So… Tinkers

[Tentim]

The difference between the two is that DHs are in demon form temporarily, while with Evokers, dragon form is constant of the player so chooses.

I know the difference I'm just not convinced they add any unique gameplay that warrants a new class existing. Their gimmicks is just having spell procs they can store... all their abilities hey have shown exist in some form it just feels like excess to a game with over 30 specs.

[Teriz]

I'd hardly say the Evokers were based on her solely. Just taking a quick look, Chromie's abilities appear in both specs as well and the racials.

What racials?

Looks like Evokers aren't based on one sole character.

Uh no, it’s Alexstraza mechanics wise and thematically. Her hero in HotS forms the foundation of the class. The class certainly takes abilities and concepts from other draconic characters throughout WoW, but Alexstraza HotS formed the base of the class.

- - - Updated - - -

I know the difference I'm just not convinced they add any unique gameplay that warrants a new class existing. Their gimmicks is just having spell procs they can store... all their abilities hey have shown exist in some form it just feels like excess to a game with over 30 specs.

What about their flying and movement capabilities during and outside of combat?

[Triceron]

The class certainly takes abilities and concepts from other draconic characters throughout WoW

There you go. Not based on a sole hero.

[Teriz]

There you go. Not based on a sole hero.

Uh, Death Knights take abilities and concepts from other undead characters. The class is still based on Lich King Arthas.

Monks take abilities from multiple Monk characters. The class is still based on Chen Stormstout.

[Triceron]

Uh, Death Knights take abilities and concepts from other undead characters. The class is still based on Lich King Arthas.

Monks take abilities from multiple Monk characters. The class is still based on Chen Stormstout.

And Bards could be based on characters presented in the April Fools, while taking abilities and concepts elsewhere. The most notable influence in that April Fools would probably be ETC. The most marketable character would probably be that Blood Elf with the guitar though.

Seeded since 2007?

[Tentim]

What racials?



Uh no, it’s Alexstraza mechanics wise and thematically. Her hero in HotS forms the foundation of the class. The class certainly takes abilities and concepts from other draconic characters throughout WoW, but Alexstraza HotS formed the base of the class.

- - - Updated - - -



What about their flying and movement capabilities during and outside of combat?

They don't fly in combat and their movement is less then monks and dh.

[Mecheon]

It’s bad faith because you’re pretending that the Dracthyr are a similar situation to the Bard, yet you know it’s not.

Y'know, back before the announcement of the Evoker, I actually had this big ol' script done up for a prospective video where I looked at possible new class ideas. There's enough of 'Eccentric performers being tied to magic' out there that the barest bones of a Bard class exists in game. Certainly higher than some other choices

anywho I then descended into going "Y'know what? A clothie wielding two handers would be cool as heck"

Dracthyr just sort of, popped up out of nowhere on a long pre-existing concept of 'dragon magic' that was long since established, so its hardly out of nowhere

Incidentally, other ratings I had:
Arcane Archer/Magical Archer: A gap filler mostly without too much support
Chemist/Alchemist/Apothecary: I'm surprised this one constantly gets slept on as there's so much ingame content that'd work for them. Ties into both goblin and undead stuff, longstanding villains, gets us the goblin alchemist hero..... Unsure why we don't have more support for this
Dark Ranger: Just hunters, not enough meat to them to squeeze out into a full class at this point
Dragonsworn: They'd be great, so much design space! Then Evoker happened, w o o p s
Alternate Druid: Too tied to existing druids to really expand into their own stuff, sorry Druid of the Flame and Nightmare druid fans (though please give us more alt forms)
Necromancer: Incredibly evocative and have their own design, but absolutely squished in the fine gaps between the death knight and the warlock
Runemaster: Probably well past its case at this point but I went on a rant about general runic magics. Not enough support outside of 'runes I guess' and 'man i'd like it if characters could get tattoos that glow when i use abilities'
Shadow Hunter: See Dark Ranger (except I'd like throwing weapons back)
Spellblade (or magus, or battlemage, etc): Has possibility to be expanded into a full thing, not really grabbed by other existing classes, but a bit barebones
Spellbreaker: Not enough meat by itself, but could be interesting if mixed in with Spellblade
Tinker: Massive design space to itself and potential of being its own thing
Void Knight: i'm pretty sure this was on here just because I dislike void elves enough that I wanted to dunk on people wanting them to get pallies, but it ended up transforming into "Y'know what, a melee class where you invoke old god transformations on yourself so you can become Nightmare from Soul Calibur would be cool as heck (but that also wasn't what people wanting void knights wanted)"

