Creating a cohesive Class Identity with Augments + My Idea of the Fighter Classes

The class Ideas can be found at the end.

Just some quick clarification on some terms I am going to use.

Fighter-“Subclasses” – refer to the 8 classes, that are created through the utilization of the Fighter Primary.

Let us start out with a basic assumption:

Under normal circumstances, a large diversity in the class choices of the player base is preferable. We do not want the best two fighter classes to be played by 35% of the Fighter players, while the other 6 are played by 3-10%, right?

Obviously, Balance will be a major factor to prevent this from happening and the lack of balance makes the above-mentioned scenario more likely. This is not a post about balance though. We will be discussing that for months upon months when we see the implemented classes during A2. This is a post about cohesive class design and distinct class identities

Now to start this out, I would argue, that there are 2 major factors influencing the class decision of a player:

Perceived Strength (“Is it viable?”, “OP/Top Classes for certain content” -> essentially class Balance)
Class Identity. That Includes:

Do the players like the way a class is played?
Do they like the pace that comes with playing the class?
Do they like the decision making, that comes with playing a certain class?
Do they like the underlying mechanics of a class?
Does the class identity/fantasy fit the player’s mental image of their character?

So either, deciding what class you want to play by the numbers, or deciding what class you want to play by the way a class feels to play. Now, if class identity is lacking, the factor of perceived strength will instantly increase in importance. We all know that balance will play a major role in decision of a lot of players either way. What I am saying here is, that this is further reinforced when class identity is lacking. If all the Fighter-Subclasses essentially feel the same to play, then player are far more likely to choose the ones, that are considered the best for a certain type of content. If Fighter-Subclasses all just feel like a reskin of each other, with only minor added effects to the abilities, then there is no reason not to play the “best” reskin of the Fighter Archetype.

That is why, Class Identity should NOT stop at the Name of the class

It should be a core thought when deciding upon the Augments of a class.
It should be a consistent throughout.
It should give classes a distinct playstyle, pace, and rhythm of gameplay.
It should give classes different decisions to make, based on the playstyle and clear-cut strengths and weaknesses that come with it.

Make the class decision be meaningful, instead of creating 8 Reskins of the Fighter Archetype. Through augments, just adding a minor heal on Ability A, a bit of holy damage on Ability B and a Debuff on Charge-Ability C is bland, boring, meaningless and will come down to number crunching on which subclass is the best for each scenario. I’m usually Warth but let me be Frank for a second: that would be a perversion of the potential this class system has. Working this class system out properly, not only increases the likelihood of class diversity, but it also adds replayability, a sense of discovery and interesting dynamics in both PVP and PVE Scenarios. Additionally, it creates more cogs and wheels for Intrepid to turn, to reach “acceptable” levels of class balance, as it either allows them to

tweak the underlying Fighter Base Skills if all Fighter-Subclasses perform too well
tweak the aspects directly related to each Subclass including each Augment, the class-unique aspects and the synergistic effects between the augments.

Now, to showcase how much more the classes can be, than adding some bland ability modifiers to the base abilities, I have been working on several class designs, eventually planning to finish one for each class.

Please take note, that

These are merely examples. If do not like a certain mechanic I have added to a class, feel free to leave feedback on it. I would gladly incorporate some of your ideas and concerns into the designs I have been working on. or even better: Post a similar rundown on how you could design the class, to spark some discussion

I have considered the restrictions set in place by Intrepid of secondary classes not adding new actives abilities to the character and the fact, that they don’t want the Augment to change the ability completely, but keep the central thought behind the original Ability the same -> a Charge Ability should still be a charge Ability, An elemental wave, should still be a Wave Type Cone AoE after the augmentation.

Minor augments on certain abilities are totally fine. Not all can be class identity defining Augments.

Most of the following classes are built on the idea, that the classes have the basic normal augments (which change them in a minor way), but additionally add something, that builds upon the class identity itself. This could be a resource, a certain type of buff interaction, or some sort of synergies/mechanics, that reinforce the thought of a cohesive class identity.

