Classes and Party Build

[gglorious]

Ok, I recognize that we have a lot of different threads about individual classes or sets of classes. I'd think a major issue is really how each class fits into a role within a party. While the designers have expressed a desire to have flexibility enough where a party can be comprised entirely of one class, it's also been expressed that certain classes will naturally be stronger in certain areas than others.

 

So, I think looking at the system from a bird's eye has some value. I'm going to provide a sketch of what I perceive as class tendencies and their natural roles, and others can add their feedback on how they'd like to see the roles develop:

 

* Fighter: Best tank class. Many strong defense abilities. http://eternitywiki.com/Fighter

* Barbarian: DPS Tank. "Rage" or equivalents increase damage output. Weaker defensive abilities than warrior http://eternitywiki.com/Barbarian

* Paladin: Support tank. Moderate tanking. Provides buffs. Also provides area of effect damage. http://eternitywiki.com/Paladin

* Ranger: Ranged support. Ranged DPS. Weak tanking. Skirmisher

* Monk: Weak tank. Skirmisher. Possible light DPS?

* Rogue: DPS. Skirmisher. Tactical combat using contraptions? http://eternitywiki.com/Rogue

* Chanter: Moderate, passive buffs/debuffs. Versatile supporting abilities. http://eternitywiki.com/Chanter

* Cipher: Primary crowd control. Charms to distract and disrupt enemy tactics? Possible secondary skills? http://eternitywiki.com/Cipher

* Wizard: Ranged Area of Effect DPS. Moderate crowd-control? Weak tactical combat using contraptions? http://eternitywiki.com/Wizard

* Priest: Strong buffs/debuffs. Possible weak/light combat? http://eternitywiki.com/Priest

* Druid: Distraction through summons? Possible secondary skills?

 

When the wiki has something, I've included it, but for rangers, monks, and druids, the wiki did not say very much directly about the class. I'm speculating that wizards are more DPS oriented, due to their roles in many other games(project eternity seems conventional in that sense), leaving druids to be a more likely option for summoning. With rangers it's the fighter description that suggests rangers are the strongest ranged class.

 

Additionally, by putting this forward, I am not saying that wizard-tanks, or rogue-tanks are outside of consideration, only that the class will tend to guide a player towards certain builds. I think Obsidian seems to favor flexible classes that can fill many different roles, but also classes that tend towards certain roles. Even if they had another idea, this also seems the most reasonable approach to class builds, to seek to allow a rogue-tank, but to tend to specialize a rogue's talents elsewhere.

 

So, here's what I'm seeing from the current class system:

1) More caster variations than IE. IE tended to only have 2 different types of casters: divine or arcane, where divine types were interchangeable, and arcane types were interchangeable. PE seems likely to have 4 different types of casters: Druids, Ciphers, Wizards, and Priests, each of which going down a different pathway.

2) Because there are too many casters, this also suggests that PE casters are not as obligatory as IE games. So in IE, it's harder to play through without an arcane caster and a divine caster in your party, and it's expected you'll have both. We can't be expected to have 4 caster classes. So, this suggests a vision of different compositions of spell-casters. And maybe a stronger role for the Bard as the guy who can handle more cross-class casting.

3) Possible better specialization than IE? So, in an IE game, a Paladin really only seems different from a Warrior because he can wield a Holy Avenger sword. In this case, specializations seem more likely to be more deeply rooted in the build.

4) More varied combat styles? Because specialization is better, classes are to be treated as more interchangeable, combat is better because there are different ways it can be run. Different buffers to use. Different distractions to use. Different tanking methods. Etc.

 

I dunno, anybody else have thoughts about party builds?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

From what I've taken, no class will have be forced in to any role. A fighter for example will be able to act as a DPS, Tank, Disabler, etc.

[Lephys]

From what I've taken, no class will have be forced in to any role. A fighter for example will be able to act as a DPS, Tank, Disabler, etc.

 

Despite the fact that I hate that the idea of roles has become simplified to choices such as "DPS" and "tank" and "crowd control," it's excellent that PE's classes won't be confined to these roles. ^_^

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

From what I've taken, no class will have be forced in to any role. A fighter for example will be able to act as a DPS, Tank, Disabler, etc.

