Halfling Rogue, most likely. Halfling Warrior, highly probable, as well. Really depends on how the warrior plays, if it's strictly a tank class, or if they can sub in as actual damage when not called on to tank. The Vanguard warrior was my absolute favorite in any game, ever, for that specific reason. The rogue, however, will always be near & dear to my heart, as it's what I played in EQ for the better part of 6 years.
Either way, I love the chart. I've been watching Pantheon since the kickstarter & have been interested from the get-go, but the more info like this that pops up, the more interest turns into excitement.
Human bard, of course...once available.
Archai singing shaman or gnome enchantertainer until then, perhaps both.
Anything needed during testing phases.
Nikademis said:Megaera said:Since there are no large humanoid races, ill prob go with human warrior. I wanted to do a caster class but im not looking forward to being oom every 2 or 3 pulls...if they change mana regen rates so i wont be out of commission so often ill roll wizzy alt.
I don't mean to sound rude, but I really don't know what you mean by "no large humanoid races". Every one of the races is humanoid; that is having human characteristics or form. More specifically, two legs, two arms, a head atop shoulders, etc.
Since I can only assume that you don't want to play an Ogre, what did you have in mind? Something like a giant? Like Barbarians maybe?
I was thinking the same thing - Ogres would definitely be considered a large humanoid race. And they'd make a good warrior.
Also what gives you the impression that casters would be oom every 2 or 3 pulls, Meg? Combat is still in the process of being balanced. It's way too early to assume stuff like that
Bazgrim said:Also what gives you the impression that casters would be oom every 2 or 3 pulls, Meg? Combat is still in the process of being balanced. It's way too early to assume stuff like that
Well theyve said they want to purposefully make it that way as some 'controlled downtime' for players to socialize.
Kayo said:Bazgrim said:Also what gives you the impression that casters would be oom every 2 or 3 pulls, Meg? Combat is still in the process of being balanced. It's way too early to assume stuff like that
Well theyve said they want to purposefully make it that way as some 'controlled downtime' for players to socialize.
That's true, but I think that would also apply to melee too - they need to rest to regain their energy. Either way, that's not inherently a bad thing, but currently there's no way of knowing how often these types of downtime will occur normally.
From a roleplaying standpoint, I enjoy playing a Ranger of some sort. I like roleplaying the reclusive traveler who wanders the forest.
If roleplaying was all that mattered it would be easy for me to pick a class. Usually, I experiment with different classes to see if I enjoy their abilities and how they play.
I found I enjoyed the Necromancer and Druid a lot in terms of combat in Everquest. They had such a variety of abilities and could solo very well. It was nice to have the option to be solo and go into dungeons solo.
Necromancers had invisibility to both undead and humans/animals. They also had water breathing. Combine this with pets, self healing, and efficient damage they were quite good solo explorers.
Druids were not that much worse, but were missing invisibility to undead and pets. Instead, they had teleportation, healing, buffs, and damage shields. They were still a lot of fun to play, but lacked the pet to assist with fighting difficult monsters in dungeons. Druids did have fun spells to assist others and that was enjoyable.
The Bard and Ranger had a lot of nice abilities, but the Ranger especially was limited to melee combat. This made soloing difficult due to a very weak healing spell. Archery wasn't very effective as it wasn't affected by things like double attack and dual wield.
Bards were fairly fun to play, but they killed fairly slowly and caused a lot of strain on your hand/wrist weaving songs. They were to not able to solo that well in constrained places like dungeons. They really needed to kite.
The rest of the classes I found a bit bland. They were good at one specific thing in a group, but not very good at soloing. Often they were locked into playing a certain way.
Hopefully, there will be some classes that are a bit more versatile in this game. Most games now lock you into playing a certain way to maintain balance. Often it makes gameplay less interesting IMO.
It was several monthes ago since I last login on this forum.... I feel I must comment on class/race selection...
Sorry, but I am little bit surprised that Elfs can't be Paladin, but Shaman, seriously... In EQ it felt like a shaman "almost" was like a druid but an "evil" version of it and Elfs can be that class in Pantheon. It feels Elfs isn't that primitive to choose that kind of "unholy" class. Isn't it enough with Druids for elfs? I am also little surprised that ogres (evil race) can be druids (in my book neutral or good class), when they can be shaman. From critique to race/class selection....