[bloodmoth13]

To be honest, you can apply the same question to anyone who likes to heal, anyone who likes to tank.

I mean yes, it's contrived, because it's ultimately going to be adding a new role to the game where it hasn't existed.

It's not a role for everyone. And for anyone who doesn't want to play it, there's always DPS.



Well it could always be retuned in Dungeon settings, like a 'Stance' that turns them into standard DPS. Support Roles would be dedicated to Raiding. Like, I don't propose that all dungeons require Debuff-removal just like not all Dungeons require Cleansing.



As if DPS cares what any other role is doing?

The only real condition changer is the introduction of Vulnerabilities to bosses, and it'd treated no differently than a Raid mechanic phase. Someone does a raid callout before vulnerability hits, and DPS tunnel visions.

I'm literally just stealing this mechanic from what we saw in Diablo 4 as a throwaway example for this concept.



I mean you can say the words, but I don't see how this is a problem.

You could define Healing or Tanking the same way and pair it down to being a contrived mechanic considering there are many MMOs out there that do not have dedicated healers or tanks, and everyone has self-sustains to keep themselves up and support abilities to help others. The Holy Trinity itself is built around a contrived 3-way system, let's be honest here.



Well, this isn't part of my particular example or concept. I figure you're talking broadly, but sure. I mean, if we break it down like that, then every class has some measure of doing everything. It's all a case-by-case scenario if we're talking what Classes/Specs would have what Support role and abilities.



Turning every DPS into a pseudo support isn't a solution to Support races. It just pisses off the majority of DPS players who literally only want to tunnel-vision.

I mean, I was a feral main for quite a few of the early expansions, and hybrid utility-DPS is not all it's cracked up to be. It's an absolutely thank-less job that only a certain type of player could appreciate. Once you throw in utility and spread it out, we're just giving people ammunition to bitch and change it back to the way things were. I mean, look at the state of interrupts - DPS literally have one side job and most don't even want to push a single damn 'non-DPS' button :P

Ok to make things a little more clear about my idea of hybrid dps, it would require some adjustments to the game baseline but my idea is that there will be options for players to ignore that stuff without really affecting their output and that the support bonuses wont affect their dps because no dps wants to compromise their performance (which i support, annd thats a big reason im againsnt pure supports in the first place)

Some ideas i had were reworking utility abilities to have lower cooldowns but high mana costs, and there will be a baseline mechanic to pass your mana to an ally, effectively putting them in control of your utility (which would be expected in raids, healers will be super buffed by dps giving them their manna) this would make mana a more important mechanic as it would essentially be a pure utility resource across all classes.
All stuns, debuffs, heals, shields, mitigation etc etc will cost mana and all specs will specialize in one thing or another (or just gift their mana to a player who is dedicated to support)
Some examples of ways to implement utility without affecting dps would be adding utility to rotational abilities and tacking a mana cost to them like glacial spike on a frost mage stunning a target but having an extra mana cost (still cast if no mana but no stun), or a shadow priest being able to cast shadow mend while channeling mind flay, or a warlock shattering a healthstone from a foe to heal melee team mates (or themselves in open world content) or casting a curse that cripples foes attack speed for a bit.