Everybody can talk, few people deliver what they have proclaimed. I prefer not to be one of those. That's why you'll find my Fighter Class Designs in the following Google Document.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18CmukzLvZ8D2oiovVJLJ5W2kayHarq0Mkq3vf9KRoCo/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to leave feedback, constructive criticism and your general opinions. Even your own class ideas, class designs are very welcome here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Laethus

I LOVE that you came up with this document. I've been doing a lot of daydreaming about what fighter + x classes would look like, and this gave me a lot more to think about. Regardless of whether the devs ever see or respond to this, know that I think you've done a fantastic job!

Here are my thoughts on the builds:
1) Crusader : I love it. Oscillating between damage and healing through your "barometer" sounds absolutely perfect, and allows the crusader to be versatile in combat.

2) Spellblade: could earth be an element too? Perhaps giving damage reduction / immobilization / bleeding effects? I feel like this is going to be a "fast" paced subtype, rather than medium, as people will be darting around using "blinks", attacking, etc. Also, do you have any suggestions for utility spells for this subtype?
All that said, I think this class has the potential to "go wrong" and be too complicated. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this, but I just wanted to put that out there.

3) Dreadnought: Like it

4) Bladedancer: No complaints here, though I think this could be fleshed out more. There are a lot of ideas swirling around, but no concrete "this is what the class will do". Could this class have certain "songs" that it uses, each of which give party benefits? e.g. song of the blade gives 5% increased melee damage, song of the wounded gives 5% damage reduction...

5) Shadowblade: Not exactly sure if blood sacrifice fits the theme of this class.

6) Hunter: Looks fine, though I would be worried about it getting pushed out of the "meta" builds in certain situations, as it seems extremely single target focused. That said, it could shine in other game modes -- arenas, for example.

7) Bladecaller: I like that there is a finite # of blades that can be used. This is solid.

8) Weapons Master: this seems somewhat overly complicated, and might create an overly high skill wall prior to efficient use. Also, I"m not sure if having 3 sets of weapons would actually help a player.

Overall, great job! This was really fun to look through

. I hope you create some more of these for other archetypes in the future!

Promptling

Great great job with the document. I know you are excited for fighter, but would love to see more of these docs for the other archetypes.

Damokles

Okay here i go:
1. I really like your enthusiasm, and you obviously put a lot of thought into this.

2. I thought that you would go more in the direction of what you think the FIGHTER itself will be like.

3. You made a mistake in your class design thought process. You designed all the subclasses like their own classes, which is wrong. Many of your subclass idea had some kind of extra mechanic, which was unique to the subclass, this is not a thing. Subclasses will NEVER ADD anything to a class, but they mutate already existing abilities.

4. The fighter will always dictate your abilities and passive skills. And certain skill effects are main class locked. A main class cleric has strong heals for others, while main class bards can buff others. Sub class clerics can get self healing augments while subclass bards can buff themselves.

5. Subclasses will never be more important then your main class to others. Subclasses are important to yourself. Someone looks at you and they wont see a bladedancer or crusader first, but rather the fact that you are a fighter. That tells them most of the important things about you. "He is a fighter, that means bla bla bla"Then they will ask what you specced into. If you are a ramged fighter or a melee, if you can go offtank in critical situations etc. Subclasses are there to make a class fit your playstile without you having to change your class.

What I imagine the fighter to be:
I think/hope that the fighter will be a second tank class, that specialises in parrying and redirecting damage instead of mitigating it through damage reduction. An active tank to the static tank tank so to speak.

Warth

@Laethus
Hey, thanks for your kind words. I'm very glad you liked them.

1) The Crusader would of course primarily focus on Healing himself and keeping himself up. (Similar to a Life-steal type Situation. The implication of the "Holy" State, would be that he'd have to chance the heal Allies in a very minor way through the same or a one time use of one of his Faith/Prayer augmented Ultimate, that would have a medium sized effect on your group as well. Solely for instances, to support your Healer in Situations, when your Healer's capabilities is maxed out.

