Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    never said al of then are, i said they try to be, to fit more themes and races, therefore their different cultures on the subject, they can't bee to race specific without a good argument, or the class would be playable only for one race
    You literally said all classes are generalists.

    You need to be more careful with your words if that wasn't what you meant.

    they can't bee to race specific without a good argument, or the class would be playable only for one race
    And that's what we've come about to with Blademasters. Look at the concept in the OP. There is a good argument that we can have a class that would be playable for multiple races, based on the general concept of a Samurai/Eastern-themed Swordsman archetype


    Thats why you don't dumb down into a simplicist thing, you create those nonsenses.
    And you've dumbed down the Blademaster to being a Warrior, even without Windwalk and Mirror Image. You've ignored the fact that Warriors aren't exclusively Blade-users, aren't Eastern themed, don't use mystical arts, and don't use stealth or deception in their kit. You've created a nonsense argument for yourself surrounding what you think a Blademaster should be; simply a Warrior.

    Except everything in this OP's concept is all about being a Mystical Warrior rather than just a Warrior with Windwalk and Mirror Image. You need to actually look at the OP's concept before you spout out nonsense about Arms Warriors.

    Another class? impossible, blizzard barely made DH with tons of shit to draw upon.
    Who says Blizzard *has* to make this a class?

    I'm arguing against your claim that the Blademaster is already a Warrior. They're not the same concept, they're different concepts.

    That you don't believe Blizzard would make a new class out of the Blademaster is besides the point. As I said, the Warrior only represents itself, and no other class in the game. You are playing a Warrior. Not a Mountain King, not a Chieftain, not a Blademaster. You only play as an Arms Warrior, a Protection Warrior or a Fury Warrior. You are not any other class. You are simply able to emulate other Heroes from Warcraft 3, but you aren't actually playing as them.

    But why they would make then their own class, it they literally, time and time again, proved their are warriors, specific arms warriors?
    Blademasters aren't playable, therefore they aren't associated directly with any class.

    NPCs are simply *approximations* of existing classes. There's no Tinker class in the game either, and every Tinker is represented by an Engineer. It doesn't mean we can't have a Tinker class either, you understand this right?

    Same with Necromancer. They are tied to the Death Knight. Blizzard doesn't have to make a separate Necromancer class at all. But there is a clear difference between a Necromancer and a Death Knight. Not all Death Knights are Necromancers, not all Necromancers are Death Knights.

    Same applies with Blademaster. Not all Warriors are Blademasters, not all Blademasters are Warriors. Blademasters could just as easily be Assassins who use stealth to kill, or Monk-like Swordmasters who use Chi and Mystical powers to boost their swordmastery. These are themes that the Warrior class does not cover.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-01 at 09:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  2. #122
    Since forever I wanted to play as a Blademaster. You made almost the perfect representation of what I had in mind! If they made this, I'd play it to death. Good job!

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Brenz View Post
    Such an awesome comment, you are awesome, I wish I could be you, teach me senpai
    Nah I don't take in freeloaders byeeEE

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Except they didn't muddle the concept. On the contrary, you have a personal difference of opinion of what it should be, and that leans heavily towards headcanon arguments.
    I meant you can't play, exactly, as the Paladin Hero unit (Uther) because of spec restricted abilities.

    And herein lies the perception issue I point out.

    You regard WC3 Paladin as Holy spec because of hoe its abilities were used and arranged in WoW, regardless of the fact Holy Light is present in all 3 specs.

    Yet when a MK is arranged so that abilities aren't in Fury, you just regard this as Blizzard's mistake, rather than take a more objective look at what Blizzard actually intends the MK to be. You're not looking at what the MK actually is, you're looking at what you want to regard ot to be.
    No, actually. I regard the Paladin Hero unit as a Holy spec because of the Human racial abilities, which i analysed and came to the conclusion that it's most, likely, a Holy Paladin. For example, Uther has Divine Storm, which in game is associated with Retribution. But, it doesn't make it one. It is just part of the Human Paladin fantasy (Knight of the Silver Hand). You see, the different archetypes do not align, very well, with how Blizzard designed the classes. They borrow abilities from several specs. But, the underline spec is, mostly, there. That's why i suggest abilities revamp in some of my threads.

    You can't, really, say Blizzard has a good idea of what a Mountain King is in game by how its abilities are, currently, arranged. They have been through so many iterations. Avatar was a free for all talent, until Legion, where it was assigned to protection. Storm Bolt is, currently, available to all specs, but was previously only available to Arms and Fury. Thunder Clap was, mostly, available to Arms and Protection until Legion, where it was assigned to Protection. You see, Blizzard puts gameplay balance over fantasy. That's why you can't even roleplay as a Mountain King in game (dual-wielding while possessing Avatar, Storm Bolt and Thunder Clap).

    Then you're employing double standards in how you regard classes, by appropriating the Paladin based on abilities and role but not weapons, but applying weapons above abilities and role to the MK.

    Heres an excersize - take a look at all the Heroes you consider to represent a Prot Warrior in WC3. Now tell me which one of them uses a shield. I think you will be suprised to realize no WC3 hero that is a tank actually uses a shield.
    No, actually. I, already, showed you Holy Paladins use two-handed maces, which you chose to disregard.



    The only case i came across, so far, that the weapons do not match the specialization was the Protection Paladin. Vindicators, while described as Guardians and defenders of Shattrath City are, mostly, depicted with a two-handed Hammer of the Naaru in hand. Yrel is one example. That would mean that the Retribution Paladin, likely, wields a shield, in contrast to the spec's description. Johanna is one example (Crusader).

    I don't consider any of the Warcraft 3 Heroes as a tank. You seem to forget the Footman unit:
    Defend
    Activate to take 50% less damage from Piercing attacks, but have reduced movement speed.
    Defend does not reflect attacks to buildings, and its chance of reflection against units is 30%.


    Everything except the fact that they're never regarded as 'Hunters'. The Beastmaster is a friend to all beasts, and would not ever hunt them. A Hunter makes no distinction in this regard, and is broad enough to be both a Beast Tamer and a Beast Killer depending on what specs and themes you choose to take up. It's about the same as equating a Paladin to a Priest; they are essentially the same thing in all but name and we even see Anduin capable of doing everything a Paladin could, plus more. He wears plate armor, he uses a 2H weapon, he casts Holy protective magic and shields, and on top he's not restricted to Holy magic and can use Shadow as well. But Blizzard chose to make that distinction between Paladin and Priest, showing that there is significance to the names and that what we see in WC3 aren't just 'Titles' of broader archetypes.

    Truth of the matter is Mountain King isn't just a name for Warriors. Mountain Kings are Mountain Kings. Warriors don't and can not play as a Mountain King; they simply emulate the gameplay through abilities. If you notice, you can't even take all the MK talents at once; Stormbolt is on the same tier as Avatar. In order to truly play as a Mountain King, Blizzard would need to modify how class identities already work in WoW, and add in a Prestige system for certain Race/Class comboes, or add in a Sub-class system similar to Allied Races where we have a carbon copy of an existing class with modified Talents that actually allow you access to the full Mountain King kit.

    Of course, WoW translations of Heros aren't 1:1, and we even see how Demon Hunter differs to the WC3 Hero when we break down how Metamorphosis is no longer a ranged form and is designed for melee, which is closer to the HOTS portrayal rather than the Warlock Metamorphosis which was closer to WC3's Demon Hunter ability. So we need to regard that there is going to be some shifts here and there. There were no Shield Tank heroes in WC3. There was no pure Healing role for any Hero; every Hero had multiple functions and roles in the game. There was no Holy Trinity, and RTS units were designed more to fit like cards in a deck, working together to build a hand rather than perform individual roles.

    What we have to consider with these heroes are the broader scope of themes. Each Hero is its own Class. That we equate some to a generic Class in WoW is due to how Blizzard set up WoW to play as, now how Heroes should be identified as. WoW's class system is too rigid to accomodate all the nuanced Heroes like Dark Rangers, Priestess of the Moon, Blademasters, Wardens etc. WoW can only provide blanket archetypes, while bridging in unique and familiar hero concepts where it fits. The Class system was designed to be an RPG system, and the Spec system isn't capable of giving you a full 'Class' in one package; it purposefully splits up the mechanics in multiple ways to fill multiple Roles. This isn't like Guild Wars 2 where you can literally pick and choose your abilities and playstyle to suit your needs, you're forced into the Spec Archetypes which rigidly define Fury and Frost DK as Dual Wield, Unholy Ret and Arms as 2H etc. Legion was the only instance where we actually got closest to the WC3 archetypes, but unfortunately that's a one-and-done deal. I'd prefer my 'Druid of the Claw' to keep using Claw weapons instead of Stat-sticks, but that's how the Druid Class is designed to be.
    "Ferocious predator becomes kin. Whether in the thrill of the hunt or the heat of battle, beast masters call forth a litany of vicious animals to overwhelm prey and gnaw at their enemies' will." - Rexxar, literally, has the Thrill of the Hunt talent in HotS. So, saying Beastmasters are not Hunters because they befriend animals is, completely, wrong.

    A Hunter doesn't have to hunt. If you're a Sharpshooter, or some kind of an explosive expert, you do not, necessarily, use those skills to hunt, but to wreak havoc in combat.

    A Paladin and a Priest is not the same situation. The Priest is not trained in the arts of war. Anduin, as an example, wielding plate armor and a sword in hand, doesn't actually use any Paladin abilities or melee abilities in HotS. He is a Priest through and through. His garment is, simply, a cosmetic appearance, not far from what you can achieve with transmogrification. So, calling him a Paladin is misleading and, factually, wrong.

    The Mountain King is the Dwarven Warrior. The reason you can't, currently, play it in game is due to Blizzard's class design and as i've said before, i would like an overhaul to accommodate that fantasy.

    Transition of abilities from WC3 to WoW do not concern me. If they decide HotS is a better source of inspiration, then so be it. For example, Black Arrow in WC3 summons a Dark Minion. In HotS it does not. Probably, to not overlap with other undead summoning heroes. If that version of the Dark Ranger is translated into WoW, i would be, completely, fine with it (as to not compete with the Death Knight, for example).

    Reminder: the Holy Paladin doesn't just heal. It protects, as well: "Invokes the power of the light to heal and protect allies..."
    So, the Paladin Hero unit of Warcraft 3 does match that description. Again, it can use an assortment of abilities (like Uther) and it wouldn't, necessarily, mean it is a hybrid. It is, simply, versatile. You need a dps ability here and there, even as a Healer.

    I agree with you that classes in WoW do not fulfill the fantasies of certain titles, as they should be, due to gameplay design. I would very much like them to put fantasy above gameplay, but that's probably not gonna happen. There are certain titles that are accounted for in WoW classes. If not in abilities, then in intention. Yet, there are some that aren't, even though Blizzard was trying to appease the player-base by giving them several abilities. Distinguishing which are, and which aren't, is an important task. Otherwise, we would be overflowed by class types or, vice-versa, be convinced they are, already, present in game.

    You misunderstand my point.

    Every Hero in WC3 should be regarded as its own Class Identity.

    Not every Class Identity needs to be represented in playable form. Generic Classes such as Warriors, Priests and Mages may represent multiple Identities, but they will only ever be a Warrior, Priest or Mage class. You are not a Mountain King, you are not a Witchdoctor, you are not a Blood Mage. You are a Warrior, Priest or Mage.

    The merit of having a certain Class Identity be playable is up for discussion, but should be overall respected as their own Class Identity.
    - Do we need a playable Blood Mage if Mage already represents the class? Probably not.
    - Do we need a playable Necromancer if DK already uses Necromancy? Debateable, since Necromancers were a different archetype
    - Do we need a playable Mountain King if Warrior already has its abilities and themes? Probably not *but* more distinctions could be added to Warrior to better portray MKs
    - Do we need a playable Blademaster if Warrior already has its abilities and themes? Debateable, since Blademasters have a specific Eastern theme not represented by Warriors

    This is how I think Class Identities should be regarded and addressed. When we talk about Blood Mage, it isn't just the Mage Class, it's a Blood Mage identity. If we talk about Mountain Kings, we should be talking specifically about the Mountain King and not just aspects of the Warrior class which we attribute it to. We need to regard the identities, because that is ultimately what we want to choose to play as.

    Blizzard does not officially mix the Class Identities of WC3 Heroes with playable classes. Even if certain NPCs are tied to a class as a Trainer or a Follower, it is not what our own playable Class can be. Dark Rangers can be Trainers and Marksman Hunter Followers, but our own Hunters are not Dark Rangers nor are Dark Rangers specifically a Hunter. Same can be applied to Demon Hunter, where it's not just a 'Type of Rogue' or 'Type of Warlock' like many people argued it to be.

    Beastmasters have no direct comparison to any playable class in WoW. Hunters just happen to be *the closest comparable class* to a Beastmaster, including sharing many themes. But as I say with Warlocks and DH, sharing themes does not equate to being the same. We have to consider the class identity itself too. Demon Hunters aren't just Fel Practitioners, they are Fel-imbued masters of combat. Well a Warlock can also be a Fel-imbued master of combat if they have Metamorphosis right? But their class identity is still based on being a powerful spellcaster motivated by power lust, rather than a character that fights makes great sacrifices for the sake of power to mete out their vengeance. Beastmasters aren't animal hunters or trappers; they're specifically protectors of the Wild. Even if a Hunter can be a Protector of the Wild, their core concepts are still built around being wilderness experts who track, hunt and kill. Their goals are similar but not the same. That makes it a different class identity.

    You can choose to roleplay your character as you see fit, but you aren't actually going to be that Class unless Blizzard says you are playing that Class. The difference to you and me may be negligible for some concepts like Farseer or Mountain King or Beastmaster, but it's still not an officially bound thing by Blizzard saying we actually are Farseers and Mountain Kings and Beastmasters. We're just able to emulate the gameplay well enough that there's no need to make a separate playable Class in WoW to represent those specific Class Identities. Most people aren't chuffed that they aren't actually Spirit Walkers or Farseers when they play their Shaman. But you can see by this very conversation, there are people like you and me who regard MK as being a Warrior, but at the same time acknowledging the Warrior Class isn't designed well enough to actually be a Mountain King. Well, that's because you aren't actually playing a Mountain King class, and Blizzard would need to address this Class Identity specifically just as they would need to for Blademasters.

    My hopes is that Blizzard opens up Prestige Classing or Subclassing in the future, which will actually bridge in specific concepts. What we have in WoW is already much too broad, and we have a Priest class representing everything Faith-related in WoW whether it's Voodoo or Elune or the Pandaren pantheon of Celestial Beings. On top of that, they also represent secular or non-faith based concepts, like Gnome Medics and Forsaken Apothecaries. We should have these Identities diversified into their own, rather than just be all lumped together in one name. Let us play as a specific Witchdoctor, or a Warden, or a Spellbreaker.
    I don't deal with desires. I deal with predictions. When i say certain classes in Warcraft 3 are in game and some are not, is not because i desire some of them and some of them i don't. I predict, based on Blizzard's patterns and through analyzing racials and abilities, which are likely to be added and which are not.

    You're getting a bit too philosophical here. Saying whether identities constitute a class/spec or not, is none of my concern. Yes, some of them need tweaking in abilities and animations to better represent their identities. For example, i'd like to have Verdant Spheres above the Mage head, like Felo'melorn provided, and be able to give a fel tone to some of the spells (like Kael'thas in HotS). Does it merit its own class? no, i don't believe it does. Because, in heart, it is a Fire Mage. Does the same apply to a Blademaster? No, i don't believe it does. I can't seem to find the Japanese Samurai fantasy in the Warrior class, or in the Orc/Warrior combination. To me, they are more of a Grunt/Raider than anything else.

    I can't agree with you on the Beastmaster. Saying they, coincidentally, simply share themes with the Beast Mastery Hunter is a wrong statement. Both are described as master of the wild, who are assisted by an assortment of Beasts in combat. Both call upon beasts in their abilities. Both (in the past) could dual-wield axes. Beastmasters are, very much, Hunters as i've shown above. Hunting is as important to the wilds as guarding wildlife. They don't need to be trappers and tackers. That is the domain of the Survival Hunter and the Headhunters. You seem to think that all specs need to share the same themes and abilities, because they are all under the umbrella title of a class (in this case, the Hunter). They don't. In fact, they need to be very different identities that do not overlap. For that matter, giving Survival Hunters a pet-based gameplay stains the original identity of that spec. That should, exclusively, be the domain of the Beastmaster and what makes it unique in comparison to the other specs.

    As for the Far Seer, alongside the Shaman unit, i see it as, mostly, Enhancement Shaman, which can be seen by Thrall and Reghar in HotS. Especially, considering Feral Spirits are unique to the Orcish culture (Frostwolf Ghostpup) and Bloodlust being attributed to the Orcish race ("in the heat of battle, Bloodlust claimed him").

    I agree with you that the Priest class does not encompass classes like the Priestess of the Moon or Shadow Hunter. And neither are Medics or Apothecaries, which would be part of an Alchemist class.

    Again, i don't believe a Spellbreaker would constitute its own class, like a Warden for example. A Witch Doctor would be annexed into a Shadow Hunter identity and gameplay (as they both use Wards). With prestige/sub classes, we need to differentiate which ones need better representation in WoW classes and which deserve their own class. Otherwise, we would miss some crucial class additions. On the other hand, we can't neglect those that exist and are underrepresented.

