Forums » Pantheon Classes

Two paths for one class

    • 30 posts
    March 28, 2016 6:26 PM PDT

    So I looked and didn't see a post on the subject, if there is one I apologize. 

     

    I keep reading the Ranger forums, cuz, rangers are my favorite. I keep seeing differing opinions, some saying that Ranger should be burst dps with melee weapons with bow as backup. Others say they want the ranger to be a mainly ranged dps with the bow class. 

     

    Can we do both?

     

    Let classes choose a path to go down, at a certain level or other threshold. One path trains melee dps with debuffs, the other trains ranged dps with DoTs. Purely BS examples here. All other classes can do this as well, with the end result being similar damage output, damage absorption, so that nobody would only demand type A of a class and type B folk never get groups.  

     

    Good idea? Bad idea? Too far from the EQ dynamic?

    • 2031 posts
    March 28, 2016 7:37 PM PDT

    Gossamer said:

    One path trains melee dps with debuffs, the other trains ranged dps with DoTs. Purely BS examples here. All other classes can do this as well, with the end result being similar damage output, damage absorption, so that nobody would only demand type A of a class and type B folk never get groups.  

    Check the underlined part (emphasis mine) because I don't think what you're saying there is correct.  Why the Ranger should have such flexibility when no other class can is, though I hate using this word, unfair.  Maybe I'd like my wizard to be able to nuke the snot out of stuff and also sword skills equal to that of a warrior because Gandalf did it!

    • 30 posts
    March 28, 2016 8:27 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    Gossamer said:

    One path trains melee dps with debuffs, the other trains ranged dps with DoTs. Purely BS examples here. All other classes can do this as well, with the end result being similar damage output, damage absorption, so that nobody would only demand type A of a class and type B folk never get groups.  

    Check the underlined part (emphasis mine) because I don't think what you're saying there is correct.  Why the Ranger should have such flexibility when no other class can is, though I hate using this word, unfair.  Maybe I'd like my wizard to be able to nuke the snot out of stuff and also sword skills equal to that of a warrior because Gandalf did it!

     

    Not quite what I meant. What I was trying to say, poorly, is that all classes could have the ability to split at a certain level to specialize in one area or another. Enchanters could go for charm bonuses or mez bonuses, or something like that. Ranger was just on the tip of my fingertips when I had the thought. 

     

    VR has mentioned stances, that would also work for what I'm thinking. 

    • 30 posts
    March 28, 2016 8:27 PM PDT

    As I said, it was a BS example hehe.

    • 16 posts
    March 29, 2016 6:20 AM PDT

    In Vanguard, most classes had stances.  Something that would heighten one set of abilities and lessen others.  It allowed more flexibility, for all the classes, to change focus depending on need of the situation ... but it still kept it within reasonable limitations of class definition.

     

    • 820 posts
    March 29, 2016 12:55 PM PDT

    Gossamer said:

    So I looked and didn't see a post on the subject, if there is one I apologize. 

     

    I keep reading the Ranger forums, cuz, rangers are my favorite. I keep seeing differing opinions, some saying that Ranger should be burst dps with melee weapons with bow as backup. Others say they want the ranger to be a mainly ranged dps with the bow class. 

     

    Can we do both?

     

    Let classes choose a path to go down, at a certain level or other threshold. One path trains melee dps with debuffs, the other trains ranged dps with DoTs. Purely BS examples here. All other classes can do this as well, with the end result being similar damage output, damage absorption, so that nobody would only demand type A of a class and type B folk never get groups.  

     

    Good idea? Bad idea? Too far from the EQ dynamic?

    I may be remembering this wrong, but I believe that's exactly how Rangers were in Vanguard. I think there was even a ranger specific quest you got from your trainer where you decided at the end which skill set you'd like to specialize in - melee or ranged - as well as what pet you'd like.

    Vanguard was actually the only game that I actually played, and enjoyed, a ranger.

    Could anyone confirm this?

    -Tralyan

    • Moderator
    • 8874 posts
    March 29, 2016 5:20 PM PDT

    Tralyan said:

    Gossamer said:

    So I looked and didn't see a post on the subject, if there is one I apologize. 

     

    I keep reading the Ranger forums, cuz, rangers are my favorite. I keep seeing differing opinions, some saying that Ranger should be burst dps with melee weapons with bow as backup. Others say they want the ranger to be a mainly ranged dps with the bow class. 

