Alter Aeon Community Forum
October 15, 2019, 09:44:22 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Registration is enabled!  Please register using the name of your primary character in-game.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Class Discussion 02 - Critical Reviews of Some New Classes  (Read 5111 times)
Draak
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


god of ice


View Profile
« on: September 06, 2009, 05:37:28 am »

Dividing warrior is in my opinion similar to the proposed elementalist/utility mage split: an arbitary line drawn down the middle of an existing class for the primary purpose of dividing up skill trees.

1. Making a "berserker"-style warrior and a paladin/knight class is like making a "hitter warrior" class and a "defense warrior" class. Both the resulting classes will be group-dependant and skill anemic -- paladin/knight especially if they take all the tanking skills. They will end being like warriors used to be:  characters that must get insanely low ACs or huge hitpoint suits and stand out in front of a group to soak up damage. The only difference is that they won't have to be secondary mages so they can cast stoneskin on themselves.

2. Some skills are universal to melee combat and would exist in both classes (which is stupid in a multiclass mud if you ask me). Disarm and parry are the most prominent examples I can think of. Kick, rescue and perhaps taunting/intimidation also fall into this catergory.

3. Where does unarmed combat fit in? Its themed as eastern martial arts in-game. Berserkers wouldn't have the discipline to master it and it doesn't fit the knight/paladin archetype. Even samurai used swords, not fists.

4. Right now, warrior is fairly generically flavored, with lots of skill choices. Primary class warriors could style themselves as samuarai, ronin, knights, mercenaries, soldiers, ex-soldiers, kensai, constables, barbarians, martial artists, rangers (if they take the "ranger" style skills), paladins (if their secondary class is cleric), battle mages (if their secondary class is mage), etc, etc. Slicing warrior in twain not only pigeon-holes the two resulting classes mechanically, but also pigeon-holes them in terms of role-playing. Knight and Paladin especially are loaded with western-oriented preconceptions.
 
5. Dividing up the guilds/trainers would be a hassle, though this may hold true of necromancers as well.

Only in the past couple of years have warriors been able to stand on their own in roles beyond tanking. I think splitting the class would be tatamount to emasculating it, and shackling it with identities that are heavily tied down to modern role-playing games.

I'm still going to promote my version of the necromancer and a bard class as viable concepts. Druid will be the next class I put under the crosshairs.
Logged

Nothing special there.
Dentin
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 249



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2009, 04:57:29 pm »

I'm slowly warming up to bard, even though it still grates on my nerves for some reason.

I also think I can do the Paladin/Warrior split properly.  I have a vision in my head, but I haven't had time to work it out.  It might fail; if so, we can try one of the easier classes, like necromancer.  We could put a LOT of cool stuff there pretty quick, other than coding it would be a bitch.
Logged
Draak
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


god of ice


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2009, 04:42:08 am »

Thank you for responding to the forums about classes, Dentin. I was beginning to wonder if I was posting to empty air. If there is anything I can say about you, it is that you take constructive criticism well and can formulate meaningful responses. You usually even handle destructive criticism in stride.

I will continue to stir the pot for bard and feed you ideas for the class. I hope you've seen my other forum posts regarding the subject.  I think really the only thing I find distateful for bard is the role-playing aspect -- unlike warrior or mage you can't imagine a bard as a samurai, soldier, knight, etc or as a conjurer, magician, arcanist, etc. They are just bards, maybe skalds if you like Nordic stuff.

As far as the warrior split, I don't think there is way to do it "properly". Warrior is not currently broken, IMHO, I don't see why you should (quite literally) break it. If you maybe give some of the reasoning behind it you stand a better change of swaying me and others to your point of view.

As far as necromancer, I was wondering maybe if we would give it a label with less RP "stink" on it: warlock, occultist and witch could all work but have similar negative connotations.  Wizard could be a viable alternative name -- wizardy as opposed to the raw elemental magic of mages. That way necromancers could shake the image of being creepy guys that hang around graveyards and be assimilated more smoothly into society as soothsayers, fortune tellers and spirit mediums. They would also be the neighborhood "witch" you go visit to buy a love potion (charm spell) or cause your rival to break out into boils. And there still would be some creepy wizards that hang around graveyards and live in crypts with their undead minions.  The only issue I think there is with the title wizard is that there are mage NPCs in game that are named as wizards. The same would go for sorceror.

I am not proposing the wizard/sorceror split that Shadowfax brought up in the least -- just an alternate name for the necromancer class.