For bards, im not entirely opposed to the idea of a caster using an insntrument but im opposed strongly to pure support (which players pair with bards though they dont necessarily have to be pure support) and opposed to someone just using solely music as a weapon in wow.
I think adding instruments as weapons for all cloth casters would be an easy win, the output would be whatever magic cloth casters can use the input however is that the caster calls magic through music. throw in some musical notes in the ability animations and you have a pretty good compromise. IMO if the magic input could be any magic output then the input should be a generic option, like the idea of runecaster someone suggested ages back, just add more casting animations and those things would be covered (instruments for bards, glyphs for runecasters, wands for harry potter fans etc)

Ill admit you are right about healing and tanking being somewhat contrived but i think its the healthy kind of contrived, pure support is self necessitating which is kinda bad, having the holy trinity on the other hand gives some big specialization differences, some players genuinely like healing (hell i dont mind it some of the time) annd in my experience healing in those self sufficient games feels like garbage.. Its nice having roles in a role playing game but at the end of the day as soon as players have a way to measure performance they will and they will get MUCH better at the game for it. Going against that will never work, once the cat is out of the bag its out for good, i think its best to just keep the dps specifically as something sacred and work utility around it, and offensive support simply create a clusterfuck for the data players use to gauge their performance.

[nvaelz]

Oh sweet, self-oblivious irony.


Just... what?

We saw three different potential specs for the class concept in the Island Expeditions. None of them were particularly Hunterish, unless you want to consider non-mobile turrents a pet. In which case, I guess Shaman are Hunters, too?

I think you're derailing a bit on the pets and shaman stuff, I mean that hunters have alot of mechanical gadgets, explosives that are actually inventions, shamans have like elemental energy and wooden totems that focus the energies or whatever.

I'm not saying a survival hunter is a tinker but it's kinda something i think that would make blizz not add a tinker class, it's like people asking for Evoker to have tank/melee specs but then they'd be too close to demon hunters, but a dragon and a demon hunter isn't the same lorewise or whatever it's just too similar in appearance. Imagine having Dragon tanks leaping and Dh tanks leaping it would be too similar right. So u have hunter throwing bombs and traps and nets and snares and then what are tinkers gonna do? throw down turrets, sure but they'll do what else?

[Teriz]

They don't fly in combat and their movement is less then monks and dh.

Hover, Deep Breath, Dream Flight, Rescue, Fly With Me are all examples of them flying in combat. Zephyr allows them and the party to float. Also, they have more abilities than Monks and DH.

Quite a bit more in fact.

- - - Updated - - -

And Bards could be based on characters presented in the April Fools, while taking abilities and concepts elsewhere. The most notable influence in that April Fools would probably be ETC. The most marketable character would probably be that Blood Elf with the guitar though.

Seeded since 2007?

You’re basing a potential WoW class on a Blood Elf that was using Guitar Hero controls?

Like I said, that wasn’t a seed.

Also, the ETC isn’t a lore character.

[Rocksteady 87]

Regarding WoW and Bards, is this the same WoW that absolutely loathes crowd control and debuffing mechanics, so much so that they damn near stripped them out of the game for a very long period of time? The same Blizzard that hated it so much that even when they rolled back time to release Classic Vanilla they made sure to only roll it back to the point after they started to do that that very thing with their refurbishing of the classes and gross changes to the 'holy trinity' of roles, too? (Because god forbid a DPSer need to control themselves let alone pay attention to shit they've CCed.)

Because, yeah. The chances of Blizzard ever releasing a class revolving around a Bard's traditional roll are less than 0%.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the ETC isn’t a lore character.

While the chances for a Bard are less than 0%, that's just not true. Both they and Hearthsinger Forresten have been around since vanilla, with ETC being around since Warcraft III.

"The Culling of Stratholme claimed the lives of innumerable people whose only crime was being in the doomed city. A traveling singer and piccolo player named Forresten was one such victim. He continues to wander the city in death, unable to accept his tragic fate." Literally from a dungeon journal.

They might be jokes, but they're still officially 'lore' characters.

[Triceron]

You’re basing a potential WoW class on a Blood Elf that was using Guitar Hero controls?

Like I said, that wasn’t a seed.

Also, the ETC isn’t a lore character.

