We will probably see a new Class during the Worldsoul Saga

[Ielenia]

Yeah, the core concept is Dragons.

It is literally the first line in the class' description: "dracthyr evokers were created to wield the magic of all five dragonflights". It doesn't say "evokers were created to represent dragons" or "evokers are dragons".

Again if the main concept was simply the magic of the 5 flights, we wouldn’t have gotten the Dracthyr race.

... I refuse to entertain the idea you might be this dumb. Blizzard literally created the dracthyr specifically to enable the evoker class. And you know why? Because no dragon can be an evoker, because no dragon can use the powers of all five dragonflights.

Uh, we had Gyth and Chromitus

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The chromatic dragonflight as a whole is considered an unstable creation, either mentally, physically, or both. So unless stated otherwise, all members of it are also unstable in some form or another. And none of your examples mention not being unstable.

That’s lore to justify their abilities.

No, that is the core concept of the class. The entire class revolves around its core concept of being able to use all dragonflights' powers.

Blizzard creating a dragon class with all 5 dragonflights was always going to happen.

You think so. Doesn't make it fact.

It’s the only way to make such a class interesting.

You're basically admitting that a dragon class on its own would be boring.

Then explain Gyth.

Already done. And considering it's stated that the dragon becomes "confused and dies rather quickly" in the fight when its rider leaves it, it shows that it's not stable, mentally.

If they’re not affiliated with Red dragons, why are they getting a hero talent tree called Ruby Adept which is clearly based on the Red Dragonflight?

They're simply leaning more into their red dragonflight magic. It has nothing to do with dracthyr joining the red dragonflight, which, again is not what is happening here. Dracthyr have their own groups: the creches.

I’m not seeing any Nerubian based DK hero talent trees.

I'll use your words here:"Well that was quite the irrelevant snippet."

List some Paladin abilities possessed by Varian.

Abilities are irrelevant. It's the concepts that matter.

[Teriz]

It is literally the first line in the class' description: "dracthyr evokers were created to wield the magic of all five dragonflights". It doesn't say "evokers were created to represent dragons" or "evokers are dragons".

Again, that’s the lore that justified why they can use all 5 flights. That isn’t the theme of the class. For example, the theme behind Death Knights is Necromancy and they serve as the Necromancer class. The theme behind Evokers are dragon abilities and they are the dragon class.

... I refuse to entertain the idea you might be this dumb. Blizzard literally created the dracthyr specifically to enable the evoker class. And you know why? Because no dragon can be an evoker, because no dragon can use the powers of all five dragonflights.

Yeah, because no existing race worked with all those draconic abilities.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The chromatic dragonflight as a whole is considered an unstable creation, either mentally, physically, or both. So unless stated otherwise, all members of it are also unstable in some form or another. And none of your examples mention not being unstable.

Gyth’s lore and boss fight contradicts that notion completely.

No, that is the core concept of the class. The entire class revolves around its core concept of being able to use all dragonflights' powers.

Incorrect. The entire concept revolves around it being a dragon, which is why it’s a race/class combination.

You think so. Doesn't make it fact.

Feel free to read both my dragon class concepts. No one said it was out of place for a dragon class to use multiple dragonflights for specs. It was completely expected.

You're basically admitting that a dragon class on its own would be boring.

Uh we have a dragon class on its own. There’s nothing in the Evoker class that is outside dragon lore or WoW’s dragon concept.

Already done. And considering it's stated that the dragon becomes "confused and dies rather quickly" in the fight when its rider leaves it, it shows that it's not stable, mentally.

Which is your head canon. If a rider gets knocked off their horse, the horse will also get confused and not know what to do. That doesn’t mean that the horse is mentally unstable.

They're simply leaning more into their red dragonflight magic. It has nothing to do with dracthyr joining the red dragonflight, which, again is not what is happening here. Dracthyr have their own groups: the creches.

I never said they were joining the red flight, I was pointing out that theyre affiliated with the concept by getting a Red dragon set of hero talents in TWW. Further the Evoker’s hero talent set is reminiscent of the HotS dragon heroes who are also Red, Bronze, and Black.

However, I’m sure you’ll think that’s all coincidence.

Abilities are irrelevant. It's the concepts that matter.

Which is why we mysteriously have WC3 and/or HotS abilities in each of the expansion classes right?

[Ielenia]

Again, that’s the lore that justified why they can use all 5 flights. That isn’t the theme of the class.

That is the core theme of the class. That's the core theme the entire class revolves around. "Using all 5 dragonflight powers" is the reason why the evoker class exists.

Death Knights [...] serve as the Necromancer class.

