More Classes, Less Races

[Sharp1]

<p>Hi,</p><p>I have been playing EQII for 3 years now and really love the game, but I do not frequent the forums much.  That being said, I like just playing the game and rolling up new toons and have yet to have a toon reach lvl 70.  I am not really concerned about AA, Raids, All quests are being able to run through a zone blindfolded, it's just the way I like playing EQII.</p><p>Lately though, I am getting a little discouraged with Sony introducing new races, but leaving the class very vanilla.  I know the AA system allows you to semi-specialize your toon, but they should create more specializations.  I mean Dirge/Bard, Ranger/Assassin, Shadowknight/Paladin, Monk/Brusier, etc. are basically the same, one is good one is bad and then the one's common to both sides.</p><p> Why not create new specialized classes or sub-classes either at the start of a new toon and/or say at lvl 20/40/60 letting us choose a path and spells/skills we want. They could even let us create semi-hybrid classes like a Mystic being about to pick up a few Monk skills.</p><p>Basically, I just feel that a toon is a toon without unique abilities and you just kind of go through the motions.  Let us players have more involvement in crafting our toons the way we like to play! I know the AA system kind of addresses that but it is still a bit linear to me.</p><p>Sorry for the long winded complaint.</p>

[phoenixshard]

I think the main argument you'd have against that is addition of new classes is that they would be hard to keep balanced.  The devs have said they have a tough enough time to keep the 24 that are already in game balanced, adding more would only add more to the problem.

[Mabes]

Yeah, no thanks, would prefer less classes actually better than more.  It's enough of a task trying to have a class balenced raid force each night with 24 classes, would be a bigger pain with more, and it would be difficult to balence things, as the current unwanted raiding classes would become even more unwanted if the new classes were any good.

[Cusashorn]

<p>Dont hold your breath. The devs stated they will not design any new classes until all 24 existing classes are perfectly balanced in PvE, PvP, Grouping, Soloing, and Raiding. Perfectly balanced...</p>

[Etchii]

<p>They should just make races actually mean something to a class.</p><p> A kerra bruiser should be slightly diffrent than an iksar bruiser, etc...</p><p> Kerra avoids more (cat like reflexes)</p><p>Unsheath claws (make it actually do something worth while)</p><p>Iskar can mitigate more (scaled skin)</p><p>Tail Whip (self explanitory)</p><p>i'm sure this line of thinking can extend to all classes/races.  There should be something to show a diffrence in lets say a barbarian guardian vs a fae guardian.  </p><p> just my 2c</p>

[re1master]

<cite>Etchii wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>They should just make races actually mean something to a class.</p><p> A kerra bruiser should be slightly diffrent than an iksar bruiser, etc...</p><p> Kerra avoids more (cat like reflexes)</p><p>Unsheath claws (make it actually do something worth while)</p><p>Iskar can mitigate more (scaled skin)</p><p>Tail Whip (self explanitory)</p><p>i'm sure this line of thinking can extend to all classes/races.  <b>There should be something to show a diffrence in lets say a barbarian guardian vs a fae guardian.  </b></p><p> just my 2c</p></blockquote> My Arasai guardian just cringed.

[DanaDark]

<p>I would love to see races actually be different.</p><p>As for classes... I say scale them back and give defining roles. </p><p>Inquisitor+Templar=Cleric Coercer+Illusionist=Enchanter Swashbuckler+Brigand=Pirate (Everyone would love this one O.o ) Warden+Fury=Druid But then again I kinda miss the idea of simplicity when choosing classes lol</p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I would love to see races actually be different.</p><p>As for classes... I say scale them back and give defining roles. </p><p>Inquisitor+Templar=Cleric Coercer+Illusionist=Enchanter Swashbuckler+Brigand=Pirate (Everyone would love this one O.o ) Warden+Fury=Druid But then again I kinda miss the idea of simplicity when choosing classes lol</p></blockquote><p> Umm.. Thats exactly what the classes are. When the game came out, you had to play as a priest class until level 10, then you would choose to become either a cleric, shaman, or druid at until level 20, and then you became a templar or inquisitor based on the city you lived in, or chose between warden or Fury.</p><p>Swashbucklers and Brigands are the subclass of the Rogue class. Coercers and Illusionists are the subclasses of the Enchanter class.</p>

[Forsaken1]

DanaDark wrote: <blockquote><p>Swashbuckler+Brigand=Pirate (Everyone would love this one O.o ) </p></blockquote>My Swashbuckler is NOT a bloodydamn Pirate!!! and the next person to suggest otherwise is gonna walk the plank..... er, anyways...

[Eriol]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I would love to see races actually be different.</p><p>As for classes... I say scale them back and give defining roles. </p><p>Inquisitor+Templar=Cleric Coercer+Illusionist=Enchanter Swashbuckler+Brigand=Pirate (Everyone would love this one O.o ) Warden+Fury=Druid But then again I kinda miss the idea of simplicity when choosing classes lol</p></blockquote><p> Umm.. Thats exactly what the classes are. When the game came out, you had to play as a priest class until level 10, then you would choose to become either a cleric, shaman, or druid at until level 20, and then you became a templar or inquisitor based on the city you lived in, or chose between warden or Fury.</p><p>Swashbucklers and Brigands are the subclass of the Rogue class. Coercers and Illusionists are the subclasses of the Enchanter class.</p></blockquote>I think they mean that most of the sub-classes should be merged into their former parent classes.  And in most cases, I agree with that.  There isn't enough gameplay variety to support what we have now without just about half the classes in the game playing almost-identically to the other half. I would wholeheartedly support, combining most classes back into their eq1 class names, and being additive with almost-all of the abilities present.  So all coercers and illusionists would become enchanters, with the "basically the same" abilities being distributed between the two, and the actual unique ones retaining both, so that the resultant class is more flexible than either.  Continue that for just about every sub-class division. The hard ones would be the somewhat-radically different focused sub-classes.  Conjurer/Necro might be one of these, as in EQ1 these classes differed radically, and eliminating either in eq2 would be... awkward.  This combination would require basically a "new class" of necromancer, leaving the pet mastery to conjurers (formerly known as Magicians in EQ1), and come up with something else for necros, possibly being somewhere between warlocks and where necros are right now (warlocks & wizzies would become one) and closer to the eq1 necro (pets were NOT the focus there, though they still had them).  Ranger/Assassin is a lot closer, and the different playstyles could probably be accommodated with AA line differences only. Difficult?  Not THAT bad, as merging won't be EXTREMELY hard the way things are already lined up. Controversial?  Certainly. Better for the game in the long run?  Very likely.

