Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Missing class archetypes - Druid and Monk, maybe more?
Sinolai
Member
There are currently 64 possible classes in Ashes and I was positively surprised to see many of the less common fantasy classes and classes are often reserved for villain NPCs to be also playable (Necromancer, Battlemage, Shaman, Warlock). However, I also noticed 2 quite common classes are missing: Druid and Monk. Some classes also have a bit make-shift names like "Soulbow", "Strider", "Nightspell", "Spellsone" and perhaps the weirdest one of them all "Tank".
I was thinking how set are these names? Since I think Druid could easily be formed from Ranger-Cleric (current Soulbow) or Ranger-Summoner (current Falconer), depending wether you would like to emphatize nature worship or bonding with nature and animals.
Monk on the other hand could be Fighter-Cleric subclass? (current "Highblade", which sounds more like a rank of a solider in some specific religious order). Also, how about naming Tank as "Guradian" and give the pure Tank some fancier name instead, since that's what their base class is mostly about?
I was thinking how set are these names? Since I think Druid could easily be formed from Ranger-Cleric (current Soulbow) or Ranger-Summoner (current Falconer), depending wether you would like to emphatize nature worship or bonding with nature and animals.
Monk on the other hand could be Fighter-Cleric subclass? (current "Highblade", which sounds more like a rank of a solider in some specific religious order). Also, how about naming Tank as "Guradian" and give the pure Tank some fancier name instead, since that's what their base class is mostly about?
1
Comments
I myself hopped into Ashes hype train only a few months ago and didn't know this subject has been fought over so much already. There wasn't much about the classes in wiki yet so I assumed the concepts are still quite open and thought I'd throw my own ideas in public.
Especially now that the release date is not "before 2020".
But I think they're wise to not name anything "Druid", as none of their combinations really fit the classic definitions (IE, Allanon or D&D druid) or even the popular takes from other games (nature summoners or shapeshifters)
Anything Ranger/X would be a physical RDPS, so I think that's out. Cleric/X fits the likely description as usually druids can heal, so assuming rangers have a nature connection that might cover it. By that same token, Summoner/Ranger might work.
This sounds like a job for Vaknar to make some surveys or votable suggestions. As long as we don't get a Boaty McBoatface class
Agreed.
With the sheer amount of work on the Combat Team's plate, introducing another archetype (or two) is just too much.
Personally, I'd rather see that time used for more variation between the secondary archetypes.
Literally this is just the answer to this. I don't think they specifically excluded it so they could save it for an expansion but this is a metaphorical meatball for them based on their post launch goal of semi-annual or quarterly content. Likely on a very short list of "new classes" when the time comes but for now 8x8 is more than enough to get to launch.
I was thinking they wouldn't really even need to come up with new classes since you could just rename a couple of the weird ones and turn the skill effects from golden to green or change Falconer summoner's minions from birds to bears, birds and wolves and you'd basically have a druid. But yeah, if the Developers have already settled with Nightspell and Soulbow being a thing I can accept that. + If someone really wants to RP as a "Druid" you can probably get really close with Soulbow or Falconer.
There's 64 already and will be very heard learning all
Adding a 'single class' would require adding no less than 17 with the current design, unless they lock certain combinations from being possible.
There are only 8 classes and the permutations will only modify the abilities so you only need to "learn" the 8 classes as functionally they will retain what their abilities are and the modifications don't change the "root" ability.
Jokes aside, I am pretty sure I read somewhere that one would be able to alter the look of their spells with cosmetic items. This means that when it comes to fantasy, I am fairly certain other archetypes will be able to fill the "feeling" of druid. Perhaps not cleric (at least not for us DnD people given the non-metal criteria for druids), but I am certain that nature themed abilities will be on the list of spell customization. c:
If nothing else, then I am sure that monk and druid are on the board for expansion classes, so dread not!
To be fair, the game isnt going to release before 2020.
Love to see the creativity! Keep it up all
They might add Brawler as base class which specilises in unarmed or blunt weapons and a brawler+Cleric could be a monk for example
i could add hundred of classes btw
Playing the Berserker class in Tetris was awesome.
I would really like to play as a druid, especially since there are druids in knowledge, and there are even cosmetics for them
I think a druid could specialize in control, that would be a good class design
The reason probably is because there are some clear expectations attached to a class named "Druid" or "Monk" that the mix of two archetypes cannot fulfill.
I'm not saying I am the authority on druids but when I hear Druid, I expect a magic class with nature based spells. Finding it to be a class primarily with bow-focused abilities that have life augmentations, might be too far from the common expectation to justify using the term.
When I hear Monk, I see either a scholar type magic class or combat class with high evasion skills. But the Fighter with Cleric augments will still have the fighter abilities. Now, this could mean we could get close to the melee combat monk type, but depending on the selected augmentation from the Cleric it might just not fit at all so to avoid confusion they might have intentionally stayed clear of that particular name.
It comes down to augmentation and what it means in this game. From the Wiki, regarding classes: "Even though augments do radically change the way your active skills provide you abilities, there's still a primary focus on the base archetype itself and not the 64 whole classes." So the ultimate question to this seems to be: Would the basic skill set of a Ranger justify it being a "Druid" skill set when augmented and would the basic skill set of a Fighter live up to the expectation one would have of a Monk when augmented? As we have yet to see what these classes offer (we need to at least know 60% of the skills to make educated guesses, I think) it might be too early to think about changing the class names.
With that being said - not every classic RPG class has to be in every RPG game.