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Those quotes certainly support your argument and I'm not saying you are wrong, perhaps someone like Grom is a bit of a mixed bag, all the artwork I've seen of him tends to show him as being this absolutely enraged monster, this sort of thing.

    But then to be fair, there is a lot of artworking making him look slightly more composed, as you'd imagine an arms warrior. Hard to say, I'm just going off what I believe is the community perception.
    I wouldn't blame you
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-01 at 11:29 PM.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I meant you can't play, exactly, as the Paladin Hero unit (Uther) because of spec restricted abilities.
    Exactly, because Specs are not meant to encapsulate the entire concept of any Warcraft 3 or Heroes of the Storm Hero. The full CLASS is what has to be considered.

    WC3 Demon Hunters aren't just Vengeance or Havoc; they're embodied by the full package Class. Havoc and Vengeance are just interpretations of specialized aspects of the (WC3) Demon Hunter Class Identity.

    Paladin is the same way, and the way you're attributing WC3 Paladin as Holy is just an approximation based on your observation, which should be recognized as a subjective value. You're assigning it as 'closest to being a Holy Paladin' because that's what you choose to see a WC3 Paladin as being most similar to. The truth of the matter is that they aren't 'Holy Paladins', they're just Paladins.

    Heroes of the Storm characters aren't meant to be quantified by WoW Specs. They are Class Identities, a full package. WoW Specs aren't even mean to be quantified; keep in mind that WoW was originally developed as one class with 3 Talent Trees, and your 'Build' was based on what points you placed in each tree. There were no true hard Specs back then; each tree was designed to compliment each other and create a customizeable Class gameplay. You could choose a Druid to be more Feral specialized or more Resto specialized, but ultimately it was dependent on which tree paths you decided to go into. It wasn't until much later when the game design became rigid and the Talent Trees went away that we really got defined Specs; and there-in lies the disconnection from the original idea that Specs were supposed to support a class, not define an archetype within itself. Fury wasn't just limited to Dual Wielding even if it may have incentivized it, Protection wasn't purely about Tanking it just happened to have defensive talents but you could also be a viable off-tank with a hybrid Arms/Prot or Fury/Prot build; all you needed to do was swap gear and make sure you were def-capped.

    Look at Arthas in Heroes of the Storm. What kind of Death Knight is he? Frost because of his abilities? Unholy because he summons ghouls and uses 2H? Blood because his role is a Tank and he has vampiric talents? No, he is simply a Death Knight, and the Frost/Blood/Unholy specs don't define to his Class Identity. Of course each spec is important to represent it, but it doesn't define him as being any ONE spec, any more than Uther in WC3 is any ONE spec of Paladin. He is simply a Paladin. In Heroes, his role happens to be healer, but his Class Identity is undeniably "Paladin".

    No, actually. I regard the Paladin Hero unit as a Holy spec because of the Human racial abilities, which i analysed and came to the conclusion that it's most, likely, a Holy Paladin.
    Understandable, but your analysis is full of bias in terms of appropriating any given spec at all to a Paladin which should be considered as a full package, rather than any one spec. A Paladin in WC3 is all three roles in one. It is a Tank, a DPS and a Healer in one.

    Heroes of the Storm may choose to make Uther specifically Holy, but Uther isn't the only type of Paladin in Heroes either. We also have Yrel who is Ret, and who also commands similar Healing and Tanking abilities. Yrel can be talented where you have multiple Healing abilities, and can competitively heal allies quite effectively. Yrel also has significant Armor boosts that make her incredibly tanky, since she originally started out designed as a Tank. These two characters happen to be geared more towards one type of role than another, but the Paladin concept itself, especially where WC3 is concerned, is a very flexible Hybrid concept that isn't geared solely to any one role. A Paladin isn't stuck to any one Role, it is meant to be a flexible hybrid that can do all three. The Role system in WoW is purely a game-mechanics design, since WoW doesn't actually allow Hybridization gameplay.

    The WC3 Paladin is interpretted as the Paladin class. There is no reason to attribute it specifically to any one spec just because you happened to analyze the Human Racials and deem it so.

    You can't, really, say Blizzard has a good idea of what a Mountain King is in game by how its abilities are, currently, arranged. They have been through so many iterations. Avatar was a free for all talent, until Legion, where it was assigned to protection. Storm Bolt is, currently, available to all specs, but was previously only available to Arms and Fury. Thunder Clap was, mostly, available to Arms and Protection until Legion, where it was assigned to Protection. You see, Blizzard puts gameplay balance over fantasy. That's why you can't even roleplay as a Mountain King in game (dual-wielding while possessing Avatar, Storm Bolt and Thunder Clap).
    Which is my point. Warriors aren't *actually* Mountain Kings, even if we are to attribute Mountain Kings as being represented by Warriors. This can go down the line to apply to Beastmasters, Farseers, hell even Demon Hunters as they exist right now.

    We have to regard that WoW classes are going to be WoW classes, and not direct translations of WC3 Heroes. They are interpretations. And if we regard it as an interpretation, then all Class Identities are flexible enough to be interpreted in different ways. There's no _one_ way to make a Blademaster or a Beastmaster or a Mountain King. There are infinite ways. And what matters is whether the Blizzard or the audience feels the class sufficiently satisfies that class fantasy or not.

    No, actually. I, already, showed you Holy Paladins use two-handed maces, which you chose to disregard.
    You're showing me what a Paladin does. Holy Paladins right now can not use 2H maces in their spec, that is something that you need to regard. One instance where they happen to use a 2H mace does not mean it has become the rule. You're confusing an exception with a rule.

    Warlocks had Glyph of Demon Hunting which allowed them to Tank. Now, would you consider the Warlock to be a Tanking class because Warlock was shown to be able to tank during a period of WoW? The exception should not be considered the rule, just because there had been precedent for it in the past. We have to consider the full Class Identity. When you look at Warlocks, they are not Tanks.

    When we look at Paladins, then yes they can of course use 2H weapons, but this is nothing that is specific to Holy Paladin. If your argument is that the WC3 Paladin is Holy because of one instance where Holy Paladins used 2H weapons, then you're just using confirmation bias and ignoring the fact that Paladins as a whole can use 2H weapons in its other specs. You're purposefully ignoring Ret exists in order to attribute it to being a Holy Paladin thing.

    As I said, 2H weapons on the Paladin is a very sensible thing because the full package of a Paladin class can use 2H weapons. There is nothing *Specific to Holy* that shows us they use 2H, just as there's nothing specific to *Fury Warrior* that shows us they are Mountain Kings.

    You might as well say Shamans are Witchdoctors because they both use Totems. We simply know that's not entirely true, since Shamans are doing their own thing as their own class with totems, and it doesn't relate directly back to a Witchdoctor's specific Class Identity.

    A Hunter doesn't have to hunt. If you're a Sharpshooter, or some kind of an explosive expert, you do not, necessarily, use those skills to hunt, but to wreak havoc in combat.
    Which is why Hunters are not Beastmasters. A Beastmaster is a specific concept that is very niche and would not be applicable to Hunters in that they wouldn't be explosive experts or sharpshooters.

    Think of the same application between Wardens and Rogues. Both are shadowy fighters, assassins and bounty hunters. Yet is a Warden truly a Rogue? No, because the Rogue is a very broad archetype which includes Ninjas using shadow magic, Assassins using poisons and Pirates using guns while a Warden is a specific concept that only relates to the shadowy jailers who mete out justice and vengeance. Wardens aren't Rogues for this very reason. They are generally equated to being Rogues only by sweeping comparison, not by Class Identity.

    A Paladin and a Priest is not the same situation. The Priest is not trained in the arts of war. Anduin, as an example, wielding plate armor and a sword in hand, doesn't actually use any Paladin abilities or melee abilities in HotS. He is a Priest through and through. His garment is, simply, a cosmetic appearance, not far from what you can achieve with transmogrification. So, calling him a Paladin is misleading and, factually, wrong.
    He is a Priest only because Blizzard chooses to call him a Priest. And yes, calling him a Paladin is misleading and factually wrong, I completely agree. The same is said of calling Rexxar or Sylvanas a Hunter. They are explicitly not Hunters. Rexxar is a Beastmaster, Sylvanas is a Dark Ranger. Anything else is factually wrong, because Blizzard explicitly chooses to refer to these characters by these class names. Never is either of these characters referred to as Hunters. Never.

    The Mountain King is the Dwarven Warrior. The reason you can't, currently, play it in game is due to Blizzard's class design and as i've said before, i would like an overhaul to accommodate that fantasy.
    It is a Warrior by generic attribution, not by WoW Class definition. A Mountain King is a Thane and a Hero. Its class identity is literally Mountain King.

    You already know it's pointless to attribute it directly to the Warrior Class, as the Warrior class itself will never properly allow you to play as a Mountain King, because it was never designed to _be_ a Mountain King. It is designed to be a Warrior with 3 distinct specs; Prot Arms and Fury.

    Reminder: the Holy Paladin doesn't just heal. It protects, as well: "Invokes the power of the light to heal and protect allies..."
    Semantics. All healer protect as well. What healer doesn't protect? That is the role of a Healer in the Holy Trinity. You're literally describing the role.

    You're getting a bit too philosophical here. Saying whether identities constitute a class/spec or not, is none of my concern.
    Except you are concerned. We've been debating this very thing on a case-by-case basis and continue to do so, so pretending it's not a concern is kind of pointless to me.

    If you really aren't concerned, then nothing I've said should matter to you and we can walk away from this topic altogether.

    I don't consider any of the Warcraft 3 Heroes as a tank. You seem to forget the Footman unit:
    Let me be more clear then.

    Classes are RPG archetypes that interpret (WC3) Units and Heroes into WoW. However, the Specs of a Player Class are purely RPG gameplay mechanics relating to WoW, and are not actually representations of WC3 units. Specs do not exist outside of WoW gameplay Mechanics.

    You can make the assumption that a Footman has shields so therefore this must be a Prot Warrior, while Grunts have Berserker Strength so they must be Fury Warriors, but this would simply be misrepresenting the Class Identities of each of these. The Class identities of these both are front-line soldiers for their respective races; they are not just Prot or Arms or Fury they are simply represented under the Warrior Class as a full package.

    Footmen aren't just Prot Warriors. Grunts aren't just Fury or Arms Warriors. Knights aren't just Prot or Arms Warriors. Raiders aren't just Arms Warriors. You can't exactly attribute any of these units to Specs, because Specs are made specifically for WoW's RPG gameplay. WC3 and Heroes of the Storm characters aren't defined by Specs. Specs _don't exist_, only specific Hero and Unit identities exist, which are interpreted back into WoW as Classes. Not Specs. They are Classes.

    This isn't a philosophical thing, this is me explaining to you that Specs aren't meant to be applied outside of WoW Playable Classes specifically. None of the WoW NPCs are bound to being any specific Spec. Is Varian a Prot or Ret or Fury Warrior? Neither, because he's just a Warrior. Is Anduin a Holy or Discipline or Shadow Priest? There are no specifics, and he is a Priest. Is Thrall an Enhancement or Elemental or Restoration Shaman? None, he is simply a Shaman and embodies the full package. This needs to be regarded that Specs are not to be attributed to anything outside of Player Class Mechanics.

    My argument does not waver in this. From the very beginning, I've said Class Identities are not bound to any spec. Even if I use 'closest specs' as examples, my true intention is to open the idea that a Class should be valued as a full Class package, by the sum of all parts.

    The only case where I'd consider a Spec to be more nuanced and equated to a class is in a case like the Brewmaster monk, which should be regarded as a Class Identity, since it is literally being called out by name. This shows precedent that Blizzard could oficially represent a Class Identity (WC3 Unit or Hero) specifically through a spec. However this only pertains to how WC3 Heroes and Units get interpretted as Player Classes, NOT the other way around where we apply existing specs like Arms Warrior and Balance Druid back into WC3 or Heroes of the Storm.

    We don't have Mountain King until Blizzard says we get "Mountain King" by name. We don't have Blademaster until Blizzard gives us a legitimate "Blademaster" spec or class. There should be absolutely no ambiguity here.

    We can say that the Warrior is an interpretation of Mountain Kings, and conversationally associate Mountain Kings as Warriors in WoW, but Mountain Kings aren't officially a 'Warrior Class' in WoW, they are officially a 'Mountain King' class until Blizzard canonically says otherwise.

    We don't have playable Beastmasters. You can try and draw comparisons as much as you want, but you'll find what I'm saying to be absolute truth. No Beastmaster is ever canonically referred to as Hunter, no Hunter canonically referred to as Beastmaster. That is not to say we *need* to have it officiated, it is a case to say these identities are intentionally separated by Blizzard.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-02 at 02:02 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  6. #126
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You literally said all classes are generalists.

    You need to be more careful with your words if that wasn't what you meant.
    when im saying generalist im talking about culturally, realistically the only class that is not generalist is DH and even then made room for blood elves

    Shaman is a generalist class because isn't just about only one race, you have dwarves shamans, draeneis, taurens, trolls even pandarens, all of then are shamans but they are different in culture and how they became shamans

    Rogues? same thing, every race have his organization or his specialization, paladins? every paladin have different beliefs and so on

    The paladin class is not just human silver hand paladin, they do not ahve just human paladin skills, they have to be generalist to fit dwarves, blood elves, taurens and zandalari

    And that's what we've come about to with Blademasters. Look at the concept in the OP. There is a good argument that we can have a class that would be playable for multiple races, based on the general concept of a Samurai/Eastern-themed Swordsman archetype
    lmao, the concept already refute itself saying the class can have a tank spec, is this a meme or something? it literally goes against everything youa re rpeaching about then.

    Even worse, it goes on the take that the blademaster is some sort of shaman elemental wielding guy, when he is not, the blademasters of wod manually set their weapons in fire with oil and other products, is not element bending, and is something entirelly on the wod part.

    Lightforged draenei and pandarens learning the way of the burning blade - an defunct orc clan - yeah, sounds totally believable.

    And you've dumbed down the Blademaster to being a Warrior, even without Windwalk and Mirror Image.
    Not me, blizzard, and isn't dumbing down, is showing everything they do, to theme of fantasy, blademaster is a top orcishw arrior, they are carbom copy but missing two skills, thats it.

    You've ignored the fact that Warriors aren't exclusively Blade-users, aren't Eastern themed,
    It does need to be

    Again, Warrior class is amde to fit different kinds of warriors from different cultures, bloodll hell

    they have the mountain king from dwarves, they have knights from humans, they have taurens cheiftain from trolls, AND THEY HAVE BLADEMASTERS FROM ORCS

    don't use mystical arts, and don't use stealth or deception in their kit. You've created a nonsense argument for yourself surrounding what you think a Blademaster should be; simply a Warrior.

    No friend, you created an anedotical image of what a blademaster is and should be, regardless of everything throwed at you

    Blizzard, countless of times, stated that blademasters are warriors, period, their main lore is based around them being orcish warriors, their theme is about being warriors that goes into the heat of battle spilling blood.

    The "mystical bullshit who use deception and stealth" is something you made up because the wC3 gamepaly(which is again, wrongly, because is not how players use the blademaster) nowhere in their lore or in wow lifetime is said blademasters do that and are based around that, again, you made up and is living on that headcanon

    Except everything in this OP's concept is all about being a Mystical Warrior rather than just a Warrior with Windwalk and Mirror Image. You need to actually look at the OP's concept before you spout out nonsense about Arms Warriors.
    The concept simple does not work and have nothing to do with the blademaster as it is established in wow, this might as well be another class entiretly

    I already looked at the concept im not talking about that because i rly don't want disrespect the OP work


    Who says Blizzard *has* to make this a class?
    blizzard will not, make this a calss
    I'm arguing against your claim that the Blademaster is already a Warrior. They're not the same concept, they're different concepts.
    they are the same class and have the same concept

    again, "mystical warrior who use stealth and deception" is something you made up
    Blademasters aren't playable, therefore they aren't associated directly with any class.
    Blademasters are warriors, warriors are playable, therefore blademasters ar eplayable in the arms warrior spec, period.

    NPCs are simply *approximations* of existing classes. There's no Tinker class in the game either, and every Tinker is represented by an Engineer. It doesn't mean we can't have a Tinker class either, you understand this right?
    And tinker can be a class, because neither tinker and engineer are a class already
    Same with Necromancer. They are tied to the Death Knight. Blizzard doesn't have to make a separate Necromancer class at all. But there is a clear difference between a Necromancer and a Death Knight. Not all Death Knights are Necromancers, not all Necromancers are Death Knights.
    in regard, necromancer is different from DK yes, but again, not newarly the same thing as blademaster and warrior

    Far seer and blademaster are shamans and warriors to orcs, they are not different classes, they are titles grant it to top warriors.
    Same applies with Blademaster. Not all Warriors are Blademasters, not all Blademasters are Warriors.
    not all warriors are blademaster, because they don't ahve enough experience/power/trainning, but all blademasters are warriors

    Blademasters could just as easily be Assassins who use stealth to kill, or Monk-like Swordmasters who use Chi and Mystical powers to boost their swordmastery. These are themes that the Warrior class does not cover.
    It could be, but nowhere in their lore is showed then as "assassins who use stealth to kill" or "monk-like swordmasters who use chi", again, this is something you are making up, and goes against what is already established in the wow lore/canon

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    when im saying generalist im talking about culturally, realistically the only class that is not generalist is DH and even then made room for blood elves

    Shaman is a generalist class because isn't just about only one race, you have dwarves shamans, draeneis, taurens, trolls even pandarens, all of then are shamans but they are different in culture and how they became shamans

    Rogues? same thing, every race have his organization or his specialization, paladins? every paladin have different beliefs and so on

    The paladin class is not just human silver hand paladin, they do not ahve just human paladin skills, they have to be generalist to fit dwarves, blood elves, taurens and zandalari
    I'd add Monks to the culturally specific list since while majority of races can be a Monk, the class is lore-wise and design-wise rooted in Pandaren culture and martial arts

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Even worse, it goes on the take that the blademaster is some sort of shaman elemental wielding guy, when he is not, the blademasters of wod manually set their weapons in fire with oil and other products, is not element bending, and is something entirelly on the wod part.

