Bard Class Concept 2025

[Teriz]

And what have they done for WoW since? Radiant song has moved on without them. Pedgi was created to incorporate more music lore. Lirath was even brought forth to unite the Windrunners through his music. Where has ETC been?

We don't know what they have planned for WoW. What we do know is that Blizzard has massively expanded the concept from a garage band of ex-Blizzard employees to a cohesive franchise character concept over the course of 20+ years.

Are we seriously arguing that Blizzard is going to create an entirely new Bardic theme that no Warcraft fan has exposure to or knows about instead of simply going with a bardic concept they've grown and cultivated over decades that the fanbase is aware of, played with, and is used to?

That's nonsense.

[Ielenia]

its no wonder you don't think DKs are Necromancers.

Like I said: I don't believe demonstrable falsehoods and obvious lies.

For example: this is a necromancer, not a death knight:

Making up what my stance is on this topic isn't helping your case.

If you actually took a moment to actually read what I wrote, I didn't say the previous classes don't measure up to your personal standards. I compared them to the classes that came before, to show you that Blizzard doesn't have a "standard" when it comes to class design.

Nice try, but I never said you could "mimic their gameplay", I said the class gives you access to their gameplay. There's a difference.

And what is the difference? Because to "access" something means being able to replicate it. And you can't. None of the HotS dragons play like the WoW's evoker class and vice-versa.

Why so dishonest? Wedding Hymn is Divine Hymn and Hymn of Hope (Priest abilities) being used at the same time.

"Why so dishonest", then proceeds to be very dishonest. What you're doing is akin to saying the warlock's "Rain of Fire" ability is just Fireball and Blizzard (mage abilities) used at the same time. It doesn't matter what "wedding hymn" is a combination of. The point is that it is not a priest ability.

That said, going back to your accusation: no, there's no dishonesty from my part. The only dishonesty here comes from you who refuse to recognize how Blizzard constructed their NPCs back in the day. Forresten only had a single unique ability (Enchanting Lullaby) because the rest of his concept (a ranged character) could be easily replicated by using hunter abilities instead of wasting time designing more abilities.

Again, there is nothing unique about either character

They're bards. That's unique. They use song and music as their spellcasting medium. That's unique. Not to mention this accusation of yours is laughable when the defining feature of your concept is that they hit things with their weapons. So unique! No class in this entire game hits things with their weapons!

Yeah, because Blizzard couldn't simply plop him into WoW at any point like they did the League of Explorers.

They literally could: they could have easily added him to the Darkmoon Faire. But they haven't.

Again, the ETC-based class would be Blizzard's Bard

No. Bards (Russell Brower, Winslow Swan, Hearthsinger Forresten) are Blizzard's bards.

the DK is Blizzard's Necromancer.

No, the necromancer is Blizzard's necromancer.

[Teriz]

Like I said: I don't believe demonstrable falsehoods and obvious lies.

For example: this is a necromancer, not a death knight[/URL]:
[IMG][/IMG]

I never said that DKs are Necromancers in lore. I said that in the class lineup DKs (and Warlocks) take the place of Necromancers. The DK is the necromancer in the WoW class lineup, which is why they contain necromancer abilities.

To bring this back to THIS thread, ETC-based characters would take the place of Bards in the WoW class lineup in a similar fashion even if they aren't actually called Bards.

If you actually took a moment to actually read what I wrote, I didn't say the previous classes don't measure up to your personal standards. I compared them to the classes that came before, to show you that Blizzard doesn't have a "standard" when it comes to class design.

Not my standards, Blizzard's standards.

And what is the difference? Because to "access" something means being able to replicate it. And you can't. None of the HotS dragons play like the WoW's evoker class and vice-versa.

To access their gameplay means that abilities like Life Bind, Deep Breath, Blessing of the Bronze, Wing Buffet, Visage, and Disintegrate are available for players.

"Why so dishonest", then proceeds to be very dishonest. What you're doing is akin to saying the warlock's "Rain of Fire" ability is just Fireball and Blizzard (mage abilities) used at the same time. It doesn't matter what "wedding hymn" is a combination of. The point is that it is not a priest ability.

