Taking a quick look at the DL abilities I know about, I see 4 abilities that will do damage but 6 abilities that would fit a Support role. So I'm not convinced that DL would flex into DPS. (As much as I look and compare, I honestly see no real info to suggest that the DL will produce any more DPS than the other 2 Tanks.)
I also see no reason to assume that the 3 Tanks (or the 3 Healers or 3 Support Classes for that matter) will necessarily flex into different secondary roles. 2 or all 3 Classes in a given role might flex into the same secondary.
We will see if that whole "flex" talk becomes a reality. It was basically an excuse for a rogue being able to CC so well. I will be surprised if a DL, for example, does damage even close to a wizard or ranger.
We haven't seen other classes perform secondary roles anywhere close to what the rogue is able to do with CC...and we have seen the DL plenty.
I wouldn't get my hopes up that groups would generally be accepting of a DL in the dps role. That doesn't seem likely.
philo said:I will be surprised if a DL, for example, does damage even close to a wizard or ranger.
I wouldn't get my hopes up that groups would generally be accepting of a DL in the dps role. That doesn't seem likely.
I agree. I'll be surprised and a little disappointed if any other Role does damage close to a DPS (that's in a group, solo vs. solo has enough variables that things might be different)
I think any PUG that already has all 4 roles but only 5 members and wants to go play NOW will take almost any char of the right level to fill the group. Other than that, I think that anyone wanting to consistently play DPS role on a Tank had better have enough friends to make their own "League of the Off Spec" guild. Which might actually happen, who knows?
Raidil said:I don't see any group beneficial flex beyond DPS with the dire lord.
So out of all the tanks only the dir lord doesn't have anything beneficial beneficial to group.
Among the known DL abilities so far are:
Deafening Whisper -- silence an enemy for a short time.
Dusk -- reducing an enemy's Magic Resist by 2 and destroying 10% of their Mana.
Baleful Severing -- putting an enemy in a helpless state. Attacks against this enemy will not miss and cannot be dodged, parried, blocked, counter attacked, or resisted.
Splatter -- Spreads 1 detrimental effect on an enemy to 4 additional enemies
Leaden Blood -- slowing an enemy's Movement Speed by 40% for 5 seconds, then rooting them in place for an additional 5 seconds.
Dire Mark -- mark another player, 25% of their damage will be redirected to you.
@ Joth
Let's be honest, just because a class can root and silence doesn't put them anywhere near the rogues CC as far as an alternative role.
I'll believe in the "flex" roles when they show us any other class that can perform a non-primary role as well as the rogue can CC.
A wizard should be an easy one because they obviously can't heal...and likely can't tank even for a short duration so their "flex" role has to be CC the same as the rogue. Not only do I not expect wizards to be able to CC like the rogue has done but I don't think that's what people playing a wizard want.
A bit off topic rambling (not directed at you Joth):
I don't want to hear silly statements about how support is not CC, CC is the most important part of support in a game like this. Everyone should understand the holy trinity was always Tank/Heal/CC originally before games became dumbed down and did away with CC being necessary. Some people with limited gaming experience think the trinity is tank/heal/dps because that's all they know. The quaternity that has been talked about in regards to Pantheon has always been Tank/heal/damage/CC....not support, cc. Regardless of whether VR changes the name of the role late in development or not they are still making a game where CC matters. The fact that they changed the role of the enchanter from CC to support does not fit in with Brad's vision of what the quaternity is/was. If it did there would be no reason to change the name of the role.
@Philo
Actually I agree on everything you posted. I don't think DL will be able to flex to support. I only made the point because I currently count only 4 abilities we know of that are damage-dealing, and I count the 6 abilities listed above as fitting a Support role if they were used when not Tanking. There are obviously more abilities to be revealed, but if I tried to get my DL in a non-Tanking spot in a group right now, I'd be offering Support/DPS.
You said "Regardless of whether VR changes the name of the role late in development or not they are still making a game where CC matters. The fact that they changed the role of the enchanter from CC to support... " is where I disagree and it's purely semantics. I don't believe they changed the reality of 'the role' in any way. CC is what the role is all about, from beginning till now. I think you were right the first time, they changed the NAME of the Role. I believe they did it purely for PR reasons, to make the role more appealing to a wider group of potential players. Such is what one does when one has to sell a product to the public in the world we live in.
