What new Class Types, would you want?

[Larogi]

<p><span style="color: #3333ff">Let's just assume that the classes are even and the developers would want to create a new sub class for each class and two new class types for a total of 8 new class types. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">What would you want to have?</span></p><ul><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Fighter Class - Class Types (Hunter, Samurai, Duelist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Mage Class - Class Types (Elementalist, Psionicist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Priest Class - Class Type (Beastlord, Cardinal)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Scout Class - Class Type (Ninja, Thief, Spy, Archer)</span></li></ul><p><span style="color: #3333ff">These are just some ideas I thought of and hope can encourage others to start the same thought process. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">The other possibility is creating a completely new class type. I am not sure what would be able to support the current classes, but maybe someon has some ideas.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">I know many want the beastlord class, but lets have this thread be a brainstorming for creating a new subclass and class types for the 4 classes or a completely new class.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">There are many creative people out there, so lets see what everyone can come up with and not debate whether they will or will not do this.  I want to see the creative juices of the EQ2 Forum.</span></p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Larogi wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Let's just assume that the classes are even and the developers would want to create a new sub class for each class and two new class types for a total of 8 new class types. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">What would you want to have?</span></p><ul><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Fighter Class - Class Types (Hunter, Samurai, Duelist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Mage Class - Class Types (Elementalist, Psionicist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Priest Class - Class Type (Beastlord, Cardinal)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Scout Class - Class Type (Ninja, Thief, Spy, Archer)</span></li></ul></blockquote><p> Hunter = Ranger</p><p>Archer = Ranger</p><p>Thief = Both Rogue classes</p><p>Ninja = Assassin</p><p>Spy = how is a spy a DPS class?</p><p>Psionicist = Coercer</p><p>Elementalist = Conjurer</p><p>Beastlord = both Shaman classes</p><p>Cardinal = Both cleric classes</p><p>Duelist = errrmm... how is a fencer suppose to be a tank?</p><p>Samurai = "Samurai" litterally means "Warrior". The only difference between a Samurai and a guardian is that the Samurai would take his life after not being able to guard what he should be guarding.</p>

[Larogi]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Larogi wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Let's just assume that the classes are even and the developers would want to create a new sub class for each class and two new class types for a total of 8 new class types. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">What would you want to have?</span></p><ul><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Fighter Class - Class Types (Hunter, Samurai, Duelist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Mage Class - Class Types (Elementalist, Psionicist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Priest Class - Class Type (Beastlord, Cardinal)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Scout Class - Class Type (Ninja, Thief, Spy, Archer)</span></li></ul></blockquote><p> Hunter = Ranger</p><p>Archer = Ranger</p><p>Thief = Both Rogue classes</p><p>Ninja = Assassin</p><p>Spy = how is a spy a DPS class?</p><p>Psionicist = Coercer</p><p>Elementalist = Conjurer</p><p>Beastlord = both Shaman classes</p><p>Cardinal = Both cleric classes</p><p>Duelist = errrmm... how is a fencer suppose to be a tank?</p><p>Samurai = "Samurai" litterally means "Warrior". The only difference between a Samurai and a guardian is that the Samurai would take his life after not being able to guard what he should be guarding.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Ok, you don't like what I picked, but the title of the thread was 'What new Class Types would you want?'</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">I don't want to debate but hear what your ideas are for new class types.</span> </p>

[Larogi]

<p><span style="color: #3333ff">Some details for some of the class types I picked.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Cardinals are the masters of White Magic, able to use support magic and heal far beyond the means of any other class, while still able to use damaging holy spells to pack the punch of other master spellcasters.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Ninjas are strong in hand to hand combat, making use of heavy weaponry skills, escapability, and incredible speed to strike quickly from the shadows.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Samurai are extremely strong warriors with blades, also capable of quickly debilitating a foe using cripple. This combines with their crossbody lock-down skill to allow them to literally sweep opponent's off of their feet.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">The Hunter is a versatile combatant. He uses his ability to tune himself with nature to track foes, trap foes, evade foes, and master beasts. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Psionist is a class whose true potential is only seen in player vs. player combat. The Psionist's ability to confuse, mislead, lock-down, and destroy an enemy makes this foe a danger in group combat.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Elementalists provide the second part of a one-two punch to many true spellcasters. With devastating attack spells, lock-down spells, a solid defense, and the ability to hone in on an opponent's elemental weakness</span></p>

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00">Henchman Class-because we all need a minesweeper and someone to carry the loot home.</span>

[Larogi]

<p><span style="color: #3333ff">Well it would be good if EQ2 was in that era and genre, but it is not.</span></p>

[Dragowulf]

why do you people keep insisting that an assassin is a ninja? if our assassin was a ninja then he would have ninja moves and throw a shuriken. in this case, ours is more of a rogue from old europe. if someone said you can be/are an assassin in -insert game- than this is what i would think of: <img src="http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a143/innocent974/assassins-creed--20060921105332117.jpg" border="0"> clearly that is not a ninja. looks more like a rogue. drago.

[AnAnimatedcorpse]

I do think that it'd be a great idea to have all classes be able to subclass again. example: Ranger would turn into Archer or Hunter Monk could turn into Drunken Master or Crane Guru Similar to what they did with AA lines, but change into an actual evolved class... Just an idea is all..

[AnAnimatedcorpse]

<cite>Dragowulf2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>why do you people keep insisting that an assassin is a ninja? if our assassin was a ninja then he would have ninja moves and throw a shuriken. in this case, ours is more of a rogue from old europe. if someone said you can be/are an assassin in -insert game- than this is what i would think of: <img src="http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a143/innocent974/assassins-creed--20060921105332117.jpg" border="0"> clearly that is not a ninja. looks more like a rogue. drago. </blockquote>Oh! Punchblade FTW.

[Larogi]

<p><span style="color: #3333ff">I like that picture but this is what I was thinking for a ninja, the classic:</span></p><p><a href="http://files.myopera.com/Wsqblackheart/blog/NinjaGaiden%20(18).jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://files.myopera.com/Wsqblackhe...iden%20(18).jpg</a></p><p><a href="http://files.myopera.com/Wsqblackheart/blog/NinjaGaiden%20(1<img%20src=" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"></a></p>

[Terrius]

Ninja would be cool, but whenever I think of ninja I picture an Assassin in cloth with shuriken and kunai and monk style CAs... I'm not sure why assassins wear chain if they try to assassinate/sneak around and kill people, from a literal point chain would be less than stealthy <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> course I also think my ranger should wear Leather not chain. Ninja ftw!

[HBP]

Cloven@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>I do think that it'd be a great idea to have all classes be able to subclass again. example: Ranger would turn into Archer or Hunter Monk could turn into Drunken Master or Crane Guru Similar to what they did with AA lines, but change into an actual evolved class... Just an idea is all.. </blockquote> Hmm, very interesting idea. 

[Larogi]

<cite>HBP wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cloven@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>I do think that it'd be a great idea to have all classes be able to subclass again. example: Ranger would turn into Archer or Hunter Monk could turn into Drunken Master or Crane Guru Similar to what they did with AA lines, but change into an actual evolved class... Just an idea is all.. </blockquote> Hmm, very interesting idea.  </blockquote><span style="color: #3333ff">What new classes would you like to see?</span>

[Zarafein]

<p>If someone wants to play his assassin more like a ninja its okey imo(btw if an assassin is a rogue, then what is/was the rogue class? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, many classes have place for more than one interpretation, in <u>some cases</u> the aa lines explain them very good, a swashbuckler could be a "good" thief, a mercenary, a fencer or a Pirate(don't know what to think about blackguard since this is a realy evil class in dungeons and dragons and everthing else make me think it fits very well to a brigand but not so good to a swashbuckler) so very different types for one class.. and race can also make a big difference.. although the game mechanic make them fight the same way i gues a ogre would fight totaly different than an elf for example and there are still other factors like factions and belief.</p><p>Oh and i don't want any new class types</p>

[Snowdonia]

I'd personally like to see a new hybrid class. Battlemage We've got Shadowknights - combo of Necro + Fighter We've got Paladins - combo of Cleric + Fighter What we don't have is a Mage(Wizard) + Fighter combo class We also don't have a Coercer + Fighter combo class or a Conjuror + Fighter combo class (but seeing an SK is half Necro, the second Summoner class, that space isn't as vacantly felt as the Mage/Coercer one). Hrmm, what could the Coercer + Fighter class be called? Maybe that Psionicist would be a good name. Maybe, Mindflayer (although they would prolly have copywrite issues with TSR about that name). So that's what I would like to see. A couple more Hybrid fighters.

[Besual]

Most of the mentioned "classes" wouldn't offer enough unique features to become a real class in EQ2 without to many overlaps with existing classes: Ninja -> play assassin or monk wearing black armor Samurai -> play guardian or pally using katanas Hunter -> melee ranger... As already mentioned improving the current classes via AA trees would be possible and and easy way to "emulate" a ninja / samurai / hunter... The only thing for now that has nothing similar in EQ2 is some kind of shapeshifter.

[Cusashorn]

Cloven@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><p>Dragowulf2 wrote:</p><p> Oh! Punchblade FTW. </p></blockquote> They're called Katars, just so you know.

[Etchii]

<p>Tinkorgs---Tinkered Organisms!  </p><p>Evil tinkered creations!  Armour = parts!  no weapons... in the left hand---tinkered ranged gear launcher, in the right.... nothing but a GIANT steel fist!</p><p>combat arts along the lines of pnumatic punches and kicks, Whirleybird (two arms straight out, spin at the waist for aoe attack)  crush, smash, bash, etc...</p><p>self buffs like:enhanced targeting (range crit chance/distance boost)  overload (dps/haste for health over time--self)  destruct(when the tink dies it explodes causing aoe damage), Electrify (small damge shield), Micro-tinkered repair bots(out of combat regen, maybe a few points of regen in combat)</p><p>Tinks are too heavy to have mounts, as such leg parts should include out of combat run speed, fabled in combat run speed...etc.</p><p>Stop here for melee class</p><p>continuing with making this class a hybrid---fighter/summoner---  tinks can summon small tinkered creatures to do their bidding..toss some standard pet-class buffs and AA's in there.</p><p>An Idea I had along these lines would be instead of summoning the tink would be detaching parts of himself that would act as his pet, therefore decreasing his effectivness as a pure melee fighter class to play the role of a summoner class. </p><p>This would work as such:</p><p>Tink---good at fighting, ranged... no pets</p><p>Tink wants to have a pet---part of his chest armour detaches as well as the appropriate part of his body for the type of pet..tink now can not take as big of a hit himself, but has a pet to help him.  </p><p>Detach ranged arm to have a dps pet, detach your melee arm to have a tank pet.  This leaves the tink with the appropriate arm to back up his pet/group, but takes away something as to not be overpowered.</p><p>just an idea</p>

[Apocroph]

Snowdonia@Runnyeye wrote: <blockquote>I'd personally like to see a new hybrid class. Battlemage We've got Shadowknights - combo of Necro + Fighter We've got Paladins - combo of Cleric + Fighter What we don't have is a Mage(Wizard) + Fighter combo class We also don't have a Coercer + Fighter combo class or a Conjuror + Fighter combo class (but seeing an SK is half Necro, the second Summoner class, that space isn't as vacantly felt as the Mage/Coercer one). Hrmm, what could the Coercer + Fighter class be called? Maybe that Psionicist would be a good name. Maybe, Mindflayer (although they would prolly have copywrite issues with TSR about that name). So that's what I would like to see. A couple more Hybrid fighters.</blockquote>This is something I've always wanted to see in EQ. <blockquote> The only thing for now that has nothing similar in EQ2 is some kind of shapeshifter.</blockquote> Druids.

[Lornick]

<p>A battlemage could be fun.  Similar to a wizard but take out some spells and add a few combat arts.  I would actually consider this class more of a cross between a scout and a mage as opposed to a fighter and a mage since tanking effectively in cloth armor just wouldn't happen very well.</p><p>Another class I think could be fun would be a chaosmage.  This type of mage would rely a lot on the random factor.  Like many of their nukes would hit for random resist types.   They might even have a specialty nuke that would automatically hit the target for their lowest resist score.  They could have teleport spells to numerous zones but there should be about a 10% chance that you get teleported to a random wrong zone =p  Chaos mage nukes would have a large random factor with the damage range.  Like 100 to 10,000.  Everything about playing a Chaos Mage would be high risk so the only way to balance that is to have the opportunity for high reward.  Many of the chaos mage spells would have random chances for secondary effects.</p><p>With that said, I wouldn't actually want either of those classes added to the game.  They might be fun, but from a game balance perspective it would be a nightmare to add new classes to the game.</p>

[Wunabei]

<p>To the person who said beastlords are shamans: you are so very wrong.</p><p> While yes, beastlords are similar, the beastlord is definetely not the same. Beastlord's pets are meaningful, strong, dps like. Beastlords buffs are mostly centered toward pets. They are up close and personal fighters, with heals mainly for their pet, but light heals to others.</p><p> You take an SK from EQ1 and an SK in EQ2, they are different. They have temp pets instead of perma pets. I'd like to see SoE do something similar with beastlords, but perma pets. </p>

[Hella_Nervous]

ok, I'll be the first to admit it. I am drunk! But I did read a couple of sentances....... Drop the idea of a ninja and put a pirate in its place! Pirates are drunk....like me!!!!!!!! I like pirates! PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE

[Galithdor]

<p>the rogue classes are also pirates pretty much...look at the name of their AA line <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> so no pirates</p>

[dancemice]

<p>Instead of making classes, You [Sony] Could just make certain monsters playable and give said critter a skill list.</p><p>Ie.</p><p>Werewolf</p><p>Vampire</p><p>Giant</p><p>Etc. all from level 1 to 70. Would be interesting, You'd need a monster city though <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>-B-</p><p>Oh yeah, Does anyone here see my sig, or is it just that line of code...</p>

[StoneySilen]

^^^^ Just a line of code. What I would like is a Gnome only Tinkering class that is a pet class like Necro/Conjuror but uses mechanical pets.  A Hunter class that can charm animals (permanently) to fight with them (or beastlord).  A Crossbow class for Evils (to counter Rangers since Evils have no real archer class).