I've reconciled myself that new classes are something that is going to happen and that I will not be able to talk you out of something I still feel is not the best idea. My only hope is that I can dissuade you from making a bunch of filler classes to meet some arbitrary goal of 8-10 classes. I think we'd be much better off with 6 solid classes than 8-10 lame ones. I will do my best to convince you that bards and necromancer/wizard/occulist/whatever are the way to go.
Logged

Nothing special there.
Draak
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


god of ice


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2009, 05:35:07 am »

There are two major catergories of concerns I have about DRUIDS:

GAME MECHANICS:

1. Will the druid be group oriented, like cleric, warrior and bard, or solo oriented like mage, thief and necromancer? The spell list they would inherit from clerics would seem to cast them in the role of being another elemental blaster like mage, with some utility abilities and the power to screw with weather.

2. So we're going to take curses away from clerics and give them to necromancers. We then will take control weather, sunlight, sunstorm, hailstone and who knows what else and give it to druids? After the necromancer change, I think clerics will need an infusion of new druid spells to remain viable as anything other than a support class. Also, you're going to rob warrior of the "ranger" skill tree (though I feel this tree would be better off for thieves, as ranger always struck me more as a stealthy hunter than an armored fighter).

3. Summoning and druids: don't like it at all. Mages can part space and time to bring distant creatures to them. Necromancers would be able build their own special undead friends and call out to familiar demons and spirits to come to them to perform small tasks. Clerics ask their gods for things like food and water and their gods give it to them. Druids should not just conjure creatures out of thin air -- they should have the ability to recruit animals they encounter. I think this ability could be folded into clerics to shore up their ability to have pets.

ROLE-PLAYING:

1. Druids are already established in-game as nature clerics. The druid priest teaches cleric spell, and I followed that example when I built the cleric trainer on the island Kordan. Adding a druid class would require lots of areas being touched up and made to conform, and frankly, I don't want to have to rebuild stuff on Kordan or anywhere else to accomodate them.
   
   a. RL druids were just Celtic clerics who revered nature. All this other crap that has developed
                around them is the result of generations of role-playing games.
   b. What about shamans, witchdoctors, hoodoos and other primitive "clerics"? Do we make new
                 classes for them too?

2. Druid is not generic at all. If you play as a primary druid, its hard to identify as anything other than a druid. Mages, thieves, clerics and warriors all have freedom to identify from broad catergories. Necromancer could, too, if called wizard or sorceror. Bard also suffers from this identity crisis, but they would be sufficiently unlike any other class for it to matter. Druid is always going to echo cleric in many people's minds, primarily because of D&D AND real life history.

3. Mages and necromancers learn spells through study and experimentation. Clerics learn spells from supernatural agencies that lend them power. Where does the druid gain his knowledge and spells? Why aren't they clerics of Xandar, other non-pantheon nature deities or some primal fey/earth spirit?
   
   a. I would rather see more development go into clerics and what patrons they choose. 
                Perhaps some non-deific patrons could be added -- demon lords, fey monarchs, spirits of
                nature and the sort.

I have a lot of issues with druid, and the gutting of cleric is one of the big ones. If so many cleric spells can be given to druid, why make the split?
Logged

Nothing special there.
Draak
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


god of ice


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2009, 06:08:52 am »

I might also add I find the idea of alignment restrictions for druid abilities don't make sense at all to me. If the druid reveres nature, he would tend reflect natures amoral tendencies -- I mean some animals eat their own babies, predators hunt down the sick, old and wounded, both carnivores and herbivores will steal from one another and engage in many acts that when humans do them, we find them reprehensible.
Logged

Nothing special there.
Draak
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


god of ice


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2009, 05:28:43 am »

There's something that's been hanging in the back of my mind about some of the new class ideas that's bothered me awhile. I've finally wrapped my brain around it enough to attempt to quantify it:

Its somewhat easy to imagine, since this is a multiclass mud, that even the primary warrior has quite a bit of thief in him, and maybe a fair piece of mage, and perhaps a smidgeon of cleric, too (You can arrange the order of the classes as you wish, this is just an example).  These core classes are conceptually different from one another in such a way that you really can't confuse them with eachother.

Knight/paladin and a "barbarian" warrior offer a much more contradictory viewpoint -- someone gaining levels in one is learning techniques that seem contradictory to the discipline of the other.  Right now, a generic warrior class can be anything (or everything) and it seems fairly natural -- he's the warrior, he does the fighting stuff. Splitting it makes for two opposed schools of fighting, with styles vastly different from one another. The split feels arbitary.

Druid/cleric is another dynamic that bothers me. Heck, its hard for me picture most of the classes being just a 'little bit' druid -- the word, the concept, has too many preconceived notions hanging from it. Its too specific, too narrow a focus for me to picture druid dabbling in some of the other classes (mage, necromancer and knight/paladin would come to mind).

I would add that this adds another peg to my argument not to call a class necromancer -- it immediately conjures up images of undead. Warlock I think would be a better name -- it has a broader scope but maintains much of the sinister allusions the word necromancer conjures up.
Logged

Nothing special there.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 17 queries.