neither do i, but i don't want to bash any "possible" classes, but i do think dark ranger is something totally unnecessary and redundant, i would prefer something like a 4th spec and that would change based around the race lore, like trolls and others tribal races would be shadow hunters, in the alliance they could have those elune priests.
Basically same class but with different animations/colors and names of skills, but i don't think blizzard is ready for that kind of gameplay
everyone can shut a fucking bow, literally, every single race is able to shot bows and can be hunters/aka rangers, they just need to die and ahve trianing to be dark rangers.
that makes literally no sense.the fact that they are undead when they choose that class.
"some dead elves are dark ranges, that mans void elves can be dark rangers, this is a grotesque example of fallacy
banshees are a form of undead not someone who dabble with necromancy, nonsensicalIn Necromancy background, i would lean more towards the Banshee orientation - like Elves of all sorts.
you think "because elves" is a better background of races dying being resurrected and trained as dark rangers? your bias have no limitsA background nonetheless.
Unlike you giving free classes, because of "reasons".
Yes, these are complete possibilities.
However the core concept of the Blademaster is ultimately going to be Samuro and the Burning Blade. It's undeniable that these guys are the ones who will usher in the Blademaster class.
As talked about before, Blizzard backs their new classes behind well established Heroes. Who is going to be the mainline Blademaster? Not some Ankoan who ushers in a new Japanese themed expansion.
It's like talking about the Monk class. Sure, they can open it up to every race, but ultimately it's going to boil down to the Pandarens and their specific cultural themes. Or the DK, we can have gnome DKs and any race be DK and that's cool, but the ones who are front-and-center of the lore are undead Humans like Mograine and Arthas.
With Blademaster, it's going to have to tie in to the Burning Blade some way some how, because that's what most people automatically associate the Blademaster class with. It's the elephant in the room, so to speak.
So doing more digging, I found that I was wrong about this assessment, and you are completely right about this connection.What? you have to be crazy to not associate Rexxar with the Hunter class. Have you looked into his lore and background, at all? his abilities and theme?
I was unaware that they tied Rexxar completely into the Hunter lore in Legion, which is exactly what I was looking for to formally bridge the two concepts together.
Since Rexxar joined the Unseen Path in the war against the Legion and was referred in game text as 'one of the greatest hunters of his time', it's now clear to me that they do intend the Hunter class to unambiguously represent the Beastmaster.
Er, that doesn't quite make sense to me. Why are you equating racials into this?No, not class abilities that can be borrowed.
Racial abilities, like War Stomp and Endurance mirroring the Tauren Chieftain's War Stomp and Endurance Aura. Stoneform, often referred to as Avatar, and of course Might of the Mountain.
Does that mean my Dwarf Mage with Stoneform is a Mountain King then? My Tauren Priest with Warstomp is now a Chieftain? I don't understand this reasoning unless I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.
Stoneform and Warstomp racials are not exclusive to Chieftains or Mountain Kings. If all Tauren get Warstomp, then it's implied that the Chieftain's ability in WC3 is actually an ability that is inherent to all Tauren. It's a poor way to retcon a really cool class ability, but that's what it is.
But you are still prone to human error, which is what I'm pointing out.Well, they do it because they don't want a certain class or don't believe it will be added.
I do it because i've carefully examined the mindset of class additions and those that are intended by Blizzard to be in-game, using hints.
It's not that i'm against or don't like it. But, more like my calculations have brought me to that conclusion.
Do I like Tinkers or believe in Tinkers? No, not particularly so. I am using in-game hints as well to conclude that they have the highest possibility of being playable.
Do I like Dragonsworn or believe in Dragonsworn? I like the concept, but I don't entirely believe in it either since I regard it in the same 'Name on a list' potential that the Runemaster had in Wrath. I've clearly explained all the in-game hints that lead to the possibility, even if it also equally points to a new Race or Covenant. It's the same path that they all take just like if we were talking about how Monks and Pandaren could be added to the game, there's no one path that says we could only get one Chinese-culturally inspired Race OR Class just because the pattern that came before was an expansion adding one or the other.
And this plays into the human error of applying patterns into the discussion, like implying that Warcraft 3 Heroes will be the main or only picks. It doesn't take into account that those patterns always change (like every second expansion gives us a Class, or any expansion with a new Class can't have a new Race). We're all prone to our own subjective biases.