[iceriven2]

<p>Fighter- Beastlord</p><p>Scout- Ranged class, Blesses or imbues throwing weapon a scout that uses magic though his weapons</p><p>Priest- Blood Mage- Main heal is based of of draining the health of others  Very necro like but all spells are focused towards being a priest</p><p>Mage- Elmentalist, Crowd control, ulility caster that uses the forces of the elements to do it</p><p>Pychic- Caster thats uses the power of the mind to do massive damage,  Some CC and utility but almost all attacks are for damage.</p>

[Redbull]

Nikky@Oasis wrote: <blockquote>ok, I'll be the first to admit it. I am drunk! But I did read a couple of sentances....... Drop the idea of a ninja and put a pirate in its place! Pirates are drunk....like me!!!!!!!! I like pirates! PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE </blockquote>Arrrrr! Try a Corsair in FFXI - but they use guns and are quite the gamblers <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. I love my EQ2 but I did play FFXI for about 2 1/2 years - that game truly has distinct classes with the exception of the Red Mage (hybrid between White and Black mages) but even then, it still has it's own unique spells and abilities. Ooohhh the Beastmaster! I miss it almost as much as the Beastlord...almost.

[Pyrrhx]

<p>Fighter-   Mageslayer.  Fighter type with skills honed for the sole purpose of beating the snot out of casters.  </p><p>Scout- Grenadier.  GIve him an arquebus, or some type of explosive projectile and he's set.  Main drawback... he has no melee CA's making him all range, all the time. </p><p>Priest-  Surgeon.  Heals require reagent like tonics and bandages.  Augments allies and for the right price alters their appearance through various cosmetic procedures.</p><p>Mage- Wunderkind.  Can tap into each of the 4 main schools of magic.  Unfortunately, he's got the lowest life expectancy of all the casters.</p>

[Winter]

<p><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff99ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">I would personally love to see a very different implementation of a Beast Master sort of class. Granted, I know they have said Beast Masters will happen "when all other classes are balanced"... in other words, likely never. I think it would be awesome to be able to choose from a few different types of animals, train them in their abilities, etc.</span></p>

[Graywindnz]

<p>I like the idea of psionics</p><p>Mage , good, uses the elements to create "pets" or  to do damage. So if they have a torch they do mainly fire damage or the ground for earth type damage or water to cause cold damage. Needs to have the element near if has all 3 the it does a lesser amount but does all 3</p><p>Mage, evil, uses the power of the undead, razes the fallen foe to use as a pet, to sacrifice or to do damage, pet does damage based on what was razed.</p><p>Both use cloth amour have self buffs that add a sort of amour or ward to help when taking dmg</p><p>PSI scout , good , The Arcane archer has a psi bow or uses Psi arrows to do damage,  </p><p>Psi scout, evil,  the Arcane blade  fights unarmed but forms arcane blades of pure thought </p><p>Weres leather as the metal affects the effeteness of the arcane weapons formed </p><p>Has stances that add a  lvl of PSi amour to the scout.</p><p>Psi fighter, good, plate wearing tank that uses the Psi energy to create shields and amour of pure energy and to fight with has a lot of knock backs and stuns when he's hit , not much on the offensive fighter. E.g. stun and KB reactives</p><p>Psi fighter, evil, a more offensive good guy has more in the way of damage reactives</p><p>Psi healer. Cloth healer, forms a self ward for that takes damage it regrows, special heal is an intercept to take the dmg them self using the large ward, uses reactive buff that do feedback dmg rather than direct spells , although will have a few of those. </p><p>These classes would be a Psi class using the mind to mimic the effects of other clases.</p>Just a few ideas I had

[Vifarc]

I miss a blade Ranger class, able to tank more (keeping some bow skills). (Assassin and Brigand are nice but are not Rangers).

[Naveta]

I miss my Beastlord from EQ1 <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. sure he was a little overpowered, but i liked the playstyle. a Fighter: his pet could tank better, a Scout: send the pet in and kill with arrows, a Mage: a few dots and some lightening spells as i remember, and a Priest: though the best healing spells were for the pet.  Oh and my fav KITTY CRACK!!!

[Larogi]

<cite>Graywindnz wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I like the idea of psionics</p><p>Mage , good, uses the elements to create "pets" or  to do damage. So if they have a torch they do mainly fire damage or the ground for earth type damage or water to cause cold damage. Needs to have the element near if has all 3 the it does a lesser amount but does all 3</p><p>Mage, evil, uses the power of the undead, razes the fallen foe to use as a pet, to sacrifice or to do damage, pet does damage based on what was razed.</p><p>Both use cloth amour have self buffs that add a sort of amour or ward to help when taking dmg</p><p>PSI scout , good , The Arcane archer has a psi bow or uses Psi arrows to do damage,  </p><p>Psi scout, evil,  the Arcane blade  fights unarmed but forms arcane blades of pure thought </p><p>Weres leather as the metal affects the effeteness of the arcane weapons formed </p><p>Has stances that add a  lvl of PSi amour to the scout.</p><p>Psi fighter, good, plate wearing tank that uses the Psi energy to create shields and amour of pure energy and to fight with has a lot of knock backs and stuns when he's hit , not much on the offensive fighter. E.g. stun and KB reactives</p><p>Psi fighter, evil, a more offensive good guy has more in the way of damage reactives</p><p>Psi healer. Cloth healer, forms a self ward for that takes damage it regrows, special heal is an intercept to take the dmg them self using the large ward, uses reactive buff that do feedback dmg rather than direct spells , although will have a few of those. </p><p>These classes would be a Psi class using the mind to mimic the effects of other clases.</p>Just a few ideas I had</blockquote><p><span style="color: #3333ff">When I posted this thread this is kind of what I was hoping to find, a sub-class that could be used across all class types. I like this and the thought behind really focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of a Psi Fighter, Mage, Priest or Scout. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Nice! Hope we can think of some more like this so we can give ideas to the developers, because if we give them ideas isntead of complaining they will jump in and expand on them in their weekly meetings and maybe we will see a whole new sub-class for Classes.</span></p>

[Larogi]

<span style="color: #3333ff">After reading through some of the threads I like the idea of a Battlemage and Bloodmage <p><span style="color: #ffffff"><b>Quote from Lornick</b> </span></p><p>A battlemage could be fun.  Similar to a wizard but take out some spells and add a few combat arts.  I would actually consider this class more of a cross between a scout and a mage as opposed to a fighter and a mage since tanking effectively in cloth armor just wouldn't happen very well.</p><p><span style="color: #ffffff"><b>Quote from iceriven2</b> </span></p><p>Priest- Blood Mage- Main heal is based of of draining the health of others  Very necro like but all spells are focused towards being a priest</p><p>It would be nice if someone with creative thought could think of how to best to implement these into the game.</p><p>In other words expand on these two ideas, having a priest class that drains life like a necro does for itself to then transfer to its pet is a great idea and maybe inflict damage of disease and poison over time. This would be good for the evil side and for the good side they would drain power from their foe and do divine damage and be called a Holy Mage or Divine Mage</p><p>Keep it up everyone!</p></span>

[Snowdonia]

Too bad I'm the one who first suggested a Battlemage. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And my Battlemage wouldn't wear pansy cloth armor either. They would be styled like the other hybrid fighters and wear plate, with Wizard spells mixed in. Basically, they would be exactly like the DFC Bloodguard mobs work now. Duel wielding, wizard spell casting, plate wearing, bad arsed tanking mo' fo's who'll nuke you to high heaven!

[Zarafein]

<cite>Larogi wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #3333ff">Priest- Blood Mage- Main heal is based of of draining the health of others  Very necro like but all spells are focused towards being a priest <p>It would be nice if someone with creative thought could think of how to best to implement these into the game.</p><p>In other words expand on these two ideas, having a priest class that drains life like a necro does for itself to then transfer to its pet is a great idea and maybe inflict damage of disease and poison over time. This would be good for the evil side and for the good side they would drain power from their foe and do divine damage and be called a Holy Mage or Divine Mage</p><p>Keep it up everyone!</p></span></blockquote><p>Ability to drain life, transfer it to pet and disease+poison damage over time? necromancer? They are even more like blood mages than this, they can drain life, transfer it to others, resurect, use the pets life to heal(wis line) use the pet to heal(mage pet) and of course inflict diesease and poison damage.</p><p>@MW2k2</p><p>So you want great melee dps(why should he dual wield if not?), great tanking ability and even better nukes.. and the disadvantages to balance this are...? </p>

[CompStomp]

<p>I Play a swashy on Naggy, and as far as i can see there are two types of swashies, DPS swashies and Tank swashies. I happen to be a tank swashy, and i would like to see a Buccaneer subclass for us tank swashies. Not sure what a DPS swash would be called, maybe um...a cut-throat ?</p><p>Buccaneers would basically be a bit more defensive, maybe trickier....a CA relative to thugs, but instead called simalucrum, where youre attacking him one second then he casts and appears behind you but you have no idea because his simalucrum is now where he was standing and attacking you and looks just like him! woots also a CA where he parry/blocks the next 3-5 attacks.</p><p>A Cut-Throat would be more of a dps type, possibly a hard hitting range attack.....perhaps a nice one shooter old style pistol. That would be a cool move. oh ! and another flurry attack.</p><p>Couple ideas for both: a disarm CA. id also really like to see a group style inspiration move, a temp buff with a proc for group members, like cacophony of blades, but for us swashies to give out.</p><p>but yea, Simalucrum would be awsome for us swashies who are thugless....give us some love!</p>

[Larogi]

Snowdonia@Runnyeye wrote: <blockquote>Too bad I'm the one who first suggested a Battlemage. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And my Battlemage wouldn't wear pansy cloth armor either. They would be styled like the other hybrid fighters and wear plate, with Wizard spells mixed in. Basically, they would be exactly like the DFC Bloodguard mobs work now. Duel wielding, wizard spell casting, plate wearing, bad arsed tanking mo' fo's who'll nuke you to high heaven! </blockquote><p> <span style="color: #3333ff">I apologize Snow, didn't mean to overlook that you suggested it first.  From what I can see from the suggestions of a battlemage is if you are in the AOE, be prepared to be laying on your back from a knock down nuke.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">I personally think they should be cloth armor with a ward of its own uniqeuness that would apply a knock down within a certain range making it so that no one wants to get up close and personal to fight. How would you like to be on the receiving end of a cloth robed Battlemage that just wiped you out and turned your plate armor into a trash can.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">In order to make it fair, the Battlemage would not have long range attacks like Wizards and Warlocks. They would be your typical tank that wants to get up and in your face and nuke within a short range. What makes it difficult is if you get to close you are laying on your back because of the knock down ward. I would imagine with the ward a foe would be likely to hit with a weapon maybe every other swing or from getting up from being knocked down so the damage would be 50% or less then normal melee damage. Probably on average it would be 25% or less then normal melee damage.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">As you can see the weakness of a Battlemage would be someone that could long range attack him/her. But with a good root you better be able to get max hits, because once the Battlemage has you in root he is coming up close and personal to finish you off. I think this could be a very fun class. As most mage classes with cloth armor you will die but as you get used to the play style beware of the foe that thinks you are a regular mage.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Just a thought.</span></p>

[Winter]

<p><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff66ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">My ideal class, no joke... would be kind of like a Beast Master... but my sidekick would be a squirrel... A sparkly squirrel. A pink sparkly squirrel of doom +5.</span></p>

[Larogi]

<cite>Winter wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff66ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">My ideal class, no joke... would be kind of like a Beast Master... but my sidekick would be a squirrel... A sparkly squirrel. A pink sparkly squirrel of doom +5.</span></p></blockquote><p> <span style="color: #3333ff">Cute! I would imagine the race would be a Fae - Beast Master with a pink sparkly squirrel to match your pink sparkly personallity.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Cute!</span></p>

[Durelli]

Bloodmages? Psionicists? Maybe some of you guys should try out vanguard haha. You'll find them there. (Or play a coercer for the latter) Anywho, tbh I don't want any more classes (there are 24..) but to contribute to the OP's wishes: Fighter: A battlemage/spellsword would be cool.. Priest: Don't know what you'd call it but something akin to Defenders in CoH or Disciples in VG. Healing indirectly through stuns, interupts resists and what not.  ( Better yet give a flavour of this to the current Brawlers..) Mage: PBAOE class. Like a warlock but dies even faster. Call it 'Deathmage' *snort* Scout: I would like ninja's too. More FFXI like than an assassin. They use tools, powders and magic. Fun to speculate but I'd much rather they do as they say they are doing and tweak the existing classes. Hey.. If they are ultimately succesful with their current policy you will have a game with TWENTY FOUR classes, all equally fun and relevant so who'd need new ones anyway? It's not going to happen but perhaps on this path we will have CCers with a meaningful role, Bards that aren't bored to tears and Brawlers that can tank raids.

