This is the only viable option for a Bard class in WoW. Would you play it?

[Triceron]

"Bard" is not a crafting profession. That's like saying "warrior" or "priest" are crafting professions.

Nothing really stops a bard or minstrel from being a profession. And the only line of separation between classes and professions are gameplay. Otherwise, Blizzard literally doesn't differentiate the way you imply. By your logic, 'Alchemist' shouldn't be a profession either because its a Hero class in WC3.

There's no hard line in the sand defining Enchanters must be a profession while Evokers must be a Class. The Mage class wouldn't be any different if it were called an Enchanter or Evoker instead. It'd still be a spellcaster all the same.

I mean Blizzard literally changes the definitions of existing class archetypes all the time. In WC2, a Death Knight was a spellcaster unit equal to a Mage. In WC3 and WoW, it is a heavy armored melee combatant. In WC3 Alchemist was a melee combatant who drinks potions, heals with chemicals and throws acid bombs. In WoW it's a profession.

[Nymrohd]

"Bard" is not a crafting profession. That's like saying "warrior" or "priest" are crafting professions.

To be fair, neither is archeology. There is precedent for a profession being something other than crafting or gathering.

[Ielenia]

Nothing really stops a bard or minstrel from being a profession.

The concept of the "bard" does. Again, it's not a crafting conception. Bards don't craft anything. They don't gather materials. They don't craft instruments. The bard concept just isn't a crafting concept, much like the warrior or priest concepts.

To be fair, neither is archeology. There is precedent for a profession being something other than crafting or gathering.

But archaeology does "craft", since through it we gather by digging on archaeology sites, and use what we find to restore ancient relics, i.e. craft, with some of them still having magical powers.

[Triceron]

The concept of the "bard" does. Again, it's not a crafting conception. Bards don't craft anything. They don't gather materials. They don't craft instruments. The bard concept just isn't a crafting concept, much like the warrior or priest concepts.

If you consider gathering and restoring artifacts and relics to be 'crafting', then composing and performing songs wouldn't be any different. If you want to play regular music that gives a nice buff, then your profession will have that as a fun little gimmick. But if you want some strong, long-lasting buff effect or multiple buffs in one go? You'll need to craft and compose just like any other profession.

Bardic enchantments could be performed using magical compositions, a one-time use sheet music 'scroll' that can only be activated by performing its song. Think of it like activating a magical scroll through incantation. Or some Bard buffs might require using up charges on a magical instrument created by Enchanters, and you could refill the charges through the Bard's profession. Some synergy would be tied to Enchanting and Inscription; using vellum, pigments and inks for compositions or creating limited use enchanted instruments. It's comparable to how Drums of War are a literal one-use item from Leatherworking that plays music for a buff. You can't use the same drums forever, and you have to craft new on-use drums.

A Bard profession would open that up to performing music with different types of utility effects attached to them. Their performance in combat would be akin to an Engineer throwing bombs in combat and activating their gadgets. Certain instruments are one-use or have charges, others could be equipped as trinkets with cooldown effects. And you'd be able to combine buffs in one go by performing a song that is boosted by a magical composition and an enchanted instrument together at once.

There's plenty of potential for a Bard as a Profession that could involve a hefty amount of crafting.

[Teriz]

Yeah, but as we've seen with Shadowlands, they could present us with an X themed expansion without giving us an X themed class. They could just omit it entirely and give us some alternative gimmicks, like elaborate Mech mounts that can be used in combat and special call-down abilities usable in the open world for everyone, Covenant-style. Undermine is a fine way to present Tinkers, but that's if they even plan on it as a future class.

Except the difference between between Shadowlands and the possible classes in that expansion were that Dark Ranger and Necromancer were already represented by the existing Hunter and Death Knight classes. There is no such technology class in WoW that impedes the introduction of a Tinker class.

There can be more classes and Tinkers and Bards aren't the only ones on the list left to make, honestly. Now that we've gotten Evokers, the gates have been opened for all sorts of new concepts and themes.

Of course. However, Blizzard would set up those classes just like they did for DKs, Monks, DHs, and Evokers.

