave us a Demon Hunter that doesn't have a ranged Metamorphosis, and they kept with the flavour of HOTS Illidan instead as a fully melee character. As long as that satisfies the full class identity, that is what is important. I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing skeletons.

Everything could be that. That's like saying no new classes. That's kinda shallow. It's like implementing only allied races from now on.

Consider that the design of the last new class was also pretty shallow. 2 Specs, gutted multiple classes, and has gameplay consisting of a 2 button rotation.

I am basing these speculations on Blizzard's own trends. We're pretty much beyond the point of innovation and redemption. At most I see is a Tinker or Dragonsworn, and from there Blizzard is pretty much creatively bankrupt.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't know what else to say. Debate is fun. Honest debate and discussion about classes is my favourite forum activity. I've grown somewhat used to intellectual dishonesty and simply avoid those arguments now. But wilful ignorance? Nearly incomprehensible arguments? Hand waiving away anything as though it magically invalidates a point?

I can understand somebody saying that they don't think the archetype is important to represent. I can understand somebody saying existing classes are close enough. I can understand somebody saying that the abilities were doled out to other classes and it would take stealing from them to make it work. I might not agree with the arguments but they would make sense.

Trying to insist that two demonstrably different things are the same and then pretending the differences don't matter "just cuz"? It's practically the dollar store equivalent of what a decent argument should be.

His use of hyperbole is definitely aggravating. I can understand his intention, but he is unwilling to use the right arguments to convey his message.

I mean, I personally don't even think a Blademaster class should be made, and I can't get him to agree with me on this point. He just keeps saying Blademasters are already playable.

- - - Updated - - -

Bash from the mountian king is missing, the spell immunity from then is missing :^)

always with the same double standards, false equivalence.

Bash and spell immunity are translated into WoW mechanics. Stuns can't be made into baseline passives, so they are implemented as stun and interrupt abilities. Spell immunity is also translated into mechanics such as Spell Reflection and the Dwarf's Stoneform racial which can clear magical debuffs. The fantasy of a MK is fully represented, even if the mechanics have to be translated into a way that makes sense in WoW.

Animate Dead is not in WoW, but we have Army of the Dead that translates its mechanics into WoW. Army of the Dead represents the Death Knight's ability to raise a small army of Undead units. We know this is a significant part of the DK's identity that needed to be represented, and without it we could argue that it was not being fully represented.

A Blood Mage, for example, is not fully represented in WoW. We have a Mage and Warlock who both use fiery spells and can banish elementals and demons, but we don't have the full representation fo a Blood Mage in WoW. All we have is partial representation, and that's not enough to consider the Blood Mage as being playable, even if we already know their themes and fantasy are very well connected to the Fire Mage and Destruction Warlock specs.

When we look at the WC3 Blademaster, what is the translated mechanics of Windwalk and Mirror Image? The Warrior has nothing to represent these abilities, or even the theme of these abilities. These are deception mechanics, and the Warrior has zero representation for this. The most you can do is take up Engineering which lets you deploy holographic Decoys or a belt mod that lets you Stealth, but these are not themes and flavours of a Blademaster hero. The Warrior class is lacking abilities that represent this significant aspect of the WC3 Blademaster hero.

It does not have to be an *exact* translation of mechanics. It simply has to be represented.

[Ielenia]

Bash and spell immunity are translated into WoW mechanics. Stuns can't be made into baseline passives, so they are implemented as stun and interrupt abilities.

Actually, just to clarify this point, but the warrior class did have the "bash" as a passive back during vanilla WoW and now in Classic WoW. It's the "Mace Specialization" talent.

[Syegfryed]

Again, you just dismiss every argument that you can't counter as 'unimportant'. It's tired.

i literally refute everything you said with examples, ingame even the dumb armor argument

I literally showed you Blademaster armor is higher than mountain king, paladins and DeathKnights, yet, you keep saying blademaster is "unarmored" or "don't use armor", phrasing, you are still ignoring somethign that direct contradict your idea of what a blademaster is

you entire argument is making something up, a caricature of what a wow blademaster based on other games, and being made when pointed that is not the case here.

