Best in Slot, and Group Diversity (Best in Group Role, Tank, Healer ect.) are often discussed with the goal of broadening the options available to the players and their collectives. There however seem to be one area that at least in my opinion has been overlooked, and that is Class Diversity.
Now for this discussion I’m going to use the Rogue class as my example for a few reasons.
1. I’ve played a Rogue in WOW
2. The Pantheon Rogue deviates little if any from established “tropes” found in Modern RPG games (From PNP to MMO)
3. The Pantheon Rogue has a clearly defined “advantage” to using a Specific playstyle.
To think of a Rogue (also known as Assassin or Originally Thief Class) we generally think of a Shadowy figure bursting from the shadows impaling its victim with the treacherous Backstab, and thats certainly what pantheon seems to be aiming for, because while the available weapons are vast with its list being “Dagger, Short Spear, Long Spear, Sword, Edged, Axe, Club, War Hammer, Mace, Fist Weapon, Short Bow, Crossbow” its easy to see there’s only one playstyle that will dominate the rogue class, and thats the assassin or “dagger” rogue.
Looking at the rogue page we can see in the very description “Rogues have trained extensively with one-handed weapons, but are most deadly with a dagger in their main hand, plunged deep into the back of their enemy.”
This of course is on par with being a spiritual successor to EQ, but is it at the cost of having a more diverse class experience?
Now as I said I played a Rogue in WOW, but I played what was known as a Combat rogue at the time which meant I didn't relay on Daggers or Backstabbing and was specked into duel wielding, sneak was great for moving though or scouting the area, getting the drop of the enemy, or even vanishing into the wild when things went awry. It also lead to situations where the enemy based their decisions on the expectation that they were dealing with a “glass Cannon” and usually died because of it.
So my first experience with the rogue class was with a wider view on what it means to be a rogue, which I believe to be more diverse and more accurate to the original idea behind a rogue. A view that pantheon doesn't appear to share as it’s a spiritual successor to EQ, meaning EQ is the inspiration behind Pantheon.
So we have two games (MMO’s specifically) EQ Launching March 16 1999 and WOW on November 23 2004. Two games taking almost certainly taking inspiration from the thief class first introduced in the original 1975 Greyhawk supplement for DnD which also took inspiration from various Historic & mythological accounts as well as literary inspiration such as Jack of Shadows (1971) by author Roger Zelazny.
Two very different paths for the rogue class, EQ with its narrow Dagger preferred one class style for all, and WOW with it’s more diverse opportunities rogue class with its subclasses of Assassination, Combat, Subtlety. Both games featured a Rogue class, both games hailed in their own time as the King of MMO’s with regard to Sub numbers, its certainly debatable as to weather WOW still reigns King, but WOW did effectively Dethrone EQ as the leader in subs. Putting that another way, Everquest along with DAoc and UO established the Genre, WoW popularized it. but why?
So why was it so popular? Was it because the classes in WOW were more accurate to their “roots”? Well I think so, if we look at the original thief from the Greyhawk supplement, we see that on page 4 tittled Men & Magic,
“Thieves can employ magic daggers and magic swords but none of the
other magical weaponry. They can wear only leather armor and cannot employ shields.
While they cannot learn spells, thieves of the highest levels are able to read those spells
written on scrolls. “
From this excerpt you can see that the “sneak attack” from rogues wasn't limited to daggers, and in my opinion it’s what makes the WOW version with its Class Diversity more accurate to its origins, and more likely the reason for the popularity of WOW over its predecessors.
So why would being on par with its origins make it more popular? IMO opinion I think its because when those designers sat down to work on their game they were focus on one thing, and that’s what makes the game fun. Their were no suits making financial decisions, it was all about an engaging experience, and letting the player explore the possibilities. What good is having a Rogue that can use an assortment of weapons, but the Dagger is best in slot.