And there doesn't need to be. Like I said, there's no established Dracthyr Evoker heroic character in Warcraft lore either, and yet here we are with Dracthyr Evokers. Doesn't matter if you want to associate them with the Aspects or whatever Dragon character, the point is there is no pre-existing major Dracthyr character to speak of, while we have an class dedicated to this completely new race.

Why wouldn’t you associate them with the aspects? Blizzard literally said that the purpose of the class is to be a playable dragon. Which is why you can make your dragon resemble any of the flights, and structure them to also play like any individual Dragonflight since they possess their abilities.

Where do you think such a concept and abilities came from? Obviously the major draconic characters of Warcraft.

If they want to introduce Minstrels or Bards from Outer Melodina, who can use magical form of music to combat C'kaph'nix, the Void Lord of Dissonance, then that's what we'll get.

They could, but that isn’t how they would do it.

[Triceron]

They could, but that isn’t how they would do it.

It's exactly how they did it with Evokers.

New Race, introducing a new class, in a new location. The reasons they join and the big bad we fight will be revealed in time.

[bloodmoth13]

Unfortunately the Engineering profession will never have the ability to match the breadth, purpose, and usefulness of a technology-based class. The lore, WoW's technology sub-theme, and the tech-based WoW races pretty much demand that a technology-based class be created.

Man is it stupid people acting like a profession is anything close to a class. Being able to craft goggles, use a useless bomb once every 5 mins and being able to generate a wormhole sometimes is great class gameplay /s.

Should probably delete the mage class we already have enchanters -_-

Im sure tinker will come eventually, a tech based class seems inevitable.

[Teriz]

What makes Priests different from Warlocks?

The use of Holy Magic. The use of Void Magic.

How are those two different from Mages?

Mages can’t use shadow, holy, Fel, and void magic. Warlocks can’t use holy, arcane, or frost Magic. Priests can’t use Fel, arcane, frost Magic and have very limited access to fire Magic.

Priests and Mages can’t summon demonic pets.

How are those three different from Shaman?

The use of totems and the four elements.

How are those four different from Evoker?

Evokers are literally dragons that use the powers of the 5 dragon flights and the physical power of dragons. No other class does this.

Etc.

Now please answer my question:

What would make this class any different from existing classes? Keep in mind, we already have multiple classes who use music and sound-based Magic, and there’s no difference between it and other spells.

- - - Updated - - -

It's exactly how they did it with Evokers.

New Race, introducing a new class, in a new location. The reasons they join and the big bad we fight will be revealed in time.

We had dragons disguising themselves as mortals since WoW began, we had multiple heroic draconic characters that we consistently interacted with, and we got to test drive their gameplay via HotS. We got Evokers because Blizzard wanted players to be playable dragons. We also had known of Dragon Isles since vanilla.

Your example is nothing like that.

- - - Updated - - -

And we're talking about WoW.

Uh no. I was talking about the entire Warcraft franchise, and why a company would use a franchise character in multiple products, as they did with Chen. Your argument that he was obscure simply because he rarely showed up in one of Blizzard’s many Warcraft products (yet popped up in several others) is laughable.

Again: it's a pattern your perceive, and we've already established that Blizzard doesn't really care for patterns and are willing to do whatever, ignoring any and all perceives patterns and "rules" when they get in the way of what they want to do.

You’re ignoring the 4 expansion classes once again. You can’t simply wave away facts because they’re inconvenient for you.

I'll repeat my question: what abilities from the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster birthed the mistweaver spec? You're the one who constantly claims "concepts come from abilities, and not the other way around" so I want to see which abilities from the PB "birthed" the mistweaver spec. Come on, put your money where your mouth is.

Your entire premise comes from a position of rank dishonesty. You’re pretending that the mistweaver is a stand-alone concept and not inherently connected to the Brewmaster and Windwalker specs as all specs are connected to their sister specs within their classes. I mean FFS, you had BREWING abilities in the Mistwalker spec, and the very name of the spec was clearly derived from the “Mists of Pandaria”.

Seriously, where do you think Brewing and Pandaria originated from?

Who said it wouldn't have any connection to Warcraft? Bards already exist in the franchise's lore, so by being a bard alone they're already intrinsically connected to the franchise.

