EQ1 Beastmaster - erased?

[Scyk]

hello!I just made a comeback to EQ2 since a break in late 2005. Now when I'm playing again somthing hit me...hard. Where did the Beastmasters go? As you may have realized, I'm an ol' EQ1 player aswell. I played 'till the Legacy of Ykesha expansion, when the frogloks came along. So back to the question, Beastmasters arrived with Shadows of Luclin so did kerrans. And now when I daydream I try to figure out what/why/where this matter or erasing history happend? I'm trying to get more and more involved with the lore so I would appritiate some help. By the way, didn't Luclin get blewn up or something?My speculation ended up something like this: ?????? Fury ???????

[Odomfel]

According to the Dev's, Beastlords will not be in this game. Doesn't mean this won't change sometime in the future...they just have no plans at all to add this class to the game.

[Professor E.]

<p>Hello Scyk,</p><p>I agree with your theory that Beastlords morphed (evolved) into the Fury class.  Perhaps it also branched into the Warden.  Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, where is the storyline?  That, I do not have an answer.  </p><p>Still, a second question might arise: why are the Fury and Warden classes recognized under the Druid umbrella and not Beastlord umbrella?  Again, I do not have an answer.</p><p>Concerning your question about Luclin, the moon was never destroyed a'la Deathstar.  If my EQ1 lore is correct (yes, I too am an old EQ1 player), the spires on Luclin existed in the center of the moon.  That was destroyed.  Not all the pieces of the moon plummeted to Norrath, but enough did issue in The Shattering.  Personally, I think the developers made the moon look the way it does over having only a few, small pieces floating in orbit.  Still, it kinda reminds me of Thundarr the Barbarian cartoon or The Tick cartoon.</p><p>Maybe I'm wrong . . . I am no authority.</p><p>Maybe I've repeated what you already know . . . well, at least we both agree.</p><p>Regardless, I hope something I've written helps.</p><p>Professor E</p><p>Antonia Bayle server</p>

[Cusashorn]

<p>Or Ever.</p><p>To add any new class into the game would be much more work than even the developers have time for.</p><p>1. You have to give the class an archetype. Beastlords from EQlive would fall into all 4 archetypes, so which one gets priority? Beastlords were part monk, part shaman, part mage, and thier abilities would make them part scout. If you put a pet class as a tank, then you're relying on the pet to tank more than you. If you put it in the priest archetype, you already have both shamans and druids who can do the same things. If you put them in the mage archetype, you no longer have good melee abilities. If you put them in the scout archetype, you gotta get rid of or severely reduce the healing abilities.</p><p>2. You have to make sure that it's skills and abilities are completley unique from anything any other class gets. Many other classes already have beastlord like abilities with thier abilities, so how how would you set them apart from a new class?</p><p>3. Itemization. They'd have to go back through EVERYTHING in the game and code it to include beastlords. They'd have to design beastlord specific armor and add them to the database on monsters that drop it. You'd have to put in new quests that only beastlords can complete</p><p>4. Balance. How much testing would be put into the game to ensure that beastlords are not overpowered compaired to classes who get similar abilities? Then you put in the PVP aspect and it's just impossible.</p><p>5. Lore. Beastlords and Berzerkers suffered from this in EQlive. They were classes added into the game with no significant lore or detail about them. Aside from the Vah Shir in Shar Vahl, the beastlord classes for the other races had no guildhalls in thier own home cities. They were stuck as part of the shaman faction and left at that. The most lore either class ended up getting revealed about them was thier epics, and I hear they did a poor job at that part too. Throw them into EQ2 and what do you get? An overworked Vhalen for one.</p>

[Shemyaza]

<p>thanks to the whole archetype system eq2 had at launch i don't think there will ever be any new classes in eq2. just put it down to one of the many bad ideas that eq2 had at launch we are still shackled with.</p><p>i put it right up there with class dilution.</p>

[teddyboy4]