2) Adding a fourth Element wouldn't be a problem, as it would merely add 7 more elemental interactions. Adding a fourth Debuff Slot before merging would exponentially increase them, so that would be unrealistic. Of course these 2 Things are totally unrelated. It would be 3 Debuff Slots, with 4 Elements. In that case I'd probably combine 2 Elements into 1 School of Augment like this:

Storm (Ice and Lightning)
Burning World (Fire + Earth)
Void
Arcane

Even though i'm not yet sure, where the differentiation between Void and Arcane would be. These 2 would fit the base Abilities of the Mage as well Arcane (Gift of the Magi, Forcefield etc.) and Void (Blackhole, Tentacles, Blink). Probably something along the lines of: Arcane mostly affecting yourself and Void affecting the enemy. Utility for the group is rather hard, for a Fighter Primary imo. I'd mostly estimate that to be debuffs applied to the Enemy, that make them more susceptible for the effects your Allies applies on them. (That's also why i rated his Utility Score at 1/5.

4) I personally think, that these Songs should be reserved for Bard primaries. I also believe, that the Blade Dancer wouldn't require a separate mechanic, as it is probably has the most versatile effects. While other classes oftentimes are forced to decide by their mechanics, the Bard should have the freedom to decide how he wants the fight to look and feel. It should be much more straightforward, but also force you to decide which way to get every second of the fight, the same way i Dancer would have to.

5) Blood Sacrifice might be a Theme that doesn't quite fit, yes. I might have to rename it, the idea behind it of having the Ability to quickly slip out of sight, reposition himself in a Battle and get closer to his next target should be fine though.

6) and i think that's completely fine. With 64 classes, not each of them can be as viable as every other in every situation. If the hunter is specialized in small scale (1 to group) sized content, than that's completely okay. His usefulness in large scale would probably be dictated by a Fighter's Ability to effectively use a Bow/Crossbow in Mass Combat anyway.

8) I completely agree. The Weapon Master might become the most Straightforward, Fighter Type Character in the end. I will probably add another variant, that reflects that. I just used him to push the boundaries of the entire augment system a little, to potentially show where to draw the line. (Which i already mentioned in the implementation part of the Document).

Warth

@Thinkpad

Thank you, I'll be working on those shortly and keep you posted, they take a while to set up though, so don't hold your breath.

Warth

Okay here i go:
1. I really like your enthusiasm, and you obviously put a lot of thought into this.

2. I thought that you would go more in the direction of what you think the FIGHTER itself will be like.

3. You made a mistake in your class design thought process. You designed all the subclasses like their own classes, which is wrong. Many of your subclass idea had some kind of extra mechanic, which was unique to the subclass, this is not a thing. Subclasses will NEVER ADD anything to a class, but they mutate already existing abilities.

4. The fighter will always dictate your abilities and passive skills. And certain skill effects are main class locked. A main class cleric has strong heals for others, while main class bards can buff others. Sub class clerics can get self healing augments while subclass bards can buff themselves.

5. Subclasses will never be more important then your main class to others. Subclasses are important to yourself. Someone looks at you and they wont see a bladedancer or crusader first, but rather the fact that you are a fighter. That tells them most of the important things about you. "He is a fighter, that means bla bla bla"Then they will ask what you specced into. If you are a ramged fighter or a melee, if you can go offtank in critical situations etc. Subclasses are there to make a class fit your playstile without you having to change your class.

What I imagine the fighter to be:
I think/hope that the fighter will be a second tank class, that specialises in parrying and redirecting damage instead of mitigating it through damage reduction. An active tank to the static tank tank so to speak.

This is probably the least nuanced thing to address. We have 2 tidbits of information on the Fighter, both addressing their intended role he should play:

The fighter is an expert in physical combat. A master of many weapons, this warrior strikes fear into the heart of his foes.

What we want the Fighter warrior to do is to be able to cut through enemy lines, get to the support area of a raid perhaps and take out healers with some quick DPS burst damage. We want them to be masters of different weapons. We want them to be able to be versatile in whether or not they want to be a ranged fighter or melee one. It's going to be up to the player.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Fighter

Both claim, that the Fighter is intended to be a very offensive Type Character, similar to the rogue, but relying on brute force, rather than combat tricks like stealth. That, however, doesn't mean that every Fighter-Subclass should look like this at all in my opinion. I completely agree with you, that Tanky fighter Variations (in my case the Crusader and Dreadnought) should be a completely realistic way of building your Fighter.