They don't, but that's nor here nor there.

Yeah, because no existing race worked with all those draconic abilities.

Including the dragons themselves, which is why we have the dracthyr race. That's the reason why the evoker is not available to any other race in the game, and why the playable race isn't 'dragon', instead it's dracthyr.

Gyth’s lore and boss fight contradicts that notion completely.

Uh, no. And I literally explained why. When you have a characteristic that is widely attributed to an entire group-- in this case, the instability of the chromatic dragonflight-- and you want to claim a specific character does not possess said attribute-- in this case, Gyth-- then its description/lore/background needs to specifically mention the character lacks said attribute. There is nothing in Gyth's lore or boss fight that specifically states anything of the sort, then by logic it means Gyth does suffer from instability.

For illustration purposes, consider the sentence: "The Smith family is a long-running family of doctors. John Smith is the latest member in the Smith family". Because the sentence fails to specify John's career of choice, we default to what information we have: "the Smith family is a long-running family of doctors" so the logical assumption is that John is also a doctor. By that logic, since instability is a default characteristic of the chromatic dragonflight, and nothing in Gyth's combat or lore specifically addresses this, then the logical assumption is that the dragon is also unstable as the rest of its family.

Incorrect. The entire concept revolves around it being a dragon, which is why it’s a race/class combination.

No, it's not "being a dragon". If the concept was "being a dragon", then we would be dragons, not dracthyr. The entire concept revolves around being able to use all five dragonflight powers.

Feel free to read both my dragon class concepts.

That has nothing to do with your claim that it was fact that "Blizzard creating a class that uses all five dragonflights was always going to happen". By that logic, it's a fact that Blizzard is going to add a bard class because I and others made and posted a class concept for bards.

Uh we have a dragon class on its own. There’s nothing in the Evoker class that is outside dragon lore or WoW’s dragon concept.

"Using all five dragonflights' powers" is beyond the current dragons' concept.

Which is your head canon. If a rider gets knocked off their horse, the horse will also get confused and not know what to do. That doesn’t mean that the horse is mentally unstable.

False analogy. The horse is just a beast, it's not intelligent. We're talking here about a dragon, which is supposed to be highly intelligent enough to be capable of speech and comprehending the world around them mere days after hatching. For a dragon like Gyth who looks to be in its drake age range (which is roughly adolescent/young adult human maturity, by comparison) to look "confused to the point of being easily killed" is evidence that its mental growth was stunted, probably because of the instability that ails the chromatic dragonflight.

I never said they were joining the red flight,

You said Alexstrasza represents them because she's the leader of the red dragonflight:

Alexstraza represents Evokers because she's the leader of the Red dragons

Which heavily implies the dracthyr are part of the red dragonflight. Which they are not.

Which is why we mysteriously have WC3 and/or HotS abilities in each of the expansion classes right?

Because the abilities fit the concept. Not the other way around. But if you want to talk 'abilities', then I can point out that there's nothing a frost mage can do that Jaina can't. But I can point to a crap-ton of things my devastation evoker can do that Alexstrasza can't. For example: Alexstrasza can't use 'disintegrate', 'shattering star', 'eternity surge', 'azure strike', etc. Similarly, Kalecgos can't use 'fire breath', 'living flame', 'pyre', 'firestorm', etc.

And that is why none of the dragon aspects are representatives of the evoker class: because they are not evokers. Because they cannot be evokers, since they are all restricted to their own respective dragonflight power, and do not and cannot deviate from it.

[Teriz]

That is the core theme of the class. That's the core theme the entire class revolves around. "Using all 5 dragonflight powers" is the reason why the evoker class exists.

The Evoker class exists because Blizzard wanted a playable Dragon class. Again, if it was just about the 5 dragonflight powers, we'd have the Dragonsworn class from the TTRPG.

They don't, but that's nor here nor there.

They do. That's why they have Necromancer abilities.

Including the dragons themselves, which is why we have the dracthyr race. That's the reason why the evoker is not available to any other race in the game, and why the playable race isn't 'dragon', instead it's dracthyr.

We have Dracthyr because Blizzard wanted to make playable dragons that fit into WoW's racial system. Dracthyr are essentially bipedal dragons that can wear armor and swing weapons. They also have the bodies and characteristics of dragons in order to house draconic abilities. It's simple.

Uh, no. And I literally explained why. When you have a characteristic that is widely attributed to an entire group-- in this case, the instability of the chromatic dragonflight-- and you want to claim a specific character does not possess said attribute-- in this case, Gyth-- then its description/lore/background needs to specifically mention the character lacks said attribute. There is nothing in Gyth's lore or boss fight that specifically states anything of the sort, then by logic it means Gyth does suffer from instability.