If I am going to pick race and class combination it will be one of these ones:
Ogre Shaman
Elf/Human Ranger
Elf/Human Bard
Darkmyr Necromancer (if they get a skeleton as pet otherwise I will pass I think)
... Elf Paladin???
UnknownQuantity said:Hopefully, there will be some classes that are a bit more versatile in this game. Most games now lock you into playing a certain way to maintain balance. Often it makes gameplay less interesting IMO.
I've found it quite the opposite actually, as everyone seems to emulate WoW and having multiple specs/being able to fill multiple roles per class. I think it will be nice to know what the classes main (and secondary if applicable) role(s) will be and stick to them.
Elmberry said:It was several monthes ago since I last login on this forum.... I feel I must comment on class/race selection...
Sorry, but I am little bit surprised that Elfs can't be Paladin, but Shaman, seriously... In EQ it felt like a shaman "almost" was like a druid but an "evil" version of it and Elfs can be that class in Pantheon. It feels Elfs isn't that primitive to choose that kind of "unholy" class. Isn't it enough with Druids for elfs? I am also little surprised that ogres (evil race) can be druids (in my book neutral or good class), when they can be shaman. From critique to race/class selection....
If I am going to pick race and class combination it will be one of these ones:
Ogre Shaman
Elf/Human Ranger
Elf/Human Bard
Darkmyr Necromancer (if they get a skeleton as pet otherwise I will pass I think)
... Elf Paladin???
I think we do ourselves and the work of the devs an injustice by citing Everquest in instances like this. The fact is, Pantheon is its own game, with its own set of tenants and truths and should be judge as such (not to mention that your assertion that regarding EQ Shaman as "unholy" and "evil druid" is an opinion, not fact.). The team is not only making these decisions based on the lore (and likely much lore we have not seen yet), but very like on factors we know nothing about. And though Everquest may be the inspiration for a game like Pantheon, it is not Everquest. It's not EQ with a Pantheon skin. We need to let the team make decisions contrary to the way things were in Everquest, otherwise nothing is gained (or at the very least, we get nothing new).
Having an opinion about how something should be is fine, of course. If you feel there are too few options for Paladin which may lead to a shortage of that class, for example, fine. But I can't accept "Everquest had X/Y combination so Pantheon should too." For something as world/lore dependent as class/race combinations, expecting that Pantheon should just mirror Everquest is shortsighted in my mind.
Iksar said:UnknownQuantity said:Hopefully, there will be some classes that are a bit more versatile in this game. Most games now lock you into playing a certain way to maintain balance. Often it makes gameplay less interesting IMO.
I've found it quite the opposite actually, as everyone seems to emulate WoW and having multiple specs/being able to fill multiple roles per class. I think it will be nice to know what the classes main (and secondary if applicable) role(s) will be and stick to them.
That is not the case in World of Warcraft presently. It's true classes can pick a different role, but they are not flexible. Originally a few classes like Paladins, Shamans, and Druids could fill multiple roles by putting points into different talent trees. Now they are restricted to a single talent tree and spec. Most games do this now for balance reason. Especially for PvP balance reasons.
What I'm talking about is a class that doesn't really have a specific role, but can switch between them on the fly or utilize that variety of skills for something else like soloing well.
UnknownQuantity said:Iksar said:UnknownQuantity said:Hopefully, there will be some classes that are a bit more versatile in this game. Most games now lock you into playing a certain way to maintain balance. Often it makes gameplay less interesting IMO.
I've found it quite the opposite actually, as everyone seems to emulate WoW and having multiple specs/being able to fill multiple roles per class. I think it will be nice to know what the classes main (and secondary if applicable) role(s) will be and stick to them.
That is not the case in World of Warcraft presently. It's true classes can pick a different role, but they are not flexible. Originally a few classes like Paladins, Shamans, and Druids could fill multiple roles by putting points into different talent trees. Now they are restricted to a single talent tree and spec. Most games do this now for balance reason. Especially for PvP balance reasons.
What I'm talking about is a class that doesn't really have a specific role, but can switch between them on the fly or utilize that variety of skills for something else like soloing well.
Soloing is not a design goal in this game at all. VR is generally trying to AVOID any one class from "soloing well" to drive interdependance. They have also said that they want every class to have a defined role to play, though some hybrids can fill multiple roles to lesser affectiveness. What you're asking for almost goes against VR's stated design goal for the game as a whole.
kellindil said:UnknownQuantity said:Iksar said:UnknownQuantity said:Hopefully, there will be some classes that are a bit more versatile in this game. Most games now lock you into playing a certain way to maintain balance. Often it makes gameplay less interesting IMO.