Which is why I choose not to prop my own theories as arguments *against* anyone else's ideas. That I've mentioned Tinkers and Dragonsworn and explained my reasoning is *solely* because you asked for my opinion on the matter, not because I'm trying to convince anyone else of my personal reasons.
Well, why should I think it has to be obscure either?If you think everything has to be obvious, then you run into the same problem as the others. As was said there, O and U are sometimes interchangeable and Thia is used as a suffix, like many names in game.
I mean, you're talking about your own personal theory on the matter which is absolutely questionable, and based on the comments of your own thread, fairly contestable. How many people actually agree with your theory, have you considered that before jumping in to defend it? Sometimes we blind ourselves in thinking our theories are right because we go on defense mode and stop taking an objective approach. I admit I am the same way, and I've reacted the same way in assessing the Beastmaster. Once I dug deep enough, I found I was wrong, and I can at least admit my faults in that.
If I have an idea to propose, I try not to commit myself to the idea before I present it publicly. I throw it out there, and I purposely try to distance myself from my own idea and see how people react. If someone doesn't understand it, I will try to explain, but otherwise I will try and hold back from actually *defending* the idea, since I'm comfortable knowing that people can have different opinions. It's best to take an objective approach, otherwise we're going to be blinding ourselves to facts as we see some people in this forum already doing.
We have to be open to the possibilities that we are wrong.
All I have to respond is anecdotal, but as a long-term fan of Warcraft since WC2, and as someone who pays close attention to the community reactions of certain things... no, I would say there has been no vocal community hate towards Pandaren prior to Mists of Pandaria. Whatever 'pocket discrimination' was present, it certainly never made itself public any time before MoP. Even in discussions where people talk about playable Pandaren, you don't hear anyone speak up against it saying it'd be stupid or terrible. Remember, Pandaren were actually praised when they were an April Fools joke in Vanilla WC3, which is the reason why the Brewmaster was even made. The most controversy that the Pandaren ever had in the community was when Blizzard originally designed the Brewmaster with Japanese armor and weaponry instead of Chinese, which was considered cultural misappropriation. Otherwise, I personally did not see any significant hate of the level that Mists of Pandaria brought out. It was eye opening to me.I don't mind the Pandaren, either, or any furry, for that matter, because they have a culture behind them. Unlike eastern games that add them for their cute value.
Though, i don't think you can say it wasn't there and just, 'suddenly', erupted with their appearance on the MoP expansion's features. It must have been under the surface, for a time.
And truth be told, I saw zero Gnome hate until WoW as well. I heard zero complaints about Gnomes being in Warcraft 2, but once they were made playable in WoW, it was all out there front and center.
Anecdotally speaking, I think 80% of the people in my small guild (~25 people) vocally expressed a dislike of Gnomes, with maybe 30% openly expressing it any time they could. When asked about the reasons, it ranged from the SD proportions making them look like freaky muppets, or the 4 fingers making them look deformed, or the 'stupid faces'. It never really bothered me, but I do fully acknowledge that it does bother others, even if it's just a general 'dislike' and not a full on mouth-frothing hatred.And i don't get Gnomes and Goblins hate, either. They, literally, have an interesting and distinct culture, aside from being 'cute'. Yes, when you apply them to classes like Warriors, they look ridiculous, but that is the whole point. They are more of a scientific/technology race.
Right, I agree. It's a monumental task.Why not, simply, do it? because it is a monumental task, overall. And doing it every other expansion must be exhausting, alongside balancing it all with the other classes.
Which also implies it's a big decision in choosing what class concept deserves the focus of all their time and effort. It's not something lightly chosen like 'Shadow Hunter, because we have Trolls in the next expansion' or 'Blademaster, because we have a Japanese-inspired nation in mind'. There are plenty more factors to consider, wouldn't you agree?
Right, but they don't hate Pandaren either yet we clearly see them taking a back seat to the lore. We have to consider all the angles here.Right. But, you speak as you are some sort of their spokesman, in regards to opinions on the races and classes. I don't think they hate it as much as the playerbase does. They made it, themselves, after all.
