Forums » The Shaman

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

    • 157 posts
    December 19, 2015 1:54 AM PST

    Boulda, 

    so you have no issue that a cleric should buff something useful and a shaman should buff something else, also useful, but their healing shoulnd't be as good as a cleric? Because their "other types of buffs"? That does sound like a hybrid, not a healer class to me. I am talking about a dedicated healer, though. Even if it wouldn't be the shaman but another class, even an yet unrevealed one. IF that other class or classes are dedicated healer also, they need to be brought in line with the cleric. If you feel that no other dedicated healer should be at eye level with the cleric, just because it's the cleric, duh! Then it is just class envy.

    I didn't want to derail this thread, and I am truely sorry about that but now with the second to imply that Everquest must have done something better than Vanguard, or Vanguard would still have been around, I'll adress this. I really think you didn't thought it through.

     

    Please keep in mind that Vanguard launched right when WoW's Burning Crusade came out. It wasn't only the same year, no no, it was even in the same month. Burning Crusade sold over 2 million copies on release day alone- what rival had Everquest again when it came out? What force did Everquest had to reckon with, with WoW releasing 5 years after Everquest's release?  Because of that some of you are just primed to Everqest and think, what was done to its classes was "right"-just because you are used to it. Being primed to something doesn't equal a superior class setup, superior to a point people prefered Everquest over another game, back then. When Everquest was pretty much the first experience people could have in an 3D environment. Don't underestimate the power of rose colored nostalgia glasses.

    Then Vanguard had horrible technical issues. Sorry to say horrible, but it was so. It had also insane system requirements - lots of computers just couldn't run it with ease. I know for sure that mine couldn't and it was no old computer either. While we took it with deadpan humor in the first weeks, lagging over the cliffs in Khegor's End entrance, it was something what fatigued people more and more later in game. Constant lagging around is a game killer to the point people stop playing a game, even a game they enjoy. 

    I was so frustrated of the sluggish game play due to my lag or computer and the constant disappointment of the hopes it will get better, it must get better! my gaming sessions became fewer and fewer. It sounds strange now, but the last drop for me was when I raced my shadowhound over Southwatch (I think) and got dismounted when running over a chunk border. Again. My immersion killed for the 1000th time. Again. That just was it. I loved my goblin shaman, I loved the game and still think it was the best MMO people could play even nowadays, and I couldn't bring myself to log in.

    With technical issues and lag being legion, Vanguard held it's place for 7 years, and that is an accomplishment and proof that people held it dearly in their hearts.

     

    Edit: sorry for derailing a thread.


    This post was edited by Duffy at December 19, 2015 1:57 AM PST
    • 2275 posts
    December 19, 2015 9:56 AM PST

    Don't fret about a derail, Duffy...these forums were pretty much dead until a very short time ago.  Any discussion which can stir more interest in Pantheon is a good thing.  We all have shown that we're keenly interested in how this class (and the priest archetype) is developed.  VR should know that we'll be watching, making lots of notes and stating our observations on what is good and what still needs work.

    • Moderator
    • 9251 posts
    December 19, 2015 2:40 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Don't fret about a derail, Duffy...these forums were pretty much dead until a very short time ago.  Any discussion which can stir more interest in Pantheon is a good thing.  We all have shown that we're keenly interested in how this class (and the priest archetype) is developed.  VR should know that we'll be watching, making lots of notes and stating our observations on what is good and what still needs work.

    The forum rules must be adhered to at all times, derails are breaching forum rules and will be moderated just like any other breach. Duffy was on topic for the first paragraph with a counter argument to class abilities, specifically buffing, which was an alternative discussed to Shaman healing being less than that of the Cleric and then addressed other off-topic discussions, so the post is fine.

    Please avoid giving advice that encourages breaking forum rules, as it can result in your own posts being moderated.

    Pre-Alpha and Alpha are for class testing, Beta is for balance and until we launch both of those, there is only speculation, personal opinion and guessing about Pantheon classes, so please discuss them with that in mind.

    All discussion is welcomed as long as it abides by the forums guidelines and is respectful of other members. :)

    • 16 posts
    January 14, 2016 1:29 PM PST

    late to the topic but just my 2 copper...  

     

    IMHO a Shaman's heals and rezs should be unique in the sense that Shamans are also Soothsayers and Fortune tellers(historically)...   heal and rez by knowing its going to happen and stopping it with a talismon(buff) that negates the death/damage...   as well as having basic/equal heals and rezs of other healers...