I've found it quite the opposite actually, as everyone seems to emulate WoW and having multiple specs/being able to fill multiple roles per class. I think it will be nice to know what the classes main (and secondary if applicable) role(s) will be and stick to them.
That is not the case in World of Warcraft presently. It's true classes can pick a different role, but they are not flexible. Originally a few classes like Paladins, Shamans, and Druids could fill multiple roles by putting points into different talent trees. Now they are restricted to a single talent tree and spec. Most games do this now for balance reason. Especially for PvP balance reasons.
What I'm talking about is a class that doesn't really have a specific role, but can switch between them on the fly or utilize that variety of skills for something else like soloing well.
Soloing is not a design goal in this game at all. VR is generally trying to AVOID any one class from "soloing well" to drive interdependance. They have also said that they want every class to have a defined role to play, though some hybrids can fill multiple roles to lesser affectiveness. What you're asking for almost goes against VR's stated design goal for the game as a whole.
This is true, but they also said they are not making an effort to stop people from using a classes abilities creatively to solo (just like EQ1). I do not want a game that is easy to solo in. That is part of the point for me. Today's MMOs are designed for solo play. I liked that I could come up with ways to solo in a group game. I plan to group in this game, but I also plan to use the group oriented content as something ot overcome solo because it presents a challenge. I expect the classes to have similiar abilities to EQ. If that is the case certain classes like the ones I mentioned will likely be able to solo. Usually the best soloers were not hybrid classes, but the ones that could control movement speed, heal, DPS, and CC a bit. Classes like the Druid and Necromancer. If the Ranger gets better archery in this game I'd imagine they will be able to solo as well (through kiting).
Unfortunately the map hasn't made the decision any easier for me! My original plan was cleric, enchanter or summoner.
But there's still so little information about the summoner! If that class turns out to be interesting, I may play as an elf summoner. Maybe gnome. It is my great hope to have a class that plays similar to the EQ mage, I wouldn't mind a few changes but not totally different gameplay.
For cleric, I think given the current race choices I would most likely go with Dark Myr. Although if the other healing classes turn out to be balanced similar to VG, then I would also consider a shaman, probably an ogre then.
If I decided on an enchanter, I would most certainly go for a dwarf. I like that they can be be enchanters, and I like the reasoning as to why. Currently this is what I'm leaning to most, at least until more info about summoners becomes available.
Elf Bard =-)
1. I love playing a class where support is the focus. I really hope the Bard ends up being as powerful in support as the EQ1 Bard.
2. I love Elves and I love the lore behind the Pantheon Elves. I cant wait to play a Bard.
That being said, I really hope they end up as a launch class. As a support class, the last thing I want to do is team with 4 Bards and a healer to try and catch up to the rest of everyones mains.
Give me a Dark Myr Enchanter. After reading the lore on all the classes, as well as the full lore of the world we are entering, I'm in love with the race. The Halflings look awesome but I'm an Enchanter at heart. Planes of Power was the last time an enchanter seemed of any use and I miss de-railing trains.
shasta said:so will monks have the same roll as in EQ?
Well they will have the same role in that the will be melee dps. It's unclear at this point if the game or character design will necessitate a "puller". Keep in mind, pulling was never an intended behavior in Everquest, but rather an example of emergent gameplay. Aside from that, the team have not officially released any information on the Monk as of yet so we don't really know much.
Nikademis said:shasta said:so will monks have the same roll as in EQ?
Well they will have the same role in that the will be melee dps. It's unclear at this point if the game or character design will necessitate a "puller". Keep in mind, pulling was never an intended behavior in Everquest, but rather an example of emergent gameplay. Aside from that, the team have not officially released any information on the Monk as of yet so we don't really know much.
thank you kind sir!
Dravid said:OMGWTFBBQ. No Elf Healadin?
It depends on the lore of the game. In old school D&D only Humans could be Paladins. It didn't fit with the lore of the other races. I know High Elves could be Paladins in EQ, but I think the only others were Erudites and Humans. I personally prefer the Paladin class being restricted to humans. It gives them something unique. It seems a bit odd for Elves to be worshipping a religious deity. In most lore, Elves worship nature and gain their magic from it.