Forums » The Enchanter

Enchanter Charm Mechanics

    • 58 posts
    March 8, 2015 7:41 PM PDT

    I completely disagree with you Deadshade. I have seen so many bad enchanters in the higher levels. Anyone can be horrible at any class and still make levels. It isnt hard to get picked up in a pug just for the sole reason of casting mind buffs while the puller just brings singles the entire time after they realize the chanter cant handle CC. I think it is almost laughable that you guys think bad enchanters didnt exist in the higher levels. I have seen countless amounts of horrible players at max level.. even on raids. It doesnt take a skilled player to gain levels. Saying that there were only good and great enchanters is just blowing my mind.

    Going back to the Pantheon enchanter. I really hope there arent different versions of the class to pick from. This is a class that should be able to CC as well as charm without having to choose which you want to do. It would really suck to get invited to a group who needs CC and have to tell the group who invited you ''Sorry guys I am a Charm spec enchanter so I cant be your CC.'' I will be really disappointed if this isnt made a sole class with the entire skillset. That is what I hate about todays MMOs. Picking a dps or healing cleric, a dps or defensive tank, etc. If you want to be dps play a dps class. If you want to be a tank or a healer then play those classes. Why do there have to be so many variations of 1 class? I would love to see this game go back to what made EQ so great... the basic classes Warrior, Paladin, SK, Monk, Ranger, Bard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Shaman, Wizard, Mage, Necro, Enchanter. These are more than enough classes to choose from depending what type of player you want to be. In my honest opinion I feel like that is why people cant stay hooked on todays games because there are just so many classes with so many different skills that is makes it impossible for a well balanced game. Using these basic classes makes it much easier to create balance as each has a defined role and a defined set of skills. Please stick with the classes that made EQ and Vanguard so great and dont water it down with multiple versions of each. Let the players learn how to take their classes different directions with SKILL


    This post was edited by Xaleban at March 8, 2015 7:44 PM PDT
    • 70 posts
    March 10, 2015 1:37 PM PDT

    @Xaleban: The point Deadshade was making (when he disagreed with me.. although we were in agreement heheh) is that in EQ bad Enchanters effect a group more than any other class if they're inept in their duties.  If you have a bad healer, for instance, there's some wiggle room.  A bad enchanter will wipe the group in no time.  Enchanters were so rare compared to the other classes that word got around quickly, and that person that couldn't get a group would ultimately go back to their Warrior.  I believe the arguments we're seeing on this topic are getting into semantics.. we're all in agreement..  to one degree or another.

     

    Do you disagree with VRs plan for a color based magic foundation?  What I get from this is that we can create our own balance of capabilities dependent upon preference, but we don't have to.  For instance; Charm = Red, CC = White.  I have a total 'capacity' of 10.  If I'm 5 Red and 5 White, I'm basically and EQ Enchanter.  If I decide that I can operate CC at 4 White sufficiently and want to be more powerful in charm, I go 6/4 and receive the perks of higher Red based capabilities.  In conclusion, it's my opinion that this magic foundation doesn't create a situation where you 'have to choose a subclass', but rather provides options if you don't want to remain 'a balanced pure class'.  I think it's brilliant.

    • 295 posts
    March 10, 2015 2:19 PM PDT
    Raidan said:

    To Reht's point, if enchanter's have charm, I think charm should break randomly like EQ so the Summoner (Mage?) in Pantheon is the master of the pet.  However, I also believe that the enchanter is the master of mind control, which should include mes/charm.  However, they should also not have the non-attacking Sword/Shield pet like EQ that could be a static summoned pet.

     

    To Xonth's point, a good enchanter in a solid group could maintain a charmed pet and mes in EQ, it was dangerous yes, but the benefits of having a charmed mob's damage within the group far outweighed the risks.  Especially at launch, charming in Unrest as either a Necromancer/Enchanter could seriously up the experience gain as charming a green con mob would easily outdamage any melee class.  That benefit should come with serious risk/reward consequences though.  A "skilled group" could gain experience quicker; whereas, a group who was not paying attention would have TRAIN TO ZONE!!!!  I also liked EQ's mechanics in that if a mob was green/blue to the player you had much less chance for resists and a greater chance for the charm to last longer (although it still could break instantly).