Blizzard isn't bound to pleasing the fans. They have ultimate control of their designs, we are aware of this.
Yet Blizzard's aim is also to please the fans because ultimately that is what will bring them back and keep them in the game. And as we both recognize, something like the Pandarens was completely a shock and a gamechanger when it comes to making decisions on a whim. It's not going to be Heroes of the Storm level fanfare when they add a fan favourite like Hogger into the game that anyone can choose to love or hate. These decisions have lasting effects on the community, because the community is vocal and fickle and prone to *influencing others* in significant ways. Look at how the whole Classic situation was poorly dealt with prior to their ultimate decision to actually make a Classic WoW. The whole Nostalrius and 'You think you do but you don't' and everything else. Blizzard has ultimate control over their decisions, but they can't make them all in a vacuum where the fans don't matter.
We have to consider the ebb and flow of trends when considering these things.
We can talk about the possibilities of side adventure expansions like a Japanese themed expansion or an Australian themed expansion, and that's fine as discussion material. But if we're realistically talking about the merits of these ideas, then we have to consider that MoP and WoD were both highly criticized for being 'side adventures' that didn't feel like they moved the big-picture plot forward significantly. We haven't had a side adventure, light-hearted exploration expansion since MoP, and I don't think there is much interest in revisiting that type of expansion in the near or possible future, because it's garnered mixed results. People want an expansion that will have a direct connection to the greater 'Void Lords are a big threat' plotline. Even now, BFA and Shadowlands are both building up towards that even though we're dealing with different enemies on the way there. If we just consider a Japanese continent, what established lore connections are there to the bigger threat? I mean even with Pandaria having the Sha directly connected to an Old God, people didn't really see this expansion as being plot-relevant overall, it was still seen primarily as a side adventure.
When considering future expansions, we have to consider what people actually want to see. And you're right, Light vs Void is definitely front and center, though I personally think they will stretch it out as long as they can before we ultimately get there.
If we're talking Class identities, then Class Skin is part of that conversation.But, we're not talking class skins.
I mean, would you exclude Allied Races from new Race discussion? I wouldn't, because they are ultimately new Races.
Same thing when I talk about Class Skins. I'm not talking about a Warlock with a Necromancer transmog, I'm talking about a new Necromancer class that simply re-uses Warlock core gameplay. I'm talking about a new Blademaster class that uses Warrior core gameplay. These are independent identities.
I want to be clear that when I say Class Skin and use this term, I mean it as new individual Classes. These are not just 'Play a Warlock and retheme yourself with this fancy menu option'.
What does Wrathion have to do with Dragonmen? There's no connection there.Dragonman, perhaps?
I'm not asking about possibilities, I'm implying that we have no information or game hints we have for what Race he's representing in BFA alpha would have been. We could only assume it's dragon related, but to what extent we would be absolutely unsure.
And they're both Monks using Shaolin Monk inspired Martial Arts and Buddhist concepts of Chi. the D3 Monk's whole kit is still influenced by Chinese pop culture (martial arts movies, RPG archetypes etc). Zenyatta may be slightly more tuned towards the original Indian style buddhism, so I'll give you that, but Zenyatta has no real connection to either the D3 or Pandaren style Monk either so not quite sure why he's relevant to the discussion. He's more of an RPG Mystic, to be honest; the Spellcaster variety of Monk.Pretty sure Kharazim speaks in a russian accent, like the Draenei. And Zenyatta is said to be from Nepal.
Draenei Monks also speak in russian accents, right? They're still using Chinese influenced Martial Arts.
Yes, and the fel connection was directly implied to them being Demons.Like i told lelenia: This is an Eredar Warlock unit.
Look at Demon Hunters and the fel-green connection in WoW. Do you know what color flame Immolation is? It's red.
Do you know what color attack you get when you use Metamorphosis and demonic? Green flames.
The association made and implied in WC3 was that Demons use green flames, while if you're just demonically empowered like a Demon Hunter or Chaos Orc, you're still a mortal who uses Red colored flames. There was no direct correlation between the green color of "Fel" magic, since the term loosely applied to any and all dark magic. Warlock units at the time were not exclusive to using Fel magic, though an Eredar would be because they are themselves Demonic units.
