Ferocious howl is similar to shield block. But both warrior and druid do armor. Curse of weakness well yeah similar to pint-sized potion, but flavor wise it is ok in warlock.
Weirdest ones are all the hand buffs in warlock... Why is THAT a warlock thing now?
Ferocious howl is similar to shield block. But both warrior and druid do armor. Curse of weakness well yeah similar to pint-sized potion, but flavor wise it is ok in warlock.
Weirdest ones are all the hand buffs in warlock... Why is THAT a warlock thing now?
I mean, Keleseth made deck buffing pretty affordable as a deal.
Keleseth is neutral so it is fine... I am talking soul infusion and spirit of the bat here
I mean, they had minion buffing in the Classic set. Demon specific thing. Soul Infusion feels warlockish. Same goes for Spirit of the Bat. It was designed with Zoo in mind.
I don't think they are out of place.
Cards that feel out of place are, to me, Hero Cards being released in some classes but not all. Zul'Jin, Hagatha, Dr. Boom the brilliant scientific mind that ruined our turn 7. These are the only real offender, I feel unfair for other classes not getting these. I sure hope they'll give the six other classes at least another Hero card before giving another gift to the three mentioned before.
I agree with Trimutius, handbuffs feel super awkward as a Warlock theme. They should've sticked with buffing their Demons on the board. Even minion buffs in general should be more of a Priest or a Paladin thing.
Speaking of other cards that dilute class identities, Gilded Gargoyle should've been a Rogue card. I don't think there is any logic behind giving it to Priest. And there are many more misplaced cards, especially in recent sets.
I always thought it was weird that so many other classes got transform hero effects, but never druid until the deathknight (and even then it hasn't had a follow hero card like warrior, shaman, and hunter). Druid's shapeshifting/versatility were core elements in WoW and they tried to bring that along here with other mechanics, but it always struck me as a missed opportunity to not include more from WoW.
Mechano-Egg, why is this a Paladin card? The Deathrattle classes are Rogue, Priest and Hunter. For Paladin the card is extremely vulnerable to Silence because they have no way to either trigger the Deathrattle (Rogue, Hunter) or make copies of it (Priest) so that one Silence won't ruin them all.
Mechano-Egg, why is this a Paladin card? The Deathrattle classes are Rogue, Priest and Hunter. For Paladin the card is extremely vulnerable to Silence because they have no way to either trigger the Deathrattle (Rogue, Hunter) or make copies of it (Priest) so that one Silence won't ruin them all.
I can only assume it's part of the buff mechanic of Paladin, and 'fit's in with that.
The name is pretty important in defining what is appropriate: if the effect fits the description implied by the name, and the name fits the class, then the card is appropriate for the class.
As for me, what i always considered out of place are Jade Golem and Jade Behemoth in Druid. Animated stone statues don't fit Druid, IMO. They should have been Treants or Beasts or Elementals or something (even with the same mechanic). But not stone statues.
The name is pretty important in defining what is appropriate: if the effect fits the description implied by the name, and the name fits the class, then the card is appropriate for the class.
As for me, what i always considered out of place are Jade Golem and Jade Behemoth in Druid. Animated stone statues don't fit Druid, IMO. They should have been Treants or Beasts or Elementals or something (even with the same mechanic). But not stone statues.
You need to take into account the flavor of the class within the expansion. For instance, Druids in Gadgetzan were more or less inspired by Eastern philosophers and mistics (while Rogues were ninjas and Shamans were more or less monks). Within that context, statues are kinda fitting.
There are some different ways to look at this. One important point would be to create an epistemological stability around what "makes a card the card that it is." Is it its name? What it does? Its art? From purely a game design perspective it ought to be all the text on the card besides its name. From an art direction perspective, something I believe is just as important, its the unification of that mechanical text, the name, the art, and hopefully the class.
I'm going to posit that a card isn't purely the text that is on it, nor can the art and name supersede that. I believe it is the combination of those elements. However, I do believe it is the case that if we are to look closely at some of the cards name checked in this thread, we will find that from a pure design perspective (artless/nameless), what class those cards would seem to be in and their realities are juxtaposed. It's easy for the flavor of a card to hide that Hearthstone's class identities seem to be a little loose, that's why I think the artless/nameless thought experiment is valuable. I believe that cards like Ferocious Howl, Curse of Weakness, Anyfin Can Happen, and Gilded Gargoyle are prime examples of cards with pretty much unified and appropriate art direction, but mechanically are class-shifted.
The name is pretty important in defining what is appropriate: if the effect fits the description implied by the name, and the name fits the class, then the card is appropriate for the class.
As for me, what i always considered out of place are Jade Golem and Jade Behemoth in Druid. Animated stone statues don't fit Druid, IMO. They should have been Treants or Beasts or Elementals or something (even with the same mechanic). But not stone statues.
You need to take into account the flavor of the class within the expansion. For instance, Druids in Gadgetzan were more or less inspired by Eastern philosophers and mistics (while Rogues were ninjas and Shamans were more or less monks). Within that context, statues are kinda fitting.
