Forums » Pantheon Classes

Just Realized.

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 7:14 AM PST

    Regarding the vision of this game.. The classes on the class chart are exactly as they were in classic Everquest. I thought this was going to have the feel of classic Everquest, yet be different. At least that is what we keep being told. Is it a bit much that the listed 14 classes in Pantheon are pretty much the same as the 14 classes in classic EQ? Maybe there is a reason the bard should be left out? Or keep just the necro as planned in an expansion or something? I don't know. Just pointing this out.. I hope Pantheon doesn't go "race and class Crazy" as ultimately happened to latter Everquest and World of Warcraft.


    This post was edited by Syrif at January 17, 2018 11:05 AM PST
    • 1229 posts
    January 17, 2018 7:36 AM PST

    I like similaries but just having the same name don't mean it will play identical to EQ. Also If a shaman plays simliarly to a shaman but your calling a shaman witchdoctor, what does that even add?

    Also alot of the classes are D&D based on high fantasy not EQ, EQ didnt invent the classes.

    As far as the races, yeah they are not even close to a replica of EQ, just look as the gnomes and halfings.


    This post was edited by Aich at January 17, 2018 9:41 AM PST
    • 4415 posts
    January 17, 2018 8:33 AM PST

    I'm not really sure what you mean tbh. The races and classes are definitely not exactly as they were in classic EQ. Two classes (Dire Lord & Summoner) were not present in EQ and three races (Archai, Dark Myr, and Skar) were not in EQ. Conversely, there are even more races and classes that were in EQ but are not in Pantheon. (Troll, Barbarian, Dark Elf, Erudite, Half-Elf, Magician, Shadow Knight, etc.) Yes, there are some similarities, but pretty much every MMO needs "staple" races/classes like Human, Elf, Wizard, Warrior, etc. You can't really draw any conclusions about the future of the game just from that.

    Furthermore, just because the name may be the same does not necessarily mean they will feel the same. As Zeem pointed out, the Gnomes and Halflings are very different from what is traditional. I think an argument could even be made that the Dwarves, Elves, and Ogres are precisely what you said was promised: familiar, yet different. And it's too early to say whether or not the classes will play the same as classes of the same name in other games. 

    I don't think it's even really accurate to say that the goal of Pantheon is to have "the feel of classic EverQuest." It's much broader than that. Pantheon draws inspiration from many other "old school" games - EverQuest is only one of them. Pantheon fundamentally has a lot of the same ideology and principles while, yes, still being unique in its own right. I personally see no reason to believe they have strayed at all from what was said in the FAQ:

    1.0.1 It sounds like Pantheon is bringing back a lot of ‘older’ MMO game mechanics. Is Pantheon a clone of older games or a modern MMO?

    Pantheon is most definitely a modern MMO with modern graphics and new and exciting features and mechanics. There are already emulators out there that are clones of earlier MMOs and Visionary Realms has no desire to make another emulator. That said, we also feel that many of the features and mechanics of previous MMOs have been abandoned in more recent games, resulting in a less challenging, compelling, deep, and social experience. Pantheon, therefore, will indeed bring back some of these conventional mechanics and ideas but with a fresh perspective, some tweaks and revisions. We also understand that while gamers’ tastes don’t fundamentally change over time, their situations, lives, and responsibilities do. Likewise, some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved inordinate amounts of downtime, overly severe penalties, too much competition over content and resources, and even downright boring or overly repetitive gameplay. Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game.

     


    This post was edited by Bazgrim at January 17, 2018 9:20 AM PST
    • 2662 posts
    January 17, 2018 8:39 AM PST

    Bah I can't think of a thing to add to what Bazgrim said, he nailed it again!

    • 115 posts
    January 17, 2018 8:47 AM PST

    I'd argue that it just follows the same theme as D&D in a sense. EQ got it's influence from D&D high fantasy


    This post was edited by halflingwarrior at January 30, 2019 11:47 AM PST
    • 1729 posts
    January 17, 2018 8:47 AM PST

    Syrif said: Regarding the vision of this game.. The classes on the races & classes chart are exactly as they were in classic Everquest. I thought this was going to have the feel of classic Everquest, yet be different. At least that is what we keep being told. Is it a bit much that the listed 14 classes in Pantheon are pretty much the same as the 14 classes in classic EQ? Maybe there is a reason the bard should be left out? Or keep just the necro as planned in an expansion or something? I don't know. Just pointing this out.. I hope Pantheon doesn't go "race and class Crazy" as ultimately happened to latter Everquest and World of Warcraft.

     

    I'm confused by this post. You say they are exactly the same and then 2 sentences later say they are "pretty much the same". They have a bunch of different races, and not the same classes, and a widely different range of race/class combos. How is that not capturing the feel but being different? Additionally, I can't tell if you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? You don't want them to be exactly like EQ but you also don't want them to go "race and class crazy"? 

