Bard Class Concept 2025

[Lorgar Aurelian]

There was this concept posted in the class thread.
I think this would work significantly better than a class based around a spoof that’s just a warrior with a guitar transmog.



Using the Radiant Song to conjure memories of heroes to attack (or heal/buff) could be a unique twist & lines up with what we’ve actually seen of the Radiant Song in TWW so far.

Could be the unique “blizzard twist” some people have mentioned.

Using the echos of Azeroth would be a really good fit and would even fit nicely into what we have seen Russel do with the weeding song being not just him but ancestors of the bride and groom playing with him and the generic spell effect we see at Hyjal being him summons echos to cast for him.

[Ielenia]

Illidan appeared in the key art before the DH class.

Really? Has it maybe occurred to you that perhaps it was because Illidan was the central point of The Burning Crusade expansion, and not because they're priming him to be a future playable class? And you're still missing Arthas and Chen, by the way. As in, the characters I specifically mentioned.

A fantasy character that uses a musical instrument to fight with can't be considered a Bard?

That's definitely a take....

You're being deceptively dishonest with that statement. Your concept of the bard doesn't "use musical instruments to fight" the way an actual bard would. Your idea of a bard behaves not like an actual bard, by bashing people on the head with their instruments like a warrior would bash people on the head with their hammers, instead of using their instruments to actually cast music- and song-based spells, like actual bards would, like actual bards in the World of Warcraft lore do.

The one defining characteristic of the bards is that they don't engage in combat the way rogues, paladins and warriors do. That's like saying mages fight by bashing people on the head with their staves.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Double checked, and ya ETC would absolutely be a skald not a bard.

Proficient in battle axes
Lesser bard spell casting school
Nature acrobatics for power slide and stage dive
Unarmored defence
Spiritual chant For guitar solo which heals
Path of the Warrior For strength scaling over cunning
And inspire rage for mosh pit, not technically how rage works but fits thematically.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Skald_(5e_Class)

[Teriz]

and long after the hunter class was added to the game or had any ties to her, the class isn’t based on her.

The hero talent is though. Further, characters that DHs and Evokers are based on were also on the key art before the introduction of those classes.

And that point would be wrong as to actual use your instrument as ETC does you’d need to be a fighter with improved improvised weapon and a caster sub class, or be the Skald class as they are proficient in battle axes and have there own magical music.

There is no way to mimic ETC as an actual bard or vise versa.

I don't believe those rules are necessary for a character to be considered a bardic character by a general audience. A general player will see a character playing and using music as a weapon and immediately associate it with a bard, thus filling the archetype. We're already seeing that occur here on the forums with people saying that we could have an ETC-based spec in a Bard class.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Has it maybe occurred to you that perhaps it was because Illidan was the central point of The Burning Crusade expansion, and not because they're priming him to be a future playable class? And you're still missing Arthas and Chen, by the way. As in, the characters I specifically mentioned.

I believe the point is that Illidan was such a major character that him getting a class based on him was inevitable. As was the case with Alexstraza, Deathwing, and others.

You're being deceptively dishonest with that statement. Your concept of the bard doesn't "use musical instruments to fight" the way an actual bard would. Your idea of a bard behaves not like an actual bard, by bashing people on the head with their instruments like a warrior would bash people on the head with their hammers, instead of using their instruments to actually cast music- and song-based spells, like actual bards would, like actual bards in the World of Warcraft lore do.

The one defining characteristic of the bards is that they don't engage in combat the way rogues, paladins and warriors do. That's like saying mages fight by bashing people on the head with their staves.

Uh if you read the OP, there's plenty of instances where the character is casting a spell by playing their instrument and performing songs. Again, how is a character that is literally performing class roles using music and a musical instrument not a Bard?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Really? Has it maybe occurred to you that perhaps it was because Illidan was the central point of The Burning Crusade expansion, and not because they're priming him to be a future playable class?

Bc was thrall, Illidan was likely there because legion was announced at gamescom months before blizzcon.

[Ielenia]

The point is that a character with musical abilities and a musical instrument by all rights should be considered a bard character.

By that logic, any character with martial abilities and a martial weapon should be considered a warrior character. So Tyrion is a warrior, Mathias Shaw is a warrior. Rexxar is a warrior. The Lich King is a warrior.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The hero talent is though. Further, characters that DHs and Evokers are based on were also on the key art before the introduction of those classes.

and the hero talents are irrelevant as we’re talking about classes.

