Forums » Pantheon Classes

Two paths for one class

    • 118 posts
    August 29, 2016 3:14 PM PDT

    Hmm, I missed that somehow.  Thanks for the link, I'll have to go read up on it!

  • Wig
    • 230 posts
    August 29, 2016 4:05 PM PDT
    I'm up in the air about simply specializing your class through the gear you wear. Seems like you could specialize either way if you acquire all the gear. But, dont know how it would work in pantheon. I like the idea of specializing at max level, but not immediately. I would like it to be a part of an AA system, or class mastery system as seen in EQOA. You can further specialize your class at max level with different AA's. You would need certain AA requirements to unlock your specialization class. This would then change the name of your class and give you specialozed class specific abilities.
    • 2016 posts
    August 29, 2016 6:18 PM PDT

    Elrandir said:

    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.

     

     

    Im not 100% sure but I dont think this info is accurate anymore. Or at least some of it. The game design did do a reboot at some point and I think they scrapped/rethought some things. There are also a couple of clues to this. On the classes section under Cleric, it says Clerics Iconic ability is that Pillar thing, not just one specific type of cleric but clerics in general. Also from the 2 recent streams the use and purpose of colored mana seems to have changed from what they said in that dev round table to more of a way to use colored mana stones to charge up some abilities temporarily.

     

    Though Kilsin could likely at least comment on if this even relevant anymore or not.

     

    Now durring the recent stream I asked and did get a very cryptic (lol) answer from Kilsin that mentioned class paths, but Im not sure any more information that that is ready yet. The only thing I know other than that is that in the recent AMA, Brad had emphasized yet again the importance of class identity in terms of specialization and that for example a Warrior would not cease to be a Warrior. Other than that I can only speculate that any changes from the original plan would have to do with the fact that they were taking the classes in directions that would have redifined the class? Devout Cleric sounded like a badass healer, but Resolute Cleric sounded more like a frontline melee CC/support (which isnt a healer and sort of does make Cleric cease to be cleric, as cool as it sounds). 

     

    Maybe something for a not too distant newsletter?

    • 254 posts
    August 29, 2016 6:50 PM PDT

    @Amsai

    You may be right, those dev round tables are pretty dated.  I was kinda wondering why we only saw one iconic ability for each of the classes as well.

    • 260 posts
    September 12, 2016 4:58 PM PDT

    This is how I imagine the specialization scheme will take place. Every revealed class so far has two roles. Once a character can specialize at a certain level through a quest or what have you, the class' effectiveness begins to focus on only one of the two roles. The splitting of effectiveness will reinforce class interdependency at higher levels when groups encounter situations like: a support focused shaman cannot handle the groups healing load or a support focused rogue cannot satisfy the required DPS load, ect. Here's a simple graphic I made to express this better. Are you guys thinking along the same lines?


    This post was edited by Syntro at September 13, 2016 7:10 AM PDT
    • 49 posts
    September 12, 2016 5:51 PM PDT

    I opened this thread thinking something very different.  What's being talked about here is basic specialization, taking X classes and making X*2 out of it.  And, well, that's fine, however on a similar token (and why I opened the thread) I want variable 'stances' to be something we can activate on the fly.  If I play a Shaman and my friend plays Shaman, we could each choose a different stance and still stack well even if we both primarily play stanceA rather than stanceB.  I look at other games like DCUO or Wildstar and how they did it, each class has a DPS option, and each a Role option.  That's more the line I want.  This avoids the 'well we have a spot but we already have a tank/healer/CC'. I'm not saying a cleric should be able to put out Wizard level damage but they should be close enough that you can do it without feeling bad about it. 

     

    As for the specialization thing, as others have said, as a Bard fanatic it scares me, versatility is what made bards so great.  Bards were standardly Buff/debuff, but we had plenty of other strengths.  My guild had 2-3 main Enchanters and like 8 bards, so we often had bards as our main CC source.  A couple times I went full DPS for funsies and was able to hit the top 5 on the DPS chart (out of 54, though I only hit that because many of our players weren't able to maximize, beat most of our rogues/berserkers/wizards but lose by a decent amount to our good ones).  I even tanked a raid boss for a minute once, it was nuts, but I often tanked group content even though agro management was very sketchy.  The only reason I never picked up EQ2 is because they didn't have that versatile bard, they split it up and I wasn't having any of that. 

