Loldodging?

Take them in chronological order and have them smack eachother, lol.

Also, what Adry said.

I want to see a squadron of 20ft leaping Warriors IC now.

And I think it's just the age old difference where some people take everything in game IC and other's don't. We've all seen the conversation enough times.

Also @Tnecniw I wouldn't name drop on the forums, it's a bad habit.

I just go by that the class abilities are built around gameplay mechanics, not storytelling.

Anyway, the point that I was getting it wasn't about which classes are more powerful than which other classes. That's a trivial argument, of course there are circumstances where things change. Further, lore characters soloing dragons is irrelevant, Varian is a mary sue - lots of major lore characters are overpowered in this way. You are free to disagree with my assessment there, but I'm just not a fan of the ridiculous antics of many major lore characters.

I'm trying to speak from a realistic interpretation of the fantasy world. Using IRL physics in relation to armour (the point I made about plate) to try and tease out some more interesting a realistic roleplay from the 'classes' in WoW.
The classes themselves are capable of some absurd feats, you are correct. Hunters taming wild animals in a matter of seconds, for instance. But I think it is important to try to separate out the stupid extremes of game mechanic (a human warrior in full plate jumping 20ft) from a more realistic interpretation of what our characters can do IC.

Why? this is WoW we're talking about, nothing in this universe comes remotely close to realistic. Just because you're not a fan of the antics of major lore characters, doesn't make it not the lore. Its freaking canon.

Imagine all of us playing warriors IC that jump 20ft in plate armour and make the ground tremble when we land.

It's the exact same reason that we don't all claim to have killed the Lich King. It would be utterly ridiculous.

You're nothing without me Maiev..

And really there is no point this conversation going on again, people will never agree xD

indeed... it all depends on the character itself. (THOUGH I am damn tired of people that insist on having 18-20 year old masters of something.)

Amaryl wrote:Why? this is WoW we're talking about, nothing in this universe comes remotely close to realistic. Just because you're not a fan of the antics of major lore characters, doesn't make it not the lore. Its freaking canon.

Without air a living being will die <- Sounds pretty realistic.

But the endless discussion of trying to actually set and enforce lines between realism, fantasy and game mechanics is one I've seen a bilion times already.

And really there is no point this conversation going on again, people will never agree xD

Pretty much this.

I'm not the one that said:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And 2. To remain within the constraints of the game world and lore universe; because if my Blackrock Mountain is your Mount Doom, our interactions are entirelly meaningless. Lore gives context and context is not just important but necessary.

Swan Emperor Arenfel wrote:

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:Also on the warrior vs DK thing, let's not forget that Varian (a warrior) soloed Onyxia. If he can do that, then my guy can stand up to a death knight.

Please don't be Christ Metzen.

The guy is literally God when it comes to warcraft lore. He decides what goes and what doesn't. If you want to argue what can and can't happen in Warcraft, his word is final. There's no selectively picking out bits of lore too dumb to acknowledge. Either you acknowledge all of it as legitimate unless otherwise stated by Blizzard, or you admit that the rules of the universe don't concern you. If you go by the latter, there's no basis to say anything. The universe will have no rules except the ones defined by the individual player and thus I can RP a 5 year old kid who can take on a death knight if I feel like it.

But saying that warriors can't take on death knights but then refusing that varian took on a fucking black dragon matriarch is hypocritical. I will, however, for some goodwill, provide different examples.

Grom took on Cenarius. Muradin Bronzebeard took on one of those huge worms while heavily fatiqued. Garrosh Hellscream took on black dragons in the Twilight Highlands intro. Broxigar took on enough demons that their corpses formed a mountain from which he launched himself and wounded Sargeras. Grom took on Mannoroth (Thrall was knocked out of the fight so it's at least worth mentioning here)

There's simply no lore that supports the allegation that you can't stand up to a DK 1v1. Illidan stood up to Arthas. Not, you may make the point that Illidan was really fucking powerful, but Arthas was literally the most powerful Death Knight to ever... Live? If a mortal can stand up to them (even if they lose. He was a match for Arthas) then a normal warrior can stand up to a normal death knight.

But I think it is important to try to separate out the stupid extremes of game mechanic (a human warrior in full plate jumping 20ft) from a more realistic interpretation of what our characters can do IC.

You can't make realism an authority over in-universe rules and canon in a world where you can be a mage that produces fire from your hands. If everything was realistic, warriors would be required to bend over any time somebody wanted to fight, because they have nothing going for them. Except maybe against rogues. Do you know how hot metal gets when you put fire to it? A fire mage wouldn't even have to hit the warrior. Just heat up his armor and he'll die from dehydration.

RL logic is useful when it's not conflicting with in-universe rules. In a given universe, the rules dictated by the creator of the universe must always take precedence over any notion of real life logic. WoW is not real life, and azeroth does not abide by the same laws of physics that earth does.

Amaryl wrote:I'm not the one that said:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And 2. To remain within the constraints of the game world and lore universe; because if my Blackrock Mountain is your Mount Doom, our interactions are entirelly meaningless. Lore gives context and context is not just important but necessary.

I never said that it wasn't the lore because I don't like it, nor did I say that I would ignore it. The point that I was making was that you need to balance game mechanic with realism. The character creation screen classes, in lore, are heroes - they are not normal people by any standards and are just as overpowered as many major lore characters. The Hunter/DK/Warr you create on the creation screen, in game mechanic, is the same guy who is a Commander in Draenor and who participated in the deaths of Illidan, the Lich King, Deathwing and so on. - This is an inevitable conclusion if you follow the storytelling and game mechanic of the game (its quests, raids, and so on).

