Discussion; secondary class doesn't matter.

As far as I can tell, secondary classes do two things. They provide a list of adornments to spells and abilities of the primary class, and they are used to determine stats gained with each new level.

So, if our primary archetype will be where all of our base spells and abilities come from, and our secondary will provide those base spells and abilities with adornments we can select to apply, we can assume that the difference between a tank/tank and a tank/ranger will be almost entirely contained within the adornments each of these two classes have access to.

The thing is, we will gain access to more adornments as we adventure out in Verra.

In my experience playing MMO's, the best things are always the things that take the most time to get. If you apply this basic principle to these adornments, which group are likely to be better - the group of adornments you get as you level your character, or the group of adornments you actually spend time to gain access to?

Now, I admit I am making a few assumptions here - adornments found in the world will be based on primary archetype, not actual class is one assumption I am making.

What this says to me is that once players have spent time in Verra, once a large number of players have access to the ariety of adornments on offer outside of the class system, the bulk of players - those wanting to be the most effective at what they do at least - will likely all start using adornments on their spells and abilities that came from sources other than their secondary archetype.

If this is the case, if a tank/tank and a tank/ranger have the same spells and/or abilities selected, and the same adornments attached to them because they are the 'best' adornments, will there be any difference between a Guardian and a Warden?

Discuss!

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Post a dev quote that states an x/Summoner does not Summon three different types of "pets"/Summons.

Post one where they say they do.

Post a developer quote where they say tank/x can't backstab.

bloodprophet

Dygz wrote: »

I'm not weaseling out of anything. Ashes would use the term Summons. Neurath likes to use "pets".
In context, they both refer to anything that is Summoned by a Summoner/x or by an x/Summoner.

Post a dev quote that states an x/Summoner does not Summon three different types of "pets"/Summons.

Post one that does.

Dygz

I don't need to post one that does. I have not made a claim that it is true x/Summoners have three different types of "pets"/Summons.

I have shared my hypothesis about what augment Schools x/Summoner will likely have based on what we know of the Primary Archetype Active Skills and dev examples of augment Schools for other Primary Archetypes.

We know that Cleric has Life and Death Schools. If I say, "Cleric most likely will have a Radiant/Holy damage augment School," you could disagree with that, you could not be convinced it's true. But, the claim that it's untrue in its entireity requires evidence to back that claim.

We know that Mage has Teleport and Elemental Schools. If I say, "Mage will most likely have a Mana Drain/Regen School", you could disagree with that, you could not be convinced it's true. But, the claim that it's untrue in its entireity requires evidence to back that claim.

Based on what we know of the Rogue Primary Archetype and Secondary Archetype, if I say, "Rogue will most likely have a Bleeds/Poisons School, a Stealth School, a Shadow Damage School and Crit School, you could disagree with that, you could not be convinced it's true. But, the claim that it's untrue in its entireity requires evidence to back that claim.

The way the scientific method works is, we make hypotheses based on the knowledge we have.
"This is the best model we have with the current info."
We revise that model as new info is gained.
For the claim that the model is false to be valid, there needs to be evidence to back the claim.
"We don't know the model is true." That is a valid claim.
"We know that model is entirely false." That is not a valid claim. Unless there is evidence supporting the claim.
A better counter-claim would be, "Based on what we know of Summoner/x and x/Summoner, I believe the Summoner augment Schools will be the following: xxxx."

I haven't claimed my model of the Summoner augment Schools is true. So, don't need a dev quote to prove the model is true.
Noaani has made the claim that the model is false. That requires dev quotes.
Not knowing if something is true is different than knowing something is false.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Noaani has made the claim that the model is false. That requires dev quotes.

Your claim was that x/summoner will most likely have summoning augments to summon pets that are tanks, DPS or support.

We have no reason to assume this, and so that is not most likely.

It is possible, not most likely. "Most likely" requires a level of proof past a general assumption, which is what you have.

Dygz

You have no reason to assume this.
But you assume secondary class doesn't matter, so what you assume, or don't assume, is irrelevant.
You don't have to agree with my hypothesis. I don't expect you to. And I'm not interested in trying to convince you.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

But you assume secondary class doesn't matter

No, I started a discussion based on the question of whether there is anything more to secondary class choice. Further, I started that discussion two and a half years ago when we knew far less about the game than we do now.

If YOU have a reason for your assumption, cool. That is why we asked you for a quote.

What you have is - as you state - a hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, you do not discuss it as if it is a "most likely". You discuss it using terms like "in my opinion", or "the way I see things".

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

What you have is - as you state - a hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, you do not discuss it as if it is a "most likely". You discuss it using terms like "in my opinion", or "the way I see things".

