You don’t know how strong a gnomes bones are. Must be pretty hard to hold up that funko-esque head.
Warrior is about martial prowess and skill, not necessarily strength. Gnomes are very nimble and able to manoeuvre around an opponent quite easily. Obviously the game doesn’t represent this, but generally speaking they tank by barely getting hit due to their size, but you can’t balance classes to function differently across races like that. So as far as the game shows us, you simply facetank. I mean this this implausible already. I don’t care how strong a tauren is, taking a direct melee blow to the front from a dragon which you don’t block would likely kill you outright, yet there your character stands, time and time again getting hit by weapons the size of skyscrapers and just standing their going “oof” like a fly buzzed near their ear.
Vulpera show they have a clear martial bent in voldun, and goblins are stipulated to be immensely strong for their relative size, it’s why they do the vast majority of the hordes odd jobs and manual labour.
There’s no good reason why any wow race can’t be a warrior, given no wow races are pacifists. There is a huge difference between this and say gnome druids.
Warriors only require a race to invest in some form of armed combat. It can be formal, informal, trained or otherwise. Very low threshold for selection.
Druids imply a connection to nature, acknowledgment/reverence of wild gods/Loa and cultural ideas that are about preservation of the natural. Gnomes can feasibly have the last, but they certainly do not have the prior two.
Same for belf. A botanist growing plants for study is not equal to a druid, even if the game gives them druid abilities. Belf tend nature with arcane and look after their forests but they do not revere natural spirits or wild gods which is a pretty fundemental part of druidism in Warcraft given its what connects them to the Emerald Dream.
2 Likes
You know what breaks my immersion?
People complaining about their ‘‘imerzun brkzn’’ over petty 
1 Like
I disagree and I feel like this is an arguement being blown out of proportion to make it match with your suggestion to make your suggestion sound more relateable and less whacky from a lore perspective
“You know it sucks that this house is burning but you know what could make it better?
More fire”
It’s more like “The house has already crumbled, might as well give it some new foundations instead of hoping it’ll stay up right if we ever get around to rebuilding it”.
1 Like
But actually it’ll remove all flavor and ruin the game even more.
Player Expression/Freedom>“Flavor”
1 Like
I would question the basis on which the assumption “the house is already burning” is being made? Its pretty difficult to suggest lore has been “broken” when we’re outsiders looking into the work of those who have the narrative pieces.
Us disagreeing with direction lore takes does not make it broken. To even begin to make such an assertion you’d need to be able to identify an objective “lore” that stands as a marker that all players agree on as this golden standard, and that the writers have deviated from it enough to warrant the claim.
Good luck with that.
1 Like
I am very smart. 
Good for you!
Excuse me sir, but this is bullcrap.
2 Likes
So you argue that the lore doesn’t matter, yet you use lore to argue a point when it suits you, but state lore as moot whenever someone uses it to disagree with you?
Did you work on the leave campaign or something?
1 Like
Where am I saying lore matters? It honestly doesn’t anymore. In what you quoted I’m directly saying lore doesn’t matter anymore. Same as in my OP.
You’ve cited lore previously haven’t you? I do apologise, I might be confusing you with another person on this thread.
But the idea of “the lore is screwed up, let’s screw it up further” seems a little counterintuitive to me.
Okay. Point to me where you can objectively identify what about the upcoming customisations has “broken the lore” seeing as this is what started this.
There are few examples in wow lore we can say yes it happened to, because the writers themselves confirmed it, which is my point. Authors determine whether something is a retcon or break, not consumers of that lore.
It’s less about screwing it up further and more about trying to stop using it as an excuse to not let people play what they want to play.
I’m at the stage here personally, while the lore can get worse, that’s not really going to change much thanks to the state it’s already in. Improving player expression and choice is now worth the cost of a bit more lore buggery.
3 Likes
I’m more speaking about your comment that we, common mortals, can’t know if the god-like story writers retcon something.
Especially considering that what is asked here won’t even affect the lore at all since the player is just one character and not a collective.
1 Like
I’m all for more combos if we can get some decent lore for them, but I think lifting restrictions completely would be a odd. If Blizzard were to come up with a somewhat watertight reason why x race can now be y class all would be fine and dandy, but I doubt they have that finesse left.
Pretty much. it’s a minor sacrifice for a lore that’s already beyond damaged thanks to retconning and inconsistency.
Most of these restrictions don’t even make sense lorewise to begin with.
Human Shaman/Druids already exist thanks to Kul Tirans.
Orc Priests already exist via Mag’har.
Zandalari have Warlock lore AND plenty of other Trolls us that magic.
Anyone can learn to be any class. We already have a Night Elf who learned to be a Paladin.
If Blizzard really wanted to pretend they still cared about lore they could always add class ‘skins’ to justify things like Void Elf Paladins. (Or just limit them to using the blood elf skins they’re getting).
3 Likes