Missing class archetypes - Druid and Monk, maybe more?

Sinolai

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?

unknownsystemerror

How set are the names? They were put out by Steven almost 4ish years ago. He likes them, has his reasons, and they have survived endless reeeeee and threads of "RENAME TANK NOW OR ELSE!" Welcome to the party. While anyone can give feedback, Intrepid is under no obligation to cater to it. As to an increase the amount of archetypes to include what you may personally feel is missing, they have also ruled this out. Waaaaaay back in the day they had planned for 12 base archetypes, found it to be unmanageable for their concepts, and reduced to the 8 we have. The amount of work that it takes to create the various skills, animations, and fitting those into their plan. Well, they have decide nope, 8 is enough. It is like those that want their pet racial idea added. The amount of work for assets, specific racial gear (since all armor takes on the races appearance that wears it) and adding another whole culture and node layouts, not likely anytime soon.

Sinolai

All right.
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.

unknownsystemerror

Yep, any feedback is good. They track all of it. But I was pointing out that some topics have had reams of it already, and there is usually a reason for it. Good luck on your information journey. For a game that hasn't even had its playable A2 with most systems and mechanics implemented there is a plethora of specific information out there. It is a learning curve like any mmo. Most things will be iterated on in testing and some changes may occur, but the base "pillars of gameplay" and many of their "core concepts" have been repeatedly said to be non-negotiable.

Nova_terra

Also it could be something down the line where they introduce a new class upping the total to 9 and include a druid type. But I think they have their hands full with the 8x8 they are already implementing and the names are cool so I don't mind.

Dygz

Everything is subject to change.
Especially now that the release date is not "before 2020".

Spif

Yeah, there are many names that look like placeholders

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

Sengarden

I, too, wish there was a Druidic nature/astral magic / shape shifting class. But such is not the way of things (for now at least).

Taleof2Cities

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

Most things will be iterated on in testing and some changes may occur, but the base "pillars of gameplay" and many of their "core concepts" have been repeatedly said to be non-negotiable.

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.

Manueljf

I am sure in future expansions they will think of druids

Nova_terra

Manueljf wrote: »

I am sure in future expansions they will think of druids

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.

Sinolai

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

Most things will be iterated on in testing and some changes may occur, but the base "pillars of gameplay" and many of their "core concepts" have been repeatedly said to be non-negotiable.

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.

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.

insomnia

have in mind that if they add a new class, they also have to add how the other classes, races, religion will be able to augment it. Plus how will it be able to augment the other classes

Arya_Yeshe

That would lead us to 10 main archetypes which would give us 100 classes...

There's 64 already and will be very heard learning all

xlangatangx

As others have said, adding a single class is an exponential gain. Adding a single archetype will take us from 8*8=64 classes to 9*9=81 classes.
Adding a 'single class' would require adding no less than 17 with the current design, unless they lock certain combinations from being possible.

Dygz

A class by any other name...

Nova_terra

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.

Dezmerizing

Please do not touch my falconer.

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!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Everything is subject to change.
Especially now that the release date is not "before 2020".

To be fair, the game isnt going to release before 2020.

Talents

Why are they "missing"? They're not required classes or archetypes for an MMO. In fact I don't know many MMOs that have a "Druid" archetype for example.

Demidreamer

Always loved the druid class or in this case archetype. For me though as a playable character this is not posable. Druids shun all social organizations; the only social organization a druid would truly be found in is a druidic circle which consists of druids solely. Druids would not go to town and become a citizen. Druids would not have a profession that requires gathering materials. Druids would not join a group of adventurers to go slay beasts for loot. Druids would however have a problem with adventurers disturbing the wilds, slashing down the forests, strip mining, the plucking of plants, etc. If anything I could see druids as a adversarial component in AoC, but not so much as a player characters.

Vaknar

Nothing wrong with a little theory crafting, creativity, or different interpretations and opinions!

Love to see the creativity! Keep it up all And remember, everyone is entitled to their own opinions

Iskiab

I’ve played druids a lot, usually the essence of them is a mix between a mage and healer. Id try cleric/mage or mage/cleric maybe, all that’s be missing are nature based abilities.

Veeshan

No reason they wont introduce more base classes down the line with expansions and things.

They might add Brawler as base class which specilises in unarmed or blunt weapons and a brawler+Cleric could be a monk for example

Aces_Are_Wild

I feel like they will add Druid later on, with a couple other classes to keep the game fresh,also we dont know all the stuff each class mix can do fully yet and one might have a talent tree that’s Druid

Freemeta

Berserker are missing too, it's strange because it's something we see in every game.
i could add hundred of classes btw

daveywavey

Freemeta wrote: »

Berserker are missing too, it's strange because it's something we see in every game.
i could add hundred of classes btw

Playing the Berserker class in Tetris was awesome.

Drezden

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

Kilion

Sinolai wrote: »

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?

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.