[Winter]

<cite>Larogi wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Winter wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff66ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">My ideal class, no joke... would be kind of like a Beast Master... but my sidekick would be a squirrel... A sparkly squirrel. A pink sparkly squirrel of doom +5.</p></blockquote><p> <span style="color: #3333ff">Cute! I would imagine the race would be a Fae - Beast Master with a pink sparkly squirrel to match your pink sparkly personallity.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Cute!</span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium"><span style="color: #ff66ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">And sparkles, the angry sparkly pink squirrel would be the most viciousest, dangerousest squirrel of doomy doom ever.</span></span>

[Raveller]

<p>New Class: Whiner</p><p>Oh, wait, we already have far too many of those.</p>

[Moongloom]

<p>I will use some of the ideas here and expand on them a bit.  Then add my own idea for the scout classes.</p><p><b>tank</b></p><p>evil: Battlemage: uses mental and disease to damage.  Gets mental damage shields and mental damage procs.</p><p>good: Spellsword: uses mental and frost damage.  Gets frost damage shield and frost damage procs.</p><p><b>healer</b></p><p>evil: Black Healer:  uses mental powers to syphon life/power from mobs and adds them to group/group member.</p><p>good:  Spiritual Healer: uses mental powers to heal, buff, and debuff mental resists.</p><p><b>caster</b></p><p>evil: Demonologist:  uses mental powers to raise mobs just slain and uses them as a pet for a short duration.</p><p>good: Mentalist:  uses mental powers to deal damage, stun, and confuse.  </p><p><b>scout</b></p><p>evil: Beastlord:  uses mental skills to make a pet from any animal mob and uses it as a permanent pet.  </p><p>good: Hunter: uses mental skills to make a pet from any animal mob and uses it as a permanent pet.   </p><p>both: Beastlord and Hunter uses mental powers to sneak into range for strikes that do mental damage.</p><p>Notice my main use of mental powers.  We don't really have any real reason for mental resists on mobs right now.  There are not many powers that do mental damage.  So I thought some new classes that would focus on mental damage rather than disease, poison, divine, cold, and fire.</p><p>-edit typo</p>

[Lornick]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>New Class: Whiner</p><p>Oh, wait, we already have far too many of those.</p></blockquote>hahah, awesome.

[ke'la]

<cite>Moongloom wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I will use some of the ideas here and expand on them a bit.  Then add my own idea for the scout classes.</p><p><b>tank</b></p><p>evil: Battlemage: uses mental and disease to damage.  Gets mental damage shields and mental damage procs.</p><p>good: Spellsword: uses mental and frost damage.  Gets frost damage shield and frost damage procs.</p><p><b>healer</b></p><p>evil: Black Healer:  uses mental powers to syphon life/power from mobs and adds them to group/group member.</p><p>good:  Spiritual Healer: uses mental powers to heal, buff, and debuff mental resists.</p><p><b>caster</b></p><p>evil: Demonologist:  uses mental powers to raise mobs just slain and uses them as a pet for a short duration.</p><p>good: Mentalist:  uses mental powers to deal damage, stun, and confuse.  </p><p><b>scout</b></p><p>evil: Beastlord:  uses mental skills to make a pet from any animal mob and uses it as a permanent pet.  </p><p>good: Hunter: uses mental skills to make a pet from any animal mob and uses it as a permanent pet.   </p><p>both: Beastlord and Hunter uses mental powers to sneak into range for strikes that do mental damage.</p><p>Notice my main use of mental powers.  We don't really have any real reason for mental resists on mobs right now.  There are not many powers that do mental damage.  So I thought some new classes that would focus on mental damage rather than disease, poison, divine, cold, and fire.</p><p>-edit typo</p></blockquote>Accually both Bard types and Both Mage Types do Mental damage, almost exclusivly.

[Moongloom]

ke'la wrote: <blockquote>Accually both Bard types and Both Mage Types do Mental damage, almost exclusivly. </blockquote><p> I will give you Troubador does many attacks of mental damage.  But not Dirge so much.  They do more disease damage attacks.  Pretty much only the Dirge Shouts do mental damage.  </p><p>For the Mage types...do you mean Enchanter types?  </p><p>Yes, Enchanter types do cast many mental damage spells, but they are a pretty rare breed.  Troubadors are fairly rare for that matter.  I was trying to get more different types of classes to do mental.  Especially tank and healer classes.  </p>

[Silvershadows]

<p>I wish that they would create new aa line trees, rather than make completly new classes... to create a sort of sub class without having another sub class, but allowing further diversification... they would have 1 of 3 choices but only being able to choose one tree. </p><p>such as...</p><p>Scouts:  1. trap master the ability to take random components and turn them into deadly combat traps, to disorent, stun,            confuse, disable, and damage there foes.</p><p>              2. body mastery, the ability to master the movment of ones body, to avoid damage, disapear and reapear without decection, and become a master at minipulating an enemys body.</p><p>              3. Tactition, learning the elements of war, becomeing a master of the land, being able to use rocks, trees, grass, and water as weapons of opportunity to devistate your enemy. Being able to understand the arts of war and to almost predict and prevent an enemy from atacking you.</p><p>Preists:  1. Faith, devoting ones self to the God's of norath has been noticed, and the life flow is in you.  The spirit within you will now and is healing your foes and smiting your enemys at less cost and greater returns. </p><p>               2. Wounded Carnage, Years of exile and confusion has left you almost devistated as you have fended for your self without the support of others. You have forgoten the ways of the preist and have learned the ways of wild. You heal yourself with perfection while devistating your enemys with poision and disease, as you have learned to "sour" your heals.  </p><p>              3. Life bewilderment, you have saved countless lives and spared many foes from that crushing blow, all of this has left you confused as why you save so many lives only for them to so rashly continue to through it away again.  You begin to have new powers that limit enemy's to be healed for short derations. and limiting there effect when in your presence.  </p><p>Fighters:  1. weapon mastery countless battles have hardened you and honed your skills, you know have the ability to master weapons, allowing for faster harder more deadly blows.  You know weapon weaknesses and you exloit this in your enemys weapons, making them almost usless. sucessfully disabling foes that carry weapons.</p><p>                2. Mercenary.  Moving with greater speed, and stiking enemys where it hurts the most.  You have learned to kill and slip into the shadows unnoticed by others. You have leaned how to effectivly use ranged weapons, and restraining devices to subdue your foes.</p><p>               3.  Ninja (for all of you who like this idea) You are a master of movement, concealment, and trickery in combat. You use smoke to mask your movment and to disorent your enemy.  You atack from infront disapear and reapear on  near ledge just above your target who franticly searches for you just before you strike that killing blow. You have mastered the use of staves and thrown weapons.</p><p>Mages:  1.   Mind Minipulator. You are a master of  mind minipulation and have so "convinced" creatures to fight for you and to learn from you.  You have learned to control these creatures even to the point of atacking there kin, but mind control is no cure for death. As once your "controled" creature dies, it is dead and you must minipulare the mind of another creature.</p><p>              2.  Astrolger, you find holes in the universe and you draw power from them to bolster your spells.  You have also learned to reproduce time like a dejavu effect on your foes, being able to link spell combinations together for a reproducing cirticical strick of the same sequence of spells. </p><p>             3.  teleporter, space and time seem not to effect you anymore. As the rules seem to no longer limit you and what you can do.  You have found the ability to teleport you and your group short distances while in combat to safer more preferable fighting locations. You have learned how to teleport your enemy into more dangerous areas. Also the ability to move and temorarly alter your terain to how you see fit, also using that as a weapon to gain an advantage on your enemy.</p><p>These are just some of the ideas that i have come up with.  Let me know what you think?  Maybe im just one of the "crazys" out peddling the streets of SQ still. :-()  </p>

[Ixalmaris]

The question is what function can new classes still fill? The Arcane Warrior is imo already filled by the SK. The only real thing a new class could do is things like traps. Effects which are not based on a mob but on a location. But I don't know how usefull that would be in the game or if the engine can even handle that. The other idea would be a shapechanger class who can take on the form (or just some abilities) of (solo) monsters he kills.

[Grandis]

<p>I think if they took the hybreds and made them just that,   like they were in EQ that would be a good start.  IE Ranger being a fighter Druid.</p><p>I think all new classes should be based in Haven.  There fore no need to make good and evil classes.  That said I would love to see some Demon lines (I know this would bite off Conan, but the idea has been around long before that)  </p><p>Mage = Cabalist; Uses demonic powers to summon Minons.  They could summon minor demons in small groups or one major fiend.  They would use Fire spells and sheilds.</p><p>DPS/Rogue = Fiend;  instead of hiding in shadows these fiends hide in MOBs possesing them for brief times before having to flee.  This rogue still would have some DPS, fire base procs in place of poison, but also some crowd control.</p><p> Fighter = ?Deamon?;  These fierce fighters channel Demons causing them to Shape change.  Not sure Maybe similar to Brawlers (limited to slashing)  Demon form would increase their AC and Damage, but drains power faster. relies on being savage.  </p><p> Healer = Blood mage; Similar to what was posted before however have their best heals rely on sacrifice IE the power does not come available until a MOB dies or group member or they can sacrifice their pet.  Give them mild crowd control, and an imp pet, that they can channel power though.</p><p>too evil you say?  you could have similar classes celestial based.  Or make them neutral, in that they have their own agendas not given to either side.</p>

[roces9]

Grandis, I'm not trying to shut down your ideas here. But all of the classes you mention fill roles in grops/raids that a few other existing classes fill. *Mage = Cabalist; Uses demonic powers to summon Minons. They could summon minor demons in small groups or one major fiend. They would use Fire spells and sheilds.* Sounds like a necro with fire damage to me..... *DPS/Rogue = Fiend; instead of hiding in shadows these fiends hide in MOBs possesing them for brief times before having to flee. This rogue still would have some DPS, fire base procs in place of poison, but also some crowd control.* A scout that does moderate damage but has mind controling/crowd control abilities? Thank you but we already have Troubadors. *Fighter = ?Deamon?; These fierce fighters channel Demons causing them to Shape change. Not sure Maybe similar to Brawlers (limited to slashing) Demon form would increase their AC and Damage, but drains power faster. relies on being savage. * I could be missing the point of this one, but it sounds like very other Tank class ever, but with an emphasis on "demonic" powers. *Healer = Blood mage; Similar to what was posted before however have their best heals rely on sacrifice IE the power does not coem available until a MOB dies. Give them mild crowd control, and an imp pet, that they can channel power though.* Okay, this one does not fill a roll that several other classes already do... it fills several rolls that many other classes do. This is a step in the right direction compared to the other ideas, but a class with Healing, a pet, and crowd control? why not give him porting, plate armor and dual weilding too? The problem with most of these suggestions is that they are just new aesthetics on classes that already exist in EQ2. If you think that EQ2 needs Blood Mages, and Psionists, then you are bored with the current class structure and you should go play a game with different classes instead of suggesting the Devs flood the game with *even more* classes to fill the basic Tank, Healer, Damage and Support roles. I'm not trying to be mean or anything but you should seriously consider spending your $15/month on something you enjoy. Try CoH/CoV. I know whenever I get in an EQ2 rut, the fun CoH classes and mechanics give me a good month-2 month break. This game does not need more classes.

