Class Concept Theorizing #3: Sentinel

A1. The introduction
B2. So, what is it YOU think will exist in Ashes of Creation's archetypes?
C3. The Class and what defines it (From here on is the new stuff, everything prior is intro)
D4. The skills
E5. Inconclusion

A1. Introduction

Hello! Welcome to a series I hope to complete before the release of beta that essentially goes into concepts of the class system in Ashes of Creation. As we already know, we choose our base class, select a secondary subclass that defines the outcome. The secondary class will be able to augment the base class skills giving it somewhat of a unique take on what the original class is. As interesting as this concept alone is, I don't believe it is sufficient enough for all 64 classes to feel "different" or "unique". There is also talk of the possibility that secondary classes will just contain the same skills they have as a base class added onto your base class. A lot of this is theorizing and it's my hopes that I can make some ideas that "could" be what makes the class unique. That said, you don't have to agree with my logic or any of this, you can even theorize yourself what to expect! I won't have much math done for these and they will merely be "concept theorizing" based on a format I'd like to see in this game.

B2. So, what is it YOU think will exist in Ashes of Creation's archetypes?

As someone who has been playing mmo's for a good 12 years now, I've seen every wend of the "skill tree" and all formats to making classes in games feel different. In Archeage you had the ability to pick from 3 classes as you leveled to create your own class. This meant relying on choosing skills that provide effects that would benefit from one another to combo or create what you want in a class. Unfortunately, systems like this end up reducing what classes can actually be viable and really defeats the concept that I believe Ashes of Creation is going for in making all classes viable for certain situations. That said, I am all for the systems currently in place with augmenting abilities, but I also would like to see "unique" skills added onto the newly gained class. Perhaps up to 4 new skills could be learned but due to limitation of skills points, only 1-2 could potentially be maxed out. These abilities would not be pre-existing to any base class and would only exist out of definition of the new defined class once you have picked your secondary. Meaning, you will have every base class skills, augments off the secondary, and a couple of distinct skills unique to your newfound archetype. It is of my opinion that this would create a diverse set of classes and would accomplish three things.

-1. Separate the difference from a class who is the same as you in playstyle. Assuming 2 players are both a Spellsword but you both chose different augments and unique abilities... This would mean one Spellsword could play differently than the other, especially when you include what skills you choose to level in the base class.

-2. Diversity in combat both grand scale and small scale pvp/pve. I imagine the concept of sieges having full fledged wars with 500 vs 500 players, and seeing varieties of classes ranging between one another. Seeing the same type of fire circle aoe on the ground 200 times over seems like it would easily get boring. I like to believe in the concept that every individual on a battlefield has a unique kit to themselves that can help different situations and having an understanding of how that kit helps is what determines the difference in who would win. Just because you picked tank then went rogue to make Nightshield for example doesn't mean you're incapable of providing support in a group siege or helping a caravan supply defense. Just the same, because you're a fighter + rogue to be a shadowblade shouldn't limit you to thinking having single target dps makes you inept in group combat. Tjhis is what will make everyone's contribution different and unique in their own way, by having specific skills and augments that separate you from the next and may determine the outcome as a result.

-3. This will help balance and weight rock-paper-scissors format gameplay a bit better. This is a system I am very familiar with since the beginning, and I appreciate it when it's done correctly. That said, I'm not fond of outright knowing the outcome of a match being "oh, well he's rock and I'm paper so this is game" outright. I'm of the mindset that while this is something to consider, it shouldn't be the end all be all. Just as an example, a tank facing a mage knows the mage is likely going to CC and burst through their defense like nothing. However, if the tank has skills that contain exploits to a mage or defenses against a mage, perhaps this fight doesn't look so one-sided as one anticipated. By then, it would depend on the skill and strategy of the players and how they use their kits, rather than knowing Class A defeats Class B so long as both are optimizing as they should. If you wanted to see a similar system to this that worked, Aion back in 4.0 had something along this idea. A magic class vs a tank class wasn't always a winner, sometimes the tank class's skillset was actually a useful counter to mage classes and made fights all the more tight because of this. Just to reiterate, I don't want to remove the rock-paper-scissors format, but rather balance out the odds of the format so that they are not a simple guarantee just based off assumption of the class's at play. Paper may beat rock, but a rock made out of magma may yet pose a threat to the paper and may not be as easily won!