    • 260 posts
    September 13, 2016 7:07 AM PDT

    jerus said:
    I opened this thread thinking something very different.  What's being talked about here is basic specialization, taking X classes and making X*2 out of it.  And, well, that's fine, however on a similar token (and why I opened the thread) I want variable 'stances' to be something we can activate on the fly.  If I play a Shaman and my friend plays Shaman, we could each choose a different stance and still stack well even if we both primarily play stanceA rather than stanceB.  I look at other games like DCUO or Wildstar and how they did it, each class has a DPS option, and each a Role option.  That's more the line I want.  This avoids the 'well we have a spot but we already have a tank/healer/CC'. I'm not saying a cleric should be able to put out Wizard level damage but they should be close enough that you can do it without feeling bad about it. 

    If one class has the ability to switch readily between two stances, is that really a specialization? It's like me saying I can switch my profession between a gastroenterologist (GI) and a cardiologist depending on my patient, which isn't really feasible due to the required training necessary to reach both professions. Following this analogy, the internist (internal medicine) has the versatility to do general diagnosis, but if you need something more focused you go to a medical specialist (GI, cardiologist, etc.). Similarly, the shaman would be an internist in the sense that he can heal/support at a sufficient level, but if the group is in need of more heals, or more specialized heals, they would seek out a class who has specialized in healing.

    I think specializations should be meaningful. A character's acention to able to gain access to highly specialized, mastery level spells should come at the cost of leaving the unspecialized spell types lacking. I do concede that you have a point for Bard types where versatility is inherit to the class. I never played Vanguard so I don't know how they split it up, but maybe specialization for these type of classes will be narrowing their breadth of abilities they can access e.g. (heal, CC, buff, DPS, tank, debuff) --specializes--> (heal, CC, buff) OR (DPS, tank, debuff). They would still be versitile, just a tad more focused.


    This post was edited by Syntro at September 13, 2016 7:38 AM PDT
    • 49 posts
    September 13, 2016 7:37 AM PDT

    Syntro said:

    jerus said:
    I opened this thread thinking something very different.  What's being talked about here is basic specialization, taking X classes and making X*2 out of it.  And, well, that's fine, however on a similar token (and why I opened the thread) I want variable 'stances' to be something we can activate on the fly.  If I play a Shaman and my friend plays Shaman, we could each choose a different stance and still stack well even if we both primarily play stanceA rather than stanceB.  I look at other games like DCUO or Wildstar and how they did it, each class has a DPS option, and each a Role option.  That's more the line I want.  This avoids the 'well we have a spot but we already have a tank/healer/CC'. I'm not saying a cleric should be able to put out Wizard level damage but they should be close enough that you can do it without feeling bad about it. 

    If one class has the ability to switch readily between two stances, is that really a specialization? It's like me saying I can switch my profession between a gastroenterologist (GI) and a cardiologist depending on my patient, which isn't really feasible due to the required training necessary to reach both professions. Following this analogy, the internist (internal medicine) has the versatility to do general diagnosis, but if you need something more focused you go to a medical specialist (GI, cardiologist, etc.). Similarly, the shaman would be an internist in the sense that he can heal/support at a sufficient level, but if the group is in need of more heals, or more specialized heals, they would seek out a class who has specialized in healing.

    No, it's not, but that's why I didn't call it specialization. It's just a practical thing that other games have done that I think is a good idea, and what I thought this thread would be about so I thought I'd mention it. 

    • 260 posts
    September 13, 2016 7:41 AM PDT

    jerus said:
    No, it's not, but that's why I didn't call it specialization. It's just a practical thing that other games have done that I think is a good idea, and what I thought this thread would be about so I thought I'd mention it. 