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 10:24 AM PST
    1. I don't really see what Bazgrim "nailed" since if you were to reread my post, you would see that my comment is 100% about the 14 classes in Classic EQ and the 14 classes of Pantheon. I take no issue at all with the races as is.. reread my post?

    2. Yes, the you are correct that the "pretty much the same" part of my post applies here. Bard = Bard. Cleric = Cleric. Dire Lord = another name for Shadow Knight/Dread Lord (names like in EQ). Druid = Druid. Enchanter = Enchanter. Monk = Monk. Necromancer= Necromancer. Paladin = Paladin. Ranger = Ranger. Rogue = Rogue. Shaman = Shaman. Summoner = another name for Magician/Conjurer (names like in EQ). Warrior = Warrior. Wizard = Wizard. 14 classes = 14 classes. I am confused?

    Fact: latter Everquest and latter World of Warcraft did go crazy (overboard) on classes and races. Just one of the many, many problems with the live versions of these games. I don't know the answer.. hence a discussion on it lol. Not here to argue, but am hoping for more of a discussion on what my post is about: 14 classes of Pantheon being nearly identical to 14 classes of Classic Everquest.
    • 1229 posts
    January 17, 2018 10:26 AM PST

    Syrif said: 1. I don't really see what Bazgrim "nailed" since if you were to reread my post, you would see that my comment is 100% about the 14 classes in Classic EQ and the 14 classes of Pantheon. I take no issue at all with the races as is.. reread my post? 2. Yes, the you are correct that the "pretty much the same" part of my post applies here. Bard = Bard. Cleric = Cleric. Dire Lord = another name for Shadow Knight/Dread Lord (names like in EQ). Druid = Druid. Enchanter = Enchanter. Monk = Monk. Necromancer= Necromancer. Paladin = Paladin. Ranger = Ranger. Rogue = Rogue. Shaman = Shaman. Summoner = another name for Magician/Conjurer (names like in EQ). Warrior = Warrior. Wizard = Wizard. 14 classes = 14 classes. I am confused? Fact: latter Everquest and latter World of Warcraft did go crazy (overboard) on classes and races. Just one of the many, many problems with the live versions of these games. I don't know the answer.. hence a discussion on it lol. Not here to argue, but am hoping for more of a discussion on what my post is about: 14 classes of Pantheon being nearly identical to 14 classes of Classic Everquest.

    Its an issue with you saying its identical to EQ which isnlt really because they are both based off high fantasy theme not so much Patheon is based off of EQ.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)


    This post was edited by Aich at January 17, 2018 10:28 AM PST
    • 122 posts
    January 17, 2018 10:29 AM PST

    Syrif said: Regarding the vision of this game..

     

    Based on what I have seen in the streams, read on the website, and heard in the interviews, I think you are wrong to think that PRotF will be a clone of EQ. If anything, it looks like PRotF will be everything that was good about EQ wrapped into a much larger, deeper game. I am super excited.

     

    Cheers.

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 10:53 AM PST
    Right, but I do not think PRotF will be a clone of anything.. obviously it won't. I am just pointing out one thing: the 14 classes of PRotF look nearly identical to the 14 classes of Classic EQ. That's all.

    I am really looking forward to PRotF, as I have reached out to friends, other EQ Classic vets etc to support this game. I hope everyone else is doing so too.
    • 230 posts
    January 17, 2018 11:12 AM PST

    Syrif said: Right, but I do not think PRotF will be a clone of anything.. obviously it won't. I am just pointing out one thing: the 14 classes of PRotF look nearly identical to the 14 classes of Classic EQ. That's all. I am really looking forward to PRotF, as I have reached out to friends, other EQ Classic vets etc to support this game. I hope everyone else is doing so too.

     

    Well the reason, as previously stated by others, is simple... it is a high fantasy RPG game. There are only so many archtypes and classes that exist in the genre. A majority of the high fantasy rpg games out there have these classes or some variation of them, and they all have varying degrees of different play styles. 

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 11:25 AM PST
    Arazons,

    I agree with what you said, but there are hundreds of classes in the fantasy genre :)
    • 2571 posts
    January 17, 2018 11:30 AM PST

    Having the same classes as EQ doesn't mean much when the abilities and gameplay is likely to be very different. If I were a blacksmith and I met a blacksmith from another country then we might share some core principles/fundamentals but our approach, methods, and design would probably differ greatly. 

     

    As for class overload? I don't think EQ or WoW went overboard... EQ only added 2 classes in nearly 19 years (Beastlord and Berserker) and WoW has added 2 classes in its 13 years of life. As long as added classes have a unique identity and can add their own something special without stepping on the toes of existing classes then I don't see too much issue.

