So… Tinkers

[Teriz]

So... Tinkers...


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

Doubtful, considering that the WC3 and HotS heroes were quite fun to use.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Before MoP there was lore of Chen sharing brewmaster secrets with the Dwarves. So there you go.

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

Again, the WC and WoW RPG books were canon, and they did a rather excellent job of fleshing out the Pandaren race long before MoP. You should check them out some time.

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

Relevance?

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.

That's nice. The point is that Chen and Gazlowe are established characters and are directly tied to Monks and Tinkers directly. There is no major lore character in WoW connected to Bards. There has also never been a Bard class ever in Warcraft media. There weren't even any Bard classes in the WoW RPG which had pretty much every class imaginable.

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.

Again, to seed something means that it is actually part of the lore. Neither of those examples accomplishes that.

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.

Of course they could, it doesn't mean that they will, nor does it change the fact that Bards don't have the pedigree of the other 4 expansion classes because Blizzard purposely never gave it to them. Thus the chances of them showing up as a class is pretty close to zero.

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.

Again, you seem unable to grasp what makes a class concept viable. Unrelated, disparate characters who happen to use music is not the basis of a class. A concept without a major lore figure to define what it is and what their class can do is not the basis of a class. I've asked you multiple times to give me examples of original Warcraft Bard abilities, and you have failed each time. You know why?

Because there is no basis for a Bard class in WoW. That is purposeful design. Which explains why whenever someone does a Bard class writeup, most comments say that the concept doesn't really fit WoW.

There's a reason for that.

[Triceron]

Before MoP there was lore of Chen sharing brewmaster secrets with the Dwarves. So there you go.

And we have lore now of various famous characters having musical aptitude, with some being known to employ it in battle like the Hellscreams and the entire Warsong clan. It's already built into the lore, and seeded far longer than Chen and Tinkers. Warcraft 2 manual and Kodo Riders.

Relevance?

Not everything in the game is canon just because it's in the game. Some things are easter eggs or exist outside of canon.

Pets and Mounts from Blizzcon promotions are examples of this. A Murloc with the Helm of Domination is not canonical.

That's nice. The point is that Chen and Gazlowe are established characters and are directly tied to Monks and Tinkers directly. There is no major lore character in WoW connected to Bards. There has also never been a Bard class ever in Warcraft media. There weren't even any Bard classes in the WoW RPG which had pretty much every class imaginable.

If you're looking for a connection, then I already gave you examples of Hellscream and the Windrunners, who both have displayed musical aptitude. Both of those are major lore characters with a connection to Bards, who would be inspiring or demoralizing others through music. They don't have to be a Bard themselves to have a connection, the same Alexstrazsa isn't an Evoker.

And I'm not sure why you'd even bring up the WoW RPG when Evokers and Dracthyr didn't exist in it either. Like, do you even think about the arguments you're using before you say it? The way you're implying your arguments here would assume that even classes like Demon Hunters could never be playable. - OH WAIT

There's a reason for that.

Actually, there isn't. Like I said, Blizzard can create it out of nothing. They're not basing their new classes on fan ideas, otherwise you'd see Dragonkin or Chromatic Dragons be playable instead of Dracthyr.

[Teriz]

And we have lore now of various famous characters having musical aptitude, with some being known to employ it in battle like the Hellscreams and the entire Warsong clan. It's already built into the lore, and seeded far longer than Chen and Tinkers. Warcraft 2 manual and Kodo Riders.

Except that's not how the class would be built. It would be built around a singular character. In the case of Bards, the only one that comes close would be ETC from HotS.

Good luck constructing a class from this character;

Not everything in the game is canon just because it's in the game. Some things are easter eggs or exist outside of canon.

Pets and Mounts from Blizzcon promotions are examples of this. A Murloc with the Helm of Domination is not canonical.

I'm not seeing what this has to do with Chen and the Pandaren being canon via the RPG books and CC games, and ETC and the Bard April Fool's joke not being canon.