Oh? Then name another Chromatic dragon that we fight in the history of WoW. The instability was them making it to adulthood since they died as hatchlings. Gyth was the only one that made it to adulthood besides Chromatus and he had 5 heads.

For illustration purposes, consider the sentence: "The Smith family is a long-running family of doctors. John Smith is the latest member in the Smith family". Because the sentence fails to specify John's career of choice, we default to what information we have: "the Smith family is a long-running family of doctors" so the logical assumption is that John is also a doctor. By that logic, since instability is a default characteristic of the chromatic dragonflight, and nothing in Gyth's combat or lore specifically addresses this, then the logical assumption is that the dragon is also unstable as the rest of its family.

They only reason Gyth died was because adventurers killed him. No Chromatic dragon ever got to that point except the 5 head Chromatus, and he was considered stable and successful.

No, it's not "being a dragon". If the concept was "being a dragon", then we would be dragons, not dracthyr. The entire concept revolves around being able to use all five dragonflight powers.

Oh? Name some fundamental differences between a dragon and a Dracthyr. This should be good.

That has nothing to do with your claim that it was fact that "Blizzard creating a class that uses all five dragonflights was always going to happen". By that logic, it's a fact that Blizzard is going to add a bard class because I and others made and posted a class concept for bards.

It was a fact because the 5 dragonflights are a major part of dragon lore, so any WoW dragon class was going to incorporate that lore. There was no way Blizzard was going to bring in a Black dragon class for example and ignore the other 4 flights.

"Using all five dragonflights' powers" is beyond the current dragons' concept.

Chromatic dragons say hello.

False analogy. The horse is just a beast, it's not intelligent. We're talking here about a dragon, which is supposed to be highly intelligent enough to be capable of speech and comprehending the world around them mere days after hatching. For a dragon like Gyth who looks to be in its drake age range (which is roughly adolescent/young adult human maturity, by comparison) to look "confused to the point of being easily killed" is evidence that its mental growth was stunted, probably because of the instability that ails the chromatic dragonflight.

Yeah, he was a young dragon, that doesn’t make him mentally unstable.

Also all dragons aren't capable of speech. I don't recall any of the dragonmaw's dragons talking, and distinctly remember them being pretty much beasts of burden. Those were all red dragons birthed by Alexstraza btw. That said, Chromitis the other stable Chromatic dragon was capable of speech.

You said Alexstrasza represents them because she's the leader of the red dragonflight:

Which heavily implies the dracthyr are part of the red dragonflight. Which they are not.

I also said that the leaders of the other flights represent the Evokers as well.

Because the abilities fit the concept. Not the other way around. But if you want to talk 'abilities', then I can point out that there's nothing a frost mage can do that Jaina can't. But I can point to a crap-ton of things my devastation evoker can do that Alexstrasza can't. For example: Alexstrasza can't use 'disintegrate', 'shattering star', 'eternity surge', 'azure strike', etc. Similarly, Kalecgos can't use 'fire breath', 'living flame', 'pyre', 'firestorm', etc.

Yeah, because Alexstraza uses red abilities while Kalecgos uses blue abilities. The Evoker class uses both because Blizzard partially based the dragon class on those two dragon characters.

And that is why none of the dragon aspects are representatives of the evoker class: because they are not evokers. Because they cannot be evokers, since they are all restricted to their own respective dragonflight power, and do not and cannot deviate from it.

Yet they are since that is the source of their concept and their abilities. A prime example is their upcoming hero talent trees which simply reinforce their connection to the draconic heroes they're based on.

[username993720]

This is another classic case of opinion versus fact;

Your opinion that the Nerubian class description isn't detailed enough to be considered a class, versus the fact that there was a Nerubian class in the WoW TTRPG.

It's not a class. It details a race, the nerubian.
It's like the others on this list:
Abomination, Ancient Protector, Centaur, Dragon, Dryad, Flamewaker, Keeper of the Grove, Mountain Giant, Ogre, Ogre Mage, Sea Giant.
Would you consider them classes? If so, then there's an opening for Abomination, Dryad and Ogre Mage classes, which you claim cannot be.

[Teriz]

It's not a class. It details a race, the nerubian.

From the TTRPG:

Nerubian Creature Class
All of the following are features of the nerubian creature class. Note that the bonuses and abilities he gains at 1st level are in addition to those he gains by virtue of his racial traits.

Again, opinion vs. fact.