[re1master]

I smell NGE....

[Raveller]

<p>It isn't just that it would be difficult to balance out any new classes to the game. It's that new classes simply would not fit. As it is now, the classes are too splintered anyway. The original idea of any fighter should be able to tank, and any scout should be able to dps, etc., combined with the initial obsession of every class concept being split in two has left us not with a limitation of too few classes but instead we have too many classes that are too much alike.</p><p>You have to remember that SOE's online gaming model is a very simple, combat centric design in which every class must be a tank, a healer, a DPSer, or utility support/gimpy hybrid. It is simply much easier to develop content based on this simple design.</p><p>As appealing as the idea of intersting new classes is in theory, in practice they would be a disaster.</p><p>I agree with Eriol. I think merging some of the existing classes would make a lot of sense, while leaving some classes as they are now. Mergers seem immediately logical to me for bards, sorcerers, warriors and druids. I also think the game really only needs one brawler, predator, rogue, enchanter, and shaman. I guess that would only leave Paladin/Shadow Knight, Necromancer/Conjurer, and Templar/Inquisitor unmerged. I suppose Templar/Inquisitor is also a possible merge. And, let's bring in the Beast Master!</p>

[cronar]

<p>Any sage will tell you that most of the spells and abilities out there are the exact same but with different titles.</p><p>So to say that a monk is the clone of a bruiser, you are pretty much dead on.</p><p>I think for simplicity sake, it would be good for sony to go in and rename the copycat spells so that it just says what classes can use it instead of having 2 or more spells out there with different names doing the same exact thing.</p><p>Beyond that, i personally don't think that all classes should be balanced. I think some should be better at things and worse at others when compared to other classes.</p>

[Eriol]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I agree with Eriol. I think merging some of the existing classes would make a lot of sense, while leaving some classes as they are now. Mergers seem immediately logical to me for bards, sorcerers, warriors and druids. I also think the game really only needs one brawler, predator, rogue, enchanter, and shaman. I guess that would only leave Paladin/Shadow Knight, Necromancer/Conjurer, and Templar/Inquisitor unmerged. I suppose Templar/Inquisitor is also a possible merge. And, let's bring in the Beast Master!</p></blockquote>SK/Pally was another pair I forgot that would also need to remain separate (though hopefully they could make them radically different, though I don't know how much that's possible in the context of a spellcasting plate tank).  And under what I proposed, inquisitors and templars would definitely be merged back into clerics, as they are so close already. Doubtful it'll happen, but I can still hope.

[Darian]

I agree I would prefer more classes, or at least new class abilities. If the devs have said no new classes until all the classes are balanced how come we haven't seen much of class balancing? other than some achievement tweaks.

[MysidiaDrakkenbane]

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I would love to see races actually be different.</p><p>As for classes... I say scale them back and give defining roles. </p><p>Inquisitor+Templar=Cleric Coercer+Illusionist=Enchanter Swashbuckler+Brigand=Pirate (Everyone would love this one O.o ) Warden+Fury=Druid But then again I kinda miss the idea of simplicity when choosing classes lol</p></blockquote>Yep, I agree. I don't see why some of the classes were split up to begin with and I think their balancing problems came when they decided to split the classes.

[Sanati]

I would quit for good if they started merging classes. Forget about them filling the same role or playing a lot like each other, the variety is all about flavor. A monk has their fancy kicks and martial arts, a bruiser goes around bashing people's faces in. Ya at the core they are the same thing, but their styles are completely different, even if it's just renamed skills. Many of the classes aren't that close to one another anyway. Warden and Fury? Not the same. Ranger and Assassin? Not even close. There's plenty of room for new classes. A pure DPS melee class or two for example. Perhaps a little mage-like (elemental based weapon attacks), cloth wearing, no stealth or positionals, just runs head first into combat and tries to kill the enemy before dying. Maybe a tank mage also. Lower DPS than a wizard/warlock in exchange for heavier armor. Even if all the roles are being filled, there's still room for more flavor. These games are all about picking a class style you enjoy and having fun. The more options there are, the more likely you'll find something perfect for you. Honestly, screw "raid planning" or being the optimal class for a particular role. Anyone who would pick one healer over another for a group just because they heal 10% better isn't a person worth playing with.

[Araxes]

Uhh, they need to balance a number of the current classes (assassin, zerkers, conjurors, warlocks) before they start thinking about adding in new specializations.  IMO.

[tass]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Dont hold your breath. The devs stated they will not design any new classes until all 24 existing classes are perfectly balanced in PvE, PvP, Grouping, Soloing, and Raiding. Perfectly balanced...</p></blockquote>pulls off the topsoil and looks down. Nope hell hasnt frozen over yet. But my guess is that give it a year and when every class can tank dps and heal from tweaks a new class will be introduced. Maybe even the beast lord for some ultra balancing at that time.

