What are the NEW class Concepts after the Combat Changes?

[Phly]

Not a grief.  Not a complaint.  Not praise.

 

I haven't personally been a part of the testing, though, like everyone here, I'm really interested in the final result.

My question is this:

 

In non-specific terms (not worrying about HOW the mechanics are working at this point) what are the Dev's thoughts and plans as to what the new roles of each of the classes and subclasses are going to be?

 

(i.e. At one time, Guardians were the wall of armor, the only ones who could wear Vanguard.  No longer the case.)

 

So...what's the concept for each of the classes that you're shooting for?

[Pins]

Priests heal, and do lowest damage. Fighters take damage, and do slightly more damage than priests(except those of the Brawler subclass, who do more damage) Scouts have some protection and do melee damage(Bards buff and do lowest damage, Rogues debuff and do middle damage, Predators do straight damage) Mages have no protection and do ranged magical damage(Enchanters buff the best and debuff the best and do lowest damage, Summoners buff in the middle, debuff in the middle and damage in the middle when using a scout/mage-type pet, with a fighter-type pet making lowest damage, while Sorcerers buff the least, debuff the least, and do the most damage) I believe that's what the classes were meant to be, and will become.

[Quazaris]

---

Phlynn wrote:

Not a grief.  Not a complaint.  Not praise.

 

I haven't personally been a part of the testing, though, like everyone here, I'm really interested in the final result.

My question is this:

 

In non-specific terms (not worrying about HOW the mechanics are working at this point) what are the Dev's thoughts and plans as to what the new roles of each of the classes and subclasses are going to be?

 

(i.e. At one time, Guardians were the wall of armor, the only ones who could wear Vanguard.  No longer the case.)

 

So...what's the concept for each of the classes that you're shooting for?

---

I was just thinking the exact same thing and was gonna start a post myself. I very much would like to see the Dev's "Vision" on the classes. Not a General one like Fighter , Mage, Scout , Priest. I mean a descriptive Class by Class analysis.  In order for them to go thru and adjust the combat arts they have to have some sort of "Role" basis for each class.

Swashy/Brig - What do they bring to the Grp and what to the Raid .

                        Its not really DPS ( Wiz/Warlock/Ranger/Assasin ) are DPS

                        Its not really Utility ( Bards / Shamans / Every Class now that I think about it ) excel in some utility

                        In what way do you as Dev's See the Reduced DPS for Utility  or vice versa balance the class out

                               with the other scouts.

                        Is the combination of the Hybred role obvious enough to Define that class.

                        Are the combinations of abilities good enough to make that class wanted enough instead of takeing

                                a DPS'r and a Utility purebred over the hybred?

 

That is the information I would love to see for ALL of the class trees . ( A guy can wish cant he ? )

 

Personally I think they took the Class Tree too far and now are having a hard time trying to make a "Role" for each of them.  I still cant figure out how the Assassin is over in the Predator branch . I would have thought they would be the Evil side in the Rogue branch. And , I dont know exactly what a Swashbucker is supposed to be. Far as I know it means someone who is Charming and/or Boastful . So in theory I suppose one could be a Swashbuckling Warlock.

 

 

Anyway,agree 100% Phylnn lets see some Class Concepts  from the Dev's

[Phly]

Exactly.

 

Just looking for some official word as to what the DEVS think each class should be so I can plan WHAT I will want to play in the post-combat-change EQ2 world.

 

Its just possible that some folks, playing some classes might LOVE the changes and want to continue as they were.  Others might not be thrilled and want to change to something else.

 

With that in mind, just trying to get a feel for where they're going with each subclass...

[ozbe]

I made a similar post in the class/race forum and got no answer for any of these questions. All I wanted was a basic understanding of what each subclass is now supposed to do... not archtype. That however didn't stop people from giving me the old "fighters still tank, priests heal, mage/scout dps now go shut up and die" posts.

[tebion]

there is no new class concept, the revamp is supposed to bring the classes into the concept that was planned with the game and the game was sold with. and with the help of the search function you will find several postings of Moorgard about their vision for the classes in the revamp. edit: as this is the testing feedback server and neither the op seems to nor i do play on test i guess this thread will be locked soon anyway as its the wrong board for it.

Message Edited by tebion on 08-18-2005 08:17 AM

[Moorgard]

Class descriptions are a tricky subject. They need to fall somewhere between being so precise that they remove all room for player interpretation and so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Honestly, it's a losing battle, because there's no way to make everyone happy with them.