All of this should result in you still maintaining the basic concept of what you chose to play the game as first but then giving your class its own flavor via the secondary chosen. If you pick a tank first, you likely want to tank and keep being one... so choosing your 2nd class should not alter it into becoming something it isn't fundamentally. That is of course my opinion and anyone is welcome to theorize other options. The following will present 4 "ideas" for the unique skills the class could learn by extension.

C3. The Class and what defines it.

Today's class topic: "Sentinel"

A ranger first but a tank secondary, the Sentinel comes off to me as a sturdy sniping turret in a sense. Rangers are typically capable of laying traps and using bows or muskets for long ranged physical damage. With a tank combined, I see some variables of crowd control, durability, and minor mitigation that would allow a Sentinel to be something akin to a defense turret. Something not so easily taken down from range and even harder taken down when close by. I see this class potentially using a musket over a bow to separate the difference between a Hawkeye, or simply being a less mobile sniper-type class. We could see bows as a weapon that's physical ranged but with lower range and better accuracy while muskets could be a long range weapon with lower accuracy. Hawkeyes could define the bow into becoming a better long range weapon allowing for agility out on the field while sniping, while here we have a Sentinel who could utilize a musket to be accurate while maintaining the long range from a less mobile concept. I could imagine this idea being something people would see atop castle walls, in trees, and various high ground areas that would allow them to be somewhat akin to dps guards. Not particularly defensive of a group but capable of taking down targets from afar before they're even close enough to deal any real damage. Their weakness being possibly magic, sturdier tanks, and stealth classes that can get the jump on them.

I theorize a few skills that mainly provide the Sentinel with options for how their playstyle will vary from one another in group play. Allowing them to be flexible in group or solo content with ease.

D4. The Skills

-1. This class' "sniping stance". This would be a skill with a relatively short but still existing cooldown, allowing the Sentinel to crouch down in place and increase their defense by a large amount while increasing their ranged ability as well. each rank would determine how high of mitigation and what range increases.

This is someone guild wars 2 players might recognize from the Deadeye class. Similar concept but with less skills locked behind the use of it. Instead, just keeping it as a utility that would help across the board. At higher rank you could potentially use this even when in melee distance if you had the clear conscious that your opponent can't CC you anymore. This is a general use skill I could easily see many picking up, so because of that I was actually debating the implementation of this skill. However, with augments from the tank class as is, I could see some people opting not to be a sniper turret and instead going for a more mobile approach with the augments and other skills available. Personally I see this being a scary skill in group combat being in the back lines capable of providing ranged cover and an interesting skill solo for attacking unsuspecting victims. If you've been found though, it might be best to relocate and go on a mobile approach instead or crowd control skills will knock you out of this stance.

-2. A grappling hook. Those of you who have played vindictus "Kai" may recognize this. Being able to plant a pin in the ground on one press then on the next button press you would zipline back to that spot from a set far off distance. rank 2 being a movement speed buff after initiating the initial pin down. Then rank 3 being a nice defense % mitigation during the animation of ziplining back to the pin.

This would be something that could both pair well or be another choice as opposed to the sniping stance. In this game with the concept of action combat too... We could make this a skill that allows you to aim it up on a castle wall or somewhere higher to help the Sentinel gain high ground. This would accompany their skillset of being a mass ranged sniper, allowing them some quick freedom to climb barriers to gain a good sight of their targets. At the same time, without sniping stance, it's a good "kite" kit skill. I also imagine this deriving from tank as they have a chain to yank players with, why not make this the same concept except to yank themselves with? This of course would be more self utilized and can be used to trick opponents. Go charging into the front line, get tab targeted and endure a couple of initial hits only to zip line back to safety out of range of your opponent(s).