     

    Further on your point Xonth, I understand your reasoning and I could see the benefits of having a charm that lowers a mob's strength to X% but wouldn't randomly break especially in bad groups (or less than perfect formations such as a duo with no healer); however, the difficulty producing a charm like that would be scaling percentages to not create overpowered pets.   I believe it would be much more of a hassle for developers and gameplay than a benefit to enchanters.  Again, EQ as an example, if I charmed a Barbed bone skeleton in Unrest that could hit for 80ish, even at 50% damage it would be hitting for 40ish and with no risk of breaking charm, which would be majorly overpowered as no melee/pet class could come close to that type of damage until approxiately 15+ levels higher.

     

    I realize I would want the enchanter charm mechanics to basically be EQ (cloned), but for things that work, I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel.  That does not mean though that Pantheon can't expand on other ideas to make Pantheon's enchanter unique though.

     

    Agree with most of this, however I think that charm reducing a mob's damage by X is actually an important topic.  The premise of this game is that mobs are going back to EQ style, where most mobs were too difficult to go toe to toe with at your level, and without emergent gameplay such as kiting or charm, were mostly un-soloable.  Taking that into consideration, if Pantheon wants to have a difficult game such as Everquest, where mobs are no joke, then by proxy you must reduce the damage of the mob when you charm it.  In Everquest a proficient charmer could deal 2x as much damage as a rogue, the next top DPS.  This is broken and was a major problem with Everquest.

     

    Hi do you want to join my group at sarnak fort?

    Do you have an enchanter charming?

    No..

    Sorry nope.

     

    This may not have always been the case but groups who had enchanters charming could level effectively twice as fast as ones who didn't.

     

    Granted this is a skill question, because managing that dps as an enchanter took a high amount of skill/gear, and I want there to be a big difference between a player of high skill and a player of moderate skill.  But I think it was just too overpowered.


    This post was edited by Rallyd at March 10, 2015 2:22 PM PDT
    • 70 posts
    March 11, 2015 7:30 AM PDT

    Rallyd, I share your dream for an EQesque landscape where the mobs actually scare you and everyone can't be a hero.  I don't disagree with your statement on Sarnak Fort.  I'd like to propose a compromise between 'Enchanters can't be Sarnak whores' and 'Enchanters can outDPS rogues', and it's a real tall order for VR.  I believe that if we have color based magic of a sufficient complexity, and Charm is an involved and complex enough skill, we could realize a dynamic where less than 10% of Enchanters are able to dominate in an environment like Sarnak Fort.  As an Enchanter, if I quest enough to gain the knowledge in a particular discipline, if I climb the tall mountain of Charm proficiency, I can utilize skills that most Enchanters can't.  This skill acquisition I envision isn't 'granted' by reaching a character level, or killing a boss in a dungeon.  The skill is acquired and compounded over time.. like golf or marksmanship.

     

    Let me say that the EQ 'chanter was brilliantly crafted.. but at the same time I think that some of the uniqueness and skill requirements of crowd control and charm were..  implemented by mistake, if you will.  I don't think the developers anticipated how complex the class would become due to the methods that the Enchanters themselves came up with to take advantage of every minor dynamic.  I'd like to see that same complexity and attention to detail in the PROTF Enchanter, but with expanded and deliberate forethought to allowing unique capabilities that exist only at the upper limit of what a person might be capable of (limited by timing and attention to detail).  And I'll say it again, this is a very tall order.

    • 75 posts
    March 18, 2015 5:33 PM PDT

    The Everquest Enchanter, Necromancer, and Bard were really 3 classes that no other game has ever even come close to replicating or improving within a similar environment.  As this is the enchanter forums I'll stick with the enchanter and the way charm worked for it.  I honestly think the way charm worked in Everquest has never been bettered and I do not think that changing it in really any way would be an improvement.  There are certainly instances where it is OP and puts what the enchanter brings to the table far beyond what any other class could bring.  So what.  Some days I've had a charmed pet destroying everything around me and the others this silly green pet I just picked up thinking it would be some easy bonus damage suddenly flips out, resists charm, resists mez, chews through my rune, kills me, kills the healer, and then combined with the mob the group was fighting proceeds to kill the entire group.  That happened more often solo than when in a group, but it still happened.  I've died plenty of times from another enchanter's mobs breaking charm on my other characters as well.  The randomness of it is the beauty and the fun and the part that makes you question using it at all times.