     

    Can we do both?

     

    Let classes choose a path to go down, at a certain level or other threshold. One path trains melee dps with debuffs, the other trains ranged dps with DoTs. Purely BS examples here. All other classes can do this as well, with the end result being similar damage output, damage absorption, so that nobody would only demand type A of a class and type B folk never get groups.  

     

    Good idea? Bad idea? Too far from the EQ dynamic?

    I may be remembering this wrong, but I believe that's exactly how Rangers were in Vanguard. I think there was even a ranger specific quest you got from your trainer where you decided at the end which skill set you'd like to specialize in - melee or ranged - as well as what pet you'd like.

    Vanguard was actually the only game that I actually played, and enjoyed, a ranger.

    Could anyone confirm this?

    -Tralyan

    That is correct, Rangers, Monks, Shaman, Cleric, Necros and possibly more classes had quests to choose a path or style or affinity, it was pretty cool ;)

    Rangers had a quest to choose their style (Ranged or Melee focused) and depending on that they got to choose from a selection of pets.

    • 2031 posts
    March 29, 2016 5:54 PM PDT

    If you start creating what essentially are different builds for some or all of the classes, that will make balancing content more difficult, balancing the builds will be more difficult, grouping decisions more difficult, raid choices more difficult.  If any build is perceived to perform subpar to the other build, players will ostricise the people who play those builds.  It will happen here because it has happened in the past.  THere are already concerns that the Warrior will be the go-to class over the DireLord and Crusader.  Imagine if you've got 2 different builds of the DireLord one more tanky one more DPS.  Well clearly the DPSy version won't tank as well (balance!) as the tank version and we know groups will need tanks.  That alienates the people who thought the DPS DireLord would be a fun to play. 

    No, don't create builds off the nice Archetypes you have right now.  Take the Ranger and make a  DPS dual wielder with some Druid-line utility spells.

    • 254 posts
    March 29, 2016 6:12 PM PDT
    They've already announced that they're going this route, more or less. The cleric is going to have the off-tankish/CC build and the more traditional healer type of build, based off of the colored mana system. If the 'builds' were set choices that you're stuck with I would probably share your concerns, but it sounds like it will be more of a 'dress for the occasion' sort of deal, provided you've acquired the gear for either build. As for Rangers, I preferred the early EQ style of light tank/light DPS, it was atleast a little true to the early D&D class. I'm not a huge fan of the all-out DPS version of the class--it seems like a cowardly bastardization of what the class was suppose to embody.
    • Moderator
    • 8874 posts
    March 29, 2016 9:51 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    If you start creating what essentially are different builds for some or all of the classes, that will make balancing content more difficult, balancing the builds will be more difficult, grouping decisions more difficult, raid choices more difficult.  If any build is perceived to perform subpar to the other build, players will ostricise the people who play those builds.  It will happen here because it has happened in the past.  THere are already concerns that the Warrior will be the go-to class over the DireLord and Crusader.  Imagine if you've got 2 different builds of the DireLord one more tanky one more DPS.  Well clearly the DPSy version won't tank as well (balance!) as the tank version and we know groups will need tanks.  That alienates the people who thought the DPS DireLord would be a fun to play. 

    No, don't create builds off the nice Archetypes you have right now.  Take the Ranger and make a  DPS dual wielder with some Druid-line utility spells.

    We had this in VG mate, it wasn't difficult at all. We have stated that we will have something similar in Pantheon with class paths and we have several team members who worked on VG who know how it works and how to balance classes accordingly ;)

    I am not sure how it can be perceived that one path will be "ok" and the other "subpar", the developers wouldn't bother wasting their valuable time with one good build and one bad and if a community member ostracises you or anyone else for a class build/decision/gear/performance, then /ignore that person and carry on with your gaming experience man! I wouldn't waste the time of day on someone like that.

    Any concerns over classes before we even release proper information is just pure hyperbole, why would anyone be worried over something that is not only out of their control but something that is in the hands of experienced developers and gamers with proven track records in games such as EQ and VG classes?

    I wouldn't worry mate, the game and it's classes are in good hands. :)

    • 44 posts
    March 29, 2016 10:03 PM PDT

    I think the classes need some personalization but in the end a healer is a healer and a tank is a tank nothing like showin up for a raid and the healer can't heal and the tank can't tank because they are off specked. It you want to be dps be dps if you want to heal heal if you want to do a bit of everytimy grab a hybrid class and get used to being jack of all trades master of none. build selection is nice to an extent but when the specialization take the character right out of its role that becomes an issue. 