     

     

    Ummie

    • 144 posts
    January 14, 2016 7:22 PM PST

    Duffy said:

    When you were in Everquest looking for a healer and both an unknown shaman and cleric would apply to your group, same level, same quality in gear. I just don't think that my hypothetical group would choose the unknown shaman over the unknown cleric. THIS is the imbalance I am talking about.

    Really what the group would do is take both of them and kick the wizard out of the group.

    • 2275 posts
    January 15, 2016 9:36 AM PST

    This all comes down to what is the core ability of the priest class, that fundamental essence that differentiates it from all other classes:  Healing or Resurrection.

    Is it more important for the priest classes to be equal in healing power or equal in resurrection power?

    Why should they be equal in both?

     

    Personally, I would absolutely give up resurrection abilities if I know that the healing powers I have, (combined with the other spells; the classes in my group; my knowledge of their strengths/weaknesses; my knowledge of the area in which we're adventuring) allows the group to remain safe yet ride close enough to that dangerous tipping point so our adventuring time remains exciting.

    • 144 posts
    January 15, 2016 10:24 AM PST

    While typical fantasy lore may not support it, I don't really think we should make Clerics have the rez simply because Clerics have always had the rez.

    If you think about every class unbiased, it would make more sense for Druids and Shaman to have the ability to rez, but have to do it more often.  Clerics have the heals where they shouldn't technically need to rez... they never should have died in the first place :)

    Even using my logic, I don't think it should be a one gets it and the other doesn't.  But my thought as to what feels the most authentic is a Druid should get the highest rez, Shaman's get second, and Clerics third.

    And what about Necromancers...?  A temporary rez that expires like a buff after a time... gets you back to the city and then you die and can be rezzed properlike?


    This post was edited by Rubezahl at January 15, 2016 10:24 AM PST
    • 2275 posts
    January 15, 2016 11:25 AM PST

    Being resurrected should have serious (though temporary) after effects:  Minimal return of hit points, no stamina, no mana, no endurance but you do get a significant portion of your lost XP returned.  That is a much as a resurrection as any class should have.  Resurrection effects should also give you a long duration debuff that blocks all buffs and effects.    Because thinking on it, why do we think that resurrections should take place at the scene?  So we can continue doing what we were doing before will be the standard answer.  The punishment for dying is that returning to a point where you can continue adventuring takes time that cannot be shortened by any means.  Death later on in EQ1 was trivial, you could be back to killing mobs in well under a minute.

    My answer is that resurrections should only take place in a safe environment because the effects should be long-lasting.  What we need, then, is some means to deal with the body because the body is where the 'lost xp' everyone is so insistent they should get back resides.  So you give the priest classes a spell (Send Corpse) that, once you loot your body, the spell sends your empty body back to your bind point where it will sit there until such time as you return there to then get a priest to cast resurrect on you.

    Lets say, though, that you do not want to run back to your corpse naked from your nice safe bind point in the nearby village.  That's where the other spell the priests have (Summon Corpse) brings your corpse to the priest where you can then loot it and if you so desire, get a resurrection right there...wherever you are.

    Resurrections shouldn't be a 'I need this immediately' type thing but more a 'I can relax because I can always get it done later'.

    • 122 posts
    February 10, 2016 6:22 PM PST

    Trying not just focus so much on what I know and have been used to. I don't think resurrection should be something every class that can heal should have. It should fall in line with a certain "holy" type of ability and lore.  That's not saying that other classes can't have something similar, but unique. If resurrection becomes such a common thing, I think it takes away from class uniqueness.

    • 180 posts
    February 11, 2016 7:59 AM PST

    I really must disagree that every 'priest' class needs a rez.  That's just lazy design.  I never, as a Shaman, ever felt left out or unwanted in groups (even as the sole healer) because I did not have a rez spell.  You know why?  Because I had a reputation as a damn good Shaman and the level of players I ran with were willing to risk not having a cleric in the group.  It was not needed.  Why?  Because invariably there was a cleric somewhere nearby who, when we asked nicely, would rez us when we dragged over our corpses.

    Here's the thing to remember about a rez...you do not need it right away.  EQ1 had a very long timer before that rez clock ran out.  Just had to leave some useless item on the corpse and go about your camping.  Later, you get your necro friend to summon the bodies and a cleric to rez and you're good to go.  A rez while you are there is convenient, but not a requirement! 

