There are a few games today where a wizard isn't just a wizard, and a warrior isn't just a warrior.
I've watched many (all of them) video's of Pantheon and cannot yet tell if classes will all be offered the same thing or if classes have a chance to specialize.
I'm not talking about dividing classes, but giving classes a chance to do one specialization path verse having them all available.
I remember in DAoC you'd have a Fire Wizards or Ice Wizards. Each had their advantages and disadvantages. But they started off as just Wizard. You could choose to train in Earth, Fire or Ice. If you put a point in each, you'd have an ability in each, but if you put 3 points in Fire you specialized in Fire and had more damage from your fire ability. If you continued to do this, not spreading your points out, but just continueally put them all in Fire, you limited your abilitie set to Fire, but got some Fire extra abilities other Wizards couldn't if they choose to put points other places, and those fire abilties were massive.
I've watched many (all of them) video's of Pantheon and cannot yet tell if classes will all be offered the same thing or if classes have a chance to specialize.
So, I'm curious if this has any merit behind it in Pantheon? If you choose a warrior and train in blunt weapons, that you'll eventually be great a blunt weapons with new abilities being given to you for that type of weapon specifically, or if you did the same for slashing, or 2H.
Playing EQ2 again, got me thinking of this, because I make a wizard and I have both fire and ice abilities and didn't specialize in either.
Unless this has changed I recall there being two levels of class mastery along two branches, both of which should be available once the prerequisites are complete but not at the same time
I believe the example was cleric, and the options described sounded like a more protection oriented path (with the wall feature described in the class page) and a more mass healer path
Some of this was talked about during the discussion on having multiple "colors" of mana, and I'm not sure if that's still a thing, but masteries or specializations have been discussed a lot
Pretty confident no specialization path would allow a class to change its underlying role
Preechr said:Unless this has changed I recall there being two levels of class mastery along two branches, both of which should be available once the prerequisites are complete but not at the same time
I believe the example was cleric, and the options described sounded like a more protection oriented path (with the wall feature described in the class page) and a more mass healer path
Some of this was talked about during the discussion on having multiple "colors" of mana, and I'm not sure if that's still a thing, but masteries or specializations have been discussed a lot
Pretty confident no specialization path would allow a class to change its underlying role
Pretty sure all of that was from a very old version of Pantheon that was later scrapped to then build the Pantheon we see today.
But to quote the FAQ on this one:
"Pantheon is a traditional level based system with skills and abilities that are unlocked and practiced as you level up. Some customization and specialization will be present, but never to the point where a warrior ceases to be a warrior."
Personally I am against class specializations (where the class permanently branches into 2+ different playstyles) as it divides classes, muddies class identity, and makes balancing all the harder.
I love the idea of specialization. It's already confirmed to exist for monks, but it's never been clarified if it's something that will extend to other classes. There are a lot of different ways to incorporate something like this into a game ... my personal favorite is allowing "master classes" to exist where a monk could learn both the arts of Body & Soul, but never be able to use both of them at the same time. The important thing is gating each specialization behind significant progression. If it were up to me I would require a full relevel through progeny, and doing two separate epic-style "specialization quests" to unlock both specializations on a single character.
I don't mind some degree of flexability, say if you are a Cleric and you want to either focus on secondary nukes or secondary melee, but not both.
What I don't want is that Clerics can focus on being primarily melee or Paladins becomming some type of healer then having weird balance issues where your tank is also your main healer, or something like that.
Thanks for the clarification... was pretty sure the mana thing was out of date
I like the concept that choices I make in how I build my character matter, but it doesn't look like there will be much more than choosing what gear and abilities I'd take into a specific fight
However it turns out, I'm sure it will be well thought out and thoroughly enjoyable
Pantheon is a traditional level-based system with skills and abilities that are unlocked and practised as you level up. Some customization and specialization will be present, but never to the point where a warrior ceases to be a warrior.
So am thinking there will be some slight leeway in customisation, but not so much that you lose class identity.
To me specialization is a big plus as long as it preserves the distinct nature of the class. It gives me a reason - a good reason - to have two of a class I like rather than "settling" for that next alt being a class I like less.
((shameless appeal to greed - the more we have incentives to play alts the more character slots can be sold - assuming that there is an option to buy extra slots which is not certain yet))
I am not sure if I agree or disagree with Iksar. Probably disagree - I don't want any specialization to change the nature of the class much but I do want distinct differences in playstyle.
