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

[jellmoo]

Blood Death Knights.

Well, I was keeping with the theme of the thread and talking about a new class, but to your point I understand the blood theme, but I'm not sure how I feel about Venthyr tanks. They seem awfully aristocratic, by and large, to be the guy up from getting his face caved in.

Another interesting point is: Can Venthyr even become undead?

[pacotaco]

Well, I was keeping with the theme of the thread and talking about a new class, but to your point I understand the blood theme, but I'm not sure how I feel about Venthyr tanks. They seem awfully aristocratic, by and large, to be the guy up from getting his face caved in.

Another interesting point is: Can Venthyr even become undead?

Yes. Technically they just need to step into the living plane. "Undead" in WoW is just like "Extraplanar" on D&D, you are considered like that just when you're not in your natural plane.

[username993720]

Well, I was keeping with the theme of the thread and talking about a new class, but to your point I understand the blood theme, but I'm not sure how I feel about Venthyr tanks. They seem awfully aristocratic, by and large, to be the guy up from getting his face caved in.

Another interesting point is: Can Venthyr even become undead?

They are, already, dead. Vampires, in myth, are undead creatures.

Blood
"A dark guardian who manipulates and corrupts life energy to sustain in the face of an enemy onslaught." - seems right to me.
It wasn't, always, a tanking spec. Up until cata, each spec could tank and Frost was considered the best at it.


Dancing Rune Weapon


Remornia

[Ielenia]

Familiarity, most likely.
And less canon sources to rely on.

I don't believe any of those were deciding factors. Otherwise, I don't think the runemaster would even become one of the "top three" choices.

Why? because they're not part of an expansion. That's like examining the addition of races, and including the base ones.

And I stand by my opinion that we should include the base races in that discussion unless an actual, tangible difference is given to exclude them. Which you haven't done for the vanilla classes so far. If you want to exclude the vanilla classes, you have to demonstrate some important detail about their design process that is sufficiently different than the expansion classes. You have to show how designing the expansion classes is any different than designing the vanilla classes.

There's no conspiracy in that.

Yes, there is. It is purely "conspiracy theory" and nothing more to say that "WoW is competing with Skyrim" and therefore WoW design decisions are based on this competition. And to further exemplify how nonsensical is this conspiracy theory, Shadowlands was released in 2020, while Dawnguard, Skyrim's expansion that dealt with vampires, was released in 2012. Eight years prior.

Exactly. Part humanoid, part bovine.

And nothing more. Taurens are not minotaurs. They reference the mythos, but they're not minotaurs. Just like venthyr are not vampires while still referencing vampires.

Do you think Vampires were depicted in mythos as former elves?
Of course they weren't. That's called creative directing.

False equivalence, because "vampire" is not a race, but a blood curse. Any race can become a vampire if another vampire decides to spread the curse to them.

-_-

If those are the criterias for your vampire, then they should be the criterias for the other races. Don't try to wiggle out of it.

You'd have a point if they were called "vampires" instead of "venthyr".

It means that you claim WoW trolls aren't real trolls.

I just explained you how this isn't a dichotomy. Me not claiming "trolls are trolls" is not me claiming "trolls are not trolls". There is a third position here, usually called "I don't care/I don't know".

Based on vampires, and vampires alone, makes them vampires.

No. No, it doesn't. Referencing one thing and only one thing does not make them the exact same as those things. I've already demonstrated this to you: venthyr do not drink blood, venthyr's existence is not a blood curse, the venthyr's curse is not passed on through biting their victims.

"I don't need to see the earth from the outside to know that is is flat". -flat earthers.

That doesn't even come close to the same ballpark. Let me explain to you how this comparison of yours is absurd, using our examples: if we're discussing if a certain word belongs to a certain language or not, all I need to know is the language we're talking about, not the other languages. In my previous example, I only need to know the english language to know that the word "saudade" is not part of it. I don't need to know where a word comes from to know it doesn't belong to the english language. But for your example, we're talking about the entire planet, so we need to know the entire planet, hence why "see the Earth from outside" is a requirement.

*Sigh*

So, nothing is the way it seems?

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is: we don't know.

Blood Death Knights.

the death knight class is not the necromancer class.

[draugril]

Popping into this thread every few pages like:

[jellmoo]

They are, already, dead. Vampires, in myth, are undead creatures.

Which feels at least as clunky as Forsaken Death Knights. Is there an end to the cycle of undeath? Can something be raised into undeath an infinite number of times?

Blood

"A dark guardian who manipulates and corrupts life energy to sustain in the face of an enemy onslaught." - seems right to me.
It wasn't, always, a tanking spec. Up until cata, each spec could tank and Frost was considered the best at it.

Oh I totally miss the days of Blood dps, it was awesome. Unfortunately right now Blood is a dedicated tanking spec and I can't help but feel that tanking just doesn't feel very Venthyr (totally my opinion, I know). They seem so aristocratic, subtle and snooty. Them being the guy to stand there and get smacked in the face just feels little weird to me. They really feel like the kind of dude that stands back and lets others do the dirty work for them.

Which is why I tossed out Necromancer.

[username993720]

I don't believe any of those were deciding factors. Otherwise, I don't think the runemaster would even become one of the "top three" choices.

Then, i'd like to hear your reasons.

