I'd like to know what the other Druids think, please

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<p>Something I've been thinking about, and Im just brainstorming here .. not sure how well it could be implemented.  With the raise in level cap and the need to introduce new spells/aa ect as the game grows, and the anamilist line for druids ... I was thinking ... since everyone would like to see Beastlords make a reappearance (and I never played EQ so Im not really sure what that entails - but I did play creature handler in SWG and they sound KINDA similar) maybe we could incorperate a bit of the feel to druids.  </p><p>My idea would be to introduce an AA line that would complement the Anamilist.  This would be spells that would give you 1 (at lowest level) to 3 (at highest level) charmed pet spells.  These spells would store the information of the animal that you charmed and allow these animals to be come your permanent pet.  You would be able name these pets just like all other pet classes.  Your first pet would be the same strength that the anamilist charmed pets are now.  Calling a second pet would combine then divide the strength of the two pets to be only slightly more potent than a single pet, and same with calling a third pet.  Other features that could be added to this "Beastlord Anamilist Druid" (hehe ... BAD class) would be pet specific buffs/heals, animal-type encounter mez, additional animal forms for the caster, ect.  </p><p>Just a thought.  Would love to see what others think of this.  As an Anamalist Warden, I persoannly would love something like this.  But what is good for the goose isn't necessarily what is good for the gander so to speak.</p>

[MullenSkywatcher]

<cite>Anobabylon@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Something I've been thinking about, and Im just brainstorming here .. not sure how well it could be implemented.  With the raise in level cap and the need to introduce new spells/aa ect as the game grows, and the anamilist line for druids ... I was thinking ... since everyone would like to see Beastlords make a reappearance (and I never played EQ so Im not really sure what that entails - but I did play creature handler in SWG and they sound KINDA similar) maybe we could incorperate a bit of the feel to druids.  </p><p>My idea would be to introduce an AA line that would complement the Anamilist.  This would be spells that would give you 1 (at lowest level) to 3 (at highest level) charmed pet spells.  These spells would store the information of the animal that you charmed and allow these animals to be come your permanent pet.  You would be able name these pets just like all other pet classes.  Your first pet would be the same strength that the anamilist charmed pets are now.  Calling a second pet would combine then divide the strength of the two pets to be only slightly more potent than a single pet, and same with calling a third pet.  Other features that could be added to this "Beastlord Anamilist Druid" (hehe ... BAD class) would be pet specific buffs/heals, animal-type encounter mez, additional animal forms for the caster, ect.  </p><p>Just a thought.  Would love to see what others think of this.  As an Anamalist Warden, I persoannly would love something like this.  But what is good for the goose isn't necessarily what is good for the gander so to speak.</p></blockquote>While my heart would leap for wardens to have some kick [Removed for Content] pets, the problem with innovative and creative ideas for the warden is that it tends to break PvP, despite the promise at launch that PvP wouldnt affect PvE and vice versa (I should probably just get over this 3 years after launch, but I still find it a little bit annoying).The only two lines that currently complement each other at all, are the KOS STR Line + EoF Combat Art Line, and to a lesser extent, KOS STA + KOS AGI (heal crit + boost in first regen tick).  If you can get a developer to add more AA lines that play upon each other's strengths, I'm all for it.As much as I don't miss the timesink that was EQ1, I do miss the way AAs were implemented.

[Senen74]

<p>The idea is nice, though its nothing realy like what the old Beastmaster was.  Merrying that into the Warden would create more problems then necessary, being a healer first and already haveing good dps if you melee/crit spec suffices.  And you always have the choice to go down the Agil line where you can charm at the cost of concentration buffs.  I'm very familiar with the old CH class from SWG, and the new sub-class they recently released with engineered pets. I've played both, neither is like the origional Beastlord, which was basicly a combo shaman/monk with minor healing/debuffing/buffing abilities mixed in and a single pet.  At this point I'd rather them create the Beastlord the way it should be as a purely support/dps class like the one in EQ1.  The problem with this is as I'm sure you have read with 24 classes already existing and a 24 man raid limit.  You have classes that already specialize in these rolls and in some cases several classes.  I realy don't think adding BL will happen unless they trim down the current 24 classes to 12 and basicly chance ruining EQ2 with a SWG like NGE.  The devs have already stated that will never happen so not likely will ever see the BL which is sad I played one as a alt in EQ1 and would surely enjoy seeing them again.</p>

[Valena]

