Forums » The Shaman

Anyone else thinks Shaman should to be a class that can res?

    • 4 posts
    March 16, 2016 6:22 AM PDT

    Aenra,

     

    I am glad, hopeful, that the classes will differ enough but I also fear that it may result in a bias against all non-X healers at end-level grouping or competitive raiding. This has been prevalent in other games where certain healers are useless in some high-end content and essentially alienates a large population. At the same time, I am not condoning or encouraging uniformity or the current MMO concept of 'everyone-can-do-anything' but I AM condoning a sane balancing act to make cornerstone classes have their bag of tricks so that a skilled player can succeed in any situation.

     

    Nothing in a game should be a group composition fail check.

     

    After all, we're only talking about resurrections - not potential healing output. There's no point in discussing that so early in the game without data. You're absolutely right about the concept of death. I have not seen VR's vision of death and how it will affect the player. If death is important enough that it results in a major setback of time which results in a low-risk gameplay then resurrections are a big deal, and again I would suggest every healer being able to resurrect. If death is not important enough and it does not result in a major setback of time then maybe resurrections should not be in the game.

    • 375 posts
    March 16, 2016 6:57 AM PDT

    You appear as if in agreement (ergo nothing further to comment far as that bit may be concerned), but of a ..different..? persuasion as to how we get there :)

    So in as far as the approach may be concerned? You mentioned the dirty word.. balance. Balance and unifomity are the two sides of that same one coin. To seek balance in all things is to necessitate uniformity; the opposite standing just as well: You cannot possibly go for true, in-depth variation or versatility while simultaneously expecting a "balancing out" so to speak.. never did, or will, work that way :)

    Oranges and apricots both have a high vitamin C concentration. They also, both, have a relatively high acidity when compared to other fruits. One has more, one a touuuuch less. One i like, the other is more to your preference. You will never 'balance' them out; and that is a good thing :)

    So to get back on topic (and in light of my last post), what you CAN do, as in feasibly, is make certain a group will have a need for both apricots and oranges. At any one time. Different utilities, different 'oh crap' buttons, different strengths and weaknesses, but both essential. Again, in their own ways. Distinct, unique, there to compliment or ameliorate the, again different, combat and environmental systems the designers will have in. If you even begin to start contrasting one with the other, you're going down a very different route..

    No offense meant, but you appear to me (forgive me if i'm wrong) to be approaching this in an inverse/inapplicable manner.. for this MMO in particular. If i may suggest, do have a read on what's already out there regarding Pantheon, balance, classes and their uneven potential at handling things. Likewise with the 'death' principle, am not so sure if you understood what i meant; the general overlaying principle of it is already out there for you to read.


    This post was edited by Aenra at March 16, 2016 7:08 AM PDT
    • 4 posts
    March 16, 2016 7:15 AM PDT

    Aenra said:

    You mentioned the dirty word.. balance. Balance and unifomity are the two sides of that same one coin. To seek balance in all things is to necessitate uniformity; the opposite standing just as well: You cannot possibly go for true, in-depth variation or versatility while simultaneously expecting a "balancing out" so to speak.. never did, or will, work that way :)

     

    I disagree but I appreciate your analogy, even if it is not in line. Balance and uniformity are not anywhere near the same thing. The information out there, which I've already read, has likely already changed and will hopefully continue to evolve as we get closer to Alpha/Beta/Release. After all, that's the reason why we're here discussing it.

     

    To get back on topic, my thought at this time is that all healers should be able to resurrect - just with different flavors as it has worked in different games.

    • 375 posts
    March 16, 2016 10:00 AM PDT

    Opinions i respect :)

    As long as you can comprehend that as of now, you're proposing something based on a personal theory you deem correct but neglect to relate to us. Hardly the most efficient way of convincing someone. Assuming you did, ergo assuming you could explain why the road to uniformity does not begin with balance, perhaps others too could come to agree with you about ressing; or about any other ability some other class has and you want as well..

    • 4 posts
    March 16, 2016 11:24 AM PDT

    Aenra,

     

    I am not sure what you're talking about at this point - the topic was resurrections and nothing to do with a cookie cutter healer option for all. As far as resurrections go, I look back at the many games (EQ is one of them!) that have done it right and I can't wait to see all healers being able to do this in Pantheon as well.