And I stand by my opinion that we should include the base races in that discussion unless an actual, tangible difference is given to exclude them. Which you haven't done for the vanilla classes so far. If you want to exclude the vanilla classes, you have to demonstrate some important detail about their design process that is sufficiently different than the expansion classes. You have to show how designing the expansion classes is any different than designing the vanilla classes.

It is in the word "Expansion".
For once, they didn't need to match the classes to the theme of the base game, like they do with expansions.
Secondly, they obviously tried to cover the basic, elementary and fundamental RPG archetypes with vanilla. Expansions give a room to expand beyond them.

Yes, there is. It is purely "conspiracy theory" and nothing more to say that "WoW is competing with Skyrim" and therefore WoW design decisions are based on this competition. And to further exemplify how nonsensical is this conspiracy theory, Shadowlands was released in 2020, while Dawnguard, Skyrim's expansion that dealt with vampires, was released in 2012. Eight years prior.

What?
Video published 26th of may, 2020.
I meant to say Elder Scrolls online: The Dark Heart of Skyrim and Greymoor.

And nothing more. Taurens are not minotaurs. They reference the mythos, but they're not minotaurs. Just like venthyr are not vampires while still referencing vampires.

*Sigh*

This isn't going anywhere.
They are (just given a native american culture). Just like Orcs are orcs, Trolls are trolls, Undeads are undeads, Elves are elves, Goblins are goblins Dwarves are dwarves, Gnomes are gnomes and Worgen are werewolves.

False equivalence, because "vampire" is not a race, but a blood curse. Any race can become a vampire if another vampire decides to spread the curse to them.

So are undeads. And, we still have an undead race. Moreover, San'layn were risen by the Lich King, not bitten. It doesn't matter, either, because they were never depicted in myth as anything but former humans. Not former elves, not former dwarves, not former orcs nor former trolls.

You'd have a point if they were called "vampires" instead of "venthyr".

*Facepalm*

It's a name.
Just like San'layn aren't named vampires.
You'd have to go really low to use that as an argument.
"The name "venthyr" is similar to the Ventrue, a prominent vampire clan from Vampire: The Masquerade. It's also similar to a number of Eastern European names for vampires or vampire-like creatures, such as Dhamphir."

I just explained you how this isn't a dichotomy. Me not claiming "trolls are trolls" is not me claiming "trolls are not trolls". There is a third position here, usually called "I don't care/I don't know".

Exactly.
Your entire argument is based on lack of knowledge or any will to back up your statements. If you claim something, you better give explanations when it doesn't account for other cases. Otherwise, you look too biased.

No. No, it doesn't. Referencing one thing and only one thing does not make them the exact same as those things. I've already demonstrated this to you: venthyr do not drink blood, venthyr's existence is not a blood curse, the venthyr's curse is not passed on through biting their victims.

Never claimed they were exactly the same thing. They don't have to. Trolls don't live in caves or turn to stone with daylight. They're still trolls.

That doesn't even come close to the same ballpark. Let me explain to you how this comparison of yours is absurd, using our examples: if we're discussing if a certain word belongs to a certain language or not, all I need to know is the language we're talking about, not the other languages. In my previous example, I only need to know the english language to know that the word "saudade" is not part of it. I don't need to know where a word comes from to know it doesn't belong to the english language. But for your example, we're talking about the entire planet, so we need to know the entire planet, hence why "see the Earth from outside" is a requirement.

Then, "the moon is made out of cheese". "I can see it from here." Are you aware of all the words in the english language?

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is: we don't know.

Orcs are not orcs, Trolls are not trolls, undeads are not undeads, elves are not elves, Goblins are not goblins, Dwarves are not dwarves, Gnomes are not gnomes and Worgen are not werewolves because Mr. lelenia here is not satisfied with their depictions. Ok...

the death knight class is not the necromancer class.

I suggested him another thing.

Which feels at least as clunky as Forsaken Death Knights. Is there an end to the cycle of undeath? Can something be raised into undeath an infinite number of times?

I don't know how this has anything to do with what i said.
You don't need to raise them a second time. They're part of the Shadowlands, already - the land of the dead. Besides, we don't have a Lich King, as of right now, to do this. Let me remind you that Arthas wasn't raised, but converted.

Oh I totally miss the days of Blood dps, it was awesome. Unfortunately right now Blood is a dedicated tanking spec and I can't help but feel that tanking just doesn't feel very Venthyr (totally my opinion, I know). They seem so aristocratic, subtle and snooty. Them being the guy to stand there and get smacked in the face just feels little weird to me. They really feel like the kind of dude that stands back and lets others do the dirty work for them.

Which is why I tossed out Necromancer.

Are necromancers blood practitioners?
Because i remember them being exclusively Death practitioners.
Besides, Blood Death Knights don't use a shield and you will, probably, be able to transmog your armor to their heritage armor.
Even Renathal uses a sword:

[Syegfryed]

Again. Language barrier. I wrote "claiming the same things" (meaning, using the same arguments). You interpreted it as "claiming they are the same things".

This is not "language barrier" you said something i didn't, plain and simple

You're generalizing all Barbarians. I'm talking about nordic/scottish ones.

They are not the "barbarian" media, see diablo barbarians too, mountain kings are definitely not "barbarian" archetype.

1. Wind Walk doesn't need to be named stealth or invisibility. It comes from being light on your feet that you appear to be walking on wind.