-3. Inhibiter traps. An aiming skill that allows you to toss a couple traps at a time to a select spot that will decrease movement speed and attack power upon step. This skill would be "loadable" or "stackable" rather, having a cooldown but allowing you to use multiples of the skill over the course. Meaning you could have 3 at a time, and toss out all 3 in front of a gate for mass aoe trap control, or use only 1 at a time keeping up the duration of the ability. Rank 1 would be only 2 traps, rank 2 would be 3 traps with increase in movement speed reduction, and rank 3 would be 3 traps with increased attack power reduction.

I wanted to add something that still keeps the concept of the "trap" ranger in mind while still paying image to having a tank secondary... So what better than a set of traps that can lower the damage your opponent(s) deal and even slow them down? I figure this allows the skill to be welcome in group play by trapping front gates with this ability, weakening the opponent(s) front line. It still provides self utility in decreasing speed if one was to pair this with kiting or sniping stance. This wouldn't have too far of a range even with additional abilities as to maintain the concept of being a "trap". That said, a Sentinel could still be atop a castle wall and aim down, throwing traps in front of gates or blocking off areas to help mitigate incoming forces. The higher in rank this skill, the more "support-like" the Sentinel would be. On its own, it's still a useful skill in helping keep distance from your target and reduce either the damage they deal to you, or the speed at which they're advancing on you from.

-4. An arcing bombardment skill, the "Pepper Fire". This is something I don't see done often in mmo's but I feel would be interesting none the less. A skill that fires multiple rounds of explosives at a targeted area in a spread random format. Rank 2 would increase the size of the aoe's, rank 3 would deal more damage per hit and spread out the aoe's. This skill would shoot multiple aoe's at a singular area in random spots around the targeted area, meaning it would be more difficult to dodge and random patterns of the aoe can provide group support just as well.

I made rank 3 of this be both a pro and con, by spreading out the aoe's it won't be this simple focus fire attack that could shred someone down. At the same time... in a group setting this would provide a good "catapult fire" type of ability to mass crowds out in the field. You could free aim this skill, spreading the aoe out even more but of course with the pattern that is shot already being randomized, you would reduce your chances of hitting the target multiple times or anyone. Focusing this skill on one person would limit their movement if they wanted to dodge this skill, with rank 2 being even more difficult to do. In a group setting this is a skill that would make targets flee but still manage to hit surrounding targets in the fire. The main concept of the skill would be the confusion of where the aoe is being focused at while forcing enemy movement on a high damage spread firing aoe skill. This would be great support in sieges though I question the ability to aim it since it sounds a little too overpowered in caravans. Maybe it'd be better as a tab target skill that initiates the same concept, just without the ability to move it during the fire?

E5. Inconclusion

Sentinels would be a great "cover fire" class. Something that would do well in understanding the environment they are in to make use of positioning and cover for long distance kills. Ideally one would go into this class wanting to be a sniper or a catapult of sorts. Being able to hold ground from easily targetable spots while still not necessarily being on the front lines of the field. Making use of their range to strike first and steadily wear down their target(s) before they reach them while also luring opponent(s) into traps in doing so. A good strategist could find ways to deal high end damage and make note of the path your opponent will take to reach you, only to place traps on the way of that path to setup for the kill. In pve, this class would be easily away from a lot of the mobs and help finish off targets that are worn down enough. Group content leaves this class being a useful ally to support classes and a devastating ranged attacker when coupled with other melee classes. I would best describe this class as its exact definition.... "a soldier or guard whose job is to stand and keep watch". These would be great for escorting caravans and protecting inner layers of nodes from assaults.