If you think that the use of trickery/stealth is a minor point when half of their abilities in WC3 were stealth/trickery and in HOTS its 17/20 then whats the point having this debate with you..

If those were major points, blizzard would make sure to highlight that in their lore in wow, in the blademaster npcs, and the blademaster playable class, aka warrior, But they didn't, they seem fine with just bladestorm being enough.

I think they should still add those skills to the warrior yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, just to clarify this point, but the warrior class did have the "bash" as a passive back during vanilla WoW and now in Classic WoW. It's the "Mace Specialization" talent.

just like https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Swo...arrior_talent) and https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Poleaxe_Specialization providing extra critical

abilities being removed/new being added, gameplay evolving trough the years, who would know

[Triceron]

Actually, just to clarify this point, but the warrior class did have the "bash" as a passive back during vanilla WoW and now in Classic WoW. It's the "Mace Specialization" talent.

Ah, good to know. Even if it's not in the game any more, it's good to know that they attempted to represent it in some way.

- - - Updated - - -

just like https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Swo...arrior_talent) and https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Poleaxe_Specialization providing extra critical

abilities being removed/new being added, gameplay evolving trough the years, who would know

And that's fine. Do you see how no one is actually making an argument that Blademaster needs Critical Strike passive in WoW? Whether or not they have a specific 'Specialization' or not, it doesn't really matter because we know Critical Strike as a stat is already being represented in the game.

What's more important to focus on are the other aspects of its theme and design that have not been represented, namely the Windwalk and Mirror Image abilites which are widely associated with the WC3 Blademaster. If the Warrior had *any* type of Stealth-like mechanic, then I could consider this to be satisfied. If the Warrior had *any* type of deception or damage redirection mechanic, I could consider this to be satisfied. The Warrior does not have anything that comes close to representing either of these two spells.

Do we agree?

[jellmoo]

i literally refute everything you said with examples, ingame even the dumb armor argument

I literally showed you Blademaster armor is higher than mountain king, paladins and DeathKnights, yet, you keep saying blademaster is "unarmored" or "don't use armor", phrasing, you are still ignoring somethign that direct contradict your idea of what a blademaster is

you entire argument is making something up, a caricature of what a wow blademaster based on other games, and being made when pointed that is not the case here.

LOOK AT THE GODDAMN BLADEMASTER. He is a shirtless warrior. He is not wearing armor. How many times do I have to tell you that aesthetic matters?

My entire argument is that theme + abilities + aesthetic + playstyle = playing the archetype. It's not fucking hard to understand. You haven't refuted a single thing, you just dismiss everything with your magic wand. Again and again and again. Literally everyone in the thread is telling you the same thing. Why aren't you getting this???

- - - Updated - - -

His use of hyperbole is definitely aggravating. I can understand his intention, but he is unwilling to use the right arguments to convey his message.

I mean, I personally don't even think a Blademaster class should be made, and I can't get him to agree with me on this point. He just keeps saying Blademasters are already playable.

I get hyperbole for effect, but when every statement is hyperbole, it loses all effect and reads... well... not great.

I don't think the Blademaster should be a class either. I think we're at a point where we can't add a class for every concept under the sun and there are other ways to get archetypes playable. But the logic being used here means that every concept is already playable, you just have to pretend hard enough. Necromancers? playable. Dark Rangers? Playable. Tinkers? Playable. Bards? Oh yeah, playable. Pastry Chef? Totally playable.

[Ielenia]

I literally showed you Blademaster armor is higher than mountain king, paladins and DeathKnights, yet, you keep saying blademaster is "unarmored" or "don't use armor", phrasing, you are still ignoring somethign that direct contradict your idea of what a blademaster is

You keep harping on the "armor" value. That is just a gameplay value so the unit isn't instantly killed the moment it shows its face in combat. We're talking about the blademaster concept, not its stats. Even when we mention "it's an agility-based class" we're talking about its concept, not its stats.

If those were major points, blizzard would make sure to highlight that in their lore in wow, in the blademaster npcs, and the blademaster playable class, aka warrior, But they didn't, they seem fine with just bladestorm being enough.