No it don't, there is nothing saying "being light on your feet", this it you making up, they are not being "light" they are running fast, if invisibility was the main point they would focus on it on the name and on the lore, but they literally say they just apepar to be

2. You're ignoring the invisibility aspect of it, on purpose, like it's not there. Unlike you, we're not claiming for invisibility only, but that both invisibility and speed are important to the ability.

Nope, im not ignoring im literally saying is not as much important as you make up to be, you literally said before the invisibility was more important because you think it is.

3. Guile is, also, deceit. Look it up.

"also" being, is not an argument, words have different synonyms and some of then don't work the same because context, guile in this context is cunning, not being a trickster, because is how blademasters are in their lore.

4. That is an absurd logic to use for Heroic Leap. If you did something, in real-life, and no one was there to witness it, did it really happen? (that's you logic). The AOE damage is there for a reason (and, also, the angry animation).

the bonus damage from wind walk is there all the time too, regardless if you attack people or not, rly, you guys not realizing your own double standards is the only thing saving this conversation of not being 100% boring

- - - Updated - - -

snip

Seeing how you are red hearing again, can prove no one of your claims about blizzard design and still don't acknowledge and/or admit you have no idea about what you are talking warriors after committing tons of mistakes, i will put your biased and personal opinion next to the dumpster here for the next time you say the same about tinkers and engineer, cause is truly amusing the double standarts used.

[jellmoo]

I don't know how this has anything to do with what i said.
You don't need to raise them a second time. They're part of the Shadowlands, already - the land of the dead. Besides, we don't have a Lich King, as of right now, to do this. Let me remind you that Arthas wasn't raised, but converted.

Well, currently all playable Death Knights are individuals that were killed and then raised by a Lich King. Now, can we make some new fangled system that allows for Venthyr to join their ranks? Sure, anything's possible. My point is that within the confines of the current system, a Venthyr Death Knight is clunky at best. You'd have a mortal living their life, dying, going to the Shadowlands and becoming a Venthyr, then dying yet again and being raised into undeath as a Death Knight.

It's not exactly elegant.

Are necromancers blood practitioners?

Necromancers aren't currently playable, so there isn't an answer for it. I mean, they obviously could be.

Because i remember them being exclusively Death practitioners.
Besides, Blood Death Knights don't use a shield and you will, probably, be able to transmog your armor to their heritage armor.

I mean, Monks don't use shields either, but they don't exactly fit the Monk framework. Besides, it's the tank role that I find a weird fit for Venthyr. Nothing about them really screams tank to me. My impression of them is that this is why they have the Stone Legion. To do this sort of thing for them.

[Katchii]

I mean, still is tiresome how you guys want to decide what is important or not

The irony here is hilarious.

My 2 cents: The Blademaster is not a playable class that is represented in WoW. I can RP a class that looks like one, and has SOME of the same abilities, but I cannot play a BLADEMASTER, I can only RP as one.

That's not the same thing.

[username993720]

This is not "language barrier" you said something i didn't, plain and simple

You repeat your claims to me with other people.

They are not the "barbarian" media, see diablo barbarians too, mountain kings are definitely not "barbarian" archetype.

I know the Vrykul are supposed to be the vikings of WoW, but they share many similarities with the dwarves.

No it don't, there is nothing saying "being light on your feet", this it you making up, they are not being "light" they are running fast, if invisibility was the main point they would focus on it on the name and on the lore, but they literally say they just apepar to be

It is the focus of the ability as much as the speed. Not more nor less. Otherwise, it wouldn't be mentioned in lore, in the ability's description and animation.
Why do you think it says Wind Walk? It isn't called "speed", either, like you want it to be called "invisibility" to justify what it does.

Nope, im not ignoring im literally saying is not as much important as you make up to be, you literally said before the invisibility was more important because you think it is.

Again, twisting my things. Never said it was more important. It is as important as the speed buff. Otherwise, it wouldn't appear in lore, description, animation and HotS.

"also" being, is not an argument, words have different synonyms and some of then don't work the same because context, guile in this context is cunning, not being a trickster, because is how blademasters are in their lore.

Oh, really? tell me of their cunningness (using lore quotes only).
It is a direct reference to their Mirror Image ability. If you can't see that, then you're on something.

the bonus damage from wind walk is there all the time too, regardless if you attack people or not, rly, you guys not realizing your own double standards is the only thing saving this conversation of not being 100% boring

-_- *sigh*

Unlike Heroic Leap, which has no lore to rely upon, Wind Walk has lore that does not mention a damage bonus. Therefore, it is replaceable.

Well, currently all playable Death Knights are individuals that were killed and then raised by a Lich King. Now, can we make some new fangled system that allows for Venthyr to join their ranks? Sure, anything's possible. My point is that within the confines of the current system, a Venthyr Death Knight is clunky at best. You'd have a mortal living their life, dying, going to the Shadowlands and becoming a Venthyr, then dying yet again and being raised into undeath as a Death Knight.

It's not exactly elegant.

You are correct, that is bizarre.

Necromancers aren't currently playable, so there isn't an answer for it. I mean, they obviously could be.

They have lore, though:

"Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts or the black arts) the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead. Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death. Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed."