    Man, I really thought this was golden.  You hit the nail on the head.  Not everyone needs a rez.  Not everyone needs a rez NOW.  And that sense of community Pantheon is after?  your comment its it on the head again.

    ... invariably there was a cleric somewhere nearby who, when we asked nicely, would rez us when we dragged over our corpses

    Maybe this conversation doesn't matter anyway.  Two things will influence this argument.  

    1) The severity of the death penalty (if there is one). If it's severe, people will seek out the best rez; if the penalty is trivial, any rez'll do.  

    2) Class balance and utility.  Clerics have usually been better at healing and rezing because they lacked other utility.  It was an accepted and acknowledged trade-off.  Hopefully, whatever the decision on class design, it all feels balanced.  I really can't guess how important this ability will be until I see the classes in action.

    • 697 posts
    February 18, 2016 12:00 AM PST

    I played both EQ and VG. In EQ you would have situations where you already had a druid or shaman in group (besides already exisiting CC like enchanter), and people would still "LF healer" because many people didn't think druid/shaman were "good enough". That's something I don't remember from VG. So I prefer the VG approach to healer classes. For that reason, I'd also prefer if all healer classes had all the basic tools, and I consider rezing a basic tool for a healer. You wouldn't take a tank without a taunt, would you?

    • 2275 posts
    February 18, 2016 7:30 PM PST

    Sarim said:

    I played both EQ and VG. In EQ you would have situations where you already had a druid or shaman in group (besides already exisiting CC like enchanter), and people would still "LF healer" because many people didn't think druid/shaman were "good enough". That's something I don't remember from VG. So I prefer the VG approach to healer classes. For that reason, I'd also prefer if all healer classes had all the basic tools, and I consider rezing a basic tool for a healer. You wouldn't take a tank without a taunt, would you?

    Those people had no comprehension of how the Shaman class functioned, how all of it's various spells and abilities allowed it's smaller heals to be more than 'good enough'.  It's that difference which I hope is brought forward in the Pantheon shaman.

     

    Oh, and as for 'wouldn't take a tank without taunt'?  Yes I would.  Taunt wasn't everything.  With a good damage shield, snare, haste, good mob positioning and other buffs and taunt isn't even necessary.

    • 1202 posts
    February 27, 2016 10:08 AM PST

    No shaman rez.

    • 2275 posts
    February 27, 2016 11:14 AM PST

    Aich said:

    No shaman rez.

    As much as you (and I to be honest), do not want the Shaman to have a resurrection spell, we're going to get one.

    • 1202 posts
    February 28, 2016 10:49 AM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Aich said:

    No shaman rez.

    As much as you (and I to be honest), do not want the Shaman to have a resurrection spell, we're going to get one.

    Says who?

    • 2275 posts
    February 28, 2016 12:04 PM PST

    Aich said:

    Vandraad said:

    Aich said:

    No shaman rez.

    As much as you (and I to be honest), do not want the Shaman to have a resurrection spell, we're going to get one.

    Says who?

    It has been alluded to several times on these forums as well as the previous forums. The intent is that the priest classes all handle the job of being a priest equally. If resurrection is part and parcel of what it means to be a priest class, they will all have resurrection. 

    My argument has been that priest classes are healers first with resurrection being a ability with a religious (diety based) or class (lore) reason.  Clerics, who get their powers from their diety ask their diety to actually perform the resurrection.  Necromancers, classes who deal with the dead and re-animation of the dead as part of their lore use their dark magics to resurrect.  I don't see the Shaman with an ancestral/natural lore and magic approach or the druid with their wholly natural approach having resurrection as part of their class. 

    I would give up a shaman resurrection for more utility.  But that is just me.

    • 1202 posts
    February 28, 2016 2:18 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    It has been alluded to several times on these forums as well as the previous forums. The intent is that the priest classes all handle the job of being a priest equally. If resurrection is part and parcel of what it means to be a priest class, they will all have resurrection. 

    My argument has been that priest classes are healers first with resurrection being a ability with a religious (diety based) or class (lore) reason.  Clerics, who get their powers from their diety ask their diety to actually perform the resurrection.  Necromancers, classes who deal with the dead and re-animation of the dead as part of their lore use their dark magics to resurrect.  I don't see the Shaman with an ancestral/natural lore and magic approach or the druid with their wholly natural approach having resurrection as part of their class. 

    I would give up a shaman resurrection for more utility.  But that is just me.

    If they have a rez it better be high level and have limitations, like cant be used in combat, lower xp % and requires some expensive catalysis.