This one was challenging to me at first. I was debating if this concept should be for Warden instead but then remembered that the basic idea would be to hold the base class' skills in check. I ended up finding out new ideas that could be for Warden instead, so made the Sentinel into more of a "stand your ground, fire from a distance" type of class. I rarely see this concept done in mmo's other than Star Wars the Old Republic and Guild Wars 2, but they were more of true snipers that I believe other classes can be more easily. I can see many of the ranger varieties providing a more direct "sniper related" kit than Sentinel, with sentinel being more of a sturdier ranger. I'd actually REALLY like to hear some of your ideas for this class and how it could be different or what else it could provide or be. Something also I figure I can keep in mind, just because one skill is similar to another, doesn't make the class the same. Varieties of ranged combat could exist and skills can vary both in the damage, range, status ailments, and so on.

Anywho, I've got 61 more to go! Which class would you like to theorize next?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

CROW3

Honestly, I’m hoping AoC will take the less pigeonholed version of a Ranger into consideration. The expert archer thing comes out of an overly earnest 3rd edition spec, the other being a ‘Drizzt class’ - both are incredibly shallow.

Instead, I’d rather the ranger have choices on a spectrum of melee to range weapons, with their class focused on expertise in wild spaces. To me a Sentinel has a decent set of ranged and melee abilities with a skew toward defense (and a Stalker having a slew toward offense). I can take or leave traps - I’m not necessarily interested in getting hung up on WoW’s hunter as a baseline example of a ranger - otherwise it’s just derivative.

I’m also tired of the ‘sniper’ motif. It’s over-used and over-romanticized. A sniper is just someone who’s shoots from a concealed position. An untrained punk with a slingshot and a darkened alcove is technically a ‘sniper,’ it has nothing to do with marksmanship. I’m ok with a Ranger having the ability to set an ambush from a camouflaged position, but if this becomes a one trick pony - it’s a lazy interpretation of a phenomenal class potential.

I still think 2nd edition is a great source for a more broad definition of rangers, and subclasses (Kits) than has been passed down in subsequent games / implementations.

Valic

CROW3 wrote: »

Honestly, I’m hoping AoC will take the less pigeonholed version of a Ranger into consideration. The expert archer thing comes out of an overly earnest 3rd edition spec, the other being a ‘Drizzt class’ - both are incredibly shallow.

Instead, I’d rather the ranger have choices on a spectrum of melee to range weapons, with their class focused on expertise in wild spaces. To me a Sentinel has a decent set of ranged and melee abilities with a skew toward defense (and a Stalker having a slew toward offense). I can take or leave traps - I’m not necessarily interested in getting hung up on WoW’s hunter as a baseline example of a ranger - otherwise it’s just derivative.

I’m also tired of the ‘sniper’ motif. It’s over-used and over-romanticized. A sniper is just someone who’s shoots from a concealed position. An untrained punk with a slingshot and a darkened alcove is technically a ‘sniper,’ it has nothing to do with marksmanship. I’m ok with a Ranger having the ability to set an ambush from a camouflaged position, but if this becomes a one trick pony - it’s a lazy interpretation of a phenomenal class potential.

I still think 2nd edition is a great source for a more broad definition of rangers, and subclasses (Kits) than has been passed down in subsequent games / implementations.

It's hard to say since they intend to balance classes as a group rather than solo. I'm personally a big fan of the concept that anyone can use any weapon but rangers obviously should have better accuracy or range coordinated with it. I honestly have seen the traps concept from Aion as well, I'm not a big fan of traps either but I wouldn't mind the choice or variety if it meant we'd see different variations of the class. I feel as though all of the base classes are "one trick ponies" but will then not be that upon secondary choices. Everything has its role and will revolve around the trinity like most mmo's so I think the definition between the classes will be the choices in what people augment and level in skills both rank-wise and variety wise.