     

    That's not to say no other game had interesting charm mechanics.  Someone mentioned the Anarchy Online Bureaucrat.  You basically had a similar skillset to an EQ enchanter except on crack.  You had a robot pet that was from what I recall the second strongest pet in the game (engineer being strongest.  though maybe the MP demon was a little better I forget).  You then had two charms.  One would last a long duration.  The other would last about 1/3 as long.  On top of that all of your mezzes had an automatic memblur component with a much much higher success rate than EQ.  On top of that they lasted FOREVER.  I think on Rubi-Ka the longest mez was something like 14 minutes?  I forget.  So basically you could run around with 3 pets at all times doing pretty damned good damage and with almost zero risk to yourself.  It was too crazy imo.

     

    Even the WoW mechanic of "becoming" what you charm has some merit I think.  It could be fun to "play as" another creature whle having no control over your own body.  Though I'm not suggesting this for Pantheon.

     

    Personally if they just copied the EQ enchanter class verbatim I don't think they could do better.  Maybe I'm just weird though.

    • 295 posts
    March 18, 2015 8:27 PM PDT

    Yeah I forget about the WoW mind control mechanic, which while it was more realistic.. definitely didn't have the same flare as the EQ charm.

     

    I don't know, I feel like charm is a very dangerous topic, in EQ charm was ABSOLUTELY the strongest spell/mechanic in the entire game, even dwarfing FD.  Charm was so overpowered you could literally keep the entire zone of Karnor's Castle down permanently with 1 enchanter.  While I feel the way it worked was fantastic, I feel the level of OP that surrounded it was way over the top.

     

    Now I think charm being so overpowered was due to the fact that monsters in EQ were SOOOOO much stronger than the average player, and to Jitai's post I think we all wish Pantheon would have mobs that were just as strong if not stronger than EQ mobs compared to the player.  But that is a pipe dream IMO, because a lot of people just couldn't handle how hard EQ was.  If mobs are weaker in Pantheon than in EQ, charm can probably operate the same as Everquest and be just fine.  If the same model comes up as EQ, where mobs are very powerful, then there would need to be additional limitations to charm.

    • 643 posts
    March 19, 2015 5:06 AM PDT
    Rallyd said:

    Yeah I forget about the WoW mind control mechanic, which while it was more realistic.. definitely didn't have the same flare as the EQ charm.

     

    I don't know, I feel like charm is a very dangerous topic, in EQ charm was ABSOLUTELY the strongest spell/mechanic in the entire game, even dwarfing FD.  Charm was so overpowered you could literally keep the entire zone of Karnor's Castle down permanently with 1 enchanter.  While I feel the way it worked was fantastic, I feel the level of OP that surrounded it was way over the top.

     

    Now I think charm being so overpowered was due to the fact that monsters in EQ were SOOOOO much stronger than the average player, and to Jitai's post I think we all wish Pantheon would have mobs that were just as strong if not stronger than EQ mobs compared to the player.  But that is a pipe dream IMO, because a lot of people just couldn't handle how hard EQ was.  If mobs are weaker in Pantheon than in EQ, charm can probably operate the same as Everquest and be just fine.  If the same model comes up as EQ, where mobs are very powerful, then there would need to be additional limitations to charm.

    I thought in EQ you could only charm 1 mob at a time?

    • 75 posts
    March 19, 2015 9:36 AM PDT

    I always find the "Hard Mob" in EQ thing a little weird.  I know if you compare things level to level sure EQ mobs your level were impossible for most classes after the first 10 or so levels.  Really though ignoring "levels" you could take mobs in WoW and make "even" con mobs green, 2-3 level higher mobs light blue, 4-5 level higher mobs dark blue, 6-7 level higher mobs yellow, and 8+ level higher mobs red and it would start to feel more like EQ I think.  The "con" system of EQ was part of the learning curve but once mastered you typically knew what was actually an "even" con and what was out of your league.  Regardless of how close it was to you in actual level.