So, how can Class Diversity help in pantheon? Well for example, Imagine a cleric subclass who doesn't heal by applying Word of Glory, but rather took inspiration from the mord-sith where you might have a cleric that inflicts pain and torture on its enemies while healing Friend's and self thought more of a life leech than a direct heal. There is no limit to the creativity of classes if we remove the narrow ideology found in many of the tropes plaguing them.
So would more diverse classes with subclass be good for pantheon? Well in my opinion yes.
Sources used;
https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/ODnD_Greyhawk.pdf
https://everquest.fandom.com/wiki/Rogue
https://wiki.project1999.com/Rogue
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/classes/rogue/
https://classic.wowhead.com/guides/rogue-dps-talents-builds-classic-wow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
https://archive.org/stream/gary_gygax_jack_vance/gary_gygax_jack_vance_djvu.txt
https://sot.fandom.com/wiki/Mord-Sith
IMO:
Great post and research.
I don't think Pantheon needs any encouragement for multi-role classes, given what they've demonstrated, discussed, and posted to date. The CC abilities of the Rogue, alone, demonstrate they're already multi-role beyond some expectations.
If the scope of the discussion is how a single class can perform A single role using a variety of mechanics? Sure, happy to jump into that theorycrafting conversation. :)
Personally, I prefer Sneak Attack to Backstab, as it permits a large number of classes to opt into that mechanic, using a wide variety of weapons, in certain role playing frameworks.
It also rewards teamwork, under the right conditions and/or implementations/rules, and allows for meaningful weaknesses/resistances to damage types.
Torn. I like the well-defined class side, but having a small subset of abilities that can be a patch for a missing need is really cool. It fills in the question that went around about why every class on the webstie had like support or utility, something like that, in their class description.
The mastery system suggests that you have some way to do subclass-esque design on your toon, even focusing on your utility side rather than your dps side. And I think I like that amount of diversity without going beyond that.
vjek said:IMO:
Great post and research.
I don't think Pantheon needs any encouragement for multi-role classes, given what they've demonstrated, discussed, and posted to date.
I'd also add they don't need any encouragement for this because the unnecessary complexity it introduces which will cause more delays in getting this game out to market. 7 years and 1 month in and we're still missing how many classes?
So long as each class in its archetype performs its primary function equally well but via different means is all that is needed.
Vandraad said:vjek said:IMO:
Great post and research.
I don't think Pantheon needs any encouragement for multi-role classes, given what they've demonstrated, discussed, and posted to date.
I'd also add they don't need any encouragement for this because the unnecessary complexity it introduces which will cause more delays in getting this game out to market. 7 years and 1 month in and we're still missing how many classes?
So long as each class in its archetype performs its primary function equally well but via different means is all that is needed.
I would certainly agree that the priority should be getting the game to market, but MMO’s do evolve during their lifetime.
I've always seen it as expanding the useful items in the game as a whole being the reason rogues primarily (main hand) wield daggers. If that isn't the case then I'd imagine daggers being mostly unused or otherwise falling short when put up against other one-handed weapon types, either from lack of damage of the weapon itself or poor scaling to abilities (which tend to be based on weapon damage).
On top of that I figure it comes down to flavor and some degree of human history. Easier to be a rogue/assassin traveling through towns/blending with crowds/not drawing attention/etc with a concealed dagger, much harder to hide the bulk of a sword, mace, spear, etc. I believe that is where "sneak" attack or surprise attack advantage comes from: someone who didn't know their foe had a concealed blade.
Lets not forget that the rogue gameplay we saw in the last stream is not necessarily how the class will be at launch. With that said, I would like to see each class be able to fulfill a secondary role if they spent enough time/effort doing so, while being able to fulfill their primary role with little-to-no effort. That's my opinion.
Maybe something like:
Class - Primary/Secondary
DL - Tank/DPS
Warrior - Tank/DPS
Pal - Tank/Heal
Cleric - Heal/Tank
Druid - Heal/DPS
Sham- Heal/DPS
SMNR - DPS/CC
ENC - CC/DPS
Wiz - DPS/CC
Monk - DPS/Tank
RNGR - DPS/CC
Rogue - DPS/CC
Bard - CC/Tank
Necro - CC/DPS
I also say this because most classes will be able to perform multiple roles to some extent (just not consitently like we saw the rogue do in the last stream - which again, may not be the case at release).