If you're looking for a connection, then I already gave you examples of Hellscream and the Windrunners, who both have displayed musical aptitude. Both of those are major lore characters with a connection to Bards, who would be inspiring or demoralizing others through music.

Again, that isn't a connection. Hellscream's concept went into the Warrior class, warcries and all. I'm still waiting for you to produce a single ability that you claim the Windrunners utilized musically.

They don't have to be a Bard themselves to have a connection, the same Alexstrazsa isn't an Evoker.

Again, the Evoker is merely a platform to allow players to play as dragons like Alexstraza. You know this.

And I'm not sure why you'd even bring up the WoW RPG when Evokers and Dracthyr didn't exist in it either. Like, do you even think about the arguments you're using before you say it? The way you're implying your arguments here would assume that even classes like Demon Hunters could never be playable. - OH WAIT

Correct, Evokers didn't exist, but the dragons they are based on did. We also know via the WoW art book that they had Dracthyr-like dragon concepts at least since 2005.

Actually, there isn't. Like I said, Blizzard can create it out of nothing. They're not basing their new classes on fan ideas, otherwise you'd see Dragonkin or Chromatic Dragons be playable instead of Dracthyr.

Dracthyr are essentially playable chromatic dragons. I mean, it's the exact same concept: A Black dragon creates artificial dragons that possess the powers of all 5 flights.

You can even make your Dracthyr look Chromatic if you so desire.

[Gaidax]

These sad tinker noises are amusing me, please continue, by all means.

[Triceron]

Except that's not how the class would be built. It would be built around a singular character. In the case of Bards, the only one that comes close would be ETC from HotS.

Good luck constructing a class from this character;

Blizzard doesn't need to stick to any existing concept in order to create a Bard class. Any class for that matter.

You even acknowledge it and say they could make a Bard class. To flip the question on you - How?

I'm not seeing what this has to do with Chen and the Pandaren being canon via the RPG books and CC games, and ETC and the Bard April Fool's joke not being canon.

And I'm not seeing what this has to do with Blizzard being able to make a Bard class.

Again, that isn't a connection. Hellscream's concept went into the Warrior class, warcries and all. I'm still waiting for you to produce a single ability that you claim the Windrunners utilized musically.

Sure, and I'll keep you waiting because Blizzard can create whatever they wish out of nothing, lol.

Again, the Evoker is merely a platform to allow players to play as dragons like Alexstraza. You know this.

And how would that differ from Bard's being a platform to play as support roles like that of the Kodo Riders of WC3 and Bards of other RPG settings? WoW's classes are also traditionally based on D&D archetypes. You know this as well.

Correct, Evokers didn't exist, but the dragons they are based on did. We also know via the WoW art book that they had Dracthyr-like dragon concepts at least since 2005.

And Kodo riders exist. And the Warsong exist. And the Windrunners exist. The list goes on.

You can even make your Dracthyr look Chromatic if you so desire.

Yes because Blizzard created something new that isn't solely based on one character.

[Teriz]

Blizzard doesn't need to stick to any existing concept in order to create a Bard class. Any class for that matter.

If you completely ignore how they've created every single expansion class, sure.

However, if you don't completely ignore every expansion class, you'll notice the rather clear criteria for new WoW classes, and the Bard simply doesn't measure up.

You even acknowledge it and say they could make a Bard class.

Which is merely an agreement that Blizzard can do whatever they want. They can also create a class where you run around as a bowl of chocolate pudding and throw candy canes at monsters. That doesn't make either class any more likely.

And I'm not seeing what this has to do with Blizzard being able to make a Bard class.

Your argument was that Chen and the Pandaren weren't canon before MoP. I was giving you examples showing that they were in fact canon and part of lore. The Bard examples you gave are not canon.

Sure, and I'll keep you waiting because Blizzard can create whatever they wish out of nothing, lol.

Yes, right alongside the Pudding class.

And how would that differ from Bard's being a platform to play as support roles like that of the Kodo Riders of WC3 and Bards of other RPG settings? WoW's classes are also traditionally based on D&D archetypes. You know this as well.