[Grandis]

<cite>roces9 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Grandis, I'm not trying to shut down your ideas here. But all of the classes you mention fill roles in grops/raids that a few other existing classes fill. *Mage = Cabalist; Uses demonic powers to summon Minons. They could summon minor demons in small groups or one major fiend. They would use Fire spells and sheilds.* Sounds like a necro with fire damage to me.....</p><p><b> </b><span style="color: #990000"><b>Hmmm a necro without drains, more dps, and multible pets.</b>   Is evey pet caster some sorta necro in disguise?</span> *DPS/Rogue = Fiend; instead of hiding in shadows these fiends hide in MOBs possesing them for brief times before having to flee. This rogue still would have some DPS, fire base procs in place of poison, but also some crowd control.* A scout that does moderate damage but has mind controling/crowd control abilities? Thank you but we already have Troubadors.</p><p><b><span style="color: #990000">A new way for rogues to interact instead of disappearing and vying for a side to stick.</span></b></p><p> *Fighter = ?Deamon?; These fierce fighters channel Demons causing them to Shape change. Not sure Maybe similar to Brawlers (limited to slashing) Demon form would increase their AC and Damage, but drains power faster. relies on being savage. * I could be missing the point of this one, but it sounds like very other Tank class ever, but with an emphasis on "demonic" powers.</p><p><b><span style="color: #990000">so we only need one tank class then?  I mean they are all the same right?</span></b> *Healer = Blood mage; Similar to what was posted before however have their best heals rely on sacrifice IE the power does not coem available until a MOB dies. Give them mild crowd control, and an imp pet, that they can channel power though.* Okay, this one does not fill a roll that several other classes already do... it fills several rolls that many other classes do. This is a step in the right direction compared to the other ideas, but a class with Healing, a pet, and crowd control? why not give him porting, plate armor and dual weilding too?</p><p> <b><span style="color: #990000">I know what a dumb idea a Crowd controlling priest.. . .  They are suppose to just hang back and heal that should be fun enough!</span></b> The problem with most of these suggestions is that they are just new aesthetics on classes that already exist in EQ2. If you think that EQ2 needs Blood Mages, and Psionists, then you are bored with the current class structure and you should go play a game with different classes instead of suggesting the Devs flood the game with *even more* classes to fill the basic Tank, Healer, Damage and Support roles. I'm not trying to be mean or anything but you should seriously consider spending your $15/month on something you enjoy. Try CoH/CoV. I know whenever I get in an EQ2 rut, the fun CoH classes and mechanics give me a good month-2 month break. This game does not need more classes. </p></blockquote><p>Roces9 my man I am not sure if you read the tittle of the post.  You are right though with 24 mostly redundant classes there is little need in raid groups for new classes.  However there are many aspects that you fail to consider in your analsis: fun, RP, Story, these concepts I gave here are not fleshed out models.  They are Ideas for a direction, that would take us lil further away from the 4 class generic that all 24 classes are based.  you are right though, there are tanks, DPS, Healer and crowd control already ingame.  I know lets be pure about it and drop it down to 6 classes that would fill every raid nich!  Oh and what fun!  Look another tank just like me in the same raided gear!  Love it quick SOE roll back to 4 classes!  So in case you were wondering this is about different way to play the  game, which is *gasp* just aestetics on some code.    </p><p>I did not add to this post becuase I am bored with the game I added to the post because I am bored at work =P </p>

[LichKing06]

<p>I personally wanna see Beastlords brought back.  Also, something based on the old Crusaders of the Greenmist in Cabilis. I know a lot of them were Shadow Knights at the time, but there was a little something more to them methinks.  Beastlords were a crossbreed of Shaman and Monk, but what if you made a crossbreed of Shaman and Warrior? Something completely different, and no, not like Berserkers...  But, as I said, I think there needs to be a priest pet class instead of just having the classic arcane pet classes.  Also, maybe an elemental warrior, like the Duskblade in DnD. I know there's Crusaders, but I'm looking for something new.  A shapeshifting fighter class might be pretty neat.  *shrug* Just my 2 cents. Lol, just looked at some of the other posts after I posted, and realized had some shared ideas. I apologize if I repeated some things suggested by others.</p>

[roces9]

I think that you took my analysis a little too personally. I'm not attacking you, just merely pointing out that if we're going to add a 25th, 26th or any new class at some point... they would need to be very distinct and have a unique role in the group (not to mention working them into the class trees). <cite>Grandis wrote:</cite><blockquote> *Mage = Cabalist; Uses demonic powers to summon Minons. They could summon minor demons in small groups or one major fiend. They would use Fire spells and sheilds.* Sounds like a necro with fire damage to me.....<b> </b><span style="color: #990000"><b>Hmmm a necro without drains, more dps, and multible pets.</b>   Is evey pet caster some sorta necro in disguise?</span></blockquote> First off, taking away life taps and giving it more dps and more pets is not very good developing. How would this Cabalist distinguish itself from the TWO other pet classes in this game.... aside from doing more damage? <blockquote> *DPS/Rogue = Fiend; instead of hiding in shadows these fiends hide in MOBs possesing them for brief times before having to flee. This rogue still would have some DPS, fire base procs in place of poison, but also some crowd control.* A scout that does moderate damage but has mind controling/crowd control abilities? Thank you but we already have Troubadors.<span style="color: #990000">A new way for rogues to interact instead of disappearing and vying for a side to stick.</span></blockquote> Okay, so they don't sneak and backstab, they play mind tricks on the mob so that they can walk undetected behind it and do damage? Again, we have 6 people that do essentially the same thing. How is the Fiend different from Preds, Rogues and Bards other than it doesn't sneak... it hides by possesing? <blockquote>*Fighter = ?Deamon?; These fierce fighters channel Demons causing them to Shape change. Not sure Maybe similar to Brawlers (limited to slashing) Demon form would increase their AC and Damage, but drains power faster. relies on being savage. * I could be missing the point of this one, but it sounds like very other Tank class ever, but with an emphasis on "demonic" powers.<span style="color: #990000">so we only need one tank class then?  I mean they are all the same right?</span></blockquote> Okay, here you're just putting words in my mouth to try and detract from my arguement. It's an old debate trick (that i'm doing right now)- If you can't prove your point, disprove your opponents. I never said we need 1 Tank class. But a Tank that can increase his Mit and Dps by going into a different for? I never played a Tank for very long, but don't stances do this too? What does this class bring to the group other than spiffy Demon graphics? Why should the devs bother putting it in other than making "Demonologist" fans worldwide happy? <blockquote> *Healer = Blood mage; Similar to what was posted before however have their best heals rely on sacrifice IE the power does not coem available until a MOB dies. Give them mild crowd control, and an imp pet, that they can channel power though.* Okay, this one does not fill a roll that several other classes already do... it fills several rolls that many other classes do. This is a step in the right direction compared to the other ideas, but a class with Healing, a pet, and crowd control? why not give him porting, plate armor and dual weilding too? <span style="color: #990000">I know what a dumb idea a Crowd controlling priest.. . .  They are suppose to just hang back and heal that should be fun enough!</span></blockquote> Again this is the same thing as before. Instead of proving your arguement you try to make mine silly. I never said that Healers just have to heal. In this date and time, no one wants Healers that don't do anything else. In EQ2 to different extents they buff, debuff and do damage. And sure they could do crowd control. But wrapping healing, CC, a pet, power channeling (not sure what you mean by that) into one class.... and you've got the same problem that you had with beastords. One class cannot do everything. That's what single player games are for. I never said we need less classes in this game. I never said that we need one tank. I never said I want everyone to look the same. What I did say is that 24 classes is a lot. ATM we already have trouble distinguishing the differences in what each of those brings to a group (excpet for which one goes in which group in a raid). I'm not opposed to new classes... as long as they bring something more than just Demon graphics to the game. Please don't assume that just because I don't agree with you that I'm wrong and being illogical. If theyre is something wrong with my arguement, please address that. But don't attack the fact that I have an arguement. and /bored at work FTW! Edited: A few times for my crappy formating.

[Grandis]

<p> First off, taking away life taps and giving it more dps and more pets is not very good developing. How would this Cabalist distinguish itself from the TWO other pet classes in this game.... aside from doing more damage? </p><p><span style="color: #990000">First off you are right, if they add another pet class it should not be caster based.  I only came up with a theme that would add classes across the 4 bases classes.  You are making a assumption that we would start with a nerco, tear it down and build it back up.  Aside from having a pet and being a caster the 2 are not the same.  Currently we have necros with lifetaps and pets and enchanters with their mezzes and pets, this class would be more inline with Wizards, yet weaker nukes, and a horde of pets.  Have you Played Bonedancer in DAoC, I normally do not play casters but that class was a blast.  So yes it would not do something fantastical in raids that is not already being done.  But there is no glaring need there that needs a new class to fill.  But it would give people different options to being a caster.  More RP, different new fun options to explore Norath with.  It would also keep SOE from just dipping in the we already did this in EQ1 bag. </span> Okay, so they don't sneak and backstab, they play mind tricks on the mob so that they can walk undetected behind it and do damage? Again, we have 6 people that do essentially the same thing. How is the Fiend different from Preds, Rogues and Bards other than it doesn't sneak... it hides by possesing? </p><p><span style="color: #993300">The possession would give a totally new and different game mechanic.  For both sneak and crowd control.  Similar more to Corcrer  the fiend would jump in, take over the MOB and attack.  Hense some crowd control.  2 MOBs on your party?  Wham the fiend takes over one.  Now you only have one mob to deal with.  The fiend also instead of sneaking up and stabing a prey jumps in and takes over.</span> Okay, here you're just putting words in my mouth to try and detract from my arguement. It's an old debate trick (that i'm doing right now)- If you can't prove your point, disprove your opponents. I never said we need 1 Tank class. But a Tank that can increase his Mit and Dps by going into a different for? I never played a Tank for very long, but don't stances do this too? What does this class bring to the group other than spiffy Demon graphics? Why should the devs bother putting it in other than making "Demonologist" fans worldwide happy? </p><p><span style="color: #990000">No ya did not say that we need only one tank.  Ya said: but it sounds like very other Tank class ever.  Implying that there is not much differenciating tanks.  And aside from style you are right.  They all do the same job.  Some in slightly different ways.  (IE mitgation vs advoidance.)  this would give a Shifter of sorts.  A different style to Play a light gear base Melee class similar to monks.  But relying on It demonic savagry to pull it through fights instead of dodging.  IE it would hold agro, since it would not be constantly advoiding damage.  I would say a DoT Based Tank.  Dealing out Bleeds and burns. The demon form would be greatly different than stances, as I said it would eat your power while you were in it, then health too maybe, High benifit, high cost, requiring the player to use a lil statigery.   But it would still be just a tank.  Doing what tanks do.    </span> Again this is the same thing as before. Instead of proving your arguement you try to make mine silly. I never said that Healers just have to heal. In this date and time, no one wants Healers that don't do anything else. In EQ2 to different extents they buff, debuff and do damage. And sure they could do crowd control. But wrapping healing, CC, a pet, power channeling (not sure what you mean by that) into one class.... and you've got the same problem that you had with beastords. One class cannot do everything. That's what single player games are for. </p><p><span style="color: #993300">By Pet power Channeling I meant mosly that they would be able to stand even further away from the fight ( as they would be soft, and cloth based healer) and they would possess their pet similar to one of the AA powers.  Using their pet they could say away from the fight and still be effective unless their waiting body gets attacked.  The CC would be in place of the same ol same ol mix of buff debuff heal hit that all the other healers are a mix of.  This healer would keep enemies off their backs while healing.  And no he would not duel weild or wear plate.  He would only heal and CC with minimal melee with his pet.</span> I never said we need less classes in this game. I never said that we need one tank. I never said I want everyone to look the same. What I did say is that 24 classes is a lot. ATM we already have trouble distinguishing the differences in what each of those brings to a group (excpet for which one goes in which group in a raid). I'm not opposed to new classes... as long as they bring something more than just Demon graphics to the game. Please don't assume that just because I don't agree with you that I'm wrong and being illogical. If theyre is something wrong with my arguement, please address that. But don't attack the fact that I have an arguement. </p><p><span style="color: #993300">24 classes are alot, but this post was about new classes not if there are too many already.  We do have enough classes to get things done.  and they for the most part are the same 4 classes, starting with the subclass system locked that down pretty good.  To add new classes and have them fairly balanced, I imagine that this is where the developers would start when making a new class.  So to move the aguement along, I was posting with individuals in mind what they might have fun playing not whether it fills a already fill nich in a class swollen game.  Class is just one more way to distiguish ourself in this game.  there is alot of over lap in use and power once we get beyond the base 4 classes, in my humble opinion the more classes do not take away from the game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #993300">To address your arguement, many people play this game just to explore and have fun, not to raid, some not even to group.  These classes while they will never make it into the game would do just that for many poeple and would be easy to fit into the lore.  These classes would also bring different mechanics into combat.  </span> and /bored at work FTW!</p><p><span style="color: #993300"> I am not takin it personal just fillin the time in the day.  Hope ya have a great weekend. . . and argue on!</span></p>

[roces9]

Sorry to Troll here, but its getting late on a friday... and I can't handle work right now. 1) I didn't mean to imply that you would be starting with a necro and working from there for your pet class. I just feel that it follows the playstyle of the current summoners too closely. The Guild wars necro sounds like what youre getting at, but I still think that 2 summoners are enough unless it does something really funky, other than bigger nukes and more, weaker pets. 2) Seriously, I've played my 70 Troub since launch and that is exactually how we used to play. Watching the back of group(and raid) mates, making sure you lock down any adds while doing damage and bringing alot of utility. BUT they all but completely removed the CC aspect from the game. They even took the line about CC out of the official class description. So while I like a CC'ing scout.... we have one that SOE already broke (not whining, we do lots of other stuff.... just not CC anymore) so I do not think we need a new one. 3) Brawlers don't build aggro by getting hit, so avoidence does not lower their Hate producing mechanics. All tanks a melee based, and how do light armor and savagery combine to make better tanking? I really don't get that part at all... But the idea of a DoT based tank could be a different way of tanking. But I'm not sure that SKs don't already do that and I don't feel that Having a tank that generates Hate by doing DoTs is different enough from the other thanks that use AoEs and taunts (Crusaders) or Taunts and getting hit (Warriors) or DPSing and Taunts (Brawlers) to warrent a new class. 4) I still don't get power channeling, or how making them wear cloth makes them stand further away. If I'm a chain, leather or plate healer I would stand the same distance away from the tank. Although having a Healer whose secondary role is CC would be great, but tricky to balance with solo play. To solo you need to do DPS, but if one class could Heal, DPS, and CC.... they would be way too powerful. This could be fixed by having one pet that helps you DPS and one that helps you CC, kind of like Off. and Def. stances. The more I think about this one, the more I actually like it. A cloth healer that can DPS/CC through various pets that it gets. It fills the same role as other healers but offers something different. Who knows, you could even have multiple pets based on varying situations- 1) Heal/DPS 2) Heal/CC 3) Heal/Heal 4) DPS/CC Or even have it be a sub-class issue. Have the FP version be able to do balls to the walls DPS and the Qeynos version ub3r CC (for x amount of time, or against x enemy, while limiting their healing, sacraficing HP... lost of ways you could balance this out). But I like the sound of One healer that can switch their secondary role from moderate dps to moderate CC. There is actually room to go with that class to go. But I'm still against adding new classes to EQ2 because of the Archetype structure.