And ya Dh’s were (Evokers totally weren’t), and they were the exception to the rule meaning bards would likely follow the rule and only show up on key art after being added.

I don't believe those rules are necessary for a character to be considered a bardic character by a general audience. A general player will see a character playing and using music as a weapon and immediately associate it with a bard, thus filling the archetype. We're already seeing that occur here on the forums with people saying that we could have an ETC-based spec in a Bard class.

if you mean just people in general, no people aren’t going to think a rocker is a bard, if you mean fantasy followers, most people will think them skalds as they have far more in common.

And people on here resoundingly don’t like your idea of bard, people are ok with it being a spec in most cases but almost no one wants it as a class.

[Ielenia]

I believe the point is that Illidan was such a major character that him getting a class based on him was inevitable.

I dunno, it looked pretty "evitable", especially considering how the warlock class kept getting more and more demon hunter themes and abilities, including the class' signature theme of turning into a demon...

Uh if you read the OP, there's plenty of instances where the character is casting a spell by playing their instrument and performing songs.

That's not the point. The point is that the core of your concept (considering you keep harping on on it, pun intended) is that your class idea uses their instrument to bash people on the head with it, exactly like a warrior would with their hammer. Meanwhile, a bard does not do that.

And your class concept purposely ignore actual bards in the canon lore of the game, too.

[Eldryth]

This whole iconic hero argument kind of misses a big and obvious factor. Sure, Bard doesn't have any characters iconic enough to work with it yet, no matter the interpretation. But just like Evokers got Emberthal in Dragonflight, that just means that they need to create one and build them up when Bards are added.


And also just like Evokers came from Deathwing, tying them to the Radiant Song (the thing that made them a strong candidate for a new class in the first place) would mean that Bards, too, have strong ties to at very important and iconic character. Arguably the biggest one, in fact- Azeroth herself. Whether they overtly lean on that in the class aesthetics or not, using her Song to introduce Bards would make her Bards' progenitor, just as Deathwing created Evokers.

[Teriz]

Bc was thrall, Illidan was likely there because legion was announced at gamescom months before blizzcon.

He also appeared in BlizzCon 2014's key art which was several months before Legion's announcement.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

This whole iconic hero argument kind of misses a big and obvious factor. Sure, Bard doesn't have any characters iconic enough to work with it yet, no matter the interpretation. But just like Evokers got Emberthal in Dragonflight, that just means that they need to create one and build them up when Bards are added.

Evokers don’t have a hero before Emberthal ya but Teriz is just going to say Alex (or DW) count even though there not Evokers so it’s easier to just ignore that they don’t when the numbers are against him either way and the only example of what he’s pointing to is Illidan who was likely only there because Gamescon already told us about him prior to Vlizzcon.

[Teriz]

This whole iconic hero argument kind of misses a big and obvious factor. Sure, Bard doesn't have any characters iconic enough to work with it yet, no matter the interpretation. But just like Evokers got Emberthal in Dragonflight, that just means that they need to create one and build them up when Bards are added.

Except the reason we got Evokers was because of the Dragon Aspects and the Dragonflights.

What are the huge massive characters and thematic we're basing Bards on? The only thing remotely close is the ETC associated material.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

He also appeared in BlizzCon 2014's key art which was several months before Legion's announcement.

So you’re right, I totally missed his tiny tiny head on my phone.

https://warcraft.wiki.gg/images/2/2d...ormat=original

[Teriz]

and the hero talents are irrelevant as we’re talking about classes.

And ya Dh’s were (Evokers totally weren’t), and they were the exception to the rule meaning bards would likely follow the rule and only show up on key art after being added.

Like I said, Evokers only exist because of the Dragon Aspects, and their creator was on BlizzCon key art multiple times.

if you mean just people in general, no people aren’t going to think a rocker is a bard, if you mean fantasy followers, most people will think them skalds as they have far more in common.

And people on here resoundingly don’t like your idea of bard, people are ok with it being a spec in most cases but almost no one wants it as a class.

TBF several posters in this thread liked the idea.

Also if the concept works as a spec, then it would work as an entire class.

[Ielenia]

This whole iconic hero argument kind of misses a big and obvious factor. Sure, Bard doesn't have any characters iconic enough to work with it yet, no matter the interpretation. But just like Evokers got Emberthal in Dragonflight, that just means that they need to create one and build them up when Bards are added.