    Lightforged draenei and pandarens learning the way of the burning blade - an defunct orc clan - yeah, sounds totally believable.
    I'd say it's more that "Blademasters" are very ill defined and not really explained or expanded on very well, they just sort of show up still because they existed in WC3.

    In WC3 they use vague mystic powers and "warrior energy" to create mirror images, turn invisible, deal greater damage and strike everyone around them simultaneously.
    In WoD they use vague mystic powers to use fire magic, mirror images and turn invisible or use oils (blazegrease) to ignite their blades.
    Then you have "blademasters" like Blademaster Telaamon who seemingly developed a similar style of fighting (albiet with holy magic) despite the Lightforged never having been in contact with orcish blademasters.

    Then you had the RPG which completely ignored any mystical components and just said the Blademaster was the name for Orcs belonging to the Gladiator prestige class.

    Blademasters as they are in WC3 exist because
    A: the Horde needed a hero killer/duelist hero unit
    B: Samwise Didler made a sketch of an Orc with a katana for a D&D game.

    They took a concept sketch and drew from samurai/ronin tropes for it's aesthetics and gameplay (mystical/ki/warrior spirit and toofast4you swordmanship)

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Not me, blizzard, and isn't dumbing down, is showing everything they do, to theme of fantasy, blademaster is a top orcishw arrior, they are carbom copy but missing two skills, thats it.

    It does need to be

    Again, Warrior class is amde to fit different kinds of warriors from different cultures, bloodll hell

    they have the mountain king from dwarves, they have knights from humans, they have taurens cheiftain from trolls, AND THEY HAVE BLADEMASTERS FROM ORCS

    No friend, you created an anedotical image of what a blademaster is and should be, regardless of everything throwed at you

    Blizzard, countless of times, stated that blademasters are warriors, period, their main lore is based around them being orcish warriors, their theme is about being warriors that goes into the heat of battle spilling blood.

    The "mystical bullshit who use deception and stealth" is something you made up because the wC3 gamepaly(which is again, wrongly, because is not how players use the blademaster) nowhere in their lore or in wow lifetime is said blademasters do that and are based around that, again, you made up and is living on that headcanon
    Doesn't however mean the concept of a "Blademaster" couldn't be expanded on, the same way the Brewmaster incorperated other martial arts archetypes to become the Monk Class, the Death Knight in WC3 literally an anti-paladin with it's abilities being evil versions of the Paladin hero units but it incorperated elements of the Scourge (Frostwyrms/Liches, Plague/Undeath and Blood/Vampirism).

    Samurai classes do exist in the RPG genre and they often incorperate elements similar to what exists in the Blademaster, mystical/ki/"warrior spirit" powers, focus on particular weapons (blades), unarmored or less defensive than a typical fighter/warrior, mobility, I wouldn't say a Blademaster class couldn't happen if Blizzard double down on those elements to give the "Blademaster" more things to work with, really they fall into the same blueprint as the Demon Hunter since both are more specific in theme/scope than majority of class archetypes, draw from multiple broader classes (rogues and warlocks for DH's, Monks, Rogues and Warriors for Blademasters), and while I don't think Demon Hunter should set a precedent from class design going forward it doesn't mean a Blademaster class couldn't happen.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-04-02 at 01:09 PM.

  8. #128
    I like it. It is certainly martial-artsy like a Monk, but if we can have more than one class that shoots fire balls we can have more than one class that can perform martial arts. I love a little magic with my melee and WoW doesn't have much... really just Enhancement and then technically Retribution and Sub Rouges, but those two lose a lot of the same fun with it not being elemental magic and just a particle effect on their weapon and a line in the tooltip. I think there's enough support that the extremely vaugly defined blademaster of the franchise could use elemental magic in addition to martial kinda magic--as I've understood it, stuff like Mirror Images wasn't magic though, more like Double Team from pokemon of moving so fast and an incredible display of martial prowess.

    As a warrior main, I've always kinda wished we could have blademaster as another spec in full, but I think there's enough there from what little we have to inspire a full class. Yes, not all of this is stuff we've seen blademasters do, but coming from shamanistic culture and already having some magic is it really that much of a stretch? Especially when you remember how poorly defined death knights were as just "the opposite of paladins" all the way until they were a class in WoW.
    Last edited by Firefall; 2021-04-02 at 01:25 PM.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Exactly, because Specs are not meant to encapsulate the entire concept of any Warcraft 3 or Heroes of the Storm Hero. The full CLASS is what has to be considered.

    WC3 Demon Hunters aren't just Vengeance or Havoc; they're embodied by the full package Class. Havoc and Vengeance are just interpretations of specialized aspects of the (WC3) Demon Hunter Class Identity.

    Paladin is the same way, and the way you're attributing WC3 Paladin as Holy is just an approximation based on your observation, which should be recognized as a subjective value. You're assigning it as 'closest to being a Holy Paladin' because that's what you choose to see a WC3 Paladin as being most similar to. The truth of the matter is that they aren't 'Holy Paladins', they're just Paladins.

    Heroes of the Storm characters aren't meant to be quantified by WoW Specs. They are Class Identities, a full package. WoW Specs aren't even mean to be quantified; keep in mind that WoW was originally developed as one class with 3 Talent Trees, and your 'Build' was based on what points you placed in each tree. There were no true hard Specs back then; each tree was designed to compliment each other and create a customizeable Class gameplay. You could choose a Druid to be more Feral specialized or more Resto specialized, but ultimately it was dependent on which tree paths you decided to go into. It wasn't until much later when the game design became rigid and the Talent Trees went away that we really got defined Specs; and there-in lies the disconnection from the original idea that Specs were supposed to support a class, not define an archetype within itself. Fury wasn't just limited to Dual Wielding even if it may have incentivized it, Protection wasn't purely about Tanking it just happened to have defensive talents but you could also be a viable off-tank with a hybrid Arms/Prot or Fury/Prot build; all you needed to do was swap gear and make sure you were def-capped.

    Look at Arthas in Heroes of the Storm. What kind of Death Knight is he? Frost because of his abilities? Unholy because he summons ghouls and uses 2H? Blood because his role is a Tank and he has vampiric talents? No, he is simply a Death Knight, and the Frost/Blood/Unholy specs don't define to his Class Identity. Of course each spec is important to represent it, but it doesn't define him as being any ONE spec, any more than Uther in WC3 is any ONE spec of Paladin. He is simply a Paladin. In Heroes, his role happens to be healer, but his Class Identity is undeniably "Paladin".
    Specs are meant to encapsulate specific archetypes. That's why they have descriptions. Whether it is the two-handed Arms Warrior, the dual-wielding Fury Warrior or the shield bearing Protection Warrior. You can assign certain archetypes to those specs.

    Actually, as i've shown you with the Metamorphosis look of Warcraft 3 Demon Hunters, they are more of a Havoc Demon Hunter. The Vengeance Demon Hunter was conceived by Blizzard employees the same way Mistweaver and Windwalker were. The Pandaren Brewmaster is the Brewmaster Monk. Not the whole class. Even if Storm, Earth and Fire is, currently, in the Windwalker spec.

    It's not what i choose to see. It's the Human Paladin archetype (Uther). It's not an expression of the entire class. Even if it has abilities from other specs. That's how the archetype is built. It can't be monotonous and have only healing capabilities, for that matter.

    HotS heroes do answer specific specs in game:
    Chen (Brewmaster), Rexxar (Beast Mastery), Thrall/Reghar (Enhancement), Yrel (Protection), Anduin/Whitemane (Discipline), Li Li (Mistweaver), Malfurion (Restoration), Uther (Holy), Illidan (Havoc), Valeera (Subtlety), Jaina (Frost), Kael'thas (Fire), Arthas (Frost), Muradin (Fury). Only Varian seems to encompass the entire Warrior class, with his ability to wield a two-handed, a shield or dual-wield. As for Gul'dan, it would be hard to convince you he's a Demonology Warlock, since he doesn't summon any pets because of gameplay reasons (overlapping with Azmodan and Zagara). But, that is how i perceive him and Orc Warlocks in general. Same for Zul'jin, which i would associate with the Survival Hunter due to being a Headhunter/Berserker. But, you would probably see him as a Fury Warrior. As for Garrosh, i am not quite sure. You can even see specs in characters that aren't from the WoW universe. Sonya (Fury), Karazhim (Windwalker), Li-Ming (Arcane), Johanna (Retribution).

    Arthas is Frost. Wielding a two-handed is, and was, something the Frost Death Knight can do. Being a Frost Death Knight doesn't mean he only has to use Frost abilities. He's, completely, eligible to use Unholy and Blood abilities.

    Understandable, but your analysis is full of bias in terms of appropriating any given spec at all to a Paladin which should be considered as a full package, rather than any one spec. A Paladin in WC3 is all three roles in one. It is a Tank, a DPS and a Healer in one.

    Heroes of the Storm may choose to make Uther specifically Holy, but Uther isn't the only type of Paladin in Heroes either. We also have Yrel who is Ret, and who also commands similar Healing and Tanking abilities. Yrel can be talented where you have multiple Healing abilities, and can competitively heal allies quite effectively. Yrel also has significant Armor boosts that make her incredibly tanky, since she originally started out designed as a Tank. These two characters happen to be geared more towards one type of role than another, but the Paladin concept itself, especially where WC3 is concerned, is a very flexible Hybrid concept that isn't geared solely to any one role. A Paladin isn't stuck to any one Role, it is meant to be a flexible hybrid that can do all three. The Role system in WoW is purely a game-mechanics design, since WoW doesn't actually allow Hybridization gameplay.

    The WC3 Paladin is interpretted as the Paladin class. There is no reason to attribute it specifically to any one spec just because you happened to analyze the Human Racials and deem it so.
    Whether you like it or not, Uther is the embodiment of the Holy Paladin. Yrel is actually Protection (shocking, i know), as she is the embodiment of the Draenei Vindicator archetype (despite not wearing a shield) and Johanna is the embodiment of Retribution (despite wearing a shield) due to being the Crusader archetype.

    Which is my point. Warriors aren't *actually* Mountain Kings, even if we are to attribute Mountain Kings as being represented by Warriors. This can go down the line to apply to Beastmasters, Farseers, hell even Demon Hunters as they exist right now.

    We have to regard that WoW classes are going to be WoW classes, and not direct translations of WC3 Heroes. They are interpretations. And if we regard it as an interpretation, then all Class Identities are flexible enough to be interpreted in different ways. There's no _one_ way to make a Blademaster or a Beastmaster or a Mountain King. There are infinite ways. And what matters is whether the Blizzard or the audience feels the class sufficiently satisfies that class fantasy or not.
    Sadly, lore and game design are two different things that do not, always, align very well. So, while the intention of the fantasy might be one thing, the gameplay design might stray away from that.

    For all that we know, WC3 Blademasters could be a spec within the Blademaster class, like the Brewmaster and Beastmaster. They can come up with original spec ideas for the class that aren't in lore, like they did with the Monk and Demon Hunter. Therefore, the WC3 Heroes might have the name of the class but, in reality, only represent one aspect of the entire class.

    You're showing me what a Paladin does. Holy Paladins right now can not use 2H maces in their spec, that is something that you need to regard. One instance where they happen to use a 2H mace does not mean it has become the rule. You're confusing an exception with a rule.

    Warlocks had Glyph of Demon Hunting which allowed them to Tank. Now, would you consider the Warlock to be a Tanking class because Warlock was shown to be able to tank during a period of WoW? The exception should not be considered the rule, just because there had been precedent for it in the past. We have to consider the full Class Identity. When you look at Warlocks, they are not Tanks.

    When we look at Paladins, then yes they can of course use 2H weapons, but this is nothing that is specific to Holy Paladin. If your argument is that the WC3 Paladin is Holy because of one instance where Holy Paladins used 2H weapons, then you're just using confirmation bias and ignoring the fact that Paladins as a whole can use 2H weapons in its other specs. You're purposefully ignoring Ret exists in order to attribute it to being a Holy Paladin thing.

    As I said, 2H weapons on the Paladin is a very sensible thing because the full package of a Paladin class can use 2H weapons. There is nothing *Specific to Holy* that shows us they use 2H, just as there's nothing specific to *Fury Warrior* that shows us they are Mountain Kings.

    You might as well say Shamans are Witchdoctors because they both use Totems. We simply know that's not entirely true, since Shamans are doing their own thing as their own class with totems, and it doesn't relate directly back to a Witchdoctor's specific Class Identity.
    Fury Warriors could not dual-wield one handed weapons for a long time because Blizzard decided Titan's grip to be better than Single-Minded Fury. Frost Death Knight could not wield two handed weapons for a long time because Blizzard preferred to ground its fantasy in dual-wielding only. Blizzard's gameplay design decisions are, sometimes, a mess when it comes to fantasy aspects.

    The Warlock was supposed to imitate the Demon Hunter, which has a tanking spec. So, that is not an example of an exception. They were trying to give the Demon Hunter fantasy and gameplay to the Warlock. Today, we know Demon Hunter can, very well, tank. So, it wasn't an odd decision.

    I didn't base my speculation on weapon types alone. Yrel and many Vindicators wield a two handed mace (Hammer of the Naaru). That doesn't make them Holy Paladins. It's the abilities and race, as well, that factor into the decision.

    Shamans try to emulate the Witch Doctor and Shadow Hunter archetypes by giving them several spells here and there, much like they did with the Demon Hunter and Warlock class. But the Shaman does not represent the Witch doctor/Shadow Hunter archetype as it should have. None of it, really, deals with Voodoo and Loa to encompass them precisely. The Troll Shadow Hunter doesn't fall into any of the Shaman specs. That's why i believe they will be a future class.

    Which is why Hunters are not Beastmasters. A Beastmaster is a specific concept that is very niche and would not be applicable to Hunters in that they wouldn't be explosive experts or sharpshooters.

    Think of the same application between Wardens and Rogues. Both are shadowy fighters, assassins and bounty hunters. Yet is a Warden truly a Rogue? No, because the Rogue is a very broad archetype which includes Ninjas using shadow magic, Assassins using poisons and Pirates using guns while a Warden is a specific concept that only relates to the shadowy jailers who mete out justice and vengeance. Wardens aren't Rogues for this very reason. They are generally equated to being Rogues only by sweeping comparison, not by Class Identity.
    Beastmasters do not need to be explosive experts or sharpshooters. You are mixing fantasies and archetypes. Just because it is a Hunter, it doesn't need to fulfill all of what the Hunter fantasy contains. That's what specs are for - to separate between them. The Beastmaster is, utterly and completely, a Beast Mastery Hunter. It doesn't need, whatsoever, to be proficient in archery, sharpshooting, tracking, trapping or explosives. Those are the domains of others. It can have some of those aspects, but it's not mandatory. You, for some reason, think that each of the archetypes need to be able to fulfill all that their class is capable of. That is the wrong way to look at it. They are specialized archetypes. They specialize in specific aspects of the class they belong to.

    Wardens are not Rogues because they don't answer any of the specific archetypes. They are not poison master Assassins like the Shattered Hand or the Vulpera, even though they are described as Assassins and have abilities that utilize poison. They are not the swashbuckling pirate or sailor that is well depicted by the Kul Tirans, for example. And they are not Ninjas, like the Shado-Pan Pandaren or the stealthy Sentinels. They are Wardens. Meaning, they are supervisors of jail cells. They hunt down criminals, and bring them to justice. While some Rogue organization might be described as such, i would attribute it more to a justice seeking Paladin or the bounty hunting Demon Hunter.

    He is a Priest only because Blizzard chooses to call him a Priest. And yes, calling him a Paladin is misleading and factually wrong, I completely agree. The same is said of calling Rexxar or Sylvanas a Hunter. They are explicitly not Hunters. Rexxar is a Beastmaster, Sylvanas is a Dark Ranger. Anything else is factually wrong, because Blizzard explicitly chooses to refer to these characters by these class names. Never is either of these characters referred to as Hunters. Never.
    He is a Priest because he is a Priest. Fun fact: before the Discipline Priest, really, consolidated, Blizzard imagined it to be melee, like a Monk. That's why it had several melee-associated abilities and talents.

    Rexxar is a Hunter. a Beast Mastery Hunter. I don't know how much i can repeat that or make it any more obvious. Rexxar is not the case of misrepresentation like Sylvanas, where Blizzard is trying to appease the player-base by giving the Hunter 1 or 2 Dark Ranger abilities. The Beastmaster fantasy and gameplay is, completely, accounted for in the Hunter class and in the Beast Mastery spec. I don't know where you're getting the idea that he's a, completely, different archetype and that he should have, for some reason, other archetypes capabilities of the Hunter.