It's like the others on this list:
Abomination, Ancient Protector, Centaur, Dragon, Dryad, Flamewaker, Keeper of the Grove, Mountain Giant, Ogre, Ogre Mage, Sea Giant.
Would you consider them classes? If so, then there's an opening for Abomination, Dryad and Ogre Mage classes, which you claim cannot be.

We have a dragon creature class.

As for the rest, Blizzard made it so that those other examples couldn't be classes. However, like the dragons before it, there's really nothing stopping the Nerubians from becoming a class once Blizzard makes them humanoid.

Which they've already done (like they did with Dragons).

In other news;



The icon looks like a beetle rolling forward. Some suggest that Blizzard is aping GW2 since they have Beetle mounts, and they sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race. Since GW2 has beetle mounts now, I wonder if this could be nerubian related.....

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Oh? Then name another Chromatic dragon that we fight in the history of WoW. The instability was them making it to adulthood since they died as hatchlings. Gyth was the only one that made it to adulthood besides Chromatus and he had 5 heads.

Gyth was a drakes which is a dragon teenager he didn’t make it To adulthood. Nor is he the only chromatic drake there was also Chromitus.

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

[Teriz]

Gyth was a drakes which is a dragon teenager he didn’t make it To adulthood. Nor is he the only chromatic drake there was also Chromitus.

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

I didn't mention Chromitus because I knew that our dear friend Ielenia would say he didn't count because he didn't have multiple abilities from multiple flights or some other arbitrary reason he made up on the spot.

But yes you are correct, he is another example of a stable Chromatic dragon.

[Ielenia]

The Evoker class exists because Blizzard wanted a playable Dragon class. Again, if it was just about the 5 dragonflight powers, we'd have the Dragonsworn class from the TTRPG.

Did you even read the Dark Factions book you repeatedly linked in this thread? Did you just read the word "dragonsworn" and nothing else and though: "those are dracthyr/evokers"? The dragonsworn are not evokers, nor dracthyr; and much like dragons, they use one single dragonflight magic, defined by their dragon patron: "Spell Attunement (Ex): Just as the Aspects are tied to specific facets of the world, one of their dragonsworn can learn to draw upon that strength to enhance the potency of magic tied to that Aspect. The dragonsworn gains a +2 bonus to her effective caster level (for the purposes of range, duration and the like) when using a spell associated with her patron Aspect."

The dracthyr race exists solely to enable the evoker class, as no existing race in this game-- humanoid or not-- can use all five dragonflights' powers.

They do. That's why they have Necromancer abilities.

What part of "that's nor here nor there" did you not understand? Or do you want to go down this rabbit-hole until you eventually can't argue against facts anymore and then erroneous accuse me of going off-topic when you were the one who brought it?

We have Dracthyr because Blizzard wanted to make playable dragons that fit into WoW's racial system. Dracthyr are essentially bipedal dragons that can wear armor and swing weapons. They also have the bodies and characteristics of dragons in order to house draconic abilities. It's simple.

Oh, please. The dragons' visage already made them fit into WoW's racial system. And if the lore said that the dragon adventurers (i.e. the players) were young dragons, we could easily have a dragon form that is roughly the size of a druid's werebear form in terms of size.

Oh? Then name another Chromatic dragon that we fight in the history of WoW. The instability was them making it to adulthood since they died as hatchlings. Gyth was the only one that made it to adulthood besides Chromatus and he had 5 heads.

Uh, no. The instability is much more than just that: "These experiments were largely considered failures; many whelps died before hatching, and those that survived were unstable, short-lived, volatile, and/or deformed. Those that reached adulthood were artificially aged by Nefarian's twisted magics."

They only reason Gyth died was because adventurers killed him. No Chromatic dragon ever got to that point except the 5 head Chromatus, and he was considered stable and successful.

Except Chromatus was a chromatic dragon in name only, as he was just a literal frankenstein of five different dragon heads, each controlling their own dragonflight power. So it was technically five dragons controlling each their own power, not one dragon controlling all five powers.

Oh? Name some fundamental differences between a dragon and a Dracthyr. This should be good.

Why do you need any more than the most crucial and defining difference between the two, and the one that enables the existence of the evoker class that all dragons of the five dragonflights lack: the ability to use the powers of all five dragonflights at the same time?

It was a fact

No. No, it wasn't. Full stop. It was never a fact. It was merely a guess of yours. There was nothing concrete about it. Nothing factual about it. Just a guess. "Blizzard will eventually make a dragon class" never was anything more than just a guess.

Chromatic dragons say hello.

"All chromatic dragons are unstable, most dying at hatching, and those who survive are short-lived or deformed physically and/or mentally" says hello.

Yeah, he was a young dragon, that doesn’t make him mentally unstable.