I mean, Monks don't use shields either, but they don't exactly fit the Monk framework. Besides, it's the tank role that I find a weird fit for Venthyr. Nothing about them really screams tank to me. My impression of them is that this is why they have the Stone Legion. To do this sort of thing for them.

I get what you mean, but it's the only spec that matches them.

[Ielenia]

Then, i'd like to hear your reasons.

I already answered that question before:

I don't. But me not knowing the actual reasons does not automatically make your reasons true. And also: me not knowing the actual reasons does not preclude me from showing evidence why your reasons are unlikely to be true. For example: you not knowing the exact material composition of the moon does not automatically mean my claim that the moon is made of feta cheese true.

It is in the word "Expansion".
For once, they didn't need to match the classes to the theme of the base game, like they do with expansions.
Secondly, they obviously tried to cover the basic, elementary and fundamental RPG archetypes with vanilla. Expansions give a room to expand beyond them.

Except... the base classes do look like they were made match the theme of the base game. Unless you can point me to at least one vanilla class that doesn't match the theme of the base game?

What?
Video published 26th of may, 2020.
I meant to say Elder Scrolls online: The Dark Heart of Skyrim and Greymoor.

Should've specified what you were talking about, then. But it's still nothing more than conspiracy theory. You really think Blizzard is sending spies to find out what the other MMO companies are working on so they can do the same thing?

*Sigh*

This isn't going anywhere.
They are (just given a native american culture). Just like Orcs are orcs, Trolls are trolls, Undeads are undeads, Elves are elves, Goblins are goblins Dwarves are dwarves, Gnomes are gnomes and Worgen are werewolves.

Venthyr still are not vampires, though. No blood drinking, no blood curse, etc.

So are undeads. And, we still have an undead race.

Playable race. That's different from actual race.

Moreover, San'layn were risen by the Lich King, not bitten.

The first ones. But we have already been established that san'layn can spread their curse through biting.

It doesn't matter, either, because they were never depicted in myth as anything but former humans. Not former elves, not former dwarves, not former orcs nor former trolls.

That's irrelevant, because "vampire" is not a race, but an affliction. Just like lycanthropy.

*Facepalm*

It's a name.
Just like San'layn aren't named vampires.
You'd have to go really low to use that as an argument.

You're he one comparing them to trolls, which are actually named trolls. I don't think anyone cared about Warcraft trolls being like the trolls of myth.

"The name "venthyr" is similar to the Ventrue, a prominent vampire clan from Vampire: The Masquerade. It's also similar to a number of Eastern European names for vampires or vampire-like creatures, such as Dhamphir."

I'll repeat again: "being a reference to something" does not mean being the same as same as said something.

Exactly.
Your entire argument is based on lack of knowledge or any will to back up your statements. If you claim something, you better give explanations when it doesn't account for other cases. Otherwise, you look too biased.

Wrong. You're deflecting. You accused me of making a claim I never made, when you accused me of "claiming WoW trolls are not real trolls". I don't have to explain the trolls because we're not talking about trolls. That's called "red herring."

Never claimed they were exactly the same thing. They don't have to.

But you're claiming that venthyr are vampires because they reference vampires. Despite not drinking blood, not being the product of a blood curse, and not able to spread said curse through biting.

Then, "the moon is made out of cheese". "I can see it from here." Are you aware of all the words in the english language?

You do your response is fallacious, right? "I can see it from here" does not confirm the "moon is made out of cheese" claim as fact. As for "knowing all the words in the english language", I have a dictionary. Plus the way the word is read does not sound like the kind of phonetic one would expect of the english language.

Orcs are not orcs, Trolls are not trolls, undeads are not undeads, elves are not elves, Goblins are not goblins, Dwarves are not dwarves, Gnomes are not gnomes and Worgen are not werewolves because Mr. lelenia here is not satisfied with their depictions. Ok...

Alright. You're starting to sound like you're trying to bait me, here. I never made any of the claims you just accused me of doing. I don't know if you have some sort of language barrier, but when I write "I don't know", it means I do not know the answer, not that I'm claiming the exact opposite.

- - - Updated - - -

Seeing how you are red hearing again,

Oh look, another accusation with zero explanation why you believe such.

can prove no one of your claims about blizzard design

Which you can't, either, but that doesn't stop you from making those claims as well.

and still don't acknowledge and/or admit you have no idea about what you are talking warriors after committing tons of mistakes,

The only mistakes is you going out of context of what was being discussed.

i will put your biased and personal opinion next to the dumpster here

So you'll put them in the same place where you get your own opinions? See, I can be snarky too.

for the next time you say the same about tinkers and engineer, cause is truly amusing the double standarts used.

And I'll debunk your claims by actually explaining why you're doing false equivalences, double-standards and red-herrings, just like I've done every single time I made such a claim, while you have yet to give a single explanation.

[jellmoo]

They have lore, though:

"Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts or the black arts) the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead. Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death. Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed."

Well I'd point out two things though.

1) Lore doesn't always cover everything about a class for when it becomes playable. There was nothing in the lore about a Healer Monk before it became playable. There was nothing about a Blood spec for Death Knights before it became playable. Lore is a foundation, but it is seldom used to explain everything ahead of time.

2) What we get as playable is often different than what was present previously. The Death Knights we play as aren't the same as the Death Knights from before. Paladins were previously Human only. Then they added Dwarves. Then Blood Elves. Then others. The Necromancers in game now might very well not be the Necromancers that would become playable.