    It is a Warrior by generic attribution, not by WoW Class definition. A Mountain King is a Thane and a Hero. Its class identity is literally Mountain King.

    You already know it's pointless to attribute it directly to the Warrior Class, as the Warrior class itself will never properly allow you to play as a Mountain King, because it was never designed to _be_ a Mountain King. It is designed to be a Warrior with 3 distinct specs; Prot Arms and Fury.
    Let me help you with that. How many archetypes can you fit within the Fury Warrior?
    The Mountain King (dual-wielding a hammer and an axe).
    The Troll Berserker (the axethrower type, even though it is, technically, a Hunter).
    The Barbarian (rage-induced archetype).
    If you have any other that i've missed, please feel free to point them out. If you think i am, somehow, wrong - do care to explain why.

    Semantics. All healer protect as well. What healer doesn't protect? That is the role of a Healer in the Holy Trinity. You're literally describing the role.
    No. Not all of them. Mostly, the Holy Paladin and Discipline Priest are described as such:
    "Invokes the power of the light to heal and protect allies".
    "Uses magic to shield allies from taking damage as well as heal their wounds".
    Unlike the other healers:
    "A versatile healer who can reverse damage on individuals or groups and even heal from beyond the grave".
    "Channels powerful nature magic to regenerate and revitalize allies".
    "A healer who masters the mysterious arts of manipulating life energies aided by the wisdom of the jade serpent".
    "A healer who calls upon ancestral spirits and the cleansing power of water to mend allies' wounds".
    Granted, they do possess some protective abilities, like Cenarion Ward, Life Cocoon, Prayer of Mending and Earth Shield. But, it is not as profound as in the Holy Paladin and Discipline Priest.
    And that is not just the role of the healer. It is, sometimes, the role of the tank:
    "Embraces the demon within to incinerate enemies and protects their allies".
    "Takes on the form of a mighty bear to absorb damage and protect allies".
    "A sturdy brawler who uses unpredictable movement and mystical brews to avoid damage and protect allies".
    "Uses holy magic to shield and protect allies from attackers".
    A stalwart protector who uses a shield to safeguard himself and his allies".

    Except you are concerned. We've been debating this very thing on a case-by-case basis and continue to do so, so pretending it's not a concern is kind of pointless to me.

    If you really aren't concerned, then nothing I've said should matter to you and we can walk away from this topic altogether.
    I meant i'm not concerned with your philosophical-esque pondering of whether you can, truly, define a Mountain King a Warrior or not, like some kind of a philosophical question about the human nature.

    Let me be more clear then.

    Classes are RPG archetypes that interpret (WC3) Units and Heroes into WoW. However, the Specs of a Player Class are purely RPG gameplay mechanics relating to WoW, and are not actually representations of WC3 units. Specs do not exist outside of WoW gameplay Mechanics.

    You can make the assumption that a Footman has shields so therefore this must be a Prot Warrior, while Grunts have Berserker Strength so they must be Fury Warriors, but this would simply be misrepresenting the Class Identities of each of these. The Class identities of these both are front-line soldiers for their respective races; they are not just Prot or Arms or Fury they are simply represented under the Warrior Class as a full package.

    Footmen aren't just Prot Warriors. Grunts aren't just Fury or Arms Warriors. Knights aren't just Prot or Arms Warriors. Raiders aren't just Arms Warriors. You can't exactly attribute any of these units to Specs, because Specs are made specifically for WoW's RPG gameplay. WC3 and Heroes of the Storm characters aren't defined by Specs. Specs _don't exist_, only specific Hero and Unit identities exist, which are interpreted back into WoW as Classes. Not Specs. They are Classes.

    This isn't a philosophical thing, this is me explaining to you that Specs aren't meant to be applied outside of WoW Playable Classes specifically. None of the WoW NPCs are bound to being any specific Spec. Is Varian a Prot or Ret or Fury Warrior? Neither, because he's just a Warrior. Is Anduin a Holy or Discipline or Shadow Priest? There are no specifics, and he is a Priest. Is Thrall an Enhancement or Elemental or Restoration Shaman? None, he is simply a Shaman and embodies the full package. This needs to be regarded that Specs are not to be attributed to anything outside of Player Class Mechanics.

    My argument does not waver in this. From the very beginning, I've said Class Identities are not bound to any spec. Even if I use 'closest specs' as examples, my true intention is to open the idea that a Class should be valued as a full Class package, by the sum of all parts.

    The only case where I'd consider a Spec to be more nuanced and equated to a class is in a case like the Brewmaster monk, which should be regarded as a Class Identity, since it is literally being called out by name. This shows precedent that Blizzard could oficially represent a Class Identity (WC3 Unit or Hero) specifically through a spec. However this only pertains to how WC3 Heroes and Units get interpretted as Player Classes, NOT the other way around where we apply existing specs like Arms Warrior and Balance Druid back into WC3 or Heroes of the Storm.

    We don't have Mountain King until Blizzard says we get "Mountain King" by name. We don't have Blademaster until Blizzard gives us a legitimate "Blademaster" spec or class. There should be absolutely no ambiguity here.

    We can say that the Warrior is an interpretation of Mountain Kings, and conversationally associate Mountain Kings as Warriors in WoW, but Mountain Kings aren't officially a 'Warrior Class' in WoW, they are officially a 'Mountain King' class until Blizzard canonically says otherwise.

    We don't have playable Beastmasters. You can try and draw comparisons as much as you want, but you'll find what I'm saying to be absolute truth. No Beastmaster is ever canonically referred to as Hunter, no Hunter canonically referred to as Beastmaster. That is not to say we *need* to have it officiated, it is a case to say these identities are intentionally separated by Blizzard.
    You can, definitely, assign specific archetypes to specific specs. That is the whole idea about the divergent specs. Otherwise, we would only have the base class and that's it. Specs allows us to gain insight into the type of Warrior, for example, or a Mage.

    Let me answer you, then. Varian is, indeed, a multi-spec Warrior. Varian's three Heroic Abilities reflect the warrior specialization in World of Warcraft: Protection, Arms and Fury. Anduin is, predominantly, a Discipline Priest. Anduin is a ranged healer who excels at protecting himself and his allies at the same time using shields and heals. Thrall is an Enhancement Shaman. wielding Doomhammer in hand to deliver elemental-infused attacks.

    You can even see it in the Pandaren Brewmaster example you gave. It might have been the inspiration for the entire Monk class, but it is definitely a Brewmaster Monk. Same can be said on future class candidates like the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon, Shadow Hunter, Warden Tinker and Alchemist. They might be an inspiration for an entire class, but the archetype itself might lean towards a specific spec within that class.

    It's weird how you would accept the existence of Pandaren Brewmasters as the Brewmaster spec, but not the Beastmaster as the Beast Mastery spec. Is it because of the "Y" at the end? because, at the end of the day, it is the same name. It implies on the mastery over beasts. Nothing nuanced, mysterious or have hidden meaning here. That is, exactly, what it is. The fact that you can't be a Mok'nathal doesn't have anything to do with the identity. Or, not being able to dual-wield axes at the moment (which, you could in the past). "Hunters can play as beast masters when choosing beast mastery" - https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Beastmaster#Notes

    So, you're saying the Mountain King, Blood Mage, Archmage, Far Seer, Tauren Chieftain, Keeper of the Grove and Beastmaster aren't in game because they aren't specified by name? That is a dangerous thing to say. If we would consider everything that is not, precisely, pronounced like the in-game classes or specs (as in the Archmage having Arch before the Mage and Beast Mastery having a Y at the end), then we will end up drowning in class types that are unnecessary for addition. Rework? yes. Addition? no. The wise thing to do would be to distinguish between lackluster representation and absence of identity. The unwise thing to do would be to ask for everything of everything, due to diversity sake alone. There are ways to handle this. Some require additions as classes/specs. Some just need a rework for better representation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    B: Samwise Didler made a sketch of an Orc with a katana for a D&D game.
    You know what other sketch he did? The Pandaren. And it got added. Just saying...

    By the way, What happened to you in between the "if they made a new class in the future, what would it be?" thread and this one? You were so dismissive of the Blademaster concept back then, and now you're, suddenly, all liberal and approving of it?
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-02 at 02:56 PM.

  10. #130
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    I'd add Monks to the culturally specific list since while majority of races can be a Monk, the class is lore-wise and design-wise rooted in Pandaren culture and martial arts
    monk is something more complicated, it is heavy tied to pandarens, but pandarens teach to other races, is not something that only pandarens can do anymore, the monk arts is something easy tot each and the culture itself is spread among pandaren society.

    I'd say it's more that "Blademasters" are very ill defined and not really explained or expanded on very well, they just sort of show up still because they existed in WC3.
    Not rly "ill defined", they are already explained very well, the thing is sometimes, NPCs just have more juice and tools than us, simple as that

    Blademasters as we saw countless of times, are almost and entirelly locked into the orcish race and into one clan, you can't put all of their shenanigans into the warrior class because not all warriors are orcs, by example, it would make no sense for a human or a dwarf to have the secret skills of a orcish clan, plus, it would be hard to balance,e spcialyl in these days .

    In WC3 they use vague mystic powers and "warrior energy" to create mirror images, turn invisible, deal greater damage and strike everyone around them simultaneously.
    warrior energy -> rage, to deal damage, wind walk is just they being fast, and it appear they are invisible, not rly invisible, gameplay =/=lore.

    Mirror image is the only skill they seem to use some sort of "mystical shenanigan", and i se eno reason why it can be putt as talent when the tallent tree already let you do similar magical things

    In WoD they use vague mystic powers to use fire magic, mirror images and turn invisible or use oils (blazegrease) to ignite their blades.
    as far i know, they do not use any mystic powers, they yse oil and they ignite the blade before going to battle, or let the sparks of the weapons do that.

    But grant it, burning blade in wod have flame/fire shenanigans prob because the new team barely knew shit about their lore, and think "hey burning blade clan, they obviously have blades on fire!!!!"
    Then you have "blademasters" like Blademaster Telaamon who seemingly developed a similar style of fighting (albiet with holy magic) despite the Lightforged never having been in contact with orcish blademasters.
    Just like mages and warlocks apparently can do, not going tog ive him much credit.


    Doesn't however mean the concept of a "Blademaster" couldn't be expanded on
    It can totally be expand on, never said it could not, but on the warrior class, like they are.

    Arms warriors is already in a hard spot not having much of a thematic, sharing much of their concepts with Fury, making then more blademastery with talents would be good

    Samurai classes do exist in the RPG genre and they often incorperate elements similar to what exists in the Blademaster, mystical/ki/"warrior spirit" powers, focus on particular weapons (blades),
    And theya re often a subclass of warrior/fighter.

    Samurai in D&D is literally a spec/subclass of the fighter in 5th edition.

    Blademasters are literally warriors without 2 skills, they can't do an entire class with just two skills when their whole theme and lore is already intricated with then

    Is like making a tauren chieftain class because they get Reincarnate, making a far seer class and just grab the shaman skills, is bad design, dilute the game, and is pointless, pointless because the clas sis not already in the game, but we are going to get a redundant class that niches are already covered. Elemental shit? shamans, Stealth? rogues, big bad blades? warriors. ki? monges, everything epople wantto slap on then is already covered in other classes.

    Thats why you will find more likely classes who have not yet covered to be next playable, dragonsworn, Necromancer, hell even tinker.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Specs are meant to encapsulate specific archetypes. That's why they have descriptions. Whether it is the two-handed Arms Warrior, the dual-wielding Fury Warrior or the shield bearing Protection Warrior. You can assign certain archetypes to those specs.
    That is because every spec is derived from the same source as a class.

    You look at Malfurion in Heroes of the Storm and you see a Healer Druid, so he must be a Resto Druid right? Except that is not what Malfurion actually is. He is an Arch Druid modelled after the Keeper of the Grove, Druid if the Claw and the WoW Druid. He is an Arch Druid. And even in WoW, you can't then pinpoint him as a Guardian Druid just because he finally used Bearform. He's an Archdruid, he has no one spec, he encapsulates them all in one form.

    Actually, as i've shown you with the Metamorphosis look of Warcraft 3 Demon Hunters, they are more of a Havoc Demon Hunter. The Vengeance Demon Hunter was conceived by Blizzard employees the same way Mistweaver and Windwalker were.
    The Vengeance form is not what the WC3 Demon Hunter uses. It's what Heroes of the Storm Illidan uses. The WC3 Demon Hunter uses a ranged splash attack and does not visually have glaives, which is much closer to the Warlock. And when you consider HotS Illidan came first and Vengeance actually borrows from him there, then that's misappriating the spec because Illidan in HotS doesn't have a spec, he is a Demon Hunter who happens to fill the a MOBA assassin role. If Illidan were designed to tank, he would not have a Vengeance form. Illidan has one Demon Form which he used to do everything.

    As I am saying, HOTS abides to Class Identities over specs. What is Lili? Would you call her a Mistweaver because she is a Monk who heals? She is not. Would you call Medivh an Arcane Mage because he is a mage who uses Arcane abilities snd polymorph and portals? He is not.

    Even Kael'thas is not a Firespec Mage, he is a Blood Mage. His abilities are the same as Fire Spec because Fire Spec derives from the same source material - Blood Mages.

    HotS heroes do answer specific specs in game:
    Only because you are applying what closest exists in WoW specs to any given hero. It does not mean that Heros class identity is that of the spec.

    You give a lot of great examples like Yrel being Prot despite not using a shield - It is agreeable on an observational and conversational level, but it is not what Yrel actually is since she is supposed to simply represent a Vindicator Paladin as a full package. You can't pinpoint her into any one spec without massive caveats like 'she is Prot but she doesn't use a shield'. Eventually you get to a point where you circle back to the Class identity, back to being its core class concept that has no spec boundaries. Paladins in Heroes of the Storm can Heal or Tank with a 2H weapon because that is what WC3 Paladins are identified as doing. Yrel is an extension of that same WC3 Paladin concept as Uther, taken in a different direction.

    If we're talking about Specs being archetypes, then this is a broad classification that extends _beyond_ their own Class Identity, since it begins to bring in outside concepts like Barbarians, Ninjas, Pirates which aren't actually formally playable Classes within WoW. It also can be applied to Non-Warcraft characters, since we're talking about broad archetypes.

    Sonya is a Fury Warrior. She is a raging Barbarian archetype
    Xul is an Unholy DK. He is a Melee fighter who summons Undead and uses Unholy magic.
    Karazim is a Fistweaver Monk. He heals by attacking and is a Monk.
    Johanna is a Prot Paladin. She tanks with a big shield, can throw the shield, and attacks and heals with Holy magic
    Azmodan is a Demonology Warlock. He summons demonic minions and uses fiery demonic magic
    Raynor is a Marksman Hunter. He is a Ranger and survivalist who commands mechanical 'pets'
    Artanis is a Prot/Ret Paladin. He is all about justice, he fights to protect and he uses shielding abilities.
    Stitches is a Prot Warrior. In the same way that any other Warcraft melee tanks are Prot Warriors, they don't need to use shields at all.

    You can assign specs to _any_ hero, caveats and all to excuse any differences applied. Some of these concepts fit better than others, yet none of these heroes are actually of that spec, or even that class identity. They are their own Class Identity that exist beyond any WoW Spec classification.

    Rexxar is a Hunter. a Beast Mastery Hunter. I don't know how much i can repeat that or make it any more obvious.
    Does it seem obvious that Zagara is also a Beastmastery Hunter too? She commands her beasts and specializes in ranged combat too.

    At some point we should realize that anything can be categorized, given the whole concept of 'Specs' in WoW is simply a method of Role categorization within a Class. So if we're talking about a 'Pet summoner with Physical Ranged combat' as an archetype, then we're no longer bound to the Class Identity of a 'Hunter' or 'Beastmaster', we're talking about a pretty broad category which would include Zagara as a 'Beastmastery Hunter'.

    WoW specs are only meant to categorize *specific Branches of gameplay within a WoW Playable class*, and not applied to outside sources like WC3 or Heroes of the Storm characters. Most of the time, this doesn't even apply to WoW NPCs themselves. At some point the lines between Class and Spec are going to be muddled. Illidan is a Fury Warrior because he fits that tattooed barbarian archetype. Mekkatorque is a Prot Warrior because he's suited up to Tank. Kel'thuzad is a Frost Mage because he uses Frost magic. None of these actually address Class Identities.



    Let me help you with that. How many archetypes can you fit within the Fury Warrior?
    The Mountain King (dual-wielding a hammer and an axe).
    The Troll Berserker (the axethrower type, even though it is, technically, a Hunter).
    The Barbarian (rage-induced archetype).
    If you have any other that i've missed, please feel free to point them out. If you think i am, somehow, wrong - do care to explain why.
    Oh you didn't miss anything. But why stop there?

    Illidan is also a Fury Warrior
    Blademasters are Fury Warriors too.
    So is Sonya the Barbarian
    Garrosh in Heroes is also Fury Warrior since he has a bunch of anger-based talents


    HotS Illidan would be lumped into this classification, because that is the archetype we can put him in. Sweeping Strikes, evasion and Backflip all fit a physical-oriented Fury Warrior. From there, arguments would be made whether a Warrior could use his other abilities, but that is a case of subjectivity of whether anyone thinks a Fury Warrior *needs* those abilities at all to represent the spec. And Demon Hunters don't all have to use Demon Forms or use magic, since Illidan in HotS can be built as pure physical abilities by taking The Hunt over Metamorphosis. It fits so well that demonic Fury is even the resource mechanic for Demon Hunters.