[Nocifer Deathblade]

<cite>Mabes wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, no thanks, would prefer less classes actually better than more.  It's enough of a task trying to have a class balenced raid force each night with 24 classes, would be a bigger pain with more, and it would be difficult to balence things, as the current unwanted raiding classes would become even more unwanted if the new classes were any good.</blockquote><p>Oh yeah! We need SWG NGE quality to reduce 24 classes to just 4 classes: Fighters, scouts, healers and mages. Then balance will be so much easier to maintain AND much less complicated to design epics, armor, spells etc for just 4 instead of 24..  Splendid idea!    And finally enjoy greatly diminished population shortly after the EQ2 NGE style to have more empty space to hunt all to ourselves! Whoo. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p> .</p><p> .</p><p> .</p><p>NO WAY. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I would jump off the EQ2 boat immediately once I see my devoted 8 years long Shadowknight class being transformed into a fighter class.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p>

[Iseabeil]

<p>Sure, the oposite classes are similar, but they often offer quite oposite things.. Then again, Id just <i>love</i> if my illusionist had TC, IA, haste, <i>and </i>DPS buffs, deagro and agro buff, amnesia, Savante along with Channel etc.. Not overpowered at all <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>And rogues with super debuffs, hate transfer, hurricane and so on. Bards with melee and magic proc buffs, PotM and Cac..</p><p>Sure the classes might be a bit low on diversity, but combining them and keeping the abilities they have and they are gonna be so overpowered its not funny anymore, and if you remove skills <beep> will break out for that. As for more classes, devs have pretty much said 'never' on that, but then again, they also said there would never be more then two starting cities etc, so I wouldnt put 100% faith in it, but I do hope they stick with it this time. 24 classes is more then enough and adding more would make a serious mess.</p>

[DanaDark]

<p>LoL, people like to go off on a slippery slope don't they?</p><p>Some classes should indeed stay apart, while some should be merged, and possibly new classes all together brought in.</p>

[GinFan]

<p>IMO more trouble than it is worth, and if SOE were to go through the trouble of combining classes, I would want the option to specialize down to the existing subclass abilities anyway.  Then for role playing purposes, I would include subclass names to reflect alignment and gender.</p><p>Crusaders, for example, would all are on equal ground but can spec to be exactly like a current Shadow Knight or like a current Paladin or a hybrid of the two.  If they are good they would be called a Paladin, Evil a Shadow Knight.  This would allow betrayals without gear change and spell changes and still allow for a huge improvement for role players that feel they are at a disadvantage due to certain subclasses not being available to them.</p><p>One could go a step further and factor gender.  Druids good/evil males and good females = Warden, evil females = Furies.  Again AA specs could specialize more towards healing, defensive buffs, offensive buffs, casting DPS or melee DPS.</p><p>One might even add subclass names for role playing purposes, for example:Warlock = Evil Male. Witch = Evil Female. Wizard and Sorceress for good.  Then good or evil classes could spec single target, multi-target, damage type etc...</p><p>Though this would have a lot of advantages, the only real disadvantage I could see long term would be you wouldn't always know what you are getting when you pick up a class for a pickup group/raid-though the new lfg screen would resolve much of that.</p>

[mellowknees72]

Nocifer Deathblade wrote: <blockquote><cite>Mabes wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, no thanks, would prefer less classes actually better than more.  It's enough of a task trying to have a class balenced raid force each night with 24 classes, would be a bigger pain with more, and it would be difficult to balence things, as the current unwanted raiding classes would become even more unwanted if the new classes were any good.</blockquote><p>Oh yeah! We need SWG NGE quality to reduce 24 classes to just 4 classes: Fighters, scouts, healers and mages. Then balance will be so much easier to maintain AND much less complicated to design epics, armor, spells etc for just 4 instead of 24..  Splendid idea!    And finally enjoy greatly diminished population shortly after the EQ2 NGE style to have more empty space to hunt all to ourselves! Whoo. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p> .</p><p> .</p><p> .</p><p><b>NO WAY. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I would jump off the EQ2 boat immediately once I see my devoted 8 years long Shadowknight class being transformed into a fighter class.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </b></p></blockquote><p> SAME HERE.</p><p>My monk is a monk; she's not a bruiser.  Monks and bruisers do not share philosophical ideals...I don't care if we both fight in *similar* manners, I don't want to be the same.</p><p>I absolutely would QUIT EQ2 if the classes were merged.  I quit SWG when they did away with Creature Handler, after I was just a few points from being a CH Master.  I don't want to have to quit EQ2 for an equally stupid and shortsighted reason.</p>

[mellowknees72]

<cite>GinFan wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>(snip)</p><p>One could go a step further and factor gender.  Druids good/evil males and good females = Warden, evil females = Furies.  Again AA specs could specialize more towards healing, defensive buffs, offensive buffs, casting DPS or melee DPS.</p><p>(snip)</p></blockquote><p> Okay...can you explain to me why an evil FEMALE has to be a Fury?</p><p>Just because I have a uterus doesn't mean I have a temper or anything (#*$)(*$#$(*#$)(#*</p><p>Oh wait, that was a bad example.</p><p>Anyway, no...I like the classes the way they are.  My fury is very different from a warden in a lot of respects.  I've played them both.  I don't want to have to be evil just because I want to be a fury.</p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>cronar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>So to say that a monk is the clone of a bruiser, you are pretty much dead on.</p></blockquote><p> The monk class came first, so the bruiser is the clone of us.</p><p>That said, I dont see any Tsunami, Group feign death, haste, or invisibility abilities on bruisers...</p>

[Betatroll]

<p>sorry gettin odd lag that's making posting difficult, will try again later</p>

[Raveller]

<cite>Iseabeil wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Sure, the oposite classes are similar, but they often offer quite oposite things.. Then again, Id just <i>love</i> if my illusionist had TC, IA, haste, <i>and </i>DPS buffs, deagro and agro buff, amnesia, Savante along with Channel etc.. Not overpowered at all <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>And rogues with super debuffs, hate transfer, hurricane and so on. Bards with melee and magic proc buffs, PotM and Cac..</p><p>Sure the classes might be a bit low on diversity, but combining them and keeping the abilities they have and they are gonna be so overpowered its not funny anymore, and if you remove skills <beep> will break out for that. As for more classes, devs have pretty much said 'never' on that, but then again, they also said there would never be more then two starting cities etc, so I wouldnt put 100% faith in it, but I do hope they stick with it this time. 24 classes is more then enough and adding more would make a serious mess.</p></blockquote> That's a very short-sighted view of the concept. You are assuming that merging the classes has to mean that the resulting class would have to have all of the abilities of the existing classes. Merging the classes would instead mean that some abilities could be stripped from the resulting class so that in the end classes would be much more distinguished from each other. So, no, your resulting Enchanter would not have <i>all</i> of the combined abilities of the current Illusionist and Coercer classes.