The biggest difference being that there's no hero character that is a Kodo Rider, there's no related variation of the Kodo Rider that can be merged into a cohesive class, and there's not enough material to construct a viable class from a WoW unit that had a attack aura and could eat enemies.

And Kodo riders exist. And the Warsong exist. And the Windrunners exist. The list goes on.

And again, you can't create a class with no abilities and no cohesiveness between concepts. You need a hero character to anchor the concepts together, and there is none available.

Unless you want to create an ETC class. However, an ETC class would only be utilizing the concepts that work with the ETC (Heavy metal, rock music, axe/guitar, etc.).

However, you're clearly arguing in bad faith here, which is why you continuously avoid the only concrete example of a Bard class concept in WoW, and keep harping on these vague concepts that don't even have abilities attached to them, and lack clear cohesion. Why are you doing this? Because you recognize that an ETC class would be an utterly ridiculous concept and wouldn't fit in the game.

You know this.

Yes because Blizzard created something new that isn't solely based on one character.

Dragons, Black Dragons creating artificial dragons, and the Dragonflights are new to WoW? That's probably the most ridiculous thing you've said in this conversation.

[Triceron]

If you completely ignore how they've created every single expansion class, sure.

However, if you don't completely ignore every expansion class, you'll notice the rather clear criteria for WoW classes, and the Bard simply doesn't measure up.

Yes, that's what I've been making a point of.

Blizzard themselves COMPLETELY IGNORE whatever correlations or patterns people have traditionally brought up to cancel certain classes from being playable.

Let's be very clear here - Based on your own arguments of how previous expansions were created, you came to the absolute conclusion that a Demon Hunter class could not become playable.

All you're doing is implying the same fallacy. Basing your logic on criteria that has no relevance to Blizzard's approach to class design. They AREN'T basing it on any previous paradigms. With Dragonflight, they're even pulling their weight to show they aren't limited to any existing examples of a race capable of using all 5 Dragonflight's magic in order to present a new class capable of it.

Which is merely an agreement that Blizzard can do whatever they want. They can also create a class where you run around as a bowl of chocolate pudding and throw candy canes at monsters. That doesn't make either class any more likely.

Yeah but we're not talking about what is more likely either.

If we were, then Tinkers aren't very likely either given that there's actually no guarantee we'll have any new class after Dragonflight. I think you even admitted so at some point.

Your argument was that Chen and the Pandaren weren't canon before MoP. I was giving you examples showing that they were in fact canon and part of lore. The Bard examples you gave are not canon.

Chen was formally canonized in Mists of Pandaria. Chen's empty keg was merely an easter egg.

Just like Alonsus Faol's interaction with Ashbringer was an easter egg that ultimately ended up being rendered non-canon by the events of Wrath of the Lich King. The Corrupted Ashbringer was canonically in the possession of Darion Mograine as opposed to the player who can obtain it and interact with Alonsus Faol in Scarlet Monastery.

Yes, right alongside the Pudding class.

Yes, I don't think you can prove a negative to say Blizzard couldn't do it if they wanted to either. Like I said, these are pointless arguments you're presenting. That's why 'Demon Hunters won't be playable' was pointless to debate. I don't know why you're adamant to implying it now with Bards.

I'll even admit that with Dark Ranger class customizations, the Dark Ranger could still be made its own class in the future. And at no point would I ever agree with anyone who tries to argue that it won't ever happen, because Blizzard literally makes up the rules and they could do anything they want. All I can say is I don't think it's likely and that's it. There's no point to pushing further to imply that it won't happen.

And frankly, I'm not sure why you can't just settle merely saying 'I don't think a Bard is likely' instead of trying to prove a negative lol.

[Teriz]

Yes, that's what I've been making a point of.

Blizzard themselves COMPLETELY IGNORE whatever correlations or patterns people have traditionally brought up to cancel certain classes from being playable.

They have yet to do so with the expansion classes, and it's been what? 15 years since the announcement of the DK?

Let's be very clear here - Based on your own arguments of how previous expansions were created, you came to the absolute conclusion that a Demon Hunter class could not become playable.