TBC is when that changed, where they gave Blood Elves green eyes due to fel exposure and started to tie it in directly as being green colored magic in the Outland. Mists of Pandaria is when they officially allowed mortals to use Green flames and directly associated it as being Fel magic as it should have always been.
Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-09 at 11:48 PM.
Vanilla, expansion, doesn't matter.
I never claimed the Warcraft 3 demon hunter was based off HotS Illidan, so I don't know why you felt like pointing that out. It's an objectively absurd claim to make, too. I simply said that the WoW class has taken inspiration from HotS Illidan.HotS is based on the Warcraft 3 Hero. Not the other way around.
It doesn't matter that we don't know exactly from where the inspiration came from. It suffices to know it came from outside the Warcraft franchise.Monk's Mistweaver and Windwalker was, indeed, outsourced. You can't, really, tell me from where.
Again, it's an easy argument to say that the basis was not the WC3 unit.But the basis for the class was the Pandaren Brewmaster.
Except we're not talking about "basis" of the death knight class. We're talking about the class as a whole and how it has several different sources. It didn't came solely from the DK unit.Death Knight integrating different units into it is not a problem. In the end, it was based on the Death Knight Hero unit.
What do you mean by "added"?What you refer to here is what those classes are made of, instead of what classes have been added.
But we know that they don't have to be, thanks to the runemaster idea.At the end of the day, they are all WC3 Hero units.
Chen was never a monk in the lore until the MoP expansion came along and Blizzard retconed him into being a monk all along. Until then, he was just a brewmaster, seemingly no different than the dwarven brewmasters we meet during Brewfest.* Chen is a Pandaren Monk (Brewmaster). Not just a general Pandaren.
The Brewmaster spec tells you the same as the class' name.
Fel orcs are not demons. Man'ari are demons. And you haven't shown any orc, green, red, brown or whatever rainbow color, using fel magic and/or summoning demons prior to WoW.Demonic-corrupted race. Not an original one. Like Fel orcs. And they have no difference in Warlock from the Green orcs.
That's like saying elementals casting magic don't have to cast elemental magic. They're demons, their bodies are teeming with fel magic.And you can't just assume that it derives from them being demonic and not a Warlock. Because they have other classes. That doesn't mean they all use green fel fire.
Again: you haven't shown any orc being able to summon demons or use fel magic.It doesn't have to be azerothian. Draenei are not from azeroth. Neither are Orcs.
I don't disagree, though to be fair I felt the same way about Demon Hunters. I would much rather have something based around voodoo, which seems incredibly under represented in a playable form, considering how prevalent it is in the lore of a major race.
When it comes to Dark Rangers, the only real thing of note from my point of view comes when people say "Blizzard can't make a Dark Ranger class". They absolutely can. If somebody says "they shouldn't make a Dark Ranger class", that's a completely different argument and discussion, and honestly, a more interesting one.
Yes. It overlaps with the other 4 'dark' mage specs and death knights.And necromancer doesn't overlap?
Not that i dont want it added, but i dont think it needs to exist as a class, i dont think you could get 3 distinct specs out of it unless they did some nonsense like it having 4 specs based on each covenant.
I dont think we need 2 more dark caster specs, though i could see them easily adding a blood themed healing spec with bone shields and blood transference, and a baseline necro spec that we all expect with diseases and skeletons but not an unholy death knight...
Third spec could be something more akin to kel'thuzad with ice magic etc.
But there is overlap, a tinker could have a fresh kit with literally NOTHING from any other classes. I mean, the necromancer you could cobble together out of existing specs, tack frost mage, unholy DK but ranged and reskin disc priest red and bony and we have our necro, which id be cool with but there is still overlap.
Tinker could have 5 specs and still not touch a single thing any other class has. They could easily fulfill every role in the game, ranged physical 'engineer' spec with grenades, rockets, specialist weapons like a flamer or rapid fire machine gun, a caster spec with tesla coils, death rays, robo bobombs and utility belts, a healer spec either with healing drones or an apothecary style scientist, a tank mech driver, a melee 'iron man' kind of hero with tons of augments etc etc.
They could go in so many directions in so many ways and none of it would come close to any existing spec. I think i mentioned dragonsworn elsewhere but even that would only steal from existing specs.
So imo tinker is easily the best option for a new spec.