Fire and ice wizards so similar there may be no real disagreement there. Healing and battle clerics so dissimilar there may be no real disagreement (IMO no battle cleric build unless it is under a different class entirely - too far from the core role).
But what about a cleric that heals from a distance with magic versus a cleric that heals close up using a weapon (any damage done heals the group)? What about a ranger that is a pure bow damage dealer versus one that has a pet but is still a pure damage dealer (neither version in any way inconsistant with the role of the ranger). What about a burglar that can stealth very effectively but do less after becoming visible versus a burglar that is weak in stealth but does more damage when seen. Or a burglar really good with poison and bleeds (DoTs) but with weaker burst damage.
If most of us agree that some ability for variation within a class is good, and most of us agree that class specializations shouldn't intrude into the roles of other classes - this leaves a LOT of room in the middle.
Class specializations are a finicky thing. While I love the thought behind them what I see generally happening is the community dictates what specializations are neccessary and exclude anyone who doesn't go that route. In my personal opinion, they cannot deviate too far from the jobs main mechanics, I'm talking minor differences at endgame level. Maybe warriors can come to a point where they decide if they want to be more of a tank(more mitigation) or more attack oriented. I would love to see stuff like this but I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep all classes relevant for content without muddying the waters between other classes.
@dorotea you are exactly mentioning what I'm hoping we can see.
Cleric - Direct Heals & Offensive Buff specialization / HoT's and Defensive Buff specialization
Direlord - DoT specialization (Tank) / DD specialization (Direct Damage)
Monk - Mind specialization (DD) / Body specialization (Tank)
Wizard - Fire specialization (DD) / Ice specialization (DoT)
Druid - HoT's / Buffs
Summoner - Summon Life / Summon Death
Ranger - Longbow (Slower attacks, higher damage) / Shortbow (Faster attacks, lower damage)
Paladin - Benificial Group Buffs (DD) / Personal Buffs (Tank)
Warrior - Tank Singel Target Taunts / MA (Main Assist) multipule taunts, hold, or stun abilities)
Rogue - Posions (DoTs) / Debuffs (debuffs and DD)
Enchanter - Mind (Mezes, DoT's) / Body (Teleports, Snares, DD)
Shaman - Friend (buffs, Direct Heals) / Foe (DoT's, HoT's)
(OR something like the above, I'm not the most creative)
This division doesn't make the class no longer that class, but gives them a different way of playing their class and gives them a choice of how they want to play it.
Unfortunatly, When I hear "Pantheon is a traditional level based system with skills and abilities that are unlocked and practiced as you level up. Some customization and specialization will be present, but never to the point where a warrior ceases to be a warrior." I think they are going with "Warriors can use swords and get good at swords 250/250, or get good at hammers 250/250" and when they say get better by practicing, they mean, if you cast "Kick" you get better at kick 210/250. Extreamly antiquated system and I honestly hope that is not the extent of their "specialization". I am truely hoping they are planning something you talk about.
I would prefer a system without class specialization for a couple of reasons:
1) It is much easier to balance 12 base classes rather than 24 different classes;
2) When I play a class, I want to play it to its maximum potential, not watered down based upon a specialization choice.
3) Specialization typically implies permanancy. I would not want to select a specialization and learn that it was not the one I wanted and be unable to change.
Grimix said:
Class specializations are a finicky thing. While I love the thought behind them what I see generally happening is the community dictates what specializations are neccessary and exclude anyone who doesn't go that route. In my personal opinion, they cannot deviate too far from the jobs main mechanics, I'm talking minor differences at endgame level. Maybe warriors can come to a point where they decide if they want to be more of a tank(more mitigation) or more attack oriented. I would love to see stuff like this but I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep all classes relevant for content without muddying the waters between other classes.
I have seen that in other games, like Rift. Supposedly their system allowed for many combinations of multiple skill trees, but at the end of the day if you didn't use the build your guild TOLD you to use, you were disbanded. That one specialization build was seen as too far above others for the intended role and nothing else was allowed.