    I guess we thought you meant "paths" as specializations. Typically once you go down one path, you dont have access to jump to another (i.e. class specializations). Sorry for getting confused and possibly derailing what you intended. 

     


    This post was edited by Syntro at September 13, 2016 7:42 AM PDT
    • 49 posts
    September 13, 2016 9:20 AM PDT

    Syntro said:

    jerus said:
    No, it's not, but that's why I didn't call it specialization. It's just a practical thing that other games have done that I think is a good idea, and what I thought this thread would be about so I thought I'd mention it. 


    I guess we thought you meant "paths" as specializations. Typically once you go down one path, you dont have access to jump to another (i.e. class specializations). Sorry for getting confused and possibly derailing what you intended. 

     

    No worries, you're right on the button for Specialization.  What I'm talking about is just stacking a certain Class.  This game won't be a game where you build an army of alt characters because if it's anything like original EQ (which I understand it to be, and why I'm interested) it's not going to be easy to level up characters.  So when you have a friend who plays a Cleric and you play a Cleric and you want to do something, there should be some way of picking up different aspects so one of you isn't superfluous wasted space.  That's what I'm getting at and what I thought this thread would be about, so I wanted to hit on it as I think it is related. 

    • 2016 posts
    September 13, 2016 11:02 AM PDT
    @Syntro

    That graph is along the lines of what I was thinking. But again I'm not positive. It just seems more likely that paths would be more about a focus than completely elliminating half of a classes choices.

    Like in your example of a support focused rogue not being able to handle a DPS role. I think that hits the nail on the head. He wouldn't loose abilities so much as maybe not gain the ones or not gain in stats towards the dps side. Or maybe they could handle it for basic situations and some group encounters but wouldn't fill a dps slot at endgame but would be a powerful debuffs to improve overall group/alliance dps.

    Anyways yes I think we are on the same page mostly.
    • 151 posts
    September 19, 2016 4:57 AM PDT

    I am firmly against specialization.  The term "specialization" implies a permanent alteration has been done to the character making it better at "this" and worse at "that".

    No thanks.

    Go back to original EQ classes.  If some sort of variability is deemed necessary just give each class an offensive and defensive stance to switch between at any time so you don't have to worry about accidentally "specializing" in the wrong thing and ending up screwed, or to have the thing you specialized in get nerfed and become worthless.

    Either straight classes, or just put in stances:  offensive stance, +25% offensive spells, -25% defensive spells and stats; defensive stance +25% defensive spells and stats, -25% offensive spells

    This specialization smells like the horrible class design from EQ2 where all the classes were split into two, basically making each class only half of what it should've been.  Especially the enchanters and bards were terrible half-class garbage.

    • 61 posts
    September 19, 2016 1:43 PM PDT
    I was actually sitting here at work thinking about how much I hate how they implemented two specs for classes. If I play a cleric I should heal and only heal not dps aside from an undead nuke or some such since it's still holy, people want warriors to dps and tank how about if you want to dps you pick a dps class and the same goes for if you want to tank. The ability for classes to do the jobs of another class severely cuts down on the need to meet more people to group. I am probably going to play a bard and it's not for selos or any of that crap I think it's fun to support my group and if bards can't even use weapons that's fine with me send me out with my trusty instruments because I shouldn't be trying to solo anyways why do I need a weapon if I'm a support class? Well that's my take on it feel free to criticize it and send some feedback to me.
    • 2016 posts
    September 19, 2016 3:52 PM PDT

     

     

    @Lodgedogg

     

    But with the way VR appears to be shoehorning support everywhere. Would you not be in favor of class paths so you could have a Bard that is just a badass buffer/debuffer. Instead of ending up having a jack of all trades Bard? This is why I would be in favor of it. Not because I believe every class should do everything, but because I DONT want my class to do everything. Look at the class reveals so far.

    Rogue: dps/support

    Cleric: Healing/support

    Shaman: healing/support (and honestly looks like they could do literally everything but tank)

     

    See a pattern? Because I do. There seems to be a pattern of giving everyone some support, and potentially several classes too many roles. This would mean that true support classes (that arent also healers or DPS) arent really part of the plan. So that is why Im hoping for the class paths.