    • 820 posts
    March 31, 2016 6:15 AM PDT

    Korocus said:

    I think the classes need some personalization but in the end a healer is a healer and a tank is a tank nothing like showin up for a raid and the healer can't heal and the tank can't tank because they are off specked. It you want to be dps be dps if you want to heal heal if you want to do a bit of everytimy grab a hybrid class and get used to being jack of all trades master of none. build selection is nice to an extent but when the specialization take the character right out of its role that becomes an issue. 

    I don't want the classes to have certain builds that deviate from their roles, not at all. I agree 100% that a tank should be a tank, a DPS a DPS, etc.

    What I would like, and what VG succeeded at, I think, is creating different ways to acheive those roles.

    Maybe the warrior would like to specialize in dual wield, or two hander, or sword and board. He completes a hard (emphasis on the hard) AND optional quest from his trainer at the warrior guild, the reward being a weapon and either a new skill, or a new set of already existing skills, that focus' on the way that player wants to specializes in.

    Maybe the specialization for another tank isn't their weapon, but how they achieve aggro. DPS might specialize in a particular aspect of their utility. Rogues might specialize in whether they want to be the assassin type rogue, or the swashbuckler type rogue (I know you hate that type, Kilsin).

    Options are never bad if implemented correctly. As long as the class is still able to achieve their role, and don't impede onto the roles of other parts of the holy trinity (quadruple-ity? The heck do ya'll call it again?), then how could that be a bad thing?

    -Tralyan

    • 2016 posts
    March 31, 2016 7:47 AM PDT

    I would be in favor of it mostly for style and flavor.

    The one area Id like to see it be more "mechanical" is in the support area. I see so far a lack of true buffer/debuffer ONLY classes or at least where the focus is that aspect. Right not the focus is Tank DPS Healer and CC. Which isnt bad but that leaves me having to potentially choose say a "traditional" healer class if I want to do support. Now I could be wrong because we havent seen all the class reveals. But based on previous games like EQ EQ2 and VG, we can make some assumptions. 

    I personally Im interested in being a class thats primary function is Support but NOT healing. Now the secondary role could be back up healer or just addtional DPS. But the point is I dont want to main heal. So what would be nice is to be able to choose say Druid and do supporty stuff as my main focus and only be considered as a back up healer to the main healer. Something along those lines. Alternatively if there was a melee class that I could choose a path that nerfed my damage in favor of being a badass buffer/debuffer would be good too.

     

    The TL,DR version is I dont want to be shoe horned into being a healer role in order to be a bad ass buffer/debuffer class.

    • 20 posts
    June 26, 2016 5:09 AM PDT

    My preference is that classes do not split down different paths.  I want the cleric to heal and buff and do mean things to undead.  I was the Enc to CC and Buff. I want the Bard to support the group through enhancements and launch on release day.  What I don’t want is, for example, an eq2 bard.  I don’t want to see specializations in an attempt to make twice as many classes.  I want each class to be a master at what it does best.  Tank, heal, melee dps, range dps, buff, support, ect.

    There’s nothing wrong with two tank classes if they are balances.  This is more of a meta-game decision than a look and feel decision.  It’s up to the Dev’s to ensure that avoidance (assume monk aoe tank) does comparable to the mitigation (single target) tank or even an elemental tank (maybe a dk for ranged).   SWTOR, I think, did a good job at this.  Two tanks, both equally good at what they did best (aoe vs single target vs range tank).  They were masters at their style of tanking.  In a party, I would take either tank as they were all viable. They had abilities and cooldowns that allowed them to adapt to different situations despite being very different play styles.  A group pull would experience all of those scenarios (multiple mobs (avoidance), ranged mobs (casters), and single pulls (nm)). 