     

    Anyway, they could probably tweak certain mobs to have super high charm resistance if you have "bosses" that are essentially way way way way stronger than their level, they should also have way way way way higher charm resistance.  You can't charm most normal mobs in EQ and just clear a zone.  Sure they will increase your damage hardcore and let you kill way faster with a bit of risk, but in Vanilla EQ you aren't going to just charm a Bok knight in Lower Guk and slaughter the whole zone before it can respawn.  You might be able to use it to solo kill a frenzied ghoul to nab a FBSS but really you aren't just instantly god.  Really strong?  Sure.  A little OP?  Probably.  Game ruining?  Nah.

    • 238 posts
    March 19, 2015 11:25 AM PDT

    In eq2 during the first expansion I remember the enchanter we grouped with found a mob that cast a spell that hurt the target by a % rather then a static number. So if the mob we fought had like 500,000hp this spell would hurt them for like 100,000hp each hit. Was one of those short OP moments I remember seeing before the quickly nerfed it. obviously when that creature was designed why had never considered it being used why charmed.

    • 295 posts
    March 19, 2015 10:10 PM PDT
    Sevens said:
    Rallyd said:

    Yeah I forget about the WoW mind control mechanic, which while it was more realistic.. definitely didn't have the same flare as the EQ charm.

     

    I don't know, I feel like charm is a very dangerous topic, in EQ charm was ABSOLUTELY the strongest spell/mechanic in the entire game, even dwarfing FD.  Charm was so overpowered you could literally keep the entire zone of Karnor's Castle down permanently with 1 enchanter.  While I feel the way it worked was fantastic, I feel the level of OP that surrounded it was way over the top.

     

    Now I think charm being so overpowered was due to the fact that monsters in EQ were SOOOOO much stronger than the average player, and to Jitai's post I think we all wish Pantheon would have mobs that were just as strong if not stronger than EQ mobs compared to the player.  But that is a pipe dream IMO, because a lot of people just couldn't handle how hard EQ was.  If mobs are weaker in Pantheon than in EQ, charm can probably operate the same as Everquest and be just fine.  If the same model comes up as EQ, where mobs are very powerful, then there would need to be additional limitations to charm.

    I thought in EQ you could only charm 1 mob at a time?

     

    Where did I say you could charm more than 1?

    • 1455 posts
    March 19, 2015 10:24 PM PDT

    As long as charming is as volatile as it was in classic EQ and not like it is on P99 where charm holds for extended periods of time, I don't think charming will be an issue.  Probably too many people think of p99 when they think of enchanter charming, and in the 3 years I played live (vanilla-velious) I never witnessed charm holding so reliably.  Regardless of what stats you had or how debuffed the charmed mob was.

    • 70 posts
    April 9, 2015 8:20 PM PDT

    I think everyone here makes valid points.  On one side we have the 'charm is OP' crowd, and on the other the 'more charm please' crowd.  I'll refer back to my previous statement "with expanded and deliberate forethought to allow unique capabilities that exist only at the upper limit of what a person might be capable of (limited by timing and attention to detail)".  Charm, by it's very definition, can be OP.. and I think that's fine.. as long as it comes at a significant skill and learning curve.  Not everyone should be able to do it.  When it comes down to it EQ was like that to a degree.  If someone watched an Enchanter effectively managing charm and crowd control at the same time and decided they wanted to do that too, I'd say that less than 30% of the people who tried were capable.  There were good enchanters that used all of their skills effectively, then there were enchanters who died so much they became disenchanted (yep.. see what I did there..) and ended up playing another character or using only minimal enchanter skills.  I can't tell you the number of times I got in a group where someone said 'wait.. please don't charm' or 'oh no! there's more than two mobs' and I would calmly explain to them that I'm a professional and they should watch closely then hold their applause until after we're lootzy and exiting the dungeon with all of our xp. 

     

    That brings up Anarchy again; here was a MMO where they got Power=(Time+Thought)*effort right.  I had a level 80 Agent who was able to equip a level 200 sniper rifle.  Could anyone do this?  Nope, no one that I knew.  I spent a week planning a complex series of implants and nanocluster combinations, which would allow me to use higher level implants and nanoclusters, which would eventually (after many different layers and buffs and trial and error) allow me to equip a hugely overpowered rifle.  I sank waaaay too much time and effort into achieving that equip.. it took more than a week of doing nothing but that, but the cool thing is.. it was possible with enough time and effort. 