"Most likely" is an opinion. It's ridiculous not to take it as one. Because "most likely" isn't a factual statement in any way. It's an estimate; a guess. In other words, an opinion.

You can ask if that opinion is influenced by something the developers say, but don't get huffy if it ain't.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

"Most likely" is an opinion..

Most likely is a statement of probability.

It has nothing at all to do with opinion - and in fact suggests opinion has been removed from the equation.

Balanz

I am only beginning to study AoC, so forgive me, but here is what I see for X/Summoner.

It has been said that any character will be able to acquire a Combat Pet, and that Pets will be mostly horizontal rather than directly vertical progression. So there will be Pet Builds, and I imagine X/Summoner will enhance or counter such builds.

For example, I can imagine a "Generous" augment that amplies the effect of an ability if it targets a Pet (increased damage dealt, damaged healed, or buff). Maybe a different augment might cause the controller of a pet to be effected by abilities that target the pet.

Everyone could use a Pet, but X/Summoner does it better, and is more effective against Pet Builds.

Seems like the Rock/Paper/Scissors style of combat AoC favors, and would make X/Summoners compelling and unique.

Dygz

So....technically...Summoners work with "Summons"; not pets.
Combat pets are its own category. Combat pets are not Summoned.

Seems more likely that Bards might buff combat pets, but... I think that will not be the case either.
I think each individual character will be able to acquire means to bolster their combat pets in a manner not associated with class.

Balanz

Ah, okay. Well, it wasn't a bad idea.

So it's more likely that X/Summoner Augments may mediate the ability via Summons, whereas Summoner/X Augments may enhance Summons with the abilities of X.

EDIT:

But didn't I read or hear that combat pets would be carried in inventory and then summoned?

Dygz

Summoner/x has Active Skills. Their Active Skills Summon "creatures" and enhance those "creatures".
x/Summoner has augment Schools. The augments enhance the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype. Most likely via some lesser forms of "creatures".
Steven labels those "creatures" as Summons. A Summon could be blades or songs, rather than an actual creature.

It's more like combat pets are called/equipped rather than Summoned.
Any class can call a combat pet from their inventory. Only Summoner/x and x/Summoner Summon.

Balanz

Thank you.

The whole "secondary modifies primary" does seem mysterious, at least for now.

What I strongly agree with is that archetype determines the major abilities and hence roles, and secondary classes represent variations on that theme.

What is very unclear to me is how to reconcile how secondaries only provide augments that modify primary abilities, and at the same time encompass all playable variants of each archetype, each with its unique and suggestive name.

It seems to me that the more consistently the augment system is applied, the less meaningful the variant class names are.

insomnia

I think secondary class is kind of like a talent tree

Songcaller

Right, here we go again.

Dygz, you claim a warlock has rights to demon pets. If you also believe my secondary (summoner) can't summon a pet but a warlock secondary (summoner) can, then clearly there is a mismatch in either your beliefs, your knowledge or your ability to share demons.

Furthermore, even a summoner with all pets active will have summoned weapons available with the summoner augment.

These two concepts are both in place from my observation and your claims to demons on warlocks.

Therefore, I can not take your rebuttals seriously because you claim I'm too stoned for sense but your head seems more wooden than my py'rai's branchlers.

Edit: spelling mistakes.

Songcaller

Also, I just want to add at great risk I believe (sorry), that it is true that a summoner base pet will buff the summoner, but, there is no evidence at all that a summoner secondary pet had any buffs at all.

If we gain a proper warlock class you might have Divine Pacts to buff rather than a pet buff. I know bard is the buffer but it states summoner pets buff too. Obviously, when there is a buff class, it can be difficult to justify a plethora of other buff sources.

In my opinion, a fighter should be able to buff because they are thr healer killers which means either they out dps heals at all tines, or just can burst high damage on a healer. Balance issues are always a problem. We might have a hint by Steven that fighters might debuff a healer to fight them rather than buff to engage.

I haven't seen these classes yet so I can only go by the wiki and obviously Steven's directives.

Cheers,
Neu.

Dygz

Neurath wrote: »

Dygz, you claim a warlock has rights to demon pets. If you also believe my secondary (summoner) can't summon a pet but a warlock secondary (summoner) can, then clearly there is a mismatch in either your beliefs, your knowledge or your ability to share demons.

What? Shaman can Summon "pets". They won't Summon the same type of "pets" as Warlocks.
A Shaman also won't be Summoning blades, like a Bladecaller does.
A Shaman also won't be Summoning Songs, like a Songcaller does.
Most likely a Shaman will be Summoning spirits and totems and a Warlock will be Summoning demons - if any of the x/Summonders Summon demons.
Warlocks will not be Summoning spirits and totems.