That's exactly why I think, that handling the primary Archetype as the End-All, Be-All to be exactly the wrong approach to all this. The Fighter Archetype shouldn't limit what the classes can be in the end, but provide a start point to their development. Let the classes effectively sprawl out and be their own thing. Because that's what a Class is, that's what it has always been. Who would want 8 Reskins of each base Archetype? Close to nobody.

Dreadnought being a little bit more tanky
Spellblade dealing a little bit of magic damage
Crusader having a little bit of self heal
Hunter having a little bit of range.

but they should all essentially just be a Re-Skin of the fighter? Feel exactly the same, like a fighter? and go through the exact same game play loop, like a fighter? Like i said, that's bland, boring and meaningless. At this point, you might as well scrap the entire second Archetype Idea and provide the the Fighter with an extensive Talent Tree, that provides these option, because all play like a Fighter anyway. Don't create hope through proclaiming, that the game has 64 classes, but end up creating 8, with a couple of different flavors. That's bait and switch territory. They certainly would be easier to design, that's for sure, but Intrepid is trying to create an outstanding game, why would (and why should?) they stop at the Class System, that's such an integral part of any good RPG. That would be a perversion of the potential this class system has, the same way the Archeage class System has been a sorry excuse of what it should be.

3) as stated in the previous paragraph, I completely disagree with you on that part. Here is also where one of your misconception lies:

It NEVER adds another primary Skill/Active Ability. None of the class Designs i was suggesting does that. Not a single one (except the Weapon Master, who i proclaimed would be unrealistic in the Document itself).

They certainly add new game play aspects and mechanics to the class. Just look at the Summoner Secondaries, they already ADD to the class through granting short term summons through the augment system, which was also confirmed by Intrepid. Once again, the only thing they do not do, is add additional active/primary Abilities. I have spent a great deal of time researching exactly what boundaries they set and adhered to all of them in the class designs (except the Weapon Master).

Relevant Tidbits by Intrepid would include:

Augments to primary skills will fundamentally change the way the ability works: Adapting what the ability once did to incorporate the identity of the secondary archetype.[13]

The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill.[8] – Steven Sharif

If from the eight archetypes whatever you choose as your secondary, you're going to receive a choice of augments that relate to some core ideal of that class. You know like a tank is about controlling the battlefield, is about surviving. The mage is about dealing damage and elements and ability in AoEs. The rogue is going to be about stealth and critical damage. So those augments are going to to play towards those identities.

The primary and secondary Archetype combine to create your new class.

All of them proclaiming significant fundamental changes that does adapt the secondary Archetype in a major way. By becoming a Crusader, you aren't just a Fighter anymore. You adapt both identities, originating from the primary Fighter Archetype, but ultimately merge them into a new thing.

With the exception of the weapon master:

Non of the the design i proclaimed would add new abilities.
Non of the designs would create any new mechanics out of nothing, as was the limitation by Intrepid for the augments. -> Keep it horizontal
Most of the mechanics would be created through either simply adding the effects to a Skill through Augments or create the fundamental framework through the the augmentation of passives or passive effects.

CaptnChuck

Redacted

Medrash1

@Warth

Those are my concerns too about the game. You write pretty well , unlike me.
You have done a great work ... if i will ever start the develop of a game i want someone like you. I have many new ideas for a modern mmorpg ... right now this game is almost done, so i don't know if i want to join their team

... or just create my own game xD .

Anyway it seems that just few people see the problems that the actual design has ...it's too random and it will probably be unbalance and bland in some aspects ...

Why aren't you part of their team?

Damokles

@Warth Some of your designs were like totally new classes. A crusader had close to no overlap in ability or gameplay as a dreadnought, except for both being a melee fighter-like class.