Yes because that Blood Elf with a guitar was a basis for a cooler take on the classic Minstrel class archetype which already exists in many RPGs. No different to how a Tinker is a spin on an Artificer fantasy archetype.

And since then they've added other Bard and Minstrel characters to the game. You merely asked me to give you a seeded example that all those other Bards derived from, and ETC and the April Fools is where it started.


I can see part of the Bard'a theme being as a psuedo historian, like the Lorewalkers, who tap into songs of distant heroes of the past to draw upon their strength and powers. The memory of these heroes live on in song and inspire those who hear it. And we already have a strong basis for this already through the Kodo Rider unit in WC3 which you like you conveniently ignore for the sake of trying to prove a negative.

[Teriz]

While the chances for a Bard are less than 0%, that's just not true. Both they and Hearthsinger Forresten have been around since vanilla, with ETC being around since Warcraft III.

"The Culling of Stratholme claimed the lives of innumerable people whose only crime was being in the doomed city. A traveling singer and piccolo player named Forresten was one such victim. He continues to wander the city in death, unable to accept his tragic fate." Literally from a dungeon journal.

They might be jokes, but they're still officially 'lore' characters.

Hearth singer, yes, but he’s a minor character, and not a major hero. He’s just a tragic victim of stratholme. Classes are based on major lore characters, or which Hearthsinger is not one.

ETC on the other hand has never interacted with any major characters, never participated in any storylines, and has no presence in the events of the game whatsoever. Compare him to characters like Arthas, Chen, Illidan, Alexstraza, or even Gazlowe; Characters that are part of the story and helped shape the lore.

ETC has never done that.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes because that Blood Elf with a guitar was a basis for a cooler take on the classic Minstrel class archetype which already exists in many RPGs. No different to how a Tinker is a spin on an Artificer fantasy archetype.

And since then they've added other Bard and Minstrel characters to the game. You merely asked me to give you a seeded example that all those other Bards derived from, and ETC and the April Fools is where it started.

And once again, neither are lore characters in WoW, so they’re seeding nothing. Come back when ETC joins other major characters in the Dragon Isles, or some future expansion. Until then, he’s just an empty spoof of WC3 Tauren Chieftain hero.

[Rocksteady 87]

Yes because that Blood Elf with a guitar was a basis for a cooler take on the classic Minstrel class archetype which already exists in many RPGs. No different to how a Tinker is a spin on an Artificer fantasy archetype.

Wait, hold up.

You actually think the Artificer concept came first? I mean, D&D had Tinkers (by name) at least as far back as 1984. In fact, Dragonlance is where the whole idea of "tinker gnomes" came from. Well, in its popular form as steampunkish inventors; the concept came from mythology like the cobbler fey and Norse dwarves.

Hearth singer, yes, but he’s a minor character, and not a major hero. He’s just a tragic victim of stratholme. Classes are based on major lore characters, or which Hearthsinger is not one.

ETC on the other hand has never interacted with any major characters, never participated in any storylines, and has no presence in the events of the game whatsoever. Compare him to characters like Arthas, Chen, Illidan, Alexstraza, or even Gazlowe; Characters that are part of the story and helped shape the lore.

ETC has never done that.

It doesn't matter if they have or not. They're still "lore characters" regardless of what your personal goalpost is.

But again, it doesn't matter. Blizzard hates the mere concept of the "fourth role" of dedicated crowd controllers. It's never (and yes, I'm using the word "never" definitively and confidently here) going to happen under their watch. Now Microsoft taking over might change that, as I fully anticipate them not taking any of Blizzard's bullshit about "whaa, it's too hard for us, and um polished quality control or something, whaaa!" that they use to explain their laziness when it comes to, well, anything game releated. But even then, a class like the Tinker is going to come way before a Bard ever would.