    As I maintain - we are only aligning specs to what we think is closest fitting WoW Specialization Archetype. This is not what the Heros actual Class Identity is.

    If you are making an argument that Fury Warrior is this particular Barbarian-esque rage-induced warrior with bare chest and tattooes, then Demon Hunters and Blademasters fit the bill. And the fact that these classes use mystical or magical abilities? Well so does the Warrior using Avatar and Thunderclaps and Shockwave, right? It's an expression of their fury , and could be arguable to include more fantastic elements like Metamorphosis and Mirror Image.

    By your own archetype definition, you kill the hopes of regarding these heroes by their rightful Class Identities by associating them directly to the closest existing WoW archetype. No different than assigning Rexxar as Hunter.

    The classification implies there is no room for a new class, because we already have its archetype represented. And we are unintentionally misrepresenting class identities by assigning them to the closes WoW class.

    No. Not all of them. Mostly, the Holy Paladin and Discipline Priest are described as such:

    Cenarion Ward, Life Cocoon, Prayer of Mending and Earth Shield. But, it is not as profound as in the Holy Paladin and Discipline Priest.
    In other words, semantics.

    You said they protect while other healers don't. I point out all healers have capability to protect. You continue to say not all healers protect, then go on to provide evidence of every healer having some form of protection ability

    It's all semantics. 'Heal and protect Allies' is flavour text for what that spec is themed more around, and being profound at it does not mean 'not all healers protect'.

    All healers protect, and arguing otherwise is semantics. You *can* say that some are more focused on it than others, but even then we're talking about flavour text more than anything. If we're specifically talking about Damage Prevention mechanics, then we're just talking about gameplay mechanics, which can change at any time given Blizzard's current state of balance. Look at how Discipline has completely changed over the years from being a general Support spec for Holy or Shadow, then becoming a Offense-based Atonement Healing spec, and now it's circled back to being Shield focused. That's just a state of mechanics, and the flavour text you're pointing out is an explanation of that current spec's theme within the game.

    It is not a true indication of Class Identity, since this type of description can be worded differently every time a class or spec decides to change. Just look at how Demonology and Survival's Spec Descriptions have changed since Legion changed the specs. Specs are not internally consistent Class Identities, Specs are just current branches of gameplay for WoW Playable Classes.

    I mean consider that WC3 Beastmaster was implied to be Beastmastery Hunter, but currently in WoW the Survival Hunter is actually the closest comparison to Beastmaster since it's actually melee-focused and still uses Pets. So is the WC3 variant a Beastmaster Survival or Beastmastery Hunter? Neither, because it's a Beastmaster. He's a melee hero who is focused on animal summon abilities and can have multiple Boars, Hawks and Bears in the field at a time. These are different archetypes. The Beastmastery spec is meant to pay homage to the Beastmaster, but it isn't actually a Beastmaster itself; it is still a Hunter who specializes in mastering Beasts.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-02 at 06:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  12. #132
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Its not as simple as that, I never even mentioned transmog or anything remotely connected to it, you need to read peoples posts better bud. I said that similarly to the way Fury can be considered a berserker from various points in history, and a late medieval European knight would be arms, a blademaster in many peoples minds is somewhat of a samurai/asian warrior mixed with magical trickery.

    You're saying the wrong things to the wrong person.
    Samurais are just knights of japan, they are not some sort of alien thing, dudes with swords who fight, their concept is already in the orcish race and somehow pandaren race, like i said countless of times, "magical trickery" is something you guys are making up to support that is their thing when it is barely even mentioned in warcraft lifetime.

  13. #133
    Like it !

    Always love to see people jogging their (and our) imagination with fan-concept !

    I like how you divided with elemental affinities. It puts some distance between them and the shamans, making them melee specialists, relying on mostly one element.

    Where did you get the idea of that Coin Toss ability ?

  14. #134
    *You can't edit your post and expect me to keep up*

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That is because every spec is derived from the same source as a class.

    You look at Malfurion in Heroes of the Storm and you see a Healer Druid, so he must be a Resto Druid right? Except that is not what Malfurion actually is. He is an Arch Druid modelled after the Keeper of the Grove, Druid if the Claw and the WoW Druid. He is an Arch Druid. And even in WoW, you can't then pinpoint him as a Guardian Druid just because he finally used Bearform. He's an Archdruid, he has no one spec, he encapsulates them all in one form.
    And what does the Keeper of the Grove use? plant-based abilities like Entangling Roots, Force of Nature, Thorns Aura and the healing Tranquility.

    Actually, the Druid of the Claw would, probably, be Broll Bearmantle (even if he's not classified as one).

    Though, i won't rule out Malfurion as one. As i've said, abilities can overlap. Meaning, a healer can have defensive capabilities like Bear Form. I won't be surprised if the Keeper of the Grove encompasses the Druid of the Claw and Druid of the Talon, as well. Because, as i've said previously, sometimes Hero units, when translated into the game, annex basic units alongside them. Though, it may be the Dryad unit, instead (kinda hard to decide as Cenarius and Malfurion are two different races who share the same class).

    The Vengeance form is not what the WC3 Demon Hunter uses. It's what Heroes of the Storm Illidan uses. The WC3 Demon Hunter uses a ranged splash attack and does not visually have glaives, which is much closer to the Warlock. And when you consider HotS Illidan came first and Vengeance actually borrows from him there, then that's misappriating the spec because Illidan in HotS doesn't have a spec, he is a Demon Hunter who happens to fill the a MOBA assassin role. If Illidan were designed to tank, he would not have a Vengeance form. Illidan has one Demon Form which he used to do everything.

    As I am saying, HOTS abides to Class Identities over specs. What is Lili? Would you call her a Mistweaver because she is a Monk who heals? She is not. Would you call Medivh an Arcane Mage because he is a mage who uses Arcane abilities snd polymorph and portals? He is not.

    Even Kael'thas is not a Firespec Mage, he is a Blood Mage. His abilities are the same as Fire Spec because Fire Spec derives from the same source material - Blood Mages.
    Warcraft 3: Reforged


    Heroes of the Storm


    World of Warcraft


    As you can see, they all use the Havoc style of Metamorphosis.


    Mistweaver
    Cooldown: 30 seconds
    Active: Activate to heal nearby allied Heroes for 149 Health. Basic Attacks and Cloud Serpent attacks reduce the cooldown of Mistweaver by 1 second.

    Though, she is a lousy representation of it, if i may say.

    I don't know what i'd call Medivh. But, i know i'd call Li-Ming an Arcane Mage.

    "Kael'thas is a fire mage who punishes enemies that stay close together." https://heroesofthestorm.fandom.com/wiki/Kael%27thas
    Though, in old lore, Blood Mages were closer to a Destruction Warlock:
    "Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves "blood elves", these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost — even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion.
    While they were still members of the Alliance, the blood elves began to turn to the darkest parts of magic, abandoning the water and frost spells of the Kirin Tor for the fire and heat of what some people fear to be demonic magic."

    While they got rid of Banish and Siphon Mana, You can see remnants of it in his fel-based talents and animations.

    Only because you are applying what closest exists in WoW specs to any given hero. It does not mean that Heros class identity is that of the spec.

    You give a lot of great examples like Yrel being Prot despite not using a shield - It is agreeable on an observational and conversational level, but it is not what Yrel actually is since she is supposed to simply represent a Vindicator Paladin as a full package. You can't pin point her into anybone spec without massive caveats like 'she is Prot but she doesn't use a shield' because that is not what the WoW spec identity, we are talking about muddling the class identity back to being its core class concept that has no spec boundaries. Paladin can tank with a 2H weapon because that is what Paladins are in WC3. Yrel is an extension of that same WC3 Paladin concept in a different direction.

    To assign this as Prot or Ret is just picking what WoW spec is closest. You can do this with any hero in Heroes of the Storm, and you will see how much of a fallacy this becomes.

    Sonya is a Fury Warrior.
    Xul is an Unholy DK.
    Karazim is a Fistweaver Monk
    Johanna is a Prot Paladin
    Azmodan is a Demonology Warlock
    Raynor is a Marksman Hunter
    Artanis is a Prot/Ret Paladin
    Stitches is a Prot Warrior

    You can assign specs to _any_ hero, caveats and all to excuse any differences applied. Some of these concepts fit better than others, yet none of these heroes are actually of that spec, or even that class identity. They are their own Class Identity that exist beyond any WoW Spec classification.
    Yrel is a Draenei Vindicator. Draenei Vindicators are known to be defenders and guardians of Shattrath City. Vindicator's Bulwark, for example, was a skin of the Truthguard artifact (Protection). Gift of the Naaru, while being a heal and, therefore, would be associated with a Holy Paladin, is actually based on the caster's health, rather than Intellect or Spell Power.

    If it was Lightbound Yrel, i'd say she's, probably, a Retribution Paladin (the Crusader archetype).

    That's why i see Johanna as more of a Retribution Paladin, rather than Protection, even though she wields a shield. Because she answers to the Crusader archetype, much like a Lightforged Draenei would.

    Xul, as much as I'd like to categorize him as one, doesn't strike me enough as the Unholy Death Knight, even if it encompasses the Necromancer archetype.

    Karazhim being a healer totally deprives him of the martial artist the Monk is in Diablo 3. I'd very much like to think of him as, somewhat, of a Windwalker.

    You're right. Azmodan is very much a Demonology Warlock. That's why it has an Az'Guldan skin and that's why it took away that playstyle from him.

    I don't know about Raynor. But, i would have very much liked Junkrat to be the Marksmanship archetype. using a gun and moving the explosives aspect of Survival to that spec.

    Artanis is of no surprise as the playable Draenei are, pretty much, based on the Protoss.

    Stiches is Stitches. Based on the Abomination unit of Warcraft 3.

    The it should be obvious to you that Zagara is also a Beastmastery Hunter, because she uses her beasts and fights at ranged, right?
    Dumbing down the archetype to just an overall summoner is pointless. You know what it means to be a Beastmaster. A wilderness warrior with a deep connection to the wildlife. Not a Zerg monster with minions.

    Oh you didn't miss anything. But why stop there?

    Illidan is also a Fury Warrior
    Blademasters are Fury Warriors too.
    So is Sonya the Barbarian
    Garrosh in Heroes is also Fury Warrior since he has a bunch of anger-based talents


    If the WoW Demon Hunter class never existed, Illidan would be lumped into this classification, because that is the archetype we can put him in. From there, arguments would be made whether a Warrior could use his other abilities, but that is a case of subjectivity of whether anyone thinks a Warrior *needs* those abilities at all to represent the spec. As you said, Uther is Holy even if he has Divine Storm, Muradin is Fury even if many of his abilities aren't found in Fury. So why not Blademaster and Demon Hunter? Why couldn't they be Fury Warriors? Well you answered clearly that in fact, they sre, because they both fit the Fury archetype. It fits so well that Fury is even the resource mechanic for Demon Hunters.

    As I maintain - we are only aligning specs to what we think is closest fitting WoW Specialization Archetype. This is not what the Heros actual Class Identity is.

    If you are making an argument that Fury Warrior is this particular Barbarian-esque rage-induced warrior with bare chest and tattooes, then Demon Hunters and Blademasters fit the bill. And the fact that these classes use mystical or magical abilities? Well so does the Warrior using Avatar and Thunderclaps and Shockwave, right? It's an expression of their fury right? And Demon Hunters don't all have to use Demon Forms or use magic, since Illidan in HotS can be built as pure physical abilities without Metamorphosis, right?

    By your own archetype definition, you kill the hopes of regarding these heroes by their rightful Class Identities by associating them directly to the closest existing WoW archetype. No different than assigning Rexxar as Hunter.

    The classification implies there is no room for a new class, because we already have its archetype represented. And we are unintentionally misrepresenting class identities by assigning them to the closes WoW class.
    Illidan is a Havoc Demon Hunter.
    Blademaster are closer to an Arms Warrior, despite being their own class.
    Garrosh is, probably, Arms as well, as he wields Gorehowl. If his father is anything to draw from, then Garrosh is, probably, a type of a wolf rider Raider. Again, rage is not exclusive to the Fury warrior.

    If the Demon Hunter never existed we would compare him to the Warlock, Rogue or Priest, not the Warrior, as none of his abilities belong to the class.

    Blademaster is a master of two handed weapons, like the Arms Warrior. I don't see a reason to compare him to Fury.

    You mean Demonic Fury, and it was a Demonology Warlock resource, not a Warrior's.

    I never said they have to be bare chested and tattooed. The Mountain King is one example. They need to dual-wield and be furious Berserkers. Once again, referring you to the Berserker Stance, which depicted a Dwarf in both icon and animation:
    "A reckless combat stance".

    How more obvious can Rexxar be? He's called a Beastmaster. The spec name is Beast Mastery. He's a wilderness Warrior who is assisted by beasts in combat. The Beast Mastery Hunter is a master of the wild who calls upon an assortment of beasts. His abilities, like call pet, Stampede, Mend Pet, Bestial Wrath, Flare, Aspect of the Beast, Aspect of the Hawk, Dire Beast, Thrill of the Hunt, Intimidation, Feign Death, Spirit Bond and Kill Command are, or were, part of the Beast Mastery spec and the Hunter class. You never explained why you consider the Brewmaster but not the Beastmaster. It doesn't make sense, whatsoever.

    In other words, semantics.

    You said they protect while other healers don't. I point out all healers have capability to protect. You are now saying 'Holy is more profound at protection'.

    Then you go on and say not only do healers Protect, but tanks do too.

    Hmm, so you're admitting that all healers do protect, even if at different levels? Then the original quote you point out that says Holy protects is quite irrelevant to your argument, since it just says they protect, which every Healer and Tank does, and the statement does not imply it _protects more_ than any other class, just that this happens to be something they do.

    This is literally arguing semantics, on the level of Syg using the 'Legendary Orc Warrior' tidbit to classify the Blademaster directly as a Warrior. This is flavour text we're talking about, not a spec or class definition that distinguishes them differently from other classes.
    *sigh* -_-

    A healer who does damage is a dps? a dps with a healing spell is a healer? Let's not get down to this level... What i was saying is that the description of the Holy Paladin and Discipline Priest encompasses protecting and shielding and that they do posses many protective/shielding abilities in contrast to the others.

    Tanks are, pretty, self-explanatory. Their role is to protect their allies by generating threat and absorbing damage. So, let's not get all dumbfounded about it.

    Case in point, a Druid Class also protects and uses that word. Reason? Protecting is what Healers and Tanks do, it is in the role. It is not something that particularly distinguishes Holy Paladins and Priests and Guardian Druids as being more profound than other specs at that job. We are simply talking about flavour text for the Healer and Tank roles.
    A healer is meant to, most and foremost, heal. it is derivative of their name "healer". So, protecting is an extra aspect, not always associated with healers.

    Tanks are meant to protect by their very definition, as they are built to withstand huge amounts of damage. There's no other purpose for that, other than say, personal gain (solo).
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-02 at 08:17 PM.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Though, i won't rule out Malfurion as one.
    Malfurion is an Arch Druid. Period.

    Whatever his roles can be, whatever similarities to any other Druids or Keeper of the Grove, whatever consistencies and inconsistencies... his class and title is an Arch Druid.

    That's all that would need to be said.

    As you can see, they all use the Havoc style of Metamorphosis.
    Reforged's art, as well as multiplayer in general, is not entirely canonical.

    Selectable skins like a Paladin that wields the Ashbringer is non-canonical. Nightmare Cenarius, BFA Jaina, Crown Prince Arthas and such as non-canonical.

    There are many dubious sources for the art which blends concepts from many different sources of Warcraft art. Even the campaign is dubious and unreliable when you see Grom does not have a full black jaw tattoo, which he still does in the cinematics that didn't get a graphical update. They were influenced by Grom as depicted in Warlords of Draenor, which is actually an alternate reality design. Same can be said of Malfurion, who they gave the WoW style owl wings while he does not have that in the ending cinematic when they show him blowing the Horn of Cenarius.

    Reforged has taken creative liberties to bridge in art from other sources.

    Mistweaver
    Though, she is a lousy representation of it, if i may say.

    I don't know what i'd call Medivh. But, i know i'd call Li-Ming an Arcane Mage.

    "Kael'thas is a fire mage who punishes enemies that stay close together." https://heroesofthestorm.fandom.com/wiki/Kael%27thas
    Though, in old lore, Blood Mages were closer to a Destruction Warlock:

    Yrel is a Draenei Vindicator.
    That's why i see Johanna as more of a Retribution Paladin, rather than Protection, even though she wields a shield. Because she answers to the Crusader archetype, much like a Lightforged Draenei would.

    Xul, as much as I'd like to categorize him as one, doesn't strike me enough as the Unholy Death Knight, even if it encompasses the Necromancer archetype.

    Karazhim being a healer totally deprives him of the martial artist the Monk is in Diablo 3. I'd very much like to think of him as, somewhat, of a Windwalker.

    You're right. Azmodan is very much a Demonology Warlock. That's why it has an Az'Guldan skin and that's why it took away that playstyle from him.

    I don't know about Raynor. But, i would have very much liked Junkrat to be the Marksmanship archetype. using a gun and moving the explosives aspect of Survival to that spec.