As for necro, i think they should develop a new class system entirely for one off spec classes and i have mentioned that elsewhere. I do think they should add in necromancer and dark ranger to the game, but i dont think they should be in the same class and i certainly dont think either is deserving of its own class.
I would also love to see thing's like mage knights, elemental specialists and almost every other magic/discipline option available
Which we, living mortals, are visiting? ✓
A Ranger is more than just shooting a bow. It uses minor nature magic, stealth (or camouflage), and melee combat with daggers/one handed-swords.
Races affiliated with that profession:
Blood elf, High elf, Night elf, Void elf, Human, Forsaken, Draenei, Pandaren.
No. They are former High elves. High elves have rangers. Void elves have Umbral Rangers."some dead elves are dark ranges, that mans void elves can be dark rangers, this is a grotesque example of fallacy
All undeads use a form of necromancy. Not all master it, like the necromancer. You can see it in the Touch of the Grave racial or the fact that undead used to create rot wherever they went (like in the cinematic).banshees are a form of undead not someone who dabble with necromancy, nonsensical
It makes sense lore-wise, unlike your liberty of giving all classes to every race.you think "because elves" is a better background of races dying being resurrected and trained as dark rangers? your bias have no limits
I guess you're right.
Finally.So doing more digging, I found that I was wrong about this assessment, and you are completely right about this connection.
I was unaware that they tied Rexxar completely into the Hunter lore in Legion, which is exactly what I was looking for to formally bridge the two concepts together.
Since Rexxar joined the Unseen Path in the war against the Legion and was referred in game text as 'one of the greatest hunters of his time', it's now clear to me that they do intend the Hunter class to unambiguously represent the Beastmaster.
Though, i expected someone as articulated as you to, already, be aware of it.
They aren't. But, Blizzard meant for them to imply on the class they are leaning towards. Otherwise, you'd have racial abilities from the Spiritwalker instead, for example.Er, that doesn't quite make sense to me. Why are you equating racials into this?
Does that mean my Dwarf Mage with Stoneform is a Mountain King then? My Tauren Priest with Warstomp is now a Chieftain? I don't understand this reasoning unless I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.
Stoneform and Warstomp racials are not exclusive to Warriors, so there's no real connection to bridge here. If all Tauren get Warstomp, then it's implied that the Chieftain's ability in WC3 is actually an ability that is inherent to all Tauren.
Everyone is prone to error.But you are still prone to human error, which is what I'm pointing out.
Do I like Tinkers or believe in Tinkers? No, not particularly so. I am using in-game hints as well to conclude that they have the highest possibility of being playable.
Do I like Dragonsworn or believe in Dragonsworn? I like the concept, but I don't entirely believe in it either since I regard it in the same 'Name on a list' potential that the Runemaster had in Wrath. I've clearly explained all the in-game hints that lead to the possibility, even if it also equally points to a new Race or Covenant. It's the same path that they all take just like if we were talking about how Monks and Pandaren could be added to the game, there's no one path that says we could only get one Chinese-culturally inspired Race OR Class just because the pattern that came before was an expansion adding one or the other.
And this plays into the human error of applying patterns into the discussion, like implying that Warcraft 3 Heroes will be the main or only picks. It doesn't take into account that those patterns always change (like every second expansion gives us a Class, or any expansion with a new Class can't have a new Race). We're all prone to our own subjective biases.
Which is why I choose not to prop my own theories as arguments *against* anyone else's ideas. That I've mentioned Tinkers and Dragonsworn and explained my reasoning is *solely* because you asked for my opinion on the matter, not because I'm trying to convince anyone else of my personal reasons.
For example, i tried to predict the expansion after BFA and failed miserably. I thought it was going to be Light vs. Void, based on my analysis of cinematic trailers and last raids. Yet, it is not off the table. So, while we can all give up and claim everything is fair and square in class additions, i'd rather use my methods of prediction. Otherwise, there's not, really, much fun in that.
Well, you're right. But, i didn't just come up with it. The Korthia connection to Kur is mentioned in two WoWpedia pages.Well, why should I think it has to be obscure either?