Without a hero character to anchor the concept, no such connection exists.

I'm not ignoring it. I just see the truth for what they are: dracthyrs are not dragons in the same vein that gryphons aren't lions. They're hybrids. They're something else. Not dragons. Draconic, but not dragons.

Lions don’t have beaks or wings. What do Dracthyr have that dragons don’t have?

And you'd be wrong in that assertion because they're not evokers. Alexstrasza cannot cast bronze dragonflight magic or blue dragonflight magic. Chromie cannot cast green dragonflight magic or red dragonflight magic. Therefore they're not evokers.

Their inability to use all 5 Dragonflight magic doesn’t change the fact that they’re dragons using draconic magic. That’s what an Evoker is.

Wrong. Dracthyr is their race, not dragons. Because they're not dragons. They're hybrids of draconic descent, but not dragons.

See above.

Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. But the fact of the matter is that you don't know what this reason might be. Again, I'll repeat: the numbers tell us that classes aren't exactly this biggest selling point you claim them to be, so them being on a "popular character" doesn't seem to be anywhere near as impactful as you like to believe.

Then why does Blizzard consistently use classes based on popular characters? Clearly they have access to information that you don’t have.

There were plenty of gameplaby basis for those. We don't need "hero characters" (the evoker has none, for example).

Uh, the basis for the Evoker was pretty much every major draconic character in WoW. The ability For example, the ability Deep Breath literally came from Onyxia and codified in the mechanics of Deathwing HotS.

No. No, we don't. We just need the concept. Everything else is secondary and can be made entirely "from nothing", just like 90% of all classes are, and how 100% of the monk's mistweaver spec came from literally no ability whatsoever.

As demonstrated by the 4 existing expansion classes, that’s not how Blizzard implements classes.

[Kiwijello]

"Bard" is not a crafting profession. That's like saying "warrior" or "priest" are crafting professions.

"Bard" can be anything they want it to be. This is a game with no set rules of what the creators of it can, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Just because they have never done it, doesn't mean it wouldn't work as a concept.

I am glad you have no power to change anything. But keep writing about it!

[Selah]

The use of Holy Magic. The use of Void Magic.



Mages can’t use shadow, holy, Fel, and void magic. Warlocks can’t use holy, arcane, or frost Magic. Priests can’t use Fel, arcane, frost Magic and have very limited access to fire Magic.

Priests and Mages can’t summon demonic pets.



The use of totems and the four elements.



Evokers are literally dragons that use the powers of the 5 dragon flights and the physical power of dragons. No other class does this.

Etc.

You mean to say they all have different flavors and that is the main factor in their differences?. Now tell me how any of these are anything like a Bard.

Now please answer my question:

I already did, if you willfully ignore my answers (and all of the other points I made) that is your problem. I can't make you accept what was said. I get you're upset that your idea has largely been rejected by the people who have responded here, but I'm not going to waste my time talking with someone who chooses to ignore the answers provided.

What would make this class any different from existing classes? Keep in mind, we already have multiple classes who use music and sound-based Magic, and there’s no difference between it and other spells.

You were just asking how it would even work and now you're saying we have multiple classes that use music and sound based magic. Which classes use music for the majority of their abilities in WoW? Beyond that though, this reasoning is horrible. Should we bar the existence of fire Mages because Warlocks, Evokers, Shaman, Monk, and Hunter all have abilities that deal fire damage? What about the reverse, should we bar those five classes from having abilities that deal fire damage? Your arguments have zero consistency with the precedent in the game.

[Teriz]

You mean to say they all have different flavors and that is the main factor in their differences?. Now tell me how any of these are anything like a Bard.

No, I mean that they are fundamentally different from each other. How would a Bard be fundamentally different than what we currently have in the class lineup? Why couldn't we simply give Priests a harp and some more musical abilities?

I already did, if you willfully ignore my answers (and all of the other points I made) that is your problem. I can't make you accept what was said. I get you're upset that your idea has largely been rejected by the people who have responded here, but I'm not going to waste my time talking with someone who chooses to ignore the answers provided.