     

    I would love to see this kind of complexity in an Enchanter's spell capabilities.  Sure, you can make your character unique with equipment and dyes, and a groovy title..  but can you make your character unique in battle capability and spell effectiveness through time and creativity?  That would be.. simply awesome.. and charm abilities would be a great candidate for this kind of complexity.  What if you could "LEVEL" your charm spell?  If I use the proper combination of memblurs/debuffs/lulls whatever and I'm able to overcome the charm resistance of a creature, maybe my charm levels.  Maybe the more I use a spell successfully the more powerful it gets (ala Skyrim).  Maybe if I perform a series of quests for a charm guru, or uncover the secrets of the mind in some other clever way my charm levels.  It could be very cool. 

    X

    • 424 posts
    November 17, 2015 5:59 AM PST

    The best designed enchanter-type class in MMOs is the AO bureaucrat. One of AO's 3 pet classes that get theirs in a combo of summoning a robotic assistant and two fixed duration charms. Short charm and long charm maxed at 5 and 17 minutes respectively. 

    In a game where mob difficulty advances exponentially by level as I imagine the ones EQ1 and VG's successor probably will, then charm should work one of two ways - 1) charm weakens the mob by some amount to not have OP pets, but the charm is FIXED DURATION, or 2) the mob stays exactly as tough as it was before charm, but charm gets a break check every couple ticks, and the break check chance is modifiable by CHA, gear, AAXP, whatever.

    Personally, I'd be a fan of the latter, since EQ1 enchanters were the toughest kids on the caster playground with runes, taking beatings from their own pets, asking for beatings to engage floaty sword, etc.

    But charm should exist, it should be the psionic/mind controller class primary source of DPS, and VR should design the game and the mechanic such that it doesn't require nerfing it as the go-to solution for where it mucks up their planned encounter. Anarchy Online managed to figure charm out in 2001, and EQ1 got it mostly right after about 15 xpacs worth of AAXP and new spells. In 2016+ with 15 years of lessons learned, charm should not be as hard to implement as most games make it.

    • 93 posts
    February 27, 2016 3:23 AM PST

    Been Playing Enchanter as one of my characters in EQ had about 800AAs on him i charmed Giants in PoP gave them 2 daggers hasted it buffed it and sent it for Giant Boss MOB with fat loot ..then i recalled to zone in so if my charm broke i could just zone out since thoose giants could Summon you to them and kill you like instant ...like 40% of the time it killed the Giant Boss before it broke and i could get Fat loot to sell or use myself...was fun and even a fast way to get AAs was to charm a strong non summoner mob equip him with 2 rusty daggers haste him send him against his companions he kills like 2 or more of them before being drained of hps and easily killed once charm worn off. With enough distance and the right spells to recharm him it was easy lower magic resist root and so on .

    But for groups it was way too risky ..a hasted dual wield mob breaking doing as much as 5x the damage a normal mob does from that respective zone is a bad thing in groups :) so i never used it for group play.

    It would be cool if you could control a mob in a group maybe it should reduce the spell slots avaiable while controlling one or half your cast speed or drain mana while active some sort of drawback that makes sense. But it would be a cool thing to pick your pet anew in each Region.


    This post was edited by Ondark at February 27, 2016 3:26 AM PST
    • 22 posts
    March 11, 2016 11:00 PM PST

    Xonth said:

    I personally prefer charms that don't have a random length only because it makes them mostly useless in groups which should be most of the time.

     

    It's risk vs. reward... The random length didn't make them useless in groups, you just had to have stuns ready and be on your game. Personally, I'd much prefer a strong charm than a weaker/safer version... If you want that, play a regular pet class.