@HemlockReaper I agree with most points you make and you'd be ble to find some posts from me challenging the name choice of some classes Pantheon made.
I am not a big fan of WoW, as I have mentioned a few times, but I agree that WoW's class design nailed the ideology of what many players wanted to incarnate through multiple specs, which would even define their role.
With the Warrior in EQ, EQ2 and Vanguard's he's primarily seen as a meat shield, however it's pretty much never the case in history were a warrior with the best equipement available (Heaviest armor, proficient with multiple weapons) would only be a meat shield. Those warriors were the deadliest. The "meat shield" infantry were mostly peasants or unexperienced/lowly trained fighters.
Not to mentioned the Warriors heros in movies or literature, are the ones doing the killing too.
"I just Watched Game of Thrones, I want to play The Hound, he's amazing!
Pantheon: Rogue?
- What? No! The Hound isn't a sneaky Stabby guy.
- How about a ranger?
- That's Benjen! I said, THE HOUND!
- Ok ok, I have the best choice for last, ... Monk."
- ..."
Uninstalls Pantheon: Fall of the Risen.
@Khraag, I know you and I disagree a bit on the idea of "good" and "evil" Paladins, but you bring up emulating Game of Thrones' Sandor Clegane (The Hound) and I couldn't help but think of Lord Beric Dondarrion... the one-eyed weilder of the flaming sword (holy avenger)... Some would say that he were a Paladin, although he absolutely was not a stereotypical "good" guy, since he followed the "Lord of Light"... But he was absolutely a "blessed" warrior who was granted "divine" powers and gave his life for his god's cause. I'm not sure which class would emulate him :p
Add: A Warrior weilding a great sword would certainly emulate Sandor IMHO. (Dude that can take a hit, smile, and give one back even harder).
@Darch Maybe it's just a language thing but the literary definition of Paladin in French is without contest a Paragon of good so you won't convince me, The dictionary says so.
Paladin:
(păl′ə-dĭn) 1. A paragon of chivalry;
Chivalry:
Over time, its meaning in Europe has been refined to emphasize more general social and moral virtues. The code of chivalry, as it stood by the Late Middle Ages, was a moral system which combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety, and courtly manners, all combining to establish a notion of honour and nobility.
(Going back to my point mentioning the evolution of the word)
Even if X or Y prefers to explore different view on the paladin or even if the Paladin fails to follows his ideals that's something different. That's Narrative aspect, you can have your creative liberty.
Not to mention ppl trying to give classes to characters in books or movies can have fun but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.
In any case it's a different Topic, Kilsin may delete our posts without warning for being off topic.
PS: I agree with your added statement, it just needs to actually do enough damages in-game to be considered viable of even desirable to be played that way.
Max level warriors in EQ could put out respectable numbers using one or two offensive disciplines which were on lower cooldowns than most, not to mention Berserker Frenzy which put their meat shieldiness at risk due to the possibility of low HP aggro should they take a few unwanted hits. Granted, berserking warriors weren't DPS machines in classic but their output far exceeded what knights could muster and knights couldn't tank endgame. Berserker made sense in a very primal, roleplay-friendly way while also allowing warriors to halfway fill the bigger DPS shoes of a rogue or monk, but doing so came at the expense of their primary role. The security of a full health bar was significant. Even attempting to act as emergency backup tank, while maintaining at or below 40%hp, was inviting disaster.
If secondary roles were capable of being emphasized by players, but with greater risk, that would be a neat way of presenting one more layer of challenge to those skilled enough or those simply wanting to show off and attempt to keep their group from ending prematurely. There's nothing like fighting all the way down to the bottom of a dungeon, clearing the desired camp, and then suddenly the healer has internet issues, disconnects, and now respawns are happening. Or worse, the tank says they're getting wife aggro and have to leave ASAP, sorry! To have a fighting chance anyway with everyone putting on multiple hats, so to speak, would be amazing. Even if that meant having carve out a corner of the original camp or downshift and take a smaller camp nearby. Choosing one's battles wisely, without having to throw in the towel, is what makes interdependence fun. Being so dependent on one class or class type to the point where specific content is otherwise impossible? Not so much.