[Raveller]

<cite>Sanati wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe a tank mage also. Lower DPS than a wizard/warlock in exchange for heavier armor. </blockquote> Those are called Swashbucklers.

[selch]

<p>So how about "less classes, less races" ? <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Anyway, good reading so far. I'm all for less classes btw.</p>

[SpiralDown]

<p>I can't think of any two classes that are so similar that they could be easily merged.  Swashies and brigs seem very similar to me with my limited knowledge of the classes, but I bet a swashy or brig could make a post explaining how the two are extremely different.  </p><p>The only classes that seem to have a chance of merging alright would be the bards, but thats because they're borked at the moment.  Think though, would mages really want to give up their troubs for an even more watered down caster buffer or would everyone like to give up their MT and/or melee group dirge.  If bards merged, they would most likely buff all classes more equally, but there would be a loss of quality that a troub brings to mages or dirges bring to melee.</p><p>EQ2 has too many classes as is, in a GOOD way.  There are a lot of choices between classes and adding another class would throw off balance, but also is not needed with the 24 varying classes we got.</p>

[Brorimed]

<p>I would like to have the beastmaster <--- Beastlord back  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>Yours</p><p>Brorim</p><p>( been away frm EQ1 to long <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) </p>

[Shadowdragoon]

Brorim@Runnyeye wrote: <blockquote><p>I would like to have the beastmaster back  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>Yours</p><p>Brorim</p></blockquote><p> Yes, i really want the good old faitfull Beastlord back.</p><p>i still have the first char i made waiting as a lvl2 no class selected for the Beastlord returning..</p>

[Sarkoris]

<p>I think a few of you are missing the point as to why 2 sides of some classes exist. Good versus evil. Honest vs dishonest. However you like to say it, the oppossing classes are moral flip sides of the same coin.</p><p>Now a lot of what this brings to the table is based on how you wish to RP your character. But sadly with a lot of the emphasis being on min/maxing your character the RP part of the MMORPG is often overlooked.</p><p>Consider the bruiser/monk classes for example. Yes they have very similiar skill sets but that is to be expected. Both are a martial arts based class. What differentiates them both is how they chose to use those skills. The monk chose the "good" path, which lead to skills based on Agility (dodging, hasted atatcks etc) while the Bruiser chose the "evil" path, choosing the more vicious attacks such as eye gouging and stomping a downed opponent (proably due to neccessity on the hard streets of Freeport, if he didn't strike hard/dirty his enemy would).</p><p>So having two classes with similiar skill sets also allows a choice in playstile and how you portray your character. Its not always about "We don't need a Class A on this raid as we have a Class B who can do the same".</p><p>Just some food for thought.</p><p>Sark.</p>

[MysidiaDrakkenbane]

<cite>Sarkoris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I think a few of you are missing the point as to why 2 sides of some classes exist. Good versus evil. Honest vs dishonest. However you like to say it, the oppossing classes are moral flip sides of the same coin.</p></blockquote><p>It's not "Good vs Evil" in this game, though. If that were the case, Freeport citizens could never group with Qeynos ones. Factions are blurred in this game. It's just different survival methods of each city.</p><p>Qeynos: We all have to stick together in order to survive.</p><p>Freeport: Only the strong survive.</p><p>If Furies are supposed to be the "offensive" druid, so be it. They shouldn't get any buffs, then. They're taking nature's power and forcing Her wrath upon you. Wardens are taking nature's power and using it to protect you. </p>

[Skua]

if soe add beastlord? we will need another class? Beast master - queynos Beast lord - Freeport ???? i am all for new classes but come on enough fights to get groups / raid spots / items ect .... what Eq2 need? dps classes? <--- we have enough , 4 mages dps , 4 scout dps = 8 classes .....now if want to add , brawlers , and enchanters and bards since arent dps but make others dps 200% .... tanks? guardians zerkers , sk , pala , and brawlers.... Healers? we dont need more healers... reactive, wards and  hots .... buffers? bards and enchanters debuffers? a lot of classes have debuffs...... huh?  oh and the AoE vs Single bleh... Single  vs   AoE wizzys vs warlocks necros vs conjs Brigand vs Swashy Paladin vs Sk Guardian vs Zerker Bruiser vs Monk FP classes are more offensive and queynos more defensive? paladin & Sk conjs & necro Templar & inquisitor Mystic & defiler??? Illu & Coercer ...  

[Ama]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Dont hold your breath. The devs stated they will not design any new classes until all 24 existing classes are perfectly balanced in PvE, PvP, Grouping, Soloing, and Raiding. Perfectly balanced...</p></blockquote><p> Going along that route I don't see that happening.  You need imbalance to have balance and if you strive for perfection of balance it will never be achieved.  Introducing another class however would create more problems than it is worth.  </p><ol><li>Items in game would have to be reconfigured to accept the new class.  With a new race this isn't a problem since they go into a "Class".  Bit harder trying to make items fit new classes that are introduced. </li><li>The class would have to fit into a specified range being dps, tank, or healer then caster or scout dps.  Everyone proclaims Beastlords would be the best yet not fitting into this category could create problems.  (See number 1).</li><li>Going to what Cusashorn said what about balance? Will the new class be dps, healer or tank based? Then what class do they fit into T1, T2, or T3 based? Don't think Assassins/Rangers will be too happy to see a new T1 ultra dps class better than they are. </li></ol><p>For me personally I like the classes we have now since there are 3 primary in each one.  Have your main class, submain and your utility class.  If you add in another what should it be and how would it round everything out?  I say give me more races with racial traits to try out seeing what works best per class.  <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[DanaDark]

<p>What really needs to change is the die hard dependency people have on DPS for groups and raids. If everyone wasnt so focused on being at the top of the DPS parser in a raid, then many more guilds would be willing to pick up an extra tank or other class not seen as top DPS.</p><p>Some of my absolute most favorite times in EQ1 was from off the wall group and raid set ups.</p>

[Sanati]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sanati wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe a tank mage also. Lower DPS than a wizard/warlock in exchange for heavier armor. </blockquote> Those are called Swashbucklers.</blockquote> Oh cool, I must have missed those patch notes. So when was it Swashies started shooting fireballs and lightning bolts?