    • 35 posts
    March 16, 2016 12:49 PM PDT

    My shaman was my main in EQ for several years.  I would love to have some of those same abilities with debuffing , (slows) buffing melee, and being backup healers.

    Cannibalism is a MUST

    • 1831 posts
    March 16, 2016 2:03 PM PDT

    A % rez would be nice for my shaman at least.  Cleric having the highest % of course.

    • 375 posts
    March 16, 2016 2:11 PM PDT

    Thunndar said:

    Cannibalism is a MUST

    You say right things. Spirits like you already.

    • 1 posts
    March 17, 2016 3:35 PM PDT

    Greetings.

    Jawz Steeltooth of Bertoxxulous here. A mighty Barbarian Shaman who were hated by lions in the Karanas, at least while meditating.

    Serioulsy, just reading the thread brings my nostalgia up and a warm and fuzzy feeling spreads.

     

    I played my shaman for 4 years as my main character and not once did I feel that shaman needed a rez.

    We were the king of statsbuffs, slows and DoT's.

    If the group had a clearic and an enchanter we were not always needed.

    But if a group wanted a shaman, they wanted the slows and the haste. The buffs were a nice bonus as well as the smaller "oh sh*t" heals and the "not torpor" HoT :)

    Our "oh sh*t" heal were fast and welcomed, but it was mana expensive so it was not supposed to be a main heal spell.

     

    If I remember correct, most groups used shaman/druid combo for healers and utility if they could not get a cleric (or even paladin later game).

    The shaman would still bring lots as backup healer and utility even with a cleric in the group, the druid .. not so much.

     

    As a lot of pleople already wrote, we will see just how bad the death penalty will be and how VR plans to balance the classes.

    • 163 posts
    May 11, 2016 2:37 AM PDT

    Arksien said:

    I mean, in EQ it was the cleric, and I think none of us really griped with that because that's just how it was. But when you think about it, if Shaman are the ones that can communicate with spirits, channel their power, and see the past/future, shouldn't the be the ones to call the spirit back to the body? I mean, I would think clerics actually considered the act of resurecting the dead unholy, and in conflict with the wishes of the gods. I would think clerics would say only the gods should grant such power, and mortals attempting such things are overstepping their place!

    Just a thought.

     

    To be honest I like the thought of this. I always thought of a Cleric as a holy arts magician essentially. Where as the Shaman is a spirit mystic, and is able to commune with spirits; and where as druids wield the power of nature, such as infusing life powers into their targets.

    Some others say that if all healers are on par on the level of a cleric would not be chosen over the other healers.

    I think the way to minimize this, is doing as you kind of suggested. Take the power to revive from the cleric and only give it to Shaman's, Necromancers (if there is going to be any), and Druids.

    But in exchange giving the clerics the most powerful heals and hp/armor buffs, and some pretty powerful anti-undead spells. But to keep the other healers on par is to give them just as good utility buffs I.E. Haste, Damage Shields, Damage increase, spirit wards to help absorb damage, and the ability to ressurect players. Have a Cleric and a Shaman/Druid in your party adds a level of complexity that would be beneficial to the Party. 

    Abilities I.E.

    Everything is obviously dependent on Classes/Races/Stat's/level, and whether or not it makes it to overpowered or just being properly balanced, all the abilities below are spells that could be obtained at level 1.

    Clerics:

    heal: 10hp?

    Smite: 10dmg 

    Minor Shielding: 5-20hp or 5-20armor

     

    where as the Abilities for the druid could be I.E.:

    Druid:

    Heal: 5hp?

    ignite?: 10-20dmg

    Thorn Shield: 2-10dmg (varies on hit damage)

     

    Shaman:

    Heal: 5hp?

    Haste: 5-8%

    Spirit Guard: Absorbs 5% or 5-10hp, which ever comes first.