[Darkolako]

Lets think for second. There are 24 classes and 24 slot in a raid. Those 24 classes are divide into 8 neutral, 8 evil, and 8 good. The neutral classes are Warriors, druids, bards and sorcerers (4 groups of two classes each =<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The evil consist of one class from the other eight groups, the same happens with the good classes. So in order to keep the class system like it is, they can't add just one class. They need to add 3 groups, each with 2 classes. One of the groups will be neutral and the other two groups will give one class to the evils and the other to the goods. meaning that Eq2 will end with 10 neutral, 10 evil and 10 good. This also mean that they need to increase the slots in raid to 30 and adjust all the raid content. This is a problem without counting the individual class balance. If they gonna add new classes they should be unique in everything not just merge of the classes we have atm. For example a hunter would be a ranger with less range dmg, but with a shaman pet more powerful. a beastlord is a shaman with stronger melee and lower healing ability with a more powerful pet. A ninja would be a assassin with different outfit hehe ohhhh it should be trowing shuriken, hello ninjas use bows also!!!, ect. In the end it would be very hard to come up with 3 completely not overpower unique classes (since we have 12 unique classes the other 12 are very similar)

[Larogi]

<cite>Darkolako wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets think for second. There are 24 classes and 24 slot in a raid. Those 24 classes are divide into 8 neutral, 8 evil, and 8 good. The neutral classes are Warriors, druids, bards and sorcerers (4 groups of two classes each =<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The evil consist of one class from the other eight groups, the same happens with the good classes. So in order to keep the class system like it is, they can't add just one class. They need to add 3 groups, each with 2 classes. One of the groups will be neutral and the other two groups will give one class to the evils and the other to the goods. meaning that Eq2 will end with 10 neutral, 10 evil and 10 good. This also mean that they need to increase the slots in raid to 30 and adjust all the raid content. This is a problem without counting the individual class balance. If they gonna add new classes they should be unique in everything not just merge of the classes we have atm. For example a hunter would be a ranger with less range dmg, but with a shaman pet more powerful. a beastlord is a shaman with stronger melee and lower healing ability with a more powerful pet. A ninja would be a assassin with different outfit hehe ohhhh it should be trowing shuriken, hello ninjas use bows also!!!, ect. In the end it would be very hard to come up with 3 completely not overpower unique classes (since we have 12 unique classes the other 12 are very similar) </blockquote><p> <b><span style="color: #3333ff">Instead of a new class type, how about a completely new Class?</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">The Psionic so far would fit as its own class. They would need to move the Coercer to this class and replace it with like a Battlemage. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">The whole idea of this thread is to not debate about adding but to be creative and think of possibilities. If we could ever come up with a true class that would not be borrowing from all of the other class types, maybe just maybe the devs creative juices will flow in that direction.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Currently, IMHO the developers on staff are trying to think outside of the box and find ways to continue to improve on the game. We as players should always be able to give input on what we would like to see in the game. So instead of contstantly bashing the idea, step out of your way of thinking and what you have been told and be creative.</span></b></p>

[Goozman]

<p>I kind of consolidated my ideas into two classes, and even thought in depth of how each class would work. Because the archetype system is gone forever basically, these classes are of the same subclass, but offer pretty different roles.</p><p>Subclass: Caller (whatever, doesn't matter). The classes within this subclass start the game with a companion that levels with them and gains spells and abilities as they do. These pets will not be run by an AI like summoner pets, they react based on spells/actions taken by the Caller... though they will do basic things on their own. The character himself/herself is somewhat of a Hybrid caster/fighter as well. </p><p>Class 1: Dragoon, Dragoon Knight, Dragon Knight</p><p>This is a plate wearing dps class who can only use 2 handed piercing/slashing weapons, no shields, no dual wield. He is somewhat of a battlemage, so to speak, in that he is a fighter with elemental self/pet/group augmentations, all of which use concentration. He doesn't actually have any offensive spells, just some combat arts, but he has a variety of elemental buffs to choose from, from his permanent ice or fire based spell procs (the ice one does damage and snares, while the fire one adds small dot instea dof a snare), to his frost shield (increases mitigation and shield effectiveness), flaming weaponry (similar to phoenixblade, but for the whole group) etc.</p><p>His pet is a heavy hitting, fire/ice breathing (based on stance) drake; a kind of hybrid of a scout and mage. The pet will account for roughly 65% of the Dragoon's DPS on average. The downside is this pet is frail and will surely die if it takes aggro for too long.</p><p>Class 2: Beastlord</p><p>This is a leather wearing hybrid of a mystic and monk; unlike his dragoon counterpart, this is not a DPS class, though skilled Beastlords will still be able to put out some impressive numbers. This class wards, buffs the group with symbols (mostly defensive in nature), and has minor healing capabilities. This class is limited to staves, batons, and hammers, but is able to dual wield.</p><p>The Beastlord's pet is essentially the opposite of the Dragoon. While, the Beastlord chooses the animal he wants to befriend at character creation, all the pets are actually the same. These pets are low damage in comparison to the drakes, but they can take quite a beating and taunt well also (for example, intimidationg growl is a point blank irresistable taunt, not only increasing threat, but forcing everything onto it for x seconds). Beastlords will be able to comand their companion into a more offensive stance as well, but will still fall short of the drake counterpart.</p>

[thejadegames]

<p><span style="font-size: x-large"></span></p>

[thejadegames]

<p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #990000; font-family: georgia,palatino">a <span style="color: #ff3399">M</span><span style="color: #9933cc">i</span><span style="color: #ffccff">m</span><span style="color: #3366ff">i</span><span style="color: #00ff00">c</span><span style="color: #ffcc33">k</span>.</p><p><span style="font-size: medium"><span style="color: #993399"><span style="font-family: Georgia">a class that could borrow or learn enemy abilities to use against them.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium"><span style="color: #993399"><span style="font-family: Georgia">Wuddah ya know >.> just like a <span style="color: #0066ff">Blue Mage</span></span></span>..... <.< ...go figure.....</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium"><span style="color: #993333; font-family: Georgia">.:+Vein+:.</span></span></span></p>

[roces9]

Goozman: Your classes are original and sound very fun to play but, they have their issues. Dragoons fill the role of another class in the game and Beastlords do several jobs, but none well enough to be wanted in a group. Dragoon: See, I really like this idea for a class, but the problem is that It's basically a plate bard with a pet that can't DW. Bards buff the crap out of Melee or Casters (depending on which bard) but can't DPS high. It isn't uncommon to see a Troubador parse at 1.2k zone wide in a EoF raid, and I've heard some claim to hit 1.8 Zone wide, but Most (raid gear, masters) are around 800-1.2k. A Dragoon is a melee class that buffs, does some dps and has a pet that insta dies if it aggros. It sounds just like a bard wearing plate with 2 handers only. Good idea, but stepping heavily on the toes of Bards who are already crowded by Enchanters. Also with plate and a pet that takes aggro instead of the player, Dragoons would have decent survivabilty, which is some what overpowered considering their elemental buffs, but is mitigated by their low DPS Side note on the Dragoon procs. Do her procs effect melee, spells, either or both? Lets say that if it did only one of the other that the "raiting" of the proc would be 1. If it did either, but not at the same time, the proc should have a raiting of 0.75. And if it could do both at the same time their raitings would have to be 0.25 each (or 0.50 combined). Having both on at the same time would be way over powered in EQ2 and would totally runin both Bard classes that focus on buffing melee or casters. Beastlord: Okay, there is a reason a lot of EQ Vets don't like this class. But let's focus on your version. Is it a Healer? DPSer? Off-tank? You kind of touched on all of these jobs in your class description. Well if it does all of those it can't do any very well (or else it would be incredibly imbalanced a la EQLive). So it would have to do each of those jobs 1/3 as well as people who only do those jobs. So why would I invite a beastlord who can't really heal, cant really DPS, and can't really tank when you can invite a Healer, a DPSer and a Tank? This is the exact problem that Druids had in EQLive if you were around then. I'm not saying that I wouldn't play a Jack-of-all-trades, Master of none class, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't group with one, just most people wouldn't. If no one would group with Beastlords, then they'd have to Solo to 70. It's just the basic problem with the class in general IMO. Really like your Dragoon, but it just doesn't fit in the game. I'm not talking about Archetypes, just it does the job that other people do now, and it might do it better. Beastlords are never comming back. Period.

[miliskel]

1 class for each type (fighter mage etc)basically they take the form of creatures, 1 class becomes a  tank other a mage etc, they do worse at these than the other classes but can buff the other people in this class type (fighter mage etc , dunno the word <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) to be better at it eg the mage version will give out deaggro procs and damage procs, however very long cast times and damae the healer version will give out procs to increase mit of group on every heal however heals not very good the tank will give erm...increase hate gain buffs has low dps the scout will give damage boosts but attacks all require a specific positon and low damage. as u can see this is a utility class that is made to do nothing but buffing really..

[Larogi]

<p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">So far, what I have noticed since creating this thread:</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">1. There have been many threads about people complaining that EQ2 does not add more classes or specific class types</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">2. When asking people to come up with unique class types that do not borrow from the current ones, they really can't except for the Psionic which could really be expanded on beyond a Coercer</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">3. Most will say it will never happen so quit talking about it</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">IMO if there will ever be an additional class type then it will need to be able to compliment what is in the game and not take or replace what is already here. That means those that want Beastlords that will never happen, but if we could find something that could compliment the current classes, then you might see an Epic raid (x5) which would be 30 class types.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">If you noticed, they are starting to put more into raiding and it would be nice to see a Raid x5. </span></b><b><span style="color: #3333ff">It would make it so the raiders would have to learn a new approach to taking on new raid bosses, that would keep everyone busy for some time and it would make it so the Dev teams could make some really uber monsters.</span></b></p>

[Goozman]

<cite>roces9 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Goozman: Your classes are original and sound very fun to play but, they have their issues. Dragoons fill the role of another class in the game and Beastlords do several jobs, but none well enough to be wanted in a group. Dragoon: See, I really like this idea for a class, but the problem is that It's basically a plate bard with a pet that can't DW. Bards buff the crap out of Melee or Casters (depending on which bard) but can't DPS high. It isn't uncommon to see a Troubador parse at 1.2k zone wide in a EoF raid, and I've heard some claim to hit 1.8 Zone wide, but Most (raid gear, masters) are around 800-1.2k. A Dragoon is a melee class that buffs, does some dps and has a pet that insta dies if it aggros. It sounds just like a bard wearing plate with 2 handers only. Good idea, but stepping heavily on the toes of Bards who are already crowded by Enchanters. Also with plate and a pet that takes aggro instead of the player, Dragoons would have decent survivabilty, which is some what overpowered considering their elemental buffs, but is mitigated by their low DPS Side note on the Dragoon procs. Do her procs effect melee, spells, either or both? Lets say that if it did only one of the other that the "raiting" of the proc would be 1. If it did either, but not at the same time, the proc should have a raiting of 0.75. And if it could do both at the same time their raitings would have to be 0.25 each (or 0.50 combined). Having both on at the same time would be way over powered in EQ2 and would totally runin both Bard classes that focus on buffing melee or casters. Beastlord: Okay, there is a reason a lot of EQ Vets don't like this class. But let's focus on your version. Is it a Healer? DPSer? Off-tank? You kind of touched on all of these jobs in your class description. Well if it does all of those it can't do any very well (or else it would be incredibly imbalanced a la EQLive). So it would have to do each of those jobs 1/3 as well as people who only do those jobs. So why would I invite a beastlord who can't really heal, cant really DPS, and can't really tank when you can invite a Healer, a DPSer and a Tank? This is the exact problem that Druids had in EQLive if you were around then. I'm not saying that I wouldn't play a Jack-of-all-trades, Master of none class, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't group with one, just most people wouldn't. If no one would group with Beastlords, then they'd have to Solo to 70. It's just the basic problem with the class in general IMO. Really like your Dragoon, but it just doesn't fit in the game. I'm not talking about Archetypes, just it does the job that other people do now, and it might do it better. Beastlords are never comming back. Period. </blockquote><p>I can see where you're coming from regarding the dragoon; but I think existing classes already have that problem. there are lots of classes that fill the same roles and offer similar features. The dragoon would be a bonified dps class, in the same league as a summoner or rogue, it's weakness, like summoners, would be in that its pet is relatively weak... however his dps is 65+% reliant on his pet, unlike summoners (30-40%). It would have maybe 8 lines of buffs to choose from, no debuffs like bards have. The group ones could take 2 concentration, and self/pet/single target ones could take 1 each. (And he wouldnt get mana regen, runspeed, or mez lolz). Perhaps his group ice buff could be a spell proc, and group fire buff could be a melee proc (or reverse) His combat arts would all be tied to his pet (Ie. He can't even use them without his pet). They'd cause him and the pet to do skills in unison; like uh... circle of fire would be a point blank ae attack where the drake flies up and breathes a rain of fire down while the dragoon spins with his blade pointed out. The one combat art would do both melee damage and heat damage.</p><p>The beastlord is essentially designed to be a solo class. What it would offer to a group is a pet that can actually tank heroic encounters provided the healers buff it appropriately and are on their toes. Or a "tier 3" dps class (forgive my use of those archaic tiers) with some good debuffs and defensive buffs. For raids, the beastlord would offer some use in an offtank group (or even tank group) with their wards and defensive buffs, while allowing their pet to do some dps.</p><p> AA's would allow these classes to alter their roles a bit and offer them more utility/survivability/whatever for a raid... for example I was thinking of a Flight aa for the dragoon, which would have the drake fly away (disappear) until it is instantly recalled, so the dragoon could have it avoid times ae's. The beastlord would get some good DPS aa's, healing aa's, etc so they can better set themselves up for what they want to do (Ie. raid) </p>