He was a drake, so roughly around adolescent maturity, and considering dragons can already speak and understand the world shortly after hatching, then Gyth behaving like a confused animal does heavily imply some sort of stunted development, which again harkens back to the fact that chromatic dragons are unstable.

Also all dragons aren't capable of speech. I don't recall any of the dragonmaw's dragons talking, and distinctly remember them being pretty much beasts of burden. Those were all red dragons birthed by Alexstraza btw. That said, Chromitis the other stable Chromatic dragon was capable of speech.

You're saying that the dragons of the Dragonmaw not talking and being used by beasts of burden? You mean the orc tribe that enslaved the dragons and treated them like animals? Is that really your argument?

I also said that the leaders of the other flights represent the Evokers as well.

And I also said that they don't because, much like Alexstrasza, they are not evokers, and cannot be evokers, because none of the aspect dragons can use more than their respective dragonflights' power.

Yeah, because Alexstraza uses red abilities while Kalecgos uses blue abilities.

Which is why they're not representatives of the evoker class.

The Evoker class uses both because

Because dracthyrs are not dragons, and therefore not subject by the dragons' limitations.

Yet they are

They are not. Spouting your headcanons as fact going against all existing evidence would not make them any less of headcanons. This is the thing, Teriz: there is no evidence that says the dragon aspects are representative of the evoker class, but there are loads of evidence that say they're not. Chief among those are the facts dragon aspects cannot use more than their own dragonflight's power; and that they're not dracthyr.

- - - Updated - - -

The icon looks like a beetle rolling forward.

Actually, that's a goren. The mob from WoD that is known for moving by rolling forward.

Some suggest that Blizzard is aping GW2 since they have Beetle mounts

"Some people"? No. You? Yes, because it fits your narrative.

they sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race.

"Dragonriding ushered in the dracthyr race"... You just can't make up shit like that, folks. Thanks for the sig, I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't mention Chromitus because I knew that our dear friend Ielenia would say he didn't count because he didn't have multiple abilities from multiple flights or some other arbitrary reason he made up on the spot.

I never said that. And then you have the gall to complain when people rightfully accuse you of misrepresenting others.

[Teriz]

Did you even read the Dark Factions book you repeatedly linked in this thread? Did you just read the word "dragonsworn" and nothing else and though: "those are dracthyr/evokers"? The dragonsworn are not evokers, nor dracthyr; and much like dragons, they use one single dragonflight magic, defined by their dragon patron: "Spell Attunement (Ex): Just as the Aspects are tied to specific facets of the world, one of their dragonsworn can learn to draw upon that strength to enhance the potency of magic tied to that Aspect. The dragonsworn gains a +2 bonus to her effective caster level (for the purposes of range, duration and the like) when using a spell associated with her patron Aspect."

You seem to be missing the point here, so I'll put it this way; If Blizzard's goal was to only make a class that used the 5 dragonflights, they wouldn't have given us a draconic race to solely house it. Clearly the point of the race/class is a dragon with inherent draconic abilities which include the dragonflights.

The dracthyr race exists solely to enable the evoker class, as no existing race in this game-- humanoid or not-- can use all five dragonflights' powers.

It enables the Evoker class because no other race is a dragon. Again, which is why only the Dracthyr can be an Evoker.

Oh, please. The dragons' visage already made them fit into WoW's racial system. And if the lore said that the dragon adventurers (i.e. the players) were young dragons, we could easily have a dragon form that is roughly the size of a druid's werebear form in terms of size.

The visage form allowed them to fit into WoW's racial system, a standard dragon form would not, unless you want a dragon casting spells.

Uh, no. The instability is much more than just that: "These experiments were largely considered failures; many whelps died before hatching, and those that survived were unstable, short-lived, volatile, and/or deformed. Those that reached adulthood were artificially aged by Nefarian's twisted magics."

Yeah, Gyth was in the last slot, he was a success.

Why do you need any more than the most crucial and defining difference between the two, and the one that enables the existence of the evoker class that all dragons of the five dragonflights lack: the ability to use the powers of all five dragonflights at the same time?

So Chromatic dragons aren't dragons?

No. No, it wasn't. Full stop. It was never a fact. It was merely a guess of yours. There was nothing concrete about it. Nothing factual about it. Just a guess. "Blizzard will eventually make a dragon class" never was anything more than just a guess.

"All chromatic dragons are unstable, most dying at hatching, and those who survive are short-lived or deformed physically and/or mentally" says hello.

Except for Gyth and Chromitus.