The lore behind there being no Beastlords in EQ2 is pretty simplistic, and full of holes, actually. Apparently the knowledge of Beastlord training was lost w/ the Vah Shir when Luclin exploded. I believe I remember on of the devs saying that there actually are a couple Beastlords scattered across the face of Norrath, but none that know the secrets of training new Beastlords.....or something.Basically what it all REALLY comes down to though is the class system that EQ2 was created with. Originally every class in EQ2 was part of an archtype/class/sub-class and, Beastlords don't fit anywhere into that system. As Cusa said, Beastlords were a Monk-Shaman hybrid w/ bits and pieces of other classes thrown in for good measure and there was no way they could be pigeon-holed into the system that was in place without throwing everything off, or making the Beastlord nothing like we remember them. Now, along the way the game has moved away from the original system somewhat, but it is still there behind the scenes even though we may not see it. I always thought Beastlords were a really cool class, but as has been said many times, they really just don't fit into the existing class system. Maybe one day they will decide to break the rules and give us a Beastlord, but thus far the devs have said, quite clearly, that we won't see the Beastlord class in EQ2 <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" />

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">I think it could be done, and balanced better then EQ1.Fighter Class/Brawler/Beastlordhealing spells would be limited to a Monk-like mend with a shorter cool-down timer.Several of the Combat arts would be swapped with Spells much like the SK/PallyTheir pet would be from the Beastlord Subclass AA's</span>

[KaleMuteki]

The best way to implement a beastlord (which I only played sparingly in EQ1) would be to make it an AA choice for an existing class.  Maybe a choice for Warden's/Fury (give them a pet that levels with you, but this would unbalance the game due to their already lavish AA choices) or maybe to the Monk/Brawler(They do always complain about their AA trees anyway).Other than that I wouldn't expect a new class anytime soon.  There are too many choices already.

[Cusashorn]

<p>^ Don't EVER suggest giving the Brawler class a Beastlord option again. I mean don't even joke about that... -_-</p>

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">The Beastlord would have the Brawler Class AAs but would get the Pet from the Beastlord SUBclass AA's <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> The Brawler AA's would stay as they are, Unless they actually make a worthwhile Strength Line, they are allowed to fisx that <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span>

[Cakassis]

I was an Iksar Beastlord in EQ1.  Whenever I get nostaligic I put some leather looking armor in my Coercer's appearance slots, and go into the Field of Bone in Fens and charm one of the scales wolves.  Then I just run around for a bit pretending to be a beastlord.  Then the novelty wears off and I return to normal.Seriously though, it would be too hard to change an AA line into something which accomodated the history of the Beastlord.  And it would make the most sense to have it be something in the shaman AA line.  The shammy AA line which improves their pet could probably be changed to something with an end ability like "Beastlord" (retains the same improvements to the ghost dog, but just has a different name), and maybe change the summoned animal to something more race-specific.  Like a crocodile for Trolls, bear for ogres, tiger for kerrans, scaled wolf (since the model now exists) for Iksars, a fly or toad for Frogloks, and so on and so forth.Let's face it, it's kind of ridiclious that the explaination for the lack of beastlords is bascially "The world forgot".  It's not like the world forgot how to domesticate animals.  Or that they forgot how to train them for combat (horses, wargs, and rhinos Oh My!).  Or that they forgot how to have a summoned protector defend oneself (conjys, necros), or even forgot how to use a being for defense against the being's will (coercers).  I can understand why they didn't want to retain the beastlord at launch.  As explained earlier, it's not a class that one can pidgeon-hole easily.  But with the expansion of AAs it doesn't make much sense to have a sub-optimal explaination for their disappearance when a better solution is available.

[DataOutlaw]