[Triceron]

Ok to make things a little more clear about my idea of hybrid dps, it would require some adjustments to the game baseline but my idea is that there will be options for players to ignore that stuff without really affecting their output and that the support bonuses wont affect their dps because no dps wants to compromise their performance (which i support, annd thats a big reason im againsnt pure supports in the first place)

Some ideas i had were reworking utility abilities to have lower cooldowns but high mana costs, and there will be a baseline mechanic to pass your mana to an ally, effectively putting them in control of your utility (which would be expected in raids, healers will be super buffed by dps giving them their manna) this would make mana a more important mechanic as it would essentially be a pure utility resource across all classes.
All stuns, debuffs, heals, shields, mitigation etc etc will cost mana and all specs will specialize in one thing or another (or just gift their mana to a player who is dedicated to support)
Some examples of ways to implement utility without affecting dps would be adding utility to rotational abilities and tacking a mana cost to them like glacial spike on a frost mage stunning a target but having an extra mana cost (still cast if no mana but no stun), or a shadow priest being able to cast shadow mend while channeling mind flay, or a warlock shattering a healthstone from a foe to heal melee team mates (or themselves in open world content) or casting a curse that cripples foes attack speed for a bit.

I think you make some great points here, and with a little nudging you could come up with a solid system for hybrids to work it out. To be honest, this merely sounds like a shift towards other MMOs that don't have the Holy Trinity. In many of those games that I've played (Guild Wars 2, Phantasy Star Online 2) everyone has defensive abilities, self sustains, and and raid-wide support abilities.

The problem I see is that it still conflicts with the way the game is currently designed, and how people gauge their performance strictly on performing DPS and trying to out-compete others or maintain their own personal threshold of DPS. Any time spent not DPSing affects DPS performance. In the other games I mentioned above, the raids and encounters aren't tuned to DPS performance, they are tuned to co-operatively taking down the boss and everyone contributes DPS and support equally. Bosses attack random targets, so helping others is crucial because at any moment that could also be you. The only tradeoff to helping others is less DPS, and that's usually not a problem in these games since they aren't built with internal DPS-thresholds that gate progression. The problem with merely allowing DPS to perform DPS while casting other utility abilities is 'awareness'. Anyone who is focused on DPS will tunnel vision on DPS. That is why 'standing in fire' is such a big problem; the user doesn't take the rest of their environment into account. The other games I mention prioritize survival over DPS. Boss fights are merely battles of attrition where as long as you survive long enough, you can beat the encounter no matter how much or little DPS you do. The benefit of more DPS is merely clearing the encounter faster, which may overall help survival through having a shorter fight.

If we merely tack on extra utility to a DPS who is intentionally tunnel visioning to maintain their DPS, it causes some issues. How then do they guage their support performance? Are they expected to support if they have those abilities (ie, your class has built in interrupt, does everyone expect you to be Interrupt guy?). And these ideas are great when things go good, but I always look at it in a more pessimistic way and think about what happens if things go bad. And I easily think up all the scenarios where someone's yelled at me as Hybrid DPS for battle ressing the 'wrong guy' or innervating at the wrong time or having not decurse when none of those are actually my job. I've heard every dumb excuse to blame others on a wipe, and this even when hybrid tax was no longer a thing and I could point to how my performance on the meters were right up there with everyone else. I think it's just easier when roles are clearly outlined for what the job is and what everyone's expectation should be. Because if even something as simple as interrupting can be overcomplicated and made reason to bitch at others for, I can't see this hybrid support style working out too great in practice. But that's just the pessimist in me talking.

For bards, im not entirely opposed to the idea of a caster using an insntrument but im opposed strongly to pure support (which players pair with bards though they dont necessarily have to be pure support) and opposed to someone just using solely music as a weapon in wow.
I think adding instruments as weapons for all cloth casters would be an easy win, the output would be whatever magic cloth casters can use the input however is that the caster calls magic through music. throw in some musical notes in the ability animations and you have a pretty good compromise. IMO if the magic input could be any magic output then the input should be a generic option, like the idea of runecaster someone suggested ages back, just add more casting animations and those things would be covered (instruments for bards, glyphs for runecasters, wands for harry potter fans etc)