He was a drake, so roughly around adolescent maturity, and considering dragons can already speak and understand the world shortly after hatching, then Gyth behaving like a confused animal does heavily imply some sort of stunted development, which again harkens back to the fact that chromatic dragons are unstable.

Head canon.

You're saying that the dragons of the Dragonmaw not talking and being used by beasts of burden? You mean the orc tribe that enslaved the dragons and treated them like animals? Is that really your argument?

Were the red dragons unstable? No. They were simply beaten into submission by the orcs. Notice that Gyth was also riden by an orc.

But that's neither here nor there, the POINT is that we have dragons that can use multiple dragonflights. Something you said dragons don't do.

And I also said that they don't because, much like Alexstrasza, they are not evokers, and cannot be evokers, because none of the aspect dragons can use more than their respective dragonflights' power.

Again, Alexstraza represents Evokers because that's where their abilities were pulled from. A dragon hero representing a dragon class.

Because dracthyrs are not dragons, and therefore not subject by the dragons' limitations.

Well let's see;

Dragon: a mythical animal usually represented as a monstrous winged and scaly serpent or saurian with a crested head and enormous claws
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ormous%20claws

Dragon: a mythical monster resembling a giant reptile, sometimes shown as having wings. In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/disp...8609810-e-2243

Dracthyr fit both definitions.

[Ielenia]

You seem to be missing the point here, so I'll put it this way; If Blizzard's goal was to only make a class that used the 5 dragonflights, they wouldn't have given us a draconic race to solely house it. Clearly the point of the race/class is a dragon with inherent draconic abilities which include the dragonflights.

You're absolutely wrong there. The dracthyr race exists precisely to allow for a class that uses all five dragonflights' powers, because no race in this game-- much less humanoid races-- are capable of that. That's basically the sole reason for the dracthyr's existence as a playable race.

It enables the Evoker class because no other race is a dragon. Again, which is why only the Dracthyr can be an Evoker.

Neither are the dracthyr. And your second point is negated by the fact that dragons such as Alexstasza, Chromie, Kalecgos and others cannot be evokers.

The visage form allowed them to fit into WoW's racial system, a standard dragon form would not, unless you want a dragon casting spells.

What would be the problem with that? Especially if the class played like your beloved HotS characters, where you would stay in visage form most of the time and changed into a dragon on a cooldown.

Yeah, Gyth was in the last slot, he was a success.

No, he was not. Because he was never described as a success, and Chromatus' description reinforces my point, because the character is actually described as a "success", which removes the characteristic of all chromatic dragons of being unstable.

So Chromatic dragons aren't dragons?

One: chromatic dragons are unstable, physically and/or mentally. Two: the chromatic dragonflight is not one of the main five dragonflights. Three: are you going to switch tactics and now claim that the evoker class is based off on the chromatic dragonflight, and not the main five dragonflights?

Except for Gyth and Chromitus.

Both are still assumed unstable, because nothing in their lore or description specifically states otherwise.

Head canon.

My headcanon is at least based on actual solid evidence. Your headcanon is based on nothing but "because I, Teriz, say so!"™ You haven't produced a single piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny regarding Gyth and Chromitus.

Were the red dragons unstable? No. They were simply beaten into submission by the orcs. Notice that Gyth was also riden by an orc.

You're reinforcing my point, here. Being beaten into submission can really physically, emotionally and/or mentally stunt someone.

the POINT is that we have dragons that can use multiple dragonflights. Something you said dragons don't do.

They can't. They really can't, according to the lore. To the point that, by and large, all dragons forced to do that become unstable in one way or another, and are usually short-lived.

Again, Alexstraza represents Evokers because that's where their abilities were pulled from.

Then show me where in Alexstrasza did the 'disintegrate' ability came from. Where 'shattering star' came from. Where in Alexstrasza did the 'eruption' spell come from. Where the 'echo' spell came from.

The thing is: you can't. That's because the dragon aspects are not representatives of the evoker class because of the INESCAPABLE FACT that none of the aspect dragons are evokers, or can even be evokers. What you're doing is the same thing as saying that Alonsus Faol is a representative of the paladin class, here.

Dracthyr fit both definitions.

Ah, so dictionary definitions count when it suits you, hm? Nice double-standards there. Not that I'm surprised, of course.

[Triceron]

It is literally the first line in the class' description: "dracthyr evokers were created to wield the magic of all five dragonflights". It doesn't say "evokers were created to represent dragons" or "evokers are dragons".