     

    These are just suggestions showing that Clerics have a stronger heal and shielding, but Druids and shamans can bring an entire other Skill sets to the table that balances them out with the cleric in return of having a weaker heal. These examples here show that the Druid/Shaman heal's is 50% power that of a cleric. Granted higher level the classes they should be able to bring more and stronger skill sets to a party, with diversity obviously. Where as a Shaman could be stronger in the beneficial buffs such as Haste, speed buffs etc. Where as the Druid could be stronger in the way of Increasing strength, Slightly better healing than that of a shaman, and more capable way of slowing or weakening the target enemies.


    This post was edited by LeonSanborn at May 11, 2016 4:31 AM PDT
    • 320 posts
    May 11, 2016 8:58 AM PDT

    Back in EQ a shaman could solo heal a group just fine if the group knew how to play well together. I typically ran with a Warrior, Bard (Me), Shaman, Enchanter, Rogue, and Magician. We had the benefit of being guildmates and playing together a bunch obviously, but the point is that it was possible. This started in Velius or Luclin, I forget which. Having slows and plenty of CC and easy solo pulls were also a big bonus, but the point remains that the shaman did all the heals. Cutting druids and shamans down to 1/2 the healing power of clerics is a bit much. I could work with 80% (probably), but it needs to be enough to not require a cleric or two healers in a group.

    As people hit the level cap you'll find more and more possibilities for multiple healers, though I don't think it should happen at max either, but along the way it will severely limit grouping capabilities if you have to sit around looking for two healers or a cleric. As it has been stated elsewhere, the other priests shouldn't have the capability to do the massive heals clerics can, but they need to be able to keep a group alive imo.

    To stay on topic with the thread's title... Dungeons alone are enough of a reason to give all healers capable of solo healing a res (we'll ignore pally resses and all that junk). Don't make the game easy bla bla bla, I get that. But if it's a deep dungeon and your group has to run all the way back to the entrance then back down because someone died, that can kill some fun and possibly lose your group a camp. Or maybe your group wipes/loses more players on the way to/from. In EQ clerics got up to 96% rez where as druids/shamans topped off at 90% iirc. So they got a rez, but clerics still had the best as they are pure healers. This sort of thing is a good tradeoff imo, maybe give them a faster cast time too.

    • 163 posts
    May 11, 2016 10:43 PM PDT

    tanwedar said:

    Back in EQ a shaman could solo heal a group just fine if the group knew how to play well together. I typically ran with a Warrior, Bard (Me), Shaman, Enchanter, Rogue, and Magician. We had the benefit of being guildmates and playing together a bunch obviously, but the point is that it was possible. This started in Velius or Luclin, I forget which. Having slows and plenty of CC and easy solo pulls were also a big bonus, but the point remains that the shaman did all the heals. Cutting druids and shamans down to 1/2 the healing power of clerics is a bit much. I could work with 80% (probably), but it needs to be enough to not require a cleric or two healers in a group.

    I was only say 1/2 power that of a cleric, was mainly as an example. The reason why I was saying that is to add more diversity between the classes. Cleric's in everquest always had issues killing monsters and some times even had issues finding groups because why have a cleric when you can get a shm or druid which has more utility and can almost heal just as good. Because why have a cleric when you can have a shm that can heal just as good, give agility, health buff, armor, wards, strength, and can even do damage... where as a cleric Only has a slightly stronger heal, A better HP/Armor buff, and only strong against the undead.

    Now if you take away some of the healing power from a shm/druid it gives more incentives to have a cleric and still have a secondary healer that can still put out some damage output, but brings and entire other skill set from just acting as a cleric.

    • 320 posts
    May 12, 2016 8:39 AM PDT

    My point was related mostly to having a druid/sham be capable of keeping a group alive so if there's no cleric available it doesn't prevent a group of people from requiring two characters devoted to heals. I rarely exeprienced groups where we'd not take a cleric because we had a druid/shammy healer except maybe a group that already had an enchanter in it. Gaining the cleric meant the other two types could go full dps without having to watch mana as much or stop casts to do heals and less agro in general especially because of malo/slow. Also, cleric heals vs another priest class being capable of keeping a group alive shouldn't really be a contest.