[thebunny]

Alexander@Guk wrote: <blockquote>I smell NGE....</blockquote><p>QFE</p><p>I wonder how many people who are calling for class mergers actually play both sides of the classes you would like to see merged?  For example, how many people out there who have both an Assassin and a Ranger want to see Assassins and Rangers merged together into a Predator class?</p><p>Sure, from a very general view, the "subclasses" basically do the same things.  Assassin and Ranger both DPS.  Warden and Fury both heal.  Coercer and Illusionist both do crowd control and mana regen.  But if you look at each specific class and the abilities/styles of play that they each have, they all serve their specific role(s) in different ways.  When you throw in the EoF AA lines, you get quite a bit of distinction between the classes already.</p><p>I think the number of classes is fine the way it is.  Adding more would require rebalancing things to fit the new class(es) into the rest of the game scheme.  Merging classes would require rebalancing things to accomodate reduced skill sets, especially in a raid setting.</p><p>Besides, I like choice, and I'm sure a lot of others do as well.  Sure some people may not see a significant difference between Coercer and Illusionist, but that doesn't mean others don't.</p>

[StormCinder]

<p>What this debate really indicates is the need to go away from a "class-based" system and shifting to  a "skill-based" system.  Your skills and abilities are a direct reflection of how YOU use your character.  The skills increase as they are used (as they are now) and then the special abilities/skills/CAs are based on your skill level (or combination of different skill levels).  Hence, your characters become a product of their actions, not some articially imposed named class.   You can then describe yourself by "what you can do" rather than "what you are."</p><p>But, I believe this is heresy to the neo-D&D MMORPG crowd.  </p><p>SC</p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Dont hold your breath. The devs stated they will not design any new classes until all 24 existing classes are perfectly balanced in PvE, PvP, Grouping, Soloing, and Raiding. Perfectly balanced...</p></blockquote> They stated this in response to the question as to why we dont have a Beastlord class, FYI. No new classes until everything is perfect in every possible way.

[Kellin]

<cite>StormCinder wrote:</cite><blockquote>What this debate really indicates is the need to go away from a "class-based" system and shifting to  a "skill-based" system.  Your skills and abilities are a direct reflection of how YOU use your character.  The skills increase as they are used (as they are now) and then the special abilities/skills/CAs are based on your skill level (or combination of different skill levels).  Hence, your characters become a product of their actions, not some articially imposed named class.   You can then describe yourself by "what you can do" rather than "what you are." <p>But, I believe this is heresy to the neo-D&D MMORPG crowd.  </p><p>SC</p></blockquote><p>The problem with this is that it rewards the min-max player and penalizes anyone who doesn't go for the "best" skill set.</p><p>I may be mistaken, but didn't FFXI have this problem?  One particular build was so superior to all others that you couldn't get a group unless you had it?  I never played, but I seem to recall hearing about this.</p><p>Class balance is a very delicate thing.  There are some issues right now, but at least you don't have the problem of any one class being truly useless; i.e., offering nothing of use to a group or raid.  </p><p>At this point, I think the game is pretty much working as intended, to use a much-maligned phrase.  These big, revolutionary changes are probably better suited to a new game, rather than rocking the boat here.</p>

[Ravaan]

<p>I agree I want more classes ... hell i want NO classes or at least multiclassing(im tired of being like every other inquisitor on the server), but i will take more classes.</p><p>I never understood the "I want less classes" crowd. I would rather take 100 classes that are slightly different than 9 "iconic" classes that limit choices (i think people know what im getting at).</p><p>I mean i wouldn't care if the 100 were similar yet may have a few distinct spells among them just to add more flavor to the game for example </p><p>Brute - acts like a bruiser/monk high avoidance tank but can specialize in using two handed hammers or dual wielding hammers</p><p>Warrior Priest - acts like an inquisitor but has more mitigation and most debuffs/damage spells are melee attacks, gives up a little in healing though. (god i cant wait for warhammer)</p><p>Samurai - similar to a Swashbuckler/Brigand however has the ability to specialize in two handed swords.</p><p>Blood Mage - similar to a necro with no pet ... steals health from enemies, uses his own health to damage enemies or heal his group members. (yes i know stolen from Vanguard just rename it lol)</p><p>Beast Master - similar to a conjuror but with leather armor and melee skills</p><p>and these are just some off the top of my head. sure they may not be super defined but you know what they may be fun enough or different enough to just get a few more subscribers out there to join.</p>

[Ravaan]

<cite>Kellin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The problem with this is that it rewards the min-max player and penalizes anyone who doesn't go for the "best" skill set.</p></blockquote><p> ah yes the "omg we will have flavor of the month skillsets" as if that is any different than what we have now. How many necros were there when they were percieved as the best class. How many swashbucklers or berserkers are out there.</p><p>FOTMs happen in any game, min-max players will always find the "best" class out there. To penalize those that want difference because of some min-max players is downright foolish. this was the biggest fault of SWG, people whined and complained about Min-Maxers and they took it to heart and thus the NGE ... I think we all know how that turned out.</p>

[Zarafein]

<p>"Swashbuckler+Brigand=Pirate (Everyone would love this one O.o ) " Wrong, i would not love this, my swashbuckler is more like a noble fencer or maybe like the swashbuckler archtype descriped on wikipedia</p><p><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler' target='_blank' rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler</a></p>

[Raveller]

<cite>Sanati wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sanati wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe a tank mage also. Lower DPS than a wizard/warlock in exchange for heavier armor. </blockquote> Those are called Swashbucklers.</blockquote> Oh cool, I must have missed those patch notes. So when was it Swashies started shooting fireballs and lightning bolts? </blockquote>You said you wanted lower dps with heavier armor. You did not specify that you wanted that dps to be ranged, in which case I would direct you to try the predator classes. The graphics involved are irrelevant, unless you're twelve and it's all about the pretty lights. Of course, you may simply be asking for a new class that wears plate armor, can do massive amounts of dps from range with a root ability and lots of flashing light effects, can debuff the mobs so they're stripped of all abilities, can do large amounts of AoE melee damage, can heal to 100% of health with a casting time of 0.0 and a recast time of 0.0, can mez, and teleport. Did I leave anything off the list?