[Larogi]

<p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">I found this in another thread.................</span></b></p><p><a href="http://eq2.stratics.com/content/guides/classes/class_systems.php" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://eq2.stratics.com/content/gui...ass_systems.php</a></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">This may change the way we are looking at Class types. </span></b></p><p><b></b></p>

[Goozman]

<p>One flaw in that article is the fact that we have subclass AA's; rogue, druid, crusader, etc.</p><p>Assassins are not rogues, like the character creation screen implies, as they do not have rogue aa's. Rangers, paladins, and shadowknights would need their own subclass aa's.</p>

[Larogi]

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>One flaw in that article is the fact that we have subclass AA's; rogue, druid, crusader, etc.</p><p>Assassins are not rogues, like the character creation screen implies, as they do not have rogue aa's. Rangers, paladins, and shadowknights would need their own subclass aa's.</p></blockquote><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">I agree with you. My only thought is why did they change the creation screen. If not for the sole purpose of setting it up for a change that is coming down the road. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">We saw the same thing happen with the creation screen when it came to the races and someone happened to catch the Arasai in Beta testing of the Fae, if you remember. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">So the question is: </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">What are the developers planning? </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">What change in the creation of classes are coming are way?</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">IMO the Shadowknight and Paladins are both Knights and should be listed as Knights, I did not know there could be different types of Paladins or ShadowKnights. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Not sure what to think about the Ranger being set alone by itself. I think it should be Predator and the Assassin, should be with it. If that is the case then it should read as follows:</span></b></p><ol><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Bards</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Brawlers </span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Clerics</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Druids</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Enchanters</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Knights</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Predators</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Shamans</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Sorcerers</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Summoners</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Warriors</span></b></li></ol><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">This is basically the original subclasses, except changing Crusaders to Knights and changing Monks to the original class of Brawlers. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Why they have it seperated like they do currently doesn't make sense? But maybe we will find out in RoK beta</span></b></p>

[afarak]

Whoever said "Cardinal" earlier basically described a cleric in full detail.   As for all these other classes, they're all pretty much in the game in some other form, except for the Beastlord (and the pointless and impractical ones, like the mime and such), of course, but then again Shamans have a pet dog now so even that market is covered to some extent.  The only other one besides the BL that I can see happening is the Tank/Mage combo, but I doubt they ever would, seeing as how a Sk and a Pally are polar opposites for a reason, and introducing a third string would sort of diminish the idea of it.  It's supposed to be good vs evil, not good vs evil vs evil(?).  If they were going to do this, they'd have to make another hybrid tank good-side class, and we really don't need more than the pally. SOE has said that it will not be adding new classes until they perfect the ones they have right now, which basically means not for a very long time.  Everyone has been demanding Beastlords since the game launched and they still don't exist, and every  time a new expansion comes out, people get all excited and think new classes are on the way, but I don't see it happening.  If it does at some point, it will probably be a Beastlord, since they already have a version of it from EQ1 and all they really need to do is fit it so that it works in EQ2. But seriously, with 24 classes already in the game, why do you want more?  There's already more classes in EQ2 than any other online game.  Just be happy they're releasing new races and cities. 

[MadLordOfMilk]

WARNING: "Brainstormfest 2007" below Battlemage is pretty much covered... between the two crusader classes and both sorcerers' STA lines improving defense and actually giving a Battlemage title... that's covered. What I'd like is an ACTUAL Berserker. Y'know, a dude in cloth (or to a lesser extent, I guess they could go leather) who goes nuts in combat. Not the current incarnation of a Berserker who sits there in combat and steadily takes hits while dishing out loads of damage. Though, in reality, that doesn't actually add too much to combat. Still though - think "Rujarkian Blademaster" in the Maj'dul arena. I was also thinking "Time Mage" like in FF Tactics... though in a sense, that's Illusionist, esp. with AA choices. So that's covered. Possibly something like the <a href="http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Ritualist" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Ritualist</a> from Guild Wars? Now that was a fun class to play <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Also on the topic of Guild Wars, a melee class that chains attacks like the GW Assassin would also be cool... though again, not really necessary. Or a class that utilizes something similar to GW's adrenaline system would be cool. Yeah, just trying to think of what's different that would break the monotony of combat w/o being too redundant. What else? hmm... a class that utilizes items primarily would be cool - such as the Ninja ability Throw in various FF games - though that doesn't work too well with EQ2's mechanics. I guess the FF Samurai ability Draw Out would work better, but again, the "coolness" aspect kinda fades when mixed with EQ2 when I think about it. Although... it'd be an interesting way to mesh tradeskilling with combat. I guess they kinda tried that with Tinkering, but tinkered stuff barely makes any difference in combat, so... yeah.

[Ravaan]

<p>personally although I would like pure original classes i think it would be difficult to find roles for them.</p><p>so with that said I would like to see classes with slight differences. for example</p><p>a Bruiser that can specialize in using big 2 handed hammers ... call them savages. a swashbuckler/brigand that can specialize in 2 handed swords ... call them Ronin or something a cloth wearing caster that can use polearms (i miss my valewalker from DAOC) a cloth wearing scout that can use some magic a healer that can drain HP from enemies and use his own HP to heal others (think bloodmage from Vanguard).</p><p>I just like variety, I would rather have 200 classes that have slight differences than say 4 classes who are completely different.</p>

[Deson]

Abelard@Oasis wrote: <blockquote><cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>One flaw in that article is the fact that we have subclass AA's; rogue, druid, crusader, etc.</p><p>Assassins are not rogues, like the character creation screen implies, as they do not have rogue aa's. Rangers, paladins, and shadowknights would need their own subclass aa's.</p></blockquote><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">I agree with you. My only thought is why did they change the creation screen. If not for the sole purpose of setting it up for a change that is coming down the road. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">We saw the same thing happen with the creation screen when it came to the races and someone happened to catch the Arasai in Beta testing of the Fae, if you remember. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">So the question is: </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">What are the developers planning? </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">What change in the creation of classes are coming are way?</span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">IMO the Shadowknight and Paladins are both Knights and should be listed as Knights, I did not know there could be different types of Paladins or ShadowKnights. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Not sure what to think about the Ranger being set alone by itself. I think it should be Predator and the Assassin, should be with it. If that is the case then it should read as follows:</span></b></p><ol><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Bards</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Brawlers </span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Clerics</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Druids</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Enchanters</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Knights</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Predators</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Shamans</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Sorcerers</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Summoners</span></b></li><li><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Warriors</span></b></li></ol><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">This is basically the original subclasses, except changing Crusaders to Knights and changing Monks to the original class of Brawlers. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Why they have it seperated like they do currently doesn't make sense? But maybe we will find out in RoK beta</span></b></p></blockquote>People have read too much into the changes. The archetype system is alive and well, it just went covert since the launch class choices didn't meet their goals of actual class sampling and many saw them as a hindrance to replay value. Every single class is balanced behind it and it shows from the spells,skills and AP. The creation screen change was posted by the devs but I believe was lost in the forum move. Essentially it said the change was to make it easier for vets of other RP games to see what the classes played like.The Assassin for instance is far closer to the Rogue in D&D and EQ1.Every change being cited as proof is just cosmetic.

[Winter]

<span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff66ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">Okay... left and right, people ask for Beastlords again and it is always shot down... BUT... What if there was an AA line that was NOT dependent upon your class... What if you could dumb down your character a bit in exchange for an animal/spirit/whateverever companion that fights alongside you? What if there was a warder granted to you by a deity? Of course, they would have to be balanced in such a way that no class is necessarily more 'uber' than another with the warder... but I think concepts like these, as far out in left field as they may be, are MUCH much more likely to happen than a new class... At least in the next few years.</span>

[Winter]

<span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff66ff; font-family: comic sans ms,sand">Oops! Sorry... I forgot to add this... It's not a new class TYPE as much as a class... but I would LOVE to see a true cloth-wearing healer class.</span>

[Wildmage]

<cite>Winter wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: comic sans ms,sand"><span style="color: #ff66ff">Oops! Sorry... I forgot to add this... It's not a new class TYPE as much as a class... but I would LOVE to see a true cloth-wearing healer class.</span></span></blockquote> I don't think healers have done anything to deserve that pain.

[TheSpin]

<p>In a game that has 24 classes I don't see how you could possibly find a role that isn't already filled in some way by another class.</p><p>I think the way to go is to allow for the current classes to have alternate paths available that would give them very specific added strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not sure if it would be better if players should be able to switch between their original class and this alternate path, or if it would be better for the alternate path to permanently change the character.</p><p> Allowing certain classes to upgrade or downgrade their quality of armor in exchange for various levels of tankability or dps would be a good idea.  Maybe giving scouts the option to wear leather or even cloth and up their dps, or allowing mages to get a few melee skills for example.</p><p>I don't like giving examples, but I think my idea may be better understood if I do.  </p><p>Fighters:</p><p>Warriors could possibly downgrade to chain, or even leather armor, and increase their dps (the historical nordic berserkers were chaotic fighters who wore bear hides or nothing at all).</p><p>Crusaders could possibly have options to further increase their spell damage, or further increase healing...or maybe add pets of some form or another to the class....I can't picture these classes in anything other than plate though.</p><p>Brawlers is a bit of a tough one because they are already unique, but perhaps they could learn to focus more on healing or actually be able to do decent dps.</p><p>Scouts:</p><p>Predators could have options to downgrade to leather and get 'priest' type spells (especially rangers) or options to downgrade to cloth (I picture rangers getting arcane spells ie arcane archer, while assassins would become even more like ninjas).</p><p>Rogues are tricky because they currently have some tank options, but I doubt most rogues would want to sacrifice dps for more tankability.  I think adding more utility of some kind might be the way to go here.</p><p>Bards could possibly take on more crowd control spells and wear leather, or perhaps get some decent dps.</p><p>Priests:</p><p>I think giving cloth options to clerics and upping their healing skills would be good...I'm really tired of 'every class can heal as well as every other class'.</p><p>Pet options for either shamans or druids could be the solution to the beastlord that everyone misses from eq1.</p><p>Anyway, I think you get the picture</p>

[Talz]

The constant parse war and min/max posts are old and tired so I want a new class added called DPS.  It has to have the best DPS for every situation.  Maybe we can take the opportunity to add another race with it.  Make it a wooden bucket.  People won't care.  It's DPS.

[Khellendrathas]

<cite>Talzar wrote:</cite><blockquote>The constant parse war and min/max posts are old and tired so I want a new class added called DPS.  It has to have the best DPS for every situation.  Maybe we can take the opportunity to add another race with it.  Make it a wooden bucket.  People won't care.  It's DPS. </blockquote> Heh, I'd play a wooden bucket. BUT as long as we can survive any falling damage, breathe underwater, have an awesome speed increase as well as an innate DPS advantage on TOP of choosing the DPS class! If not, then it sucks and I don't want it. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I'm just glad that many of of us players aren't game devs. Some of the Mary Sue class ideas make my head hurt.

[Lord Montague]

But I want to play a Rusty Bucket™!

[Wildmage]

<cite>Khellendrathas wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talzar wrote:</cite><blockquote>The constant parse war and min/max posts are old and tired so I want a new class added called DPS.  It has to have the best DPS for every situation.  Maybe we can take the opportunity to add another race with it.  Make it a wooden bucket.  People won't care.  It's DPS. </blockquote> Heh, I'd play a wooden bucket. BUT as long as we can survive any falling damage, breathe underwater, have an awesome speed increase as well as an innate DPS advantage on TOP of choosing the DPS class! If not, then it sucks and I don't want it. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I'm just glad that many of of us players aren't game devs. Some of the Mary Sue class ideas make my head hurt. </blockquote> Most likely they would be unemployed game developers hehe...