<p>Personally I'd hate it. I have a 70 Conji and have had enough of pet management.</p><p>Besides that, the Mystics have abilities for their dogs and this would seem a little close to what they have.</p>

[Arielle Nightshade]

<p>I have to agree ...I'd not like to be the Beastlord class.  I wouldn't mind having a pet - but more like the cute little ones that you can get in other games to hang out with you.  Managing a pet isn't an AA choice I'd take.   </p><p>On the other hand, if you were going to do something like this: I say take our wolf pack and make it companion pet-able, castable and manageable.  THAT is an AA I'd take.   Not only for the practical spell reasons, but because it'd be very cool to walk around with a pack of wolves <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[EDofEDs]

I don 't think we will be seeing much out of the next expansion as far as shiny new things. Maybe not even any new types of spells and almost certainly not new AA lines. The reason i say this is with the new super-sized-zones i imagine the engineering dept is all at work with pipeline and back-end stuff. They wont be available to write new code for new spells and AAs etc. That being said I would rather not have a permanent pet. But if I had a chance to get a fire and forget pack or wolves similar to the swarm pets that necros/conj have, I would be all over that.

[GinFan]

<p>I don't really want to be a pet class, that said, I think it would fit into role playing nicely.  </p><p>If I were to change pets, I would change protecting grove to a heal so that it is no longer a pet (resolves aoe and placement issues), make wolf pack controllable so that I can pet pull and have them attack more than one dude in an accounter and lastly, I would take away the concentration cost of charm animal (this really is just a fun spell anyway if you are a raider).  Having an animal essense in your pocket like the OP described would be nice, but personally, I'd much rather have better defensive buffs or more casting dps options.  </p>

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<cite>GinFan wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don't really want to be a pet class, that said, I think it would fit into role playing nicely.  </p><p>If I were to change pets, I would <span style="color: #ff00ff;">change protecting grove to a heal so that it is no longer a pet </span>(resolves aoe and placement issues), make wolf pack controllable so that I can pet pull and have them attack more than one dude in an accounter and lastly, I would take away the concentration cost of charm animal (this really is just a fun spell anyway if you are a raider).  Having an animal essense in your pocket like the OP described would be nice, but personally, I'd much rather have better defensive buffs or more casting dps options.  </p></blockquote>i have issues with protective grove.  I love the spell, but the fact that its a stationary tree bugs me.  I would much rather (if it has to stay a pet) be a treant that could follow you around until the timer runs out.

[Valena]

<cite>Anobabylon@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>GinFan wrote:</cite>i have issues with protective grove.  I love the spell, but the fact that its a stationary tree bugs me.  I would much rather (if it has to stay a pet) be a treant that could follow you around until the timer runs out.</blockquote>Now <i>that</i> is a cool idea!

[Arielle Nightshade]

<p>agreed, it is...but is unfortunately too WoWlike to probably make it here.  Druids there have a whole grove that is kind of their wolf damage spell..only it's trees.</p>

[xandez]

<cite>Valena@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Besides that, the Mystics have abilities for their dogs and this would seem a little close to what they have.</p></blockquote>off topic, but have to comment on this one... the mystic pet atm sucks bad, i have mine named Uselesspos for example <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> you can imagine how useful it actually is... But i agree, no beastlord type abilities for wardens pleage.++Xan

[Fromingo]

Anything that makes our heal tree more useful is cool with me.  Also I'd too love to see a Beastlord but it should probably just be it's own class with strengths and weaknesses.   Gives SOE something to throw in to boost future waning interest IMO.   I loved how beastlords had they're own pets based upon race and think it would be fun to see them brought back into the game. 

[Tallo]

I'd rather not get developed as a pet class personally.Just on a fancy, I want them to develop us into a more melee viable healing class, raid wise, with more melee oriented group buffing that compliments our melee themed AA choices. Just my $0.02.

[xandez]

actually the tree moving with us would be cool... <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />++Xan

[metacell]

<cite>Talloak@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd rather not get developed as a pet class personally.Just on a fancy, I want them to develop us into a more melee viable healing class, raid wise, with more melee oriented group buffing that compliments our melee themed AA choices. Just my $0.02.</blockquote>That suggestion makes a lot of sense.

[metacell]

<cite>Arielle Nightshade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Not only for the practical spell reasons, but because it'd be very cool to walk around with a pack of wolves <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /></p></blockquote>I'd be a very happy warden if we got that as a fluff spell.