[username993720]

I already answered that question before:

I wanna hear what you think is the reason. Not what it actually is.

Except... the base classes do look like they were made match the theme of the base game. Unless you can point me to at least one vanilla class that doesn't match the theme of the base game?

All 9 classes? matches the story that was going on? Hell, we fought Onyxia, Ragnaros and Kel'thuzad at end game. Nothing really matches them other than the Shaman.

Should've specified what you were talking about, then. But it's still nothing more than conspiracy theory. You really think Blizzard is sending spies to find out what the other MMO companies are working on so they can do the same thing?

You think they are oblivious to it?
They know what's going on. You need to prepare for these kind of things if you want to be a top MMO on the market.

Venthyr still are not vampires, though. No blood drinking, no blood curse, etc.

-_-

San'layn don't turn into a bat, like some vampire depictions. I guess they're not vampires.

"A vampire is a creature from folklore that subsists by feeding on the vital essence (generally in the form of blood) of the living. In European folklore, vampires are undead creatures that often visited loved ones and caused mischief or deaths in the neighborhoods they inhabited while they were alive. They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance, markedly different from today's gaunt, pale vampire which dates from the early 19th century."

I would have said San'layn are the upcoming vampire race, since they joined Sylvanas in BFA. But, they killed them off and didn't update their models. So, we're left with the Venthyr.

Playable race. That's different from actual race.

Huh?
Would you like to elaborate?

The first ones. But we have already been established that san'layn can spread their curse through biting.

Yet, you insist that it is primarily a blood curse.
Do you even know where the belief in them came from? People who exhumed bodies saw that they had blood around their mouths. They assumed that the dead person rose from their grave and preyed on the living before returning to their casket. Therefore, they stabbed them, through the heart, with stakes to make sure they're dead. There was no conspiracy going on that living humans were turning into vampires through bites. Only that the dead rise from their graves at night.

That's irrelevant, because "vampire" is not a race, but an affliction. Just like lycanthropy.

Yet, they made Worgen into a race.
Vampires are undead creatures, not necessarily an affliction. You're just too influenced by modern depictions. In several depictions, they're dead humans who made a deal with the devil to become one.

You're he one comparing them to trolls, which are actually named trolls. I don't think anyone cared about Warcraft trolls being like the trolls of myth.

You're applying different standards to different cases. "I don't care about trolls, so they don't need to meet the criteria". "But, i don't want Venthyr, so they have to meet my criteria".

I'll repeat again: "being a reference to something" does not mean being the same as same as said something.

Can you give an example? (that is not a holiday joke)

Wrong. You're deflecting. You accused me of making a claim I never made, when you accused me of "claiming WoW trolls are not real trolls". I don't have to explain the trolls because we're not talking about trolls. That's called "red herring."

You do, actually. Because we're talking about playable races (and potential ones).

But you're claiming that venthyr are vampires because they reference vampires. Despite not drinking blood, not being the product of a blood curse, and not able to spread said curse through biting.

Again, specific modern depictions you use as a standard to pass as a vampire. When, in reality, Vampires only need to be undead creatures who sustain on vital essence.

You do your response is fallacious, right? "I can see it from here" does not confirm the "moon is made out of cheese" claim as fact. As for "knowing all the words in the english language", I have a dictionary. Plus the way the word is read does not sound like the kind of phonetic one would expect of the english language.

You answered yourself.
General knowledge about vampires does not confirm your outlook on them as the only true iteration.

Alright. You're starting to sound like you're trying to bait me, here. I never made any of the claims you just accused me of doing. I don't know if you have some sort of language barrier, but when I write "I don't know", it means I do not know the answer, not that I'm claiming the exact opposite.

So, how can you judge the Venthyr, when you don't even know much about other races? Are you some kind of a vampire expert? No, you're just spewing out what you saw on pop culture.

Well I'd point out two things though.

1) Lore doesn't always cover everything about a class for when it becomes playable. There was nothing in the lore about a Healer Monk before it became playable. There was nothing about a Blood spec for Death Knights before it became playable. Lore is a foundation, but it is seldom used to explain everything ahead of time.

2) What we get as playable is often different than what was present previously. The Death Knights we play as aren't the same as the Death Knights from before. Paladins were previously Human only. Then they added Dwarves. Then Blood Elves. Then others. The Necromancers in game now might very well not be the Necromancers that would become playable.

You are correct.
The necromancer of diablo, for example, does use Blood.
I don't believe they will become playable. But, that's a whole other debate.

[jellmoo]

You are correct.
The necromancer of diablo, for example, does use Blood.
I don't believe they will become playable. But, that's a whole other debate.

Oh I don't disagree. I'd be pretty surprised if they made a playable Necromancer class. I fully believe they can, I just don't think it's terribly likely. Personally I'd use the idea of a Class Skin to make the concept work, but that's also a whole other debate.

[Ielenia]

I wanna hear what you think is the reason. Not what it actually is.

I don't know. I can't speculate because we literally know nothing about Blizzard's design process. That'd be like me asking you to tell me which side do you think will be face up on a dice... but you don't know how many side the dice has, or if it has numbers, letters or symbols written on its faces.

All 9 classes? matches the story that was going on? Hell, we fought Onyxia, Ragnaros and Kel'thuzad at end game. Nothing really matches them other than the Shaman.