Except we do have the characters in the lore representing the WC3 blademaster. NPCs such as Jubei'thos

I think they should still add those skills to the warrior yes.

And completely change the warrior class' theme and gameplay style, just because you don't want the blademaster to be its own class? Really?

just like https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Swo...arrior_talent) and https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Poleaxe_Specialization providing extra critical

abilities being removed/new being added, gameplay evolving trough the years, who would know

Still missing key components of the blademaster's concept, though. The warrior class is not an agile character who uses stealth and subterfuge.

[Syegfryed]

LOOK AT THE GODDAMN BLADEMASTER. He is a shirtless warrior. He is not wearing armor. How many times do I have to tell you that aesthetic matters?

Aesthetic only matter when it suits you apperently? you can literally play as a shirtless orc warrior in wow, you said you don't, you were wrong

My entire argument is that theme + abilities + aesthetic + playstyle = playing the archetype. It's not fucking hard to understand

Is not hard to understand we have that, we don't have the entirety of the abilities neither the exact same playstyle, true, because its impossible to put the same playstyle from a RTS to a MMORPG, others don't have it too, a DH in WoW don't play exact the same like in the RTS, asking for another DH class because is not the same is as much nonsensical

- - - Updated - - -

You keep harping on the "armor" value. That is just a gameplay value so the unit isn't instantly killed the moment it shows its face in combat.

is so funny when you double standard, agi being the base stat is not just a "gameplay value" and matter a lot, but this is. Very funny.

Except we do have the characters in the lore representing the WC3 blademaster. NPCs such as Jubei'thos

And for one who have it, ten don't, like i said, pretty bad job if it is to show this is a key factor to then if blizzard almost never put on then

And completely change the warrior class' theme and gameplay style, just because you don't want the blademaster to be its own class? Really?

?? only in your head it would do that

- - - Updated - - -

The Warrior does not have anything that comes close to representing either of these two spells.

Do we agree?

They have spell reflection to highlight a "deceptive", since it is directly a damage redirection mechanic.

Like i said, yes, they don't have 100% the blademaster spells, but does not mean they aren't, and does not mean they can't change those abilities to fit the MMO mechanics, They did that with Avatar and Stormbolt, it would be the easiest thing to do,but trying to make up a entire different class that would dilute and rip off the warrior? to justify two spells? and with more than one spec? is just nonsensical

[Ielenia]

is so funny when you double standard, agi being the base stat is not just a "gameplay value" and matter a lot, but this is. Very funny.

What is "funny" is the lengths you go to attempt to do a "gotcha" that you edit out the part that counters your "gotcha". Let me repost the part you removed (and likely ignored):

You keep harping on the "armor" value. That is just a gameplay value so the unit isn't instantly killed the moment it shows its face in combat. We're talking about the blademaster concept, not its stats. Even when we mention "it's an agility-based class" we're talking about its concept, not its stats.

And for one who have it, ten don't, like i said, pretty bad job if it is to show this is a key factor to then if blizzard almost never put on then

How many demon hunters before the Legion had wings? Horns? Could shoot eye beams? Self-immolate?

?? only in your head it would do that

Dude, giving a class the ability to go stealth and create mirror images of itself to deflect damage completely changes a class' theme and gameplay style. That'd be like giving the rogue ranged magic spells. Or melee attacks to the mage class.

[jellmoo]

Is not hard to understand we have that, we don't have the entirety of the abilities neither the exact same playstyle, true, because its impossible to put the same playstyle from a RTS to a MMORPG, others don't have it too, a DH in WoW don't play exact the same like in the RTS, asking for another DH class because is not the same is as much nonsensical

And in every single other case we have abilities that may be changed to fit the confine of an MMO vs an RTS, but at least they are there. Or we have abilities that are thematically similar enough that we can connect them to what was present in Warcraft 3.

You are trying to make a connection when two thirds of the unit's abilities aren't there. At all. Not just not made exactly, not present in any way, shape or form. Where the entire playstyle of the class is different. A DH in WoW has differences from WC 3, absolutely. But it has way more similarities. They gave it a version of Metamorphosis, a version of Immolation. They gavr them Blur to emulate Evasion. The only thing they don't have is Mana Burn. They keep their primary stat and their overall playstyle intact.