And it was a different argument entirely. I believed the DH wasn't going to happen because multiple classes ate up its design space. It had nothing to do with the DH not having enough lore, seeding, or concept to become a class. In fact, I do believe I said that the Demon Hunter could become a class if Blizzard decoupled Metamorphosis from Warlocks, which is exactly what happened.

Again, the issues with Bards are a different argument entirely.

All you're doing is implying the same fallacy. Basing your logic on criteria that has no relevance to Blizzard's approach to class design. They AREN'T basing it on any previous paradigms. With Dragonflight, they're even pulling their weight to show they aren't limited to any existing examples of a race capable of using all 5 Dragonflight's magic in order to present a new class capable of it.

Actually, the Dracthyr Evoker follows the exact same paradigm as the previous 3 expansion classes.

Yeah but we're not talking about what is more likely either.

If we were, then Tinkers aren't very likely either given that there's actually no guarantee we'll have any new class after Dragonflight. I think you even admitted so at some point.

I did. However, if there is going to be a new class, the Tinker has a higher chance than a Bard, because Blizzard has established the concept on multiple levels that align with their previous class inclusions.

Chen was formally canonized in Mists of Pandaria. Chen's empty keg was merely an easter egg.

Actually, he was formally canonized in the TTRPG books. Again, those were canon at the time of their publication.

Yes, I don't think you can prove a negative to say Blizzard couldn't do it if they wanted to either. Like I said, these are pointless arguments you're presenting. That's why 'Demon Hunters won't be playable' was pointless to debate. I don't know why you're adamant to implying it now with Bards.

I'll even admit that with Dark Ranger class customizations, the Dark Ranger could still be made its own class in the future. And at no point would I ever agree with anyone who tries to argue that it won't ever happen, because Blizzard literally makes up the rules and they could do anything they want. All I can say is I don't think it's likely and that's it. There's no point to pushing further to imply that it won't happen.

And frankly, I'm not sure why you can't just settle merely saying 'I don't think a Bard is likely' instead of trying to prove a negative lol.

See the "pudding class" example.

[Triceron]

They have yet to do so with the expansion classes, and it's been what? 15 years since the announcement of the DK?

They have yet to means what? Are you somehow implying that because they have yet to ignore it, somehow they can't?

I mean by that measure, we could say that all expansion classes were based on Warcraft 3 too. Until they broke that pattern with Dragonflight. "They had yet to ignore it" doensn't matter.

And it was a different argument entirely.

Yet you're making the same basic arguments.

"Based on this pattern they didn't break, it can't happen"

All you're doing is bringing up different patterns. Once it was 'Every new class is based on WC3 heroes', now it's 'Every new class is based on a Sole hero'.

You're using the same fallacies here.

Actually, the Dracthyr Evoker follows the exact same paradigm as the previous 3 expansion classes.

And so would a Bard if they invented new characters, abilities and lore to make it fit.

Blizzard could literally invent new material to fill in the gaps of all the paradigms you're concerned about.

They need to base it on an existing hero? They can create a new one or take an existing one and prop them into relevance through a retroactive Bard connection.

In my example to you, the Windrunners and Hellscreams can be retroactively given musical connections to a Bard class, and they could reason that a Bard class emerges through being inspired by the legacy of these characters. And retroactively, the Windrunners and Hellscreams would be depicted in quests of the pasts where they displayed the use of their musical aptitude in battle, and how it in turn inspired the major Bard characters to becoming what they are and using their legacy to inspire others in battle.

I mean, like I said, connections can literally be invented. Oh, but you need a musical ability you say? Literally make a Flashback quest that shows Alleria or Grom fighting in the past and using musical abilities to inspire their allies and turn the tide.

I did. However, if there is going to be a new class, the Tinker has a higher chance than a Bard, because Blizzard has established the concept on multiple levels that align with their previous class inclusions.

To be quite honest, the only thing going against the Bard is the lack of a Support role in the game. I don't agree with anything else you're implying here as being a necessary criteria. They don't have to establish any concept before introducing it. 99% of the Monk's identity was never established before we got Pandaria.