It's a difficult balance to strike. Too much of these skills or those spells and each class begins to lose its identity, not enough and each begins to lose its worth. A game should feel very different behind the wheel of each class, even between a paladin that wants to focus healing and a cleric that wants to melee undead targets. But achieving that is easier said than done, if it's even attempted by the developers at all. Some overlap is good, but some is so bad it would be better to have none at all. The bad overlap is pretty obvious. A rogue isn't a healer, a wizard isn't a tank, etc. The good overlap is also obvious. A ranger finds its strengths out in nature against the elements, and so does a druid. A paladin has its strengths revealed in the darkness against the unnatural, and so does a cleric. Each class manages to do so in their own unique way, with advantages and/or disadvantages. But then there are gray areas more open to debate. Ultimately though, when you choose your class/role, you ought to give something up for everything you gain.
Joppa has many times spoke about this kind of thing. When people ask about Spec's, Joppa points out that instead of having different spec's, they want players to have different choices in which abilities they use and which abilities they use Mastery Points on, which can effect the entire playstyle of the class. So while the Rogue will always be a DPS class, each person playing that class may have a different set of abilities they focus on using.
What HemlockReaper is pointing out, is that with the Rogue class there seems to be a little bit of railroading into forcing players to use Daggers and Backstab as their primary playstyle. He's then suggesting that instead VR should instead add more 'Attacks of Advantage' which use different Weapon types than Dagger, thus giving players the choice to focus on one style over another.
For example perhaps the Rogue could have an ability called 'Head Knock' which requires a Mace or other Blunt style weapon. This could require similar requirements as Backstab, such as being behind the target or if they require the target to be in a vulnerable state. Yet while Backstab may inflict extra damage, perhaps 'Head Knock' instead causes a state such as a disorient, perhaps allowing the next attack(s) from the Rogue to do increased damage or provide increased crit chance for all attacks (from any player) against that target for the duration of the disorient. Maybe this could also cause a slow effect to spell casting making it extra useful against spell casting enemies.
A Rogue using a Slashing weapon like a sword or axe may then have access to a different Attack of Advantage, perhaps one called 'Hamstring' which has an effect like a slow either to movement or attack speed, and also decreasing the enemies ability to dodge or parry for a short time while also increasing the hit chance of projectile attacks thus synergizing with a Ranger.
By giving the Rogue class these alternate choices to their abilities it can open up different play styles and synergies. The Rogue would still be a DPS class, but it wouldn't be strictly a Backstab spammer. Instead the Rogue player could adjust his weapon choices and abilities based on his preference or even based on the group makeup of the people he is playing with or based on the enemies he is facing.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:Joppa has many times spoke about this kind of thing. When people ask about Spec's, Joppa points out that instead of having different spec's, they want players to have different choices in which abilities they use and which abilities they use Mastery Points on, which can effect the entire playstyle of the class. So while the Rogue will always be a DPS class, each person playing that class may have a different set of abilities they focus on using.
What HemlockReaper is pointing out, is that with the Rogue class there seems to be a little bit of railroading into forcing players to use Daggers and Backstab as their primary playstyle. He's then suggesting that instead VR should instead add more 'Attacks of Advantage' which use different Weapon types than Dagger, thus giving players the choice to focus on one style over another.
For example perhaps the Rogue could have an ability called 'Head Knock' which requires a Mace or other Blunt style weapon. This could require similar requirements as Backstab, such as being behind the target or if they require the target to be in a vulnerable state. Yet while Backstab may inflict extra damage, perhaps 'Head Knock' instead causes a state such as a disorient, perhaps allowing the next attack(s) from the Rogue to do increased damage or provide increased crit chance for all attacks (from any player) against that target for the duration of the disorient. Maybe this could also cause a slow effect to spell casting making it extra useful against spell casting enemies.