Why? Because, as with most things, different kinds of players want different things. For every person who asks "Please tell me how I'm supposed to play my class," there's another who insists "Don't you dare tell me how to play my class!" Some people want things laid out for them, while others derive pleasure from ignoring boundaries and going their own direction.

We lay out the basics for what a class is, but ultimately the players define what a class can be. No matter how hard we might work on coming up with the perfect class descriptions, our players will rewrite the book every single day. In my opinion, that's a good thing. It really underscores how much you guys and gals contribute to the constant evolution of a persistent world.

While there are revised subclass descriptions in the DoF manual (which will be showing up on the website as well), they are only intended to give new players a general idea of what makes their class unique. The basic roles continue to be laid out at the archetype level; discovering how your subclass can best fulfill them (or figuring out how to use your abilities to blaze entirely new trails) is up to you.

[Asheb]

Respectfully, that's not much of an answer.

This exact question raised by the OP has been in my head as well. What's the concept? In systems engineering, this is the 'concept of operations'. What we'd like a peek at the design document executive summary. The archetype concepts (fighter, scout, mage, priest) are well understood, and I think the class descriptions are also clear (i.e. bards are scouts with songs, or summoners are mages with pets).

But, I think the question on everyone's mind is the subclass concepts. I haven't poured through every class board, but from following the Troubador discussion, there is a lot of anxiety about roles. Of course, there is much discussion on some very specific details about song effects, but the real consternation is "what makes us unique"?

Change is scary. Parents know this. And since we've clearly demonstrated our ability to act like children here on the boards, Dad, could you help calm us down by giving us a general idea of what to expect at the subclass level and tell us it will be all right? 

 

Thanks,

[Rhyll Moonwarder]

I play a Paladin.

Some say I am a Holy warrior.  Some say I ride a horse into combat charging with a Lance, like a Knight.  Maybe I'm just a goody two shoes doing very good deeds for people.  Maybe I'm like the riders of Rohan or maybe I'm all of the above. 

Encarta says I'm, "a champion or hero, especially in medieval legend or history".  Well this could be anyone.

Oxford Dictionary says I'm a "a brave, chivalrous knight".  Okay, so I defend my Queen really well.  Again, most players who earn status points would be considered one.

There have been too many previous games, stories with a Paladin class, so to define one may upset those who want to play a different way.

I'd love to charge into battle on a horse or on a Pegasus (hopefully in a future expansion for level 100 with class selected ability) with a Lance for a whopping 1 time massive damage hit. (Only on Epic encounters).  But that's me.

Another example may be the Ranger class.  Is Legolas, Aragorn, Robin Hood, or Driizz't a Ranger.  I think they all are, but they are all so different.

My 2 cents worth.

 

 

Message Edited by Rhyll Moonwarder on 08-18-2005 01:35 PM

[Bovek]

Screw respectfully, that's not an answer at all.  It's not a hard question to answer.  You can't make changes like these with out leaving a paper trail.  There's someone on Moorgard's end that has a hardcopy of the information we want.  I want to know what the devs think the classes should be, because if the players play in a way that doesn't jive with the way the devs are thinking, changes will be made until we do.    

[backtostart]

Quazaris i dont see how you dont think swash/brigs are not DPS and how everyone excels at utlities (buffs). I have a lvl 24 brig and he will out damage most classes but because there is a class that does more damage doesn't mean he isnt dps. I guess every classes is dps (damge per second) when you come right down to it, just there are better choices.

Why wouldn't assassins be like city rangers? Always hunting there next victim. Seems to me they are just like rangers but work in the city instead of the wilderness. Now in terms of game play you cant realy have it that way can you when most the game doesnt take place in the city.

I would like to see more class defineing attributes and possibley the devs post on that issue, but you have to rember the game will go to at least lvl 100? maybe higher so there is alot of time to define chacters. I think an alternate experiance system like the one in EQOA would be geat in this game but thats me. For the people that don't know that system you can get up to 1500 alternate experiance points and when you have enough you can purchase diffrent upgrades to stats, extra atk, run faster, resistance, ect. If you buy certain abilities you become a new subclass for example necs can become liches, shadow knights can become death knights. These atributes are based in 4 or 5 categories and there are more then you could ever buy with all your points so you need to decide how to spend them. Do i want health regen or power regen for example.