That said, going back to your accusation: no, there's no dishonesty from my part. The only dishonesty here comes from you who refuse to recognize how Blizzard constructed their NPCs back in the day. Forresten only had a single unique ability (Enchanting Lullaby) because the rest of his concept (a ranged character) could be easily replicated by using hunter abilities instead of wasting time designing more abilities.

It's completely dishonest because you're pretending that its an original ability when all it was was two Priest abilities put together.

You're being dishonest again because Lullaby was usable by the Hunter class for years, so even that wasn't an original ability to use.

They're bards. That's unique. They use song and music as their spellcasting medium. That's unique. Not to mention this accusation of yours is laughable when the defining feature of your concept is that they hit things with their weapons. So unique! No class in this entire game hits things with their weapons!]

I would argue that this mechanic;



Is far more unique than Hunter abilities and/or channeled Mage, Druid, and Warlock abilities.

No. Bards (Russell Brower, Winslow Swan, Hearthsinger Forresten) are Blizzard's bards.

Cool. Let me know when we see them again. We'll likely be seeing the ETC again very soon, given the frequency of his appearances.

[Ielenia]

I never said that DKs are Necromancers in lore. I said that in the class lineup DKs (and Warlocks) take the place of Necromancers. The DK is the necromancer in the WoW class lineup, which is why they contain necromancer abilities.

That's like saying mages, shamans and druids take the place of evokers. Or that priests and warriors take the place of paladins.

Not my standards, Blizzard's standards.

By which you mean you're trying to pass your personal standards as Blizzard's standards. You don't know what Blizzard's standards are, and, judging by all four expansion class additions to this game, they don't really have a "standard".

To access their gameplay means that abilities like Life Bind, Deep Breath, Blessing of the Bronze, Wing Buffet, Visage, and Disintegrate are available for players.

.... You don't know what "gameplay" means, don't you? Individual abilities are not "gameplay" much like individual bricks aren't a house. Gameplay is constructed by establishing a flow of abilities, how they synergize with one-another, and the role they perform. A mage's gameplay isn't being able to cast fireball or frostbold or arcane blast. A mage's gameplay is their rotation and cooldowns, and how their passives and procs work off one-another. That is what gameplay is: it's the whole, not its individual constituents.

It's completely dishonest because you're pretending that its an original ability when all it was was two Priest abilities put together.

I never said it's original, I said it's unique. There's a huge difference. And Russell Brower's Wedding Hymn ability is unique, because only he has that ability. That aside, the specific ability itself is irrelevant, because all we need from it is its concept: that Russell Brower is capable of casting spells through music, like any bard can.

You're being dishonest again because Lullaby was usable by the Hunter class for years, so even that wasn't an original ability to use.

The hunter couldn't, a beast could. A beast that could use it even without being tamed by a hunter.

I would argue that this mechanic;

https://i.ibb.co/sdkWCLhm/guitarbros.jpg

Is far more unique than Hunter abilities and/or channeled Mage, Druid, and Warlock abilities.

... You do know we already have warriors and paladins who smash things with two-handed weapons, right? Not to mention the first image is just a shaman.

Cool. Let me know when we see them again. We'll likely be seeing the ETC again very soon, given the frequency of his appearances.

You can repeat that as many times as you want, it won't change the fact that those characters I mentioned are actual bards in the lore, whereas your character doesn't even EXIST in the lore.

[Triceron]

We don't know what they have planned for WoW. What we do know is that Blizzard has massively expanded the concept from a garage band of ex-Blizzard employees to a cohesive franchise character concept over the course of 20+ years.

One that has remained a cameo reference, like League of Explorers and its associated villains.

We are getting Ethereal content soon. Do you think Rafaam will be the main badguy? I don't. At most, he will be a cameo; if they even bother to bring him in.

Are we seriously arguing that Blizzard is going to create an entirely new Bardic theme that no Warcraft fan has exposure to or knows about instead of simply going with a bardic concept they've grown and cultivated over decades that the fanbase is aware of, played with, and is used to?

That's nonsense.

You mean same way they created an Evoker class based in a new race instead of just making them Chromatics that people like you are more familiar with? Yes, they are expanding their horizons beyond Vanilla-Cata Fanservice.

