Honestly, the reveal makes it sound to me like they know both specializations.
"Through longstanding discipline and unwavering obedience to ancient teachings, the Monk wields their body and soul as a devastating, holistic weapon against their enemies. "
"Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons."
"Iconic Ability: Feign Death. Through mastery of their own body and soul"
"The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS, short term crowd control and as a suitable offtank."
Iksar said:Honestly, the reveal makes it sound to me like they know both specializations.
"Through longstanding discipline and unwavering obedience to ancient teachings, the Monk wields their body and soul as a devastating, holistic weapon against their enemies. "
"Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons."
"Iconic Ability: Feign Death. Through mastery of their own body and soul"
"The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS, short term crowd control and as a suitable offtank."
That could simply be introducing the fact of dual speccing, and that you are reading into the "and" to much, for honestly as of right now if that were the case the devs would of alrdy responded to this forum with an answer of there own, so therefore they are still testing the waters on if they want you to be able to master both or choose between one or the other
yes i also think the reveal doesn't say anything about how it's going to be in detail. however, what i dislike is the general idea behind it: the monk is able to cover many (almost all) needs. i thought that's exactly what they did not want to do, so i don't quite understand what's going on. i never viewed the monk as a versatile class - that's what we have hybrids for. so is every class going to be able to fill 4 different roles? (out of... 5?) and while testing will hopefully get the balancing right, it will likely not change the basic ideas.
letsdance said:yes i also think the reveal doesn't say anything about how it's going to be in detail. however, what i dislike is the general idea behind it: the monk is able to cover many (almost all) needs. i thought that's exactly what they did not want to do, so i don't quite understand what's going on. i never viewed the monk as a versatile class - that's what we have hybrids for. so is every class going to be able to fill 4 different roles? (out of... 5?) and while testing will hopefully get the balancing right, it will likely not change the basic ideas.
They fill 1.5 roles... DPS/Off-tank. Just because they have limited CC doesn't make them also a CC class.
I asked a few folks in my EQ1 guild, they all agreed the Monk as demonstrated is CC, (single pulls), DPS, Tank and self-heal. So, 3.5 out of 4, so far.
Sure, Visionary Realms could say "no no no, it's only one, it's just DPS" but when they demonstrate it in the videos, it's pretty easy to see why people think differently.
Others say Rogues CC'ing two mobs doesn't make them a CC class. Ok, it makes them a "CC light" class, by the devs own admission. But we're waaaaay past a single role per class, that's for sure.
vjek said:I asked a few folks in my EQ1 guild, they all agreed the Monk as demonstrated is CC, (single pulls), DPS, Tank and self-heal. So, 3.5 out of 4, so far.
Sure, Visionary Realms could say "no no no, it's only one, it's just DPS" but when they demonstrate it in the videos, it's pretty easy to see why people think differently.
Others say Rogues CC'ing two mobs doesn't make them a CC class. Ok, it makes them a "CC light" class, by the devs own admission. But we're waaaaay past a single role per class, that's for sure.
I think this is exactly why we don't need specialization. Given the expected overlaps in classes, is more necessary?
I know we probably use EQ as an example too much, but it's for good reason.
How many classes can snare? Ranger, Druid, SK, Necro, Wizard, Bard
How many can root? Wizard, Necro, Cleric, Shaman, Enchanter, etc.
How many can fear? SK, Bard, Necro, and situationally Cleric and Druid.
How many can port? Wizard, Druid
How many DD well? Wizard, Druid, Mage and situationally Necro/Cleric
How many tank in an EXP group? Warrior, SK, Pally, Monk
How many can increase movement speed? Bard, Shaman, Ranger, Druid
How many can haste? Bard, Shaman, Enchanter
How many can buff mana regen? Bard, Enchanter, Necro(and later on Druid and Bst)
How many can buff HP regen? Druid, Shaman, Bard
How many can heal? Shaman, Druid, Cleric, and later Paladin.
How many can buff? Shaman, Druid, Cleric, and later Pally and Ranger.
How many have a damage shield? Bard, Druid, Mage and Ranger(to a lesser extent).
How many can slow? Shaman, Enchanter, Bard.
How many can stun? Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Enchanter
How many can mez? Ench, Bard
How many can lull? Druid, Ench, Bard, Ranger, Paladin
How many can FD? Monk, Necro, SK
How many can pull? Basically any that can FD or lull/harmony.