Actually, he was formally canonized in the TTRPG books. Again, those were canon at the time of their publication.

The TTRPG were never canonized. No, they were not canon at all to begin with considering they name drop 'Danath Dungalion' in the RPG while "Danath Trollbane" was his official name in the Hall of Heroes statue since WoW Alpha. The only point of contention was that the books were never rendered non-canon, not that they were actually canonized.

Shadows and Light even stated in its description for Maiev that she died, while TBC was announced a year or so later with Maiev shown alive and well. This was well before Metzen officially rendered them non-canon them publicly.

See the "pudding class" example.

Strawmans aren't good examples.

[Teriz]

They have yet to means what? Are you somehow implying that because they have yet to ignore it, somehow they can't?

I was merely answering your incorrect statement.

I mean by that measure, we could say that all expansion classes were based on Warcraft 3 too. Until they broke that pattern with Dragonflight. "They had yet to ignore it" doensn't matter.

You would think that, until you realize that there were playable dragon units in WC3.

Yet you're making the same basic arguments.

"Based on this pattern they didn't break, it can't happen"

All you're doing is bringing up different patterns. Once it was 'Every new class is based on WC3 heroes', now it's 'Every new class is based on a Sole hero'.

You're using the same fallacies here.

The DH issue wasn't based on a pattern, it was based on the lack of design space, and the belief that Blizzard wouldn't purposely dismantle a popular spec for a new class. Again, a completely different argument than the Bard situation.

And so would a Bard if they invented new characters, abilities and lore to make it fit.

Blizzard could literally invent new material to fill in the gaps of all the paradigms you're concerned about.

They need to base it on an existing hero? They can create a new one or take an existing one and prop them into relevance through a retroactive Bard connection.

In my example to you, the Windrunners and Hellscreams can be retroactively given musical connections to a Bard class, and they could reason that a Bard class emerges through being inspired by the legacy of these characters. And retroactively, the Windrunners and Hellscreams would be depicted in quests of the pasts where they displayed the use of their musical aptitude in battle, and how it in turn inspired the major Bard characters to becoming what they are and using their legacy to inspire others in battle.

I mean, like I said, connections can literally be invented. Oh, but you need a musical ability you say? Literally make a Flashback quest that shows Alleria or Grom fighting in the past and using musical abilities to inspire their allies and turn the tide.

Cool. Let me know when Blizzard does that. Until that happens, the Bard remains a close to zero future class prospect.

BTW, why no mention of a ETC-based bard class? Interestingly, the Bard class April Fool's spoof actually works with the ETC concept. That shows some level of cohesion, with the ETC anchoring the heavy metal, hand-banging musical concept.

Oh that's right, because you know it would be absolutely terrible....

To be quite honest, the only thing going against the Bard is the lack of a Support role in the game. I don't agree with anything else you're implying here as being a necessary criteria. They don't have to establish any concept before introducing it. 99% of the Monk's identity was never established before we got Pandaria.

Pandaren identity, Armor, weaponry, abilities, brewmaster spec, brewing sub-theme.

I would say it was quite more than 1%.

The TTRPG were never canonized. No, they were not canon at all to begin with considering they name drop 'Danath Dungalion' in the RPG while "Danath Trollbane" was his official name in the Hall of Heroes statue since WoW Alpha. The only point of contention was that the books were never rendered non-canon, not that they were actually canonized.

Shadows and Light even stated in its description for Maiev that she died, while TBC was announced a year or so later with Maiev shown alive and well. This was well before Metzen officially rendered them non-canon them publicly.

Actually the TTRPG were canon until 2011;

Though originally considered to be part of lore,[7] Blizzard has stated that the sourcebooks for the Warcraft RPG are not considered canon by default.[8]

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Lore

Strawmans aren't good examples.

You're argument is that Blizzard can do anything they want, so a Bard class is likely. That makes the Pudding class not a strawman, since afterall, Blizzard can do anything.