This is not the way we roleplay our characters? Why? Because it would be stupid, and ridiculous. That is the point that I was making in trying to discuss the balance of game mechanic/storytelling and realism. That is why we need realism, because the alternative (following everything to its logical conclusion) creates a ridiculous world where everyone is a special snowflake and roleplay would be both boring and absurd.

One point that I wish to make, because I can feel this getting heated.

I like all of you guys and gals that I am arguing with. I think you're all good RPers, and nice people, and I respect your opinions. A few of you have even changed my mind in previous debates; these discussions make us all better, they develop our arguments and so on. Don't take my heated comments as personal. You're all great people, and I always look forward to RPing or discussing RP with you. <3

Of course not everyone is Varrian or a commander or super elite brofistpowerguy.

If I look at the classes we have at the -you choose class lvl your guy up, fight all the things and get all the loot- I do see them being very powerful X group of adventurers (or whatever some are).

But I also see and get that a lot of the classes are a "general" mix up of various things fround in lore or taken from DnD. Besides things with full set in stone things like Paladin or Shaman, DK or whatever things like warriors, rogues and some others tend to be a mix of stuff.

An example for Warriors is thunderclap and stormthingie hammer. Those abilities are a thing that a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has and yes those aren't your ordinary grunts and they also aren't by themselves the class you pick on your screen.

Yes some lore characters are uber strong, yes the guy you pick on the screen are uber strong (Unless you suck at the game or Blizzard nerfed your ass). But you yourself can still RP a strong guy, a pretty strong guy.

And no not everyone wants to RP the strong guy, someone wants the slightly strong, someone wants to be the fun guy, another the full on civilian. How you plan to do that? That's another thing but nothing says it's impossible many even seemingly insignificant characters or even NPCs manage to do something and not all of them are equal in power either.

And anyway not all DKs / Palas / Shamans etc. are all the same power. There is various influences, factors that make one improve or get stronger, wiser... I don't know stupider? And a lot of the time it's not a 1v1 brawl where only strenght matters and he has X and Y or the favor of green jesus! (Ok that last one may actually be a thing becouse ya know. Green jesus)

In short though. I see classes as just a generalization. I take game mechanics for fun, but I do regard them with some thought as not all things were shoved up into 1s and 0s just becouse, but can make sense that one time in some way with a little bit of your own explanation or something. I like lore too, yes sometimes with a side of salt and mash potatoes.

BUT DARN IT IS POTATOES IF I WANTED TOMATOS I'D HAVE MADE A SALAD!

Now gosh darn it hand me some popcorn so I can cook them over this heated thread. And some butter.

I wonder if anyone takes class balance patches IC. Fire mages everywhere lament.

Anivitas wrote:I wonder if anyone takes class balance patches IC. Fire mages everywhere lament.

If that were true we wouldn't see many Shadow Priests around, and Shamans would be partnering up with Warlocks.

Vaell wrote:Skaraa, I don't know where you got your lore sources from, but they're wrong lol.

If someone role-plays an actual WoW warrior or hunter from the character creation screen, they can easily stand toe to toe with a DK. There's nothing that says otherwise. A warrior in WoW lore can go berserker, is super strong, can leap 20ft and cause the ground to tremble when he slams it.

No.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:Illidan stood up to Arthas. Not, you may make the point that Illidan was really fucking powerful, but Arthas was literally the most powerful Death Knight to ever... Live? If a mortal can stand up to them (even if they lose. He was a match for Arthas) then a normal warrior can stand up to a normal death knight.

Arthas was severly weakened at that point however as a result to the damages caused to the frozen throne throughout the undead campaign of the expansion.
Him getting weaker was actually a very central story-point!

And Illidan was a demon at that stage. Not a normal person, not even technically mortal as far as I can tell. He already had the Skull of Guldan. If I remember rightly.

I stand corrected, I was thinking of their fight at the frozen throne. Ignore my above comment, I was wrong.

I guess there is only one way to settle this...

Spoiler:

siegmund wrote:I guess there is only one way to settle this...

Spoiler:

Hahaha.

Ralegh wrote:

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:Illidan stood up to Arthas. Not, you may make the point that Illidan was really fucking powerful, but Arthas was literally the most powerful Death Knight to ever... Live? If a mortal can stand up to them (even if they lose. He was a match for Arthas) then a normal warrior can stand up to a normal death knight.

Arthas was severly weakened at that point however as a result to the damages caused to the frozen throne throughout the undead campaign of the expansion.
Him getting weaker was actually a very central story-point!

You sure you're not thinking of the end mission of the Frozen Throne? I'm talking about their duel in Felwood where they broke even until one of them retreated.

Lexgrad wrote:

Vaell wrote:Skaraa, I don't know where you got your lore sources from, but they're wrong lol.

If someone role-plays an actual WoW warrior or hunter from the character creation screen, they can easily stand toe to toe with a DK. There's nothing that says otherwise. A warrior in WoW lore can go berserker, is super strong, can leap 20ft and cause the ground to tremble when he slams it.

No.

No offence dude, but you've continuously shown a bias toward DKs since you first started on the forum. I'd sooner ask a trial account player with 2 hours played time as a Goblin Shaman about WoW lore before coming to you.

Lexgrad wrote:

Vaell wrote:Skaraa, I don't know where you got your lore sources from, but they're wrong lol.

If someone role-plays an actual WoW warrior or hunter from the character creation screen, they can easily stand toe to toe with a DK. There's nothing that says otherwise. A warrior in WoW lore can go berserker, is super strong, can leap 20ft and cause the ground to tremble when he slams it.

No.

So it's totally fine for a DK to use Paladin spells when portrayed by the master of lore that is yourself, but other classes aren't allowed to use their own spells? As long as you say that, your entire argument is entirely moot. You have succeeded in changing my mind of one thing at least. Previously I wasnt entirely sure you were stupid.