Ill admit you are right about healing and tanking being somewhat contrived but i think its the healthy kind of contrived, pure support is self necessitating which is kinda bad, having the holy trinity on the other hand gives some big specialization differences, some players genuinely like healing (hell i dont mind it some of the time) annd in my experience healing in those self sufficient games feels like garbage.. Its nice having roles in a role playing game but at the end of the day as soon as players have a way to measure performance they will and they will get MUCH better at the game for it. Going against that will never work, once the cat is out of the bag its out for good, i think its best to just keep the dps specifically as something sacred and work utility around it, and offensive support simply create a clusterfuck for the data players use to gauge their performance.

To be honest we had dedicated support in WoW. Druid, Paladins and Shamans were dedicated buffers. I wanted to be a Tank Druid since Vanilla, and my role in raids ended up literally being 'Just stand here and innervate the Priest on cooldown and keep Mark buffs up on everyone'. Admittedly, it was a terrible role and terrible experience, but I chalk that up to the lack of design around the role itself. You are right to say it's a contrived role. Buffing isn't necessary.

And I think that's why an idea like Stamina on bosses and Vulnerability states could help give a defined role to them. Play enough soothing songs and you lull the boss into letting their guard down. It's CC for bosses, and I'm merely adopting this from Diablo 4. I think the system could be interesting, even if it may be somewhat contrived. But as I argue, tanking and healing are also contrived when you consider Aggro and Threat only exist to make Tanks relevant, while boss damage out pacing any non-healer's ability to self-sustain is the only reason healers are required.

But you do make a good point that my example of Support doesn't really fit in the 'What is necessary' dynamic. I always imagined it to be more flexible and optional, like dedicated Support back in Vanilla WoW. Back then, raids were much more flexible and you really only needed 25 people to do a 40-man raid. And if there is a dedicated role that Supports are required for, I think that's something that Blizzard could come up with better than I could. I'm merely adapting examples of mechanics from other games that I think could work back in WoW. I just think it would be boring if Support were merely a "Healer 2.0", which is why I brought Stamina Drain into the picture. Yet at the same time I don't think Vulnerability should be necessary to progressing past every fight the way Tanking and Healing are necessary. Perhaps this could be seen as a more flexible role like Off-tanking, and a raid's decision to bring in more Off tanks or just have them swap back to DPS.

And overall, I want to make a point that the Stamina Drain/Vulnerability concept shouldn't impact any DPS' ability to gauge their performance. A Boss taking more damage doesn't change the overall numbers. How DPS choose to perform based on the addition of Vulnerability states to bosses would be part of new strategies; do I save my cooldown to match up with Vulnerability or should I spend it now and maybe we can push the boss into phase 2? Of course, I'm merely spouting hypotheticals. I think it'd be easier to see how it plays out once Diablo 4 actually comes out and we see how effective chaining Stamina Drain would be over raw DPS.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, hold up.

You actually think the Artificer concept came first? I mean, D&D had Tinkers (by name) at least as far back as 1984. In fact, Dragonlance is where the whole idea of "tinker gnomes" came from. Well, in its popular form as steampunkish inventors; the concept came from mythology like the cobbler fey and Norse dwarves.

Not D&D Artificer class specifically, I'm talking about more generally a Tech/gadget-based fantasy archetype. That is what I am generally referring to. Warcraft's Tinkers are all about giant mechs and rockets, which was meant to be tongue-in-cheek for a joke Warcraft 3 hero, but ended up becoming a staple in the series. The pocket factories, rockets and robo goblin form are all exaggerations of technology that retroactively became a part of WoW's current identity. Even WC2 had tech but it was very much rooted in steampunk, but it was more in the 'advanced cobbler' vein not with advanced robotics. Warhammer style gyrocopters, as opposed to Mechanostriders which we have today.

- - - Updated - - -

And once again, neither are lore characters in WoW, so they’re seeding nothing. Come back when ETC joins other major characters in the Dragon Isles, or some future expansion. Until then, he’s just an empty spoof of WC3 Tauren Chieftain hero.