I guess we will just have to wait and see and hope that the devs take one of the best features of EQOA and introduce it to this game.

 

 

[Retyb]

Ok...I dont post much but this is crazy.  Alot of you just want the Devs to come out and say the SK, chanter, bard, etc... will get this ability and that ability and we will take away  this or that.  If you want this type of info go play the test server or something.  Basically, you pick a class and you play it.  It is your choice how you play the toon.  You could be a guardian but just wear armor that adds stats to increase damage if you want or just go for all defense.  Same with a mage, you could gear up for defense instead of worrying about INT or WIS.  What you do with the toon or how you play it is all up to you.  As far as the Devs telling us what the classes will be like, well.....even if they could it would just be a spoiler.

[Jaxtron]

I too would like this information.  I play a Warlock (have from the beginning).  I have tried the new combat changes at the same level and found, as most people have posted, that our role is a bit different.  What I would like to see.... Sorcerer:   Highest damage dealers with very little/no protection.      Wizard:  Highest single target damage dealer.  Moderate group damage.  Some utilities.     Warlock: Highest group damage dealers.  Moderate single target damage. From my experience with the new combat changes, my solo target spells do about 1/4 to half the damage they used to.  My group spells do significently more.  Although I like more damage, at the power cost of the spells, I certanly don't want to use them on a single mob so now I am forced (yea, I don't have to but for efficiency, forced somewhat) to find groups of "solo" mobs to fight.  Since I am out of Feerrott where pretty much every solo comes as a group, I just hope there are a lot in DoF.  By receiving this information, when someone goes to start a new character, they know, if they are planning  on soloing most of the time and therefore concentrate more on single target solo mobs, a wizard is the better option than the warlock.  Yes, as Moorgard stated, there will be people playing the characters the way they want.  I agree completely and am all for that.  It would just be nice to know what their abilities/skills are geard towards.  Saying Wizards do elemental damage and Warlocks do poison/disease says nothing about the targets (solo/group) their spells are most effective on.

[Phly]

Well, in any event, thanks for replying, Moorguard.

I guess I can understand your point...and I don't envy you your position in this.  No matter what you do, someone is sure to be upset.

The concern for most now, I think, is that they may enjoy a certain style of play with their current character that may not be viable after the changes are in place.

Ah well.  *shrug*  We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Swordmage]

---

Retyb wrote:

Ok...I dont post much but this is crazy.  Alot of you just want the Devs to come out and say the SK, chanter, bard, etc... will get this ability and that ability and we will take away  this or that.  If you want this type of info go play the test server or something.  Basically, you pick a class and you play it.  It is your choice how you play the toon.  You could be a guardian but just wear armor that adds stats to increase damage if you want or just go for all defense.  Same with a mage, you could gear up for defense instead of worrying about INT or WIS.  What you do with the toon or how you play it is all up to you.  As far as the Devs telling us what the classes will be like, well.....even if they could it would just be a spoiler.

---

I agree with you (as I assume you are agreeing with Moorgard) that what the roles are that are planned for each class in specific situations shouldn't be published -- its part of learning how to play the character and discover new ways of doing things.

 

That said, I perceive a real need for the game to give the player enough information to make a non-random choice when selecting archetype, class, and sub-class. There is information that isn't really spoiler info that should be input into the decision process. For instance a priest choosing a class should be presented with basic info, such as the healing style of each class (reactive, hot, ward) and some notion about the manner that each class approaches generating direct or indirect damage and providing direct or indirect protection to the group and the relative emphasis of offense/defense for the class.

 

This would not be a problem if everybody came to the game with a basic understanding of what each class does, but that is not the case. The basic skill set of the ranger or rogue, for instance, needs to be spelled out because we, as players, have so many different expectations of what those classes are (they don't even carry over well from the EQ1 definitions, not to mention the baggage from other game designs and fantasy literature). In some cases, the distinctions being made between classes are arbitrary, such as the distinction between wizard and warlock (terms many of us would be hard pressed to distinguish between without help) -- someone who dislikes playing characters that base their damage on poison and disease would like to know that that is the emphasis of a warlock before committing.

Edit, spelling is your friend.

Message Edited by Swordmage on 08-18-2005 07:00 PM

[ozbe]

---

Jaxtron wrote:


Sorcerer:   Highest damage dealers with very little/no protection. 
    Wizard:  Highest single target damage dealer.  Moderate group damage.  Some utilities.
    Warlock: Highest group damage dealers.  Moderate single target damage.