Paladin and priest don't fit against the undead? Warriors and rogues don't fit anywhere there's conflict? Mages don't fit in in an universe of magic? Warlocks don't fit in an universe where demon summoning is a thing? Hunters don't fit in an universe filled with forests and all sorts of beasts?

You think they are oblivious to it?
They know what's going on. You need to prepare for these kind of things if you want to be a top MMO on the market.

I never said that. I just don't believe Blizzard cares anywhere as much as you think they do. And again, you're once again going into conspiracy theory territory if you think it's an actual competition and that gaming companies are spying on one-another for "trade secrets".

-_-

San'layn don't turn into a bat, like some vampire depictions. I guess they're not vampires.

One characteristic missing is not the same as having all but one characteristic missing, which is the case of the venthyr.

Huh?
Would you like to elaborate?

"Worgen" is not an actual race, by Blizzard's own statement, when they said that the child of two worgen parents is a normal human child. "Kul'Tiran" is also not a separate race, but a human. Also, the "fat" kul'tiran is not a separate race from their fellow normal and thin kul'tirans.

Yet, you insist that it is primarily a blood curse.

You do know that the curse has to be created first, right? Which comes through methods different than the ones used to spread the curse, right?

Yet, they made Worgen into a race.

Apples and oranges. You were talking about how vampires are not about being elves, trolls, orcs and dwarves.

You're applying different standards to different cases. "I don't care about trolls, so they don't need to meet the criteria". "But, i don't want Venthyr, so they have to meet my criteria".

No, I'm not. If you want to discuss trolls, go right ahead. I don't care about the trolls. I don't care if they represent the mythological troll, these trolls, the D&D troll, or none at all aside from the name.

Can you give an example? (that is not a holiday joke)

Tauren are not minotaurs. Minotaurs were born out of Poseidon punishing Minos by making his wife fall in love with a bull, which is why the minotaur was born. The minotaur is literally a "bastard child" between a woman and a bull. The tauren are not.

You do, actually. Because we're talking about playable races (and potential ones).

I have never made the claim that "WoW trolls are not real trolls", directly or indirectly.

Again, specific modern depictions you use as a standard to pass as a vampire. When, in reality, Vampires only need to be undead creatures who sustain on vital essence.

I'm pretty sure I've laid out what is required for me to consider them as a vampire. Also, are you saying Blizzard would rather base the venthyr on the obscure, original origins of the 'vampire' concept and not infinitely better known pop culture version of the vampire?

You answered yourself.
General knowledge about vampires does not confirm your outlook on them as the only true iteration.

And now you're confusing the arguments, here. This was about you claiming that I have to give a specific definition for the the venthyr race, to back up my claim that venthyr are not vampires. And I keep telling you and explaining that I don't have to. Just like I don't have to know every language in the world to know that "saudade" is not a word in the english vocabulary.

So, how can you judge the Venthyr, when you don't even know much about other races?

Because they don't fit my criteria for "vampire". I don't have to know what they are, exactly, to know that.

[Syegfryed]

The irony here is hilarious.

My 2 cents: The Blademaster is not a playable class that is represented in WoW. I can RP a class that looks like one, and has SOME of the same abilities, but I cannot play a BLADEMASTER, I can only RP as one.

That's not the same thing.

you said the irony is hilarious and immediately process to do exactly what i said, in defining what is what is not, and saying they are not represented

You repeat your claims to me with other people.

you are making up those claims

I know the Vrykul are supposed to be the vikings of WoW, but they share many similarities with the dwarves.

yes, but dwarves are not "barbarians", barbarians by etymology is a term used for a people that are "uncivilized" or primitive, more or less related to tribes or people who are nomads, it is used for outsiders regardless, in media, the "achertype" of barbarian is not a civilized and fully armored dwarf, sorry to burst your ball

It is the focus of the ability as much as the speed. Not more nor less.

If the ability only let you be invisible it would be shit, if the ability only let you move fast it would still be good, thats the thing

Why do you think it says Wind Walk? It isn't called "speed", either, like you want it to be called "invisibility" to justify what it does.

walking trough the wind is to show how fast they are, not how invisible they are.

Again, twisting my things. Never said it was more important. It is as important as the speed buff. Otherwise, it wouldn't appear in lore, description, animation and HotS.

hots is not canon therefore is not an argument in this aspect, in the lore is explained, they are fast, not invisible

Oh, really? tell me of their cunningness (using lore quotes only).

Already show you tons, from then being ELITE GUARDS of the warchief, from then being ELITE COMMANDERS in the magtherion army, they being LEGENDARY WARRIORS and value personal HONOR above all else. Yet, nothing say they are deceptive tricksters who primal fight is based on stealth or using tricks, but you and others are sure they are like that and more like rogues than warriors, like rogues are elite guards and commanders who fight in the heat of the batle

Unlike Heroic Leap, which has no lore to rely upon, Wind Walk has lore that does not mention a damage bonus. Therefore, it is replaceable.

So, since the invisibility part is not mentioned in the lore of wind walk it is replaceable, you refuted yourself again, look at that.

And since heroi leap have no lore on heaving damage too, i guess we are even? don't know your point rly.