[Teriz]

That's like saying mages, shamans and druids take the place of evokers. Or that priests and warriors take the place of paladins.

Well no, because you don't have to combine DKs and Warlocks to get Necromancers, you only need DKs. I pointed out Warlocks for those who for whatever reason want to be a dark spellcaster that controls "evil" minions, but DKs fill the necromancer niche all by themselves.

By which you mean you're trying to pass your personal standards as Blizzard's standards. You don't know what Blizzard's standards are, and, judging by all four expansion class additions to this game, they don't really have a "standard".

I know that every WoW expansion class is based on a franchise (hero) character and a massive thematic that had been in the game for some time.

DKs: Arthas, Scourge (WC3, WoW)
Monk: Chen, Pandaria (WC3)
Demon Hunter: Illidan, Illidari, Burning Legion (WC3, TBC, WoD, HotS)
Evoker: Dragon Aspects, Dragonflights (WC2, WC3, WoW, HotS)

In the case of the ETC we have WoW, HotS and HS.

.... You don't know what "gameplay" means, don't you? Individual abilities are not "gameplay" much like individual bricks aren't a house. Gameplay is constructed by establishing a flow of abilities, how they synergize with one-another, and the role they perform. A mage's gameplay isn't being able to cast fireball or frostbold or arcane blast. A mage's gameplay is their rotation and cooldowns, and how their passives and procs work off one-another. That is what gameplay is: it's the whole, not its individual constituents.

And a draconic character breathing spell frost from its mouth is an example of Azure dragon-based gameplay that wasn't available before the Evoker class.

I never said it's original, I said it's unique. There's a huge difference. And Russell Brower's Wedding Hymn ability is unique, because only he has that ability. That aside, the specific ability itself is irrelevant, because all we need from it is its concept: that Russell Brower is capable of casting spells through music, like any bard can.

There's nothing unique about channeling Shadowbolt or Starsurge. There's nothing unique about being able to cast two priest spells at the same time.

The hunter couldn't, a beast could. A beast that could use it even without being tamed by a hunter.

That's semantics. As a Hunter in MoP I could cast Lullaby on targets. I could shoot Multi-shot. I had the ability shoot. That's essentially the ability set of Hearthsinger Forrensten, and that's simply a statement of fact.

... You do know we already have warriors and paladins who smash things with two-handed weapons, right?

Which is like saying we already have Mages who cast spells, so why do we need Druids, Priests, Shaman, Evokers or Warlocks?

- - - Updated - - -

One that has remained a cameo reference, like League of Explorers and its associated villains.

In WoW, but the Warcraft franchise encompasses more than just WoW, since other games in the Warcraft universe actively influence it. As I said, we don't know what's planned for WoW. However, it's kind of silly to believe that Blizzard is going to ignore a bardic thematic they have been building for over 20 years in favor of what are essentially nonexistent bardic themes.

You mean same way they created an Evoker class based in a new race instead of just making them Chromatics that people like you are more familiar with? Yes, they are expanding their horizons beyond Vanilla-Cata Fanservice.

You mean a group of artificial dragons created by black dragons to utilize all the different powers of the dragonflight at once?

Which one is that? Dracthyr Evokers or Chromatic Dragons?

[Nightshade711]

However, it's kind of silly to believe that Blizzard is going to ignore a bardic thematic they have been building for over 20 years in favor of what are essentially nonexistent bardic themes.

“Nonexistent bardic themes”
Yet the traditional bards have been shown in WoW far more than ETC… curious.

[Mecheon]

Well no, because you don't have to combine DKs and Warlocks to get Necromancers, you only need DKs. I pointed out Warlocks for those who for whatever reason want to be a dark spellcaster that controls "evil" minions, but DKs fill the necromancer niche all by themselves.

No, they don't. DKs are undead knights. Its in the name: Death Knight. Not Death Spellcaster. DKs fail miserably at being necromancers because they're death knights, a whole other thing.

If you a necromancer you want to be a dark spellcaster controlling hordes of skeletons or other undead. We've seen plenty of necromancers in game. They cannot be represented by death knights or warlocks.