    • 2016 posts
    June 27, 2016 9:33 PM PDT

    I disagree slightly but only to the extent to prevent classes from being able to cover too many roles. In that case I actually would welcome different paths. But Id honestly prefer no seperate paths for class progression under normal circumstances. But unfortunately I think the devs might be a more worried about preserving traditional classes than having more seperate roles. I would personally prefer classes have one or two of 6 roles(tank, healer, dps, CC, debuffer, buffer) with some special utility thrown in here or there more iconic of the classes (lockpicking, FD, etc)

     

    Examples:

    Warrior: Tank/dps

    Rogue: DPS

    Cleric:Healer/Buffer

    Enchanter: CC/Buffer

    Shaman: Debuffer/CC

    Druid: Healer/CC

    Wizard: DPS

    Bard: Buffer/Debuffer

     

    Now most of what I listed was just quick examples and I know some wouldnt sit well with folks (really would be my dream Bard though in that particular example). The point is maybe slipping some of the potentially restricting traditional things to keep classes more unique and more importantly more interdependent. Look at the current revealed classes. There is nothing wrong on the surface, but notice that the Rogue, Cleric, and Shaman all have a primary and secondary role just as I suggested.

     

    However that is actually an illusion because when VR is using the role "support" its a very broad meaning that looks to include everything from Utility to buffs to debuffs. Therefore from the description I expect the Shaman to be able to do almost anything except tank. They will heal of course, and apparently buff and debuff. I also think they will do respectable damage (possibly with a pet). So maybe not at the level of a Rogue or Wizard but still good. Pretty sure that could also mean pet pulls. And Id also be shocked if the devs didnt give them one CC. Even if Im wrong about those last 2 that is 4 of the 6 roles at least. I think thats a bit much for the sake of tradition. Id prefer VR tighten up those roles, give a good diversity, and not have different paths. But if not, then use those paths to seperate out abilities so that a class like Shaman doesnt become a jack of all trades. (Also when I say DPS I mean decent DPS. Obviously if DPS isnt one of the roles, the class will still do some level of minor damage.) Dont be vague with the word support, and keep it to 1 or 2 roles.

     

    Just like as much as I love Bards, they shouldnt be a jack of all trades. I would love a Bard to be limited to buffer/debuffer or maybe Buffer/CC or even Buffer/DPS and some utility like increased movement speed. But they dont need to able to CC/Buff/Debuff/DPS and even pull like in one game. Its too much. Limit each class to 1 or 2 roles or if not then force specialization to avoid jack of all trade classes. Then instead of a crazy class capable of almost anything it would divide up something like this: Path A, Buffs/CC or Path B, Debuff/DPS.

     

    Short Version: Either naturally or through specialization paths, limited roles and class interdependence > being too traditional.

     

     

    • 11 posts
    July 6, 2016 8:53 AM PDT

    Mostly agree with you Amsai, at least in terms of the general idea behind your post.

     

    I like the idea of dual paths for each class as long as those paths basically allow the class to fulfill its role but in a different way.   I don't think VR are foolish people and giving a class a path that basically gimps it out of being effective would be a foolish thing to do. I guess the deeper question I have is whether or not a slight shift in roles is a good idea.

     

    Should a tank have a path or a "stance" that slightly reduces tanking ability and slightly increases dps? If the group has two tanks and not enough dps, would it make sense in that situation? Obviously it would have to be balanced, a warrior couldn't turn into a rogue, but taken too far a warrior in this scenario might essentially turn into a monk. So let's say there is some halfway point there, some middle ground where a warrior is not a monk but sacrifices defense for offense. They still can't feign death or provide the utility of a monk. We could reverse this with an example of a monk who sacrifices dps for defense. He still can't tank like a warrior and he can't hold aggro like one. What do you guys think? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

     

    I might be open to it although I'm more interested in different paths that don't really change the role of the class. Dual wielding warriors, swashbuckler rogues etc sound very cool to me but maybe an expanded weapon selection with some different respective skills is enough? What do you guys think? 

    • 2016 posts
    July 6, 2016 11:42 AM PDT
    @ Vira

    Just for clarity I would prefer classes sticking to one or 2 things. I was mostly worried about support becoming too open ended and hybrid classes becoming either OP or useless at endgame. So my solution was to force specialization. But if it were up to me Id design Bard as a Buffer/Debuffer class with some utility. That gives them a important role without making them too OP or too useless. And thats the only reason Id want different paths to be anything more than style/approach based like your example with dual wield wars or swash buckler rogues.
    • 109 posts
    August 17, 2016 4:19 AM PDT

    I think stances are the lazy way of injecting a narrow version of versatility into classes which should have to sacrafice gear or learn behavior to achieve.  I  would rather see a difference through play-style and gear choice, versus stance hot-keys. 

