I have no idea what the current state of the priest class is, but at the very least:

 

 

She looks like she could take a couple hits.

i think she is a fighter.

ALL OF THEM!!!

 

I have no idea what the current state of the priest class is, but at the very least:

 

 

 

She looks like she could take a couple hits.

i think she is a fighter.

 

 

No it's confirmed she's a priest.

Yeah it looks like priests can wear decent armour, at the very least. In the old D&D games clerics could handle the melee role pretty well, since with special abilities and good armour they could hold their own on the front rank and even dish out some damage. However, it sounds like this won't necessarily be the standard role for a P:E priest, since they are supposed to be primarily spell casters. Perhaps they lack melee abilities or the ability to absorb damage, or perhaps they can take some hits but can't dish out damage with weapons reliably.

I also don't believe the monk will be "as good as" a tank as a fighter. I'd like to see a party without a fighter that isn't hamstrung, though, and I'd like to see who takes point when no fighter is present. I can't imagine that being the rogue (though perhaps I'm wrong), so I'd like to see if another character can be build to do that. The only possiblities I see are: Paladin, Monk, & Barbarian.

You omitted the part where Sawyer also said that only Fighters can "engage" more than one person at a time.  Tanking as a concept isn't about taking hits, it is about controlling the enemy by forcing them to fight who you want and be positioned where you want them.  Paladins can only do that with one person, just like every other melee.  Only the Fighter can control more than one enemy at a time by this method, hence why it is "the tank".  In his example his paladin could have stopped that one guy, but if it had been two who rushed the mage... well he would need more than the paladin. 

 

No class will be "must have".  But if you plan to control combat through the tanking method there is only going to be one "great" choice.

 

Also be aware the paladins skills are very positioning dependent, sometimes using it to intercept someone will also force your paladin into a sub optimal location for the fight and they wont be able to use their best abilities as well as they could have.  Every class will have it's strength in weakness, I suspect they won't be nearly as flexible as was suggested in the past.  I also suspect that if you build a party that doesn't cover each others weaknesses and don't play your characters to their strengths and instead try to "go outside the mold" you are going to have a very rough game.

Edited November 6, 201312 yr by Karkarov

 

I also don't believe the monk will be "as good as" a tank as a fighter. I'd like to see a party without a fighter that isn't hamstrung, though, and I'd like to see who takes point when no fighter is present. I can't imagine that being the rogue (though perhaps I'm wrong), so I'd like to see if another character can be build to do that. The only possiblities I see are: Paladin, Monk, & Barbarian.

You omitted the part where Sawyer also said that only Fighters can "engage" more than one person at a time.  Tanking as a concept isn't about taking hits, it is about controlling the enemy by forcing them to fight who you want and be positioned where you want them.  Paladins can only do that with one person, just like every other melee.  Only the Fighter can control more than one enemy at a time by this method, hence why it is "the tank".  In his example his paladin could have stopped that one guy, but if it had been two who rushed the mage... well he would need more than the paladin. 

 

No class will be "must have".  But if you plan to control combat through the tanking method there is only going to be one "great" choice.

 

Also be aware the paladins skills are very positioning dependent, sometimes using it to intercept someone will also force your paladin into a sub optimal location for the fight and they wont be able to use their best abilities as well as they could have.  Every class will have it's strength in weakness, I suspect they won't be nearly as flexible as was suggested in the past.  I also suspect that if you build a party that doesn't cover each others weaknesses and don't play your characters to their strengths and instead try to "go outside the mold" you are going to have a very rough game.

 

One could get around controlling multiple opponents in I.E games with positioning. I do realize that the fighters have a great advantange though, and I fear that you are right that each class with have its strengths, and some may have roles that no other class can fill. For me the role of the Fighter at controlling combat, and the Wizard as a ranged crowd controller are so great, that they seam like "must haves" for me in an effective party, which is why I am hoping that parties can function without them, which is why I'd like to see a test party without either class.  If the fighter is so effective as a party protector, than sort of worries me about the roles of the rogue, barbarian, and monk.

Edited November 6, 201312 yr by forgottenlor

You omitted the part where Sawyer also said that only Fighters can "engage" more than one person at a time.  Tanking as a concept isn't about taking hits, it is about controlling the enemy by forcing them to fight who you want and be positioned where you want them.  Paladins can only do that with one person, just like every other melee.  Only the Fighter can control more than one enemy at a time by this method, hence why it is "the tank".  In his example his paladin could have stopped that one guy, but if it had been two who rushed the mage... well he would need more than the paladin.

I've gotta think, though, that the ability to keep 3 combatants within striking distance (to control 2 extra opponents via melee confrontation) would be rendered a bit moot by the lack of some additional capacity to withstand a bit of additional melee punishment, whether it's that the Fighter's just much better at not-getting-hit (to prevent him from taking 3 times the punishment every time he utilizes his 3-person engagement), or can directly mitigate more damage and/or suffer more punishment (natural armor/hitpoints).

 

True, I don't think it's as simple as "a Fighter can just be hit all day long and not care," but they're probably a little more tanky in that respect; taking hits/dealing with melee combat more efficiently/defensively.

 

This is one reason I hate the whole "DPS/SUPPORT/TANK" MMO terminology that's somehow become so big; it drastically oversimplifies everything. So then, you talk about something like the P:E Fighter class being, for lack of a better word, a good tank, and a lot of people immediately assume that means an excessive ability to passively soak up damage, rather than a combination of capability and active control that allows for the efficient handling of the damage potential of hostile melee combatants.

Edited November 6, 201312 yr by Lephys

This is one reason I hate the whole "DPS/SUPPORT/TANK" MMO terminology that's somehow become so big; it drastically oversimplifies everything. So then, you talk about something like the P:E Fighter class being, for lack of a better word, a good tank, and a lot of people immediately assume that means an excessive ability to passively soak up damage, rather than a combination of capability and active control that allows for the efficient handling of the damage potential of hostile melee combatants.

I agree, I tank in MMO's but I don't want to see those mechanics in other games.  It works in MMO's because you need to force grouping, you need everyone in the group to have a role, and it is easy to design encounters around because you know what the party has.  This isn't an MMO though, we can be a little more complex than that.

 

That said the bit about damage soaking is the common mistake of people who don't tank and or don't understand tanking.  Taking hit's and mitigating damage is just something you have to deal with because the enemy is focused on you.  Tanking is in reality the most reliable Crowd Control that exists.  It is about, like I said, controlling who the enemy attacks, where the enemy is positioned, and to some extent how effective the enemies attacks can be.  Shooting a cone of cold is bad ass and all, but if my tanking is forcing you to face away from the party it wasn't nearly as effective as it could have been.

 

That said yes, Fighters get a self regen in combat I believe, extremely high deflection so they are harder to hit and therefore crit than anyone else, and I think also don't get penalized for being attacked from sides or back.  They also probably get the highest wounds count next to barbarians.  So yeah, they will be the most "sturdy" class.

I'd be more interested if we got videos of each class with a couple of skills shown.

I'd be more interested if we got videos of each class with a couple of skills shown.

since it's a party based rpg and not dota or lol, it's more important to see how a party works with it's members colaborating than to just see the animation of a power attack or what a fireball looks like

 

I'd be more interested if we got videos of each class with a couple of skills shown.

since it's a party based rpg and not dota or lol, it's more important to see how a party works with it's members colaborating than to just see the animation of a power attack or what a fireball looks like

 

 

That is true. What I mean is just show off a couple of skills for each class every now and then. They don't even have to be fighting. Just show them off on a dummy or whatever. Then show off the classes as a team fighting for real.