A Rogue using a Slashing weapon like a sword or axe may then have access to a different Attack of Advantage, perhaps one called 'Hamstring' which has an effect like a slow either to movement or attack speed, and also decreasing the enemies ability to dodge or parry for a short time while also increasing the hit chance of projectile attacks thus synergizing with a Ranger.
By giving the Rogue class these alternate choices to their abilities it can open up different play styles and synergies. The Rogue would still be a DPS class, but it wouldn't be strictly a Backstab spammer. Instead the Rogue player could adjust his weapon choices and abilities based on his preference or even based on the group makeup of the people he is playing with or based on the enemies he is facing.
Well said, and absolutely correct.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:Joppa has many times spoke about this kind of thing. When people ask about Spec's, Joppa points out that instead of having different spec's, they want players to have different choices in which abilities they use and which abilities they use Mastery Points on, which can effect the entire playstyle of the class. So while the Rogue will always be a DPS class, each person playing that class may have a different set of abilities they focus on using.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:What HemlockReaper is pointing out, is that with the Rogue class there seems to be a little bit of railroading into forcing players to use Daggers and Backstab as their primary playstyle. He's then suggesting that instead VR should instead add more 'Attacks of Advantage' which use different Weapon types than Dagger, thus giving players the choice to focus on one style over another.
For example perhaps the Rogue could have an ability called 'Head Knock' which requires a Mace or other Blunt style weapon. This could require similar requirements as Backstab, such as being behind the target or if they require the target to be in a vulnerable state. Yet while Backstab may inflict extra damage, perhaps 'Head Knock' instead causes a state such as a disorient, perhaps allowing the next attack(s) from the Rogue to do increased damage or provide increased crit chance for all attacks (from any player) against that target for the duration of the disorient. Maybe this could also cause a slow effect to spell casting making it extra useful against spell casting enemies.
It's been a while since playing either but Thief I and/or II did as much with the blackjack and gas mines/arrows to render the enemy unconscious, though some targets were immune and others could die from the attempt IIRC. Similar to daggers and backstab, using a blackjack required the player to be positioned behind the target.
One issue would be swapping weapons in and out to accomplish different feats, similar to EQ bards swapping instruments and twisting songs. It would become tedious after a while. Daggers are synonymous with the class at this point. Any ol' weapon in the rogue's mainhand and they would start to resemble a warrior. Overlap isn't the worst when it comes to weaponry, but it can get out of hand. Warriors are more capable fighters so they enjoy a larger arsenal, weapons that are unavailable to paladins, dire lords, rangers, or rogues. But each of those other classes have access to a fair number. Paladins and dire lords can't use bows however. And rangers are capable of using all types of bows, as that is their specialty. Warriors and rogues can still use short bows and crossbows, but neither gain the advantage of having long bow as an option, which one would assume means less range. These restrictions make sense by and large. Seeing as backstab is the attack most players associate with rogues, perhaps backstab could also be done with other types of piercing weapons, such as one-handed spears and wooden stakes (versus undead)?
While I think your opinion has been soldidly founded over research and sources, I would narrow the scope by a bit before adding some things :
Wow's success is really not tied to their perception and conception of the rogue. The rogue in Wow has been amongst the least played class for a long time, up to the point they even made a specific legendary just for it (Cataclysm) to boost the numbers, which didn't work. You've correlateds two evens because you're enticed with the rogue class, but they don't really relate to each other on this subject.
Players will catter to what is the most effective in most situations more than what flavour they want of it. Currently in wow classic (relaunch), most rogues have to play daggers (with combat build anyway) because of the itemization of the game (few swords and many competition over them), because that's the most effective with the least competition over weapons.
This will lead to a few behaviour, according to me :
-If players have to choose (like: Backstab VS waylay) , they will start whith what they can use, then move to what is the most effective
-If dagger vs non dagger depends of the mastery points invested, they will rush for what is the most effective and "final" at first.