How many can see invis, invis, invis undead, levitate, etc, etc, etc.
The classes were EXTREMELY well defined, and yet still had tons of overlap.
vjek said:I asked a few folks in my EQ1 guild, they all agreed the Monk as demonstrated is CC, (single pulls), DPS, Tank and self-heal. So, 3.5 out of 4, so far.
Sure, Visionary Realms could say "no no no, it's only one, it's just DPS" but when they demonstrate it in the videos, it's pretty easy to see why people think differently.
Others say Rogues CC'ing two mobs doesn't make them a CC class. Ok, it makes them a "CC light" class, by the devs own admission. But we're waaaaay past a single role per class, that's for sure.
Single pulling isn't considered CC but as being a puller, much like lull is considered a pulling tool not a CC tool.
CC means you are engaged in more than one enemy but making one or many creatures not able to attack.
Hard Counter: Mez, Sleep, Fear
Soft Counter: Root, Stun
That's really jumping the gun. A skill or two in any categories doesn't mean they can qualify for the role. That's like saying because they have a couple light self heals or maybe just Mend from EQ that they are healers. It would be like saying an EMT is a doctor.
Feign Death is not a CC ability, it is a pulling/split pulling/survival ability. I don't think it counts as CC when you aren't controlling a crowd so much as trying to avoid one to begin with. It certainly doesn't help the group if FD fails or if adds/roaming mobs join the frey...when there IS a crowd that needs to be controlled. We didn't see any mez or stunlocking or anything like that. We didn't see the extent of their self healing, for all we know it is relatively minor and could be tied to tanking abilities...of which we haven't seen anything. They even say off-tanking so we know it isn't tanking and seems to be more of a temporary "oh crap the mez broke, pick up the add while we burn this one down real fast!" Especially since evasion tanking has a long history of being spotty at best.
By that same logic, using the EQ example: Druids/Shaman/Necromancer/Cleric/Bard/Ranger were DPS/Heals/CC, Monk/Paladin/Shadowknight were DPS/CC/Tank/Heals, almost all of the classes spilled over or had some skills in other areas. Heck over half the classes had access to root at the very least, with various having overlapping snares/fears/stuns/lulls/blinds.
Nowhere that I can find has VR said the classes in this game would have a single role, just that they will have primary roles.
letsdance said:yes i also think the reveal doesn't say anything about how it's going to be in detail. however, what i dislike is the general idea behind it: the monk is able to cover many (almost all) needs. i thought that's exactly what they did not want to do, so i don't quite understand what's going on. i never viewed the monk as a versatile class - that's what we have hybrids for. so is every class going to be able to fill 4 different roles? (out of... 5?) and while testing will hopefully get the balancing right, it will likely not change the basic ideas.
I don't see 4 out of 5 anywhere is there decription, is see them having CC, which honestly is probably small stuns, interrupts at best, off tanking is just that off tanking and not tanking, and being able to self heal so not a healer, so ther primary role is DPS, so if anythign they cover 1.5 roles like Iksar said, i think people jump the gun when they hear certain classes getting CC, becuase by definition in EQ1 a Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Necro, SK, Bard, Wizard, Enchanter, Ranger, Shaman can CC, but obviously the Big CCer in that game was the sole successor of the Enchater, and 2nd best being Bard, but lets be honest the Enchanter blew them out of the water.
Ok so just to be clear, There are only 4 roles, tanks, healers, dps and CC, pulling is not a role, every class can pull, but monks do it better than anyother other becasue they can split pull.
Everything else is hybrid. Monk is a hybrid, and just because some classes have once CC spells that doens't make them a CC class, remember that CC will be a group effort so everyone will have to contribute a bit to the CC of mobs (or just get a chanter and never worry about it).
jpedrote said:Ok so just to be clear, There are only 4 roles, tanks, healers, dps and CC, pulling is not a role, every class can pull, but monks do it better than anyother other becasue they can split pull.
Everything else is hybrid. Monk is a hybrid, and just because some classes have once CC spells that doens't make them a CC class, remember that CC will be a group effort so everyone will have to contribute a bit to the CC of mobs (or just get a chanter and never worry about it).
Yeah i was abit curious what he meant by 4 out of 5 myself but i was figuring we was thinking off tanking as a role so i just went with it.
Nanfoodle said: How do people not get the more overlapping there is, the more viable team combinations there will be. So you know, getting a team faster.