I know that every WoW expansion class is based on a franchise (hero) character and a massive thematic that had been in the game for some time.

DKs: Arthas, Scourge (WC3, WoW)
Monk: Chen, Pandaria (WC3)
Demon Hunter: Illidan, Illidari, Burning Legion (WC3, TBC, WoD, HotS)
Evoker: Dragon Aspects, Dragonflights (WC2, WC3, WoW, HotS)

In the case of the ETC we have WoW, HotS and HS.

Are you honestly trying to say the Elite Tauren Chieften are on the level of any of these characters? Even Chen pre MoP was far more relevant than they've ever been

And a draconic character breathing spell frost from its mouth is an example of Azure dragon-based gameplay that wasn't available before the Evoker class.

That's a channelled ability with an animation, Teriz., That's not gameplay.

Gameplay is "As a rogue I stack combo-building abilities to built up points to unleash a finisher" or "As an evoker I enpower abilities to get different effects from them and function as a mid-range heal/DPS, not full range like other classes"

There's nothing unique about channeling Shadowbolt or Starsurge. There's nothing unique about being able to cast two priest spells at the same time.

Oh, so you're dropping the Explorer class idea because there's nothing unique about your Summon Pet coming in an egg rather than just being summoned like anything else, then?

In WoW, but the Warcraft franchise encompasses more than just WoW, since other games in the Warcraft universe actively influence it. As I said, we don't know what's planned for WoW. However, it's kind of silly to believe that Blizzard is going to ignore a bardic thematic they have been building for over 20 years in favor of what are essentially nonexistent bardic themes.

Orrr they'll use the Radiant Song theme which, y'know, kickstarted the current expansion and can be portrayed seriously, unlike "We blared Metalica and made a class" like you've made

I very much feel they will ignore the ETC because the ETC are not a bardic thematic they've been building over 20 years. They're not even bards.

[Nightshade711]

Orrr they'll use the Radiant Song theme which, y'know, kickstarted the current expansion and can be portrayed seriously, unlike "We blared Metalica and made a class" like you've made

I very much feel they will ignore the ETC because the ETC are not a bardic thematic they've been building over 20 years. They're not even bards.

You know I could see them making a Bard use the radiant song. It’d be unique/new enough to justify it being a new addition as a class to the lore & would probably go over better than basing the entire class around rock/metal because of a spoof character.

[Teriz]

“Nonexistent bardic themes”
Yet the traditional bards have been shown in WoW far more than ETC… curious.

Disparate NPCs are not a theme.

You can't really say that a ghost in Stratholme, a homage to WoW's sound designer, and a skeletal minstrel in Shadowlands are a theme that will lead to a class. They're simply a bunch of random NPCs.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they don't. DKs are undead knights. Its in the name: Death Knight. Not Death Spellcaster. DKs fail miserably at being necromancers because they're death knights, a whole other thing.

If you a necromancer you want to be a dark spellcaster controlling hordes of skeletons or other undead. We've seen plenty of necromancers in game. They cannot be represented by death knights or warlocks.

Except as a DK you are a dark spell caster controlling hordes of skeletons and other undead.

Are you honestly trying to say the Elite Tauren Chieften are on the level of any of these characters? Even Chen pre MoP was far more relevant than they've ever been

I would argue that the ETC is actually further ahead of where Chen was before MoP due to the ETC's sheer level of franchise exposure. The only thing ETC is lacking is being canon in WoW, but that's something Blizzard can add rather easily due to the ETC/Blight Boar connection to the Darkmoon Faire.

Oh, so you're dropping the Explorer class idea because there's nothing unique about your Summon Pet coming in an egg rather than just being summoned like anything else, then?

The difference is that's all that those "Bards" do. Meanwhile the Explorer concept does quite a few things that are unique.

Orrr they'll use the Radiant Song theme which, y'know, kickstarted the current expansion and can be portrayed seriously, unlike "We blared Metalica and made a class" like you've made

And like I said, nothing stops Blizzard from making the Radiant song into a rock, heavy metal, and/or jazz song as interpreted by a bardic class.

[Nightshade711]

Disparate NPCs are not a theme.

Hell, there have been bards that’ve had actual lore presence as well. Like during some cataclysm quests.