It's not that we don't have the entirety of the package. We barely have any of the package.

[Ielenia]

They have spell reflection to highlight a "deceptive", since it is directly a damage redirection mechanic.

That is not "deception".

Like i said, yes, they don't have 100% the blademaster spells, but does not mean they aren't,

They are not if we are talking about the concept. Saying the warrior class is the blademaster class because it has bladestorm and can wield two-handed weapons is like saying the rogue is the demon hunter class because it has evasion and can dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold. People who want a blademaster class do not want to "make believe" and "pretend" they're a blademaster through the usage of transmog and toys. They actually want to be a blademaster, to play the class inspired by the concept showcased by the WC3 unit and, to some extent, the HotS Samuro character. Again: they don't want to "play pretend".

[Syegfryed]

And in every single other case we have abilities that may be changed to fit the confine of an MMO vs an RTS, but at least they are there. Or we have abilities that are thematically similar enough that we can connect them to what was present in Warcraft 3.e.

And others were completed cut

Like i said, the "problem" you saying it is exist, can simple resolved by adding those skills to the warrior, one way or another, there is no logical reason to rip off warriors and make an entire new class to justify two skills

- - - Updated - - -

That is not "deception".

try to say that to the paladin who was going to stun you, or the warlock who casted chaos bolt

Saying the warrior class is the blademaster class because it has bladestorm and can wield two-handed weapons is like saying the rogue is the demon hunter class because it has evasion and can dual-wield Illidan's warglaives and wear his blindfold..

is immensely funny when this false equivalence comes up, but you know, dh use fel magic, and blademaster/warriors don't use magic, so dumbing down things cherrypicking things, to fit your agenda, will not work

[jellmoo]

And others were completed cut

Like i said, the "problem" you saying it is exist, can simple resolved by adding those skills to the warrior, one way or another, there is no logical reason to rip off warriors and make an entire new class to justify two skills

But. That. Isn't My. Argument.

I'm saying that I can't play a Blademaster today. Not if they add stuff. Not if they make changes. Right now, the Blademaster as it existed in WC3 is not playable in WoW. I can't play a unarmored or lightly armored agile dude with a giant sword who sneaks around the battlefield and uses deception to trick the enemy and then mow them down. This is what the Blademaster in WC3 was. This is what today I cannot play.

[Ielenia]

try to say that to the paladin who was going to stun you, or the warlock who casted chaos bolt

Again, that is not deception. Deception is to trick someone. There is no trickery in reflecting a spell. By that logic, it's fair to say it's "trickery" when a paladin uses their bubble. Or the mage uses his Ice Block. Spells aren't reflected back, but the paladin and mage "tricked" the opponent by negating all the damage.

is immensely funny when this false equivalence comes up,

Which you never explained a single time why you think it's a false equivalence, despite me asking you a hundred times over...

but you know, dh use fel magic, and blademaster/warriors don't use magic,

Except they do, as evidenced by the fact they can go invisible and create illusory images of themselves. And in WoW, they can even manipulate fire, too. Also, before you go back to this "warrior energy" thing, it doesn't matter. It's still magic. Just like chi (i.e. "warrior energy") is just spirit magic.

so dumbing down things cherrypicking things, to fit your agenda, will not work

I'm not "dumbing down" or "cherry picking" anything. That is literally everything the warrior has that is part of the blademaster concept: bladestorm, and wields two-handed bladed weapons.

[Syegfryed]

But. That. Isn't My. Argument.

I'm saying that I can't play a Blademaster today. Not if they add stuff. Not if they make changes. Right now, the Blademaster as it existed in WC3 is not playable in WoW. I can't play a unarmored or lightly armored agile dude with a giant sword who sneaks around the battlefield and uses deception to trick the enemy and then mow them down. This is what the Blademaster in WC3 was. This is what today I cannot play.