     

    Let me turn your question back around: You want Bard to do pure support? How about you play a pure support............er wait nevermind there are none. But yes Id rather have more rigid role-based class identity and interdependence. Classes that have too many roles are counter productive to this. And I see nothing wrong with classes that only do one role. Thats not to say Im against hybrids, but I am against over-hybridization, or giving all classes 2-3 roles.

    • 61 posts
    September 19, 2016 5:00 PM PDT
    Like EQ1 most of us played that and hence is why we are here, Warriors were tanks you didn't bring a war for his dps so if I got I warrior I knew what he would bring to my group, same goes with clerics healing, ench buff and cc, when I got a class I knew he wouldn't have "taken a different path" and not be what I'm looking for so if they did like change their title or something so I knew that would help solve his problem also.
    • 254 posts
    September 19, 2016 5:09 PM PDT

    I think the 'Support' title in the class descriptions is too vague.  For one, this is going to be a social MMO, so by definition all party members are going to be supporting the group in some way, shape or form.  I would imagine that the support being offered by a rogue (lockpicks?, trap disarms?) is very different than the kind of support offered by clerics and shamen (buffs/debuffs?  possibly some other forms of utility as well?).  Beyond that, it doesn't fit into the 'quaternity' of rolls that the classes are getting binned into: Tank/Healer/DPS/CC.

     

    On a separate note, I also think that the definition of 'CC' could use some beefing up.  When you look at the class roster and compare them to the EQ classes, enchanters are the only class that fit into the 'CC' bin (and bards, if we want to count them in now), and a group could do just fine without an enchanter (or bard).  There were other classes that offered CC abilities in the form of roots, but I wouldn't really label any of them as 'CC classes'.  The fact of the matter is that with a good puller you could usually get away with not having a CC class present at all.  I suppose you could consider pulling a form of Crowd Control then, but I think the distinction is too large to just lump the two abilities together.  I guess I would create the larger umbrella description of "Crowd Maintenance" which could include "Crowd Control" (mez/root) and "Crowd Prevention" (pulling/mem blurs, etc).

    • 2016 posts
    September 19, 2016 5:52 PM PDT

    I agree with the support parts possibly being too vague.

     

    Three things though: 1. Rogues can apparently use some alchemy, and that could mean debuffs. Not just utility stuff.

                                   2. When I say support I mean specifically debuffing, buffing, and out of combat utility.

                                   3. I dont have a problem with all classes having some form of out of combat utility, but I dont think giving too many classes buffing or debuffing ability is a great idea.

     

    I just think that (for the most part) a tank should be a tank and a DPS should be a DPS. And a support should be a support. Over-hybridization is harmful and in the long run could be harmful to class uniqueness and true interdependency between roles. And when I say over-hyrbidization I could be refering to both one class with too many roles or having too many classes with dual roles. There is nothing wrong with a DPS that only does dps.Or a tank that only tanks.

                            

    • 20 posts
    November 7, 2016 2:17 PM PST

    Amsai said:

    I just think that (for the most part) a tank should be a tank and a DPS should be a DPS. And a support should be a support. Over-hybridization is harmful and in the long run could be harmful to class uniqueness and true interdependency between roles. And when I say over-hyrbidization I could be refering to both one class with too many roles or having too many classes with dual roles. There is nothing wrong with a DPS that only does dps. Or a tank that only tanks.

    b]Syntro said:

    I think specializations should be meaningful. A character's acention to able to gain access to highly specialized, mastery level spells should come at the cost of leaving the unspecialized spell types lacking. I do concede that you have a point for Bard types where versatility is inherit to the class. I never played Vanguard so I don't know how they split it up, but maybe specialization for these type of classes will be narrowing their breadth of abilities they can access e.g. (heal, CC, buff, DPS, tank, debuff) --specializes--> (heal, CC, buff) OR (DPS, tank, debuff). They would still be versitile, just a tad more focused.