This is a very valid point, but i also havent been complaining about the overlapping either, makes more classes viable than they were in previous old school games. Which is a great thing becuase lets face it alot of classes they were so focused on one thing became extremely boring, and therefore had a very small group of people playing them.
Seems reasonable to change the flavor or the dps between specializations. One can be more burst dps oriented and the other do more sustained damage, one can have better off tanking abilites and the other have some minor useful debuff or paralyze cc. They referenced vanguard monk in the reveal, it doesn't seem far fetched to assume it will be similar. With stances for each specialization, and the ability to learn specialized abilities from a grandmaster and the ability to change between the specializaions but at the cost of a signifigant amount of time.
Some overlap is okay. Too much overlap means classes that specialize in something like crowd control, are no longer necessary. If you have a couple of dps classes that also have significant crowd control, you would really not need a class whose primary purpose is crowd control.
Still has to be a balance, and it's why they wouldn't want to add specializations that expand a class beyond it's role.
Nanfoodle said: How do people not get the more overlapping there is, the more viable team combinations there will be. So you know, getting a team faster.yes and it would be fastest if everyone could do everything! best if we also had an automatic grouping tool...
single pulling and cc may be 2 different categories in your eyes, but they take care of the same need: handling larger groups of mobs. if you get single pulls you don't need cc, if you can cc you don't need single pulls. so even if you insist that they are different, you only need one of them. therefore it makes sense to put them in the same category, when we talk about required roles in a group. call this role pull/cc if you want. but counting single pulling abilities to cc isn't wrong either. so the monk is either cc or removes the need for it, in either case he covers your cc needs.
anyways, counting him neither as puller nor cc (as all those who say 1.5 roles in the newletter) is dead wrong. we can settle on 2.5/4 if you want, counting off-tank as half a role.
as a side note, i've never ever seen a monk tanking in a full group in EQ, i don't understand why the EQ-monk keeps popping up as tank-able class in this thread. yes it works in small groups under certain circumstances (good slow available, others can always avoid aggro), but he was never a tank class.
letsdance said:Nanfoodle said: How do people not get the more overlapping there is, the more viable team combinations there will be. So you know, getting a team faster.yes and it would be fastest if everyone could do everything! best if we also had an automatic grouping tool...single pulling and cc may be 2 different categories in your eyes, but they take care of the same need: handling larger groups of mobs. if you get single pulls you don't need cc, if you can cc you don't need single pulls. so even if you insist that they are different, you only need one of them. therefore it makes sense to put them in the same category, when we talk about required roles in a group. call this role pull/cc if you want. but counting single pulling abilities to cc isn't wrong either. so the monk is either cc or removes the need for it, in either case he covers your cc needs.
anyways, counting him neither as puller nor cc (as all those who say 1.5 roles in the newletter) is dead wrong. we can settle on 2.5/4 if you want, counting off-tank as half a role.
as a side note, i've never ever seen a monk tanking in a full group in EQ, i don't understand why the EQ-monk keeps popping up as tank-able class in this thread. yes it works in small groups under certain circumstances (good slow available, others can always avoid aggro), but he was never a tank class.
And wrong again, you can ty to split pull and fail, therefore still getting the full pull, and therefore need CC to limit the madness that can occur, plus it onlt makes the puller job easier if e can "trust" the CCer to do his job. and so therefore pulling also still isn't CC becuase like i said before you have to have a crowd meaning more than one mob on the aggro list to and prevent them doing anything. so therefore im staying at 1.5
Also Nanfoodle wasn't saying for all classes to be able to do everything either, and as i pointed out monk are far from doing everything but do more than they did in EQ, and there is nothing wrong with this they are making the more focused dps classes have more utilty so a bigger playerbase will play them. like having a rogue have some CC ability, but very iffy, but still viable to help the group out is sticky sitautions. and like i said before people are overreacting when they see classes getting CC because by definition in EQ almost 90% of the classes got some kind of CC
Nephretiti said:That is an easy fix - just let the CC pull.
They could counter this, simply by not having the CCer have a lull spell, with moderate cast times on mezzes, sleep spells as well
Not saying this is likely but just saying its a possibility but to be more honest i would be a little heart broken if the enchnater didnt have a lull spell lol.
Plus i got a good feeling in some of the harder content they will have certain targets too high lvl to be mezzed or to fall asleep so therefore a puller will have its time to shine in the biggest way.