     

    • 144 posts
    February 29, 2016 2:57 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    I don't see the Shaman with an ancestral/natural lore and magic approach or the druid with their wholly natural approach having resurrection as part of their class. 

    I am in complete disagreement with this.  Shaman's are in tune with the spirit realm more so than any other class.  Many of the deity's of the clerics would not condone resurrections (but I doubt they base resurections on deity selections).  Druids would welcome the natural passing of a person to nature.  But if anyone were to retrieve a soul from the spirit realm, it would be a shaman or necromancer, or at least a product of their rituals.

    • 2275 posts
    February 29, 2016 5:43 PM PST

    Rubezahl said:

    Vandraad said:

    I don't see the Shaman with an ancestral/natural lore and magic approach or the druid with their wholly natural approach having resurrection as part of their class. 

    I am in complete disagreement with this.  Shaman's are in tune with the spirit realm more so than any other class.  Many of the deity's of the clerics would not condone resurrections (but I doubt they base resurections on deity selections).  Druids would welcome the natural passing of a person to nature.  But if anyone were to retrieve a soul from the spirit realm, it would be a shaman or necromancer, or at least a product of their rituals.

    I can fully accept your interpretation and it is indeed a good one as from that viewpoint it does make sense. 

    We have some critical unanswered questions when it comes to resurrections (and priest heal spells in general:

    1. Do all priest class heals progress together?  I.e. Same healing strength at the same level.  Greater Heal (SHM, CLR, DRU) lvl 10.
    2. Do all resurrection spells progress together?  If there are 'tiers' to resurrection (0% returned XP/25% health/0% mana, 50% returned XP/25% health, 25% mana, 50% returned XP/50% health/50% mana, 90% returned XP/75% health/75% mana) do we all get them at the same time.
    • 697 posts
    February 29, 2016 11:28 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    I can fully accept your interpretation and it is indeed a good one as from that viewpoint it does make sense. 

    We have some critical unanswered questions when it comes to resurrections (and priest heal spells in general:

    1. Do all priest class heals progress together?  I.e. Same healing strength at the same level.  Greater Heal (SHM, CLR, DRU) lvl 10.
    2. Do all resurrection spells progress together?  If there are 'tiers' to resurrection (0% returned XP/25% health/0% mana, 50% returned XP/25% health, 25% mana, 50% returned XP/50% health/50% mana, 90% returned XP/75% health/75% mana) do we all get them at the same time.

    It's not neccessary for priests to get healing spells with the same power at the same levels. As you said, a shaman for example should be able to mitigate a lot of damage through slows and other debuffs, and so would not need to have a healing spell with the power of a cleric. A druid might not mitigate damage, but help kill a mob faster through DS and DoT spells (but these must be cheap enough that the druid can still keep enough mana for healing). I think EQ had a good approach in this regard (though not perfect).

    For resurrection spells, I'd like to see all priests have access to them, and the spells should progress together. There shouldn't be a situation where a group says "We don't want to do this content without someone who can rez" (or doesn't have the best available rez).


    This post was edited by Sarim at February 29, 2016 11:30 PM PST
    • 2275 posts
    March 1, 2016 5:17 PM PST

    Sarim said:

    It's not neccessary for priests to get healing spells with the same power at the same levels. As you said, a shaman for example should be able to mitigate a lot of damage through slows and other debuffs, and so would not need to have a healing spell with the power of a cleric. A druid might not mitigate damage, but help kill a mob faster through DS and DoT spells (but these must be cheap enough that the druid can still keep enough mana for healing). I think EQ had a good approach in this regard (though not perfect).

    Read back through all the threads on priest healing abilities and you'll find you and I see it the same way.  The cleric gets the big heals because it does not have any means by which (other than say an AC buff) to mitigate incoming DPS or increase outgoing DPS. The Druids can alter outgoing DPS through a strong DS so its heals are near in strength to the Cleric. The Shaman can mitigate incoming DPS and increase outgoing DPS so the strength of it's individual healing spells is lower.  But in the end if you have take 3 identical tanks each fighting an exactly identical NPC with one tank healed by a Cleric, one by a Druid and one by a Shaman, all 3 will keep the tank alive.

    Many people, however, disagree with this concept and want the same individual spell healing power for all 3 classes.  toss in equal rezzing for each and you get 3 cookie cutter priests only having the name as a difference.  Boring.