 

Despite the fact that I hate that the idea of roles has become simplified to choices such as "DPS" and "tank" and "crowd control," it's excellent that PE's classes won't be confined to these roles. ^_^

 

I agree, I much prefer complex roles that cannot be described in simple phrases. I tend to use them as examples simply because they are a commonly understood benchmark however.

[Lephys]

I agree, I much prefer complex roles that cannot be described in simple phrases. I tend to use them as examples simply because they are a commonly understood benchmark however.

 

Yeah, I wasn't trying to blame you for them or anything, haha. It's just a shame that they exist at all, much less are so common. I still got what you meant, though, about the versatility of classes, and it made me happy inside.

[JoseJalapenoOnAStick]

I'm totally going Paladin hells yeah

[gglorious]

From what I've taken, no class will have be forced in to any role. A fighter for example will be able to act as a DPS, Tank, Disabler, etc.

Right.... I acknowledged this:

 

Additionally, by putting this forward, I am not saying that wizard-tanks, or rogue-tanks are outside of consideration, only that the class will tend to guide a player towards certain builds. I think Obsidian seems to favor flexible classes that can fill many different roles, but also classes that tend towards certain roles.

 

At the same time, if you look at the wiki, with quotes from devs at earlier points on the classes, you see things like this:

 

"Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible"

 

"And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close"

 

"paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes"

 

So, what is being said is "Fighters are going to tend to be REALLY GOOD at X" or "Fighters are weaker at Y than Rangers" not "Fighters can't do ranged combat". So, a class can take many different roles, but some classes may be inherently better at certain things.

Edited November 26, 2012 by gglorious

[Osvir]

I just want to dive into this because party building is really important (way more important than designing a "Single Player" style in my opinion). I want my party to function as a party, teamwork is super important. Doing some calculations on how many combinations could be possible and yeah... xD

 

I'm not a full fledged genius mathematician so I can't say that the link below shows the correct credible information, did make a list of all Classes Combined with each other (N = 11, R = 2) in Excel and came up to the same number that the Calculator did (55) so I believe it.

http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/discretemathematics/combinations.php

 

N = Number of Classes (11)

R = Number of Party Members (6)

 

426 possible 6 man party builds (based on Classes only). I would at least like to see N = 11 and R = 2 (each class combined with 1 other class; 11 classes 2 party members), the number of combinations/builds are way fewer and more realistic to design, namely 55 <- that calculation isn't taking into consideration the fact that I can have 3 party members and use the Barbarian, Fighter and Cipher mix and matched a la:

 

Barbarian+Fighter

Barbarian+Cipher

Cipher+Fighter

 

For laughs (not serious):

N = Number of Combinations/Party Builds (426)

R = Armor Tiers (3)

 

N+R = 12'794'200

[forgottenlor]

I think this is an interesting thread. In a one character game or even an MMO, its important that a class can fill a lot of roles, because people are either adventuring solo some or all the time. Party based games are different. In party based games you want to create a well balanced group to survive and it is fun making your characters work together. If everyone can do everything you are robbed of important choices in party creation.

Well thought out class systems have multiple classes that con do something necessary, but each one is different. Wizardry 8 was an example of such a game. Three classes could deal with annoying locks and traps. They were the rogue, who was also a decent damage dealer in close combat, the Gageteer, who was basically a ranged fighter who could build things, and the Bard, who was sort of a support caster (he had limited spells provided by musical items). That way you can say I need X things done and have a choice of three guys. Guy 1 can do x&a, guy two can do x&b, guy three can do x&c, if I take guy 3, I can avoid other guys who can do c, but if I take guy 1 instead, I need another guy who can do C, but not one who can do a. This allows for a whole bunch of interesting choices a replayability.

[AGX-17]

Ok, I recognize that we have a lot of different threads about individual classes or sets of classes. I'd think a major issue is really how each class fits into a role within a party. While the designers have expressed a desire to have flexibility enough where a party can be comprised entirely of one class,

 

Actually, they've said the game is being designed so that the player character alone can complete it without a party.

 

Anyway, I don't like it when you're railroaded into bringing a specific party composition because that's the only possible way to succeed. i.e. Being forced into the standard tank attracts hostility, mage does damage, healer keeps tank alive scenario.