Those “Disparate NPCs” are far more present in WoW than ETC.
Curious indeed.

You can't really say that a ghost in Stratholme, a homage to WoW's sound designer, and a skeletal minstrel in Shadowlands are a theme that will lead to a class. They're simply a bunch of random NPCs.

“A homage won’t lead to the class except for the homage I like”

But anyways, the traditional Bard theme has made in appearance in almost every WoW xpac & is quite known in fantasy settings. Heavy metal rockstars? Not so much.

[Eldryth]

Orrr they'll use the Radiant Song theme which, y'know, kickstarted the current expansion and can be portrayed seriously, unlike "We blared Metalica and made a class" like you've made

I very much feel they will ignore the ETC because the ETC are not a bardic thematic they've been building over 20 years. They're not even bards.

You know I could see them making a Bard use the radiant song. It’d be unique/new enough to justify it being a new addition as a class to the lore & would probably go over better than basing the entire class around rock/metal because of a spoof character.

Yeah, if they add Bards at all, that's the direction I'd expect them to take. They've created, and have been fleshing out, a new type of musical magic that is intrinsically tied to the overarching story which would fit very well with a new, more serious and heroic take on Bards (but absolutely not ETC). I mean, I'm not completely sure that they'd actually turn it into a class at all, but the idea that they'd do all this buildup for a very important form of musical magic, only to turn around and release a completely different musical class, without those ties to the main story... the whole idea of that is just absurd.


And that take may very well involve them being melee fighters. I mean, with the setup we have, it really looks like their origin would likely be them responding to Azeroth's distress call and using Her own power to protect Her and her inhabitants, so a more overtly heroic take makes sense. But I can't see Blizzard making it a pure, unmitigated meme.


I'm not sure they'd ignore ETC entirely, but at most, I could see them basing a couple skills on it, maybe using it as a very loose inspiration for one spec, reimagined to fit the actual setting and not just be a meme. Like how Brewmaster was just used for one spec of a serious take on Monk and was turned into an actual drunken brawler take and not just a memey drunk panda. Though unlike ETC, Brewmaster always had an actual canon hero and was never just a fourth-wall bending meme (which ETC has never grown beyond to this day), so they might not give ETC the same focus.

[Ielenia]

Well no, because you don't have to combine DKs and Warlocks to get Necromancers, you only need DKs.

And you don't need to combine warlocks and DKs to make a necromancer. You just need necromancers.

I pointed out Warlocks for those who for whatever reason want to be a dark spellcaster that controls "evil" minions,

That's like saying DHs should just play shamans if they wanted to play a magical melee that can transform into a monster.

but DKs fill the necromancer niche all by themselves.

No, they do not. DKs don't fill the necromancer niche like priests don't fill the paladin niche. The two concepts (necromancer and DK) are inherently too different to have one cover the other:
• Death knights are melee, necromancers are ranged;
• Death knights wear heavy armor, necromancers wear light armor;
• Death knights wield heavy melee weapons, necromancers wield staves and light weapons.
• Death knights depend on their weapons, necromancers depend on their magic.
Etc, etc.

I know that every WoW expansion class is based on a franchise (hero) character and a massive thematic that had been in the game for some time.

Except the evoker class, which is completely original as there was no such thing like it before to call "that character is an evoker before DF". But it still doesn't change the fact that you keep peddling your personal standards as Blizzard's standards. Something you've been doing for years.

In the case of the ETC we have WoW, HotS and HS.

In other words, you got nothing for them in the Warcraft lore.

And a draconic character breathing spell frost from its mouth is an example of Azure dragon-based gameplay that wasn't available before the Evoker class.

Which is irrelevant since none of the dragon characters in HotS are blue dragons, either. Not to mention that you continue to demonstrate what "gameplay" means, despite me literally having spelled it out for you.

There's nothing unique about channeling Shadowbolt or Starsurge.

I didn't say anything about Shadowbolt of Starsurge.

There's nothing unique about being able to cast two priest spells at the same time.

I would point out that being able to channel two spells at the same time would be pretty unique in and of itself. That said, it is unique, because no one else has that ability. That's what being 'unique' means: no other class ability can do the same things this one does.