[Ielenia]

Already show you tons, from then being ELITE GUARDS of the warchief,

Being an elite guard does not preclude them being stealthy and deceitful. In fact, being able to sneak up on a potential attacker who thinks they have the upper hand against the warchief would be quite the boon. As well as being able to predict what kind of trickery one could use against the warchief since they are trained in such deceit.

from then being ELITE COMMANDERS in the magtherion army,

The fel Horde who didn't exactly fight "honorably" in the way we players perceive "honor"?

they being LEGENDARY WARRIORS

Being "legendary fighters" does not preclude them from using trickery and deceit.

and value personal HONOR above all else.

Please elaborate on what the blademasters consider as honorable. Lore sources, please.

Yet, nothing say they are deceptive tricksters who primal fight is based on stealth or using tricks,

Other than actual lore description, of course. Which you're constantly ignoring. "Guile" is not just cunning. It's insidious, deceptive cunning. I've linked you the definitions of "guile" several times and you ignored them over and over, thinking if you don't address them, they'll somehow go away.

but you and others are sure they are like that and more like rogues than warriors, like rogues are elite guards and commanders who fight in the heat of the batle

Except we're not saying "they are rogues". We're saying their gameplay, based on Warcraft 3 and their WoW lore definition, is more akin to the rogue class than the warrior class. Either way, it doesn't preclude them from being elite guards and commanders.

[Syegfryed]

snip.

you just can't keep to yourself your opinions about this right? cause everything here is your opinion, thinking elite guards are sneaky and WARRIORS fight with deceit and tricks. I though we already had set that out that your knowledge about warriors and blademasters are pure your opinion, why keep pushing?

We're saying their gameplay, based on Warcraft 3 and their WoW lore definition, is more akin to the rogue class than the warrior class.

and we already know that is false and pure opinion of yours, since you didn't play Wc3 and don't know how warriors play, you think this way

[username993720]

Oh I don't disagree. I'd be pretty surprised if they made a playable Necromancer class. I fully believe they can, I just don't think it's terribly likely. Personally I'd use the idea of a Class Skin to make the concept work, but that's also a whole other debate.

Agreed.
To be honest, i'd go with either an apothecary or a first generation Death Knight.

I don't know. I can't speculate because we literally know nothing about Blizzard's design process. That'd be like me asking you to tell me which side do you think will be face up on a dice... but you don't know how many side the dice has, or if it has numbers, letters or symbols written on its faces.

Well.. it was worth a shot.

Paladin and priest don't fit against the undead? Warriors and rogues don't fit anywhere there's conflict? Mages don't fit in in an universe of magic? Warlocks don't fit in an universe where demon summoning is a thing? Hunters don't fit in an universe filled with forests and all sorts of beasts?

You're describing the game in general. I meant Vanilla's storyline in particular.

I never said that. I just don't believe Blizzard cares anywhere as much as you think they do. And again, you're once again going into conspiracy theory territory if you think it's an actual competition and that gaming companies are spying on one-another for "trade secrets".

Oh, lelenia... you have no idea.
I'd ask Triceron again, but he didn't reply to me last time.

One characteristic missing is not the same as having all but one characteristic missing, which is the case of the venthyr.

Which, you decided what's important or not.
Vampires didn't, always, have those traits.

"Worgen" is not an actual race, by Blizzard's own statement, when they said that the child of two worgen parents is a normal human child. "Kul'Tiran" is also not a separate race, but a human. Also, the "fat" kul'tiran is not a separate race from their fellow normal and thin kul'tirans.

Yet, they are separate playable races, aren't they?
As for the matter of reproduction among the Venthyr, it is artificial, not an affliction.
Thin Kul Tirans will, probably, be used for another allied race.

You do know that the curse has to be created first, right? Which comes through methods different than the ones used to spread the curse, right?

Exactly. So, the first ones to be vampires can be the true vampires, and the affliction aspect can be discarded since it's not crucial to their existence in the first place.

Apples and oranges. You were talking about how vampires are not about being elves, trolls, orcs and dwarves.

You, really, think they would implement a werewolf race, but won't put a vampire race in the game because you don't want them?

No, I'm not. If you want to discuss trolls, go right ahead. I don't care about the trolls. I don't care if they represent the mythological troll, these trolls, the D&D troll, or none at all aside from the name.

If you don't care, why do you argue about vampires?
That's a double-standard. Clearly, coming from your lack of desire to have ones.

Tauren are not minotaurs. Minotaurs were born out of Poseidon punishing Minos by making his wife fall in love with a bull, which is why the minotaur was born. The minotaur is literally a "bastard child" between a woman and a bull. The tauren are not.

Once again, applying a standard to some races, but not the others.
"The tauren are based upon the Minotaur, a part man, part bull monster from Greek mythology, and the tauren were originally referred to as minotaurs during the early stages of development for Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. The name "Minotaur" is either derived from Ancient Greek ταῦρος/taûros or Latin taurus, both meaning "bull".
Do Orcs have the same background as in mythology? do Gnomes, Dwarves, Trolls, Elves, Goblins and Worgen? No. Blizzard can take a creative direction with those mythological creatures to fit their own game.

I have never made the claim that "WoW trolls are not real trolls", directly or indirectly.

Using a certain standard for a certain race, but not for the others is being biased. You can't just dismiss the ones you don't care about, yet use a strict set of rules to define the others you distaste. It's a recurring theme with you. Avoiding answering certain questions, and claiming you're not wrong because you refuse to do so.