Not really, imo. A Druid stays a Druid.
It's ok to have eg Jade Idols, oriental flavour, druidic stones with symbols and stuff, Zen gardens, why not lotuses?
But living statues in Druid make no sense to me, no matter what.
Ever felt that some cards belong in different classes than where they are (effect/flavour wise)?
For example i think ferocious howl belongs to Warrior and curse of weakness (maybe with a different name) Is way more of a Priest card
I'm not trying to complain or anything, i Just wanna know what you think of my examples and if you think I missed some other cards
Ferocious howl is similar to shield block. But both warrior and druid do armor. Curse of weakness well yeah similar to pint-sized potion, but flavor wise it is ok in warlock.
Weirdest ones are all the hand buffs in warlock... Why is THAT a warlock thing now?
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist. ©Trimutius
I mean, Keleseth made deck buffing pretty affordable as a deal.
Keleseth is neutral so it is fine... I am talking soul infusion and spirit of the bat here
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist. ©Trimutius
I mean, they had minion buffing in the Classic set. Demon specific thing. Soul Infusion feels warlockish. Same goes for Spirit of the Bat. It was designed with Zoo in mind.
I don't think they are out of place.
Cards that feel out of place are, to me, Hero Cards being released in some classes but not all. Zul'Jin, Hagatha, Dr. Boom the brilliant scientific mind that ruined our turn 7. These are the only real offender, I feel unfair for other classes not getting these. I sure hope they'll give the six other classes at least another Hero card before giving another gift to the three mentioned before.
I agree with Trimutius, handbuffs feel super awkward as a Warlock theme. They should've sticked with buffing their Demons on the board. Even minion buffs in general should be more of a Priest or a Paladin thing.
Speaking of other cards that dilute class identities, Gilded Gargoyle should've been a Rogue card. I don't think there is any logic behind giving it to Priest. And there are many more misplaced cards, especially in recent sets.
Murlocs in paladin, made me quit the class when they introduced Murloc Knight years ago.
Curse of Weakness is a warlock spell from World of Warcraft, so don't see a problem here.
As for ferocious howl, the name and art work fit druid, the effect is more warrior-like, I agree.
At least Murloc Knight made sense as a Paladin card.
But then things like Anyfin Can Happen or Grimscale Chum ruined the class flavor a little bit.
I always thought it was weird that so many other classes got transform hero effects, but never druid until the deathknight (and even then it hasn't had a follow hero card like warrior, shaman, and hunter). Druid's shapeshifting/versatility were core elements in WoW and they tried to bring that along here with other mechanics, but it always struck me as a missed opportunity to not include more from WoW.
Mechano-Egg, why is this a Paladin card? The Deathrattle classes are Rogue, Priest and Hunter.
For Paladin the card is extremely vulnerable to Silence because they have no way to either trigger the Deathrattle (Rogue, Hunter) or make copies of it (Priest) so that one Silence won't ruin them all.
I can only assume it's part of the buff mechanic of Paladin, and 'fit's in with that.
Ferocious Howl is more Druid than Warrior, with its name. Armor is not exclusive to Warrior.
Same with Curse of Weakness: curses are Warlock stuff.
The name is pretty important in defining what is appropriate: if the effect fits the description implied by the name, and the name fits the class, then the card is appropriate for the class.
As for me, what i always considered out of place are Jade Golem and Jade Behemoth in Druid. Animated stone statues don't fit Druid, IMO. They should have been Treants or Beasts or Elementals or something (even with the same mechanic). But not stone statues.
You need to take into account the flavor of the class within the expansion. For instance, Druids in Gadgetzan were more or less inspired by Eastern philosophers and mistics (while Rogues were ninjas and Shamans were more or less monks). Within that context, statues are kinda fitting.
There are some different ways to look at this. One important point would be to create an epistemological stability around what "makes a card the card that it is." Is it its name? What it does? Its art? From purely a game design perspective it ought to be all the text on the card besides its name. From an art direction perspective, something I believe is just as important, its the unification of that mechanical text, the name, the art, and hopefully the class.
I'm going to posit that a card isn't purely the text that is on it, nor can the art and name supersede that. I believe it is the combination of those elements. However, I do believe it is the case that if we are to look closely at some of the cards name checked in this thread, we will find that from a pure design perspective (artless/nameless), what class those cards would seem to be in and their realities are juxtaposed. It's easy for the flavor of a card to hide that Hearthstone's class identities seem to be a little loose, that's why I think the artless/nameless thought experiment is valuable. I believe that cards like Ferocious Howl, Curse of Weakness, Anyfin Can Happen, and Gilded Gargoyle are prime examples of cards with pretty much unified and appropriate art direction, but mechanically are class-shifted.
tl;dr { return(1);}
be kind and considerate
That's indeed a really weird combo. Makes more sense for Shaman or maybe Hunters.
Not really, imo. A Druid stays a Druid.
It's ok to have eg Jade Idols, oriental flavour, druidic stones with symbols and stuff, Zen gardens, why not lotuses?
But living statues in Druid make no sense to me, no matter what.