[Byleth]

@Teriz @Triceron

Can't you two go get a room somewhere and have this discussion.

No one wants to hear more Tinker garbage at this point.

[Triceron]

You would think that, until you realize that there were playable dragon units in WC3.

I like how you acknowledge hireable creeps on 2% of the available maps in the game on the same level as Heroes now.

Cool. Let me know when Blizzard does that. Until that happens, the Bard remains a close to zero future class prospect.

That's what you said about Demon Hunters too.

BTW, why no mention of a ETC-based bard class?

What would the point be? You'd bad faith the argument regardless.

I mean I'm literally making a point that Blizzard could do anything they want, and even then you're trying to use other bad faith arguments to somehow imply that they have no reason to. As if they needed any reason to begin with.

Pandaren identity, Armor, weaponry, abilities, brewmaster spec, brewing sub-theme.

I would say it was quite more than 1%.

Nope. That's literally 1% when consider how broad Monks have extended beyond that. 90% of the spells and abilities are new. It's history is entirely new. Our class isn't even derived from Pandaria, but the Wandering Isles. The mere fact it is trainable and playable by almost all races opens up a huge part of the Monk Class' identity that isn't tied to the WC3 Brewmaster hero.

Actually the TTRPG were canon until 2011;
Though originally considered to be part of lore,[7] Blizzard has stated that the sourcebooks for the Warcraft RPG are not considered canon by default.[8]

In other words 'While we originally assumed they were part of the lore, Blizzard has stated that by default they never were'

You're argument is that Blizzard can do anything they want, so a Bard class is likely. That makes the Pudding class not a strawman, since afterall, Blizzard can do anything.

And could you explain to me why they can't make a Pudding class?

That's your argument, right? Proving negatives.

- - - Updated - - -

@Teriz @Triceron

Can't you two go get a room somewhere and have this discussion.

No one wants to hear more Tinker garbage at this point.

I'm not sure why you'd enter a Tinker thread to say no one wants to hear about Tinkers.

And secondly, we've been talking about Bards.

But feel free to use the Ignore feature.

[Mecheon]

The TTRPG were never canonized. No, they were not canon at all to begin with considering they name drop 'Danath Dungalion' in the RPG while "Danath Trollbane" was his official name in the Hall of Heroes statue since WoW Alpha. The only point of contention was that the books were never rendered non-canon, not that they were actually canonized.

Triceron, while I'm hardly the type to keep this pointless argument, I gotta step in because the RPG was canon. Metzen confirmed it. Eyonix confirmed it. Absolute ancient Blue posts from the old forum, long lost to time unless you feel like digging, but when Blizzard folks go 'yo this is canon', and half of Lands of Mystery basically reads like "Hey we're working on the internal WotLK alpha at the moment", its kind of written to be canon. The non-statement canon came at 2011, and the earliest "Yes this is canon" statement I can find is 2003. So that's at least a 8 year period where it was canon.

My pal Xaran has an NPC in-game purely because they used to post lore posts on the EU forums, and most of the lore sourced was from that. Would there really be a Xarantaur NPC if it was all non-canon just made up stuff?

[Teriz]

I like how you acknowledge hireable creeps on 2% of the available maps in the game on the same level as Heroes now.

Merely pointing out that playable dragons were in WC3, thus no pattern was broken.

That's what you said about Demon Hunters too.

As long as Warlocks had metamorphosis, yes. However, building a bardic hero character and making them a legitimate part of lore is a far more involved process than removing meta from Warlocks.

What would the point be? You'd bad faith the argument regardless.

The point would be you showing a little honesty instead of beating around the bush with silly examples like Kodo Riders and windrunner flutes.

Nope. That's literally 1% when consider how broad Monks have extended beyond that. 90% of the spells and abilities are new. It's history is entirely new. Our class isn't even derived from Pandaria, but the Wandering Isles. The mere fact it is trainable and playable by almost all races opens up a huge part of the Monk Class' identity that isn't tied to the WC3 Brewmaster hero.