Best not for you to make this argument. The devs have unambiguously referred to Dracthyr as intending to fill the fantasy of playing as a Dragon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQkw...orldofWarcraft
Graham Berger: "We want to let you play as Dragons. Not a big Dragon Alexstrazsa size, but a Draconic Humanoid"

We already know the Dracthyr Evoker is designed to represent a Dragon that would otherwise not be playable. Whether they are actual Dragons or not in the lore, we may never know. But for the topic of whether the Dracthyr represent Dragons from a design perspective? That is already rendered fact through the Devs having explained this very clearly being the case. Not ambiguously, clearly with intent.


The first thing mentioned to describe the new race/class is 'We want to let you play as Dragons', meaning the intent of the race and class is to represent Dragons as best at it fits as a Player Race/Class in WoW. If they never mentioned the first part of that statement and only said 'We want to let you play a Draconic Humanoid' then yes, it would be ambiguous enough to argue that we don't know if Evokers were meant to represent Dragons or not. That's not the case here.


You can argue that Teriz is wrong about directly calling them Dragons, but don't make the mistake of arguing against them representing Dragons.

[Teriz]

You're absolutely wrong there. The dracthyr race exists precisely to allow for a class that uses all five dragonflights' powers, because no race in this game-- much less humanoid races-- are capable of that. That's basically the sole reason for the dracthyr's existence as a playable race.

You mean only a dragon race could utilize dragon abilities? You don't say? Also the class has abilities that aren't based on the flights, but are based on the body of a dragon, like Hover, Rescue, and Zephyr.

Neither are the dracthyr. And your second point is negated by the fact that dragons such as Alexstasza, Chromie, Kalecgos and others cannot be evokers.

Interesting, since Dracthyr fit the literal definition of a dragon.

What would be the problem with that? Especially if the class played like your beloved HotS characters, where you would stay in visage form most of the time and changed into a dragon on a cooldown.

Probably because Blizzard didn't think players would want to look at a dragon's butt the entire time. Also they more than likely believed that being a small dragon/drake wouldn't be impressive.

No, he was not. Because he was never described as a success...

He was also never described as a failure.

One: chromatic dragons are unstable, physically and/or mentally. Two: the chromatic dragonflight is not one of the main five dragonflights. Three: are you going to switch tactics and now claim that the evoker class is based off on the chromatic dragonflight, and not the main five dragonflights?

No, I'm saying that Chromatic dragons are examples of dragons that can use more than one dragonflight power. Something you said dragons couldn't do.

Both are still assumed unstable, because nothing in their lore or description specifically states otherwise.

Nothing states that they are unstable either. Which is the problem with treating the lore of a videogame like a bible.

However the fact remains, we have two drakes that are apparently stable utilizing more than one dragonflight. Thus proving your argument wrong.

My headcanon is at least based on actual solid evidence. Your headcanon is based on nothing but "because I, Teriz, say so!"™ You haven't produced a single piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny regarding Gyth and Chromitus.

Other than the fact that both didn't die as hatchling. Other than the fact that the lore never states either as unstable. Other than the fact that the lore suggests that Gyth was a success but was killed by the adventurers before he could reach full size.

You're reinforcing my point, here. Being beaten into submission can really physically, emotionally and/or mentally stunt someone.

But that's based on treatment, that isn't based on inherent instability.

They can't. They really can't, according to the lore. To the point that, by and large, all dragons forced to do that become unstable in one way or another, and are usually short-lived.

Again, Gyth and Chromitus disprove that.

Then show me where in Alexstrasza did the 'disintegrate' ability came from. Where 'shattering star' came from. Where in Alexstrasza did the 'eruption' spell come from. Where the 'echo' spell came from.

The thing is: you can't. That's because the dragon aspects are not representatives of the evoker class because of the INESCAPABLE FACT that none of the aspect dragons are evokers, or can even be evokers. What you're doing is the same thing as saying that Alonsus Faol is a representative of the paladin class, here.

Again, dragon heroes represent the dragon class. It's simple.

Ah, so dictionary definitions count when it suits you, hm? Nice double-standards there. Not that I'm surprised, of course.

If we're talking about what words mean then we should go to an authority, which would be the dictionary. If Dracthyr fall under the definition of dragons, then they are dragons. Here's another definition;

Dragon: a mythical monster generally represented as a huge, winged reptile with crested head and enormous claws and teeth, and often spouting fire.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dragon

Yet another definition of a dragon that fits the Dracthyr Evoker completely.

You're welcome to your OPINION that Dracthyr Evokers are not dragons, but the fact is that by the very definition of the word, they are dragons.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

If we're talking about what words mean then we should go to an authority, which would be the dictionary. If Dracthyr fall under the definition of dragons, then they are dragons. Here's another definition;

You're welcome to your OPINION that Dracthyr Evokers are not dragons, but the fact is that by the very definition of the word, they are dragons.