Edited November 26, 2012 by AGX-17

[wanderon]

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the way you interact with different factions may have some bearing on how your party becomes structured as the game progresses especially if you plan to use the provided companions vs Adventurer Hall homemade party members.

[Somna]

These are the conclusions I was drawing from their announced descriptions so far. (Wiki is blocked at my current location so I can't reference it.)

 

Rangers - Ranged weapon specialists

Paladins - Martial Cheerleaders--basically group oriented support characters.

Wizards - Will be storing their prepared spells in tomes to use for the day instead of D&D standard of using tomes to prepare spells for the day.

Priests - Narrowly focused battle-casters with a penchant for buffs and guns

Druids - ???

Fighters - Jack of all Trades for weapons -- Some offense, some defense. Not as effective as a specialist when dealing with a combat situation that caters to the specialist, but better at things than a specialist when the specialist does not specialize in the combat situation.

Rogues - Hit and run shadowy assassins

Barbarian - Raging warrior that can mitigate stamina damage taken while raging

Ciphers - Soul puppeteers and mind mages. Think Enchanter/Psion, only more so.

Chanters - Bards that don't have to concentrate on singing/playing to do so, but are limited to one AE buff at a time.

Monk - ???

[Osvir]

These are the conclusions I was drawing from their announced descriptions so far. (Wiki is blocked at my current location so I can't reference it.)

 

Rangers - Ranged weapon specialists

Paladins - Martial Cheerleaders--basically group oriented support characters.

Wizards - Will be storing their prepared spells in tomes to use for the day instead of D&D standard of using tomes to prepare spells for the day.

Priests - Narrowly focused battle-casters with a penchant for buffs and guns

Druids - ???

Fighters - Jack of all Trades for weapons -- Some offense, some defense. Not as effective as a specialist when dealing with a combat situation that caters to the specialist, but better at things than a specialist when the specialist does not specialize in the combat situation.

Rogues - Hit and run shadowy assassins

Barbarian - Raging warrior that can mitigate stamina damage taken while raging

Ciphers - Soul puppeteers and mind mages. Think Enchanter/Psion, only more so.

Chanters - Bards that don't have to concentrate on singing/playing to do so, but are limited to one AE buff at a time.

Monk - ???

 

I hope and thoughts and I'd also like to say "Depends on how you look at it":

Ranger: Woodsman, handles a knife just as well as a bow, but handles the axe and sword just as well. A Ranger lives and hunts secluded on their land. A Ranger is a loner, who wanders the mountains (Chuck Norris cowboy style). That's what a Ranger is. He hunts seasonally and takes care of the land in his own way, a survivalist. Good with a longbow, though the military Ranger favors the crossbow.

 

Paladin: Crusaders of some type, a Holy Order of soldiers notable in the world who believe blindly in their own chivalry, to them they spread light upon the world. To others they only rain blood and destruction. Deluded by their own madness the Paladin are straightforward slaughtering everything in their path. They love crossbows and fire. "Purge the unclean!" -> Run! A Paladin can also be defined as a White Knight, which is related to the Hero archetype.

 

Wizard: Deckard Cain! Stay a while and listen dammit!

 

Priest: Gun nuts, totally gun nuts. Also:

Notable for their kind smiles. They also like to burn heretics. Paladin and Priest hangs out at parties and mingles slightly but arrogantly.

 

Druid: Tree hugging fools really, but they do share aid to the lands and take care of it. Some can be evil, seldom do you find Druids gathered up close with one another, they share the same knowledge and the same respect, likewise they share the same sense of traveling. They are never satisfied with living in society, for whatever reason. Most profoundly at it's core is always a disgust and distrust for authority. Only evil Druids manages to sway over groups of dumb Bandits and become an authority themselves. Druids are arrogant.

 

Fighter: Is more of the "Hero" archetype. Difficult to define in place of background and into the world, it could be a soldier, a grunt, a young boy. The Fighter can be anyone, perhaps even a boy forced to be a Wizard but escaped before initation and became a Fighter instead. The "Fighter" is kind of, it isn't really a Class but more talking about a character's skill and occupation. A Job more than a title.