    Clerics get bigger heals, earlier, and for less mana (cleric specific ones or maybe they get a perk). That alone is really powerful. Being able to keep a regular group alive enough to not need a second healer vs gaining a cleric and letting the shammy/druid play non-heal mode shouldn't be a horrible balance tesk. If they haven't looked into stance sort of stuff for various classes this could be a good example for a case. In another thread someone meansioned chloromancers in Rift. Their veils are a perfect example of healers having "stances". The choloromancer ones swapped between focusing on single target heals or group/raid heals, but the same sort of situation works for a dps "stance" or heal "stance" maybe with a cooldown long enough that you can't stance dance.

    • 2275 posts
    May 12, 2016 5:49 PM PDT

    Before Kilsin pops in and says it, this thread was for discussing how Pantheon wants all priests to have rez abilities and that whatever means by which we resurrect people, it should be in a 'shamanistic' approach.  I don't want to see Spell:  Resurrection (Cleric 20, Shaman 20, Druid 20).  Boring.  Give me something that does the same thing but with a different approach.

    All priests having resurrection abilities does not mean every priest should have the same ability at the same level.  Look at the current EQ1 progression for the Resurrection line:

     

    ReconstitutionCLR/18 PAL/301: Resurrect and restore 10% experience

    ReparationCLR/22 PAL/311: Resurrect and restore 20% experience

    ReviveCLR/27 PAL/391: Resurrect and restore 35% experience

    RenewalCLR/32 PAL/491: Resurrect and restore 50% experience

    ResuscitateCLR/371: Resurrect and restore 60% experience

    RestorationCLR/42 PAL/551: Resurrect and restore 75% experience

    ResurrectionCLR/47 PAL/591: Resurrect and restore 90% experience

    ReviviscenceCLR/561: Resurrect and restore 96% experience

    As you can see the Cleric got the spell first, Paladin much later on (except for the last one).  In Pantheon the same approach can be used with the difference being by the level cap of the original release, all 3 priests have the same level res spell.  This does NOT mean, however, that the rez spell at the level cap of release is the best rez spell ever. VR needs to plan for the long haul, give players something to hope for in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and beyond expansions.  I'd rather not see a 96% rez until years into the game, not at release at whatever the initial level cap will be.

    Death still needs to be a punishment so whatever resurrections the priests get should never fully remove the sting of, or the fear of, death.  96% rezzes at the first expansion?  Never feared death again to be honest.  4% xp loss was trivial, barely a minor annoyance given the level of gameplay I enjoyed.

    • 296 posts
    May 13, 2016 4:48 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    I didn't mean for Shaman to be a copy/paste of the Clerics by any means, I am one of the biggest opponents for that type of class building, but a healer class should be able to heal and rez just as well as the other healers, their differences would be broken down in other ways like utility, survivability, buffing, debuffing etc.

    And the EQ1 shaman did exactly that. Our heals were smaller than the cleric but when you add in Slow on the mob, Haste on all the melee, STR/AGI/DEX/HP buffs on the entire group plus solid Heal over Time (HoT) spells, our 'smaller heals' were just as effective as a cleric when in a group setting.  So what if a cleric can rez and a shaman cannot?  If the group wipes (which is almost a guaranteed thing when the healer dies) the cleric has to run back naked with the group anyway. 

    If you insist on giving the shaman a rez, do not make it just a spells.  I'd rather it be more 'shaman-like'.  Kinda like how the necro could summon a corpse but needed a coffin as a reagent.  The shaman should need some consumable item to cast a rez...and it still should be far less powerful than a cleric rez.

     

    Hey guys/gals

    I'vw been following you for a long time but I waited to fork over the dough. Anyways, here is my perspective from a long time EQ1 and Vanguard player. [Me=Cleric disclaimer]