Your Crusader had a whole new resource bar, while the Dreadnought had two stances, WHICH WOULD COUNT AS NEW ABILITIES.

I dont say that they are not bad ideas, or cool classes, because they are. But they wont ever exist like this in Ashes.

Warth

@Medrash
Thanks a lot for the positive feedback. No worries about your english, if somebody puts the effort in, he will understand you just fine. They oftentimes choose not to, because they don't agree with your points. Just keep learning and you will get there eventually.

Gruntag

@Warth Well done sir! I enjoyed the description and breakdown of each of the fighter classes. I imagine we will probably seen something similar for each of the fighter sub-classes you describe here with some tweaks of course.

Great detail and graphics to boot. /standing ovation

Celestial Scythe

I really like how well organized the document is! a lot of really cool ideas!

I've been thinking of playing a Bladecaller (Fighter//Summoner) and what you have listed is pretty much what I was hoping for! Though special enforcement seems a bit of the reach for the class. I would replace that with something akin to a multi hit ability. You strike with a main weapon, and X amount of blades would follow the initial strike with additional hits. X being the amount of points put into the ability = amount of swords used.

The other class I was looking into was the Spellblade, and that's a really neat concept that would be really cool to use for combos. My only concern would be that say if you wanted to do 3x Lightning, you would have to use the ability, wait for cool down, use ability, wait... where as you might be able to do more damage if you spammed other attacks. Unless there's a huge drain on mana, or the cool downs are really fast.

Warth

Damokles wrote: »

@Warth Some of your designs were like totally new classes. A crusader had close to no overlap in ability or gameplay as a dreadnought, except for both being a melee fighter-like class.

Your Crusader had a whole new resource bar, while the Dreadnought had two stances, WHICH WOULD COUNT AS NEW ABILITIES.

I think that I might not have made that clear enough in my post, as the Fighter Abilities themselves haven't been released yet, but

They both would have the exact same abilities + the various class specific augments of course. A fighter that has,

a Charge
A Leap
A Spin
A Cleave
An Axe Throw
Various Self buffs
Various Passives

both the Dreadnought, the Crusader as well as the Spellblade, the Hunter, the Bladedancer and the Shadowblade are retaining the

a Charge
A Leap
A Spin
A Cleave
An Axe Throw
Various Self buffs
Various Passives

Stating they have nothing in common is simply trying to intentionally mislead to support your argument.

No, a resource bar is a resource bar. A stance is a passive. Both could literally just be achieved through adding a buff/debuff (that is cumulative in the case of the Crusader). Showing it as a stance and resource bar would merely be a more elegant way to show them. Also, you presume, that a Fighter wouldn't have an additional resource bar or even long term passive buffs/stances/states in the first place, which just isn't confirmed.

But they wont ever exist like this in Ashes

You still haven't provided a single official source stating that. The only thing they ever said, is that the secondary class does not add Abilities. On the other hand, I have already shown with a multitude of quotes, that augments

fundamentally change the nature of an Ability. Which means that passives could indeed create change the type of passives towards the one shown in the document.
Incorporate the identity of the secondary archetype.
That augments fundamentally change the core components of a skill, to the point where it is NOT just a minor flavor change from the base fighter abilities, and
that both the identities of the Primary AND Secondary-Archetype combine to create the new class.

Your whole argument, that we won't see them ever, rests on your interpretation of their statement that no new Abilities will be added to the game. Which you interpret as an impossibility, that a class gains any different core gameplay mechanics based on the actives and passives they already have.

Which isn't supported by a single Statement that Intrepid ever said. If you have one proclaiming what you say, then feel free to share it with me,as neither me, Ashes 101 nor the Wiki has any sign of it.

Your second argument is, that all the Fighter Subclasses will essentially just stay a fighter with minor augments to them to provide a little bit of flavor. Which, as mentioned by the quotes above, is not what they proclaimed when they say that both the Primary and Secondary Archetype influence and combine into the dedicated Class. (to make it an actual class, instead of branch of the primary Archetype).

You might be right, i might be, at this point who would ever know? It comes down to the fact, that neither of us have a directly interpretable and unambiguous statement, where the borders of the Augment system are drawn.