 

Rogue: Could be more of the "Adventurer" archetype. Difficult to define. A rascal, daring thieving, Han Solo springs to mind. A pirate, but could also just be a wanderer, a nomad on a pilgrimage. The Rogue could in many senses be seen as a Monk, but that smug smile is hard to wipe off. A charming individual who is great at dancing, smoking cigars, kissing and sleight of hand. The Rogue can get into many places by just talking, or throw a sleep dart surprisingly precise. Good at rowdy fist fighting and unusually takes one or two hits himself before going down (though the Rogue often finds some remarkably convenient solution and always comes out on top, McGyver). The Rogue can be seen as one of the cool kids in town, popular character that likes to be around people. Which is quite different from an Assassin. Tony Stark as a Tinkerer and Person is a Rogue as well, Iron-Man is a Fighter. It really is 2 different characters, with 1 soul. If Steampunk is in this game a Tinkerer Rogue would be awesome. Sherlock Holmes is a Rogue, and handles a gun well too.

 

Barbarian: If someone just burst out and said to you "You.. you.. you Barbarian!!" why would they call you a barbarian? A Barbarian is a vulgar person, someone who drinks a lot and swears a lot. A daring and in some weird way charming character. Strong and determined, easy-going. There's no real "Barbarian Stronghold" as being a barbarian is more of a personality thing. It's not like someone yells "Argh it's a caveman from a mountain cold icetop!!" when you see a barbarian.

 

Cipher: Devious shady characters of society, infiltrators and spies, in many ways a Rogue. They gain this characteristics due to their ability to do everything much faster than a Rogue, in a different way. Though the Cipher is not nearly as adept at bartering or the charming side, the Cipher is also more deadly. An Assassin (did I hit the right nail? ). Often trained from young age. Few are Master Ciphers in the world, and there's two sides of them. "Jedi versus Sith" Class, most decisions in game in terms of dialogues and choices.

 

Chanter: A churchly title, the Chanter casts on spells by singing or yelling,

 

Monk: I hope a Brother Tuck type of Monk, a staff master because of ritualistic purposes and training. Or better yet, poi. A religious or non-religious man/woman, to an inner spiritual God or an outer spiritual God. Kind and appreciating to the world around them. Living in the flow. Is not necessarily part of the order whether a monastic Monk or a traveling Monk. Kind of like the underdog, the bottom of the bottom in hierarchy in terms of society. The Monk gets taxed instead of taxing. Everyone picks at the Monk.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Osvir

[Somna]

I'll reread the descriptions I can read, but I'm not completely drawing the connection on some of these conclusions.

 

The only thing I've ever seen mentioned about the ranger, for example, is that the fighter isn't as good as the ranger with ranged weaponry.

[Osvir]

I'm not drawing any connections to what I've read from P:E, I'm just drawing conclusions on what I'd hope to see. Some of them are half-joke half-serious too.

[Somna]

Gotcha.

 

I do feel that I should re-analyze what they've stated before though. Otherwise, hoping that they'll turn out one way when they've cleared stated something to the contrary is asking to be disappointed.

[Jojobobo]

What I want to know is whether each class will work on a solo basis? Classes like paladin do seem to have the party based mechanic in mind, but it would be nice if each class functioned well autonomously. In fact, by making them work well on their own I think it might enhance how they worked in party as it would make the core of each class viable.

[Osvir]

@Jojobobo: The game has the party based mechanic in mind, it isn't intended to be a single character game. Bioware said that it would be possible to solo the DA:O on easy, but that it would be impossible on harder difficulties and that you'd need a party. Heck even on easy it could be difficult to solo in DA:O. I don't expect much but I kind of expect to see something similarly. However, as I've discussed my "Armor as an Upgradeable Asset similar to a Skill Tree" in other threads I'm thinking that a solo gameplay (with those Armor mechanics in mind, check the "Wall of Text" in my signature) you could give the Paladin several different roles on a single player playthrough (and gain more experience to be able to give that Paladin more than 1 role by him/herself). Giving the Solo Playthrough the ability to play a Paladin/Fighter in one situation, and a Paladin/Wizard in a different situation.