[Talz]

Seirrah@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote>But I want to play a Rusty Bucket™!</blockquote>A rusty bucket would clearly be overpowered and game breaking.  Just like a Fae gliding down something that takes me twenty or so whole seconds to go around if it's even one of the few drops in the game I can't just jump or rappel down faster than they float.

[Ookami-san]

<p>How about a class that can tank like a guardian, heal like a templar, mez like a illusionist, blast like a warlock, sneak like a brigand, shoot like a ranger and conjure stuff too!</p><p>Seriously... how many more classes do we really need?!</p>

[Norrsken]

<cite>Ookami-san wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>How about a class that can tank like a guardian, heal like a templar, mez like a illusionist, blast like a warlock, sneak like a brigand, shoot like a ranger and conjure stuff too!</p><p>Seriously... how many more classes do we really need?!</p></blockquote>Entertainment classes FTW! More fluff!

[Kalem]

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>In a game that has 24 classes I don't see how you could possibly find a role that isn't already filled in some way by another class.</p><p>I think the way to go is to allow for the current classes to have alternate paths available that would give them very specific added strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not sure if it would be better if players should be able to switch between their original class and this alternate path, or if it would be better for the alternate path to permanently change the character.</p><p> Allowing certain classes to upgrade or downgrade their quality of armor in exchange for various levels of tankability or dps would be a good idea.  Maybe giving scouts the option to wear leather or even cloth and up their dps, or allowing mages to get a few melee skills for example.</p><p>I don't like giving examples, but I think my idea may be better understood if I do.  </p><p>Fighters:</p><p>Warriors could possibly downgrade to chain, or even leather armor, and increase their dps (the historical nordic berserkers were chaotic fighters who wore bear hides or nothing at all).</p><p>Crusaders could possibly have options to further increase their spell damage, or further increase healing...or maybe add pets of some form or another to the class....I can't picture these classes in anything other than plate though.</p><p>Brawlers is a bit of a tough one because they are already unique, but perhaps they could learn to focus more on healing or actually be able to do decent dps.</p><p>Scouts:</p><p>Predators could have options to downgrade to leather and get 'priest' type spells (especially rangers) or options to downgrade to cloth (I picture rangers getting arcane spells ie arcane archer, while assassins would become even more like ninjas).</p><p>Rogues are tricky because they currently have some tank options, but I doubt most rogues would want to sacrifice dps for more tankability.  I think adding more utility of some kind might be the way to go here.</p><p>Bards could possibly take on more crowd control spells and wear leather, or perhaps get some decent dps.</p><p>Priests:</p><p>I think giving cloth options to clerics and upping their healing skills would be good...I'm really tired of 'every class can heal as well as every other class'.</p><p>Pet options for either shamans or druids could be the solution to the beastlord that everyone misses from eq1.</p><p>Anyway, I think you get the picture</p></blockquote><p>I like your ideas.  I think we do have enough classes.  The problem for me anyway, is that they classes are too much alike.  I never did like the archtype system, but with the balancing issues of EQ1 I can understand why they took that approach.</p><p>The berserker is a good example of a class that should have the option to go pure dps, and by doing so abandon his tank role.  Having the means to spec that way...an addition spec tree?  Would be nice.  Same for the Monk and Bruiser.  I don't think either should have ever been in the tanks archtype.  The monk wasn't a tank in EQ...yeah they could tank in a pinch but they weren't a real tank...just like the Ranger wasn't.  Monks in EQoA were bundled in the dps archtype...for those that didn't know.</p><p>It would be great to have a "real" beastlord class, but I agree with others that it wouldn't fit here...sort of.  I think the shamans should be given enough options to really mimic the beatlord, which had more than just a sidekick.  It was a very pet dependant class, with strong melee skills.  A tree that would allow you to spec that way would be nice.  But you'd have to give up some of your base archtype strengths.  You wouldn't want a shaman who could heal/ward at his full potential and be able to have a really strong pet, and be able to melee well.  T</p><p>I think the KoS, and RoK AA's are a GREAT start.  But more can be added to them. </p>

[Khellendrathas]

I kind of like the idea of specializing each class towards specific talents, but wouldn't it become more like FFXI where if you don't spec a certain way, groups wouldn't want you anymore? It then becomes something like this. Group says, "Yay! We finally got a tank!". "Uh, I can't tank. I'm specced for DPS," says the berserker. *cricket* /boot I guess if they had options you could turn on and off out of combat for these specs so they wouldn't be stuck in a certain specialization for every fight then it might be something to look into? Something like an extra stance but you have to plan ahead to use? I know I would feel rather irked if I invited a healer and then realize that they sacrificed most of their healing for DPS/tanking and couldn't do their main job anymore. And the devs would also have to be wary of giving so much specialization to DPS that every class becomes a DPS class, then each type <i>will</i> lose their identities and become the Mass Blob of DPS(tm). :p

[Kalem]

<cite>Khellendrathas wrote:</cite><blockquote>I kind of like the idea of specializing each class towards specific talents, but wouldn't it become more like FFXI where if you don't spec a certain way, groups wouldn't want you anymore? It then becomes something like this. Group says, "Yay! We finally got a tank!". "Uh, I can't tank. I'm specced for DPS," says the berserker. *cricket* /boot I guess if they had options you could turn on and off out of combat for these specs so they wouldn't be stuck in a certain specialization for every fight then it might be something to look into? Something like an extra stance but you have to plan ahead to use? I know I would feel rather irked if I invited a healer and then realize that they sacrificed most of their healing for DPS/tanking and couldn't do their main job anymore. And the devs would also have to be wary of giving so much specialization to DPS that every class becomes a DPS class, then each type <i>will</i> lose their identities and become the Mass Blob of DPS(tm). :p </blockquote><p>I think people tend to gravitate to the class they enjoy.  What I mean is, a person who likes to play a traditional healer, isn't going to spec away from that template.  Vanguard had some powerful dps/healing classes at first.  Before the diciples were nerfed they were the flavor of the month, because people found a class that could solo really well, and could do it all <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Once the nerfs hit, you saw a lot of people leave the class, and move on to the next flavor of the month, but those who liked the class because they wanted to be a healer, stuck it out.  I think that would hold true for this model.  Those that want to tank, will spec for it.</p><p>You make a good point about peoples expectations.  If someone is speced for dps and a group is expecting a tank...yeah that could be a problem.  There's another game called Dungeon Runner.  A light hearted online sorta mmo/diablo clone.  They allow you to mix and match class skills...not what I would want for EQ2 of course.  But the reason I bring it up, is that they've coded a pretty nifty class name system, that labels you based on level/skills, etc...dynamically.  Something like that would work here.  It could work by perhaps appending in parenthesis after the class name...some distriptive title indicating which direction the person has specced....so that there are no surprises <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[ShangraKai]

<p>I haven't had time to read all of the posts, but I believe there are a lot of good ideas here.  There are a large number of classes right now as it is, but they aren't all that different.  Some nuances here and there, but damage seems to be damage, and the distinguishing factor is either a unique spell or two for each class, or the relative amount of damage a class can deliver.</p><p> IMHO, the next tier of the game, and any additional classes, should incorporate more unique abilities for the existing classes, and only introduce new classes if they make sense.  Plus, they can't be so unique that they make other classes disposable.  This is the difficulty in creating game balance, and why it take a miracle for something like this to be pulled off.</p><p> When we talk unique, mixing existing classes is interesting, but not really innovative.  Battlemage is a good class to consider, but you have to wonder what would make that class unique.  A fighter that can cast spells...when that's much like a bard...yet they can take damage...well that might be a good solo class, but if you make the tank too good, you must reduce the damage, which creates imbalance.</p><p> Perhaps something to introduce into the game are personality traits...where you can specialize in a particular personality.  Maybe you spec in ADD, which has you do a lot of damage at first, then you trail off.  Or you're someone who's OCD, and you're consistently higher damage through the end, but you have trouble targetting off of a mob.  Or you're someone who jumps on the bandwagon, and therefore you're damage increases as the mobs health lowers.</p><p>I liked the idea of the "Random" wizard, where you're participation is unpredictable.  Perhaps you're doing the most damage one moment, and then you're doing dots.  Perhaps there's a class where your spell abilities change at a moments notice...multiple personalities...one minute you're a spell caster, then you're a templar, then you're a fighter (your physical characteristics don't change, but you can ignore pain?</p><p>Someone mentioned an "archmage" of sorts, with a selection of spells and abilities from the other classes.  Maybe they can have a selection of spells from the other mage classes, but the reuse timers are increased, and decrease over time as the archmage keeps the spell memorized.  When they choose a new spell, it takes much longer to cast.  Not all spells would be available, and some good ones would share reuse timers, so it would in no way make the other mage classes obsolete.</p><p>Now, these again aren't really unique classes...but they implement existing capabilities in a different manner.</p><p>For uniqueness, I think it would be nice to have a "buff/bot" class that offers the best buffs in the game, cannot do direct damage to mobs (only through buffs on other players and Damage Shields), and therefore requires the class to be grouped with at least one other person to level.  The more people in the group, the greater the capabilities of the class.  Plus, this class can impact an entire raid...buffs that span the 4 raid groups, heals that span the raid, etc.  The class also requires hands-on interaction to work, so it can't just tag along in a fight.  To keep buffs up and active, perhaps some balance must be maintained.  To keep the best buffs up, you have to do your own Heroic Opportunities or "combos".  Maybe you have to "solo" invisible mobs and you defeat them to continue to use the skills you have (call it "stealing their essence" or something)  If you lose the fight, the buff drops and the reuse timer starts.</p><p>I think a tinkerer adventure class would be nice.  You can make bombs, temporary pets to use in fights (disappear when you zone/log out), can repair 10% on armor to give raids "one last shot", but takes time to perform and therefore limited, use a power regen widget to lend temporary increase in regen (till it blows up).  They could set traps, so when a mob crosses the trap they get additional damage (potentially giving tinkerer aggro, or damaging people near the trap)  They could give a "one shot damage shield" on the main tank, like a claymore on tank armor to do an "alpha strike" in return the first time the tank gets hit.  Perhaps they require item drops to make some of the items, therefore the group would need to defer some stuff to them to keep the tinkerer useful.</p><p>Then, I think a good pet class would be one where the pet is NOT disposable.  Your pet grows in strength the longer it remains alive.  Perhaps the beastlord or whatever class would summon a new pet which would start relatively weak, and over time, the pet increases in strength..maybe not just time, but after kills of mobs, it gets stronger.  The more kills, the stronger it gets (in relation to the difficulty of the kills).  Therefore in raids, the pet could get stronger faster, but if it dies, it would take a few kills before it would be back up to par.  On regular kills, it may take a few dozen kills to be back up to par.  After 100, it gets extra bonus special strength.  This would make the pet dying a painful thing, therefore keeping this pet alive is beneficial to the player/group/raid.  Maybe the mage pet does less damage as it's lower in health.  Perhaps Adept III and Master level pets grow to full strength and (temporarily) beyond faster than App 1.</p><p>An explorer class would be interesting.  Remember, I'm looking at unique classes that current players might want to play...not necessarily classes that bring perfect balance between other classes.  An explorer class could have increased runspeed and grant the same to the rest of the group.  They get invisibility, which is permanent unless they get within melee of an aggro mob.  They could explore zones faster, but they can't break invis if they are in sight of a mob.  (They increase the aggro range of mobs around them, so they can't just uninvis in the middle of a room and pick up all the shinys when they think they are out of aggro range.  The more the explorer runs, the faster they get, and their run speed gradually decreases when they are offline or stagnant.  They get the ability to port back home, or port to the same locations as wizards and druids, but only themselves.  They can travel the land faster than anyone else, with the purpose of running writs, trading items between people (they carry a commission system, not the items being traded, so they don't actually hold the money or items, but facilitate the exchange).  They get paid for their services and perhaps they can offer enhanced maps of zones that appear IN GAME.  People pay them for the maps that they've detailed in game.  An explorer maps a zone in game, marks special locations, and someone buys that zone map, right click, update, and they now use the enhanced one when they hit "M".  Maybe this would be a new tradeskill class...I dunno.</p><p>I also think a Commander class would be nice.  The commander could impact the targeting of other characters in the raid, retargetting them to  a different mob than the one they're on.  They could cast guidance spells to visually display the next steps for the raid or group, such as blocking off a room with red fog, and a green flash where the group should go.  They might be a jack of all trades with the ability to fight a bit, heal a bit, or what have you, but they shine in guiding a group into battle.  Perhaps experience for the group increases with a commander, they get call of the hero, and perhaps they can also help to modify the surrounding area...putting up a smokescreen to reduce the aggro range of mobs in a particular area to allow an individual pull instead of wipe.  They could influence the type of loot being dropped, to better suit the members of the group and/or raid instead of having a group getting a whole bunch of stuff that they really don't need.  They could inspire their group to do more damage, or increase the criticals of the group members, but they aren't impacted themselves.  (Everyone wants a commander, but they don't directly benefit from their group buffs)</p><p>Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.  Sorry for the rambling.</p><p>Shangra - 70 Ranger, Templar, Conj. on Kithicor</p>