    You guys both hit the nail on the head.  If a warriors and clerics can dps equivalent (or close to equivalent) to rogues and wizards by changing a stance, why play a rogue or a wizard?  Games where an entire group can be built successfully with one (see e.g. WoW Paladin) or two classes, are very dull.

    Class specializations should enhance the core roles in interesting ways, not open up new roles (to Amsai's concern of over hybridization).  EQOA implemented this beautifully.  When a character completed its epic quest, it had to make a choice.  Depending on the choice, you got different epic weapons, and a different powerful epic spell.  Some examples (to the extent my memory is still intact):

    Cleric:

    (A) powerful extra heal

    (B) powerful resistance buff

    Warrior:

    (A) large HP boost on long cooldown

    (B) strong AOE taunt and modest AC boost on medium cooldown

    Ranger:

    (A) melee proc spell

    (B) something that made ranged better (don't remember)

    Bard (might be remembering this wrong):

    (A) stronger mana regen song

    (B) stronger melee buff song

    Necro:

    (A) HP Drain - given to group

    (B) Power Drain - given to group

    As you can see, none of these changed the fundamental role of the class.  They did however make those roles much more interesting, and made player choices have very meaningful impacts on their character's playstyle.  There was also further customization (and non-reversable choices) through class mastery specialization that had similar effects.  This was one of my favorite aspects of EQOA, and I always felt it added so much to the game.

    • 52 posts
    December 22, 2016 10:59 AM PST

    Kilsin said:

    G 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. :)

    Have I really missed this tid-bit all this time? This makes me very happy for Pantheon's future. It helps build an affinity towards your character, in addition to allowing for some fantastic lore opportunities.

    Hey there fellow Dire Lord, we may be of the same class but I think it's great you offer X while I offer Y.

    Being even slightly unique helps tremendously when it comes to the psychology of player-character affinity. Example: When leading raids in Vanguard's AWP, I thought it was so cool we had three Shaman but each one of a different path and provided our guild with something different. 

    • 1179 posts
    December 22, 2016 1:52 PM PST

    I'd prefer not to have two paths for one class, whether that's through stances, or specs, or whatever .  I agree that one of the main issues with newer games is that everyone is able to do everything.  I love that PRF will have clearly defined roles for classes.  I think that most classes should have one role and that the classes that have multiple roles should be weaker at each of those roles than the classes who only play those roles.  I think the choice to play classes with multiple roles should be based on a desire to play each of those roles at different times depending on what's needed, rather than a desire to be able to choose one role or the other and focus expressly on that role.  I think the classes that have multiple roles should 'specialize' based on what gear they wear and which spells they haved memmed at a given time.  I think some of the most fun of playing those types of characters is joining a group, finding out what's needed, and figuring out the best way to provide that.  I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's what I think, and that's what I'm hoping for in PRF.

    • 1905 posts
    December 23, 2016 1:34 PM PST

    I like more permanent specializations, but I heavily disagree with your pre-defined class roles. Why must all warriors be tanks? I see no lore or mechanical reason why the cannot be bad-ass melee DPS. They shouldn't be both at the same time, though. They should choose DPS or tank, preferably permanently. 

    If you don't like permanent, at least make the differences involve substantial gear and ability layouts. It doesn't have to hard to switch, but you have to earn the gear for both specs.

    • 1179 posts
    December 23, 2016 4:54 PM PST

    That's just how I'd like it to be done, man.  I'm not saying it's the right way and all the other ways are wrong.  I'm just saying it's what I want.  I don't like two versions of every class with different abilities based on a spec.  If it has to be done by stance, I definitely prefer that to specs, but I'd rather have warriors be tanks that do melee damage and have the same abilities available to all warriors. If you're not tanking, then sure, melee for DPS, but I don't think you should be able to outdamage any pure DPS class.  If you're going for damage, switch out the AC/STA/HP gear for STR, maybe.  Take the shield off and dual wield or use a two-hander.  Maybe you take off the belt with AC and Stamina and put on a belt that just adds haste.  Again, I'm  just saying how I'd like it to be done.

     

    EDIT: Typo


    This post was edited by Shucklighter at December 23, 2016 6:28 PM PST