Getting the idea rejected was the point. If the only Bard hero in the game is a joke character that people generally dislike, and view as incompatible for a class concept, what does that say about Blizzard's general view of Bards in general? Blizzard fully knows that the ETC could never become a class. We ALL fully know that the ETC can never become a class, which is why creators of Bard class threads never use that character as a basis for their concept. Yet outside of the ETC there are no other major lore characters with original abilities to build a Bard concept upon. Without that base, you don't have a class concept. And that base is missing by design.

You were just asking how it would even work and now you're saying we have multiple classes that use music and sound based magic. Which classes use music for the majority of their abilities in WoW?

I never made that argument.

Beyond that though, this reasoning is horrible. Should we bar the existence of fire Mages because Warlocks, Evokers, Shaman, Monk, and Hunter all have abilities that deal fire damage? What about the reverse, should we bar those five classes from having abilities that deal fire damage? Your arguments have zero consistency with the precedent in the game.

Well there's a difference; Mages, Warlocks, Evokers, etc. aren't based ENTIRELY around fire magic the way Bards are ENTIRELY based around musical magic. Thus, Bards need to show that what they're bringing to the table is something unique and couldn't be easily replicated in other classes, since their entire purpose revolves around this school of magic.

[Triceron]

We had dragons disguising themselves as mortals since WoW began, we had multiple heroic draconic characters that we consistently interacted with, and we got to test drive their gameplay via HotS. We got Evokers because Blizzard wanted players to be playable dragons. We also had known of Dragon Isles since vanilla.

Your example is nothing like that.

Sure it is.

Kodoriders using music to boost allies has been around since War3. We also had plenty of instrument related items that provide aura buffs.

We also have sound related beings capable of threatening entire planets, like Murmur, the primordial elemental as old as the universe itself.

In the beginning"... "So far away"... such phrases cannot begin to describe this elemental's origin. Its existence heralds pure destruction. Worlds shatter and the pieces scatter at its whim. Only the truly mad would think to summon it. Perhaps there is yet time to banish Murmur before it fully enters Outland."


Fighting fire with fire would be a good reason to employ the support of Bards, who may be able to neutralize the sound-related effects of such beings with their own music.

The only missing key element is whether Blizzard actually wants them playable or not.

[Teriz]

Sure it is.

Kodoriders using music to boost allies has been around since War3. We also had plenty of instrument related items that provide aura buffs.

We also have sound related beings capable of threatening entire planets, like Murmur, the primordial elemental as old as the universe itself.

Consider that every expansion class is an approximation of the character that it's based on. Death Knights are undead necromantic champions like Arthas. Monks are masters of Pandaren Martial Arts and the majority are Pandaren themselves like Chen. Demon Hunters are blinded, tattooed, demonic elves like Illidan. Dracthyr Evokers are dragons with the powers of the flights just like Alexstraza, Chromie, Onyxia, etc.

With your idea above, what would the player be? An Elemental riding on the back of a Kodo?

[Triceron]

Consider that every expansion class is an approximation of the character that it's based on. Death Knights are undead necromantic champions like Arthas. Monks are masters of Pandaren Martial Arts and the majority are Pandaren themselves like Chen. Demon Hunters are blinded, tattooed, demonic elves like Illidan. Dracthyr Evokers are dragons with the powers of the flights just like Alexstraza, Chromie, Onyxia, etc.

With your idea above, what would the player be? An Elemental riding on the back of a Kodo?

If the Kodo Rider's theme is playing instruments to provide buffs, then we're talking about a class that approximates this.

I get you're being facetious, but Evokers don't turn into giant dragons that can't fit through doorways either. Blizzard would come up with a concept that fits a class, not just shoehorn playable Dragons that need to turn into Dragons because your twisted logic dictates that it has to.

And like I said, we have characters in lore as far back as WC2 who have ties to music. Hellscream and the Warsong clan are built around the theme of battle song. And even now, the Windrunners have multiple musical connections to them like Alleria's Flute, Sylvanas' Lament of the Highborne, and the most recently the song by Lirath to his sisters.

All you do is shift goalposts to imply that Hellscream and Windrunners aren't Bards. Well, Alexstrazsa and the other Dragons aren't Evokers either. Doesn't mean they can't inspire new classes.