Iksar said:Honestly, the reveal makes it sound to me like they know both specializations.
"Through longstanding discipline and unwavering obedience to ancient teachings, the Monk wields their body and soul as a devastating, holistic weapon against their enemies. "
"Monks have mastered the arts of transforming their body and soul into resilient, living weapons."
"Iconic Ability: Feign Death. Through mastery of their own body and soul"
"The Monk is envisioned not as just a fantastic pulling class, but also as capable melee DPS, short term crowd control and as a suitable offtank."
And I sincerely hope that this is the case. If "Soul" ends up being a situational off-tank spec, I imagine them being at a pretty severe disadvantage compared to "Body" monks. The pure DPS spec is the rule, not the exception. Based on that, I would say my earlier assessment regarding most monks wanting to spec "Body" first, and then "Soul" down the road would make sense. This doesen't mean that monks couldn't still be a situational off-tank as "Body." If they have access to self healing, taunt, and a variety of defensive/avoidance stances or abilities, they can still pull off situational off-tanking. The "Soul" spec could be something that expands upon that. Rather than having just a few "Oh ****!" abilities they get stuff that allows them to do it a bit more consistently. When I played EQ2, there were 6 fighter classes. 2 warriors (Guardian/Berserker) 2 crusaders (Paladin/Shadowknight) 2 brawlers (Monk/Bruiser) and it felt pretty balanced. Brawlers were considered a fighter because they had access to basic fighter abilities such as taunt and defensive stances. For the most part, you couldn't really rely on them as the primary tank in your group, though. With the right gear and group composition, however, they were able to pull it off ... and pull it off well! I had both a monk and bruiser in my guild who were capable of tanking the majority of difficult group instances.
I am okay with something like that, progression wise. They start off as an "oh ****" tank that needs to burn their temporary buffs and long cooldowns in a pinch. Once they are trained in "Soul" those temporary buffs become more of a semi-permanent buff, and those long cooldowns are reduced significantly, thus allowing them to fulfill the off-tank role pretty consistently. End-game, if they are fully decked out with the best gear possible, have a group composition that provides powerful AC / HP / avoidance buffs, and they have all of their abilities mastered, I think it's okay that their "situational off-tank role" turns into something where "situational" is expanded upon pretty greatly. They shouldn't be able to solo tank all of the most difficult bosses in the game (one here and there, though, yes!), but they should be capable of running through a dungeon and getting the job done. This is just my personal opinion of course, but I remember seeing this in action and it worked pretty well, and it felt awesome for our monk and bruiser who could pull it off. To keep things in perspective though, just imagine this ... there were only a few brawlers on our server that could pull this off. At the end of the day, it basically meant that if you were the most bad ass brawler on your server, you "could" fill in as a tank. You had to be 100% progressed in every way possible on your character to be able to step up to the plate and perform at the level of "your average warrior" or "average crusader." I'm okay with that.
Megaera said: Im ok with what is stated above but in order for that monk to fill in you should have to alter your raid composition to make it work. You might have to bring an extra 2 healers and less dps.
In my example of the monks tanking, it was mostly group content. There were very few raid bosses they could tank (some were purposely designed so that only a brawler could tank them.) But yes, in a group setting, a fully decked out and progressed monk should be able to tank as well as an "average warrior." This also assumes, like you said, that the group composition accomodates. The monk would likely need an extra healer to go with the Cleric (Shaman would be ideal as they ward damage, compared to druids who have HoT's) that compliments their style of avoidance tanking.
I still say if if Soul gets all the CC along with so other things that body dont get due to sacraficing everythign to max there dps than body still holds an extremely valid spot in a group, even in the dps role, which in my personal opinion should be close to what it should be to split the difference between the 2.
Ok, I don't post often, because it's usually twisted and taken the wrong way, but this is something that I feel really strongly about. I do not want there to be multiple specs in Pantheon. Why? Then you end up with all the loot whores that think they have to gear up each spec, and then you have people able to do everything instead of branching out and finding people to play with. Not only that, but it also starts a lot additional whining about things being unbalanced. I say let each class have it's path, like in EQ and live with the roll you choose.
In my opinion, this is one of the worst things that WoW did when they allowed spec switching. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but so be it, flame on, but that's my 2cp on the issue. Either way, I'm still going to be playing.