And if i want to play like the DH in the RTS in wow i can't, thats why im saying your point is nonsensical, you keep adding stuff to make a hyperbole and a caricature of the blademaster, you can't play like a RTS in a MMORPG

you can play like a blademaster period. because they have everything a blademaster have, missing two skills and again, the class is not revolved around those two skills, neither in play style neither in the lore, they still are blademasters without those skills, to say you can't, you either didn't played blademasters in the RTS, or just played wrong

- - - Updated - - -

Except they do, as evidenced by the fact they can go invisible and create illusory images of themselves

That is not magic, and Warriors can do things like that already, like dragon roar, shockwave, thunderclap etc

[jellmoo]

And if i want to play like the DH in the RTS in wow i can't, thats why im saying your point is nonsensical, you keep adding stuff to make a hyperbole and a caricature of the blademaster, you can't play like a RTS in a MMORPG

Look at the similarities between the DH in WC3 and the DH in WoW. Same stat. Same armor. Same aesthetic. Same function. 2/3 abilities represented.

Look at the Blademaster as a Warrior. Different stat. Different armor. Different aesthetic. Different function. 1/3 abilities represented.

These aren't the same thing.

you can play like a blademaster period. because they have everything a blademaster have, missing two skills and again, the class is not revolved around those two skills, neither in play style neither in the lore, they still are blademasters without those skills, to say you can't, you either didn't played blademasters in the RTS, or just played wrong

Stop with that bullshit. The Blademaster entirely revolved around stealth and trickery. That's what they did. That was their whole schtick. You contineu with your hand waiving. Their whole fucking point was to sneak up on the enemy and wreak havoc. That's what they were designed to do. That's not what Warriors in WoW do.

Those two abilities they are missing? THEY ARE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BLADEMASTER. Have you ever played WC3? Because so help me, I don't think you ever have. Read their fucking write up: http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/units/blademaster.shtml

Take a look at how things like tricking the enemy, sneaking behind enemy lines, tricking creeps into attacking the enemy...

[Syegfryed]

Look at the similarities between the DH in WC3 and the DH in WoW. Same stat. Same armor. Same aesthetic. Same function. 2/3 abilities represented.

ah yes, look, totally the same aesthetic

the "same armor" *look at the dude shirtless*, hum yes we defintly can say what armor he is using

Same stat, humm yes *Look at the Demon hunter with much higher Strenght than agility*

2/3 abilities represented, yes, no ranged metamorphosis, no mana burn.

Look at the Blademaster as a Warrior. Different stat. Different armor. Different aesthetic. Different function. 1/3 abilities represented.

Ah yes, totally different Aesthetic, they don't look alike at all, you are right

different? Armor? ah yes, the guy who have the same armor rate as the Knights who use Heavy armor, more armor than death knights and Mountain kings.

Different stat? yep, their stat gain is different, their Strength score still is as much as their agility.

Different function? they have the same function, they are warriors that go head on into the fray, showed countless of times, they are not sneaky rogues.

And yes, they don't have two skills, already mentioned.

These aren't the same thing.

They aren't, because you are making shit up

Stop with that bullshit. The Blademaster entirely revolved around stealth and trickery. That's what they did. That was their whole schtick. You contineu with your hand waiving. Their whole fucking point was to sneak up on the enemy and wreak havoc. That's what they were designed to do. That's not what Warriors in WoW do

.

No they aren't, again, go play with a blademaster in the RTS and try to win the game by going for trickery and "stealth", you will lose hard

The "closest" thing they can do like that is go invisible to the enemy base, because wind walk give then bonus to speed and kill their workers, then get out, because the bonus to movement without being caught, not because "sneaky rogues" and this only work at early low leves and stop being a thing after the enemy create brains and do towers, later they only walk with the army and destroy the enemy focusing on targets like spell casting and heroes, such thing warriors do with their mobility and power.

Im leading to believe you only played with easy bots and cheats, or not played the game at all, to think a blademaster role in the RTS was that "trick creeps into attack the enemy"

Those two abilities they are missing? THEY ARE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BLADEMASTER.