-If players can use both (like, stamina regen is high enough, either to begin with or in the end with gear & such), they will use both and thus use a dagger anyway for backstab.
It can be stratified into tiers, like "At this point use a dagger, invest points in waylay, move to swords then unless you have this piece of gear, etc..." but most of the time choices in games, especially mmogames where you constantly play with others and compete with them for performances, choices are an illusion and things get figured/mathed pretty fast, most players will follow "cookie cutter builds" with a fixed amount of abilities and a few rooms for utility depending of the situation. Now "cookie cutter builds" can also be summed as "common sense", like using the most effective offensive abilities for an offensive class, but derivating from thoses will allways lead to poor performances.
To me the only true solution is either to make backstab not piercing exclusive with a smaller coefficient of damage, so it remains as effective both in stamina per damage, and secondary ressource generation if so (Do not make any of the two playstyle flow faster than the other), add a replacement for backstab that cannot be used with daggers or share cooldown (to avoid the use of both), or sit on beeing a piercing rogue, as how backstab is designed it doesn't really leave any room for alternate gamestyles.
That's a rogue starting subject, but I do think it can be applied to most classes. I doubt you will see a "frost/arcane focused mage" as fire is the most effective, yet costly, playstyle, and it can be questionned about dual wielding versus two handed weapons as well for classes that have that choice (from what I've seen, it's mostly a direlord subject as warriors are incentived to use shields).
MauvaisOeil said:
Wow's success is really not tied to their perception and conception of the rogue. The rogue in Wow has been amongst the least played class for a long time, up to the point they even made a specific legendary just for it (Cataclysm) to boost the numbers, which didn't work. You've correlateds two evens because you're enticed with the rogue class, but they don't really relate to each other on this subject.
As I stated in my original post I’m using the rogue as an example with the listed reasons, but let me clarify. I think all classes could benefit from some diversity, as I tried to point out using the cleric as example at the end, but I think the rogue in this case is in the most needed based on what I’m reading from the classes information.
I agree I don't think WOW’s success can be specifically attributed to the rogue, but all their classes share the same diversity
HemlockReaper said:As I stated in my original post I’m using the rogue as an example with the listed reasons, but let me clarify. I think all classes could benefit from some diversity, as I tried to point out using the cleric as example at the end, but I think the rogue in this case is in the most needed based on what I’m reading from the classes information.
I agree I don't think WOW’s success can be specifically attributed to the rogue, but all their classes share the same diversity
I wouldn't mind seeing different classes having different build paths in their class, provided these paths make sense and aren't artificially walled off in the form of specs.
You mentioned clerics being able to heal with what I would classify as blood magic. I don't think that blood magic makes much sense for a class-based around the holy stereotype. I could see necromancers branch off and have that potential supportive playstyle, but not clerics. Now I could see clerics be able to target undead mobs and do something that both deals damage and heals the group, but this spell should only be usable on undead enemies, not living creatures.
I feel like Pantheon is lacking in choices when it comes to the melee department, and I think that different build paths could at least mitigate some of this frustration at least until future classes are looked into.
Darch said:Lets not forget that the rogue gameplay we saw in the last stream is not necessarily how the class will be at launch. With that said, I would like to see each class be able to fulfill a secondary role if they spent enough time/effort doing so, while being able to fulfill their primary role with little-to-no effort. That's my opinion.
Maybe something like:
Class - Primary/Secondary
DL - Tank/DPS
Warrior - Tank/DPS
Pal - Tank/Heal
Cleric - Heal/Tank
Druid - Heal/DPS
Sham- Heal/DPS
SMNR - DPS/CC
ENC - CC/DPS
Wiz - DPS/CC
Monk - DPS/Tank
RNGR - DPS/CC
Rogue - DPS/CC
Bard - CC/Tank
Necro - CC/DPSI also say this because most classes will be able to perform multiple roles to some extent (just not consitently like we saw the rogue do in the last stream - which again, may not be the case at release).
MauvaisOeil said:While I think your opinion has been soldidly founded over research and sources, I would narrow the scope by a bit before adding some things :
...