This is something I've been saying long before even the Shadowlands expansion was announced. We don't need existing characters, as any could be created no problem, or have existing ones changed to fit the new class if, again, they fit the concept.

And also just like Evokers came from Deathwing, tying them to the Radiant Song (the thing that made them a strong candidate for a new class in the first place) would mean that Bards, too, have strong ties to at very important and iconic character. Arguably the biggest one, in fact- Azeroth herself. Whether they overtly lean on that in the class aesthetics or not, using her Song to introduce Bards would make her Bards' progenitor, just as Deathwing created Evokers.

Music magic is pretty powerful, already. Back in DF, Blizzard tied music magic to time magic, and now we have the Radiant Song tying it to holy magic. We can even say that the 'Radiant Song' has empowered existing music to become magical too.

[Teriz]

I dunno, it looked pretty "evitable", especially considering how the warlock class kept getting more and more demon hunter themes and abilities, including the class' signature theme of turning into a demon...

According to Blizzard, Demon Hunters were always planned to be implemented.

That's not the point. The point is that the core of your concept (considering you keep harping on on it, pun intended) is that your class idea uses their instrument to bash people on the head with it, exactly like a warrior would with their hammer. Meanwhile, a bard does not do that.

And your class concept purposely ignore actual bards in the canon lore of the game, too.

The class also uses their weapon as instrument to play songs and musical magic.

Like a bard.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Like I said, Evokers only exist because of the Dragon Aspects, and their creator was on BlizzCon key art multiple times.

and said aspects aren’t Evokers, but that’s irrelevant even counting them it’s 60% to 40 so bards are likely to follow that 60%

TBF several posters in this thread liked the idea.

do we need to pull up the poll thread again to show it was 2 to 1?

Also if the concept works as a spec, then it would work as an entire class.

Every wow class shows that to be untrue as not one is pulling from a single concept for all of there specs with all but DH pulling from multiple characters.

And DH’s just made up there second spec out of thin air.

[Teriz]

and said aspects aren’t Evokers, but that’s irrelevant even counting them it’s 60% to 40 so bards are likely to follow that 60%

What does it say when the characters that the last two classes were based on showed up in BlizzCon key art before said classes were announced?

do we need to pull up the poll thread again to show it was 2 to 1?

TBF, that poll was quite a few years ago. Quite a lot has changed since that thread was made.

Every wow class shows that to be untrue as not one is pulling from a single concept for all of there specs with all but DH pulling from multiple characters.

And DH’s just made up there second spec out of thin air.

Every class is a derivative of its core concept (which is what core talents are based on) . No class goes way off course from its core. Especially the expansion classes which are especially focused on a core concept and every spec is an expansion of that core. This would be no different, and that's why my concept has the core from which all specs revolve around.

[Nightshade711]

This whole iconic hero argument kind of misses a big and obvious factor. Sure, Bard doesn't have any characters iconic enough to work with it yet, no matter the interpretation. But just like Evokers got Emberthal in Dragonflight, that just means that they need to create one and build them up when Bards are added.


And also just like Evokers came from Deathwing, tying them to the Radiant Song (the thing that made them a strong candidate for a new class in the first place) would mean that Bards, too, have strong ties to at very important and iconic character. Arguably the biggest one, in fact- Azeroth herself. Whether they overtly lean on that in the class aesthetics or not, using her Song to introduce Bards would make her Bards' progenitor, just as Deathwing created Evokers.

I agree with this.

Not only could Azeroth be tied to the class, but perhaps even Magni could. His story hasn’t been touched much after the leveling campaign & he could be tied into the new class when it is introduced.
I mean it Evokers can be tied back to Alexstraza why couldn’t this more lore-friendly version of Bard be tied back to Magni & his connection with Azeroth?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What does it say when the characters that the last two classes were based on showed up in BlizzCon key art before said classes were announced?

nothing when they were followed by Sylvanas Bolvar and the jailer who didn’t get classes.

TBF, that poll was quite a few years ago. Quite a lot has changed since that thread was made.

what was that you said when you tried to use 10 people’s tier list to be the whole hots community?

Oh ya, unless you got another poll that’s the one we have to use.

Every class is a derivative of its core concept

and that core is pulled from multiple different concepts which tend to be expressed more in the specs.

None of them are one spec expansed into a whole class