They are not, rly, stop, Blizzard already made sure of that but not giving much shit about it with tons of blademasters in wow not having that nither being part of their lore across the years

This is the whole point of the problem, you are made that up and can't accept another thing

[Triceron]

Like i said, yes, they don't have 100% the blademaster spells, but does not mean they aren't, and does not mean they can't change those abilities to fit the MMO mechanics

Then they must do this first before we can all regard them as Blademasters. If they can't fulfill the full theme through the most iconic WC3 abilities, then no Blademaster fan who expects to play as a WC3 Blademaster is going to be satisfied with this incomplete concept. As I said, everyone who is responding to you has been telling you this same thing. The concept is incomplete, whereas we HAVE a fulfilled concept for the Beastmaster, Chieftain and the Mountain King.

Heroes like the Demon Hunter, Death Knight and Brewmaster are all fully represented in the classes they got.

Blademaster is not fully represented by the Warrior class. Same can be said of the Dark Ranger not fully represented in the Hunter class. Neither are widely considered as playable in WoW, which is why people want to see more representation for them in the game.

They did that with Avatar and Stormbolt, it would be the easiest thing to do,but trying to make up a entire different class that would dilute and rip off the warrior? to justify two spells? and with more than one spec? is just nonsensical

If the Warrior isn't fully representing the Warcraft 3 Blademaster, then there's no reason to consider it as being fully playable in WoW. If it's not fully playable in WoW, then people will continue demand the very things that are missing from the WC3.

You agree that they do not have 100% Blademaster spells. You also regard that Blizzard can change those abilities into MMO mechanics, like they did for Avatar and Stormbolt.

So why can't we reach a middle ground and simply agree that Warriors can become Blademasters as long as Blizzard does this same treatment for Windwalk and Mirror Image? Is it such a crazy idea that this is impossible to you? We already have Avatar and Stormbolt added to the Warrior when they originally did not have these abilities. This has turned the Warrior from simply being a Dwarf Warrior into a full representable Mountain King. These abilities allow people to fully represent the Warcraft 3 Hero, even if not in a perfect or exact way. The Vanilla WoW MK was not anywhere close to being fully represented, and would have just been a Dwarf Warrior. Even if Warriors had Thunderclap, it would not really be considered a playable Mountain King without the full package.

We are still missing abilities that fully represent a Blademaster. The concept is not complete, and we are unable to play as a Blademaster as it was in Warcraft 3.

Every time you're talking about any NPC that doesn't have those missing abilities, you're using false equivalency. NPCs are not playable, so you're not addressing the problem of not having any representation for Windwalk and Mirror Image in the Warrior class. Do you understand?

[Syegfryed]

Then they must do this first before we can all regard them as Blademasters.

Nope, they don't to do that, because blademasters are still blademaster even if they lack those two skills, something you can get away with it

then there's no reason to consider it as being fully playable in WoW.

Like i said, i never made that claim, you are attacking a strawman

So why can't we reach a middle ground and simply agree that Warriors can become Blademasters as long as Blizzard does this same treatment for Windwalk and Mirror Image?

Because that would imply a warrior/blademaster is only a blademaster if it have those two skills, in this case, if blizzard give then windwalk/mirror image in someway, and that is false, because a blademaster/warrior still is a blademaster even without those skils.

Every time you're talking about any NPC that doesn't have those missing abilities, you're using false equivalency. NPCs are not playable, so you're not addressing the problem of not having any representation for Windwalk and Mirror Image in the Warrior class. Do you understand?

For someone who entire basis of argument is false equivalence, you don't get to say that, even because NPCS are direct representation the blademasters we have, we are not talking about one, particular NPC, one who run from the rule, like shaman thrall and anduin priest using plate armor, we are talking about several npcs, several appearances and mentions in the game and lore, we spend months in old draenor, learning about the clan and no focus on mirror image neither windwalk,

[sam86]

I personally don't think anyone is really optimistic, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing all the time for what the *next* class would be instead of being open to just discussing what could be possible. Classes are so uncommon and the dev team is so ass-backwards with their class design that it's become more and more frustrating to even discuss a single concept without someone else trying to dismiss the idea entirely because it somehow threatens their own hopes for a different class.

Blizzard has molded too much fantasy out of borrowed power. It's really about time they scale back on it

Well if u want some optimistic thoughts we have a LOT of spells from the rpg books we still didn't see in wow, some are flat out broken OP
Berseker charge for example is one that just cross my mind that still doesn't exist in wow