<p>I don' t think adding the class would be as technically involved as some people point out. It could be as simple as</p><ul><li>A new variation based on the Scout / Predator.</li><li>H2H or 1HB only with dual wield without double attack except for AA skills that add it</li><li>Leather or Cloth armor only</li><li>Pet could be a summon from level 1 (similar to EQ1 BM pet)</li><li>Pet could be a capture of a wild beast that can be kept and does zone with the BM but has to be trained and does not increase in level (this is more radical but could be done based on the old SWG Creature Handler). For this to be successfull the BM should be able to manage an arsenal of 2-4 pets.</li><li>Spells and Combat arts would be similar to other Scouts balanced so that the DPS of a BM with even con pet is approximately the same as Predator based classes. Without pet the total DPS would be roughly 50% of that. For extra coolness factor the BM could adopt the special attacks of the pet.</li><li>Very few utlity spells other then self buffs or pet buffs</li><li>Differnet AA lines to allow the BM to focus on DPS or tanking (as well as any other Scout can tank with the right AA choices)</li></ul><p>Yes, all the itemization would need to be re-done and some special BM only items added but that was done when classes were added to EQ1 so its not all that big of a deal.</p><p>The big deal is balancing the BM so that it keeps its own unique flavor and lands itself a role in the game without encroaching on other classes specialties. This balancing problem is why no new classes (BM or any other) have yet been considered. The actual comment from the developers was that they would not evne consider adding any new class until the existing classes are balanced. </p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>DataOutlaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don' t think adding the class would be as technically involved as some people point out. It could be as simple as</p><ul><li>A new variation based on the Scout / Predator.</li><li>H2H or 1HB only with dual wield without double attack except for AA skills that add it</li><li>Leather or Cloth armor only</li><li>Pet could be a summon from level 1 (similar to EQ1 BM pet)</li><li>Pet could be a capture of a wild beast that can be kept and does zone with the BM but has to be trained and does not increase in level (this is more radical but could be done based on the old SWG Creature Handler). For this to be successfull the BM should be able to manage an arsenal of 2-4 pets.</li><li>Spells and Combat arts would be similar to other Scouts balanced so that the DPS of a BM with even con pet is approximately the same as Predator based classes. Without pet the total DPS would be roughly 50% of that. For extra coolness factor the BM could adopt the special attacks of the pet.</li><li>Very few utlity spells other then self buffs or pet buffs</li><li>Differnet AA lines to allow the BM to focus on DPS or tanking (as well as any other Scout can tank with the right AA choices)</li></ul><p>Yes, all the itemization would need to be re-done and some special BM only items added but that was done when classes were added to EQ1 so its not all that big of a deal.</p><p>The big deal is balancing the BM so that it keeps its own unique flavor and lands itself a role in the game without encroaching on other classes specialties. This balancing problem is why no new classes (BM or any other) have yet been considered. The actual comment from the developers was that they would not evne consider adding any new class until the existing classes are balanced. </p></blockquote>Those are all minor details, but the core mechanics of the class is what makes it impossible to do. The main point is absolutely making sure that the class is unique enough that it isn't taking or barrowing skills and abilities that other classes already have.

[Sir Draymon]

The way i thought of adding bl's into the game (this is an old idea <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) was to add a class called beastlord and then have each pet as a different type of subclass.  The pets would be based on the fighter, scout, mage, priest archtypes.

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Sir Draymon wrote:</cite><blockquote>The way i thought of adding bl's into the game (this is an old idea <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /> ) was to add a class called beastlord and then have each pet as a different type of subclass.  The pets would be based on the fighter, scout, mage, priest archtypes.</blockquote>.... So.... a leather-wearing conjurer?

[Sir Draymon]

I guess in a way sorta, but the pets wouldnt be as powerful as theirs.  As in eq1 the bl and pet would fight together.   Like i said it was an old idea and im probably not explaining it as clearly as i could <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.

[ke'la]

<p>The best bet for getting a Beastloard type class would be as an addition to the AA system we currently have, I think expanding on the healer Battlemage/priest set-ups that are currently available, and making it so that they trade a great deal of healing ablity to get the addtional DPS or a Quality pet, would be the best solution and entirely possable without the exstencive work adding a true new class would be. However, any addtion like that would require giving simalar options to other classes as well like increasing Brawler's DPS or Tanking ablity at the expence of the oppisite ablity(Increase DPS lower Tank). Basicly it would be a specialization of the classes and you would have to give more then one specialization branch to each class. Like instead of the priests going Beastloard they may instead maybe beable to increase thier Debuff power, while not losing any healing ablity(like they would with going Beastlord).</p>

[troodon]

<p>My EQ1 character wiped them out, that's the lore reason why they're gone.</p><p>Get over it.</p>

[DrkVsr]