Or you go into talking about there not being any abilities. Well, you already admit fully that Blizzard could create new abilities. I'm not sure why you're still arguing really. Out of all your arguments, your opinion that they wouldn't be likely is the only one that holds any measure of truth to it. Everything else is just splitting hairs.

[Teriz]

If the Kodo Rider's theme is playing instruments to provide buffs, then we're talking about a class that approximates this.

Wouldn't a class approximate of a Kodo Rider BE a Kodo Rider? The majority of that unit's concept was based on riding a Kodo. Providing an aura by beating drums was secondary.

I get you're being facetious, but Evokers don't turn into giant dragons that can't fit through doorways either. Blizzard would come up with a concept that fits a class, not just shoehorn playable Dragons that need to turn into Dragons because your twisted logic dictates that it has to.

No, Evokers turn into player-sized dragons that can fit through doorways. They're still dragons because they're based on draconic characters and need to be able to preform their abilities in a logical manner. I don't see how you consider that logic "twisted". An Evoker can perform Onyxia's signature raid abilities because it's a playable dragon.

And like I said, we have characters in lore as far back as WC2 who have ties to music. Hellscream and the Warsong clan are built around the theme of battle song. And even now, the Windrunners have multiple musical connections to them like Alleria's Flute, Sylvanas' Lament of the Highborne, and the most recently the song by Lirath to his sisters.

The Hellscream/Warsong stuff is completely represented in the Warrior class. The Windrunners deciding to sing songs isn't the basis of a class either, since they're the basis of the Hunter class.

All you do is shift goalposts to imply that Hellscream and Windrunners aren't Bards. Well, Alexstrazsa and the other Dragons aren't Evokers either.

A bizarre argument to make when you consider that the abilities of the Dracthyr Evoker class comes directly from draconic characters like Alexstraza, Chromie, Kalecgos, Onyxia, Wrathion, etc. and no where else. Even up to their racials like Wing Buffet and Visage form come from Warcraft's major dragon characters. In all seriousness, what aspect of the class DOESN'T come directly from the dragon heroes of Warcraft?

I don't seem to recall Hellscream prancing around playing a harp or lute.

[Triceron]

Wouldn't a class approximate of a Kodo Rider BE a Kodo Rider? The majority of that unit's concept was based on riding a Kodo. Providing an aura by beating drums was secondary.

I mean by that measure, wouldn't the class approximate of a Dragon BE a Dragon? An Evoker can't turn into a Dragon so it isn't following your rule

Thus, the rule itself is bogus.

I don't see how you consider that logic "twisted". An Evoker can perform Onyxia's signature raid abilities because it's a playable dragon.

Yet Onyxia and Alexstrazsa aren't Evokers. You're pushing the idea that a new class has to be ushered in by a character that is the same class, while Evoker is an example of a new class that is not based on any pre-existing 'Evoker' character. That's the logic you're twisting to imply that there are no known characters to base a Bard on.

If you're implying they only need to be based on the general themes of these characters, then that would just as much apply to a Bard drawing inspiration from heroes such as Hellscream and the Windrunners. Their gameplay doesn't need to be based on anything that previously exists, just like 90% of the Evoker's spells and abilities are completely new. All you're doing is comparing the 10% that is actually drawn from Dragons.

Like, where does Disintegrate come from? Oh, the Diablo 3 Wizard. That's certainly not a Dragon. Hell, it's not even a Warcraft character.

The Hellscream/Warsong stuff is completely represented in the Warrior class. The Windrunners deciding to sing songs isn't the basis of a class either, since they're the basis of the Hunter class.

Characters can inspire and represent multiple classes. Ysera represents both Druids and now Evokers. Chromie represents Mages and now Evokers. Tyrande has connections to multiple classes, like Druids, Priests and Hunters alike.

Not sure why you're using hard definitions as though the Windrunners and Hellscreams could only represent one class exclusively.

I don't seem to recall Hellscream prancing around playing a harp or lute.

Gorehowl was an 'instrument' of destruction

When swung, the notches causes the axe to "sing" its own battle cry, just as Grom once did, which gave the weapon its name.

[Ielenia]

If you consider gathering and restoring artifacts and relics to be 'crafting', then composing and performing songs wouldn't be any different.