 

I'm looking objectively at the different classes as professions and how to place the classes into the world as definitions beyond what weapons they use, what does a Paladin do for a living? Why is he a Paladin and how come? Why is someone calling that guy a Paladin? Why would someone call my Fighter a Fighter and not a Samurai?

 

Taking Paladin as an example I do believe that it is originally something that's inspired by the crusaders (in essence; not a nice guy, but blinded by devotion. I think that's what the wikia says as well).

 

A little bit of a repeat and trying to draw better connections.

 

Paladin:

Likewise I can see the Paladin (who is not part of a Holy Order) calling himself a White Knight, or even a Dark Knight. Paladin could be a collective "name" for several different archetypes and doesn't necessarily have to be a Soldier in some sort of Organization or Religious thing. Mechanically someone could be a Paladin, but roleplayingly the guy could be related to being a Royal Knight as well (without any religious devotion to it) or even a simple farmer who believes in the Light of the World and fights for it. The title "Knight" in many games past has had this role.

 

Fighter:

A Fighter could be anyone, an apprentice in the Paladin Order but dropped out before and became a Soldier, a Footman. The Fighter is related to the Hero Archetype for many reasons, most profoundly for being the Main Character in most non-class based games. Many classic games for the SNES and other similar RPG's and games generally have the "Fighter" up front as your character. I think I've seen 1 RPG where the Fighter class was actually named "Hero" but I can't remember where, it was slightly tweaked accordingly. As I said before, the Fighter sounds like a profession, like a job a la "Fight in this boxing ring to earn some money"-dude. This, in my opinion, sounds like the most difficult to define. "What an amazing fighter...!" *gulp* comparatively to "Oh he's such a rogue". You can't really use "Fighter" in the same way and it is a broad title with more meanings to it. A Barbarian could be a great Fighter, a Rogue, Cipher, Ranger and so on. Fighter relates to "Fighting" and the only thing I can think of per definition is a bully. Someone who likes to fight just to fight, which is why "Hero" might be a better class title. To be honest I'd prefer if "Fighter" was changed to something more defineable in the world, something that the Fighter actually could be called out on. "Soldier" does work. I mean, if my "Fighter" saves an entire village, whether he is a Soldier or not (coming from a farmland or something, grown up with butchering the livestock and such) I wouldn't be surprised if the villagers said something like "You're such a soldier! Such a champ!" or military men "Do you have any prior knowledge to the military, soldier?". Champion might be a better title than "Fighter" as well. I'm not suggesting that it should be changed, just that I think it'd be more interesting if changed.

 

Ranger:

A Ranger is pretty far away from being simply an "Archer", a Ranger is a farmer and a woodsman. Probably herding some cows (A Cowboy is a Ranger). Ever heard the term "Lone Ranger"? <- Cowboy. Red Dead Redemption. Before I wouldn't have been bothered about the implementation of the Ranger and I would have honestly said "Oh the Ranger is a Master Bowman and shoots arrows of great power to destroy everything and everyone wooozaa!" but then again I've grown up and I'm more interested in the tidbits of authenticity to the world.

 

Wizard:

A Wizard more of a scientist and scholar. Knowledge is Power. I'm thinking about the Librarian type from Warhammer, for some reason it feels as if the Librarian is some sort of "Archivist" (I only know of the one from the PC game Dawn of War and not the actual boardgame-thing or any lore). The Wizard is an Architect of the Soul. Physicians of the world, these are the people that come up with conceptual ideas for the future and also guards the present. Every Wizard has an interest for the Dark Side/The very deep depths of Necromancy, life and death. Some go further than others because they can't resist, others have a stronger Soul capable of resisting the temptations. Even Yoda can't avoid the Dark Side's call, but he resists it unlike anyone can or has the mindset for. The Grimoire (reading on the wiki) is both in real life and in P:E a big tome that is heavy to carry, and the Wizard seems to only be able to carry 1 (at most 2) or something like that, I'm loving it (<- that's Obsidian adding realism in a good way *standing ovation and bow*).

