The 64 Classes Are Missing Something...

ArchivedUser

There is a very simple and very common fantasy archetype that isn't present in this list, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. Personally, this class isn't for me. It was brought to my attention, and I'm redirecting the conversation here for you to debate.

The Monk.

This class is often found in fantasy rpgs, whether they be a video game or of the dice and paper variety. Obviously we would have to ask the devs, but to me, this seems like a possible path in Ashes of Creation. I have a couple thoughts on this potential addition:

-Is there a monastery in Verra? From a lore perspective, would this path in life suit the people here?
-From a game design perspective, is unarmed combat thing that the developers want to attempt to balance?
-Looking at the chart above, which class/subclass combination would be suit the Monk?

To answer that third one, I imagine we would have to look at a fighter/tank and Cleric combination. I like the Tank/Cleric being the Paladin. I like the idea of a Templar. Possibly let the Templar be the Fighter primary with the cleric secondary, and allow the monk to be Cleric primary/fighter secondary?

What are your thoughts on this?

ArchivedUser

I agree, and I think cleric - fighter would be the right combo for monk. Templar is too close to Paladin anyway imo. Druid is also a big one that's missing. I'd be fine with not having the "classic" classes but ideally not these generic ones like Highsword, Spellsword, Shadowblade, etc.

ArchivedUser

Beolupus said:

I agree, and I think cleric - fighter would be the right combo for monk. Templar is too close to Paladin anyway imo. Druid is also a big one that's missing. I'd be fine with not having but the "classic" classes but ideally not these generic ones like Highsword, Spellsword, Shadowblade, etc.

The druid is another archetype that's missing. Though, given the base classes, how on earth could we squeeze that one in?

ArchivedUser

I'm almost always on the side of adding more variety. be it classes, races, armor, weapons, costumes, anything. I like the variety. Of course, as long as they can keep each class deep, meaningful, relevant, and very different from other classes.

As Kro implied, I too think the traditional monk we have seen in D&D and other RPGs is there, just under a different name, I think it can be the duelist.

But if it's not, well I don't think we're going to miss it much with 64 classes to choose from. This is on launch day, they can always add more archetypes to that mix in future expansions.

ArchivedUser

I agree, it is odd that two very popular core classes are missing from the grid; Monk and Druid. In the studio's defense, perhaps they do not fit the 'world vision' of the game or setting?

Maybe druid is to close to another class on the list, but Monks? Hum... Monks, perhaps they were too difficult to place within the grid so they were just omitted?

Future expansion perhaps?

ArchivedUser

Just picture it, throwing 1 more archetype in there bumps it from 64 to 81 classes, 2 archetypes bumpt it to 100 classes. Exponential growth ftw

ArchivedUser

Krojak said:

Beolupus said:

I agree, and I think cleric - fighter would be the right combo for monk. Templar is too close to Paladin anyway imo. Druid is also a big one that's missing. I'd be fine with not having but the "classic" classes but ideally not these generic ones like Highsword, Spellsword, Shadowblade, etc.

The druid is another archetype that's missing. Though, given the base classes, how on earth could we squeeze that one in?

I'd say replace cleric - ranger (Protector) or summoner - ranger(Beastmaster) with Druid. I kinda like Beastmaster to be fair, but I think getting Druid in there would be better.

ArchivedUser

Monks:
https://youtu.be/TMAzTMs7THs?t=110

ArchivedUser

I like to think cleric could install fear of the gods and there is loads of soul name references here. Bard for songs, but they excel at charm as opposed to fear. Fitting then they should be stuck together in the table.

Mage has been coined as the dps of the ethereal realm with the fighter that of the physical realm.TankTank has been defined as physical, and I would consider it makes sense for summoner to bring the meat shield of the ethereal realm.

So...

I would put cleric/bard in the fire/soul category (ethereal) as hard counters.

I would put summoner/mage in the water/spirit category (ethereal) as hard counters.

I would put ranger/rogue in the air/mind category (corporeal) as hard counters.

I would put tank/fighter in the earth/body category (corporeal) as hard counters.

...which is exactly the way they are grouped into pairs in the table. With the secondary mixing things up.

If we now consider the ethereal and corporeal version:

Summoner & Tank = Optimised Damage resistance

Mage & Fighter = Optimised Damage

Bard & Rogue = Optimised Regeneration resistance if we consider Bard painting in blood and the rogues propensity for assassination/bleeds rather than direct combat.

Cleric & Ranger = Optimised Regeneration as the logical remnant of the foregoing. We know the cleric specialises this role.

So I dont think anything is missing (except allowing tertiary and quaternary hybrids). Mislabelled maybe. I think the association with unarmed combat is probably why it is replaced with something else. The use of staff or spear though as stated above...I think would get around that.

Druids. God damn I so wanted to be a druid too. In fact Monk and druid are probably two roles I admire the most.