    I have seen the forum debates of healing abilities, rez, and the like come up quite a bit. The disagreements I notice seem to usually come from one player wanting the EQ shammy and another wanting the VG shammy. I enjoyed grouping with the EQ shammy BY FAR. They were just... epic. The EQ shammy was not the best healer. I was /flex. But, could they hold their own? Hell yeah! I always, and I mean ALWAYS wanted to group with a shaman. Let's not forget that no slower = no group. And no one was better. Ignoring that fact (let's say you have an enchanter or beastlord instead) your amazing skittle sword of Aradune hits like a wet noodle because you don't have those shaman debuffs on the mob. Or those amazing shaman buffs. Have fun spending 16 days killing one mob because you didn't bring a shaman. If the slows, the debuffs, and group buffs weren't enough to convince you to get a shaman instead of a beastlord or enchanter, they can HEAL as well! Try pulling all-nighters AA xp grinding as the cleric with no bathroom breaks. It sucks. Not for me. If I need a break? No problem! My shammy buddy can handle this without me. When I come back he will take off while the enchanter or beastlord picks up slows. All that's left is the overworked, underpaid monk working his ass off, endlessly pulling these mobs to feed our xp addition. Don't worry though, the shaman will make it up to him with a thank-you topor gift ;)

    I don't want another boring ass healer in my group- I've got that covered lol. I want my friend. My badass friend who debuff the hell out of the mobs, and buff me and my group up like gods. Then we will lay waste to the hordes, and leave a path of blood, death, and mayhem behind us.

    Just my 2cp.

    • 7 posts
    August 1, 2016 5:41 AM PDT

    I think giving a Shaman a weaker res percentage wise would just be lazy. Something that fits in more with the nature of the class.

     

    Seeing as Shaman are all about linking with one's ancestors spirits, maybe a res that raised the character as a spirit that is a previous version of that character. Maybe a level or two lower or has lower stats (or some other penalty). Maybe temporary. It can be clicked off by the player at any time for a Cleric res or to take an XP loss. Fits more with the whole Shaman thing.

    • 320 posts
    August 1, 2016 8:16 AM PDT

    Yrkh said:

    I think giving a Shaman a weaker res percentage wise would just be lazy. Something that fits in more with the nature of the class.

     

    Seeing as Shaman are all about linking with one's ancestors spirits, maybe a res that raised the character as a spirit that is a previous version of that character. Maybe a level or two lower or has lower stats (or some other penalty). Maybe temporary. It can be clicked off by the player at any time for a Cleric res or to take an XP loss. Fits more with the whole Shaman thing.

    No one would take the res if it caused that big of an exp setback unless they absolutely had no other option for getting back to their body/group. If exp penalties are anything close to EQ1, you'd only lose ~one bar per death iirc. Players would automatically lose the ability to use spells/skills that may be needed (an enchanter's mez for example since they have max levels for the mobs it can land on) until you spent a bunch of time leveling or found a cleric within the corpse rot time. Just as bad or maybe worse, if there are level reqs for gear, people would need to carry a second set of gear around to wear in case they died.

    WoW had resurection sickness which would be similar to the stat reduction you mentioned. This sort of penalty is much more realistic. Drop some stats and maybe damage dealt like in WoW (obviously no where near the 75% reduction WoW had) for five minutes or so while the "spirit becomes one with the body again" or whatever and of course the lesser rez percentage. A lesser rez percentage can seem lazy I suppose, but the rez % was the only change that happened as you got higher level rezzes.

     


    This post was edited by tanwedar at August 1, 2016 8:18 AM PDT
    • 7 posts
    August 1, 2016 9:02 AM PDT

    tanwedar said:

    Yrkh said:

    I think giving a Shaman a weaker res percentage wise would just be lazy. Something that fits in more with the nature of the class.

     

    Seeing as Shaman are all about linking with one's ancestors spirits, maybe a res that raised the character as a spirit that is a previous version of that character. Maybe a level or two lower or has lower stats (or some other penalty). Maybe temporary. It can be clicked off by the player at any time for a Cleric res or to take an XP loss. Fits more with the whole Shaman thing.

    No one would take the res if it caused that big of an exp setback unless they absolutely had no other option for getting back to their body/group. If exp penalties are anything close to EQ1, you'd only lose ~one bar per death iirc. Players would automatically lose the ability to use spells/skills that may be needed (an enchanter's mez for example since they have max levels for the mobs it can land on) until you spent a bunch of time leveling or found a cleric within the corpse rot time. Just as bad or maybe worse, if there are level reqs for gear, people would need to carry a second set of gear around to wear in case they died.