 

Cipher:

Why I deem the Cipher as an Assassin is because the Cipher has all abilities that would be best for interrogation, torture, charms, a Cipher is like a Ghost in StarCraft II (actually, the Ghosts are Psionics now that I think about it). This is why I think the Assassin role fits the Cipher more than a Rogue, whilst the Thief role fits more for the Rogue. A Cipher could specialize in combat, with few mind altering abilities, or specialize in ranged mind manipulating abilities and act more akin to a Wizard. Sasuke from Naruto -don't judge- could be seen as a Cipher as well, where he can read the movements of his opponent. I think that Cipher's should be a rare thing in the world, and mostly trained specialized agents or soldiers. Kind of like X-Men in a sense, where it is a strong power that spawns in few rare (some religious folk might even say "chosen") folk. What I meant to say that the Cipher does everything faster and better than the Rogue I didn't mean everything, but with the power to read minds they would be able to get through situations by merely reading thoughts, whilst the Rogue reads physical movements. Senator Palpatine is a Cipher, Darth Sidious (sp) is a Wizard. For some reason I feel as if the Ciphers even could be the "Unclean" and part of the "Necromancy" that the "Holy Order" fights to destroy *shrug*

 

Rogue:

The Rogue is not a master assassin per say. A Jack of All Trades type character, the "Adventurer". He travels a lot and tries different things, he's good at climbing, good at skydiving, drives a car well, is nimble and flexible, rash and unpredictable, got a good eye for precision and detail, he's 007, whilst the Cipher is the evil 006 (that's Golden Eye villain right? Or is it 005?). McGyver and Sherlock Holmes, a thinker and a physical solutionist~ resourceful and thievish. Often dashing and handsome in some way or another, but can also be the scums of the slums, dirty and unclean, slithering tongues and snakelike behavior.

 

Druid:

I see the Druid like a Voodoo Doctor, there is often not more than 1 of them per tribe. Druids love nature and hates authority, so I have a difficult time seeing Druids huddling up together and taking orders from each other, psychologically speaking I can see them pushing other people around however, as if they have a desire to tell people how live and what not to do, like any teacher they can be bad and good. Jaheira is an excellent example in my opinion, sometimes she is a great teacher of the land and the world, but sometimes she is just arrogant and stuck up. Likewise I get this vibe from her that she doesn't handle authority well, and that outright wishes to be authority (She wants to lead the group, as if it is her desire and purpose and dislikes being led by the main character). Druids would respect each other, as they follow the same path of nurturing for the land and the earth, but I have a hard time seeing it being an organized thing where there's some sort of Druid Landsmeet and they have someone or some authority deciding who cares for what type of area and so on. Druids are lazy society escapees, they live off grid in their self-sustained Earthships and people in the grid (i.e., in the "Matrix") look at Druids like they were "hippies", tree-huggers and vegan arrogant fools. It's all about perspective, and it's all about what the "Matrix" puts into the folk in the system. Town Criers are going to be P:E's form of "media" and tool for influencing the general public no? How does the Big Cities control their populations~ keep them pacified?

 

Barbarian:

Bandits would be Barbarians, vikings as well. Plunderers and organized villages, kind of like a Thieves Guild but out in the wilds, surviving off of caravans passing by. Pirates and looters. Not necessarily a hulking fat archetype, a Rogue could be a Barbarian for example. Vulgar in their manner. A Barbarian Chanter would be a vulgar and funny singer (skald). I think this is also a difficult "class" to define. A barbarian being an outcast, but unlike Druids they huddle up together. How many Barbarians did it take too change the light bulb? Not very intelligent either tbh.

 

I hope that Classes are more interesting than simply different combat roles, but that they are titles given to people as well. I see classes as a "Way of Life" rather than "Weapon Training". When I'm writing this Wall of Text it is with mindset of creating insightful material that Obsidian can use for their perusal if they feel like it.

 

TL;DR: Can't summarize it, sorry, but talking about implementing the classes into the world rather than implementing them into combat only. Not all classes this time though. Priest, Monk and Chanter excluded.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Osvir

[Osvir]

What is a Priest? What is the purpose of the Priest? I kind of look at the Priest like an "Exorcist" whilst the Monk is more monastic and European. The Priest prays to an outer God whilst the Monk prays to an inner God.

