Class Descriptions (long) [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

slippery

10-26-2005, 10:59 AM

<div></div>Before I get going on what could very possibly be a long post, there are some things I would like to put out there first. One of the primary reasons for my posting of this thread is to get opinions on why people made the choices they did and relate that to many of the discussion that go about my class should do this, my class should be the best at that, etc... There are going to many examples to D&D as I have been a D&D player for years. I stayed away from MMORPG's for a long time because they just don't compare to sitting around a table with a bunch of friends and playing a good campaign (my opinion). I eventually ended up playing EQ2 because of some friends and now just use it as a time sync (and time sync's there definitly are in this game). I will stay away from too much on the base Archtype and Class types, because ultimately they are just an ends to a means. While some may choose an Archtype simply because they want that class and really have no play, most have a plan on what subclass they are ultimately going to play so the first 2 choices are of a more meaningless aspect. With this fact in mind the main focus of this post will be on the Subclasses, though some Class decisions will get more direct focus because of the fluff aspect based on that and the smaller division between the Subclasses of the Class. When you first decided to play EQ2 how did you decide what class to play? Most people sit down and look at the book or descriptions of the classes. What did you think? Did you decide to yourself there was something specifically you wanted to do and choose the class you thought would focus most on that specific ability? With some idea of the fluff and the focus you made a decision and picked a class. Personally, back last January when I started playing I thought to myself I would like to be a caster and do a lot of damage. I wasn't so much worried about aiding others at all, but about doing damage. I knew Sorcerer is what I wanted. The decision between Wizard and Warlock was a harder choice, after some debate I felt like fluff wise that a Wizard would do more outright damage because of the fire and ice backing where as a Warlock would have more DoT type spells since disease and poison aren't things that initially do massive amounts of damage but instead inflict their damage over time. So, I picked Wizard with the thought in mind that it would do the most straight up damage. I sit here almost 11 months later with no regret in my mind. I picked the class because of what I thought it would do with no expectations of other things. I picked it for the one primary role. I didn't go deeper and look for any other specifics, I didn't pick it because I wanted to be able to pump power or have any group buffs, I became a Wizard because I wanted to do damage and that is what the class is meant to do. <blockquote> The Mage classes are very well defined in the game. Of the 6 subclasses each fits the role it logically seems like it should. The main role of the classes and their focus fits well with what would be expected. </blockquote> <ul> <li>From a D&D stand point what I would expect from a Coercer is someone who has lots of mental abilities of which Charm and Mez would be the primary, a very nice fit.</li> <li>Illusionist would be able create Illusions that would confuse the enemy and keep the enemy occupied in a non damaging way while the party does what it needs too.</li> <li>A Conjurer would do this in a different more damaging way, it would focus almost entirely on the summoning of monsters and items to aid the group with little ability to do damage directly itself.</li> <li>A Necromancer is a littler harder to define without using game specifics. A Necro has a fascination with death. I think Diablo did the best with that concept, summoning hordes of weaker undead beings to do their bidding. In a more direct game aspect I also see Necro's with some long recast abilities that are basically death attacks of some sort, ie Harm Touch, and some abilities along the lines of a chance to outright kill which if doesn't work does very little other damage (Phantasmal Killer for any of you D&D types).</li> <li>Wizard and Warlock I have already discussed in the previous paragraph.</li> </ul> <blockquote> As you move down the list things move into a fuzzier grey area where definitions aren't so clear and don't have so much fluff outside of the game with exceptions. Scout, how do you define scout? While the 6 classes are well defined and follow their background characteristics there are flaws and the base isn't always so well fitting. </blockquote> <ul> <li>Assassins are the ones who would be viewed as coming from no where and doing something big and hard and that is when they are at their best. They sneak and hide amongst the best and are adept at using poisons.</li> <li>Rangers are a Scout/Fighter, they find and see things at a distance, track the monster they want to hunt, and take it down at range(r). If forced to close they are light duel wielders.</li> <li>Swashbuckler, this is basically your charming fencer. You fight in melee with great finesse and agility in combat, they are also quite able in social situations (this is where MMO's flaw the most, with a strong combat base it is very hard to include this aspect in a game balance way).</li> <li>Brigands, this is the bully you pass on the road that wants you to pay a toll as you cross the bridge. A tough little cookie, might not be able to take a lot but is willing to push you around and do what he can.</li> <li>Bards, the Jack of all trades. Able to do everything but specialize in nothing. They help their party in whatever way may be needed at the time, whether it be some inspiration (read buffs), a little bit of healing (and I mean little), or some extra damage (some, not a lot). The focus is on the ability to do everything as opposed to the normal you do one of these two things exceptionally well and better than others. I won't break Bards down into Dirge and Troubador because in all my time in D&D and other fantasy novels I've never really run into anything of the sort of specialized Bard. If I had to I would go somewhere along the lines of more specialized in a certain line of ability to help the party.</li> </ul> <blockquote> Fighters and Priests, the really really grey areas and topics of most of the dispute. How do you say one can do something and the others can't when the main role is all supposed to be relatively the same? Or is it really? I will discuss fighter roles first with the view of the ones that are a base fighter (and some of which have other roles in D&D) with the way a fighter with that focus goes about things. All Fighters tanking the same, this more than a character aspect is a Game Mechanic issue that I will discus after the breakdown. </blockquote> <ul> <li>Guardians, this is your typical full plate tank. It protects everyone by being in your face, it protects itself by opponents not being able to get through it's armor. It draws attention because it is hard to take down and when it gets in contact with you it is typically strong and packs a punch.