I mean, you're talking about your own personal theory on the matter which is absolutely questionable, and based on the comments of your own thread, fairly contestable. How many people actually agree with your theory, have you considered that before jumping in to defend it? Sometimes we blind ourselves in thinking our theories are right because we go on defense mode and stop taking an objective approach. I admit I am the same way, and I've reacted the same way in assessing the Beastmaster. Once I dug deep enough, I found I was wrong, and I can at least admit my faults in that.
If I have an idea to propose, I try not to commit myself to the idea before I present it publicly. I throw it out there, and I purposely try to distance myself from my own idea and see how people react. If someone doesn't understand it, I will try to explain, but otherwise I will try and hold back from actually *defending* the idea, since I'm comfortable knowing that people can have different opinions. It's best to take an objective approach, otherwise we're going to be blinding ourselves to facts as we see some people in this forum already doing.
We have to be open to the possibilities that we are wrong.
Then, i guess we can come to the conclusion that WoW players are toxic (and even some people here )All I have to respond is anecdotal, but as a long-term fan of Warcraft since WC2, and as someone who pays close attention to the community reactions of certain things... no, I would say there has been no vocal community hate towards Pandaren prior to Mists of Pandaria. Whatever 'pocket discrimination' was present, it certainly never made itself public any time before MoP. Even in discussions where people talk about playable Pandaren, you don't hear anyone speak up against it saying it'd be stupid or terrible. Remember, Pandaren were actually praised when they were an April Fools joke in Vanilla WC3, which is the reason why the Brewmaster was even made. The most controversy that the Pandaren ever had in the community was when Blizzard originally designed the Brewmaster with Japanese armor and weaponry instead of Chinese, which was considered cultural misappropriation. Otherwise, I personally did not see any significant hate of the level that Mists of Pandaria brought out. It was eye opening to me.
And truth be told, I saw zero Gnome hate until WoW as well. I heard zero complaints about Gnomes being in Warcraft 2, but once they were made playable in WoW, it was all out there front and center.
Visuals are a fair argument.Anecdotally speaking, I think 80% of the people in my small guild (~25 people) vocally expressed a dislike of Gnomes, with maybe 30% openly expressing it any time they could. When asked about the reasons, it ranged from the SD proportions making them look like freaky muppets, or the 4 fingers making them look deformed, or the 'stupid faces'. It never really bothered me, but I do fully acknowledge that it does bother others, even if it's just a general 'dislike' and not a full on mouth-frothing hatred.
But, they're more than just disfigured creatures. They're a uniquely technological race.
Well, it was the case up until Shadowlands.Right, I agree. It's a monumental task.
Which also implies it's a big decision in choosing what class concept deserves the focus of all their time and effort. It's not something lightly chosen like 'Shadow Hunter, because we have Trolls in the next expansion' or 'Blademaster, because we have a Japanese-inspired nation in mind'. There are plenty more factors to consider, wouldn't you agree?
From what i know, they considered the neutrality of Pandaren a failure. The theme of the expansion and race was deemed as too light-hearted by the playerbase, so i can only guess they took note of that.Right, but they don't hate Pandaren either yet we clearly see them taking a back seat to the lore. We have to consider all the angles here.
Blizzard isn't bound to pleasing the fans. They have ultimate control of their designs, we are aware of this.
Yet Blizzard's aim is also to please the fans because ultimately that is what will bring them back and keep them in the game. And as we both recognize, something like the Pandarens was completely a shock and a gamechanger when it comes to making decisions on a whim. It's not going to be Heroes of the Storm level fanfare when they add a fan favourite like Hogger into the game that anyone can choose to love or hate. These decisions have lasting effects on the community, because the community is vocal and fickle and prone to *influencing others* in significant ways. Look at how the whole Classic situation was poorly dealt with prior to their ultimate decision to actually make a Classic WoW. The whole Nostalrius and 'You think you do but you don't' and everything else. Blizzard has ultimate control over their decisions, but they can't make them all in a vacuum where the fans don't matter.
We have to consider the ebb and flow of trends when considering these things.