    WoW had resurection sickness which would be similar to the stat reduction you mentioned. This sort of penalty is much more realistic. Drop some stats and maybe damage dealt like in WoW (obviously no where near the 75% reduction WoW had) for five minutes or so while the "spirit becomes one with the body again" or whatever and of course the lesser rez percentage. A lesser rez percentage can seem lazy I suppose, but the rez % was the only change that happened as you got higher level rezzes.

     

     

    The res itself wouldn't cause an exp hit. If they couldn't get a normal res, rather than staying in that form with whatever associated penalties, they remove the spirit form/res and take an xp hit in the same way you do in EQ (they would need a mechanic to loot your corspe in some way afterwards) . Alternatively the shaman res could just be a temporary thing for the time being until a cleric res was available.

    I think whatever it is, if it is a thing, it needs to be flavour based to fit with the Shaman and also not be quiet as effective as a cleric res. Essentially a quick fix if no cleric res is available.

    • 320 posts
    August 1, 2016 9:39 AM PDT

    I think I see what you're saying. Basically clicking off the debuff would be like looting your whole corpse in EQ1 before getting a rez aka no exp recovery. But, you'd still be able to keep playing while the debuff is on you, correct? Am I understanding your idea? For your alternative are you thinking along the lines of the shaman does a summon (0% rez) and it still allows for a cleric exp rez?

    Another penalty option that comes to mind is that you can't click it off and for the duration that it's there you cannot receive a cleric rez. The stat penalty or whatever would be part of this debuff still. I still think you should still get back some exp from the shaman (in case you lose a level and it makes the difference), but unable to get a "full" rez until the debuff is gone. If this seems really annoying... well you just died lol.


    This post was edited by tanwedar at August 1, 2016 9:42 AM PDT
    • 1831 posts
    August 1, 2016 10:01 AM PDT

    % rez with penalty debuff until a cleric shows up or you get back to town where a mender is which would cost plat maybe ?  Either way your looking at spending some plat either with a greedy cleric or town, unless you have an awesome friend who is a cleric, or you know a cool kid like me who always does it for whatever donation you are feeling at the moment :) 

    • 1986 posts
    August 1, 2016 10:03 PM PDT

    Allow me to introduce more chaos to this thread.

     

    First, yes I think Shaman should get Res. And I think all main healers should as well. Not sure about tanks........ that seems off, not uncommon, but I still hate the idea. But I would also like some support classes to have it as well. I think the major differences would be that healers could res in combat and can get a larger portion of xp back, but that support classes would only be able to do it out of combat with lower percentage of xp back. I guess I should clarify that I think VRs idea of support is maybe a bit to broad and when I say support I mean non healing classes that have a large or main support function. So out of current classes, Enchanter and maybe? Druid if it turned out not to be a main healer (pretty sure it is though as unfortunately predicatable as that is). Future classes: Bard, could see Necro maybe too (depends on what the class is supposed to be).

     

    A tad bit off topic but that last bit was related so I included it and the thread was already off topic several times over so didnt think it would hurt.

    • 7 posts
    August 2, 2016 4:10 AM PDT

    tanwedar said:

    I think I see what you're saying. Basically clicking off the debuff would be like looting your whole corpse in EQ1 before getting a rez aka no exp recovery. But, you'd still be able to keep playing while the debuff is on you, correct? Am I understanding your idea? For your alternative are you thinking along the lines of the shaman does a summon (0% rez) and it still allows for a cleric exp rez?

    Another penalty option that comes to mind is that you can't click it off and for the duration that it's there you cannot receive a cleric rez. The stat penalty or whatever would be part of this debuff still. I still think you should still get back some exp from the shaman (in case you lose a level and it makes the difference), but unable to get a "full" rez until the debuff is gone. If this seems really annoying... well you just died lol.

     

    Yes essentially. To try and sum up. It should be a temporary solution to getting a proper res to keep the game flowing. I think the important thing is that it feels in flavour with the Shaman class and is not just a normal but weaker res. I'm currently playing an Ogre Shaman on Project 1999 and the atmosphere and flavour is key in what makes that classic experience great. Hopefully it translates to Pantheon.