    • 375 posts
    March 1, 2016 8:16 PM PST

    Agreed :)

     

    Unique advantages and disadvantages are the way to go, no doubt here. This perverted concept of balance (all equal to the lowest denominator) has destroyed e-ve-ry-thing. Same outputs now, same mechanics a year down. No thanks.

    • 86 posts
    March 6, 2016 6:21 AM PST

    This is a tricky one, mainly because we don't really know what spells Clerics and Shaman will have in Pantheon or how they will play out, so we won't really be able to say what would work best until we get our hands on it in alpha/beta.

     

    That being said, if you assume the classes will pretty much be set up as they were in EverQuest, I think that Shaman should only have a rez ability if it A) Costs an expensive/hard to find reagent, like how a Necromancer needs the jade inlaid coffin to summon a corpse. and/or B) A Cleric's rez is just superior in that it either gives more exp back or has a shorter sickness duration. (side note, I think it'd be interesting if Shaman used reagents for many of their spells kinda like how the spell casting was in Ultima Online, it just kinda fits you know? Like some member of a tribal race out in the forest mixing up different herbs and pieces of animals and junk to do their voodoo rituals :P just a thought!)

    I say this as someone who primarily plays Shaman or Paladins in RPGs, so I'm no Cleric elitist but I do believe that the power to resurrect is a cornerstone for Clerics and a big reason to have them in groups. I am not a big fan of a class being able to do it all, and also do it very well. I think there should be give and take in this sort of thing, and that each class should bring something unique to the table to set themselves apart while having their shortcomings, and since Clerics don't really put out any damage or debuffs like Shaman can, but definitely are the top dogs when it comes to restoring life, I think resurrection just makes sense as one of their big pluses.

     

    However VR goes about it, I just hope they don't end up making every class in a given archetype interchangeable and just as good at everything the other classes in their archetype can do.

    • 4 posts
    March 15, 2016 10:32 PM PDT

    All healers should have both a regulat out-of-combat resurrection and an in-combat resurrection ability.

     

    For in-combat resurrections, the caveat being that they ALL need to have some sort of semi-rare/semi-precious reagent that is used up every time - the act of resurrecting should not be a trivial game mechanic as it encourages careless actions in many players. Not only should an in-game resurrection have a reagent, but gaining the ability to resurrect should be tied to a somewhat lengthy deity quest (Cleric), spirit realm quest (Shaman) or nature's crucible (Druid).

     

    For out-of-combat resurrections, the resurrection should be so that the player is NOT in combat condition until after a period of time. One debuff to all stats would be just fine.

     

    Each resurrection ability should have a different pro/con to it, but it should also not unbalance healers to the point where the game is "we must have healer X because the in-combat resurrection buff is must-have". 

    • 375 posts
    March 16, 2016 3:53 AM PDT

    Hexnal said:

    but it should also not unbalance healers to the point where the game is "we must have healer X because 

    To be frank (ie my Pantheon excitement aside), i fear this is inevitable. Really, uterrly inevitable. The more the classes differ from one another, the more people will gravitate towards mentally "pairing" certain healers with certain types/class of tanking, or certain group formations; what PDS we have, what CCers we have, etc. And that's the best case scenario, i could remind you how a lot of people had the wrong idea about shamen in VGSoH for example, leading yet to further segregating..

    You do not counteract that by making abilities more 'uniform' so to speak. This leads to what i describe in my post above. What you can do is:

    i) have combat designed with a large enough party number in mind; that they've done, groups aren't made by say just 4 people, so variations can be welcome

    ii) ensure the different in playstyle classes are all essential, but each in their own way; that way, variations are welcome. AS variations. Not as "we couldn't find a cleric so **** it, get the shaman instead"

    iii) find a way to communicate said 'essential despite different' so as for previous misunderstandings not to occur; ie have spells be more noticeable in their effect, or have them focus on specific role types maybe..i only cast 'x' on casters or DPSes, i only cast 'y' on melee, 'z' on tanks. Anything, as long as the effect is noticeable. So that you entice and allow for different approaches

     

    Lastly, and not to be paired with the above, but end of the day? Why such emphasis on how many healer classes can ress? Ressing isn't the concept, it's just the mechanic. You could just as easily have more or fewer classes ressing, depending on how the concept (of death penatly/time loss) is handled. You don't worry about how many people will have the mechanic, you worry about how the concept itself will be handled. Can be that come launch, 'x' classes minus shaman ressing will be more than enough, end of story.. ie this whole topic reads kinda backwards to me :)

     


    This post was edited by Aenra at March 16, 2016 4:00 AM PDT