What can't a Druid do?

[Ganrich]

 

 

Leave the paladins the way they are, else they might as well be priests.

If you were talking about DnD then I would agree.  However, this isn't DnD, and Paladins aren't holy warriors of a Deity.  They are Soldiers with conviction based on an Order. 

 

Lay on Hands is a melee, single target heal.  A modal aura that heals over time would make the paladin much less active, and allow the paladin to commence in melee or ranged combat.  They only would break the combat rhythm when they need to lay on hands for VERY limited burst healing.  Simultaneously, one player may not even opt into the modal heal, and make a different paladin with a healer behind him (druid or Priest). 

Priests sit back and buff and heal with some occasional debuff/damage.  Best healers in the game because they heal for chunks of stamina. 

 

Druids are offensive with ranged heal over time spells, but no burst healing like the Priest.  However, they have the ability to keep a party up in most situations. 

 

What I am suggesting does, in no way, make a Paladin a Priest.  What it does is give 3 different types of healers that a player could use one of, or opt for 2 in the party makeup.  It increases what the paladin is capable of as a class, and increases party diversity. 

 

I like the idea of a regeneration aura, but it would have to be minimal else it would be overpowered.

 

A chanter would be a better candidate if you insist on having 3 healing classes.

 

 

I thought chanter at first too.  However, the Paladin already has a single heal, and the Chanter has none.  Chanter is also "the" summoner class in the game.  I think it would be easier to balance the Paladins with healing than giving and balancing the chanters.  I do think having 3 healers would be welcome.  I always hated the IE games only having 2 of 10ish (not including kits) classes that can heal.  Which classes that are capable healers, outside of Druid and Priest, I don't care but Paladin and Chanter are definitely the most likely candidates. 

[Zansatsu]

Is it just me or are there too many classes?

Maybe so. It feels like many of the classes are very 1 dimensional. I think you could have a couple classes start as one and branch off with different focuses. Example : Rogue and ranger could be 1 class. Fighter and barbarian could be one class.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Zansatsu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is it just me or are there too many classes?

IMO, a classless system would be the best.

[Seari]

I just wish obsidian would postpone the game and work on the classes(+combat system), because currently they're kind of ****. I esp. don't like what they've done with the wizard, fighter and rogue. Not a fan of the druid, ranger(too ranged focused) and monk either, but at least these have cool mechanics/ideas.

 

I imagine this is what the Wizard would have played like had it not had all of its qualities diluted and gifted to other classes.

 

Spot on.

[Razsius]

A lot of this has to do with classes feeling distinct I think.  There's not too many of them they just all need more branching ways you can play each of them.  The monk doesn't feel like a tank at all unless you go sword and board and even then it's just a really crappy fighter.  If they had different stances that affect whether they had hobble attached to their unarmed strikes or if they gained deflection in their Way of the Beetle stance or some such...

 

Hmm this is almost worth a thread in itself...

[Zansatsu]

Well some of the classes feel very well rounded and some don't. Many of the ones that don't are similar and really could just be the same class with different focuses as you say. Why is the fighter, an obvious master of combat, geared for defense only (at least from beta it could change)? The Barbarian is just the yin to the fighter yang. Why not combine them call it the warrior and be done with it. Now we have an interesting class like Druids or Chanter. Just thoughts.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Zansatsu

[Ashen Rohk]

Druids are a little squishy I've found, considering that they've got +20 to melee. Some really cool spells, but I don't think you should be able to cast while in animal form.

 

Chanters are brilliant. Stamina drain + constant burn is a great way to support in a fighter. Really great survivability when coupled with some priest abilities.

 

Cipher abilities are pretty powerful. However, there is a need to get your hands dirty with Cipher for the Soul Whip ability. In melee I can very easily get my focus up to 55 without breaking a sweat (high dexterity). Drop the lightning sword thing and Soul Ignition, charm a dude and you're set. Offsetting ranged attacks for a slower regen of focus needs to be managed, having a rifle as a secondary weapon for the cipher is pretty cool notion that makes you change the way you play cipher in encounters.

[Zansatsu]

Well some of the classes feel very well rounded and some don't. Many of the ones that don't are similar and really could just be the same class with different focuses as you say. Why is the fighter, an obvious master of combat, geared for defense only (at least from beta it could change)? The Barbarian is just the yin to the fighter yang. Why not combine them call it the warrior and be done with it. Now we have an interesting class like Druids or Chanter. Just thoughts.

The choices in builds would really expand as well. If you wanted a tank you would need Constitution and maybe perception over a more offensive Might Dex Intelligence build thus making your choices in class design more impactful.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Zansatsu

[Ink Blot]

Ciphers, Chanters and Druids are the three strongest classes atm by a considerable amount.

Gotta agree. I had alot of fun with all three (love the fact that my beloved 'bard' class really got some love, and was totally surprised at how much I liked the cipher), but after playing them, there's really no incentive to take anything else right now. I realize that will be addressed though.

 

Having said this, I have to add that I just this morning played a Priest for the first time and when you get a pair of them going with their buff/debuff spells, it's pretty much pure win.

[Matt516]

This is one area the Monk falls down, as if he's not aggro'd at the very beginning of the fight, he's essentially an anchor until someone starts hitting him.

 

That's more a problem with the AI than the Monk though IMO. They never really switch targets, do they?

[Sensuki]

Nope, they do not. Not yet anyway.

[Matt516]

 

 

 

I have only played with the Cipher twice.  So, the example here is Soul Ignition, but there are other spells that have been mentioned up thread that are a bit over the top.  Combat start you have 35 focus at level 5, and there are 3 beetles.  Soul Ignition (costs 20 focus I do believe) beetle 1, and it will either die or be so low that a single hit can kill it from the appropriate damage type.  Fighter has engaged the 2 remaining beetles and you are at 15 focus.  Fire a single shot from a bow at the lowest health remaining beetle, and you have 20 focus.  Soul Ignition that same beetle and you are down to a single beetle.  That will occur pretty often at lower difficulties.  However the damage you can lay down at higher difficulties is still pretty absurd. 

 

 

I think everyone is aware that Soul Ignition is totally unbalanced currently and is bound to get hit hard by the Nerf bat. And what you're describing above isn't even half of it. You don't ever need to engage in combat with SI since it has an almost unlimited range. You can safely burn down mobs with SI without ever drawing aggro!

 

 

2 questions:

 

1) If you SE an enemy from really far away, does it attack you?

 

2) If you SE one of a group of enemies from really far away, does the group attack you?

 

If the answer to either of those is "no", that's not even a balance issue IMO - it's a bug. Attacking an enemy should aggro it - that's really all there is to it. Hopefully that gets fixed before launch.

[Seari]

I thought chanter at first too.  However, the Paladin already has a single heal, and the Chanter has none.  Chanter is also "the" summoner class in the game.  I think it would be easier to balance the Paladins with healing than giving and balancing the chanters.  I do think having 3 healers would be welcome.  I always hated the IE games only having 2 of 10ish (not including kits) classes that can heal.  Which classes that are capable healers, outside of Druid and Priest, I don't care but Paladin and Chanter are definitely the most likely candidates. 

 

Well it is fitting for the bard class to have a couple of healing spells, since they did at least have them in dnd 3.5th ed. No idea about 4th ed, not familiar with it because it's a sack of ****.

 

And let's face it, everything is copied from dnd anyway, more or less.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Seari