So Monks could only be playable in the Alliance if Chen accompanied them? His appearance in the WC3 RPG wasn't even canonized at that point since he was an easter egg optional hero. Chen was a spoof, and Monks became playable because of that spoof.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing against considering Tinkers and Monks owe their roots to April Fools as well. Monks and Pandaren weren't even canonized until we got Pandaria; everything else was merely an easter egg or cosmetic pet.

[shoc]

You know there will still be expansions after Dragonflight right.

Soon there will be nothing left to scrape off the bottom of the barrel but Tinkers.

[Triceron]

You know there will still be expansions after Dragonflight right.

Soon there will be nothing left to scrape off the bottom of the barrel but Tinkers.

Or they could even stop right here and now.

[Teriz]

So Monks could only be playable in the Alliance if Chen accompanied them?

I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion.

His appearance in the WC3 RPG wasn't even canonized at that point since he was an easter egg optional hero. Chen was a spoof, and Monks became playable because of that spoof.

It was canonized in the WCRPG and CC games which were canon at the time of their release. It was also canonized in early WoW via multiple references to Chen and the Pandarens.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing against considering Tinkers and Monks owe their roots to April Fools as well. Monks and Pandaren weren't even canonized until we got Pandaria; everything else was merely an easter egg or cosmetic pet.

The difference is that the Tinker was aligned with Gazlowe, and the Pandaren Brewmaster was aligned to Chen, two major lore figures in Warcraft. Gazlowe helped build Orgrimmar, helped out Thrall various times throughout the history of WC, and controlled the trade port of Rachet. Chen became a champion of the Horde alongside Rexxar.

Then we have your Bards…. The ETC is a spoof of a WC3 warrior hero, and the Blood Elf Bard was a spoof of guitar hero. It’s not even a comparison.

[mauserr]

So... Tinkers...


... are a dogshit class and I hope they never get added into the game.

[Triceron]

I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion.

How else would they be playable on Alliance if we never had a Monk or Pandaren character seeded that would work for them?

It was canonized in the WCRPG and CC games which were canon at the time of their release. It was also canonized in early WoW via multiple references to Chen and the Pandarens.

Except it wasn't canon at all, since he was an easter egg. Same as we had in WoW.

We have Night Elf Mohawks in WoW too and they aren't exactly canon.

The difference is that the Tinker was aligned with Gazlowe, and the Pandaren Brewmaster was aligned to Chen, two major lore figures in Warcraft. Gazlowe helped build Orgrimmar, helped out Thrall various times throughout the history of WC, and controlled the trade port of Rachet. Chen became a champion of the Horde alongside Rexxar.

Then we have your Bards…. The ETC is a spoof of a WC3 warrior hero, and the Blood Elf Bard was a spoof of guitar hero. It’s not even a comparison.

They all had origins as April Fools jokes. I don't how you made the jump to whatever you said above. Gazlowe in WC3 wasn't a Tinker, he was specifically called an Engineer. Chen was an optional hero that you could completely skip if you never ran across him in your playthrough of the RPG. I don't see how you could consider either of these points to be canon. Even now in WoW, Gazlowe is referred to as an Engineer.

You argued that there was nothing music or Bard related seeded in WoW, and I literally pointed at it existing right here. Anything else you're implying here is beyond your original question, and you're shifting the goalpost to argue points that I never made.

And none of this changes my point that Blizzard can create anything out of nothing. Whether it's Tinkers or Tinkerers, Bards or Minstrels, Dragonsworn or Evokers; it's all the same to Blizzard. You even admit that Blizzard could make Bards playable.

I don't see how your idea that Bards didn't exist in the WC3 RPG has anything to do with whether or not they could be playable. You asked what in WoW are they based on, and I pointed at what already exists and all the other Bards and Minstrels that we've had since. Anything else beyond that can be built up from nothing.


All you're doing here is looking for an excuse to prove a negative. We've been over this quite a few times here. Demon Hunter is already playable despite you repeating the same arguments here.