Specialization doesen't need to be permanent. It can be a meaningful part of progression. I would like to see a "combat rogue" and a "utility rogue" that each offer a different kind of flavor/value to groups/raids depending on what they are doing. I have seen it suggested that specialization should be permanent time and time again ... but why? Is it not possible for a soldier to specialize in both sharp shooting and explosives? What about the sports players who can play multiple positions (including special teams), or musicians who master multiple instruments? In my opinion, specialization should be an important aspect of character development. You would never be able to completely utilize both specializations at the same time, but allowing advanced players to rotate back and forth would be really refreshing.
Rolador said:
Grimix said:Class specializations are a finicky thing. While I love the thought behind them what I see generally happening is the community dictates what specializations are neccessary and exclude anyone who doesn't go that route. In my personal opinion, they cannot deviate too far from the jobs main mechanics, I'm talking minor differences at endgame level. Maybe warriors can come to a point where they decide if they want to be more of a tank(more mitigation) or more attack oriented. I would love to see stuff like this but I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep all classes relevant for content without muddying the waters between other classes.
I have seen that in other games, like Rift. Supposedly their system allowed for many combinations of multiple skill trees, but at the end of the day if you didn't use the build your guild TOLD you to use, you were disbanded. That one specialization build was seen as too far above others for the intended role and nothing else was allowed.
I have to be honest, I resented being told to use a skill tree that I didn't habitually use, insisted upon by certain raid leaders in Rift. I don't like jack of all trades classes, and I don't want to put points into a skill tree that I personally don't like or am not interested in, in my daily play. Having someone else (another player) dictate what skill tree he wants me to use, also impedes upon the skills that I know how to use, and my freedom of choice. Is that raid leader paying my monthly sub? Nope..he shouldn't be able to tell me what I am allowed to play or not play EITHER. :)
Cana
The classes themselves ARE the specialization. A cleric is a healer who specializes in X, shaman a healer spec'd in Y, and druid a healer spec'd in Z. EQ had it right by letting a druid be a druid, bard a bard, etc.
There are few things that suck more than being limited from within your own class. MMOs these days just split classes with the guise of adding depth; instead of having a solid and focused Ranger class they have multiple lesser rangers: marksman ranger, beastmaster ranger, etc. All it does is muddy class identity and it doesn't particularly feel good/rewarding in the least. It also makes balancing a nightmare and adding new distinct classes with their own identity a real challenge.
Why not have both/all specs just be part of the class? If they are minor deviations then why not have them as part of the role but limited by action set/focus/concentration/whatever. If they are major permanent deviations then what is a shaman, druid, warrior, paladin etc. really? Why not just have two different classes.
If I want to be a druid I want to be all that a druid can be. I don't want to have to choose one route down the line and be screwed out of the other for arbitrary reasons "Sorry, I know you are a druid but you can't learn how to cast this charm animal spell because you learned how to cast regenerate." Almost no one really wants to level two or more of the same class just to experience all it has to offer.
To a certain (greater) extent, Iksar is correct here.
1. Wo do not have just 4-5 classes: 1 each for role of of:
'Healer', 'Tank', 'CC' and 'DPS' (perhaps 'Melee DPS' and 'Magic DPS')
2. Pantheon has more than one class per 'role',
'Healer' role covered by Druid, Shaman and Cleric.
If there were only one of each 'role', then some form of specialisation tree would be essential to avoid the cookie-cutter feeling. With 2 or 3 for each 'role', or even 'sub-role' (consider 'puller' as a sub-role) this requirements is less essential and more 'flavourful'.
It would be nice to see a more nuanced way to 'be different' within your class. This may be related to how your class interacts with others (synergy vs other classes), whether your tank spec is aimed to have an advantage vs 'many smaller mobs' vs 'few tougher mobs' for example. Whether your Wizard is more effective (harder to resist DD spells) against resistant mobs, or better against less resistant ones (bigger DD, but easier to resist). These forms of sub-specialisation may be provided via skill or class AA style choices, by 'stances' or even by weapon choice (2-Handed vs 2-weapon, say). Add 'coloured mana' and other weapon/item enhancing options ('embedded runes' etc in weapons/items) and you have the tools for tailoring your class (without losing your unique identity) to better fit your playstyle and your preferred group makeup too!
Evoras, would dearly love to be able to tailor his Summoner, both pet and overall style!