The whole point of the threat is, that they should allow the Fighter-Subclasses to be their distinct entity, instead of being a mere reskin with a couple of minor effects. Unless they add something (like augmented passives) to make them distinct and unique, this will never happen. You can agree with that or not and I'd be happy to have an argument with you whether 8 Reskins or 8 Classes should be the way to go (or you'd prefer), but for that you'd have to bring some argument for either.

Simply proclaiming something never being in the game based on the way you interpret the statement just doesn't do the trick for me. If there is any direct, unambiguous statement they made in this regard, then feel free to send me the link to it.

However, many people expect classes in this level of distinction and detail, because that's what the their proclamation of 64 classes suggests. Whether you are right or i am in my view, this ambiguity within the community certainly isn't helpful, especially if it ends with the bad news of 8 classes being essentially the same.

Selanti

Right so. There's... a lot to cover here, and a lot of it we talked about in Discord, so sorry if some of it's repetitive, @Warth.

So before I go point by point, I'll share sort of how I approach this from a concept standpoint. To me, when I see sub-classes and archetypes like this, I view it from a vein that all Fighters (Or clerics/rogues/whichever) start from the same point, and then their subclass adds the flair to their style, and gives them their supplemental fighting techniques. So for a fighter, I'd view their start point as a run of the mill soldier that goes through basic training in whatever military unit, and then eventually winds up discharged and strikes out on their own.

From this premise, all fighters would have a basic understanding of a wide range of weapons and armors, the advantages and disadvantages of each and be able to conditionally adjust them based on their archetype. So, with that said:

Subclass: Crusader (Fighter + Cleric)

Concept: Focus on the augmentation of his fighting style through the utilization of the holy light and the power of death.

Thoughts: This seems like overall precisely what you'd expect from what boils down to a rough "Paladin" archetype. You have the divine side, which is the healing and the blessings, against the judgement and condemnation side of things. The scale of how quickly the "divinity meter" (lacking a better term) moves back and forth would be the primary point of balance in this. You'd want to ensure you didn't have access to the entire toolkit at once, otherwise the meter becomes effectively useless. Overall, I think this particular design is great. It adds a specific, unique mechanic, complete with it's own resource management, that highlights different potential playstyles.

Subclass: Spell Blade (Fighter + Mage)

Concept: Focuses on the elemental augmentation of the fighter’s weapon to achieve potent elemental combos.

Thoughts: As above, there's a unique resource management and a unique idea. There is only one potential change I'd suggest to this. Instead of potentially stacking your debuffs to a single target, which would imply that a mage (who historically goes with lighter armor), perhaps adjust it to a self empowering system? For example:

Hitting someone with a skill that gives you a fire charge would apply it not as a debuff to the enemy, but as a self buff. Once they reach 3/4/5 charges of whichever element, you could have the requisite discharge skill activate, and be usable. Because of all of the possible combinations, you could simply have the skill be named "Discharge Strike" or whichever, and simply have the effects change based on which charges are used. For Fire/Fire/Fire, an overhead swing that creates a fiery explosion.

The reason for the potential change here would be to give a player a little more agency in selecting what they want to use, rather than hoping your potential target stays in range for an amount of time so you can build debuffs on them.

Subclass: Dreadnought (Fighter + Tank)

Concept: Focuses on the a between Durability and Destruction through the utilization of dedicated stances.

Thoughts: Of all the classes on the list, I believe this one to be the weakest. I think there's a missed opportunity to make this particular subclass a good tactical fighter, focusing more on things like crowd control and defensive bonuses, rather than simply having a stance that you just bounce between to give either defensive or offensive bonuses. Things like trips, knock backs, disarms, etc, could be the key calling card of a very unique, very tactical fighter here.

Subclass: Blade Dancer (Fighter + Bard)

Concept: Focuses on adjusting the of rhythm, dynamics and melody of combat through his abilities.