The poster I was responding to made the concept look like a woodworker instead of a bard, i.e. gathering wood and crafting instruments.

Bardic enchantments could be performed using magical compositions, a one-time use sheet music 'scroll' that can only be activated by performing its song. Think of it like activating a magical scroll through incantation. Or some Bard buffs might require using up charges on a magical instrument created by Enchanters, and you could refill the charges through the Bard's profession. Some synergy would be tied to Enchanting and Inscription; using vellum, pigments and inks for compositions or creating limited use enchanted instruments. It's comparable to how Drums of War are a literal one-use item from Leatherworking that plays music for a buff. You can't use the same drums forever, and you have to craft new on-use drums.

I still believe the bard is better served as a class on its own, but I can see where you're coming from. In your idea, what would be the reagents the bardic profession uses to craft their songs?

- - - Updated - - -

"Bard" can be anything they want it to be.

Technically? Yes.

Realistically? No.

The example you're proposing is a bard in name only. What you're proposing is creating the concept of a character that revolves around baking breads, and calling it a "mage". Or creating the concept of a character that revolves around technology and calling it a priest.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh no. I was talking about the entire Warcraft franchise, and why a company would use a franchise character in multiple products, as they did with Chen. Your argument that he was obscure simply because he rarely showed up in one of Blizzard’s many Warcraft products (yet popped up in several others) is laughable.

You're being dishonest here because you're implying that all of Blizzard's "many Warcraft products" were on equal standing on popularity, and, if so, then saying WoW was as popular as the RPG or TCG is what is "laughable" here. WoW is and has always been the most popular Warcraft product by a landslide.

You’re ignoring the 4 expansion classes once again. You can’t simply wave away facts because they’re inconvenient for you.

I'm not ignoring nor "waving away" anything. I'm simply pointing out the facts that all you have are observations. Your own personal, biased interpretation of the facts is what is being contested.

You’re pretending that the mistweaver is a stand-alone concept and not inherently connected to the Brewmaster and Windwalker specs as all specs are connected to their sister specs within their classes.

I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that an important aspect of the class came from literally nothing. "Nothing", as in, nothing from the WC3 Pandaren Brewmaster.

I mean FFS, you had BREWING abilities in the Mistwalker spec,

That's irrelevant, because the spec is not based around "brewing abilities". It's about chi manipulation and manipulation of healing mists.

and the very name of the spec was clearly derived from the “Mists of Pandaria”.

MISTS of Pandaria. "Mists" that did not exist until Blizzard created them for the expansion itself? The "mists" of Pandaria did not exist in WC3. Or WoW.

Without a hero character to anchor the concept, no such connection exists.

We don't need hero characters to "anchor the concept". All we need is the concept, and lore about said concept. And lore of said concept already exists in WoW, and has existed since vanilla WoW.

Lions don’t have beaks or wings. What do Dracthyr have that dragons don’t have?

The fact they have the ability to use all five dragonflight magic. The fact they're hybrids. Again, Teriz: they're hybrids. Their lore said so. By definition that means they're not dragons. They're of draconic descent, but they're not dragons. Just like humans aren't Vrykul.

Their inability to use all 5 Dragonflight magic doesn’t change the fact that they’re dragons using draconic magic. That’s what an Evoker is.

No. An evoker is a dracthyr that can use all five dragonflight magic. Dragons aren't dracthyr, and neither are they evokers. Try again: which VIP NPC is the "evoker prime"?

Then why does Blizzard consistently use classes based on popular characters? Clearly they have access to information that you don’t have.

And you do? Are you going to claim your friend's girlfriend's cousin's fiancee's stepfather's brother works at Blizzard and feeds you secret information that no one outside of Blizzard has?

Uh, the basis for the Evoker was pretty much every major draconic character in WoW.

Name a dracthyr evoker that existed before the Dragonflight expansion was announced. Because otherwise you're admitting that the NPCs you claim a class "has to be based on" don't have to reflect the actual class.

As demonstrated by the 4 existing expansion classes, that’s not how Blizzard implements classes.

At least, that's what you love to claim. Nothing said Blizzard has to always use "VIP NPCs" to base classes on.