/shrugs. Nothings perfect I guess. If it looks like a druid or a monk and play like a druid or a monk, you could always call it a druid or a monk regardless

ArchivedUser

The thing with monks is they are the eastern version of a holy person much like how we have the priest in the west. As the game takes a lot from western high fantasy and as each race has its own culture I don't think they would not fit the lore of the game unless they add a far east inspired race. Still, I do wonder if every race will get a class that they are masters of. Like the Vaelune could be great blademaster and assassins while Dünir would be the best dreadnoughts 

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

The thing with monks is they are the eastern version of a holy person much like how we have the priest in the west. As the game takes a lot from western high fantasy and as each race has its own culture I don't think they would not fit the lore of the game unless they add a far east inspired race. Still, I do wonder if every race will get a class that they are masters of. Like the Vaelune could be great blademaster and assassins while Dünir would be the best dreadnoughts 

Good question. We talking medievil westen monk friar tuck style or more modern eastern monk ?

ArchivedUser

What about Art Monk?  The former Washington wide receiver.

ArchivedUser

Crymoar said:

What about Art Monk?  The former Washington wide receiver.

With the skills of "sticky hands" and "speed burst".

ArchivedUser

SaintJ said:

How is it missing... make a bald Cleric use a staff for close combat.... BOOM!!! you got yourself a Monk.

I do agree the name is absent 

When WoW was still new (pre-BC Vanilla) I made a bald gnome rogue, specializes in the Combat tree, and had him only use fist weapons.  I called him a monk.  Years later they added actual monks of course.

I just loved the imagery of this tiny guy punching things to death.

ArchivedUser

Yeah, but we have to see what the actual abilities of the sub-classes are.
Could be that a Battle-Mage is the equivalent of a Monk.
Protector seems very likely to be the equivalent of a Druid.

ArchivedUser

I personally don't find it to odd these types of classes are not in the game. Typically Monks and Druids are labeled to be touch with the inner-self and world around them. Adventuring to a new world doesn't really seem to fit that archetypes as it would take them from their spiritual locations and deities. While they are keen to protect what's theirs, making a new home doesn't really fit the class.

That said; Monk = Cleric/Ranger, Druid = Ranger/Summoner



Ninja edit - Backwards archetypes.

ArchivedUser

Monk = Cleric/Bard IMO... (chanting/mantras/hymns)

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

Perhaps they are saving the Druid and the Monk for future expansions; even with the introduction of another race.  Did miss having both of those in the line-up.

ArchivedUser

T-Elf said:

Perhaps they are saving the Druid and the Monk for future expansions; even with the introduction of another race.  Did miss having both of those in the line-up.

Tbh I'd be surprised if we ever see new classes considering there is already 64 and they have decided to go with this table system. You couldn't just add 2 classes, you'd need to add 17 new classes under a similar archetype.

ArchivedUser

The 64 Classes Are Missing Something...

fixed it for ya...


worth it

ArchivedUser

Poisonz said:

The 64 Classes Are Missing Something...

fixed it for ya...


worth it

Haha,  totally!

ArchivedUser

I honestly think that players who would play a martial arts style monk would much rather have an acrobat archetype class added in the future than to replace any of the current classes on that table. An agile body is what monks are generally about in RPGs, as they cannot afford to be hit by a weapon while within melee range.

The problem with that kind of archetype though is that it could step on the toes of the rogue if the rogue is less focused on deception and trickery, with more emphasis on evasive maneuvers and mobility. I've seen it happen in some other games.

ArchivedUser

They can always have other NPC classes but yeah, adding 1 more playable archtype does take the total number of classes to 81......

ArchivedUser

If they added a 9th class, the Monk, they could potentially squeeze in some more unarmed combat styles, based on the secondary classes, which would be neat. But then with the monk being another option for secondary on the others as well, our class list swells up from 64 to 81. How badly is that needed? Personally I'm fine with the loss, for now anyway. Maybe there will be more later?

What'd I'd love to see is more nature magic focused classes... Druidic/Shamanic stuff. We have clerics but the nature focus seems like it'll not be as strong. There is a Shaman specifically listed but as a Cleric/Summoner I have some suspicions about just how nature focused that'll be.

Time will certainly tell though, we still know very little about these classes.

ArchivedUser

More thoughts on this...

Monk, are unarmed, but there are skills for weapons (unarmed as an example here, I know real life monks use various weapons). They could introduce 'glove' or 'wrap' styled weapons. If done this way, dose a whole new class legacy need to be created?

It might be the least invasive way to introduce a brawler/monk styled character. Though the 'monk' tag would not appear on the character. If done thru stylized weapons, the character can be of any core class and secondary class - then just roleplayed as a brawler/monk type class given they have no weapons in their hands (example). 'But now can be played as a 'paladin' type monk, or an 'assassin' styled monk, or any combination on the class matrix.

Just a thought.... Nothing more.

ArchivedUser

Summoner/Monk....
The mind boggles.

ArchivedUser

The other thing to remember is, I believe the race also impacts this.

in which case you actually have 8x8x8 classes or at least unique styles.

All of the races have unique stereotypical personaes prescribed.

ArchivedUser

AreeSoothsayer said:

Summoner/Monk....
The mind boggles.

Could be like the Chinese zodiac 

ArchivedUser

Where is my exclusive class the God class ? 

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

AreeSoothsayer said:

Summoner/Monk....
The mind boggles.

Could be like the Chinese zodiac 

Oooo, 12 animal summons.