The other main issue is that with this system, there's going to be varied types of the same class too. So the ranger you're talking about could very well be a Strider. I also find weapon switching to typically be an annoying concept when not done correctly in mmo's. I remember earlier days of Shaiya when you would enchant 4 different chest pieces with different elements and have 4 different elemented weapons.... Then it came down to whoever had the better ping in swapping weapons and tops to find out who's element countered what. Some games have it done right with a cooldown on swapping weapons or they can only quick swap between two.

Ultimately it'll depend on what the base ranger gets but we know the tank class so far doesn't seem to be too widespread in terms of group mitigation. Really I end up asking, what would be this thing's cons if it's just the same thing as a ranger but sturdier?

Valic

Just a bump, is anyone enjoying these or should I stop until we have more info?

Medrash1

So sry if i made the answer too late, i had not much time in those days

Anyway i like many of your things and your general concept of giving identity to classes, and you are not the only one who have done this. I saw another (and problably there is more) guy with the same direction, fixing the class system giving more design to each class.
Anyway i go a little bit further than that, i think that the concept of making certain classes viable for limited situation is not that good as a game philosophy. So i whould like to design each class to have a certain feeling and uniqueness but not be not viable or easly counterable, like a firemage that do less damage with fireballs to fire Monsters but at the same time can master the fire to blend the monster itself and suck away his fire, or get fire protection. So i whould like if you take this idea and concept while doing your amaizing spells design.
Or maybe i can help you with the balancing of those, becouse some of your ideas are amazing but they need to be introduced into a game system that need certain rules and requisites, to balance it.

I think that each class need to get 1 Unique feature that build his entire class and set of spells, for example in wow the druid with his transformations, it create an unique mechanic, or the paladin judgement system ... where you use the buffs to do damage
Right now ashes has 8 (unfinished and not designed already) classes, with an hybrid system. So yes, your idea of having 4 unique abilities is pretty cool, i immagine that you take your first unique feature at lvl one or early and in the middle game (lv 30) you can choose if take the second Unique ability of your own class or take another secondary path (with another unique skill of that new class) . The problem is .. what unique skill are you getting from the secondary one? The lvl 1 o the lvl 30? Of course if you choose as secondary the class you already have the only option will be the lvl 30 unique skill/feature.

ps. I refer to Classes becouse it's what they are .. i don't like calling them archetypes improperly. So sry about that.

.

1.So the thing that each class will have different augments and spells that will be static to the class is a bad idea in my opinion, so i don't like having a Primary class with a mix of spells and a secondary one with the same thing, this will lead to a caotic class specialization, but this is again AoC fault for now, maybe it will improve.

2. I like a Lot your second point!!! Having a war with just aoe spamming ability is pretty boring, approved. I also have ideas to build a more complex and dinamic way of doing stuff.
Anyway ashes will limit the AoE damage i heard, but who knows. Some veteran people are so addicted to AoE that want it to be predominant in all fights with large numbers xD so a op skill.
I like the idea of strategies, a guy with a schield that cast a huge aoe with other friends that get killed by a rogue and then break the whole ritual is awesome, a dream where each type of class can have his own impact on the game.
So at the end i believe you support more my idea of not limiting classes to predeterminated rules, instead of the path that AoC have decided to follow. The 3th point explain that better.

3. Your thirt point is something i actually already spoke about in some of my discussion xD the way ashes is going to handle the Rock-Paper-Scissor system. You are absolutelly right, when you face an enemy you should be one of the 3 and them stronger or weaker. This is a game feature of Strategic games, where you control units that have one of the 3 essences (R-P-S). But in a mmorpg is important to get a good 1 vs 1 gameplay, where you have in your hand the paper, the scissor and the rock to fight everyone in the field.
The skill in videogames is rly important, the challenge, and to get that a R-P-S or pokemon style system is needed. Ashes doesn't have it for all the classes, but it's a group focussed R-P-S they said. So a mage counter a warrior and a warrior counter a rogue that counter the mage. So if both teams have mage, rogue and warrior it's a balanced and r-p-s style for a team, but not 1 vs 1. I you think this is bad we both do.
Anyway there will be a bit of counterplay i hope, not toomuch. (also not great) .