---

THIS is the BASIC information we are looking for. This ruins NO ONES idea of a class or how it can be played, but outlines the differences between the subclasses.

All of you people going so far as to say we want specific lists of what we do and don't do on each spell for each situation are pulling this way off course, and I belive doing so on purpose.

 

 

[jb-]

---

Retyb wrote:

Ok...I dont post much but this is crazy.  Alot of you just want the Devs to come out and say the SK, chanter, bard, etc... will get this ability and that ability and we will take away  this or that.  If you want this type of info go play the test server or something.  Basically, you pick a class and you play it.  It is your choice how you play the toon.  You could be a guardian but just wear armor that adds stats to increase damage if you want or just go for all defense.  Same with a mage, you could gear up for defense instead of worrying about INT or WIS.  What you do with the toon or how you play it is all up to you.  As far as the Devs telling us what the classes will be like, well.....even if they could it would just be a spoiler.

---

Agreed.  I wish everybody would quit picking through every devs statements and whining.  People just need to wait until the changes come out and play your class how you want to.  Also, even if there was a post with all the "expected" roles of each class then people would just pick through each individual word posted in it and complain even more.

[HolyAvengerOne]

My opinion, is, no matter how mych description you put into a class, if you don't actually play one or play very often with - and pay close attention to - someone who does, then you can't really get a good of what that class really is. Just my 2 cp.

[Grantr]

With all these stupid changes the expansion might as well be called Everquest3. not desert of flames.

[Keel]

---

Moorgard wrote:

Class descriptions are a tricky subject. They need to fall somewhere between being so precise that they remove all room for player interpretation and so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Honestly, it's a losing battle, because there's no way to make everyone happy with them.

Why? Because, as with most things, different kinds of players want different things. For every person who asks "Please tell me how I'm supposed to play my class," there's another who insists "Don't you dare tell me how to play my class!" Some people want things laid out for them, while others derive pleasure from ignoring boundaries and going their own direction.

We lay out the basics for what a class is, but ultimately the players define what a class can be. No matter how hard we might work on coming up with the perfect class descriptions, our players will rewrite the book every single day. In my opinion, that's a good thing. It really underscores how much you guys and gals contribute to the constant evolution of a persistent world.

While there are revised subclass descriptions in the DoF manual (which will be showing up on the website as well), they are only intended to give new players a general idea of what makes their class unique. The basic roles continue to be laid out at the archetype level; discovering how your subclass can best fulfill them (or figuring out how to use your abilities to blaze entirely new trails) is up to you.

---

Translation: We have no idea.

[PallorTheSilent]

---

Grantron wrote:
With all these stupid changes the expansion might as well be called Everquest3. not desert of flames.

---

Truthfully this game shouldn't be called Everquest 2.

A mass of players came over from EQ thinking they would be reprising their roles as the same type of classes they had been playing but with better graphics, different content, and the like. Much to our surprise the classes are so unalike from EQ it has driven a lot of people to other games or back to EQ. I played a rogue for 5 years in EQ and loved the class. I picked scout-Rogue-swashbuckler thinking the class would be about the same as the world was still norrath, and the subclass was still called a rogue. Boy was I sure wrong.

I do know that DoF is going make or break this game though. A mass of people I know who came over from EQ will either be going back to EQ or dumping all SoE games from their computers if DoF doesn't work out for them.

[Shemyaza]

---

Moorgard wrote:

Class descriptions are a tricky subject. They need to fall somewhere between being so precise that they remove all room for player interpretation and so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Honestly, it's a losing battle, because there's no way to make everyone happy with them.

Why? Because, as with most things, different kinds of players want different things. For every person who asks "Please tell me how I'm supposed to play my class," there's another who insists "Don't you dare tell me how to play my class!" Some people want things laid out for them, while others derive pleasure from ignoring boundaries and going their own direction.

We lay out the basics for what a class is, but ultimately the players define what a class can be. No matter how hard we might work on coming up with the perfect class descriptions, our players will rewrite the book every single day. In my opinion, that's a good thing. It really underscores how much you guys and gals contribute to the constant evolution of a persistent world.