    • 109 posts
    March 12, 2016 9:10 PM PST

    jezebel said:

    The Everquest Enchanter, Necromancer, and Bard were really 3 classes that no other game has ever even come close to replicating or improving within a similar environment.  As this is the enchanter forums I'll stick with the enchanter and the way charm worked for it.  I honestly think the way charm worked in Everquest has never been bettered and I do not think that changing it in really any way would be an improvement.  There are certainly instances where it is OP and puts what the enchanter brings to the table far beyond what any other class could bring.  So what.  Some days I've had a charmed pet destroying everything around me and the others this silly green pet I just picked up thinking it would be some easy bonus damage suddenly flips out, resists charm, resists mez, chews through my rune, kills me, kills the healer, and then combined with the mob the group was fighting proceeds to kill the entire group.  That happened more often solo than when in a group, but it still happened.  I've died plenty of times from another enchanter's mobs breaking charm on my other characters as well.  The randomness of it is the beauty and the fun and the part that makes you question using it at all times.

     

    That's not to say no other game had interesting charm mechanics.  Someone mentioned the Anarchy Online Bureaucrat.  You basically had a similar skillset to an EQ enchanter except on crack.  You had a robot pet that was from what I recall the second strongest pet in the game (engineer being strongest.  though maybe the MP demon was a little better I forget).  You then had two charms.  One would last a long duration.  The other would last about 1/3 as long.  On top of that all of your mezzes had an automatic memblur component with a much much higher success rate than EQ.  On top of that they lasted FOREVER.  I think on Rubi-Ka the longest mez was something like 14 minutes?  I forget.  So basically you could run around with 3 pets at all times doing pretty damned good damage and with almost zero risk to yourself.  It was too crazy imo.

     

    Even the WoW mechanic of "becoming" what you charm has some merit I think.  It could be fun to "play as" another creature whle having no control over your own body.  Though I'm not suggesting this for Pantheon.

     

    Personally if they just copied the EQ enchanter class verbatim I don't think they could do better.  Maybe I'm just weird though.

     

    Vanguard did a great job with all 3 of those classes. Psionist is my favorite class of all time and Vanguard Necromancer is 2nd. The Vanguard Bard was cool and fairly unique as well.  To be fair though i didnt play a Necro, Enchanter, or a Bard in EQ at high level but none of them hooked me like the Vanguard classes did.  I know I will get many people disagreeing with me but I found Vanguard improved on EQ in many ways. EQ did excel in making death matter. EQ is king for that and likely always will be.

    • 56 posts
    March 15, 2016 12:00 PM PDT

    I hope charm exists but it was insanely overpowered in EQ.  A lot of times I would get charmed pets that would outdamage anyone else in the group... Especially if I had a rogue pet.

    • 56 posts
    March 15, 2016 12:11 PM PDT

    I wouldn't say there were a lot of Bad Enchanters back in 1999-2000 but a lot that did not fully understand the power of the class.  Most played an Enchanter just as CC/Buffs/Debuffs in groups and I rarely saw Enchanters keep charmed mobs back in the day... The charmed mobs were one of the craziest strengths of the class and made a well played enchanter the best solo class by far.

    • 867 posts
    April 20, 2016 12:27 AM PDT

    A couple of options that would help without ruining the excitment on the whole "charm" of dangerous charming...

    1. Charm would be so much more user friendly (although closer to being too easy to control) if we just had a 1 or 2 second warning that charm is breaking, we get this with our own Invis spells effecting us in EQ (and thankfully lol)  and gosh this would make the concept so much safer.  At the end of the day even still with a warning the mob is going to most likely get a chance to wallop once or twice, but at least if we are on the verge of starting a long cast then we can switch up and prepare to stun, charm or mez. 

    2. Maybe as an alternative, no warning message but a moment or 2 when charm quietly breaks that the mob stands still gathering his thoughts back before charging us down, this way we need to be paying very close attention to how it is acting, and when it appears to be not behaving normally in battle we know we have only a second to act. The enjoyably scary aspect of this would be a pet who is not in combat would be standing still anyways so you wouldnt be able to tell from one second to the next and would be always wondering whether its about to flip out, so that element of not knowing at all still exists just not as badly when your all engaged in furious combat. 