</li> <li>When I think Berzerker I think of a misnamed class. I immediately get drawn to the D&D Barbarian class. Again, as with all fighter types, up front and in your face. The thought of killing drives it into a frenzy where adrenaline kicks in and makes it stronger and able to take more of a beating. It has the best ability to just take damage. Where as the Guardian wears the heaviest pieces of armor it can find the Barbarian doesn't dwell on that so much because when it goes into a frenzy it doesn't care about the damage it is taking. (read more life than Guardian but not as much armor).</li> <li>Brawlers I always see as a Drunken Master. Easy to aggreviate, able to fight with anything, in anything, anywhere, at any time.</li> <li>Monks have their own definition and role. They use little, move fast, strike fast, strike hard, and strike often. They hope they don't get hit. Well disciplined and in control of their body, so control that there is qutie a bit that they are not aflicted by.</li> <li>Paladins, the embodiment of all that is good and right in the world. Stick out like a sore thumb and not afraid to show you what they think is right and try to remove all evil from the world. Pretty much your Guardian with less diversity in the fighting aspect in more in other aspects. Later on gets some ability to cast some smaller beneficial spells.</li> <li>Shadowknights are basically the antithesis of the Paladin. Opposite in pretty much all aspects.</li> </ul> <blockquote> Priests, your healers and lifelines. Are they? How should they go about it? Here I am going to discuss the Classes before I discuss the Subclasses since most of the fluff and background definition comes from there. After I'll just quickly go into the minor differences in the Subclasses of that Class. This is going to be even stronger in a D&D aspect than everything prior. </blockquote> <ul> <li>Clerics, you are the lifeline of the party. Your sole job is to keep the party alive. Occasionally it is a person who when gets the rare oppurtunity can cast some nice damaging and helpful spells but your focus is not on damage at all. The role you play is aiding others in healing and bonuses. They keep you up and running by being quick to react to the damage you take and having strong healing spells.</li> <li>Druids are not directly a healing class in a D&D game. In a group of 4 it is not a likely class. It is by every means a utility class. With the ability to shapechange, do enviromental damage, and heal in a support aspect and help in a regeneration project it is a very good filler and utility. It is like a Bard but with a different focus. They are situational by nature. They can be strong melee by changing shape, they can stand their own casting spells, they help heal with regeneration effects, they protect the party from nature through their connection to nature.</li> <li>Shamans are indirect protectors. They keep you alive by keeping you from taking damage and being the masters at curing ailments that might aflict you.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>When you have a Templar you have someone who specializes in making you stronger.</li> <li>With an Inquisitor (horrible name, Inquisitors aren't evil, they are the ones who go through and search out the wrong do'ers, but that is another discusion) you have someone makes your enemies less capable.</li> <li>A Fury is the Druid that focused on his ability to control weather and work with nature.</li> <li>The Warden focused more on the protective and natural aids of nature.</li> <li>Defiler and Mystic are different fluff wise in what they draw their power from but have much the same role.</li> </ul> What is the point you ask? What is the purpose of this entire post that really hasn't said much if anything at all so far? Hasn't it said plenty? When you picked the class you did did you keep the nature and focus of the class in mind? If so what is wrong with the class that draws away from that nature that makes you believe your class should have some different focus? If you didnt' have this definition of your class in mind and believed it had a different focus what gave you that idea and why did you believe it? Is that perception a common perception and something that needs to be adjusted? These are some questions that should be asked of yourself when you think about your class, and if something is wrong these are things the Developers need to know about why actually make it better and actually fix it instead of just slowly changing things and ending up at a point where things aren't at all where it was meant to be and you have to drastically overhaul everything. The Mage and Scout Archtypes are very well defined, they each have a specific role that doesn't necessarily overlap. They have their own purpose, all of which isn't the same. Mages are dps right? When you go out looking for DPS do you go looking for an Enchanter? Then why should it be necessary for if you are looking for a healer to be able to look for a Druid? (This is just one example of one of the more prominent class issues at the moment) Every Archtype has one of the 3 classes that fills a utility role that isn't necessarily in direct line with the other 2 Classes. It is a role that isn't good on its own but is very helpful to others. Why is there a strong belief that Druids shouldn't fill that utility role for priests and should be a direct Priest like the Bard does for Scouts, Enchanter does for Mages, and more than a Crusader (although there could be arguement for Brawler). The nature and background of each subclasses typically defines 2 major roles and focus's it should have. Are the focus's in the right place for all these subclasses? Does the focus's stick out in a game play aspect other than mere looks and fluff? Is there too much focus on being able to do one thing and not enough focus on individuality and being different? Everyone has their own opinions on the different things in the post. I make it as food for thought and things that I believe should be thought about when posts are being made about what class is doing what and what classes should be doing what as well as what is the final goal of things Edit: Reinserted Line Breaks that seemed to have magically disappeared in an attempt to make it more readable. <div></div>Message Edited by canoppener on 10-26-2005 08:57 AM