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 11:42 AM PST

    Iksar, Though this thread is about the 14 classes in both games, what about all of the races that were added to latter EQ and WoW tho? Many would call these additions lame.. I recall hearing about disappointment with cats on the moon and then pandas in WoW for example. 


    This post was edited by Syrif at January 17, 2018 11:46 AM PST
    • 4415 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:02 PM PST

    Syrif said: 1. I don't really see what Bazgrim "nailed" since if you were to reread my post, you would see that my comment is 100% about the 14 classes in Classic EQ and the 14 classes of Pantheon. I take no issue at all with the races as is.. reread my post?

    I see. But my points still stand even if we're strictly talking about classes - just because there is a class of the same name does not mean they will feel or play exactly the same. They can still be as you hoped: familiar, yet different. So there's no problem with that. And it's no reason to jump to the conclusion that the game will become oversaturated with classes.

    Syrif said: 2. Yes, the you are correct that the "pretty much the same" part of my post applies here. Bard = Bard. Cleric = Cleric. Dire Lord = another name for Shadow Knight/Dread Lord (names like in EQ). Druid = Druid. Enchanter = Enchanter. Monk = Monk. Necromancer= Necromancer. Paladin = Paladin. Ranger = Ranger. Rogue = Rogue. Shaman = Shaman. Summoner = another name for Magician/Conjurer (names like in EQ). Warrior = Warrior. Wizard = Wizard. 14 classes = 14 classes. I am confused?

    To be quite honest, yes kinda. These statements I highlighted are simply nothing but assumptions and are actually not very accurate. While there may be a few similarities, there's still tons of room for variation. Rather than "familiar, yet different" I think these fall in the category of "different, yet familiar."

    As for the others, in order to attract the majority of fans, there absolutely has to be certain recognizable staple classes such as Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, etc. that have traditional core values so people feel like is not too far of a stretch from what they are used to and comfortable with. But whatever you call them, that doesn't mean there won't still be plenty of abilities, mechanics, etc. that give it a unique twist. I still stand by the quote from the FAQ that sums it all up:

    "Pantheon, therefore, will indeed bring back some of these conventional mechanics and ideas but with a fresh perspective, some tweaks and revisions."

    Syrif said: Right, but I do not think PRotF will be a clone of anything.. obviously it won't. I am just pointing out one thing: the 14 classes of PRotF look nearly identical to the 14 classes of Classic EQ. That's all. I am really looking forward to PRotF, as I have reached out to friends, other EQ Classic vets etc to support this game. I hope everyone else is doing so too.

    If you don't think it's a clone, then why do you think it will be a problem? Whether or not EQ and WoW went "race/class crazy," just because Pantheon starts with similar race/class charts does not meet it will have the same future. That's an awfully big assumption. So I'm not sure what the concern is.

    Props for reaching out to friends about the game btw. The game needs more of that sort of thing. I have indeed done the same as I am of course looking forward to it too.

    To be clear, I'm not attacking you or anything. I don't usually like to do multiquotes like that. I'm just trying to clarify some potentially faulty logic and ease any concerns you might have.


    This post was edited by Bazgrim at January 17, 2018 12:20 PM PST
    • 1553 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:22 PM PST

    It isn't the name of the class that matters, but the gameplay.

    When we get the chance to test these classes during alpha and/or beta, we should all be providing feedback on some critical questions:

    Is the way the class works fun?

    Is the way the class works interesting and challenging - is there depth enough where players will be able to learn and grow along with their characters?

    Is the class viable in group situations within It's primary role of tank, healer, etc.?

    Is the class distinct and unique from other classes? Does it bring something to the table that sets it apart in some way or in certain circumstances?

    We can talk about class concepts on paper but until we get to try them out in actual gameplay, we simply can't provide meaningful feedback to VR. If EQ's shadow knights hadn't had pets or dots, but had done something else instead, how much different would the experience of playing them have been?. Enough to feel like a different class?

    To me, that is what familiar but different means. Maybe the names and concepts sound similar, but the implementation and the gameplay are what really matter.

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:29 PM PST
    Bazgrim,

    My original post is 100% about the 14 classes in Classic EQ and the 14 classes in Pantheon being nearly identical. Other people brought up races. And, as is seen in my response to Iksar, I brought up races specifically in response to his or her point in that reply. Thank you for your response, what I am more concerned about is down the road.. Pantheon having a similar unfortunate fate that happened to Live Everquest and Live WoW. This is a whole other topic though, and I am optimistic about Pantheon. The 14 classes are nearly identical in Classic EQ and Pantheon.. for better or worse I do not know :)
    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:29 PM PST
    Bazgrim,