    Artanis is of no surprise as the playable Draenei are, pretty much, based on the Protoss.

    Stiches is Stitches. Based on the Abomination unit of Warcraft 3.
    Which is all fine if we're just being conversational about applying specs. But we're both acknowledging that we're loosely attributing these to WoW specs, not actually classifying any of these by asking the important question - _What class are these characters_.

    Illidan is a Havoc Demon Hunter.
    Blademaster are closer to an Arms Warrior, despite being their own class.
    This is the crux of the problem with your classification.

    How could you classify Illidan be a "Havoc" Demon Hunter if Demon Hunters were not playable when heroes of the Storm first came out? Legion came after Heroes of the Storm. Havoc did not even exist. This means before Legion, Illidan would have had to been classified as Fury or Demonology. And if we used that as an argument, then one could argue that the Demon Hunter Class Identity is already represented in the game by Fury or Demonology.

    How are you attributing Blademaster to Arms Warrior and saying they are their own class? Why doesn't this apply to Beastmaster, which also has very significant differences to the Hunter class?

    What I see here is an arbitrary subjective evaluation based on *what you think* they should be, rather than actually address them by class. And the problem with this is that this classification brings us nowhere closer to actually defining what class should or could be playable, since we're attributing them to what classes exist.

    If Demon Hunter class never existed, you would say Illidan is closest to Fury Warrior or Demonology Warlock (when they still had Meta). Yet this classification removes the possibility of having a 'Havoc Demon Hunter' in conversation, because you've attributed them to an existing class.

    Bear with this devils advocate argument, but what happens if Blizzard decides to make an actual Beastmaster fully playable that is separate from the Hunter? Would we simply reclassify the spec association? I mean, the argument right now is 'Beastmasters are Hunters', yet that's only true until Blizzard decides to make Beastmaster an officially separate class. And they absolutely could, even as unlikely as it would be. They have never shot themselves in the foot by directly regarding the Beastmaster as a Hunter Class.

    And that is my ultimate point. How can we argue that Blademaster could be its own class if you choose to attribute them to a Warrior class, while arbitrarily assigning Beastmasters as just being Hunters and no different from a Hunter? Blizzard has never acknowledged a direct connection canonically to any of these Heroes directly to a playable class. Never has a Blood Mage been officiated as being a Fire specced Mage Class. Never has the Mountain King been regarded as a Fury/Arms/Prot Warrior WoW Class.

    These attributions are completely arbitrary and subjective. They're not worth discussing the merits of, because they aren't at all factual and simply based on personal whims.

    "Kael'thas is a fire mage who punishes enemies that stay close together."
    Though, in old lore, Blood Mages were closer to a Destruction Warlock:"

    No. Kael'thas is a Blood Mage. Period. That is his class. The Blood Mage itself may be *similar* to a Fire Mage or a Destruction Warlock, but that is only through arbitrary association to WoW specs. The point I'm making is this is absolutely arbitrary because it doesn't define Kael'thas or the Blood Mage class as simply being an extension of a Mage or Warlock class. It is its own Class, whether Blizzard decides to make it playable or not. Even the quote that you pulled comes from a fan-generated source, not an official Blizzard source that says Kael'thas is a Fire Mage.

    Blizzard can give the Fire Mage spec of Destrolock spec abilities from the Blood Mage kit, but that does not make them a Blood Mage class unless Blizzard officially ties that identity in. There is no reason why you should be applying a double standard of 'Blood Mage is X and Y spec' while Blademaster specifically gets a 'despite being their own class'. Blood Mages are also their own class. Why is this important to make note of? Because we can not and do not play as a Blood Mage. Blood Mages can not be played in WoW, you can simply play the closest approximation to a Blood Mage, which is the Fire Mage.

    And we know that they DO use different terminology for classes specifically, like Paladins being Vindicators and Blood Knights, or Priests being Seer and Medics. These are the cases where we have a canonical attribution of names and titles to a WoW Class.

    Blademaster is not simply a name for a Warrior. Beastmaster is not a synonym to Hunter. Blood Mage is not just a type of Fire Mage or Destro Warlock. These are just commonly-associated arbitrations for Class Identities that are not actually playable in WoW.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-02 at 10:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Malfurion is an Arch Druid. Period.

    Whatever his roles can be, whatever similarities to any other Druids or Keeper of the Grove, whatever consistencies and inconsistencies... his class and title is an Arch Druid.

    That's all that would need to be said.
    Well, so is Hamuul Runetotem and he's a different race. Are you suggesting they are the same?

    Archdruid is a title for high-ranking Druids.

    Let's look at his abilities, shall we:
    Innervate, Regrowth, Moonfire, Entangling Roots, Tranquility, Deep Roots, Rejuvenation, Celestial Alignment, Wild Growth, Nature's Cure, Nature's Swiftness, Revitalize, Ysera's Gift, Nature's Balance, Astral Communion, Lifebloom, Lunar Shower.

    So, predominantly a Restoration Druid with some Balance spells 12/5.

    Reforged's art, as well as multiplayer in general, is not entirely canonical.

    Selectable skins like a Paladin that wields the Ashbringer is non-canonical. Nightmare Cenarius, BFA Jaina, Crown Prince Arthas and such as non-canonical.

    There are many dubious sources for the art which blends concepts from many different sources of Warcraft art. Even the campaign is dubious and unreliable when you see Grom does not have a full black jaw tattoo, which he still does in the cinematics that didn't get a graphical update. They were influenced by Grom as depicted in Warlords of Draenor, which is actually an alternate reality design. Same can be said of Malfurion, who they gave the WoW style owl wings while he does not have that in the ending cinematic when they show him blowing the Horn of Cenarius.

    Reforged has taken creative liberties to bridge in art from other sources.
    Yet, in none of these sources is the Vengeance Metamorphosis depicted. Not even in the old, crappy, Warcraft 3 version, which had wings.

    Which is all fine if we're just being conversational about applying specs. But we're both acknowledging that we're loosely attributing these to WoW specs, not actually classifying any of these by asking the important question - _What class are these characters_.
    Well, some are easier than others. Like Diablo, since it is a fantasy RPG game like WoW. Starcraft is a lot harder because it is a sci-fi game. Overwatch is a mixed bag, because it has technology-based characters alongside magical ones.

    This is the crux of the problem with your classification.

    How could you classify Illidan be a "Havoc" Demon Hunter if Demon Hunters were not playable when heroes of the Storm first came out? Legion came after Heroes of the Storm. Havoc did not even exist. This means before Legion, Illidan would have had to been classified as Fury or Demonology. And if we used that as an argument, then one could argue that the Demon Hunter Class Identity is already represented in the game by Fury or Demonology.

    How are you attributing Blademaster to Arms Warrior and saying they are their own class? Why doesn't this apply to Beastmaster, which also has very significant differences to the Hunter class?

    What I see here is an arbitrary subjective evaluation based on *what you think* they should be, rather than actually address them by class. And the problem with this is that this classification brings us nowhere closer to actually defining what class should or could be playable, since we're attributing them to what classes exist.

    If Demon Hunter class never existed, you would say Illidan is closest to Fury Warrior or Demonology Warlock (when they still had Meta). Yet this classification removes the possibility of having a 'Havoc Demon Hunter' in conversation, because you've attributed them to an existing class.

    Bear with this devils advocate argument, but what happens if Blizzard decides to make an actual Beastmaster fully playable that is separate from the Hunter? Would we simply reclassify the spec association? I mean, the argument right now is 'Beastmasters are Hunters', yet that's only true until Blizzard decides to make Beastmaster an officially separate class. And they absolutely could, even as unlikely as it would be. They have never shot themselves in the foot by directly regarding the Beastmaster as a Hunter Class.

    And that is my ultimate point. How can we argue that Blademaster could be its own class if you choose to attribute them to a Warrior class, while arbitrarily assigning Beastmasters as just being Hunters and no different from a Hunter? Blizzard has never acknowledged a direct connection canonically to any of these Heroes directly to a playable class. Never has a Blood Mage been officiated as being a Fire specced Mage Class. Never has the Mountain King been regarded as a Fury/Arms/Prot Warrior WoW Class.

    These attributions are completely arbitrary and subjective. They're not worth discussing the merits of, because they aren't at all factual and simply based on personal whims.

    No. Kael'thas is a Blood Mage. Period. That is his class. The Blood Mage itself may be *similar* to a Fire Mage or a Destruction Warlock, but that is only through arbitrary association to WoW specs. The point I'm making is this is absolutely arbitrary because it doesn't define Kael'thas or the Blood Mage class as simply being an extension of a Mage or Warlock class. It is its own Class, whether Blizzard decides to make it playable or not. Even the quote that you pulled comes from a fan-generated source, not an official Blizzard source that says Kael'thas is a Fire Mage.

    Blizzard can give the Fire Mage spec of Destrolock spec abilities from the Blood Mage kit, but that does not make them a Blood Mage class unless Blizzard officially ties that identity in. There is no reason why you should be applying a double standard of 'Blood Mage is X and Y spec' while Blademaster specifically gets a 'despite being their own class'. Blood Mages are also their own class. Why is this important to make note of? Because we can not and do not play as a Blood Mage. Blood Mages can not be played in WoW, you can simply play the closest approximation to a Blood Mage, which is the Fire Mage.

    And we know that they DO use different terminology for classes specifically, like Paladins being Vindicators and Blood Knights, or Priests being Seer and Medics. These are the cases where we have a canonical attribution of names and titles to a WoW Class.

    Blademaster is not simply a name for a Warrior. Beastmaster is not a synonym to Hunter. Blood Mage is not just a type of Fire Mage or Destro Warlock. These are just commonly-associated arbitrations for Class Identities that are not actually playable in WoW.
    Simple. Because he uses a Havoc-style of Metamorphosis in game:


    It is the closest to Arms due to its mastery over two handed weapons. How many times must i repeat that?
    Yet, it is not in game due to lacking abilities and talents that are missing from the Warrior class.
    How does the Beastmaster have significant difference to the Hunter? i'm, really, baffled by that... He, literally, ticks all boxes.

    The Demon Hunter was closest to Demonology Warlock, not Fury Warrior. And no, this equivalence does not renders the discussion on future classes irrelevant. You have to be able to differentiate between possible future classes and those that are, already, in game. For that matter, the Beastmaster is in game. The Blademaster is not. You can see it by how much they are represented in their classes.

    They shot themselves in the leg by, literally, calling one of its specializations "Beast Mastery". How more obvious does it need to be for you to get that? Do i need to spell it out for you? B-E-A-S-T M-A-S-T-E-R-Y.
    By your argument, they can add whatever they want. A 1,000 different types of classes because of the slim possibility that it is not present enough in game. If that's the direction of the discussion, then there's no point in continuing it, because they can add whatever, just because, and we'll be pondering about the 1,001 possibilities there are out there.

    You wanna know why i choose Blademaster over Beastmaster? Because i don't, arbitrarily, choose titles and say "let's add them", out of the blue, just because they have cool sounding names or because i support diversity for diversity sake. I analyze, first thing, how much of that character's abilities and fantasy are present in the game and i come to the conclusion if they are viable or not. You seem to want everything of everything without any just cause or explanation, just because we can't impose identities or whatever. I'd, personally, need more than that progressive approach of yours to be convinced.

    Kael'thas Sunstrider
    Class: Mage
    https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Kael%27thas_Sunstrider
    They could have, easily, written Blood Mage.
    As a Mage, is he Arcane? is he Frost? or is he Fire? the answer is, pretty, clear.
    He is as much a Fire Mage as Rommath is. A unique Fire Mage, certainly. But a Fire Mage, nonetheless. You see, they have to make major lore characters stand out from the others, but that doesn't mean they have to be their own class. A Blood Mage is a Blood Elven Mage. That's their take on it. They are known to practice fire magic, in contrast with their High Elven cousins who practice Frost Magic. I agree that the spec doesn't represent it, perfectly, and i wish it would. But, we can't simply ask for every class/race combination out there to be a class just because they have a unique take on it.

    Funny how you mention Vindicators, Blood Knights, Seers and Medics, because the Mountain King is, also, said to be the Dwarven Warrior:
    "Ironforge dwarves in particular have a long tradition of combat training, and many dwarves train extensively with axe and hammer. Mountain kings are the elite of the Ironforge warriors, imposing fighters who tap into mystic powers to become true champions of their race" (White Wolf. Alliance Player's Guide, 186. ISBN 9781588467737)".

    Beastmaster is, very much, playable in game. Before you declare stuff, you need to explain why they're not.
    Blood Mage does need accommodation in terms of animations and armor sets. But, not its own class.
    Blademaster is another story. The Samurai archetype is missing from the game, entirely.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-03 at 12:30 AM.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Well, so is Hamuul Runetotem and he's a different race. Are you suggesting they are the same?
    Let's look at his abilities, shall we:

    So, predominantly a Restoration Druid with some Balance spells 12/5.
    Abilities and specs only pertain to gameplay, and NPCs don't have any associated gameplay to reflect any particular spec. They exist beyond specs.

    If a boss fight entails fighting Malfurion in Bear Form, it doesn't 'predominantly' equate him as a Guardian Druid/Druid of the Claw, it just happens to be what he is being represented as for that boss fight. Overall, Malfurion is still a Druid and can do anything and everything a Druid does; all specs. That is how NPCs are. Just look at the Fandral fight, what kind of Druid is he? He's simply a Druid of the Flame, with all the bells and whistles that comes with being an NPC with that title.

    Keep in mind, we never even KNEW that Malfurion could use a Bear Form until BFA. This shows that he's always had that capability, but simply never had a good reason to use it. And this isn't a case of 'Well even Resto can use Bear Form' because he wasn't shown in BFA using his bear form the way a Resto Druid would. He's using it as a proper Guardian Druid would. That's because he's a Druid.

    Yet, in none of these sources is the Vengeance Metamorphosis depicted. Not even in the old, crappy, Warcraft 3 version, which had wings.
    Yes, it's not depicted because it was created purely for WoW, for the intention of having a visually distinct Tanking form. It's so it can be easily identified in the game. As I said, specs don't exist outside of WoW, which is why you'd not see a Vengeance Metamorphosis form depicted in outside sources. It's literally an invention for a spec for WoW's specific gameplay.

    This is my point. WC3 Class Identities aren't representations of WoW specs. It's the other way around, where WoW's specs are interpretations of WoW Classes. This process isn't meant to be interchangeable, it's a one-way ticket of translating WC3 Class Identities and mechanics into WoW.

    Well, some are easier than others. Like Diablo, since it is a fantasy RPG game like WoW. Starcraft is a lot harder because it is a sci-fi game. Overwatch is a mixed bag, because it has technology-based characters alongside magical ones.
    And all of that would be arbitrary, because Diablo, Starcraft and Overwatch characters aren't translated into Classes and Specs in World of Warcraft. As I said, there's no reason to classify them using WoW standards when they aren't meant to be playable in WoW. Why call Sonya a Fury Warrior when she isn't a Fury Warrior? She's a Barbarian. Assigning her as a 'Fury Warrior' is completely arbitrary, since all WoW specs are only relative to WoW, and not outside of it.

    It is the closest to Arms due to its mastery over two handed weapons. How many times must i repeat that?
    You can repreat it as many times as you want, but it's arbitrary.

    I could then say Paladin is Ret due to their mastery over 2H weapons. Holy Paladins don't master meleeing with 2H weapons, even if they happen to have a Legendary during Legion. Holy Paladins generally don't fight in melee at all, and would DPS with spellcasting over auto attacks.

    You can argue this, but as I said, what we're both arguing here is subjective value, rather than any actual factual basis that any of these Heroes are actually of any particular spec. It doesn't matter what spec is closest, because specs don't exist outside of WoW.

    They could have, easily, written Blood Mage.
    Wowpedia's Class information is also an unofficial classification. They're assigned by fans, all of WoWpedia's information is crowdsourced, not officiated by Blizzard. Wowpedia is not an official source of information, especially where the info-box is concerned. The Moderators would be the one to decide what is more relevant to the information regarding WoW. In this case, Kael'thas more appropriately fits simply as a 'Mage' because WoWpedia regards a Mage to aptly appropriate Kael'thas' character.

    Look at Genn Greymane. They list him as Warrior, even though officially he is not of any particular class.
    Genn Greymane is only ever playable in Heroes of the Storm, where he is depicted much more closely to an Outlaw Rogue with a Worgen Form. In WoW, he's only ever depicted as a Worgen, using his bare claws to fight rather than any weapons. By all means, he should be considered class-less and spec-less, since he doesn't abide to *any* of the Player Class rules. If it comes down to why not using the Outlaw Rogue to describe Genn; it's because his WoW depiction is what is going to be used considering this is 'WoWpedia' and not 'HOTSpedia'.

    Mekkatorque was once attributed as Warrior on WoWpedia, since that was what his TCG card listed him as, and the TCG was considered canon. You can still see him listed as Warrior on his WoWwiki page, even if the WoWpedia page has been updated to simply be 'Tinker'. And even then, he's not truly a 'Tinker' class, since Blizzard has not officially assigned him any class at all. He simply has the title of High Tinker, otherwise there is no official designation of what Class type he actually is. Mekkatorque has never been featured as a playable character in any game, and he does not have any direct Class affiliation within WoW beyond the title of 'High Tinker' which is more of a political title than a Class.

