Forums » Pantheon Classes

How are you deciding what classes do what

    • 428 posts
    March 4, 2016 12:07 PM PST

    Pantheon crew,

     

    I was wondering how you are deciding what types of spells and abilitys each class will have.  I ask because I notice certain classes have almost no posts in the class forum so if you depended on that community feedback for ideas some classes could be hurt.  Or if you borrow from different games etc etc?

    • 511 posts
    March 4, 2016 4:43 PM PST

    I am personally keeping it open between a few classes. Will have to see what the race/class combos are and more about how PRF will do each class.

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So I read this wrong the first time through, I see you are asking the VR dev team this question :D


    This post was edited by Dreconic at March 4, 2016 4:44 PM PST
    • 2419 posts
    March 4, 2016 7:41 PM PST

    Kalgore said:

    Pantheon crew,

     

    I was wondering how you are deciding what types of spells and abilitys each class will have.  I ask because I notice certain classes have almost no posts in the class forum so if you depended on that community feedback for ideas some classes could be hurt.  Or if you borrow from different games etc etc?

     

    We do know that they are using an archetype approach.  3 Priest classes (Cleric, Druid, Shaman), 3 DPS-Melee classes (Rogue, Ranger, Monk), 3 DPS-Magic classes (Wizard, Summoner, Enchanter) and 3 Tank classes (Warrior, Dire Lord, Crusader).  VR has said that each class in each archetype will be able to perform their primary function equally. 

    It's the 'perform their primary function equally' that has caused all the debate.  Does equal mean 'by the same method' or same spells at the same level or are there, within the archetype, 3 different approaches.

    • 578 posts
    March 5, 2016 10:47 PM PST

    Using VG as an example the phrase 'all classes will perform their primary function equally' meant that all tanks had different abilities but could tank equally. For any group you had any of the tanks could handle your content. Any healer would do. Using healers as an example, the disciple would be up close and melee to do their healing which was different from the blood mage who sat back with magic and healed with all sorts of different lifetaps. But both would get the job done for your group.

    At the end of the day any class would do for the role you needed if you were trying to fill a single group.

    • 126 posts
    March 7, 2016 2:00 AM PST

    Vandraad said:

    We do know that they are using an archetype approach.  3 Priest classes (Cleric, Druid, Shaman), 3 DPS-Melee classes (Rogue, Ranger, Monk), 3 DPS-Magic classes (Wizard, Summoner, Enchanter) and 3 Tank classes (Warrior, Dire Lord, Crusader).  VR has said that each class in each archetype will be able to perform their primary function equally. 

    It's the 'perform their primary function equally' that has caused all the debate.  Does equal mean 'by the same method' or same spells at the same level or are there, within the archetype, 3 different approaches.

    In regard to Vanguard's healing classes, which were all pure healing beings, they were equals. That doesn't mean they hade the same spells, just named differently. Bloodmages for example were like healing mages, using their blood and the blood of the enemies to heal their group. Lifetaps were there to replenish their health. They used a special link to offensive targets to build up points. The more points it got, the more damaging and healing spells powered up. Some spells were only usable when the counter reached a special number.

    Disciples were much of a martial fighter. They couldn't reach the damage of an offensive fighter like the monk, but they were respectable enough. While having also standard heals, attacking their target procced heals, hots or much stronger one at the end of a combat chain. Disciples had strong single target buffs and debuffs. The point was that they could wreck their opponents and still heal. Not the standard "stay in the back and just heal" healer.

    The cleric was the class with the lowest damage output. They had a variety of healing spells, the were straight forward, very powerful. They had excellent buffs. Ok I can't say more to the cleric, because it was so boring to me (and Goblins coulnd't play one, and I couldn't stand other races than goblins for long)

    Shamans were more versatile than the other healer. They could levitate, had runspeed bonus, and else (my memory lacks me). Chosing a special patron gave special boni based on what they chose and let them be more melee or more spell orientated. They had wards (if they'd only stack, grrrr!!!) and heals enough to stand their ground. 

     

    Sorry I got carried away. It is just that the healing classes were so awesome and one wasn't limited to just stand in the back and cast heals over and over. You could, of course. Even if blood mages and disciples were so offensive, you couldn't call them alike really. The gameplay was so truely different with them. Of course every priest got special heals which were roughly equal, but their signature spells were completely different.

     

    Edit: So, when hoping for healing classes who are "equal" to another. I don't hope they play the same with just different named abilities, no no. Just that Pantheon will never ever make second class healers. That it never comes to a point were people chose class x (lets call them clerics) over class y (another healer, not sure which one will perform this role in pantheon) because class x is known to perform better, and y to suck in hard content.


    This post was edited by Duffy at March 7, 2016 2:05 AM PST
    • 157 posts
    March 13, 2016 5:06 PM PDT

    Decisions will be made during alpha/beta.  Can't make the call if we haven't seen the mechanics.  That said, I'm a heal bot; I love having the best pets in the game (tanks)! It'll be one of the healing classes.

    • 1778 posts
    March 14, 2016 8:58 AM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    Kalgore said:

    Pantheon crew,

     

    I was wondering how you are deciding what types of spells and abilitys each class will have.  I ask because I notice certain classes have almost no posts in the class forum so if you depended on that community feedback for ideas some classes could be hurt.  Or if you borrow from different games etc etc?

     

    We do know that they are using an archetype approach.  3 Priest classes (Cleric, Druid, Shaman), 3 DPS-Melee classes (Rogue, Ranger, Monk), 3 DPS-Magic classes (Wizard, Summoner, Enchanter) and 3 Tank classes (Warrior, Dire Lord, Crusader).  VR has said that each class in each archetype will be able to perform their primary function equally. 

    It's the 'perform their primary function equally' that has caused all the debate.  Does equal mean 'by the same method' or same spells at the same level or are there, within the archetype, 3 different approaches.

    First off I believe they mean equally but with different approaches. And I do remember them saying that of each role.

     

    But the Bold part? Where did you read this? I think we can all specualte this more or less but dont remember the devs ever saying it. On top of which an Archetype isnt necessarily a role. I think that would be more like Priest, Scout, Mage, Knight. Where a priest isnt necessarily a healer and a knight could just be heavy armored dps. Will enchanter be an actual dps, or will they be a CC class that also CAN do some damage. In other words while you could be right, but I dont remember any specific information or that there would be even 3 of every role. And I see Archetypes as more of a theme of partly the look and partly the feel (like priests do ritualistic magic as opposed to mages doing arcane magic).