So i like rly a lot what you are doing! You are pretty creative with all those classes idea!

I had some concept of some classes in mind but overall your idea of them is way better and more compleate

good job.
If you want to send me an email of your i whould appreciate, to exchange some thoughts and ideas, or simply having you as a contact, it could help

having such creative person in my contacts ^^ anyway as you want.

The sentinel ... lol, before you i was thinking of a "fatty" or Sturdy Ranger with a bow that can take hits and charge with his heavy ... bow xD so dumb. I like a lot your general idea ...
add me

in pm.

The second skill is maybe a skill more for aggression, to hooking and move rapidly, the sentinel is a defender, but it can be for all rangers. So as you said cc and a bit of stealth too as a ranger. You can hook the enemies with serrated arrows and then stop them pulling the rope

. Similar to the hook the tank has ... a big silly but not bad. Then traps to make impossible for enemies to reach him. Some animals like hawks to have control of the area and allert him.
Also the explosive arrows are maybe more for a ranger with mage as secondary in my opinion. But some minor illusion skills can be good.
Or using two arrows to shot a rope of stumbling xD so badass, or bolas.

Are you going to make 64 posts? One for each class? Nice job , and good work.

Valic

Medrash wrote: »

*snip*

Yeah I was planning to but I'll just leave these for now until we get more updates about the actual system maybe. The threads are supposed to be general theories for everyone on what could happen or be. Also I meant unique skills would be gained after you unlock your 2ndary class. Meaning you'd have to become the new defined class before you'd even see any new unique skills. Something so that say, a Weapon Master and a Dreadnaught wouldn't necessarily have the same 4 types of unique skills but they both would have fighter base skills... but their own skillset chosen and their own unique augments. That's the idea anyways.

Main thing with some of your ideas is to keep in mind all the other possibilities for that one class to become. There's still a limit to what skills will feel/be different afterall but minor changes can adjust that. I see a ranger + mage(Scion) being more about elemental variations of arrows, traps, aoe's, CC's, and general magic like opening portals to fire a rain of arrows in only to shoot it out from a side portal horizontally and etc. The hawk idea would be also neat but I think that'd better suit the Ranger + Summoner combo or any other set where having the ability to scout would be its utility.

From what I remember them saying, they didn't plan to limit aoe damage. We also do have confirmation on at least the tank, mage, and healer classes so far though. Anywho, I'll let these first three stay here for a bit and I'll pick these back up at some point. Not enough info or people on these forums to spark a discussion.

Medrash1

@Valic

Ya i see, anyway your work is not to trow out, even if the class list will change, so keep doing it if you like to

You are always one step forward to me in class ideas ^^ hehe, i like a lot the mage that uses portals to shot arrows, but i also see this fit the summoner (that is a pretty similar class to the mage). A ranger-summoner is more someone that call animals to help him, so .. refering to wow , a more pet oriented ranger.
I like that the Sentinel will have the hawk becouse it fit his style of getting control of a certain location, of course he cannot summon him like the summoner does, it will be a simple ranger pet.

Oh ok, i see now, yes it can work pretty well i think. Having the primary class has main will give all the basic and advanced spells and skills of the class, the secondary will have unique skills related to the primary one.
This way of making classes will be a bit caotic too i think. Having to choose from a class pool of skills will lead to different Classes , or better said, Specs.
When you play a game and you face a certain class with a certain spec you know who you have in front and what he is capable of doing. If you face a ranger that can have 100 or + different spells, how do you fight him? Anyway maybe this is just a personal problem, but i prefer a strong and clear identity in classes design. Also becouse it's pretty hard to make such skill tree.

Hey, wait .. maybe now i have a better idea for a Ranger-Mage xD He can teleport himself to a certain location using arrows

How insale

.. the cc is too much in his kit, maybe a slow effect with the ice.
Or reflected images of himself that shot arrows, to help him cait or escape enemies.
A feral/animal transformation

i like the druid hehe ...