    • 73 posts
    August 3, 2016 3:50 PM PDT

    Honestly I think we all can agree that the EQ shaman was a very well rounded class and unique in its role. I never once wanted to have resurrection, simply because I didn't want to give up all the other cool and unique things I could do. I also didn't/don't care about having the best heals, but rather have more well rounded capabilities. The bottom line is if one class is too overpowered then something else needs to be nerfed. If we get slows and resurrections well then clerics will want slows too, and class novelty gets muddied this way.

    I can see the lore aspect for shaman resurrection, but clerics are THE priest class communing with the holy spirit to ask forgiveness for sins/death whatever, which translates into regained experience after death. Druids and shammys if they get a resurrection spell it should not grant experience.

     


    This post was edited by Valith at August 3, 2016 3:51 PM PDT
    • 2275 posts
    August 8, 2016 6:37 PM PDT

    Valith said:

    Honestly I think we all can agree that the EQ shaman was a very well rounded class and unique in its role. I never once wanted to have resurrection, simply because I didn't want to give up all the other cool and unique things I could do. I also didn't/don't care about having the best heals, but rather have more well rounded capabilities. The bottom line is if one class is too overpowered then something else needs to be nerfed. If we get slows and resurrections well then clerics will want slows too, and class novelty gets muddied this way.

    I can see the lore aspect for shaman resurrection, but clerics are THE priest class communing with the holy spirit to ask forgiveness for sins/death whatever, which translates into regained experience after death. Druids and shammys if they get a resurrection spell it should not grant experience.

     

    I too never felt that the Shaman in EQ1 needed rez to be a desirable class, at least not with the caliber of people with whom I grouped and raided.  A rez, outside of a raid, was never seen as an instant need because everyone knew that with graveyards, corpse summons in the guild hall and you knew you had 2 hours in which to get your rez before you could not get your XP back.  People on these forums all concerned about 'accomplishing things in 1-2 hour slots', well if XP stays on a corpse for 2 hours, and you die 30 seconds after starting, you'll just need your rez a minute before you log out for the night.

    • 320 posts
    August 14, 2016 5:21 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    I too never felt that the Shaman in EQ1 needed rez to be a desirable class, at least not with the caliber of people with whom I grouped and raided.  A rez, outside of a raid, was never seen as an instant need because everyone knew that with graveyards, corpse summons in the guild hall and you knew you had 2 hours in which to get your rez before you could not get your XP back.  People on these forums all concerned about 'accomplishing things in 1-2 hour slots', well if XP stays on a corpse for 2 hours, and you die 30 seconds after starting, you'll just need your rez a minute before you log out for the night.

    You mention two important mechanics, GYs and GLs. Pre-PoP it was a lot more difficult to get your corpse if the group disbanded and it was however far into the zone or in certain areas or simply if the group wiped. Once GL came out it was even less of an issue since all you had to do was pay a small amount and get your corpse summoned to a place with tons of players. Pre-GL you didn't try to rely on the last minute rez either, because it just wasn't going to be there most of the time. As for the exp part lets assume you can still get a cleric res post-shaman res for exp - if you're deep in a dungeon camping a place it's not always easy to get to said cleric, if there's one around. Also, depending on the time you're playing at or how popular a zone/area is you might not find a cleric within two hours. Lastly, there's always the possibility that you simply have to log out before finding a cleric within those two hours. Especially in this case, if there isn't a guild lobby summoning setup you're out of luck.

    Ignoring GY/GL - While I would like to have some exp recovery with a shaman res, the most important part to me is being able to summon people back to their corpse, even if they have to already be in the zone or some odd requirement like that.

    Edit: In case someone brings up necros. First, the coffins weren't always considered cheap which was rough - mobs dropped less per kill etc so it wasn't the same as GL seeming cheap. More importantly, you'd need two classes at that point. As for a mage using CoH on a cleric, you still need two classes and two additional requirements. One, requiring a mage in your group. Two, the cleric must be fine with getting away via gate/teleport (leaving zone) or have a mage in their own group.


    This post was edited by tanwedar at August 14, 2016 5:37 PM PDT