Players will catter to what is the most effective in most situations more than what flavour they want of it. Currently in wow classic (relaunch), most rogues have to play daggers (with combat build anyway) because of the itemization of the game (few swords and many competition over them), because that's the most effective with the least competition over weapons.
...
Renathras said:
Respectfully: I disagree.
While it is true there are always those people that "chase the meta" and use cookie cutter builds, many people do not. Games that have toxic communities will try to foce them on people, but generally it's only the top 0.001% trying for world firsts where this matters. To the rest of the community, it does not, as long as you aren't doing something stupidly attrocious (e.g. being an autoattack Monk that never presses any ability buttons EVER). Most people, in fact, pick the class they will play based on the flavor of what they want.
GOOD games balance in such a way that several of these playstyles are theoretically equal, or approximately equal/equal enough for content needs, and/or that differences play out based on ability but math out to being nearly the same. For example, many of the talents in modern (post Mists of Pandaria) WoW have a choice where there is an active ability and a passive ability that you're choosing between (and often a third that either modifies an existing ability or has some buff when activated and then has a "standby" effect when not specifically activated). In general, the active ability maths out slightly higher, but the passive abilities are always in effect, meaning less skilled players or "average" players can often perform better with the passive choice instead of the active one, and even some skilled players might use the passive choice on difficult fights with a lot going on as it is less maintenance and not going to punish them for deaths/raises/downtime/etc like the active ability might in some boss fights.
It's the old argument of "Yes, ability X maths out 0.5% more DPS on a Patchwerk tank and spank fight on a target dummy, but 99.99% of the population will do less damage with it than ability Y, which is not as punitive and easier to use optimally/effectively." Most games have some choices that come down to this, where if you want to push the envelope you can, but not doing so isn't punitive and is often more beneficial for the vast majority of fights and player skill/group compositions.
No one's going to badmouth the elite player for using that active ability and doing 0.5% more damage, but no one worth playing with is going to badmouth the player using the passive and doing only 0.5% less damage, either.
I honestly wish you were right, but the mindset of players have changed by a lot over the years up to the point easiest path, fastest path and least error path is the way enticed to everybody. I honestly hope it's a phenomenon amplified because Wow is such a known game that had been played on private servers for so long that you can barely argue with anyone over stats and you're pidgeonholed into doing the very same things as others.
Let's hope for the best, but my recent experience is radically different from the freedom I felt 15years ago :) .
FatedEmperor said:HemlockReaper said:As I stated in my original post I’m using the rogue as an example with the listed reasons, but let me clarify. I think all classes could benefit from some diversity, as I tried to point out using the cleric as example at the end, but I think the rogue in this case is in the most needed based on what I’m reading from the classes information.
I agree I don't think WOW’s success can be specifically attributed to the rogue, but all their classes share the same diversity
I wouldn't mind seeing different classes having different build paths in their class, provided these paths make sense and aren't artificially walled off in the form of specs.
You mentioned clerics being able to heal with what I would classify as blood magic. I don't think that blood magic makes much sense for a class-based around the holy stereotype. I could see necromancers branch off and have that potential supportive playstyle, but not clerics. Now I could see clerics be able to target undead mobs and do something that both deals damage and heals the group, but this spell should only be usable on undead enemies, not living creatures.
I feel like Pantheon is lacking in choices when it comes to the melee department, and I think that different build paths could at least mitigate some of this frustration at least until future classes are looked into.
Blood magic is not a term I used, The cleric example was just an example, one based on going against the grain, or going renegade, the outlaw. Someone using their knowledge or skill in opposition of “oaths” or traditional ways. The could be the healer who becomes the Angle of death, The Monk who's a Drunken master, ect..
That of course is just one way for an alternative playstyle, there are many others just look at the cleric Variations in this list for DnD 5th Edition.
http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/cleric
Cleric Variations
Arcana
Death
Forge
Grave
Knowledge
Life
Light
Nature
Order
Tasha's
Peace
Tempest
Trickery
Twilight
War