CanadinaXegony said:Rolador said:
Grimix said:Class specializations are a finicky thing. While I love the thought behind them what I see generally happening is the community dictates what specializations are neccessary and exclude anyone who doesn't go that route. In my personal opinion, they cannot deviate too far from the jobs main mechanics, I'm talking minor differences at endgame level. Maybe warriors can come to a point where they decide if they want to be more of a tank(more mitigation) or more attack oriented. I would love to see stuff like this but I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep all classes relevant for content without muddying the waters between other classes.
I have seen that in other games, like Rift. Supposedly their system allowed for many combinations of multiple skill trees, but at the end of the day if you didn't use the build your guild TOLD you to use, you were disbanded. That one specialization build was seen as too far above others for the intended role and nothing else was allowed.
I have to be honest, I resented being told to use a skill tree that I didn't habitually use, insisted upon by certain raid leaders in Rift. I don't like jack of all trades classes, and I don't want to put points into a skill tree that I personally don't like or am not interested in, in my daily play. Having someone else (another player) dictate what skill tree he wants me to use, also impedes upon the skills that I know how to use, and my freedom of choice. Is that raid leader paying my monthly sub? Nope..he shouldn't be able to tell me what I am allowed to play or not play EITHER. :)
Cana
^This...
It always ends up that one tree tends to be more beneficial than the other and is preferred by groups/raids.
I hated being asked which specialization I am when asked to join a group and if you don't have the magic answer you're ignored.
Let's keep it simple /LFG Paladin Not /LFG DPS Paladin / Undead Spec / +3 heals / -1 Group Buffs
I nee a Cleric in my group not a Cler-ior-zard
oneADseven said:Specialization doesen't need to be permanent. It can be a meaningful part of progression. I would like to see a "combat rogue" and a "utility rogue" that each offer a different kind of flavor/value to groups/raids depending on what they are doing. I have seen it suggested that specialization should be permanent time and time again ... but why? Is it not possible for a soldier to specialize in both sharp shooting and explosives? What about the sports players who can play multiple positions (including special teams), or musicians who master multiple instruments? In my opinion, specialization should be an important aspect of character development. You would never be able to completely utilize both specializations at the same time, but allowing advanced players to rotate back and forth would be really refreshing.
i would like to see class subspecialization that can be changed based on the needs of the party. Specifically, say you have a main healer that specializes in buffing the MT group. On a raid night she can’t make raid because she is out of town. It would be nice to have another healer, one with a build that specializes in mass healing, be able to alter spec to fill that role. The benefit here is that you don’t need 14 different classes, all of which have their time as the FOTM for 6 months before being nerfed into irrelevance.
I like the idea of 1 main and no alts. I like the idea of a toon that I can put several years of solid progression into. I’ve played EQ, EQ2 and SWTOR and I would love to finally get off the class balance treadmill.
Not a huge fan of specializations myself, and to my knowledge as others have posted (outside of the monk), I think that was with the original development team.
I'd much prefer to be able to continue to min/max in a classes's pre-existing specialization through normal progression means and keep the distinct differences between classes - basically what makes them unique (Warrior tanks) rather than begin to create builds, which ultimately lead to cookie-cutter molds and blurring of class lines/ostracization for not having the opitmal build.
Iksar said:The classes themselves ARE the specialization. A cleric is a healer who specializes in X, shaman a healer spec'd in Y, and druid a healer spec'd in Z. EQ had it right by letting a druid be a druid, bard a bard, etc.
There are few things that suck more than being limited from within your own class. MMOs these days just split classes with the guise of adding depth; instead of having a solid and focused Ranger class they have multiple lesser rangers: marksman ranger, beastmaster ranger, etc. All it does is muddy class identity and it doesn't particularly feel good/rewarding in the least. It also makes balancing a nightmare and adding new distinct classes with their own identity a real challenge.
Why not have both/all specs just be part of the class? If they are minor deviations then why not have them as part of the role but limited by action set/focus/concentration/whatever. If they are major permanent deviations then what is a shaman, druid, warrior, paladin etc. really? Why not just have two different classes.
If I want to be a druid I want to be all that a druid can be. I don't want to have to choose one route down the line and be screwed out of the other for arbitrary reasons "Sorry, I know you are a druid but you can't learn how to cast this charm animal spell because you learned how to cast regenerate." Almost no one really wants to level two or more of the same class just to experience all it has to offer.