    My original post is 100% about the 14 classes in Classic EQ and the 14 classes in Pantheon being nearly identical. Other people brought up races. And, as is seen in my response to Iksar, I brought up races specifically in response to his or her point in that reply. Thank you for your response, what I am more concerned about is down the road.. Pantheon having a similar unfortunate fate that happened to Live Everquest and Live WoW. This is a whole other topic though, and I am optimistic about Pantheon. The 14 classes are nearly identical in Classic EQ and Pantheon.. for better or worse I do not know :)
    • 4415 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:31 PM PST

    Syrif said: Bazgrim, My original post is 100% about the 14 classes in Classic EQ and the 14 classes in Pantheon being nearly identical. Other people brought up races. And, as is seen in my response to Iksar, I brought up races specifically in response to his or her point in that reply. Thank you for your response, what I am more concerned about is down the road.. Pantheon having a similar unfortunate fate that happened to Live Everquest and Live WoW. This is a whole other topic though, and I am optimistic about Pantheon. The 14 classes are nearly identical in Classic EQ and Pantheon.. for better or worse I do not know :)

    There's nothing wrong about wanting what's best for the future of a game you're excited for. You're certainly not alone in that.

    I'm just saying that though the names of most of the classes are nearly identical, that doesn't mean the gameplay will actually be nearly identical. And even still, there's a lot more to a game's prolonged success than the starting races/classes. Correlation is not causation. So I don't see any reason to be worried yet :) We will just have to wait and see before drawing conclusions. MMOs have to expand and new races/classes are a good part of that. But it doesn't really matter how many of them there are. What's important is how they are implemented. It may be that Vah Shir, Pandaren, etc. were poorly conceived or poorly implemented, but that's subjective and essentially irrelevant to Pantheon until we see how VR handles releasing new races/classes. I too would not want to see silly, cartoony races in Terminus. But we don't yet have any real reason to believe that there will be.


    This post was edited by Bazgrim at January 17, 2018 12:40 PM PST
    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:44 PM PST
    Thanks Bazgrim. I do appreciate it. I suppose the number 1 important part of the game to me (and others) is that Pantheon stays true to its vision for the game not just now, but also years from now. :)
    • 2571 posts
    January 17, 2018 12:51 PM PST

    That's less an adding races problem and more of an adding races with poorly implemented lore or otherwise go against the feel of the game. Vah Shir in EQ wouldn't have been received nearly as poorly (or poorly at all) if they weren't on the moon and instead were introduced in an expansion set around Odus/Erud with the Kerra. Pandaren were just a total joke, a completely campy race with no real history in the Warcraft universe beyond their very limited inclusion in WC3 and even then they started off as an April Fools joke. 

     

    "Samwise recalled the process to the creation of the Pandaren April Fool's page: "But so we put that up in there and everyone was like “Oh my God! A PANDA RACE? That’s kind of cool!” And I’m like “Are you kidding me, really? You want to see pandas in Warcraft III or whatever?”"

    • 4415 posts
    January 17, 2018 1:08 PM PST

    Syrif said: Thanks Bazgrim. I do appreciate it. I suppose the number 1 important part of the game to me (and others) is that Pantheon stays true to its vision for the game not just now, but also years from now. :)

    For sure. And everything I've heard from Brad and VR says that they have deeply understood that from Day 1. So ultimately, in the meantime, everything else on our part just simply comes down to faith.

    It takes some patience but it's better if we can give them a blank slate to work with and wait until they fill in the blanks themselves. Other games are irrelevant. Drawing our own conclusions early on only makes it more difficult for us to see Pantheon as it truly is. Just wait and see :)

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 1:09 PM PST
    Very true Iksar!
    • 19 posts
    January 17, 2018 1:17 PM PST

    Iksar said:

    That's less an adding races problem and more of an adding races with poorly implemented lore or otherwise go against the feel of the game. Vah Shir in EQ wouldn't have been received nearly as poorly (or poorly at all) if they weren't on the moon and instead were introduced in an expansion set around Odus/Erud with the Kerra. Pandaren were just a total joke, a completely campy race with no real history in the Warcraft universe beyond their very limited inclusion in WC3 and even then they started off as an April Fools joke. 

     

    "Samwise recalled the process to the creation of the Pandaren April Fool's page: "But so we put that up in there and everyone was like “Oh my God! A PANDA RACE? That’s kind of cool!” And I’m like “Are you kidding me, really? You want to see pandas in Warcraft III or whatever?”"

     

    I had a pet Panda from the original WoW collectors edition :D

    But yeah I see your point there, the Vah Shir actually turned out kinda fun to play at the time but then I was always a Altaholoc and and to at least try everything, I never really got very high on any toon in most games except in Wow where I maxed several but all were garbage gear ... but I liked it and the PVE, mostly to pass the time and to get away from the wife nagging .. Lol

    • 1471 posts
    January 17, 2018 1:17 PM PST
    Thanks Bazgrim!