[epyon333]

<p>id love to see some new classes.  kinda bothers me seeing new classes that dont add much at all to any class and no new classes at all.  but this games class structure is over structured, you cant just add one class.  yeah the took out the archtype classes and left us with going right in to the sub-classes but they still left the old class structure in.  i dont see merging classes in this game as a bad thing, its more about breaking that old structure down.  but id say add in more options with in those classes to add variety.  i play a zerker and what the difference between me and guardian a little dps, a little mit and avoid, and a little aggro control.  so if you take us back down to warriors give us a crate a CA line that all warriors will have the a choice of several CA's every few lvl to add in that varity.  you apply this to all the classes, except necros/conjers and pallys/sk's( keep them their own classes and give the choices too), balance the new class structure.  now each class is a bit more distict with more varity in it and you did away with the old structure that was hindering the ability to add new classes.  woot.</p><p>oh and definatly the game needs to make races me something, maybe special CA's for each race for each class.  an edurite or a rat zerker is defentaly not the same as an ogre or a barbarian zerker. </p><p> oh and maybe you could even do CA's for the starting cities.</p>

[Cyllus]

Alexander@Guk wrote: <blockquote>I smell NGE....</blockquote> /runs screaming for the exit.  <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Bayne]

VETO class merger idea!!! I have a 70 ranger, and I rolled a new arasai assassin just to check it out. I must say, they play extremely differently, and have different skill sets. And if the monk and bruiser were merged, I couldn't defame the guild bruiser and complain how he always out dps's me. I'm happy with 24 classes, I wouldn't mind more. Diversity is wonderful.

[Kellin]

<cite>Ravaan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kellin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The problem with this is that it rewards the min-max player and penalizes anyone who doesn't go for the "best" skill set.</p></blockquote><p> ah yes the "omg we will have flavor of the month skillsets" as if that is any different than what we have now. How many necros were there when they were percieved as the best class. How many swashbucklers or berserkers are out there.</p><p>FOTMs happen in any game, min-max players will always find the "best" class out there. To penalize those that want difference because of some min-max players is downright foolish. this was the biggest fault of SWG, people whined and complained about Min-Maxers and they took it to heart and thus the NGE ... I think we all know how that turned out.</p></blockquote><p>And now you're complaining about the way things are now, and pushing for a revolutionary change in the game.  What makes you think that your idea would work within the structure of EQ2?  The game has been designed around a different class/stat concept, and a change that radical would unbalance everything.</p><p>This is why I think ideas like this are better suited for discussion about a new game.  Such huge changes to an existing one simply alienates the players currently enjoying it at best, and completely breaks the game at worst. </p>

[Ravaan]

<cite>Kellin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ravaan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kellin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The problem with this is that it rewards the min-max player and penalizes anyone who doesn't go for the "best" skill set.</p></blockquote><p> ah yes the "omg we will have flavor of the month skillsets" as if that is any different than what we have now. How many necros were there when they were percieved as the best class. How many swashbucklers or berserkers are out there.</p><p>FOTMs happen in any game, min-max players will always find the "best" class out there. To penalize those that want difference because of some min-max players is downright foolish. this was the biggest fault of SWG, people whined and complained about Min-Maxers and they took it to heart and thus the NGE ... I think we all know how that turned out.</p></blockquote><p>And now you're complaining about the way things are now </p></blockquote><p>complaining? i think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I am merely debunking your statement about min-maxers and how they would run amuck with FOTM classes.</p><p>basically saying that its that way now so whats the difference. </p>

[Ba]

<p>This will never happen. Class or Sub-Class merging would be completely contary to the current dev team's apparent game plan.</p><p>When EQ2 was first released all the classes/sub-classes within an archetype were VERY similiar to begin with. They initially played very similiarly (and felt very similiar) because thats how it was meant to be. The game at that point was designed as a "class development progression". All the tank classes started as the archetype "Fighter" (who had a small variety of "class" skills from each of the 4 main class-branches), you then eventually progressed into your class path (ie. Crusader if you wanted to be a spell-casting fighter, Warrior if you wanted to be a traditional hack'slash'n'tank type, Brawler if you wanted to pull off fancy martial arts) and then eventually made the good-guy (defensive)/bad-guy (offensive) choice to become your final sub-class.</p><p>At the point they did away with that rather boring and vanilla progression system they then had to start considering each sub-class independently in its own light and decide where exactly they wanted each of the 24 (now unique) classes to be in the grand scheme of things.</p><p>Since then we have seen the introduction of new spells, new gear and most blatently, new AA trees with the EoF tree especially showing how different they intend a Paladin and Shadowknight (for example) to be from each other -- sure they are both "Crusaders" and share that AA tree (as well as most equipment) but its easy to see now how the EQ2 dev team intends to handle & position the two sub-classes entirely differently from now on.</p><p>Rather than any "merging" occuring you should (imho) expect to see the opposite -- class differences become more varied and more pronounced as time goes by. I also predict they will not add any new classes to the game (it would be a nightmare to manage and balance out even for ONE extra sub-class). Instead, I believe that as the game progresses we will continue to recieve more and more ways we can build and change direction within our current sub-class choices.</p><p>Of course, this is all just my opinion based on casual analysis and long-term observation of changes made.</p>

[Ravaan]

if they ever merged classes i would quit the game like i did when SWG did it. I like having choices not having them taken away.