Once the game released, I'll be calling that role "My Bard"!
I'd bet money that the Paladin will be just as high burst DPS with forced crits and a good 2H. Just because the rogue can "flex" CC, doesn't mean that the DL will be able to fulfill DPS as a "role". Every class will be able do damage, but that doesn't mean they will be in the DPS role. Every class can "Tank" (for a second) but they won't be able to replace one of the 3 classes with defined Tank roles.
With that said - I hiighly doubt that the rogue will actually "flex" just like the Monk won't flex as a tank (although they will likely be the "tankiest" melee not with the tank role). What I mean by that is, nobody will invite a rogue to their group "solely" for the purpose of CC (or a monk for the sole purpose of tanking). In a clutch, having the capabilities to briefly fulfill a role will be beneficial (or while soloing) but in a group situation, a class will be desired for their primary role.
Like others have said, if a group already has a tank, healer and CC they will likely be able to invite any other class to fulfill "participation" of DPS... because at the end of the day, every class can deal damage (not every class can tank/heal though). (This is why I rarely play DPS roles in a game that relies on a "trinity" (or quadrintity).
Darch said:I'd bet money that the Paladin will be just as high burst DPS with forced crits and a good 2H. Just because the rogue can "flex" CC, doesn't mean that the DL will be able to fulfill DPS as a "role". Every class will be able do damage, but that doesn't mean they will be in the DPS role. Every class can "Tank" (for a second) but they won't be able to replace one of the 3 classes with defined Tank roles.
You could be right? It seems like the a better flex for a pally would be healer.
We will have to see but it seems logical to me if pally had heal flex and cleric had tank flex. I'm still unsure if "flex" roles will end up being a viable option across the board, or if it was just an excuse for the OP'd rogue cc. I'm curious to see how it plays out.
I agree @Gintoki88 and Philo. I know PRotF is not supposed to have classes fill other roles "intentionally" but I "personally" think it would be a terrific idea for classes to either have 2 roles or be very clearly superior at their single role than the classes that have "options". I don't mean having two "specs" to switch back and forth from, but instead I mean be viable options to perform alternate rolls if they have the gear for it. Like a Paladin wearing armor that a cleric would wear would have greatly improved heals, a Druid in robes or perhaps a DL wearing gear that a Ranger would normally use... If they were to use that (very hypothetical) theory, I would like to see something like:
(Again - hypothetical)
Class > Alternate
DL > DPS
PAL > Heals
WAR > No Alternate (But superior Tank)
DRU > DPS
SHM > CC
CLR > N/A (Superior Heals)
MNK > Tank
ROG > CC
RNGR > N/A (Superior DPS)
SMNR > CC
WIZ > Superior DPS
ENC > Superior CC
BRD > DPS
NEC > Heals
Darch said:I agree @Gintoki88 and Philo. I know PRotF is not supposed to have classes fill other roles "intentionally" but I "personally" think it would be a terrific idea for classes to either have 2 roles or be very clearly superior at their single role than the classes that have "options". I don't mean having two "specs" to switch back and forth from, but instead I mean be viable options to perform alternate rolls if they have the gear for it. Like a Paladin wearing armor that a cleric would wear would have greatly improved heals, a Druid in robes or perhaps a DL wearing gear that a Ranger would normally use... If they were to use that (very hypothetical) theory, I would like to see something like:
(Again - hypothetical)
Class > Alternate
DL > DPS
PAL > Heals
WAR > No Alternate (But superior Tank)
DRU > DPS
SHM > CC
CLR > N/A (Superior Heals)MNK > Tank
ROG > CC
RNGR > N/A (Superior DPS)SMNR > CC
WIZ > Superior DPS
ENC > Superior CC
BRD > DPS
NEC > Heals
I just don't see how this would NOT wind up causing half the groups you find anywhere being composed of a Warrior, a Cleric, an Enchanter, a Ranger, a Wizard and... one of the 9 other Classes.
What @Raidil said, but that won't be for several months - a.k.a once the community has decided which classes are "better" (if not "best") for particular roles.
@Jothany - we know that VR is trying to make every class viable, but there will be the meta crowd that will "best-in-role" every class if they are as different as VR is making them. It will be inevitable that "eventually" the ideal groups will be composed of the 3 top classes, and then any other filler classes... with potentially the "LFM, except 'xyz' class because they are terrible after last patch".