While there are revised subclass descriptions in the DoF manual (which will be showing up on the website as well), they are only intended to give new players a general idea of what makes their class unique. The basic roles continue to be laid out at the archetype level; discovering how your subclass can best fulfill them (or figuring out how to use your abilities to blaze entirely new trails) is up to you.

---

so the answer to the OP's question after months of testing and changes from SOE is "we are not sure". or rather SOE don't want to rigidly define anything so they can change it all again at a later date. typical.

[Kayle]

I'm even more confused then I was before I even started reading this forum. :smileysad:

[Ellrin]

**ROCK**  Moorgard  **HARDPLACE**

In actual fact what more can Moorgard say? most of us have been around these parts, myself since the boards inception, through beta and to present day to know that he has to be very careful what he says, 9/10  he will end up finding his thoughts choped up and quoted back at him.

I to have been following all of these threads with interest. Im a Dirge, the Troubadour thread in particular is a fine example of mass hysteria, I can understand their fear but personally im happy that as a raiding Bard in a guild with 2 Dirges and zero Troubs I might now be able to raid without thinking 'I chose the wrong bard class for our guild'.

This is the first thread I have even commented on these changes in though. Im not in beta nor do I have a character on test so unlike the sheep herd metality I refuse to get sucked into the whirlwind of hysteria on these boards, prefering rather to adopt a wait and see approach.

That's not to say its not normal to be worried about our new percieved roles, nobody likes to be removed from their comfort zone.

However I remember all too well in EQ1 the uproar us Clerics created (yes I was a raiding Cleric in those days) at the thought of Druids getting a version of complete heal, we were horrified. Our class defining ability (which lets face it was game breaking in most cases) was being given to another class.

In hindsight giving Druids a 7500 hit point 'complete heal' was one of the best things SOE did.

What im trying to illustrate is that its ok to be worried about our class definition but lets use some restraint and see how we all pan out in the bigger picture.

[Ukao]

---

Ellrin wrote:

**ROCK**  Moorgard  **HARDPLACE**

In actual fact what more can Moorgard say? most of us have been around these parts, myself since the boards inception, through beta and to present day to know that he has to be very careful what he says, 9/10  he will end up finding his thoughts choped up and quoted back at him.

I to have been following all of these threads with interest. Im a Dirge, the Troubadour thread in particular is a fine example of mass hysteria, I can understand their fear but personally im happy that as a raiding Bard in a guild with 2 Dirges and zero Troubs I might now be able to raid without thinking 'I chose the wrong bard class for our guild'.

This is the first thread I have even commented on these changes in though. Im not in beta nor do I have a character on test so unlike the sheep herd metality I refuse to get sucked into the whirlwind of hysteria on these boards, prefering rather to adopt a wait and see approach.

That's not to say its not normal to be worried about our new percieved roles, nobody likes to be removed from their comfort zone.

However I remember all too well in EQ1 the uproar us Clerics created (yes I was a raiding Cleric in those days) at the thought of Druids getting a version of complete heal, we were horrified. Our class defining ability (which lets face it was game breaking in most cases) was being given to another class.

In hindsight giving Druids a 7500 hit point 'complete heal' was one of the best things SOE did.

What im trying to illustrate is that its ok to be worried about our class definition but lets use some restraint and see how we all pan out in the bigger picture.

---

OMG, i almost can't believe it!  what an amazingly mature and intelligent response :smileyhappy:

We just need to all calm down, put our feet up and wait for the changes to go Live... they're going live wether you like them or not.

I wish more people on this Forum posted with measured, well thought out responses like this one :smileyvery-happy:

[Kharadr]

You people want to have your cake and eat it. You can't give every class or subclass a "spechul role" cause it would create unbalanced situations, ie "we need 3 dirges or we can't complete this encounter" (random example). So SOE decided to balance based on the archetypes. NOW you are asking "well what is the role of a swashbuckler?" Wrong question. What you should ask yourselves is "how do I play my swashbuckler, seeing that she's a scout?" (my swashy is female, so.. They give you a bag of tricks, you figure out what to do with it. SOEs job is to give you a bag you can work with. HOW you work with it is for you to figure out. There would be a problem if it turned out that some scouts were unable to fulfill basic scout roles, while others excelled at them. But so far nobody has mentioned anything like that.

[Ruben]

Kharadrim,

 

I agree with you but this is also why we are having a revamp, they gave us a bag of tricks and some classes figured out how to use them too well. Hopefully this time around they have learned and better understand what each class is capable of doing so that we dont go through this again in a year.