We can talk about the possibilities of side adventure expansions like a Japanese themed expansion or an Australian themed expansion, and that's fine as discussion material. But if we're realistically talking about the merits of these ideas, then we have to consider that MoP and WoD were both highly criticized for being 'side adventures' that didn't feel like they moved the big-picture plot forward significantly. We haven't had a side adventure, light-hearted exploration expansion since MoP, and I don't think there is much interest in revisiting that type of expansion in the near or possible future, because it's garnered mixed results. People want an expansion that will have a direct connection to the greater 'Void Lords are a big threat' plotline. Even now, BFA and Shadowlands are both building up towards that even though we're dealing with different enemies on the way there. If we just consider a Japanese continent, what established lore connections are there to the bigger threat? I mean even with Pandaria having the Sha directly connected to an Old God, people didn't really see this expansion as being plot-relevant overall, it was still seen primarily as a side adventure.
When considering future expansions, we have to consider what people actually want to see. And you're right, Light vs Void is definitely front and center, though I personally think they will stretch it out as long as they can before we ultimately get there.
I don't know how many world-threat expansions they can come up with, though.
As for the cosmic scale, i can't really associate a Blademaster with any of them. I can only tie it to the Dragonman Samurai concept they had made a long time ago, possibly connecting it to a Dragon expansion.
Oh. Because that sounded more like customization options than Allied races.If we're talking Class identities, then Class Skin is part of that conversation.
I mean, would you exclude Allied Races from new Race discussion? I wouldn't, because they are ultimately new Races.
Same thing when I talk about Class Skins. I'm not talking about a Warlock with a Necromancer transmog, I'm talking about a new Necromancer class that simply re-uses Warlock core gameplay. I'm talking about a new Blademaster class that uses Warrior core gameplay. These are independent identities.
I want to be clear that when I say Class Skin and use this term, I mean it as new individual Classes. These are not just 'Play a Warlock and retheme yourself with this fancy menu option'.
Though, i don't know how much people want to repeat the gameplay of existing classes.
Because that's the only dragon option available, and he's a dragon, after all.What does Wrathion have to do with Dragonmen? There's no connection there.
I'm not asking about possibilities, I'm implying that we have no information or game hints we have for what Race he's representing in BFA alpha would have been. We could only assume it's dragon related, but to what extent we would be absolutely unsure.
He's somewhat based on the Monk character of Diablo 3. Look at his garment, beads, dots on the head and light-based abilities.And they're both Monks using Shaolin Monk inspired Martial Arts and Buddhist concepts of Chi. the D3 Monk's whole kit is still influenced by Chinese pop culture (martial arts movies, RPG archetypes etc). Zenyatta may be slightly more tuned towards the original Indian style buddhism, so I'll give you that, but Zenyatta has no real connection to either the D3 or Pandaren style Monk either so not quite sure why he's relevant to the discussion. He's more of an RPG Mystic, to be honest; the Spellcaster variety of Monk.
Draenei Monks also speak in russian accents, right? They're still using Chinese influenced Martial Arts.
Well, Draenei Monks before Mists of Pandaria were Auchenai. A different breed of Monks. Like Humans Scarlet Monastery ones.
I'm saying, they never took the clothing, the dots on the head, the light-based attacks and applied it to the Monk in WoW.
"Kil'jaeden taught the orcs the secrets of warlock magics, but the orcs could never master the powers of entropy and destruction as well as the wicked eredar."Yes, and the fel connection was directly implied to them being Demons.
Look at Demon Hunters and the fel-green connection in WoW. Do you know what color flame Immolation is? It's red.
Do you know what color attack you get when you use Metamorphosis and demonic? Green flames.
The association made and implied in WC3 was that Demons use green flames, while if you're just demonically empowered like a Demon Hunter or Chaos Orc, you're still a mortal who uses Red colored flames. There was no direct correlation between the green color of "Fel" magic, since the term loosely applied to any and all dark magic. Warlock units at the time were not exclusive to using Fel magic, though an Eredar would be because they are themselves Demonic units.
TBC is when that changed, where they gave Blood Elves green eyes due to fel exposure and started to tie it in directly as being green colored magic in the Outland. Mists of Pandaria is when they officially allowed mortals to use Green flames and directly associated it as being Fel magic as it should have always been.
Does so.
You can't correlate Vanilla classes to WC3 Heroes as well as expansion ones.
Which, in turn, is based on the WC3 Hero unit.I never claimed the Warcraft 3 demon hunter was based off HotS Illidan, so I don't know why you felt like pointing that out. It's an objectively absurd claim to make, too. I simply said that the WoW class has taken inspiration from HotS Illidan.