    We're talking about the same attributions that you've been using here, and the fact is it's completely subjective.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-03 at 05:09 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  18. #138
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    And again, I didn't mention anything to do with transmog so stop putting words in others mouthes.
    AM talking about transmos, people said there was no samurais in wow, when that is fase, you can find tons of mogs of then.


    Samurai arent remotely knights, you have no idea what you are talking about from a historical perspective. Knights are people who have been given an honorary knighthood, they arent just warriors, they are the elite.
    Samurai (侍, /ˈsæmʊraɪ/) were the hereditary military nobility and officer caste of medieval and early-modern Japan from the 12th century to their abolition in the 1870s. They were the well-paid retainers of the daimyo (the great feudal landholders).
    A knight is a person granted an honorary title of knighthood by a head of state (including the pope) or representative for service to the monarch, the church or the country, especially in a military capacity.
    If you cannot even see the resemblance, or the samurai order is pretty much a knighthood, that is entirely on you.

    i mean, just look at the term on the Wikipedia and see their counterparts in other culturues:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight
    Samurai are a serving warrior class, who serve their Daiymo, their lords essentially, they are just warriors
    you mean like a knight that is a warrior class who serve their king, the church or anything else?
    And why are you even bringing this up
    Seeing how people have a wrong idea about this all together, that is the reason why im bringing up

    The only thing remotely similar between the Orcs and Samurai is a SMALL part of the bushido code, specifically regarding honor and dying in battle, that's literally IT, 90% of bushido isn't remotely of concern to Orcs. By the same token I could argue that the Night Elves follow parts of Bushido.
    Right, i wissper this for you, it is a fanasy universe, they will not be carbon copies of real world culturues, just draw inspiration
    Bushido is - Justice, Courage, Compassion, Respect, Integrity, Honor, Loyalty, Self-Control. The orcs display courage, honor and loyalty, that's it.
    This again, show you don't know very much about orcs and blademaster, if you think orcs don't ahve any of that you are just ignorant

    Im not making up this "Magical trickery" I played the crap out of Warcraft 3, its one of my 2 favorite games of all time and if you were to ask me to describe a blademaster, I would tell you that he was an "Asian themed warrior, with a big Katana/Dadao, sandals and cloth pants, beads, who uses precise attacks and magical trickery to beat his opponents. There you go, I would bet my dollar a lot of others here would say the same thing.
    And in wow, you can already, play an asian themed warrior with a big katana dadao, with sandals and cloth pants, beads, who use precise attacks

    the literally, only thing missing is "magical trickery", with is again, MINOR, part of the character

    You only have to look at HOTS, at the most iconic blademaster in the warcraft universe, samuro. So we already know what 'blademasters in WC3' look like, but you're somehow arguing that is outdated or something, so lets look at HOTS, which is modern.

    For the hundred time, hots is not canon, is a moba and play completely different from what we have in a mmorpg. None of those skills even existed in warcraft 3 so you can't even resemble the "real OG blademaster"

    Christ sake, you can even pick Varian and Garrosh skills in the game and try to make up an entire class like you did.

    If you want to continue to argue that Samuro is just a flat out traditional warrior I don't know how to argue this anymore.
    Samuro it is a traditional warrior or the burning blade clan, who use mirror image, in wow, period.

    Since Hots is not canon and they can go bananas is a completely different thing.

    Like i said, it would make more sense to flavor the warrior class with more blademaster skills, another class is completely nonsensical taking account the class is essentially already playable, and it would be completely redundant with the gameplay we already have, stealth is already used by rogues and even druids, elemental magic is used by shamans, just remove mirror image from mages and slap into warrior talent tree make up a wind-walk like ability that replaces heroic leap and there you have it. a warcraft 3 blademaster

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Abilities and specs only pertain to gameplay, and NPCs don't have any associated gameplay to reflect any particular spec. They exist beyond specs.

    If a boss fight entails fighting Malfurion in Bear Form, it doesn't 'predominantly' equate him as a Guardian Druid/Druid of the Claw, it just happens to be what he is being represented as for that boss fight. Overall, Malfurion is still a Druid and can do anything and everything a Druid does; all specs. That is how NPCs are. Just look at the Fandral fight, what kind of Druid is he? He's simply a Druid of the Flame, with all the bells and whistles that comes with being an NPC with that title.

    Keep in mind, we never even KNEW that Malfurion could use a Bear Form until BFA. This shows that he's always had that capability, but simply never had a good reason to use it. And this isn't a case of 'Well even Resto can use Bear Form' because he wasn't shown in BFA using his bear form the way a Resto Druid would. He's using it as a proper Guardian Druid would. That's because he's a Druid.
    Let me give you an example of a boss fight that, perfectly, depicts the specialization of the character: Jaina Proudmoore.
    In Warcraft 3, she is an Archmage. In Heroes of the Storm, she is Frost Mage. And in Battle of Dazar'alor, what kind of magic does she use? Frost. Can we not say she is a Frost Mage? Is she, simply, a general Mage? No. She's, clearly, a Frost Mage. And that is because the Human Mage is, generally, an Archmage (excluding special characters, like Medivh). And from Blood Mage lore, we know the Kirin Tor, mainly, teaches frost magic: "While they were still members of the Alliance, the blood elves began to turn to the darkest parts of magic, abandoning the water and frost spells of the Kirin Tor for the fire and heat of what some people fear to be demonic magic".

    Yes, it's not depicted because it was created purely for WoW, for the intention of having a visually distinct Tanking form. It's so it can be easily identified in the game. As I said, specs don't exist outside of WoW, which is why you'd not see a Vengeance Metamorphosis form depicted in outside sources. It's literally an invention for a spec for WoW's specific gameplay.

    This is my point. WC3 Class Identities aren't representations of WoW specs. It's the other way around, where WoW's specs are interpretations of WoW Classes. This process isn't meant to be interchangeable, it's a one-way ticket of translating WC3 Class Identities and mechanics into WoW.
    The same way Mistweaver and Windwalker was created for the Monk class. Would you say Chen Stormstout, the Pandaren Brewmaster, is also a Mistweaver and a Windwalker? No, he is a Brewmaster. They used his character as an anchor for the entire class idea, but it is clear what spec he is.

    Of course we would see Vengeance in outside sources. Whether in Heroes of the Storm or Hearthstone:


    And all of that would be arbitrary, because Diablo, Starcraft and Overwatch characters aren't translated into Classes and Specs in World of Warcraft. As I said, there's no reason to classify them using WoW standards when they aren't meant to be playable in WoW. Why call Sonya a Fury Warrior when she isn't a Fury Warrior? She's a Barbarian. Assigning her as a 'Fury Warrior' is completely arbitrary, since all WoW specs are only relative to WoW, and not outside of it.
    Oh, really? They aren't?:

    Barbarian abilities in WoW
    Bash (Haymaker), Cleave, Ground Stomp (War Stomp), Rend, Leap (Heroic Leap), Overpower, Frenzy, Seismic Slam (Shockwave), Revenge, Threatening Shout (Demoralizing Shout), Sprint, Weapon Throw (Heroic Throw), Earthquake, Whirlwind, Furious Charge (Bull Rush), Ignore Pain, Battle Rage (Enrage), War Cry (Rallying Cry), Berserker Rage, Nerves of Steel, Inspiring Presence, Bloodthirst, Relentless, Juggernaut.

    Demon Hunter abilities in WoW
    Entangling Shot (Binding Shot), Caltrops, Rapid Fire, Smoke Screen (Smoke Bomb), Bola Shot, Chakram, Preparation, Fan of Knives, Marked for Death, Multishot, Sentry (Sentry Turret), Cluster Arrow (Explosive Shot), Rain of Vengeance (Volley), Thrill of the Hunt, Steady Aim, Cull the Weak, Nighstalker.

    Wizard abilities in WoW
    Magic Missile (Arcane Missiles), Ray of Frost, Frost Nova, Arcane Orb, Wave of Force (Supernova), Arcane Torrent (Nether Tempest), Ice Armor, Slow Time (Slow), Explosive Blast (Blast Wave), Teleport (Blink), Meteor, Mirror Image, Blizzard, Blur, Evocation, Conflagration, Paralysis, Temporal Flux, Critical Mass.

    And, of course, there are the Monk, who draws inspiration from the Monk and Priest classes; The Necromancer, which draws inspiration from the Death Knight; and the Crusader, which draws inspiration from the Paladin. It's not one sided, though. It is a mutual inspiration.

    You can repreat it as many times as you want, but it's arbitrary.

    I could then say Paladin is Ret due to their mastery over 2H weapons. Holy Paladins don't master meleeing with 2H weapons, even if they happen to have a Legendary during Legion. Holy Paladins generally don't fight in melee at all, and would DPS with spellcasting over auto attacks.

    You can argue this, but as I said, what we're both arguing here is subjective value, rather than any actual factual basis that any of these Heroes are actually of any particular spec. It doesn't matter what spec is closest, because specs don't exist outside of WoW.
    The Retribution Paladin is not a master of weapons. It uses them. This slight variation makes a huge difference:
    "A righteous crusader who judges and punishes opponents with weapons and holy magic".
    In contrast with Arms: "A battle-hardened master of weapons, using mobility and overpowering attacks to strike opponents down".
    The Blademaster description: "Blademasters are legendary orc warriors of the Burning Blade clan, known for their mastery over swords, axes and polearms.
    The key word is mastery (over weapons). Learn the difference.

    By the way, the Holy Paladin is found in melee range:
    Mastery: Lightbringer
    Increases healing done by up to X%, based on the proximity of your target.

    Wowpedia's Class information is also an unofficial classification. They're assigned by fans, all of WoWpedia's information is crowdsourced, not officiated by Blizzard. Wowpedia is not an official source of information, especially where the info-box is concerned. The Moderators would be the one to decide what is more relevant to the information regarding WoW. In this case, Kael'thas more appropriately fits simply as a 'Mage' because WoWpedia regards a Mage to aptly appropriate Kael'thas' character.

    Look at Genn Greymane. They list him as Warrior, even though officially he is not of any particular class.
    Genn Greymane is only ever playable in Heroes of the Storm, where he is depicted much more closely to an Outlaw Rogue with a Worgen Form. In WoW, he's only ever depicted as a Worgen, using his bare claws to fight rather than any weapons. By all means, he should be considered class-less and spec-less, since he doesn't abide to *any* of the Player Class rules. If it comes down to why not using the Outlaw Rogue to describe Genn; it's because his WoW depiction is what is going to be used considering this is 'WoWpedia' and not 'HOTSpedia'.

    Mekkatorque was once attributed as Warrior on WoWpedia, since that was what his TCG card listed him as, and the TCG was considered canon. You can still see him listed as Warrior on his WoWwiki page, even if the WoWpedia page has been updated to simply be 'Tinker'. And even then, he's not truly a 'Tinker' class, since Blizzard has not officially assigned him any class at all. He simply has the title of High Tinker, otherwise there is no official designation of what Class type he actually is. Mekkatorque has never been featured as a playable character in any game, and he does not have any direct Class affiliation within WoW beyond the title of 'High Tinker' which is more of a political title than a Class.

    We're talking about the same attributions that you've been using here, and the fact is it's completely subjective.
    It is not official, unless it has citation.

    Genn Greymane was once classified as an Outlaw Rogue. And i'd, somewhat, agree with that because he wields a sword and a pistol. He's just afflicted by the Worgen curse. Though, none of his abilities, really, represent it. It has to do with his Gilnean background (who, mainly, use pistols). Much like Daelin Proudmoore's Reforged appearance being depicted that way. Even though his abilities are more sea-related. And that has to do with Kul Tirans' Gilnean background.

    Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker. Since the class is not in game yet, the closest thing was the Warrior class. So, it was attributed to him in the meantime. Gelbin Mekkatorque is, undeniably, the Tinker class. I don't know why you'd doubt that. He's appearance and abilities as a raid boss, during Battle of Dazar'alor, pretty much confirms it.

    I, really, don't get your aversion towards classifying characters. While some are represented by in game classes and specs, some are not. We can't just call it quits and declare no one fits any type, at all. And we can't say they all fit all types. We need to examine closely and thoroughly and determine which are and which aren't. Taking the extreme position that no one fits any of the classes is too radical and nonsensical, the same as declaring they are all in the game's classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    what is, the fundamental difference of a warden and a rogue if not their theme?
    Their abilities:
    Blink, Spirit of Vengeance, Vault of the Wardens, Umbral Bind, Containment Disc, Warden's Cage, Naisha'a Memento, Shadow Orb: Vengeance, Shadow Orb: Huntress, Shadow Orb: Shadow Strike.

    I only found 2 Rogue abilities: Fan of Knives and Shadow Strike (Poisoned Knife); 1 Demon Hunter ability (Blade Dance), one tank ability (Bladed Armor), and one enchantment (Shadow Armor).

    So, i can't, really, call it a Rogue.

    see, how many years we are away from WC3, and nobody is asking for a blademaster class like they did with DH or are doing with thinker or necromancer, because they damn know blademasters are just fancy warriors, and two skills don't make a class
    So, the cause for necromancers seem justified to you, but not the Blademaster?
    That is some duplicity, right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    A Warrior using Hammers can use Bladestorm, because it's treated as a simple AoE-type of ability that isn't exclusive to Bladed weapons. There's a very big difference here. The ability isn't supporting a Blademaster identity, the ability is simply the Diablo 2 Barbarian Whirlwind ability using the WC3 Bladestorm ability name instead. There's actually nothing specific to Blades about Bladestorm, nothing specific to an actual Blademaster.
    What?
    The Warrior has a Whirlwind ability, you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    yeah, what a bullshit, make warriors lose their main ability since warcraft 3, very clever
    Since Wrath of the Lich King, actually:
    Patch 3.0.2: added.

    "Make Warlocks lose an ability they had since vanilla (Death Coil)". Patch 0.11: Added.

    "Make Warlocks lose an ability they had since Wrath of the Lich King (Metamorphosis)". Patch 3.0.2: Added (same as Bladestorm).

    nice, now take this at hear and realize that mirror image and windwalk are just an ability. it doesn't define then as another class.
    2/4 of abilities. Why consider Bladestorm over Wind Walk and Mirror Image? because it is an Ultimate ability? does the Death Knight not require Death Coil, Unholy Aura and Death Pact? Just Animate Dead? does the Demon Hunter not require Mana Burn (Mana Rift), Immolate (Immolation Aura), and Evasion (Blur)? does it only require Metamorphosis? because the Demonology Warlock, already, fulfilled that.
    Those two abilities do define the Blademaster's gameplay and fantasy. That's why they are abilities of Samuro, and not just talents.

    priest class, and the priest of the moon shenanigan is different, a druid would be able to be, so not a good comparison
    No, actually. The Priest class does not encompass the Ranger archetype and Moon abilities of the Priestess of the Moon. Neither is Druid a Ranger in any way.

    they still can weave in and out of battle, they just don't have wind walk
    Invisibility, or Stealth, is not of the Warrior playstyle.

    The theme of a blademaster is a legendary orc warrior who master the use of blades, which fals exactly and like a glove into the arms warrior spec, warriors with maestry of weapons AKA blades.
    I, originally, thought like you. But, closer examination revealed that much of the Blademaster is missing from the Warrior in terms of agility and trickery.

    warlock was complete different from a DH in any way shape and form while warriors and blademasters are the same in theme, design, lore and skills except two.
    No, actually. They had 2 of the 4 abilities of the Demon Hunter (Metamorphosis & Immolate), like you claim for the Blademaster.
    Their description was: "A master of demonic magic who transforms into a demon and compels demonic powers to aid him", the same as you claim for the Arms Warrior description and the Blademaster.
    So, in essence, it is the same argument.

    Btw, the rpg state that cordana felsong was a rogue and a warden, further showing that "warden" is a job, a tittle, not rly a class
    RPG is not canon. It, also, classified Grommash and Thrall as Blademasters, which we know is not true.

    The "mystical" part of the blademaster is something you are focusing too much and trying to build the argument around it, as a defining and main part of the "blademaster" this is something BARELY mentioned in their lore
    It is part of the class that you can't just toss aside in favor of your argument.

    they are not invisible like a rogue
    Rogues are not invisible. They blend with the shadows.

    You can see Blademaster Ishi, lantressor of the blade, Akinos, Azuka tons of other, and surprise for you, none of then use the "mystical ninja rogue shenanigans" you think they should use, few, very few of then even use mirror image spell, you can count like 3-4 in wow lifetime and wind walk being even rarer with just jubei'thos using in the Raid.

    Taking all of this into account, mysticism, deception and stealth ARE NOT, main things of the blademaster, seeing how those things are rare among then, those are tools for top warriors, like some NPCs can do shit like we players, can't, Thrall and anduin using plate as shaman and priests, they and other usingsspells and abilities we can't, and so on.
    Rarely do NPCs represent their classes appropriately, in game, before their addition.
    Before Demon Hunters were added, Demon Hunters NPCs only used Metamorphosis, if they had at all.
    Before Death Knights were added, Death Knight NPCs use a mix of Warlock and Warrior abilities. At most, they had a summon skeletons ability.
    So, you can't, really, use NPCs as a tool for argument against the Blademaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    the class concept of the blademaster is already in the game, but more generalist to fit other races, otherwise blademaster, the way you "imagine" then to be, would be an orcish class only
    No, it wouldn't. It would encompass Lightforged Draenei, too. And i can see it encompassing Pandaren and Night Elves, as well.