 

There could be spiritual inner Gods (micro Gods within each and everyone) and outer Gods in the heavens or on a mountain or something (Tower of God). Micro cosmos fighting Macro cosmos, a brand new way to look at "Heaven versus Hell". Nirvana versus Earthly life, the purpose is to end the loop of loops for a Monk, to stop reincarnation (making the soul stop traveling from one being to another. Achieving "True Death", the Dusties are pretty Buddhistic).

 

I read this cool philosophical meme or whatever it was:

A man ran up to monk and yelled in his face:

'I WANT HAPPINESS!!'

The Monk smiled, looked at the man and said:

"First you must remove the 'I', for that is the Ego"

"Then you must remove the 'want', for that is the Desire"

"Now what are you left with?"

The man looked back at the monk with a smile:

"Happiness"

 

It is a simple demonstration of what a Monk is to me. A Teacher, but also a Student. Some Monks search fanatically (and in doing so, fruitlessly) for answers within themselves, whilst others just "finds" it within themselves. The flow is strong in this one.

 

European Chanter, Priest or Monk is pretty much same thing, and difficult to separate for me. Ofc the Chanter is a Bard more or less, but also a churchly character, chanting the Gospel of Man or something, an oracle and a prophet. Gospels in particular. How do you separate the Priest and the Monk? Perhaps the Priest could be an Agent of the God, spreading the word of God (with shotgun) (Jeane D'Arc springs to mind for some reason) whilst the Monk is more of in Servitude to the God. Perhaps even something like this:

 

Priest: Agent of God (E.g., carries out "His" or "Her" will)

Monk: In servitude to God (Inner or Outer)

Chanter: Messenger of God

 

A Doomsayer could be a Chanter as well, just as much as a Bard could be one.

[Aenor]

Too bad that the chanter doesn't use musical instruments like an bard, I really like the class and the flair of it.

[Osvir]

Where do you get that knowledge from Aenor? On the P:E Wiki:
http://eternitywiki.com/Chanter

I didn't read anything about no musical instrument yet.

EDIT: I can think of several instruments, but the one that allures me the most is probably this one:

Bagpipe. This is from Monster Hunter, where it is an actual weapon called "Heavy Bagpipe".

Could it serve a function as a "Crushing" weapon, such as a Mace?

Then there's Guitar, Harp, Jew's Harp, Flute (When I write "Chanter" in Google and go to "Pictures" there's tons of pictures on flutes).

EDIT EDIT:
* Bagpipe bomb?
* Bagpipe gun?

Edited January 21, 2013 by Osvir

[Lephys]

^ Haha. I've always loved the flavor gained in RPGs when music-based characters literally fought with their weapons. It might be a tad out of the seriousness threshold for P:E, though.

 

Also, maybe Chanters WILL get instruments? Just, ones that support vocals (no flutes, etc.). And maybe ones that don't require 2 hands to play at once (it's a bit tough to play a lute WHILST battling). Maybe tambourines, etc.? You could even dual-wield them. Or a tambourine and a dagger/sword/axe. One-handed percussion instruments are the only things that come to mind.

[.Leif.]

 

 

I would be glad to see the bagpipes featured in PE to go with my chanter's kilt I don't really think they qualify as a weapon. I love Monster-Hunter for what it is, but I don't think the JRPG-sized weapons would fit in well. The closest we may get is the Claymore, high-powered magic weapons or weapons used by giants.

[rjshae]

I would be glad to see the bagpipes featured in PE to go with my chanter's kilt I don't really think they qualify as a weapon. I love Monster-Hunter for what it is, but I don't think the JRPG-sized weapons would fit in well. The closest we may get is the Claymore, high-powered magic weapons or weapons used by giants.

 

Bagpipes -- known to cause brief bouts of insanity and bleeding ear syndrome.

[TRX850]

Some bagpipe trivia, from the movie Braveheart.

 

Despite the film being set in Scotland, and based on the life of a Scottish folk hero, the primary instrument heard throughout the soundtrack (most notably at William's father's funeral) are the Uilleann pipes, which are a smaller traditionally Irish version of bagpipes rather than the ubiquitous Great Highland Bagpipe.

 

I've heard other films have done this too, because they preferred the warmer, richer sound of the Irish pipes.