    3. Alternatively why not be able to recast a charm on a mob that is already charmed resetting the duration, and if we are talking about a random duration then we still run the risk of a shorter overall charm duration, but by sacraficing some more mana managing charm we and the group can potentially feel a little bit safer about the whole concept :)

    I dont want to take the terror and that knot in the gut feeling out of being a chanter who is responsible for saving the day, thats why i love playing them, but to make what could be a super awesome and fun spell line feel mostly undesirable seems like a shame.

    • 43 posts
    May 3, 2016 11:12 PM PDT
    The way I see it, areas that are not supposed to be soloed often present dangerous packs of mobs, where the ability to charm just one wouldn't be overpowered. Some monsters are also supposed to be extremely powerful by themselves and these should be either immune or very resistant to charm, and easily break it.

    I don't think there is a need to nerf the power of a charmed monster in these situations, as long as you cannot control more than one monster at a time (which doesn't sound very appealing to me either).
    • 43 posts
    May 4, 2016 12:42 AM PDT
    Not sure how to edit my previous post on the phone, but I just read the class reveal post. Apparently the more ennemies you charm, the weaker they get.

    Sounds about right to me as I'd love to focus on one, maybe two.
    • 66 posts
    May 17, 2016 7:33 PM PDT

    I never played enchanter as a main in EQ, but I've boxed one for years.  While I found charm to be incredibly useful I'm not sure it's a mechanic that should be repeated.  As many have pointed out the ability to charm a mob and then have it DPS can be extremely powerful compared to other DPS classes.  A little coordination means even a broken charm isn't that harmful and well worth the risk.

    I always thought Dire Charm was a great way for charm to work except it should reduce the mobs capabilities to be similar to Summoner pets.  The Chanter would be limited to the mobs in the area or dragging a mob all over while the Summoner can pick whichever pet they want to bring.  The Summoner pet would have more options but the Chanter could still have a charm which could be used for CC or as added support.  Charming a healing mob or casting mob should provide those benefits for the Chanter although at a reduced capability than what the mob would do uncharmed.

    I think there should even be the option to charm more than one mob but at increased impairment so that two charmed mobs would be half as strong as a single charmed mob.  The Chanter could charm four or five mobs but each charm would reduce the overall power of the mobs.  A debuff would be the easiest way to make that happen I think.

    All of those charms would be permanent binds thus justifying the reduction in power but the Chanter could be creative with mob selection.  Maybe three mobs healing across the party would be better than a single mob able to only cast on one target at a time.  A horde of caster mobs for AE groups or a single melee for boss mobs.  This would provide a lot of options without stepping on the Summoner's toes.

    • 7 posts
    July 11, 2016 5:53 PM PDT

    An enchanter without charm is massively gimped.  The most challenging part of being an enchanter is charming a pet that could wipe you out in a few seconds while you are mezzing multiple mobs and keeping everyone buffed.  Otherwise it's a yawnfest (especially if you play blue where AOE mez won't affect your teammates...)

    • 115 posts
    July 12, 2016 12:15 PM PDT

    I couldn't agree more...I would love to play an Enchanter in Pantheon, however my expectations for doing so are fairly high.  My Enc was one of the most engaging classes that I have ever played, and I would love to have that back.  I haven't found another class that has kept me so occupied since.  Between buffing, debuffing, Mez, charm breaks, occasional pet-offtanking while controlling larger pulls, and even pulling itself, I was almost never bored.  I want to play an interesting class, and I'm really hoping that the Pantheon Enchanter fills that role.

    • 93 posts
    July 16, 2016 6:31 AM PDT

    I dont understand why a charmed mob should be weaker then a non charmed one. To me it kinda ruins the fun with charms if you say heres a charm spell but if you charm something it just does 30% of its normal damage. I mean why should it do reduced damage if i charm it ????? it should do 2x the damage because its so charmed and should maybe selfdestruct itself for its master = me because im so charming :). Otherwise it just feels off and i need a explanation why does my charm reduce somoeones fighting capabilities after all. If i charm something i should be able to tell him to kill itself ...this feels like a powerfull charm ...not some gimped reduce power charm.

    You could start with the lvl 1 charm description like you have some controll over your enemy but its slower and your charm interferes with its skills so it will just be able to use simple actions.

    To your lvl 50 charm your charmed minion gets stronger and faster you have full controll over his skills and can even tell him to selfdestruct. (does not give xps)