Uh, the new abilities are largely based on the original four abilities and/or the thematic established by the hero. And while the Monks came from the Wandering Isle, the origins of the class are Pandaren, hence the August Celestials (which btw was an outgrowth of the hero's ability SEF).

In other words 'While we originally assumed they were part of the lore, Blizzard has stated that by default they never were'

More like, they were part of lore and we eventually decided they were no longer lore because of business reasons. Either way, when they were considered lore, the Pandaren and Stormstout were well established as canon.

And could you explain to me why they can't make a Pudding class?

That's your argument, right? Proving negatives.

Because such a class wouldn't fit the game.

Just like the Bard class.

[Triceron]

Triceron, while I'm hardly the type to keep this pointless argument, I gotta step in because the RPG was canon. Metzen confirmed it. Eyonix confirmed it. Absolute ancient Blue posts from the old forum, long lost to time unless you feel like digging, but when Blizzard folks go 'yo this is canon', and half of Lands of Mystery basically reads like "Hey we're working on the internal WotLK alpha at the moment", its kind of written to be canon. The non-statement canon came at 2011, and the earliest "Yes this is canon" statement I can find is 2003. So that's at least a 8 year period where it was canon.

My pal Xaran has an NPC in-game purely because they used to post lore posts on the EU forums, and most of the lore sourced was from that. Would there really be a Xarantaur NPC if it was all non-canon just made up stuff?

So yes, information from the books could be considered canon. But the books themselves were not canon, because they contained material purely invented by non-Blizzard Authors specifically for the TTRPG; basically liscenced fan fiction.

WoW had no intention with adhering to the lore that was made up specifically for the RPG, and the best thing they could do was outright deem the books non-canon to avoid muddling what was actually canon with that what was not.

For the most part, all the Pandaren lore we got from the RPG books was made up by the TTRPG writers. Most of its material was just taking what already existed from the Pandaren April fools flavour text and the Brewmaster hero and expanding it. Brewmasters could split into elemental Pandaren spirits - oh lets turn that into a Trancendant class. The April fools page mentions Geomancers, let's tie in Geomancy into their culture. That's pretty much how the RPG books presented Pandaren. And it's all non canon.

Same with Goblins using Phlogiston as a universal power source for their technology. That was purely a TTRPG thing.

I own most of the RPG books and bought em as they came out and used them as sources of lore as well. And even back then I realized that they weren't conpletely reliable sources of canonical lore. It all depends which sourcebooks and what information was being sourced. Shadows and Light remains like 95% canonically relevant to WoW, but Dark Factions is the complete opposite with most of its info pure fan fiction.

- - - Updated - - -

Merely pointing out that playable dragons were in WC3, thus no pattern was broken.

What do you mean no pattern was broken? There was no Dragon Hero unit in WC3 and you based it specifically on WC3 Heros.

Stop shifting goalposts

[Empire Of Sight]

Omg lol, tinker boiz is too op stawp

[Teriz]

What do you mean no pattern was broken? There was no Dragon Hero unit in WC3 and you based it specifically on WC3 Heros.

Stop shifting goalposts

There was a dragon hero unit in WC2 though.

Also where did I say it needed to be a WC3 hero? I’m pretty sure I said it needed to be a hero character with original abilities. Also, as the years progress, it’s clear that games such as HotS have supplanted WC3 for source material.

[Triceron]

There was a dragon hero unit in WC2 though.

What part of stop shifting goalposts don't you understand? Lol

If you're just gonna point at any existing heroes fron any Warcraft source then Bard is already a Hero class in the April Fools.

[Teriz]

And there is a Bard hero class in the WoW April Fools.

Cool. What were the original abilities of this Bard hero?

After all, while the Brewmaster and the Tinker were April Fools, they came with abilities.

[Triceron]

Cool. What were the original abilities of this Bard hero?

After all, while the Brewmaster and the Tinker were April Fools, they came with abilities.

Honestly don't know what this has to do with Blizzard being able to make a Bard class. Especially when the April Fools even has abilities listed there.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Bard_(April_Fools)