I'm pretty sure I've laid out what is required for me to consider them as a vampire. Also, are you saying Blizzard would rather base the venthyr on the obscure, original origins of the 'vampire' concept and not infinitely better known pop culture version of the vampire?

Again, for you.
Who are you to decide what they should or shouldn't base their races on?
For me, it's good enough. Is your opinion better than mine?
If you ask me, they can't retread the San'layns, otherwise they would be considered rip-offs of them.

And now you're confusing the arguments, here. This was about you claiming that I have to give a specific definition for the the venthyr race, to back up my claim that venthyr are not vampires. And I keep telling you and explaining that I don't have to. Just like I don't have to know every language in the world to know that "saudade" is not a word in the english vocabulary.

You do have to. That's the whole part of arguing. Those who don't provide them, like Sygfreyd, end up on the losing side.

Because they don't fit my criteria for "vampire". I don't have to know what they are, exactly, to know that.

"My criteria", "in my eyes". Don't you see the bias in your arguments? You're acting the same way Sygfeyed does when he evaluates the Blademaster.
Once again, you're declaring yourself as right while admitting you lack knowledge. I hope you sober up...

you are making up those claims

Aren't you arguing about the same things with other people? Wind Walk? Mirror Image?

yes, but dwarves are not "barbarians", barbarians by etymology is a term used for a people that are "uncivilized" or primitive, more or less related to tribes or people who are nomads, it is used for outsiders regardless, in media, the "achertype" of barbarian is not a civilized and fully armored dwarf, sorry to burst your ball

You are correct. The Bronzebeard Dwarves aren't your typical Barbarian. Wildhammer Dwarves, though, are:
"Wildhammer dwarves are renowned for wild behavior and deadly skill at arms. They have a tendency to enter a fray armored with little more than a loincloth and body paint, and still come out covered only with the blood of their foes. They are fierce charging across the ground or when soaring atop gryphons; barbarians of other races seek to emulate Wildhammer dwarves' reckless ability to stay alive through sheer pluck while laying waste to their enemies. The iconic Wildhammer barbarian clutches his hammer and grins, showing gaps in his teeth. Feathers and beads are stuck in his sweaty hair and beard. "Come get some!" he shouts, before letting out a howl and charging forward".
And you can play those as a customization option.
The Diablo 3 Barbarian can be fully-armored:

And so are the Vrykul:

You see, there are so many overlapping themes between them, like the love for battle:
"Wielding both enchanted warhammers and hand axes, these fierce fighters live to test themselves against worthy opponents."
The Vrykul's Halls of Valor "Valhalla", where those who were fierce in battle, during their lives, get to ascend there.
Love for drinking:
"Contrary to popular belief, vrykul drinking horns were not common drinking vessels. While most drank mead or ale from bowls or cups, only those of great prestige quaffed wine from elaborate horns such as this. Indeed, even the passing of such a vessel to the vrykul in question was a matter of ceremony, usually performed by the highest-ranking female present along with formal declarations of rank and deed."
"An old ascension ceremony for dwarven kings involved drinking from the Trade archaeology chalice of mountainkings.png [Chalice of the Mountain Kings] and a "sword dance" done by female dwarven warriors. This performance, part ritual and part mock battle, apparently evolved from bloody duels fought during less sophisticated times in dwarven history."
And forging:


In some cases, they both have horned helmets, fur coats and big braided beards:


And, of course, blue markings and red hair:


How would you call these? norse warriors?

If the ability only let you be invisible it would be shit, if the ability only let you move fast it would still be good, thats the thing

Personal opinion, again. No one cares what you think should be or shouldn't be. What matters is the lore, description and animation of the ability.

walking trough the wind is to show how fast they are, not how invisible they are.

Like i said: "so light on your feet that you, practically, appear to be walking on wind." And, in this case, they are so fast that they appear invisible to the naked eye.

hots is not canon therefore is not an argument in this aspect, in the lore is explained, they are fast, not invisible

Why do you think they translated the same aspect to HotS? you know, being a "secondary trait" and all...

And invisible. You are trying, really, hard to contort the lore for your own outlook. The function of the ability even says "turn invisible". The animation even shows you as being transparent. How blind can you be to those things?

Already show you tons, from then being ELITE GUARDS of the warchief, from then being ELITE COMMANDERS in the magtherion army, they being LEGENDARY WARRIORS and value personal HONOR above all else. Yet, nothing say they are deceptive tricksters who primal fight is based on stealth or using tricks, but you and others are sure they are like that and more like rogues than warriors, like rogues are elite guards and commanders who fight in the heat of the batle

That's not cunningness -_-.
I told you to quote the exact lore that shows their cunningness (and no, not the guile quote. We're debating about it).

So, since the invisibility part is not mentioned in the lore of wind walk it is replaceable, you refuted yourself again, look at that.

Read it again. It, specifically, says the word "invisible". Don't try to be a wise-guy with me. -_-

And since heroi leap have no lore on heaving damage too, i guess we are even? don't know your point rly.

My point is that the different iterations of a leap ability are, clearly, meant to inflict damage on a group of mobs. Whether it is the Barbarian's leap ability, Muradin's Dwarf toss ability or the Warrior's Heroic Leap ability. Your own interpretation of it, using some PvP guides, is nothing but subjective projection.