[Eriol]

<cite>Bayl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rather than any "merging" occuring you should (imho) expect to see the opposite -- class differences become more varied and more pronounced as time goes by. I also predict they will not add any new classes to the game (it would be a nightmare to manage and balance out even for ONE extra sub-class). Instead, I believe that as the game progresses we will continue to recieve more and more ways we can build and change direction within our current sub-class choices.</blockquote> I would be very VERY heavily against doing this type of thing to any greater degree.  This results in something I've only seen in WoW so far (though I wouldn't be surprised if it's been in other games too): intra-class wars.  You literally have classes arguing against THEMSELVES, one spec versus another.  Sure there's the occasional debate in EQ2 on which lines are better, but this is NOTHING like what happens in that other game.  You literally see every buff to another member of your class with a different spec as a nerf to you.  And it gets NASTY.  Not just because it's "that game" and the way their populace is, but nastier than anything you've ever seen in class debates here. But the essential problem here is that if you bend it even far enough to make distinction, there will always be specs which virtually overlap with other "full" classes here, which then gets you asking questions like this thread has of "well what's the point of two classes when they're virtually identical anyways?" We need true class diversity in this game, to a MUCH greater degree than now, and IMO it won't be done by leaving in almost half of the classes being redundant.  Nobody feels unique then.

[Sanati]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sanati wrote:</cite><blockquote> Oh cool, I must have missed those patch notes. So when was it Swashies started shooting fireballs and lightning bolts? </blockquote>You said you wanted lower dps with heavier armor. You did not specify that you wanted that dps to be ranged, in which case I would direct you to try the predator classes. The graphics involved are irrelevant, unless you're twelve and it's all about the pretty lights. Of course, you may simply be asking for a new class that wears plate armor, can do massive amounts of dps from range with a root ability and lots of flashing light effects, can debuff the mobs so they're stripped of all abilities, can do large amounts of AoE melee damage, can heal to 100% of health with a casting time of 0.0 and a recast time of 0.0, can mez, and teleport. Did I leave anything off the list? </blockquote> No, I said a tank mage. A magic using character with heavier armor. DPS a bit better than a templar without the ability to heal. It's clear you completely missed the point of my earlier post. It's not a good idea to reply to a topic where 90% of the posts are well over your head.

[epyon333]

<p>I dont get it, why do ppl keep refering to a merger of similar classes to SWG NGE.  I was playing SWG just before NGE because of all the changes made when DOF came out.  </p><p>SWG scrapped a great and uniqe advancement system b/c some ppl thought it was hard and to lure in new players with the "Iconic" classes.   yeah going from the amount of unique classes they had to 9 and making advancement a typical linear system was a big mistake.  </p><p> Were not talking about scrapping anything here.  Just merging very similar classes back to there class they split from in the first place.   why have a guardian and a berzerker instead of a warrior that you can spec for dps, def, or aggro control.  I think that would leave room for the crusaders and brawlers to become more useful. </p><p>For the ppl who like RPing and think the good and evil side of a class is cool.  taht could be added back in by giving CA's as a specilized training with in each city, maybe even some CA's for the city factions.  </p><p>For the ppl wanting a new class, stripping away that old over structualized system that left no room for a new class to fit in.  well the old systems out, theres a place now for a new class or two, bring on the beastlords that a lot of ppl want.</p><p>Oh and make race mean something.  Im tired of how little they mean right now.  At least make then Racial traits scale with level.</p><p> But basically merging classes has NOTHING incommon with NGE.   Merging is about opening the class system up for better improvements and other unique classes.</p>

[Vonotar]

Think about this... 1. Dev's have stated that no new classes will be added until the existing classes are balanced 2. Existing classes are currently more balanced than they have been in at least 2 years 3. You* want to throw out everything the Dev's have achieved so far and request that they start balancing from scratch with a reduced number of classes. Spot the flaw? . . . . . * i.e. all those who are asking for classes to be merged/removed.

[mellowknees72]

<cite>epyon333 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><b>(1) I dont get it, why do ppl keep refering to a merger of similar classes to SWG NGE.  I was playing SWG just before NGE because of all the changes made when DOF came out.</b>  </p><p>SWG scrapped a great and uniqe advancement system b/c some ppl thought it was hard and to lure in new players with the "Iconic" classes.   yeah going from the amount of unique classes they had to 9 and making advancement a typical linear system was a big mistake.  </p><p> Were not talking about scrapping anything here.  Just merging very similar classes back to there class they split from in the first place.   why have a guardian and a berzerker instead of a warrior that you can spec for dps, def, or aggro control.  I think that would leave room for the crusaders and brawlers to become more useful. </p><p><b>(2) For the ppl who like RPing and think the good and evil side of a class is cool.  taht could be added back in by giving CA's as a specilized training with in each city, maybe even some CA's for the city factions.</b>  </p><p>For the ppl wanting a new class, stripping away that old over structualized system that left no room for a new class to fit in.  well the old systems out, theres a place now for a new class or two, bring on the beastlords that a lot of ppl want.</p><p><b>(3) Oh and make race mean something.  Im tired of how little they mean right now.  At least make then Racial traits scale with level.</b></p><p> But basically merging classes has NOTHING incommon with NGE.   Merging is about opening the class system up for better improvements and other unique classes.</p></blockquote><p>1) People keep referring back to SWG because it ticked them off when classes were eliminated.  Honestly "merging" in this scenario feels no different than "eliminating".  People do not want to see the class they have played, poured their heart and soul (not to mention free time) into, eliminated or stripped down to be no different than its counterpart subclass.</p><p>2) We already have "specialized training" on the good/evil side of things by way of the different subclasses.</p><p>3) I have no opposition to having race "mean something" as long as it doesn't mean that if you make a guardian, it had better be a ____ (fill in the blank) in order to be able to do anything because of stat differences between races.  I'd rather see some new/different racial traits to accomplish this, rather than major differences in stats that are going to pigeonhole people who like to play particular races into certain classes. </p>

[Vifarc]

No nerf for EQ2! Don't make EQ2 a LotRo.