That's semantics.

I guess you didn't learn the lesson the first dozen times:

You do realize that just saying "it's semantics" doesn't exactly address the argument, right? Especially since said "semantics" explain why your argument fails

Can't say I'm surprised.

As a Hunter in MoP I could cast Lullaby on targets.

You couldn't. Your crane pet did. And that crane could already do that without being tamed by your hunter, meaning it wasn't a hunter ability.

I could shoot Multi-shot. I had the ability shoot.

Yeah, I already explained that. Blizzard using class abilities when they were "good enough". We got a character using a ranged weapon, no time to make new exclusive abilities, just give them hunter ones.

Which is like saying we already have Mages who cast spells, so why do we need Druids, Priests, Shaman, Evokers or Warlocks?

That's not my argument, that's yours. You were the one who posted an image of a character smashing something with a weapon and called it a "mechanic".

- - - Updated - - -

“Nonexistent bardic themes”
Yet the traditional bards have been shown in WoW far more than ETC… curious.

Remember: if it doesn't fit his personal standards, then it doesn't exist. Or "essentially doesn't exist".

- - - Updated - - -

That's a channelled ability with an animation, Teriz., That's not gameplay.

Gameplay is "As a rogue I stack combo-building abilities to built up points to unleash a finisher" or "As an evoker I enpower abilities to get different effects from them and function as a mid-range heal/DPS, not full range like other classes"

Teriz out there looking at individual bricks and repeatedly going "that's a house!" while everyone around him just keep saying "No, Teriz, that's just a brick."

- - - Updated - - -

Disparate NPCs are not a theme.

They're not disparate. They're NPCs connected by a theme: the bard theme.

[Teriz]

Hell, there have been bards that’ve had actual lore presence as well. Like during some cataclysm quests.

Those “Disparate NPCs” are far more present in WoW than ETC.
Curious indeed.

Not really, since the stuff that influenced the creation of the ETC in HS and HotS originated in WoW, such as the guitar/weapons, the ETC and Blight Boar bands, and Mordresh.

“A homage won’t lead to the class except for the homage I like”

But anyways, the traditional Bard theme has made in appearance in almost every WoW xpac & is quite known in fantasy settings. Heavy metal rockstars? Not so much.

Again, disparate Bards with zero connection is not a theme.

The ETC going from its origin to what it is now is an evolution of a concept AND a theme.

And you don't need to combine warlocks and DKs to make a necromancer. You just need necromancers.


That's like saying DHs should just play shamans if they wanted to play a magical melee that can transform into a monster.


No, they do not. DKs don't fill the necromancer niche like priests don't fill the paladin niche. The two concepts (necromancer and DK) are inherently too different to have one cover the other:
• Death knights are melee, necromancers are ranged;
• Death knights wear heavy armor, necromancers wear light armor;
• Death knights wield heavy melee weapons, necromancers wield staves and light weapons.
• Death knights depend on their weapons, necromancers depend on their magic.
Etc, etc.

Except Blizzard isn't going to bring in a new class because of range, armor and weapons. Especially when you can adjust range with a few more talents, use robe-based plate, and simply equip a polearm in place of a stave. Keep in mind that to Blizzard, a Necromancer can be melee, and their franchises contain melee necromancers.

That's not my argument, that's yours. You were the one who posted an image of a character smashing something with a weapon and called it a "mechanic".

There's you being dishonest again. A simple reading of the concept explains fully how the mechanic works.

I deleted the rest of this back and forth because it's irrelevant to the topic.

[Nightshade711]

Not really, since the stuff that influenced the creation of the ETC in HS and HotS originated in WoW, such as the guitar/weapons, the ETC and Blight Boar bands, and Mordresh.

Again, disparate Bards with zero connection is not a theme.

Blight Boar/Mordresh have no connection to ETC.
They’re just different musicians doing different things.

[Mecheon]

Except as a DK you are a dark spell caster controlling hordes of skeletons and other undead.

No. If you're a Death Knight you are an undead heavily armored knight who's main thing is smacking opponents in melee with melee spellcasting.

Ret plays more ranged than even Unholy does. They are not filling the necromancer niche in even the slightest.