The only authority would be blizzard as they use there own definitions which don’t Aline with dictionary’s regularly.

This was there most recent statement of there dragonige.

Five black dragons crowed around a shattered incubation tank. whispering to one another in Husted tones, a fowl smelling liquid from the tank flooded the room, he curled his lip "what has transpired here" neltharion asked shaking fluids form his right for foot with a grimace, several dragons shuttered with a grimace swing there heads around in alarm. the most senior flight leader in the room Livia turned her sleek head as the others dipped into hasty bows. "ah my aspect" she said "as always you have impeccable timing, It seems we may have had our first success. something finally managed to survive " As Neltharion approached Livia stepped aside. there at the base of the shattered tank sat a small shriving form. The creature hugged its knees to its chest gleaming black scales covered its long lanky limbs, wet wings cling to its back the creature had a mortals physique, but it was not mortal, nor was it a dragon, nor a drakonid, nor like any race this world had ever seen. It lifted its wedge shaped head, two intelligent golden eyes locked with Neltharion's, the creature did not filch or look away even as the earth warden shadow fell over it.

[Teriz]

The only authority would be blizzard as they use there own definitions which don’t Aline with dictionary’s regularly.

This was there most recent statement of there dragonige.

Yeah, that's lore which is contradicted by developer statements and basic facts.

An author writing a WoW story licensed by Blizzard can call the Dracthyr a flying fish. It doesn't change what Blizzard's design and concept intentions clearly were, or the well-established Warcraft hero characters from which those designs and concepts came from.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Yeah, that's lore which is contradicted by developer statements and basic facts.

It’s not contradicted, it contradicts them and by the standard blizzard has always held to the latest statement is always the accurate one meaning this one takes precedent over all past one’s making it the current reality of the situation.

And “basic facts” as in dictionary definitions which aren’t actually facts at all and hold no power over wow and have no relevance when wow says they are wrong, which they have.

[Teriz]

It’s not contradicted, it contradicts them and by the standard blizzard has always held to the latest statement is already the accurate one meaning this one takes precedent over all past one’s making it the current reality of the situation.

And “basic facts” as in dictionary definitions which aren’t actually facts at all and hold no power over wow and have no relevance when wow says they are wrong, which they have.

Except Dracthyr falling under the definition of dragons is a fact. Dracthyr being clearly designed after Warcraft's dragons is also a fact. The idea that some excerpt in some story overrides facts and logic is nonsense. Anyone playing the game will look at the Dracthyr and know instantly what that creature is and what its purpose is. Heck, Blizzard devs do it themselves all the time when they passively call Dracthyr dragons, or the dragon class. Let's stop being obtuse here.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Except Dracthyr falling under the definition of dragons is a fact.

Yes it does fall under that one definition, definitions how ever are now facts and are by there nature subjective based on langue culture ect.

Wow does not abide by the one definition you are using and instead defined dragons in its own way, which drac’s don’t fit.

[username993720]

From the TTRPG:



Again, opinion vs. fact.

Creature class is also being called an abomination or a Centaur. Do you consider them a class or a creature?

We have a dragon creature class.

A Dragonsworn exists in the RPG.

As for the rest, Blizzard made it so that those other examples couldn't be classes. However, like the dragons before it, there's really nothing stopping the Nerubians from becoming a class once Blizzard makes them humanoid.

Oh, so once they're humanoid, they're a class? Better inform the Centaur, Dryad, Ogre.

In other news;



The icon looks like a beetle rolling forward. Some suggest that Blizzard is aping GW2 since they have Beetle mounts, and they sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race. Since GW2 has beetle mounts now, I wonder if this could be nerubian related.....

What mental gymnastics. It's dynamic ground mounts. Simple as that.

[Teriz]

Yes it does fall under that one definition, definitions how ever are now facts and are by there nature subjective based on langue culture ect.

Uh it's more than one;

Dragon: a mythical animal usually represented as a monstrous winged and scaly serpent or saurian with a crested head and enormous claws
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ormous%20claws

Dragon: a mythical monster resembling a giant reptile, sometimes shown as having wings. In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/disp...8609810-e-2243

Dragon: a mythical monster generally represented as a huge, winged reptile with crested head and enormous claws and teeth, and often spouting fire.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dragon

Any definition not fit the Dracthyr?

Wow does not abide by the one definition you are using and instead defined dragons in its own way, which drac’s don’t fit.

Except Blizzard literally created the race/class to represent dragons in the game in playable form. An excerpt from a story is irrelevant in this case.