<p><span style="font-size: medium;color: #993300;font-family: comic sans ms,sand;">Theoretically, they could introduce Beastlords back into the game, the following is just an idea ah came up with while reading this thread:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;color: #993300;font-family: Comic Sans MS;">Instead of trying to fit the BL's into 1 of the current 4 archetypes, make a 5th with the BeastLord's being the archeotype which branch off into the BeastHandler and the BeastMaster (seeing how they got rid of starting with 1 class, branching off to 1 of 3 then finally picking 1 of 2 at the end, they just skip the middle step)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;color: #993300;font-family: Comic Sans MS;">A BH could maybe start off with a pet (like they did in EQ1 with the warder) and the BM would get the chance to capture and train a pet</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;color: #993300;font-family: Comic Sans MS;">That way the BH/BM's would have an aspect of the enchanters (the Illusionists have their 'twins', the Coercers have to charm their pet) and summoners (the ability to have a pet to actually do their dirty work as opposed to a visual buff that follows but doesn't really do anything else)... that sounds like they would be more mage</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;color: #993300;font-family: Comic Sans MS;">The other reason why the BL's are not coming back, if the idea of a 5th archeotype is totally obnoxious (like the BL's themselves <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />), is the DEVs would have to come up with 3 or 7 others to balance or one type will have 7 classes with the others stuck at 6 (some people already think 24 classes is maybe too much, but currently each has their role to play, if people bother to learn them)</span></p>

[Beghard]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DataOutlaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don' t think adding the class would be as technically involved as some people point out. It could be as simple as</p><ul><li>A new variation based on the Scout / Predator.</li><li>H2H or 1HB only with dual wield without double attack except for AA skills that add it</li><li>Leather or Cloth armor only</li><li>Pet could be a summon from level 1 (similar to EQ1 BM pet)</li><li>Pet could be a capture of a wild beast that can be kept and does zone with the BM but has to be trained and does not increase in level (this is more radical but could be done based on the old SWG Creature Handler). For this to be successfull the BM should be able to manage an arsenal of 2-4 pets.</li><li>Spells and Combat arts would be similar to other Scouts balanced so that the DPS of a BM with even con pet is approximately the same as Predator based classes. Without pet the total DPS would be roughly 50% of that. For extra coolness factor the BM could adopt the special attacks of the pet.</li><li>Very few utlity spells other then self buffs or pet buffs</li><li>Differnet AA lines to allow the BM to focus on DPS or tanking (as well as any other Scout can tank with the right AA choices)</li></ul><p>Yes, all the itemization would need to be re-done and some special BM only items added but that was done when classes were added to EQ1 so its not all that big of a deal.</p><p>The big deal is balancing the BM so that it keeps its own unique flavor and lands itself a role in the game without encroaching on other classes specialties. This balancing problem is why no new classes (BM or any other) have yet been considered. The actual comment from the developers was that they would not evne consider adding any new class until the existing classes are balanced. </p></blockquote>Those are all minor details, but the core mechanics of the class is what makes it impossible to do. The main point is absolutely making sure that the class is unique enough that it isn't taking or barrowing skills and abilities that other classes already have.</blockquote>Lol What? Have you played the game yet? You should its fun. I can think of a few diff mages that have nukes and roots. More than one of them has a buff to! Also, there is more than one fighter that can taunt! LAWLZ!Considering that there are no leather/chain(w/e) wearing melee pet classes with heals, I cant realy see how it would even be possibe to NOT make it unique. Also, I find it some what impossible for you to say that it would be impossible to add them to the game seeing as how you wernt the one who wrote it. You really dont know. I can see why they wouldnt want to, but not why they cant.I think it might actualy be harder to implament BL from a Lore stand point that it would from a technical one.Shesh.

[Fellindar]

I think that the main problem with adding the beastlord or anyother class to the game would be attempting to give that new class a roll that isn't already occupied by an existing class which seems quite hard to me.If you made the new class (beastlord) too powerful then an existing class would become less desirable.If you make the new class (beastlord) too weak then they will be an anwanted class and development time would have been wasted on them.I liked beastlords in EQ but cant invisage a way inwhich they could add the class to EQ2 without either making an existing class obsolete or simply being a weak and undesireable class to play.

[Arondur]

<p>No Beastmasters in EQ2, Please.  </p>

[Vonotar]

Basically the beastmasters were having a party on Luclin when it exploded, the few that didn't attend the party integrated into the other guilds of Norrath passing on some of their knowledge to druids, summoners and pretty much any other class that would listen to them.As a result a myriad number of classes have pet or pet-like skills and abilities, instead of one class having all these skills and abilities.OK, it's not official Lore, but it's the way I like to look at it.