    Want a DPS Warrior?  Forgo the HP and AC gear and go all STR and DEX.  Chunk the shield to the side and grab a big 2h axe or some ranger/rog 1h weps. Learn to get behind the enemy to bypass block and parry.

    What if I want to be suicidal and try to tank on my ranger? Do rangers have a stance for tanking? Or are our only choices "melee or ranged"?

    If stances are in (I hope they are not), I hope they are the same for all classes, such as "offensive or defensive".  Or perhaps there should be 4 stances corrisponding to the 4 types of play (Tanking, Healing, CC abilities such as taunt or mez or roots,  DPS).  Please no class specific stances, I believe they shoehorn players in to their only other percieved option.  

    Whatever the status on stances, Im sure VR will make it work great.


    This post was edited by Greattaste at August 17, 2016 6:42 AM PDT
    • 260 posts
    August 18, 2016 9:04 AM PDT

    I'm extremely excited about these quest driven paths of specialization. I imagine it being akin to an epic quest, but in the end you shift your entire character's abilities rather than get some sweet loot. I never played VG, but I'm glad they have a backbone for including this already! Ahhh, my pantheon hype needs medical attention!


    This post was edited by Syntro at August 28, 2016 5:11 PM PDT
  • Wig
    • 230 posts
    August 20, 2016 7:26 PM PDT

    If two specialized paths are in game, how does everyone feel about path class names? For example, in EQOA you could specialize and your class title would change, from say a bard to a minstrel, or monk to sensai.

    • 260 posts
    August 28, 2016 5:17 PM PDT

    There should definitely be a change in class name. It would make sense for group building, where niche roles could be filled more easily by eyeballing through class names, and for personalization sake. I definitely want to be called something different after I choose a specialization route. I'm curious as to how they are going to elevate the intensity of the Dire Lord classes name - the bar is already set pretty high, haha.

    Dire Lord can specialize into Terror God or Devil Incarnate. GL with that one team.


    This post was edited by Syntro at August 28, 2016 5:17 PM PDT
    • 118 posts
    August 29, 2016 12:03 PM PDT

    I have to say that I'm curious about how this will work for some of the caster classes.  How will you split an enchanter into two different paths?  Granted that we don't have details about that class yet, but I really hope that there isn't a split along the lines of EQ2.  That was one of a few things that turned me off of that game, it turned what was a fun and engaging class that always had something going on into something that I found to be too simplistic.  

    • 2016 posts
    August 29, 2016 2:18 PM PDT

    @Irriaden

     

    Im not sure (obviously not a dev), but I think its going to be more a focus on an aspec or theme of the class, than a straight split. Though jack of all tade classes (shaman) could proably use an EQ2 approach. But I think in the case of say Shaman we would be more likely to see a focus not a split. So Shaman healer vs Shaman Debuffer. That wouldnt be a split but a focus. Shaman would still be shaman,but maybe sacrifice the power or amount of heals for more powerful or a larger number of debuffs and hexes.

    • 118 posts
    August 29, 2016 2:47 PM PDT

    Amsai, 

    If that is the case, then...I see some tough decisions in peoples' futures.  Im much more innfavor of the specialization over the split.  It also brings the question, will we be forced to choose our specialization at a certain point?

    I would assume that it will be something very difficult if not impossible to change.  Given that, I hope it isn't a choice that you are forced to make at, say, level ten.  Hopefully by that point we will not have experienced half of our spell or ability lines, so making a choice then might be rash.  Might this be a choice that we could put off, fully realizing that we will not be seeing the benefits seen by those who choose to specialize early, in order to make a better educated decision?  

    I also wonder how this will work when combined with the spell modification boxes shown in the live streams.  Will this be something separate, or will your choice of a specialization determine which lines of spells you can tweak?  It was stated that some spells could be modded and some couldn't...I could see them being two aspects of the same idea.  I assume there is something similar for non casters, since I haven't seen how their abilities are managed.  

    • 254 posts
    August 29, 2016 2:57 PM PDT

    Unless plans have changed, it doesn't sound like the specializations represent any sort of permanent change in your character.  They talk about it in the Developer Round Table.  The specializations are tied into gear choice and the colored mana system.  So if you're a cleric and choose to focus on one path, you'll seek out Heavy Plate Armor and if you choose the other you'll collect Plate Woven Raiment.  In the round table discussion they talk about getting abilities in the two separate paths at levels 25 and 50.