[Triceron]

I still believe the bard is better served as a class on its own, but I can see where you're coming from. In your idea, what would be the reagents the bardic profession uses to craft their songs?

In my opinion, they should have some direct synergy to an existing profession for materials.

Performing songs would be a basic feat that any Bard can learn and play. You play the songs, you provide the buffs or utility; simple as that. Better Bard training will increase the effects of your buffs; as any profession would. You don't need any reagents to consume to play songs, but you would only be able to progress milestone Bard ranks through the use of Instruments or Sheet Music. So you would definitely need to rely on consumables of some type to train as a Bard, but you don't need any of it to function. Secondary Professions would mostly be optional, and the idea is you could progress in ranks purely through trading and performing.

One-time use or Charged Instruments could be new craftables made by other professions. Blacksmithing could make Horns and Flutes, Leatherworking creates Drums, Tailoring provides the threads for String instruments. Some instruments could have their charges refilled through Enchanting. Different instruments might have different magical effects, like magical Drums could be performed while moving, or magical String instruments reduce casting/channelling time or even make a song instant-cast/self-playing, if you're rich enough to afford it. Not having access to all your crafts through 2 professions promotes trading and crafting orders.

Inscription could provide Music Sheets, which would be like Scrolls specific to Bard songs. These would further enhance songs in a different way, like extending duration of buffs after played or providing a heal component to the songs. These could come in large stacks, so they'd be consumables you're expected to buy in large quantities and use liberally if you choose to.

The idea here is to have a lot of interdependency with other professions to promote trade, and give ample choice to players on choosing their secondary profession. It wouldn't be obvious like Alchemy-Herbalism or Engineering-Mining. If you take Enchanting, you could buy one or two magical instruments and refill your own charges. If you don't have Enchanting, you could try and craft the instruments yourself. Or if you don't want to use instruments at all, you could take Inscription and use Sheet Music exclusively. Or don't bother with any of them, and just train to max through trading/AH and treat it all as a gold sink. It'd all be optional, because Bards can completely function without the use of Instruments or Music Sheets if they only care about providing the basic buffs in combat; kinda like an Engineer can choose not to use bombs in combat while still making full use of other Tinkers and Gadgets.

[Teriz]

I mean by that measure, wouldn't the class approximate of a Dragon BE a Dragon? An Evoker can't turn into a Dragon so it isn't following your rule

Except the Dracthyr are literally dragons.

Yet Onyxia and Alexstrazsa aren't Evokers.

Why arenot they? They have the same abilities as an Evoker and Vice versa.

If you're implying they only need to be based on the general themes of these characters, then that would just as much apply to a Bard drawing inspiration from heroes such as Hellscream and the Windrunners. Their gameplay doesn't need to be based on anything that previously exists, just like 90% of the Evoker's spells and abilities are completely new. All you're doing is comparing the 10% that is actually drawn from Dragons.

Uh, every single DE racial, talent, and ability is derived from dragons.

Like, where does Disintegrate come from?

Kalecgos.

Not sure why you're using hard definitions as though the Windrunners and Hellscreams could only represent one class exclusively.

It’s rather clear what classes the Windrunners and Hellscream belong to. If you disagree, feel free to create a class concept based on it.

Gorehowl was an 'instrument' of destruction

Nope, it was just an axe.

[Triceron]

Except the Dracthyr are literally dragons.

Actually, they aren't. They're literally dragonkin. They are not true Dragons, and their natural form isn't that of a large dragon.

It would be like calling a Dragonspawn a 'literal dragon'. They aren't at all.

Why arenot they? They have the same abilities as an Evoker and Vice versa.

Because abilities don't define classes. Druids have the same abilities as Priestess of the Moon and Warlocks had the same abilities as Demon Hunters. Neither of this defines Tyrande as a Druid or Illidan as a Warlock.

Kalecgos.

Who has never been shown using this ability. It's a newly created ability for the Evoker, sourcing a general Arcane theme. And its look and use comes directly from the D3 Wizard.

It’s rather clear what classes the Windrunners and Hellscream belong to. If you disagree, feel free to create a class concept based on it.

I don't need to make up a whole gameplay concept just to debunk your bullshit reasoning, lol.