Anyway yea, i don't know why there is almost nobody in the forum . I made a post in the support channel but nobody replied to me... just 10 views. so sad, maybe the discord server is better to use, i saw that it has 25k active people on it .

So to end this comment i think that it's possible to give unique skills to each class, and then when combining it will combine the skills too, so there is no need of making 64 unique skills xD maybe, i'm thinking about this right now .. see you later

*Ah , put the @ with my name in the comment, otherwise i will not receive the notification

CROW3

Valic wrote: »

Ultimately it'll depend on what the base ranger gets but we know the tank class so far doesn't seem to be too widespread in terms of group mitigation. Really I end up asking, what would be this thing's cons if it's just the same thing as a ranger but sturdier?

Agreed. It’s like 90% conjecture on specifics, but conceptually we have some freedom to contrast how different versions of the class could be built.

For instance, if a Ranger has a standard set of melee attacks: stab, slash, lunge. A Strider may get augments to make these attacks deal more damage, hit more targets, cover ground faster. Maybe give bonuses to using a 2H or DW set up. On the other hand, a Sentinel may give bonuses to using Sword & Board for these attacks. Maybe those augments cause bleeds, slows, etc.

The class posts are good for generating discussion, but keep in mind most everything about classes is still back of the napkin, so it’s going to be more theory with a lot of IFs.

Valic

CROW3 wrote: »

Valic wrote: »

Ultimately it'll depend on what the base ranger gets but we know the tank class so far doesn't seem to be too widespread in terms of group mitigation. Really I end up asking, what would be this thing's cons if it's just the same thing as a ranger but sturdier?

Agreed. It’s like 90% conjecture on specifics, but conceptually we have some freedom to contrast how different versions of the class could be built.

For instance, if a Ranger has a standard set of melee attacks: stab, slash, lunge. A Strider may get augments to make these attacks deal more damage, hit more targets, cover ground faster. Maybe give bonuses to using a 2H or DW set up. On the other hand, a Sentinel may give bonuses to using Sword & Board for these attacks. Maybe those augments cause bleeds, slows, etc.

The class posts are good for generating discussion, but keep in mind most everything about classes is still back of the napkin, so it’s going to be more theory with a lot of IFs.

That was something I was thinking too. What if they all get optional passives that open up their kit a bit more? Maybe something that turns certain ranged skills to be allowed to be used with melee weapons and etc. Something that slightly alters their playstyle or weapon of choice in favor of another direction than the base. Maybe passives for a ranger that open up abilities in using a crossbow, bow, and short sword and depending on which secondary, maybe they'll lean towards one more than another.

And yeah, but I figure that's the fun. I did these so far out of hype for the game and can't wait to see the direction they choose. I also keep in mind the devs do check these forums frequently and may grab a couple of ideas or see opinions of the community about concepts and how they could be implemented.

Unscathed

Edi: sorry for the thread necromancy. The potential of a ranged tank in an mmo has me super excited and I just hope they notice some of my ideas!

I imagine a sentinel as a tank who uses one handed crossbows with a shield. The abilities could be unique to the class. Special abilities that shoot bolts that draw aggro and then shield bash type moves that knock enemies back and cause stun type effects. The stun would of course mitigate some of the damage, along with the shield and mixture of heavy and medium armor. We're talking leather/chainmail type armor for the chest piece (for aiming mobility), which would mostly be guarded by your shield anyway, and then heavy plate for the legs/boots, helm etc. As a ranged tank, you wouldn't need to move fast, so why use light leg armor? It would be about bringing the aggro to you, only to bash the enemy back and keep them at bay while you dish out damage. Which could also give you the time to set up traps, throw bombs, etc. This is just a quick draft of my hopes and dreams of a game that finally makes a proper ranged tank and this would be SO FUN to play.

Child Item