[Geinoch]

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>In a game that has 24 classes I don't see how you could possibly find a role that isn't already filled in some way by another class.</p><p>I think the way to go is to allow for the current classes to have alternate paths available that would give them very specific added strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not sure if it would be better if players should be able to switch between their original class and this alternate path, or if it would be better for the alternate path to permanently change the character.</p><p> Allowing certain classes to upgrade or downgrade their quality of armor in exchange for various levels of tankability or dps would be a good idea.  Maybe giving scouts the option to wear leather or even cloth and up their dps, or allowing mages to get a few melee skills for example.</p><p>I don't like giving examples, but I think my idea may be better understood if I do.  </p><p>Fighters:</p><p>Warriors could possibly downgrade to chain, or even leather armor, and increase their dps (the historical nordic berserkers were chaotic fighters who wore bear hides or nothing at all).</p><p>Crusaders could possibly have options to further increase their spell damage, or further increase healing...or maybe add pets of some form or another to the class....I can't picture these classes in anything other than plate though.</p><p>Brawlers is a bit of a tough one because they are already unique, but perhaps they could learn to focus more on healing or actually be able to do decent dps.</p><p>Scouts:</p><p>Predators could have options to downgrade to leather and get 'priest' type spells (especially rangers) or options to downgrade to cloth (I picture rangers getting arcane spells ie arcane archer, while assassins would become even more like ninjas).</p><p>Rogues are tricky because they currently have some tank options, but I doubt most rogues would want to sacrifice dps for more tankability.  I think adding more utility of some kind might be the way to go here.</p><p>Bards could possibly take on more crowd control spells and wear leather, or perhaps get some decent dps.</p><p>Priests:</p><p>I think giving cloth options to clerics and upping their healing skills would be good...I'm really tired of 'every class can heal as well as every other class'.</p><p>Pet options for either shamans or druids could be the solution to the beastlord that everyone misses from eq1.</p><p>Anyway, I think you get the picture</p></blockquote>Totally agree with that, just imagine what kind of options a necro would have :]

[einar4]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Larogi wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Let's just assume that the classes are even and the developers would want to create a new sub class for each class and two new class types for a total of 8 new class types. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">What would you want to have?</span></p><ul><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Fighter Class - Class Types (Hunter, Samurai, Duelist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Mage Class - Class Types (Elementalist, Psionicist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Priest Class - Class Type (Beastlord, Cardinal)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Scout Class - Class Type (Ninja, Thief, Spy, Archer)</span></li></ul></blockquote><p> <snipped> </p><p>Samurai = "Samurai" litterally means "Warrior". The only difference between a Samurai and a guardian is that the Samurai would take his life after not being able to guard what he should be guarding.</p></blockquote><p>  Samurai literally means, "One who serves" in the context of something that was similar - but in no way exactly like - a feudal knight.    In some context, a Samurai could have been a wise and trusted advisor to a daimyo or household lord.  "Bushi" was the word that meant a warrior. </p><p>  Really however, the same logic could be used to pick apart the existing classes in the game.   Berserkers were not plate wearing warriors, a Bard was never combat oriented, a Druid was not a priest of the balance of nature, a Templar was a member of a distinct and unique order of knights ( as were the Hospitallers ),  a swashbuckler is a term relating more to modern perceptions than historical professions, etc etc. </p><p>  I think this is more for fun, and the names of classes do not necessarily relate to their actual historical namesakes. </p>

[Gannor]

[Post deleted - lag put me in wrong thread]

[cwcw]

FFX online has quite a good Class system. Heres a list of them: warrior paladin Ninja dragoon white mage red mage blackmage Gunmage Beastmaster Gambler Puppeteer Would really like to see Gun and Cannons in Eq2. Oh and gambler is really kewl, fighting with a deck of cards and rolling dices et c Btw FFX also allows a single character to be able to hold ALL the jobs. U can switch between the jobs in town/city thru a npc.

[Hikinami]

Please dont ask to make EQ2 a FFXI clone : ( I would say go play 11. It is a good game and fun but not a system for everquest...thats why its two games.

[confusion17]

<p>i think any with a holy or shadow damage such as a shadowmancer or i dont know any holy caster types</p>

[Wildmage]

<cite>confusion17 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>i think any with a holy or shadow damage such as a shadowmancer or i dont know any holy caster types</p></blockquote> Holy: Templar, Paladin Shadowy: <b>Shadow</b>Knight  Necromancer

[Larogi]

<p><b><span style="color: #3333ff">I guess with the recent nerf's no one is interested in seeing a new class. </span></b></p>

[Methriln]

eh i dont think there needs to be a new class id say at least 3/4 of whats mentioned here is either a class already in game or partially 1 of the classes in game.

[Airee]

<p>Wow there are alot of post and I am to lazy to read past page 5 but I did notice someone mention a tinkering type class.  It would be nice to see a class that depends entirely on items made on the fly to do attacks etc.  Class could be gnome -- human only since these races seem to have a knack for electrical  and mechanical creations.  This could be a combination tradeskill adventurer class.  All items used for attacks and defense are made by the individual.  Could call it a Machinist type class.  Attack items could be different types of grenades; stun grenades to temporarily stop opponents attacks; muck grenades to slow targets movement and attack speed; amonia and sulfur based grenades to blur vision and impair targets accuracy.  The primary attack of the machinist is his mechanical companion.  During a battle the majority of the Machinist time will be spent maintaining his battle bot.  The grenades will be his means of increasing the damage his pet can do.  Also the Machinst can make battle aids.  These mechanical companions will cast shields that can absorb certain amounts of elemental, mental, and poison damage.  The amount absorbed will depend on the machinist skill lvl.  Use of these pets will require that the Machinist spend his entire time during combat maintaining his creation.  There will be a set of repair skills that the machinist can use when certain conditions occur with his defensive bot.  For example ... after absorbing about 30% of  very powerful fire spells during combat the bot may start to smoke from overheating.  Applying Oil or coolant will alleviate this problem temporarily.  Using defensive bots during combat will play out similar to a crafting session.  When ever certain conditions occur you have to use the correct counter skill or loose durability.  If your bot looses all it's durability it is destroyed and you will have to create another provided you have the components on you to do so or deploy your combat bot.</p><p> The lvl of the Machinist is determined by his skill of creation.  To create bigger and better combat and defensive bots he will have to visit various dungeons and raid instances for those hard to find components.</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p>I'd like to see a class, lets call it a "guardian", that is a feared SOLO pvp'r.  When was the last time you ever ran form a solo guardian??  This "guardian" would wear plate armor and have mitagation that actually absorbs damage as they lack the dps of monk/bruisers/zerkers.  Since this is not gonna happen:</p><p> <b><span style="font-size: large">Gimmie back my Troll Beastlord w/ Alligator pet capable of chewing through swashies and rangers alike in two bites. </span></b></p>

[Wildmage]

<cite>Airee wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Wow there are alot of post and I am to lazy to read past page 5 but I did notice someone mention a tinkering type class.  It would be nice to see a class that depends entirely on items made on the fly to do attacks etc.  Class could be gnome -- human only since these races seem to have a knack for electrical  and mechanical creations.  This could be a combination tradeskill adventurer class.  All items used for attacks and defense are made by the individual.  Could call it a Machinist type class.  Attack items could be different types of grenades; stun grenades to temporarily stop opponents attacks; muck grenades to slow targets movement and attack speed; amonia and sulfur based grenades to blur vision and impair targets accuracy.  The primary attack of the machinist is his mechanical companion.  During a battle the majority of the Machinist time will be spent maintaining his battle bot.  The grenades will be his means of increasing the damage his pet can do.  Also the Machinst can make battle aids.  These mechanical companions will cast shields that can absorb certain amounts of elemental, mental, and poison damage.  The amount absorbed will depend on the machinist skill lvl.  Use of these pets will require that the Machinist spend his entire time during combat maintaining his creation.  There will be a set of repair skills that the machinist can use when certain conditions occur with his defensive bot.  For example ... after absorbing about 30% of  very powerful fire spells during combat the bot may start to smoke from overheating.  Applying Oil or coolant will alleviate this problem temporarily.  Using defensive bots during combat will play out similar to a crafting session.  When ever certain conditions occur you have to use the correct counter skill or loose durability.  If your bot looses all it's durability it is destroyed and you will have to create another provided you have the components on you to do so or deploy your combat bot.</p><p> The lvl of the Machinist is determined by his skill of creation.  To create bigger and better combat and defensive bots he will have to visit various dungeons and raid instances for those hard to find components.</p></blockquote>not only is your post almost unreadable this is the worst Idea I've heard yet in this thread 1.) classes are not going to be race restricted in EQ2 PERIOD. 2.) they will never EVER combine Tradeskilling and adventuring like that. 3.) You've created a class that will either be stupidly expensive to play, and/or brokenly overpowered.

[ShinUmbra]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Larogi wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3333ff">Let's just assume that the classes are even and the developers would want to create a new sub class for each class and two new class types for a total of 8 new class types. </span></p><p><span style="color: #3333ff">What would you want to have?</span></p><ul><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Fighter Class - Class Types (Hunter, Samurai, Duelist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Mage Class - Class Types (Elementalist, Psionicist)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Priest Class - Class Type (Beastlord, Cardinal)</span></li><li><span style="color: #3333ff">Scout Class - Class Type (Ninja, Thief, Spy, Archer)</span></li></ul></blockquote><p> Hunter = Ranger</p><p>Archer = Ranger</p><p>Thief = Both Rogue classes</p><p>Ninja = Assassin</p><p>Spy = how is a spy a DPS class?</p><p>Psionicist = Coercer</p><p>Elementalist = Conjurer</p><p>Beastlord = both Shaman classes</p><p>Cardinal = Both cleric classes</p><p>Duelist = errrmm... how is a fencer suppose to be a tank?</p><p>Samurai = "Samurai" litterally means "Warrior". The only difference between a Samurai and a guardian is that the Samurai would take his life after not being able to guard what he should be guarding.</p></blockquote> Ok sorry but Warrior and Samurai are not the same, just in name maybe but the Style is different, it could be the same exact Class but if the style is appealing it will have a different feel and be more entertaining to those who actually wish to become samurai, i'd love the class, give me a katana and let me have the stances, the moves can be the same in damage, but in style let the actions look different. also i've desided your abit of an elitist <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Siogai]

I'd think that a Paladin or Shadowknight would be closer to a Samurai than your typical Guardian, given that the Pally and SK have some sorts of codes of honour and vows and such wrapped up in the lore of their class, while a Guardian could be, I dunno, more "ronin" type. Still, a fighter is a fighter, and I don't think Woodworkers and Carpenters want to be making o-yori... I also think wooden armour, as a Sammie, is really going to bite you in the butt when something Fireballs you. Beastlords? No.  Just.... no.  There were many casualties in the Sundering, and the Shattering saw to the destruction of Shar Vahl, along with the rest of Luclin.  These poor, departed souls took the secrets of Beastlording with them... let them rest in peace, please. Dragoon? Already a class.  It's a DE-only title they apply to their soldiers. Gambler?  I'm sure a stone golem cares that you just rolled 2d6 at it as it crushes your skull. Puppeteer?  Um, Necromancers and Coercers, and their good counterparts, kinda fit this role already. Gunmage?  I assume this is a wizard with... a gun?  Well, given the pirates and nautical themes of EQ2, I could see the implementation of firearms and cannons, though I don't think they should be restricted to a single class (cannons, obviously, are ships or shores only, more for decor than use).  I think, if they do implement them, they'd be Tinkered items, maybe like charms (set number of uses) or have exceptionally expensive ammo costs.  Extremely long re-use time and extremely poor accuracty (to-hit penalty out the wazoo), but moderately high damage.   Oh, and if you hit the water with one equipped, its destroyed. Don't get rained on! Classes I'd like to see require a lot more features to the game, more secret doors and traps and story-driven dungeons/instances/quests that require you to find actual clues on the ground, or actual tracks (not just the name of the mob on a list), which introduces a more Detective-type class.  One that specialises less in combat or battle but in buffs/debuffs and party support, but also gains higher skills in Detecting/Disarming Traps, noticing these new "clue" things I mentioned... ... but, again, it's just an idea, not a real wish. What I'd rather see, instead of new classes, is a better definition between the classes we have now, things that make each class within their Archtype more distinctive and individual.

[Patient Hunter]

Anything with an Oriental feel to it would be cool.

[TREiBER666]

1. Pupetmaster - he only can fight with his pets, a real pet class. 2. Beastlord - he transform into diferrent animals wich will give him different types of skills 3. Golem - multiclass, he can transform into a fire-, ice-, wood-, steel- & stone-golem wich will give him caster, scout, tank or healer abilities

[epyon333]

Wow whys everyone crying for new classes.  we already have 24 how much more do you want.  beside under the current system any new classes would step on the toes of another, there really no room for a new class in the game.  a lot of the current class have been complaining that their under used, being told by guild that they dont want that class, or just not balaced enough to be useful.  why would you want to make that worst?