I would argue that the ETC is actually further ahead of where Chen was before MoP due to the ETC's sheer level of franchise exposure. The only thing ETC is lacking is being canon in WoW, but that's something Blizzard can add rather easily due to the ETC/Blight Boar connection to the Darkmoon Faire.

Chen had character and an entire WC3 campaign where he was a tertiary character. ETC are a decade from their popularity, don't have characters and even in WC3 have done nothing. Like, the only one who's done anything is debately Samuro and that's only if you think he's the same as Blademaster Samuro, who noteably is in HotS as... Oh, wait, not a Bard at all but instead the Warcraft 3 Blademaster. If "ETC bard" is such a thing, then why is their only important member pulling representation as a Blademaster instead?

Give me one quote the ETC have said in-game. Show me a fan campaign someone's made where they're a main character. Prove their popularity to me.

The difference is that's all that those "Bards" do. Meanwhile the Explorer concept does quite a few things that are unique.

Its just a hunter, Teriz. You just copied and pasted hunter, slapped in some NPC only abilities, and presented it to the class like it was something new.

And like I said, nothing stops Blizzard from making the Radiant song into a rock, heavy metal, and/or jazz song as interpreted by a bardic class.

Except, y'know, the sheer clashing force of those themes.

Mind its moot anyway. If we get a Radiant Song based bard with fuck all to do you with your concepts, you're still going to proclaim yourself the oracle of Delphi despite absolutely not relation between the two.

[Ielenia]

Again, disparate Bards with zero connection is not a theme.

They're not disparate precisely because they share a strong theme together: they're all bards.

Besides, their shared connection is much stronger than the connection of random, nameless and non-existent characters you got in your build.

The ETC going from its origin to what it is now is an evolution of a concept AND a theme.

The ETC hasn't even have its origin yet. He doesn't exist in the Warcraft Lore. You really think Blizzard is going to introduce a character that did not exist in the lore prior to its inclusion to a class which its concept he was never a part of and suddenly be a major character out of nowhere?

Except Blizzard isn't going to bring in a new class because of range, armor and weapons.

They did it for priests and paladins. And, arguably, warlocks and demon hunters. So I see no problem in them doing it again.

Especially when you can adjust range with a few more talents, use robe-based plate, and simply equip a polearm in place of a stave.

Blizzard already said they're not going to do that again, after what they did to the hunter's Survival spec (i.e. severely alter a spec to change its role, in this case melee to ranged).

Keep in mind that to Blizzard, a Necromancer can be melee,

Wrong. To Blizzard, a World of Warcraft necromancer is a robe-wearing ranged spellcaster. What you can do in Diablo has absolutely zero impact to WoW.

There's you being dishonest again. A simple reading of the concept explains fully how the mechanic works.

There's no dishonesty. It's still "smashing things with a weapon" regardless if said weapon resembles a musical instrument or not.

I deleted the rest of this back and forth because it's irrelevant to the topic.

So, by your own arguments earlier: "so you can't debunk my arguments, got it."

[Teriz]

Blight Boar/Mordresh have no connection to ETC.
They’re just different musicians doing different things.

Of course they do. Blight Boars are an offshoot of the ETC, which is why the appeared in the HS expansion based on the ETC.

Mordresh Fire Eye's redesign was also clearly designed after the ETC.

[Ielenia]

Of course they do. Blight Boars are an offshoot of the ETC, which is why the appeared in the HS expansion based on the ETC.

Mordresh Fire Eye's redesign was also clearly designed after the ETC.

Riiiight. Actual bards in WoW have no connection to each other despite having the same thematic look and other bardic characteristic... because "Teriz says so"™.

But Mordresh (a shaman with no bardic characteristics at all) absolutely has a connection to the ETC (a character that doesn't exist in the lore of Warcraft) because....... "Teriz says so"™. Again.

[Nightshade711]

Of course they do. Blight Boars are an offshoot of the ETC, which is why the appeared in the HS expansion based on the ETC.

Mordresh Fire Eye's redesign was also clearly designed after the ETC.

Neither have anything to do with ETC.

Your logic is like saying ETC is based on Arthas because of a credits scene with him playing a guitar.