Thoughts: So, on the surface to most who look at it, it might feel like this is something of a strange jack of all trades fighter. This however, does something that you rarely see games do. A fighter archetype that focuses on the pacing of combat is a very new idea, when executed in this way. Speeding up allied CD's, slowing down enemy CD's, et al, can have a great deal of impact on people because it changes the things they're very familiar with all of the sudden to feel extremely foreign. I'd also point out a class like this is required to be both proactive and reactive, and makes it, easily, the hardest archetype to play on this list effectively. There will be a very, very high skill ceiling here, but that's not a bad thing at all.

Shadow Blade (Fighter + Rogue)

Concept: The Shadow Blade focuses on using the shadows to enhance their martial skill, hunt their pray and keep them[selves] alive.

Thoughts: So. I know you're working with what you have here, however. As I stated in Discord, the F/R and R/F need to be entirely reversed. Shadow Blade should absolutely be more of a rogue archetype, whereas Duelist should be more of a Fighter archetype. That being said, in this position, I'd almost rather see something like a Musketeer or Pirate style fighter. Something that uses light armor, and a Rapier/Cutlass/etc primarily. It feels like too much of the fighter gets lost here.

Subclass: Hunter (Fighter + Ranger)

Concept: Focuses on marketing a target to hunt down. Track it, kill it and take its trophy.

Thoughts: Overall, fairly straightforward and simple. Mark a target, kill a target, get stronger, mark a new target, etc. Escalating in power over a long fight. It seems like a good idea. The primary question I have with it, is that it does predominately look to be a bow based class. With the reveal yesterday of weapon skills being a thing, do you necessarily envision this to be specifically catered to bow users, or do you see this class being usable with Swords/Spears/Axes/etc?

Subclass: Blade Caller (Fighter + Summoner)

Concept: Focus on the summoning of spectral blades through active combat which he can utilize to cast major abilities.

Thoughts: This is a good take on something that keeps the core fighter thematic. House of a thousand blades is a good way to handle this archetype. There's not much really else I can say on this specifically. Just... a good concept.

Weapon Master: (Fighter + Fighter)

Concept: The Weapon Master focuses on using his equipped weapons to their utmost potential.

Thoughts: As you pointed out, this one is probably a little... either difficult or lacking. It's hard to say. I can tell you specifically I'm not really big on the weapon swap as a game mechanic, so this outright wouldn't appeal to me personally. Instead, I'd rather see empowered abilities that are unique to the WM, based on whatever their chosen weapon is. To borrow parlance from elsewhere, something like an "awakened weapon" of choice.

Conclusion:

All in all, a very good, very well thought out list. I absolutely prefer fighters, and seeing this list definitely made me sit back and think of the possibilities. Hell of a start though man.

Warth

@Gruntag
First of all, thanks for the great feedback. I'm glad you like it, i'd also hope for classes to be designed in this level of detail. Let's hope Intrepid doesn't disappoint.

@Celestial Scythe
Regarding the Spellblade. The whole point would be, that every lightning augmented offensive ability adds the Lightning Debuff. So if you find yourself in the situation, that you are oftentimes lacking the necessary Lightning Augments, then it would be the goal to specc more Augments into lightning. The 3x any Element should also carry the most powerful effects (a major Explosion, a Stun and a Freeze) as they are the hardest to achieve. It certainly would reinforce the need of augmenting your Abilities in a way that fits what you wanna do, so in this regard smart building of your character would possibly be much more important, than for some of the other classes.

Kneczhevo

@wrath

What a well thought out post. Kudos to you, man. 👍

I can only imagine the time and thought you put into it. Now, imagine what the devs are going through, and that have to come up with real numbers and sparkles, and then balance.

I too would like to know what the devs are going to do, too. I want to know wether I want to drop totems, as a shaman, or be a double healer, and have a flare shoot up like a flair telling everyone I am the healer when I cast (I just healed someone, shoot me!).

Keep up with the good theory crafting.

Btw, your term "subclass"? Should actually be "archtype".

Warth

@Selanti
Thanks a lot for the in-depth feedback. I greatly appreciate it.

Crusader: Interesting approach to the class.