I think we want the same things but just look at things a little bit differently. I mentioned the idea that players could unlock multiple specializations on the same character. I agree with you in saying that it would suck to play a druid and be unable to learn a charm spell because you already learned how to cast regenerate. I believe druids should eventually be able to learn all "druid spells" but I also think the development cycle of my character would feel more satisfying if my character had to undergo "specialized training" to get there. Whether it's through progeny, AA's, or epic "specialization quests" -- I want there to be a serious barrier to entry on what it takes to train certain techniques that would indeed make my character feel special.
Now, we already know that Pantheon will be a game where you have to make meaningful preparation choices prior to engaging in combat. I think specialization could add a layer to this thought process. For example, my druid specializes in both animal charming and advanced regeneration ... but I need to choose ahead of time which version of my druid that I want to bring to the next fight. For my group, it's actually a luxury that I have this choice. I advanced my character enough to where I have both options available whereas other druids out there may have only unlocked a single specialization. This is where specialization can actually be used as a meaningful form of progression. Because I went out of my way to truly "master my class" I am now in a position where I can perform multiple "druid roles" for my group.
By doing things in such a way, there is no true "flavor of the month" druid specialization. Each will have their own functionality and excel more or less depending on the situation. The real "FOTM druid" is the one that has advanced specialization, who has gone out of their way to master their class and be extra versatile for grouping. This also opens up situations where you can bring multiple druids to the same raid that each fulfill a different role. I suppose something like this can still work with limited hotbars ... but then things just wouldn't feel special to me. It would honestly feel less immersive. Prior to engaging in combat, it would be a matter of okay Druid 1 and 2, we want you to each set up your bars differently. Everybody is always special for no reason other than the fact that you can only slot 10 abilities/spells onto your hotbar at a given time.
I want specialization to actually feel special, and I think it should require more than just crawling to the bottom of a dungeon to learn a new spell. There should be some form of long term commitment required to learn the most advanced druid spells. You don't just travel to the bottom of a dungeon and find a med-kit and say voila, you are now specialized in regeneration! I think content can be balanced in a more meaningful way if certain abilities are exclusive to specific specialization choices. You can eventually learn both animal charm and regeneration, but you can't use both at the exact same time. I want to earn the right to offer multiple specialization options to my group. It shouldn't be a freebie where everybody is always a master druid and they just custom tailor their kits prior to engaging in combat.
I'd like to use the example I gave earlier which is having a combat rogue and a utility rogue. Let's say that utility rogues get an ability that allows them to stealth their group, and another ability that allows them to pick advanced locks or disarm traps. It's great for those options to exist, and I want my group to feel special that we actually have a utility rogue in our group while we are in an area where these skills can be fully leveraged. We also know, however, that there is a cost to having this kind if utility available to us. Because of how our rogue is specialized, they add some cool flavors that allow for safer and more expanded navigation opportunities in the dungeon, but their DPS wouldn't be quite as strong as a pure combat rogue. That's a meaningful choice that we make when we invite that rogue to our group. Eventually, though, there will be rogues who have earned both specializations. These players are even more valuable because of the added versatility that they offer.
Let's also use guardian and berserker as specialization choices for a warrior. Guardians specialize in defense and will most likely be the superior choice while fighting bosses. The berserkers, however, provide more DPS than guardians and would be the better choice while clearing standard mobs. Or maybe there is a boss that spawns a bunch of adds ... this could be an area where berserkers are the ideal choice due to their increased AoE damage/threat potential. Either way, they both provide a different kind of value to the group. I would like the option to earn both of these specialization choices, and thus have more opportunities to shine. I understand some people might not like something like this because eventually groups will start requesting only "master warriors" to get the most out of their sessions. I embrace that. I want the "master warrior" to be more sought after. I want the "master rogue" and "master druid" to be more sought after. It should mean something that players went out of their way to fully master their class.
Again, I see how something like this could work by just having limited hotbars ... but I feel encounter mechanics could be more interesting if players have to make a choice or potential sacrifice before engaging in combat. I don't want to take the best aspects of guardians and berserkers and create a hybrid hotbar. An ability like tower of stone (stoneskin) should be limited to guardians. An ability like rampage (all melee attacks hit for out of encounter AoE damage for a limited time) should be limited to berserkers. If I can use both of these abilities at the same time, they feel less special. Why bring 2 warriors to the raid when your main warrior offers the best of both worlds? The key to making these "master classes" work is creating ample opportunties for both specializations to situationally thrive, and for me, that would make for a more fulfilling and long term development process for my character. Something like this would also reinforce the value of situational gear for each class.