[Shadowdragoon]

Personally i cant wait to see the lore leading to the return of the Beastlords.the grandness that it is going to have.its only a matter of expansions now, untill they have to do it to get something new into the game,as well, new races are nice. but it gets old. waht is needed is Fresh Beastlord blood.. im sure my Beastlord managed to train a few apprentices, since he didnt like it to much on Luclin, he only went there to visit Hollowshade moore.. and that only rarly.

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">I've never bee a fan of sweeping changed such as they all died out, as the likelihood of survival is pretty significant  as they tended to spread out. My guess is that those who survived have been so sought after by the city guards that they have no need for adventuring, and are very selective on who is taught what.Or they went into hiding, leaving poor Mouse and his pet Human all alone.</span>

[WeatherMan]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">I think it could be done, and balanced better then EQ1.Fighter Class/Brawler/Beastlordhealing spells would be limited to a Monk-like mend with a shorter cool-down timer.Several of the Combat arts would be swapped with Spells much like the SK/PallyTheir pet would be from the Beastlord Subclass AA's</span></blockquote>Out of all the suggestions I have seen thus far, this makes the most sense.  Beastlords were, after all, 'monkish' to begin with.You could swap out the mostly pointless Strength line (I really, REALLY hate the Strength line, but that is a separate topic ), and fill it in with the Beastlord AA, excellent idea.  They would have to have a pet that is less powerful than a summoner - period.  The overall value of character + pet would have to balance against that paradigm, once 'Tiger Sifu' was replaced with 'Beastlord' (or keep Tiger Sifu as a title, whichever.Now...having said that, and extending my praises to Zabjade's idea:For the love of all that is holy, do <i>NOT</i> bring beastlords back.One, it would irritate the bejeezus out of many a brawler (as Cusa has demonstrated - and myself, for that matter).  And two, every second or third monk and bruiser would respec immediately, adding it as one of their two lines they could max out.Introducing the beastlord (or re-introducing it, as the case may be) is not so much 'fresh blood' being introduced as a 'idea who's time has come and gone' being pushed back into the forefront when it should be in a nursing home.I am a rabid fan of choices and options.  But there is an exception to everything - and the beastlord is mine.

[Gukkor2]

<p>Well, look at what happened to all of the beastlord guildhalls.  All of them were, without exception, decimated.  Halas was first razed, then rebuilt, and then floated off the map somewhere; Cabilis sank; Oggok probably sank, and would've been abandoned after the Second Rallosian War anyway; Grobb was wiped out by the frogloks and remade into Gukta; and Shar Vahl, of course, blew up.  Even if some adventuring beastlords survived, they'd be scattered and isolated from their fellows, and given that all of the beastlord races were relatively short-lived compared to, say, the elves, they probably wouldn't have been able to find worthy disciples in time to pass on their knowledge.  As they died off over the years with nobody to whom they could teach their skills, the beastlord class would go with them.</p>

[Zabjade]

<cite>WeatherMan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">I think it could be done, and balanced better then EQ1.Fighter Class/Brawler/Beastlordhealing spells would be limited to a Monk-like mend with a shorter cool-down timer.Several of the Combat arts would be swapped with Spells much like the SK/PallyTheir pet would be from the Beastlord Subclass AA's</span></blockquote>Out of all the suggestions I have seen thus far, this makes the most sense.  Beastlords were, after all, 'monkish' to begin with.You could swap out the mostly pointless Strength line (I really, REALLY hate the Strength line, but that is a separate topic ), and fill it in with the Beastlord AA, excellent idea.  They would have to have a pet that is less powerful than a summoner - period.  The overall value of character + pet would have to balance against that paradigm, once 'Tiger Sifu' was replaced with 'Beastlord' (or keep Tiger Sifu as a title, whichever.Now...having said that, and extending my praises to Zabjade's idea:For the love of all that is holy, do <i>NOT</i> bring beastlords back.One, it would irritate the bejeezus out of many a brawler (as Cusa has demonstrated - and myself, for that matter).  And two, every second or third monk and bruiser would respec immediately, adding it as one of their two lines they could max out.Introducing the beastlord (or re-introducing it, as the case may be) is not so much 'fresh blood' being introduced as a 'idea who's time has come and gone' being pushed back into the forefront when it should be in a nursing home.I am a rabid fan of choices and options.  But there is an exception to everything - and the beastlord is mine.</blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">Actually I was suggesting that they share the same Brawler Class line as us but get their Pet from their own Beastlord Subclass Line I might have mis-worded in an earlier post as to my intent.And yes the Str Line is not very good, many have said that they would accept lesser DPS boost for armed, I don't get the RPers whining as the Fistwraps shoe no weapon as they are basically hand protection. </span>