[Greyshie]

<cite>Vifarc wrote:</cite><blockquote>No nerf for EQ2! Don't make EQ2 a LotRo. </blockquote>Exactly!  For those who don't understand that means a game with no variety in classes or roles!

[KunamitsuUK]

<p>The constant mention of "Beast Master" and "Beast Lord" has perked my interest, what were/are these?</p><p>I am all for some new classes, variety is the spice of life, racial traits should mean more in EQ2 aswell.</p>

[xguild]

Alexander@Guk wrote: <blockquote>I smell NGE....</blockquote><p> While reading these posts NGE is exactly what poped into my mind and it was very brave of you to even mention it.  I was actually banned from the Star Wars Galaxies forums for my comments about NGE, but I'm sure it had more to do with my use of colorful language then the actual comments.  Suffice it to say however its exactly this line of thinking that turned one of the best MMO's ever made into one of the worst MMO's in existance (There are free MMO's that are better then Star Wars Galaxies as it is today).</p><p> When it comes to Everquest 2 I think the best thing they ever did was to get rid of a 'pre-class' system to the 24 exciting selection of classes we have.  I personaly don't think they should change a think, because if it ain't broke... well you know where I'm going with that.  Still with that said I definitly don't think they should add any classes, really we are at a point of saturation with the classes now.  Ever concivable hybrid and MMO play style is represented in EQ2 as it stands and any class that is created at this point would do nothing but take away from one of the other classes.</p><p> I do agree with the person that said that races should count for something, as right now they are very much 'static' meaning there is very little mechanical variation between races, its 95% visual.  Not that this is a terrible thing, its nice to know that when I create a character I'm not pigeon held in my race selection because of my class selection.  This is one aspect I don't miss about the old way of making MMO's where 'story continuity' was more important then 'gameplay'.  Gameplay and options in selection should always take presidence over story continuity and although it may not make much sence that a Froglok is a Beserker as a player to take the option away from making that character or worse yet allow me to make the character but penalize me for choosing a race not suited for the class generaly annoys me.</p>

[Forsaken1]

<cite>KunamitsuUK wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The constant mention of "Beast Master" and "Beast Lord" has perked my interest, what were/are these?</p><p>I am all for some new classes, variety is the spice of life, racial traits should mean more in EQ2 aswell.</p></blockquote><p> The Beastlord is a EQ1 class. It's a hybrid with a pet. Can wear chain armor, dual wield monk weapons, and receives a small list of Shaman based spells at a much slower pace throughout leveling. </p><p>**Forgot to add they are fun to play**</p>

[erin]

<cite>Forsaken1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>KunamitsuUK wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The constant mention of "Beast Master" and "Beast Lord" has perked my interest, what were/are these?</p><p>I am all for some new classes, variety is the spice of life, racial traits should mean more in EQ2 aswell.</p></blockquote><p> The Beastlord is a EQ1 class. It's a hybrid with a pet. Can wear chain armor, dual wield monk weapons, and receives a small list of Shaman based spells at a much slower pace throughout leveling. </p><p>**Forgot to add they are fun to play**</p></blockquote>You also forgot to add that they were immensely powerful towards the beginning of their existence, so powerful in fact that they could solo (which many classes in EQ1 couldn't do well), they could replace a shaman in a group, they were generally more versatile than most other classes - thus making them very powerful and "fun", because it was a bit like having a mini-god mode if you will.  And that's usually the beast lord most players want, the extra special, little more powerful than most other classes, class. Talk about unbalanced!

[erin]

<cite>Etchii wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>They should just make races actually mean something to a class.</p><p> A kerra bruiser should be slightly diffrent than an iksar bruiser, etc...</p><p> Kerra avoids more (cat like reflexes)</p><p>Unsheath claws (make it actually do something worth while)</p><p>Iskar can mitigate more (scaled skin)</p><p>Tail Whip (self explanitory)</p><p>i'm sure this line of thinking can extend to all classes/races.  There should be something to show a diffrence in lets say a barbarian guardian vs a fae guardian.  </p><p> just my 2c</p></blockquote>Please NOOOOO.  This keeps getting suggested and its so horribly wrong.  All the people that have existing characters created them with the assurance that the class didn't matter.  So we have ratonga warriors, and troll mages.  These add variety and spice to the game.  And now you want to go back and say, oops, Mr Troll Mage, you know what?  You are no longer equal to the erudite mage, you are dumb and can't be a good mage.  The 2 years you've invested into becoming your guild's raid mage?  Wasted.  But hey you can always start over. Sorry its just wrong, its too late to make changes like this.

[liveja]

Sharp1 wrote: <blockquote><p>Why not create new specialized classes or sub-classes either at the start of a new toon and/or say at lvl 20/40/60 letting us choose a path and spells/skills we want.</p></blockquote>Because they already have enough class-balancing problems as it is.

[Fox234]

<cite>Sharp1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hi,</p><p>I have been playing EQII for 3 years now and really love the game, but I do not frequent the forums much.  That being said, I like just playing the game and rolling up new toons and have yet to have a toon reach lvl 70.  I am not really concerned about AA, Raids, All quests are being able to run through a zone blindfolded, it's just the way I like playing EQII.</p><p>Lately though, I am getting a little discouraged with Sony introducing new races, but leaving the class very vanilla.  I know the AA system allows you to semi-specialize your toon, but they should create more specializations.  I mean Dirge/Bard, Ranger/Assassin, Shadowknight/Paladin, Monk/Brusier, etc. are basically the same, one is good one is bad and then the one's common to both sides.</p><p> Why not create new specialized classes or sub-classes either at the start of a new toon and/or say at lvl 20/40/60 letting us choose a path and spells/skills we want. They could even let us create semi-hybrid classes like a Mystic being about to pick up a few Monk skills.</p><p>Basically, I just feel that a toon is a toon without unique abilities and you just kind of go through the motions.  Let us players have more involvement in crafting our toons the way we like to play! I know the AA system kind of addresses that but it is still a bit linear to me.</p><p>Sorry for the long winded complaint.</p></blockquote>You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.