I haven't changed my opinion in favor of specializations but this isn't a "no brainer" issue. The problem that some specializations may make it harder to get in raids or groups is entirely valid. So is the point that someone with a class specialization won't have access to all class abilities (I don't see this as a problem but I understand why someone else might and it is a valid concern).
This is a true trade-off issue. Specialization gives a major benefit in terms of flexibility and replayability but there is some cost.
Let us focus for a bit on one of the core goals of Pantheon that will make it distinct from many other MMOs. Situational abilities with the need to plan in advance for situations where one set of abilities will be more useful than others but you cannot have every ability you know instantly at hand. Someone correct me if I have this significantly wrong.
Isn't this entirely consistant with having a few specializations if, and I emphasize if, they are not permanent and you can swap them out. Not necessarily anywhere at any time with no cost but in a reasonable way that isn't too burdensome or expensive. So if a group or raid is looking for a guardian to help kill Sally you can be a guardian and if it needs a 'zerker to help kill Fred you can be a berserker (taking an example from OneADseven just for the sake of this discussion). Just as you might switch out fire-based abilities or gear for cold-based abilities or gear when heading into the ice plains of Skotos (reference to a Turtledove series not any MMO).
My thoughts precisely Dorotea. In my opinion, it would be ideal if we could swap our specialization while out of combat, the same way we would our gear or hotbars. I have seen it done where you can only swap specs while visiting a trainer in town, but it's horrible. It just reinforces the idea of cookie cutter builds ... because rather than planning for a specific encounter, you have to plan for an entire session. It's really lame on many levels -- the majority of specialization paths in EQ2 were rendered completely useless because of it. There may have been an encounter here or there where the AoE DPS spec would be ideal, but nobody ever chose it because that spec was horrible for the majority of other content in that dungeon or zone. Rather than making it so people pay a fee to reassign their points ... just make it so you have to earn each specialization, and then you are free to rotate them while out of combat.
Again, this reinforces the ideal of situational gear. That 2H Sword with lifedrain would be really nice for my berserker spec, but not so much for my guardian. It also provides a very important sense of flexibility. If your main warrior isn't able to make a raid one night, your berserker could potentially switch their specialization (if they are a master warrior that has earned the right to do so) and fill-in as a guardian for the night. They might not be quite as effective because they don't have the same amount of situational gear that is ideal for a guardian, but at least they can try. It's definitely better than saying "Sorry guys, can't raid tonight because berserkers can't main tank the raid bosses." Allowing players to switch their specialization out of combat makes it so your choices to be an ideal raider won't gimp you when it comes to grouping or soloing. I have seen plenty of situations where a player specializes their character to fill a specific role for raids, but then their class is completely unviable for soloing or less desirable in grouping. Flexibility is important ... but the key is making people earn that flexibility.
I really don't see how you can call something a specialization if you can swap between it freely. You aren't specialized if you can do both.
If you can swap between them freely ( non comabt w/e same thing) just put all the skills together from both "trees" and call it a class. it's the same thing without having to restrict yourself from certain skills between fights. It adds absolutely no depth to your character to just swap between skill sets whenever you want and it's completely immersion breaking. Sounds to me like something that belongs in an action rpg or *ahem* WoW. How can a wizard who studied his whole life to master fire, suddenly decide over a cup of tea what he actually mastered ice," just kidding about the fire thing y'all."
If they are going to have specializations then it should be a permanent choice. Anything else is just window dressing.
I would approve of a system where if you chose ice over fire then your ice spell do more dps but you would still receive the same abilities either way.
Otherwise I am against specialization, it just means you have to balance double the classes and one tree is always better and the devs are always messing with the trees and it's a constant dance between what's 'meta' with every new patch.
Honestly it shocks me when I see people arguing for things like being able to swap between heal spec and dps spec in this game! No thanks! That's not the game I backed! :)
Just have AA's
Edit: just to add, I am not worried about not having to tactically prepare for each upcoming fight. That is why you are (hopefully) restricted to only using 10 of your available abilites/spells at any time.