    But why they would make then their own class, it they literally, time and time again, proved their are warriors, specific arms warriors? why go trough all this trouble to make a carbom copy of the same class, but with wind walk and mirror image? owh way they can just copy past moba abilities here, like it would work
    Same was said about the Demon Hunter. Why make it its own class when Demonology Warlocks proved time and time again that they are Demon Hunters. Why go through all this trouble to make a carbon copy of the same class, but with Mana Burn and Evasion? And look at us now, with playable Demon Hunters having two specs
    You can, clearly, see Blizzard drew inspiration from Illidan in Heroes of the Storm for the class, which came before their addition to the game in Legion.

    plus, there is no expansion who would make sense this "class" be playable, ship kinda sailed in wod, if there was anytime
    Blizzard pulled Mists of Pandaria out of their ass and introduced the Monk. No one had ever thought Blizzard would go to this direction with their game. Asiatic landscapes and themes seemed so disconnected from the settings of the game. Let alone adding the Pandaren, which was considered an April Fool's joke. So, yeah.. if there is any other asiatic expansion coming, you can bet your ass off you'd see the Blademaster (like we had two demonic expansion (TBC and Legion) and two death expansions (WotLK and Shadowlands).

    Another class? impossible, blizzard barely made DH with tons of shit to draw upon.
    Never say never. If they managed to pull a Demon Hunter without treading on the Warlock, then they can do a Blademaster. If not a class, then a spec.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Even worse, it goes on the take that the blademaster is some sort of shaman elemental wielding guy, when he is not, the blademasters of wod manually set their weapons in fire with oil and other products, is not element bending, and is something entirelly on the wod part.
    Not entirely true.
    On one hand it says: "In Warlords of Draenor, Blademasters are shown to be capable of manipulating fire, with many of them using abilities such as 'Blazing Coil'."

    On the other hand, it says: "Sticky, smelly, and highly flammable, blazegrease is liberally applied to the swords and axes of the Burning Blade clan before battle. Though some warriors choose to ignite their weapons before battle, most let the inevitable contact of blades and armor spark the blazegrease for unpredictable intimidation."

    Besides, the Burning Blade clan was known to use elemental fire magic (WoD lore).

    So, it not so clear as to whether they magically do it or manually.

    It's not only a WoD thing:



    Lightforged draenei and pandarens learning the way of the burning blade - an defunct orc clan - yeah, sounds totally believable.
    They won't be of the Burning Blade clan. They'd have their own groups.

    The "mystical bullshit who use deception and stealth" is something you made up because the wC3 gamepaly(which is again, wrongly, because is not how players use the blademaster) nowhere in their lore or in wow lifetime is said blademasters do that and are based around that, again, you made up and is living on that headcanon
    Made up? what?
    "Though Blademasters are masters of stealth and guile, they value personal honor above all else." (Official Warcraft 3 description).
    Notice the word "Masters". Meaning, not only do they master the blade, they also master Stealth and Guile. So, i just debunked your whole argument that stealth and guile is a minute, secondary aspect.

    again, "mystical warrior who use stealth and deception" is something you made up
    Wrong. Again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Blademasters as we saw countless of times, are almost and entirelly locked into the orcish race and into one clan, you can't put all of their shenanigans into the warrior class because not all warriors are orcs, by example, it would make no sense for a human or a dwarf to have the secret skills of a orcish clan, plus, it would be hard to balance,e spcialyl in these days.
    I've, already, mentioned that other races have Blademasters. Lightforged Draenei have them. Ankoan have them. Saberon have them. Mantid have them. And Saurok have them.
    Therefore, they are not unique to the Orcish race anymore.

    Mirror image is the only skill they seem to use some sort of "mystical shenanigan", and i se eno reason why it can be putt as talent when the tallent tree already let you do similar magical things
    What?
    What similar magical things can the Warrior do? the only thing i can equate Mirror Image to is the Monk's "Earth, Storm and Fire" spell or the Mechagnome's racial "Hyper Organic Light Originator".

    And being extremely fast that you are invisible to the naked eye is not an ordinary ability. It is supernatural.

    Arms warriors is already in a hard spot not having much of a thematic, sharing much of their concepts with Fury, making then more blademastery with talents would be good
    No. It wouldn't.
    Make it more of a Tauren Chieftain.

    Blademasters are literally warriors without 2 skills, they can't do an entire class with just two skills when their whole theme and lore is already intricated with then
    Demon hunters are, literally, Warlocks without 2 skills (Mana Burn & Evasion). They can't do an entire class with just two skills when their whole theme and lore is, already, there. - That was the exact same argument against Demon Hunters. You are just repeating it with the Baldemaster.

    Thats why you will find more likely classes who have not yet covered to be next playable, dragonsworn, Necromancer, hell even tinker.
    No.
    Dragonsworn is an RPG class. They don't add RPG classes.
    The Necromancer was, officially, stated to have been integrated into the Death Knight class. And besides, they don't add basic Warcraft 3 units as classes.
    It's funny how you advocate for necromancers, claiming they are a class of their own, but not the Blademaster. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    like i said countless of times, "magical trickery" is something you guys are making up to support that is their thing when it is barely even mentioned in warcraft lifetime.
    Huh?
    How is it made up when Mirror Image is an official Blademaster ability?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    If you cannot even see the resemblance, or the samurai order is pretty much a knighthood, that is entirely on you.

    i mean, just look at the term on the Wikipedia and see their counterparts in other culturues:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight
    And Monks are Priests, in real-life, you know?

    For the hundred time, hots is not canon, is a moba and play completely different from what we have in a mmorpg. None of those skills even existed in warcraft 3 so you can't even resemble the "real OG blademaster"
    What are you talking about? Samuro, literally, has Wind Walk, Critical Strike, Mirror Image and Bladestorm as his basic abilities. His talents just expand upon them.

    Samuro it is a traditional warrior or the burning blade clan, who use mirror image, in wow, period.
    Samuro is not even in game.
    Makes you wonder how an "existing" archetype character doesn't even show up in game.

    Like i said, it would make more sense to flavor the warrior class with more blademaster skills, another class is completely nonsensical taking account the class is essentially already playable, and it would be completely redundant with the gameplay we already have, stealth is already used by rogues and even druids, elemental magic is used by shamans, just remove mirror image from mages and slap into warrior talent tree make up a wind-walk like ability that replaces heroic leap and there you have it. a warcraft 3 blademaster
    It, actually, won't.
    Mirror Image and Windwalk is as alien to the Warrior class as any Mage or Monk ability would be, for example.
    Elemental magic is, also, used by the Monk - making it even more likely to encompass the Blademaster than the Warrior.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-03 at 05:35 PM.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Let me give you an example of a boss fight that, perfectly, depicts the specialization of the character: Jaina Proudmoore.
    In Warcraft 3, she is an Archmage. In Heroes of the Storm, she is Frost Mage. And in Battle of Dazar'alor, what kind of magic does she use? Frost. Can we not say she is a Frost Mage? Is she, simply, a general Mage? No. She's, clearly, a Frost Mage. And that is because the Human Mage is, generally, an Archmage (excluding special characters, like Medivh).
    She is an Archmage who happens to be shown using frost more often than any other type, but that doesn't make her a 'Frost Mage' because that specialization in WoW is specific to WoW player gameplay and has plenty of specifications in place that restricts your gameplay intentionally.

    Jaina isn't respeccing to Arcane to raise a giant battleship and make it shoot arcane blasts from its cannons. She is capable of doing all things Mage is known to do without limits because she is an Archmage. She simply chooses not to use Fire magic, not that her for magic is any weaker (less profound) because she isn't the right spec. Specs are notable for this, using one aspect while leaving other aspects behind and having them notably weaker or less powered. NPC heroes do not have this limitation, they represent the class fully without arbitrary spec limitations.

    This is why MK isn't just Fury. The 2H and Dual Wield differentiations of a WoW Player Class do not apply or exist to a Mointain King. He is a full Warrior, capable of tanking without a shield, mastering Arms while Dual Wielding. Fury being Dual Wield specialist while abstaining from 2H, Prot requiring shields to tank and Arms being 2H specialist while not using 1H is all a classification unique to WoW Player Classes. It's all a part of the Identity of an Arms, Prot or Fury specialization, beyond the other themes like 'Raging Barbarian' or 'Weapons Master' that could be applied. The specific limits in weaponry defines what each spec identity is. Even if all Rogue specs could potentially use pistols, we wouldn't attribute it to Subtlety or Assassination. The Specs have their own self-contained identities with various 'restrictions' in place. NPCs and WC3 Heroes aren't bound by any of these restrictions or classifications. Greymane can use Pistols and have Stealth mechanics without being classified as an Outlaw Rogue.

    The Retribution Paladin is not a master of weapons. It uses them. This slight variation makes a huge difference:
    "A righteous crusader who judges and punishes opponents with weapons and holy magic".
    Right. So where does it even say that a Holy Paladin uses Weapons or melee? It doesn't.

    As I said, we're applying your logic of Ret is 'profound' at using weapons whereas Holy is not.

    The Str-based WC3 Paladin Hero is definitely built to be used in melee combat, and we could attribute it to being Ret (or Prot) by this basis. And the more you argue against it, the more I would point out that you're ignoring its use of weapon, it being a melee class, and being Str based as opposed to Int based. The STR attribute alone shows that we're not dealing directly with a Holy spec.

    It is not official, unless it has citation.
    And Kaelthas being a mage has no citation.

    Officially he is always a Blood Mage. He could be referred to as a Mage as well, yes, since a Blood Mage is colloquially a type of mage just like an Archmage, but that is not a 'WoW Class' definition. It is more akin to calling a Paladin a Holy Warrior, a generalized description.

    Genn Greymane was once classified as an Outlaw Rogue. And i'd, somewhat, agree with that because he wields a sword and a pistol. He's just afflicted by the Worgen curse. Though, none of his abilities, really, represent it. It has to do with his Gilnean background (who, mainly, use pistols). Much like Daelin Proudmoore's Reforged appearance being depicted that way. Even though his abilities are more sea-related. And that has to do with Kul Tirans' Gilnean background.

    I, really, don't get your aversion towards classifying characters. While some are represented by in game classes and specs, some are not. We can't just call it quits and declare no one fits any type, at all. And we can't say they all fit all types. We need to examine closely and thoroughly and determine which are and which aren't. Taking the extreme position that no one fits any of the classes is too radical and nonsensical, the same as declaring they are all in the game's classes.
    My problem is if we simply equate what is closest, it will misinform people reading to assume that is just factual rather than conversational. Let's say we all regard Greymane as an Outlaw Rogue and it's listed on Wowpedia, now we know that Greymane is a Rogue. And what is an Outlaw Rogue archetype? A ruthless fugitive who uses agility and guile to stand toe-to-toe with enemies.

    Now does this truly apply to Greymane? No, it does not. We are just arbitrarily assigning an Outlaw Rogue identity to him because he uses a sword and pistol and has a stealth talent.

    We shouldn't regard these attributions at all because they completely misrepresent what these characters identities actually represent. Greymane is most appropriate a class-less representation of a Worgen. Blizzard has yet to officially assign him any class, and there is no need to assign him a Fury Warrior or Outlaw Rogue connection when he isn't either. He is a representation of a cursed Worgen, not purposefully raging fighter or ruthless fugitive. He happens to use a sword and pistol, that's simply how he chooses to fight in HotS, and he isn't class-changing to do so.

    Identities need to be respected otherwise arguments get muddled.


    WoW classes and specs are not modular. There are specific rules that define what a Spec is. There is no class that has multiple identities or associations. Anduin can't be a Priest who is also a Ret Paladin spec. There is no such thing as a Blademaster Class that is also an Arms Warrior. If you call Blademaster an Arms Warrior, then he is a Warrior Class specializing in Arms, and people agreeing with this classification can disregard the idea of making Blademaster its own class, because we're commonly associating it already as a specific type of Warrior.

    You're both arguing against Syg and making his argument for him.


    I regard all Heroes and Units as their own Class Identity, and every one of them has the potential to be made into a playable class. The merits of whether they should be made would be on a case-by-case scenario. It's not as simple as a matter of 'it brings new gameplay', since we're obviously seeing the limits of that in Class design when we look at how Blizzard constantly guts existing class mechanics for new class abilities. To be fair, unique gameplay isn't even on the top of their list, since they could easily bring in a Tinker class that has all new mechanics, but they favoured adding a Demon Hunter class which almost has no true new gameplay; a significant portion of its gameplay was taken from Monks and Warlock sadly enough.

    So of course people are going to have mixed perceptions on what a new class should be. We literally see the drawbacks of having a new class that is modelled too closely to existing ones, which is why the Necromancer, Dark Ranger and Blademaster are met with so much resistance. If on top of this we're already commonly attributing these to existing Classes and Specs, then the argument of 'We don't need a Necromancer class, Unholy DK's are already Necromancers' is an easy way to shut down any argument. But we both acknowledge that the Necromancer has its own archetype, which lends to the identity of a Necromantic cloth-based Spellcaster and Summoner that is separate from the DK.

    Blademaster doesn't have this though. Its only true differences are Windwalk/Mirror Image and its Cultural identity. Yet as I said, Culture does not necessitate its own class since we have different cultural variants of existing classes (Sunwalkers, Medics etc). Blizzard _CAN_ choose to explore a culture through its own class, just like Druids and Monks, but it's not something people generally regard unless it's Blizzard actually doing it. Most cases, if a fan says 'we can have a Witchdoctor who has Voodoo' the immediate response is 'Troll Shamans and Priests already use Voodoo'.

    We can focus the argument to Abilities like Windwalk and Mirror Image being unique to the Blademaster. The problem is if we all commonly associate the Blademaster as already being an Arms Warrior, then that can easily get shut down to exactly Syg's point - these could just be abilities added to the Arms spec in the future instead of a new class. Why bother with a new class then? And that's a valid point, because Blizzard could just opt to make it a talent, or simply never make it at all. The association of them being a type of Arms Warriors is already well accepted without those abilities, right?

    Blizzard doesn't need to make any new class. Every WC3 Hero/Class Identity can be considered a variation of what's already playable in WoW. If Blizzard wants you to suspend disbelief in game mechanics to imagine that your Tauren Paladin is actually using Sun magic, then it's little different to having people roleplay their Orc Arms Warrior as a Samurai. And if people are collectively already making that association by calling Blademaster an Arms Warrior, then it makes it even harder to form an argument that the Blademaster could be its own class at all. I would say, it's nigh impossible. It's a matter of belief and perception, and I don't find merit in arguing people's beliefs. The difference in my conversation with you is that I know you don't regard the Blademaster as an actual 'Warrior Class'. But what if you did believe it was already a Warrior? How could I convince you that it isn't? I can't. Belief is not something I can argue someone out of, it's something that has to be realized by the individual. The harder we argue, the more we're reinforcing someone's belief. And yes, I'm being a lot more philosophical here because I've made these arguments for years and seen no good results of it. All I can hope to achieve is allowing people to realize the facts; that Blizzard does not officially regard 'Specs' and 'Classes' as applicable to WC3 Heroes (with exceptions of course, like Brewmaster or Farseer).

    As far as I'm concerned, I stick to what Blizzard officially regards these classes as, because it's integral to the argument for-and-against new classes. Could we have a Sunwalker class? No, because Blizzard officially ties that to the Paladin class. Could we have Beastmaster? Yes, because they haven't officially tied them to any existing class; though the merit of it happening is very low. We can then discuss the merits of the class being playable or not.

    Yet any time, someone can just jump in and shut down the conversation completely by saying 'They're already Hunters', and there's really no argument against that belief. And when we're commonly just throwing out Spec and Class associations to Characters that aren't officially considered that, then we're influencing others and reinforcing the common belief of that being true. In my own opinion, it's not for us to decide what WoW Class or Spec a WC3 hero should be. It's up to Blizzard to define it, whether they choose to or not. It's not on me and you to decide that a Beastmaster is just a Hunter while a Blademaster could be its own class. It's on Blizzard to define whether either of these are actually Hunters and Warriors; not simply by association through NPCs or Specs but through direct acknowledgement of the Hero actually being one.

    Example - Kael'thas is just a Fire spec mage, this unofficial HOTS page lists him as Fire Mage, WoWpedia has 'Mage' written in its Class box. Kael'thas' weapon was made into a Legendary for Fire Mages in Legion. All the connections point to him being a Fire mage right? Well yes, because that's what the general WoW community already consider him to be. In truth, Blizzard themselves never made this distinction clear; they never refer to him specifically as a Fire spec Mage or just a Mage (outside of some loose terminology as a 'Spellcaster').My argument is not focused on 'Kael'thas isn't a mage', my argument is focused on 'Blizzard does not officially regard Kael'thas as anything other than Blood Mage'. We don't have a clear definition where Blizzard officially regards the Blood Mage as just a subset of the WoW Mage Class. He is and always is a Blood Mage officially. And just generalizing him down to the closest appropriation would make it difficult to (for example) discuss any merits of Blood Mage being a playable Class. If we simply establish that he is a Mage class, we don't need to consider all the other unique abilities or subthemes a Blood Mage has that differs from Mages at this point. We can just assume that the Mage class could absorb or discard those unique traits.

    And now apply this back to Blademaster, and I hope you will begin to understand why your arguments against Syg aren't getting through.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-03 at 09:19 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •