Class Roles?

[llafnwod]

Hi folks!

 

Just finished a run of PoE (cipher main) and enjoyed the hell out of it, but a few classes have me confused as to why they exist and what roles they play.

Lots of individual threads have been made along these lines, but most of them are a couple patches old at this point, so things may have changed.

 

Note that this a feedback thread. I'm not looking to complain, but to be educated. If you've got a different view on a class and what it's good at, that's exactly what I'm here for.

 

Here comes the wall of text:

 

Monk

Role: Melee DPS, fun attacks powered by Wounds.

What's the point?

Fighters are a more defensively-oriented class, and serve the classic tank role. Barbs can clear a room full of squishies by flexing.

But Monks are basically melee DPS, a role the Rogue fills as well. Our choice seems to come down to...:

1) do more damage by taking hits

2) do more damage by weakening enemy

... which doesn't seem like much of a choice.

 

Paladin

Role: Melee support, buffs.

What's the point?

Most of what Paladins do, Priests do better. They don't matter much more than a Priest in a melee either (Flames of Devotion just doesn't cut it).

Their auras are supposed to make them unique; if they had a greater radius and variety, they might be useful, but that'd still just make them Chanters.

 

Ranger

Role: Ranged DPS, melee interdiction with pets.

What's the point?

Rangers I almost get; there were points when things were getting too cramped for another melee guy to be useful that I was glad to have ranged DPS rather than another Rogue.

But when that's *not* the case (i.e. most of the time), why use a ranger? Animal companions are a liability, immediately going down in a heavy melee, and rendering the Ranger almost useless.

Their knockdown would make them decent bodyguards, but most of the Ranger bonuses come from attacking the same target as their pet.

 

Priest/Driud

Role: Spellcasters.

What's the point?

Priests and druids are both extremely useful classes, but I don't get what makes them different other than spell pools. Ciphers get casting points from auto-attacks, and chanters cast based on real passed time.

But wizards, priests, and druids all have the same casting mechanic (uses/rest, /encounter at higher levels). What's the difference?

1) Wizards: Have a slightly larger spell pool, but cast from the limited selection in their grimoires. This is a rad mechanic and I totally approve.

2) Priests: Have Holy Radiance and Sacred Circle, neither of which have a huge effect. Have a roleplay element that (like the Paladin's) is totally irrelevant if they're not the main character.

3) Druids: Can spiritshift, which is currently useless. What hurts about this is that it doesn't seem like a tough thing to change.

If the spiritshifted form scaled, like the Monk's unarmed attacks, and some of the Druid's abilities were locked to it, that'd immediately make them unique and interesting to play.

 

Anyway, we're long out of beta and it's too late to make serious mechanical changes. But if any of you have advice on making these classes more interesting to play, I'd love to hear it!

[Kaigen42]

My 2c:

 

Monk: The point of the Monk is to be a melee character that benefits from being micromanaged instead of only paying attention to them whenever whatever they're attacking dies (if then). Depending on how you build them, they can be tanky or DPS, but if you wish your Fighter had more to do than use a couple of Knock Downs and then sit there trading blows, or that your Rogue could do more than just a couple of debilitating strikes followed by auto-attacking, the Monk is for you. Monks and Rogues are actually great partners, because the Monk can provide a consistent source of debuffs for the Rogue to take advantage of.

 

Paladin: Seems to be intended as a support-oriented frontliner, but their support abilities are lackluster. The main appeal of them right now is that they can pump up their defenses very high, use the Outworn Buckler to buff party defenses, and don't require much attention.

 

Ranger: I think of the Ranger as a slightly more utility-oriented DPS class, as opposed to the Rogue, which is all about doing more damage or enabling their damage. Animal companions provide you with an extra body on the field that can shore up your flank, flank the enemy, or provide a convenient anchor for effects like Ectopsychic Echo. Abilities like Binding Roots and Stunning Shots provide debuffs, while Driving Flight lets them spread damage around a bit.

 

Spellcasters: The main difference between the full casters in this game is their spell pool, not the way they cast. Could things be more interesting if they used different mechanics? Perhaps, but that's not the route the devs went. It's worth noting that spiritshifting gives Druids a free DR buff even if you intend to just keep on casting spells, and the Inspiring Radiance talent gives the Priest's Holy Radiance an accuracy buff that stacks with everything. Neither of those things are reasons to take a Druid/Priest instead of another character--you'll take them because you want specific spells that only they can cast--but it's a useful thing to keep in mind anyway.

[Crucis]

OP, I think that you're too focused on the geeky gamer terms.  You're looking at those terms and appear to think that they're the end all and be all of why various classes should exist or what roles they play.  Not everyone plays the game from that perspective.  Try looking at your questions from a more role-playing PoV, and maybe your questions will answer themselves.

[Crucis]

My 2c:

 

Monk: The point of the Monk is to be a melee character that benefits from being micromanaged instead of only paying attention to them whenever whatever they're attacking dies (if then). Depending on how you build them, they can be tanky or DPS, but if you wish your Fighter had more to do than use a couple of Knock Downs and then sit there trading blows, or that your Rogue could do more than just a couple of debilitating strikes followed by auto-attacking, the Monk is for you. Monks and Rogues are actually great partners, because the Monk can provide a consistent source of debuffs for the Rogue to take advantage of.

 

Paladin: Seems to be intended as a support-oriented frontliner, but their support abilities are lackluster. The main appeal of them right now is that they can pump up their defenses very high, use the Outworn Buckler to buff party defenses, and don't require much attention.

 

Ranger: I think of the Ranger as a slightly more utility-oriented DPS class, as opposed to the Rogue, which is all about doing more damage or enabling their damage. Animal companions provide you with an extra body on the field that can shore up your flank, flank the enemy, or provide a convenient anchor for effects like Ectopsychic Echo. Abilities like Binding Roots and Stunning Shots provide debuffs, while Driving Flight lets them spread damage around a bit.

 

 

Monks

While I'm not big on doing a lot of MM, I finding monks fun to play, mostly because they're just so different, at least if you're using them for their unarmed combat abilities.  It's fun watching a monk lay the smackdown on a bad guy 1v1, particularly when you use those lightning fists or that low level kick move.  (I kinda prefer the lightning fists because it's not just a single action attack.  The ability lasts for a few seconds and isn't all or nothing.)  Also, monks are great for rushing behind enemy lines and going after their spellcasters and archers.

 

I don't see monks as being all that great for holding the line, mostly because they don't have the ability to engage multiple targets at once and resist a lot of damage, at least if you're trying to let the monk take some damage to generate wounds for their abilities.  What I've been doing is arming my monks with a bow along with their fists.  I see this as a RP decision, since a bow seems more in keeping with how I see the class.  (Also, since I tend to have my monk wearing the lightest armor I can get away with, the faster recovery speed, combined with the monk's high DEX action speed, and the speed of a bow, turns her into a rapid fire machine gun of arrows.)  Regardless, having a ranged option lets the monk hang back at the start of a battle to let things develop, before I decide where best to use his melee abilities.  I'd rather that the enemy melee-ers gang up on Eder than my monk. 

 

 

Paladins

 

Much as I enjoy having Pallegina in my parties, I have to admit that it's not because she's a powerhouse in any way.  She's decent enough as a secondary tank, but nothing special.  Maybe a PC paladin would be better due to the better Faith and Conviction bonuses.  But still, the class doesn't impress me much, which is a shame, because I've always loved playing paladins.  I really wish that the devs would pump up this class so that it was more enjoyable to play.

 

 

Rangers

 

Rangers are another class that I've traditionally enjoyed playing.  I personally don't mind that their focus is on ranged combat.  OTOH, it wouldn't bother me if the devs rethought this and tried to include some melee combat class abilities and talents for rangers.  It seems odd that Rangers have the same Accuracy in melee and at range, and yet have no special class abilities or talents for melee combat.

[llafnwod]

 

OP, I think that you're too focused on the geeky gamer terms.  You're looking at those terms and appear to think that they're the end all and be all of why various classes should exist or what roles they play.  Not everyone plays the game from that perspective.  Try looking at your questions from a more role-playing PoV, and maybe your questions will answer themselves.

 

 

Hey bud. I like Monks, because they're flashy and punching things is cool. I used Pallegina and Sagani all the time, because I think they're great characters. I'm not having any trouble having fun with PoE; this thread is for discussing mechanical choices the developers made that I didn't get. I use "geeky gamer terms" because most people who talk about RPG mechanics know 'em, and they make it easy to efficiently discuss character builds, which is what this thread is about. Thanks for your other reply, though!

 

 

My 2c:

 

Monk: The point of the Monk is to be a melee character that benefits from being micromanaged instead of only paying attention to them whenever whatever they're attacking dies (if then). Depending on how you build them, they can be tanky or DPS, but if you wish your Fighter had more to do than use a couple of Knock Downs and then sit there trading blows, or that your Rogue could do more than just a couple of debilitating strikes followed by auto-attacking, the Monk is for you. Monks and Rogues are actually great partners, because the Monk can provide a consistent source of debuffs for the Rogue to take advantage of.

 

Paladin: Seems to be intended as a support-oriented frontliner, but their support abilities are lackluster. The main appeal of them right now is that they can pump up their defenses very high, use the Outworn Buckler to buff party defenses, and don't require much attention.

 

Ranger: I think of the Ranger as a slightly more utility-oriented DPS class, as opposed to the Rogue, which is all about doing more damage or enabling their damage. Animal companions provide you with an extra body on the field that can shore up your flank, flank the enemy, or provide a convenient anchor for effects like Ectopsychic Echo. Abilities like Binding Roots and Stunning Shots provide debuffs, while Driving Flight lets them spread damage around a bit.

 

Spellcasters: The main difference between the full casters in this game is their spell pool, not the way they cast. Could things be more interesting if they used different mechanics? Perhaps, but that's not the route the devs went. It's worth noting that spiritshifting gives Druids a free DR buff even if you intend to just keep on casting spells, and the Inspiring Radiance talent gives the Priest's Holy Radiance an accuracy buff that stacks with everything. Neither of those things are reasons to take a Druid/Priest instead of another character--you'll take them because you want specific spells that only they can cast--but it's a useful thing to keep in mind anyway.

 

Monk: I'll have to try them this way. The main thing that kept me from using them as Rogue-supplements was that I had a bunch of casters doing just that, but I suppose having a quick guy up front dishing out status ailments would free them up for AoE murder.

 

Pally: Yup. That's sort of my point. Picking between a tank that knocks things over twice per combat and one that provides slight passive buffs and hits things with a flaming sword twice per combat just isn't a very exciting choice.

 

Ranger: It seemed like 90% of the time, the way I used Rangers was that the pet stays out of the way and knocks people over, and the Ranger snipes stragglers. My problem with them was that their ability pool seemed pretty situational, and their micro-to-benefit ratio generally wasn't to my liking. They might shine in a different party, though, so I'll keep trying.

 

Casters: I know, and this is the way casters are in pretty much every cRPG. It's just that OEI did such a good job at giving the melee classes manifestly different playstyles, and giving Ciphers and Chanters unique casting mechanics, that the other casters just stuck out in their blandness. What I was going for was a way to make Druids and Priests fun and unique, in the way Barbarians and Ciphers are fun and unique.

[JONNIN]

Monks are fine.  They can tank, they have fine deflection and health and all.  They also do tons of damage by hitting fast and hitting hard.  I can hit about 6 times to every 1 by my opponent with my monk,  and those hits are on par with a dual wield scimitar fighter for most of the game (ok, late game with dual superb and full enchants and all traits the fighter might pull ahead, but in a party, you can't have ALL your characters using fully loaded weapons... the monk sports a zero cost pair of hard hitting weapons).   So the monk makes a strong tank/dps fighter alternative and can be fun to play.

 

Paladin: one of the weaker classes, they really only excel as tanks that can rez your priest or druid without a scroll or heal themself if things go wrong.   Higher spell resists than fighters etc, they are all around tanks that can soak spells and melee almost equally well.   The problem with paladins is the game does not really *require* this good a tank, and you are *usually* better off with someone who can hit harder.  Its meh either way -- an expert party does not need the supertank because they know the game and a novice party does not need it because easier difficulties can be tanked by any class.

 

Rangers:  strong ranged dps.  Pet is about worthless but a well made ranger does as much or more damage than a melee damage dealer.  I even did a play - through with the "three muskateers".   I had 3 rangers with guns and a chanter buffing them with "something nocked arrows and such" (chanter also set up for ranged dps) and it was just bam, kill, bam, kill, bam, kill ...   methodical focused fire dropped target after target.  The 3 pets were all lions doing debuff roars and interference.  It was fun, but not an ideal party...

 

Um???

Priests have a SOLID mix of damage dealing, buffing, debuffing, and healing spells.  Wizards have NO heals and most buffs are self-only -- they are pure offense.   Druids are a priest alternative -- healing, debuffs and AOE damage focus.   Ciphers have damage and debuffs mostly with one "heal" a number of "dominates".   All 4 have their merits, you just pick what you need in your group... if you want a lot of healing, or a lot of ranged damage, or a lot of debuffs, or the cipher's no-sleep spell useage, or whatever.   Most groups will do better with at least a little healing and some debuffs.    Druids have their backup melee damage mode (shapeshift) for when an enemy gets past your tanks.  

 

The only fixes I would do here are:

1) ranger pet death does not debuff ranger so harshly.  I would stun the ranger for 10 seconds or something instead.

2) druid needs a way to shapeshift for longer or more often per encounter.

3) cipher ... maybe start with 0 spell points and earn them much, much faster or something.  They are almost required to use a blunderbuss, and that is kind of wrong.

4) paladin should have ... something.  Maybe give it a shield mastery  or access to fighter weapon mastery or something.  Even making its aura area of effect much larger would be a start -- they barely hit someone standing next to them.  

 

But those are minor tweaks.  Of all these classes, only the paladin is truly a weakling in need of *something*.

Edited May 19, 2015 by JONNIN

[Evange]

Pally is really useful when as a "solo" class as they are the epitome of Jack of All Trades but Master of None.

 

They excel in dealing with a singular tough enemy like bosses. Sworn Enemy just adds so much damage.

[llafnwod]

Pally is really useful when as a "solo" class as they are the epitome of Jack of All Trades but Master of None.

 

They excel in dealing with a singular tough enemy like bosses. Sworn Enemy just adds so much damage.

 

Huh! I don't think I've ever heard of someone soloing with a pally. What's your build?

[Raven Darkholme]

 

Pally is really useful when as a "solo" class as they are the epitome of Jack of All Trades but Master of None.

 

They excel in dealing with a singular tough enemy like bosses. Sworn Enemy just adds so much damage.

 

Huh! I don't think I've ever heard of someone soloing with a pally. What's your build?

 

Paladin is one of the most common classes people solo with, I soloed the entire game Potd incl. adra dragon with him, but with a less optimized built. Paladin is actually one of the few classes that doesn't requirer you to go moon godlike solo or even benefits you if you pick another class. I myself went with moon godlike Darcozzi, but more optimized is either wild orlan or Coastal Aumaua.

I personally like the Aumaua since dragons have stun and KD attacks that hurt a lot. A build I successfully soloed Act 1 with (after I already completed the game with the gdlk) was 16/11/14/17/3/17. You don't have max RES and PER but that only costs you 2 points def, you have awesome reflex and really good fort. Very funny is fights against phantoms, since their melee attack, though targetting your deflection trigger the aumaua bonus of +20 to be applied to your melee defense, so if you have 100 defl with level 5 as I did on my testrun, you deflect with 120, this gets really crazy if you drink wizards double potion = 160 def against phantoms. Also if you get hit, there is a second roll against your fort, whether you get stunned or not, here again your fort is upped by 20 points because of Aumaua.

[MadDemiurg]

Paladins.

 

Paladins make good brickwall tanks, although that's probably not the role they were designed for. They do piddly damage, even sworn enemy only brings it to "acceptable" level, but that's not their strength anyway. After getting more familiar with the game I actually prefer paladins over fighters as tanks, but only as PC. They are capable of soloing, then again all classes are, and it's not like they are the best solo class (which is a subjective matter anyway). Their support is not that great, apart from a few specific abilities. So basically an alternative tank class.

 

Rangers.

 

Rangers do decent ranged dps and provide some extra utility via CC abilities and minor aoe. They require careful pet micro and pets are a bit underpowered in the end atm, but it doesn't make the class THAT bad. They excel at singling out enemies in my experience because of stunning shot.

 

Priests/Druids

 

Really? They have entirely different spell lists compared to wizards which function in a very different way. I'd agree that some of their abilities are kinda gimmick at best and could use a revamp (see my signature), but they aren't what defines the class, their spells do.

Edited May 19, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Kaigen42]

FYI, if you're not above using IE Mod, there's an option in it now to enable Disposition effects on NPC Paladins and Priests in your party.

[SlayerDorian]

The point to pretty much all of these is that the game is more complex and offers more options than the ultra simplified low-brow MMORPG party (tank unit, dps unit, healer unit).  Actually, that whole optimized, cookie cutter, garbage is one of the major things wrong with RPGs today.

 

All of the classes can be quite useful if used correctly.  There are a few balance issues, sure, but no class is pointless.  You can solo the game, so there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to anything potentially being pointless.