[Noaani]

<p>IMO the best way to add another class to the game is to simply remove other classes (aka, class consolodation).</p><p>Merge monks and brawlers into a universal monk class, both rouges and assassins into a universal rouge class, both bards together, all healers taken down to cleric, shaman and druid levels, merge warlocks with necromancers, conjurors with wizards, and enhanters with eachother.</p><p>Do this and you will have a class list of the following:</p><p>GuardianBezerkerMonkShadowknightPaladinRougeRanger BardClericShamanDruidWizardNecromancerEnchanter</p><p>This would require an almost total revamp of achievements, which should be done to give some of the flavour back to the classes that lost it (ie, give the new "wizard" class the ability to make choices to become a viable pet summoning class similar to conjurors, but at the expense of their DD capabilities, give bards the ability to focus on buffing for tankage, melee DPS or caster DPS etc...).</p><p>With this done, the current archtype system will finally be put to death, and the game would have room to add in a few new classes (though i would limit it to about 3 or 4 new classes, and only ones that add something new to the game).</p><p>Problem is, after 3 years of being live, a change like this would never happen.</p>

[TheLopper]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>IMO the best way to add another class to the game is to simply remove other classes (aka, class consolodation).</p><p>Merge monks and brawlers into a universal monk class, both rouges and assassins into a universal rouge class, both bards together, all healers taken down to cleric, shaman and druid levels, merge warlocks with necromancers, conjurors with wizards, and enhanters with eachother.</p><p>Do this and you will have a class list of the following:</p><p>GuardianBezerkerMonkShadowknightPaladinRougeRanger BardClericShamanDruidWizardNecromancerEnchanter</p><p>This would require an almost total revamp of achievements, which should be done to give some of the flavour back to the classes that lost it (ie, give the new "wizard" class the ability to make choices to become a viable pet summoning class similar to conjurors, but at the expense of their DD capabilities, give bards the ability to focus on buffing for tankage, melee DPS or caster DPS etc...).</p><p>With this done, the current archtype system will finally be put to death, and the game would have room to add in a few new classes (though i would limit it to about 3 or 4 new classes, and only ones that add something new to the game).</p><p>Problem is, after 3 years of being live, a change like this would never happen.</p></blockquote><p>Heh, the funny thing is, this (basically) happened in SWG...and now that game is absolutely in it's final throws of death.</p><p>Although I would <i>love</i> to see this happen, the sad truth of the matter is that it never will because we all know what the consequences are.  I wish we could have the awesome-ness of our EQ1 classes back, but it just wont happen.  We have to stick with slightly-varied pairs which are heavily diluted.  Quite a downer, really.</p>

[Gukkor2]

<p>I love the sub-class system, personally.</p>

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">You know, while at work today, I had another idea of what happened to the Beastlords, Most of the races that had the legacy for them (Other then the Vah Shir, but the Kerra sub for them on this) started out being rescued at sea by The Far Seas Trading Company. I'm thinking that they might be intentionally headhunting members of that class for their personal use as Elite Operatives. Also I'm betting that is also where the Mender Tradeskill Profession also has it's Headquarters/Guild Hall...</span>

[DreamerClou]

<cite>Gukkor2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Well, look at what happened to all of the beastlord guildhalls.  All of them were, without exception, decimated.  Halas was first razed, then rebuilt, and then floated off the map somewhere; Cabilis sank; Oggok probably sank, and would've been abandoned after the Second Rallosian War anyway; Grobb was wiped out by the frogloks and remade into Gukta; and Shar Vahl, of course, blew up.  Even if some adventuring beastlords survived, they'd be scattered and isolated from their fellows, and given that all of the beastlord races were relatively short-lived compared to, say, the elves, they probably wouldn't have been able to find worthy disciples in time to pass on their knowledge.  As they died off over the years with nobody to whom they could teach their skills, the beastlord class would go with them.</p></blockquote>Best theory so far.

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">Naw that leaves too much room as several of the cities would have had time to evacuate and not all were as afraid of written records as the Vah Shir where the Barbarians for instance and the Iksar. I still think that the FSTC just wanted a monopoly on them.</span>