Laute

10-26-2005, 02:09 PM

I do disagree in some respects. For one, it really depends on how you look at things. I mean, if you come from a background of D&D and other pen and paper games, you're going to have different expectations than someone who largely played console RPGs, or someone who strictly reads fantasy novels. They're worlds apart, aside from some basic concepts. I do agree with you in one respect, though. I always choose my characters based on concept, not so much specific spells or abilities that I may or may not know about. I didn't use the manual so much though. I think the archetype system really helps this out. It's fairly self explanatory. Fighters are melee, taking damage and giving it in return. Mages are casters. Priests heal. Scouts are utility, stealthy, etc. And with stealth comes the opportunity to exploit your advantages, introduced as high DPS. I know it's fairly basic, but it's easy to underestimate. You know what you're getting into when you pick your archetype at level 3.Moving on to level 10, look at your class selections. Specifically, look at your class quests. They emphasize specific points of each of the classes. Taking fighters for instance: Warriors rely on armor and weapon, and are bitter fighters. Brawlers train their bodies to be weapons. Crusader's strongest weapons are their faith.Flash forward to level 20. A warrior can focus on channeling his rage as a berserker, or he can stay true to his defenses, shielding allies and being a pillar of strength. A brawler can learn to keep his inner spirit calm, striking back only when necessary and emphasizing form over strength. Or he can learn to train his fists and body so well that his strengths come solely from fighting. A Crusader can succeed as a paladin, or fall from glory as a shadowknight. (By the way, Shadowknight is one description I disagree on. A shadowknight isn't the opposite of a paladin, it's a shade of paladin. Back when we had skill levels and wot, Paladins were based on Determined Faith. Shadowknights were based on Determined Zeal. That really says a lot to me. Shadowknights are more offensive in nature, but they're still crusaders.)So yeah. I disagree with you in final details simply because I think you're looking at the subclasses as 24 separate entities, and that's really not how I see it working. Whether you're level 3 or level 45, a troubadour is still a scout. Just because you chose bard at level 10 doesn't make you suddenly not. The class quests do a great job of breaking down into categories the skills you gained from level 3-9, distilling and emphasizing them, and naming them into classes that make sense. I can see why a sorceror would be focused on damage, I can see why an enchanter would enchant, mesermize, and perform all of its general functions. I can see why a summoner would, gasp, summon. The subclass quests more or less split your class in half once again. And while most of them are aptly named, some do appear to be simply filler. There had to be two classes for bard, so boom, Dirges were conceived. And dirge is really weird. I'm a personified song singing songs of my namesake! Yay!But yeah. If you look at it from the perspective of the archetype system, almost all of the classes make sense where they are and what they are.That doesn't mean that you say "Well, mages have a utility class, so druids have to be utility too!" It doesn't make much sense. Enchanters do get some dps and solo ability because they are, of course, mages. It's not like they forgot how to do damage all of a sudden, though they become worse at it as monsters grow stronger. Bards aren't strictly utility. I'm not coming from a raid perspective or anything, but I'm definitely satisfied with the DPS and defense my bard puts out. (I tank in my duo with a swashy) Druids seem slightly more soloable than other healers, but that doens't mean they shouldn't be able to heal at *all*. It's not like all of them heal exactly the same. If you play a priest, the nuances and playstyles are different enough that you don't feel like a carbon copy. I have three priests, one from each class, I do believe I know this for a fact. If you play a tank, you notice that all six subclasses keep your health up. So the end is functionally the same, but the means is widely different. This is a great way of doing things, to be honest. *Shrug* Regeneration and healing should be a heavy party of being a druid simply due to the affinity for nature that they have. Nature has that general sort of life restorative property to most people. And again I say, I really don't think that anything is terribly out of place in the system.(And by the by, yeah, inquisitors do literally seek out ne'erdowells, but to be honest, the general concept tends to leave to corruptio. There's a specific sort of corruption symbolic of it. Yes, you seek out the evil to try and correct it, but at the same time, you're quickly slipping as your methods become increasingly fanatical. It's like vampire or witch hunters. They're often just as bad as vampires because they get so determined to stop them that they end up caring more about the hunt than what they try to protect.)