I certainly think that it fits the theme. Adding scaling requirements for each skill in terms of Holiness would certainly make it interesting, the question would be, whether its too limiting in a game with restricted amount of Abilities. Depending on the amount, more or less Abilities could/should/have to be restricted. I don't think, that it will be that much of an issue though, if you merely have like 15-20 Abilities on your bar (some of which aren't even augmented). Potentially restrict the Ultimates and high Impact high Cooldown Abilities, the effects of the meter itself should be strong enough to warrant yourself building it up or depleting it though.

Spell Blade

I have considered this for quite a while, but that's just not what the word Spell-Blade implies, nor what fantasy materials on this class suggest. It's the amplification of their sword. So that it either applies it on the enemy or saves the "Buffs" you mentioned on the runic sword itself. I did consider the self buffs, but i decided not to use that, as i might recycle a similar mechanic for a Ranged Mage Type Character. Building up the magic power in themselves would just make more sense there.

Also, it was intended, that you can apply them to multiple targets at once, not just one. So a spin, a cleave and leap all hitting 3-5 Targets with an Ice Augment, the freeze effect would apply to all of them. That's another reason why i kept it for the Fighter. It just fits the AoE Archetype. of the class.

Dreadnought.

we talked about this on Discord. I agree with you, a CC/Tank interaction would make it more interesting than a Damage/Tank interaction. I might adjust this once we have had further feedback in the version 2 of the document.

Blade Dancer.

Thank you, you worded exactly what the intention was behind the class! Exploring this new territory would for me personally be a lot of fun, as the speed component isn't something most games deal with apart from certain Champions in MOBAs.

Shadow Blade:

I totally agree. The Name of R/F and F/R seem entirely reversed. I went with the names to create the class though. If it feels more accurate, then imagine this to be the Design for the R/F (because I personally think that's what it should be) and take the Duelist design for the F/R, as that one will resemble more of the Fighter Spirit.

Hunter:

Funny enough, i primarily envisioned it to be a melee charcter. Pretty much like a cougar or panther hunting and chipping away at their prey till they can finally strike it down. Utilizing the Ranger type tricks to ensure success (Snaring shots, nets, traps, weakening poisons, added acrobatic etc. The long CD on the Mark should ensure, that the Hunter is literally hunting after the target, much rather than taking a swing at the closest target.

I do however know, that a design like this would be primarily useful for Small Scale Encounters, rather than large scale sieges. Which is okay, not all classes need to excel in every scenario. The performance in large zergs would highly depend on the Fighter's Ability to utilize bows and crossbows effectively. Since Intrepid proclaimed, that he will be proficient in ranged combat, i decided to go along with the idea.

Blade Caller:

Thank you, this class might stretch the boundaries of Augments a little, even in my very loose way of seeing the restrictions mentioned by Steven.

Weapon Master

This one is admittedly very very fictional. I don't expect anything like this to make it into the game, as even I would say that it goes against what a class can/should be according to Intrepid. I merely put it in to set some boundaries and spark a discussion about them. In Version 2, there will be a separate concept, that does is within the boundaries, similar to the others.

Warth

Kneczhevo wrote: »

@wrath

What a well thought out post. Kudos to you, man. 👍

I can only imagine the time and thought you put into it. Now, imagine what the devs are going through, and that have to come up with real numbers and sparkles, and then balance.

I too would like to know what the devs are going to do, too. I want to know wether I want to drop totems, as a shaman, or be a double healer, and have a flare shoot up like a flair telling everyone I am the healer when I cast (I just healed someone, shoot me!).

Keep up with the good theory crafting.

Btw, your term "subclass"? Should actually be "archtype".

Hey, thanks for the nice feedback.

I think you misinterpreted what Subclass are supposed to mean in my thread (for the lack of a better word): They are referring to "Dreadnought, Spellblade, Shadowblade etc". Essentially all the classes that are created by taking a primary Fighter.

Dummo

I like the idea.
Btw, isn't the Spellblade called Spellsword?

Warth

Dummo wrote: »

I like the idea.
Btw, isn't the Spellblade called Spellsword?

Thanks for the heads-up and feedback. I have fixed it.

Child Item