It does. Because i can point out to where they pull out classes from.It doesn't matter that we don't know exactly from where the inspiration came from. It suffices to know it came from outside the Warcraft franchise.
Nonetheless, the point is that they used the Brewmaster as a basis, and had to invent more for it to encompass more specs than 1.
Then, you have to back it up.Again, it's an easy argument to say that the basis was not the WC3 unit.
Because, as far as i know, the Monk class is based, exclusively, on the Pandaren. Which, was only Chen the Brewmaster back then.
They didn't use the others as a basis for the class. It is still based on the horse-riding knight of Death that is Arthas. It wasn't the Lich that was introduced, nor the dreadlord. Integrating is natural, and very obvious. Like combining the Witch Doctor with the Shadow Hunter, Archer and Huntress with the Priestess of the Moon, Banshee with the Dark Ranger, Naga Siren for Naga Sea Witch and so on. The class would still be based on the Hero one.Except we're not talking about "basis" of the death knight class. We're talking about the class as a whole and how it has several different sources. It didn't came solely from the DK unit.
The Death Knight. Not the Lich, nor the Dreadlord. Not the Ghoul, nor the Gargoyle. It is a Death Knight.What do you mean by "added"?
Consideration does not guarantee addition. In the end, it failed to classes like the Death Knight and was integrated into it and into the Monk. So, you have to see the bigger picture as to what classes end up being added.But we know that they don't have to be, thanks to the runemaster idea.
Wrong. You did the same mistake as Te riz did back then. The Dwarven Brewmaster creates brews, like the cooking profession. The Pandaren Brewmaster is unique, in the sense that he does not just make brews, like the others, but combines it with martial arts. Go check the lore.Chen was never a monk in the lore until the MoP expansion came along and Blizzard retconed him into being a monk all along. Until then, he was just a brewmaster, seemingly no different than the dwarven brewmasters we meet during Brewfest.
"Kil'jaeden taught the orcs the secrets of warlock magics, but the orcs could never master the powers of entropy and destruction as well as the wicked eredar."Fel orcs are not demons. Man'ari are demons. And you haven't shown any orc, green, red, brown or whatever rainbow color, using fel magic and/or summoning demons prior to WoW.
Then, there wouldn't be a need to call them Warlocks. Just name them Eredar.That's like saying elementals casting magic don't have to cast elemental magic. They're demons, their bodies are teeming with fel magic.
Warcraft I description:Again: you haven't shown any orc being able to summon demons or use fel magic.
"Spells that channel the fire and brimstone of hell through their bodies, or can summon forth great creatures - even daemons - are theirs to use."
If you'd know more about lore, you'd know the Horde used to employ many demons with the help of their Warlocks:
Led by Gul'dan
Daemon - These dreaded hell spawns were summoned by the warlocks of the Shadow Council to do their bidding.
Demons - Many members of the Dark Horde practice demon worship and summon imps, felhounds, and felguards to their aid.
I agree with that.
The only thing i see viable is the apothecary, which would be integrated into an Alchemist.
Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-10 at 08:37 AM.
apothecary healer would be awesome but would need to be tied to a class in the current system so suffers the same issues as dark ranger or shadow hunter (being one spec wonders)
Would fit well into a tinker class that is based around technology. Its probably its only hope of being added imo.
If they didn't do Necromancer in Shadowlands fam I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Paladin Bash has spoken.
Give it another 10 years when we get the next cash-in death expansion, maybe then with the actual scourge again. Nothing in WoW is asured btw, everytime a large part of the dev team changes, so will the overall approach to the game's design. Even if the current team is not eager to implement something right now, down the line that might actually change. Maybe there will be a time when everything goes, even classes that barely offer anything over existing classes/specs.
Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2021-04-10 at 10:37 AM.
You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.
once again, a necromancer play with the bodies of dead people, while the shadowlands is where the soul of dead people go... really not the same
Never said it would be a healer. You know, plague and blight are more damage dealing than anything.
Though, i can see the Alchemist as part of the Tinker.
You mean race?
Because they're, basically, a blood-elven vampire, when you have a true Vampire race.
You want San'layn?