[Quazaris]

---

backtostart wrote:

Quazaris i dont see how you dont think swash/brigs are not DPS and how everyone excels at utlities (buffs). I have a lvl 24 brig and he will out damage most classes but because there is a class that does more damage doesn't mean he isnt dps. I guess every classes is dps (damge per second) when you come right down to it, just there are better choices.

---

Sorry if my post sounded like I was saying Swash/Brigs are not DPS. What I meant by it was , Under the current system (LIve System) all scouts were somewhat in the same ballbark in the DPS department. Up until I hit lvl 50 I always would run Combatstats and its seemed the DPS between the Pred line & Rogue Line were somewhat close. Somefights I would Win some fights they would win. But the difference was never a large amount.

My concern is , from the General List provided by SOE of  (DPS Class1 Wiz/Warlock/Ranger/Assassin) .

Now for an example:   Suppose I am going to raid Target A.

                                    I have my Tanks/Healers all set now I am going to fill in the DPS slots. Now Target A has a poison based AE When I am filling my DPS slots a Warlock seems like a very good choice He has good DPS and can buff  poison resist. If it was possible I would try to get one for each group. You are gaining two benefits from adding the warlock The Resist for this mob and the DPS role. 

If I have all my groups protected against poison , now i just need straight up DPS and have x amount of slots open. To fill those slots if more Wiz/Warlock.Rangers/Assasins were available to select from why am I going to choose a DPS other than from those 4.  

The Swashy/Brig gave up some DPS ( or is going to under the CC ) for their "Utility".  If my character ws not supposed to be putting up the same kind of DPS numbers the Class 1 DPS'r were , fine no problem with that. I AM NOT saying "Hey you lowered my DPS now my toon is broke " . The million dollar question for me is , Is that "Utility" useful enough to a Raid that with the lowered DPS I am still a viable selection. 

 

 

[CoquiDa]

---

RubenBlades wrote:

Kharadrim,

 

I agree with you but this is also why we are having a revamp, they gave us a bag of tricks and some classes figured out how to use them too well. Hopefully this time around they have learned and better understand what each class is capable of doing so that we dont go through this again in a year.

---

With the disclaimer that I'm in a small guild with our highest level players at 40, I think part of the need for a revamp is because too many subclasses ended up being TOO unique, which led to people deciding that they needed specific subclasses to have a good group or raid team.  I don't believe this is anything close to what they intended when they created EQ2, (for it to be as formulaic as it's turned out to be,) and it creates problems for a lot of folks who feel their subclass isn't wanted by others because it just isn't useful enough.

If you look at what they're doing, part of it is a kind of partial "cross training" between subclasses so that several can do a particular job.  The combinations and methods vary, as do the specific strengths of those skills, but I don't think there will be any more, "OK, for our raid, we need ONE Illusionist so he can give everyone breeze."  If no Illusionist is available, they'll still be able to get some form of the power regen they want, and if more than one is available, they'll be able to help in other ways than just being a mana-bot for 24 players.

The more I think on it, the more I think it's not just balancing the subclasses with each other and fixing the con system so it's accurate, but also to make it easier for people to find a place in groups, and for groups to find folks to fill 'em out.

(All guessing, but it seems to make sense to me when looking at some of the changes in the spell lines.)

Message Edited by CoquiDave on 08-19-2005 12:23 PM

[Petit]

I just post a close question on the monk board "what is the defining role of a monk" I have my own idea of what should be a Monk,  Daoc has its own, AC (i.e UA) another one and Sony another one. When starting my monk here, and despite it was defined as a tank, I suppoed it would be close to its design of Eq1 (except for FD) and with a bit more tanking habilities (I just wonder how (in leather armor) you can tank as good as a Paladin or a guardian in Plate armor) 32 levels and 6 month later I understand that my monk is being totally revamped. Ok, BUT : - what will he be exactly the 12 sept ? - is it the return of the FD pull ? - will he become a healer as in DaoC ? - will he be really more effective than a guardian as a DPSer ? - if I let its AGI as it is and pump all my points in STR, will I still be able to tank and add more DPS ? - I choose Wood elf for its look and great AGI, is it now a good choice if I still want to be a DPS monk ? - and what about the HP a tank should have ? As other people said, it seems we are forced to start a new game with an old character September the 12th.