Neurath wrote: »

Furthermore, even a summoner with all pets active will have summoned weapons available with the summoner augment.

I don't know what you mean by "all pets active" with regard to x/Summoners.
But, no.
Warlocks do not Summon weapons.
Songcallers do not Summon weapons.
Falconers do not Summon weapons.
Maybe Shaman Summon weapons, if you consider a totem to be a weapon.

Neurath wrote: »

These two concepts are both in place from my observation and your claims to demons on warlocks.

The concept that should be in place is that each x/Summoner Summons a different genre of "pet".
All x/Summoners have the exact same augments.
When a Bladecaller applies the Summon augment to Fighter Active Skills, they Summon blades.
When a Songcaller applies the same Summon augment to Bard Active Skills, they Summon songs.
When a Falconer applies the same Summon augment to Ranger Active Skills, they Summon birds.
When a Warlock applies the same Summon augment to Mage Active Skills, they Summon demons.
When a Shaman applies the same Summon augment to Cleric Active Skills, they Summon spirits.

Neurath wrote: »

Therefore, I can not take your rebuttals seriously because you claim I'm too stoned for sense but your head seems more wooden than my py'rai's branchlers.

I think your weed is not helping you think.

Dygz

Neurath wrote: »

Also, I just want to add at great risk I believe (sorry), that it is true that a summoner base pet will buff the summoner, but, there is no evidence at all that a summoner secondary pet had any buffs at all.

An x/Summoner's Summon (augment) is the buff to the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype (x).
Summoner/x can use a Support Summons to buff themselves or any ally. Possiby a combat pet.
Summoner/x has Active Skills to buff their Summons, specifically.

Neurath wrote: »

If we gain a proper warlock class you might have Divine Pacts to buff rather than a pet buff. I know bard is the buffer but it states summoner pets buff too. Obviously, when there is a buff class, it can be difficult to justify a plethora of other buff sources.

I think I would say that Ashes will not have a proper Warlock class.
Warlock is the label of a Mage/Summoner. Summoners don't need "Divine Pacts" in order to Summon anything.

You are mixing together a variety of concepts here. Your refusal to use Ashes terminology does not help the analysis of Ashes concepts.

I think it's likely that x/Summoners will have an augment School that is something like "Summon Support ["Creature"]".
So, yes, your Shaman will probably be able to apply that augment to Hallowed Ground and Summon spirits that cause your Hallowed Ground to do more healing than a non-augmented Hallowed Ground. It may be that any ally combat pets beneath that Hallowed Ground will be healed.

It might be possible for a Summoner/x to direct their Support Summons to heal a combat pet, just as they can direct that Support Summons to heal a player in their group.

Summoner/x will have Active Skills to directly buff their Summons.
Might be that x/Summoner also has an augment School that buffs a Summons. That seems somewhat problematic, though.

But, yes, Archetypes do not have Active Skills or augments specifically for buffing combat pets.

Neurath wrote: »

In my opinion, a fighter should be able to buff because they are the healer killers which means either they out dps heals at all times, or just can burst high damage on a healer. Balance issues are always a problem. We might have a hint by Steven that fighters might debuff a healer to fight them rather than buff to engage.

I haven't seen these classes yet so I can only go by the wiki and obviously Steven's directives.

Fighter appears to be more devoted to disabling the enemy than buffing allies. Yes.
So, I think Fighter having Active Skills for buffing seems unlikely.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Warlocks do not Summon weapons.
Songcallers do not Summon weapons.
Falconers do not Summon weapons.

These are all fairly bold statements, with absolutely no basis or foundation.

Warlocks may indeed summon weapons, but they also may not. We do not know. What we do know is that classes with a summoner secondary may grant augmented skills that summon weapons.

There are indeed IP's out there in which a Warlock is able to summon weapons. D&D comes to mind.

It would be 100% within the scope of the class system for a warlock - which is a mage (elemental based magic) and a summoner secondary - to summon elemental wands, or perhaps a staff.

Even though we have no reason to assume this will be the case, we also literally have no reason at all to assume that this would not be the case.

As such, comments like the above are incredibly out of line.

SirChancelot

Balanz wrote: »

Thank you.

The whole "secondary modifies primary" does seem mysterious, at least for now.

What I strongly agree with is that archetype determines the major abilities and hence roles, and secondary classes represent variations on that theme.

What is very unclear to me is how to reconcile how secondaries only provide augments that modify primary abilities, and at the same time encompass all playable variants of each archetype, each with its unique and suggestive name.

It seems to me that the more consistently the augment system is applied, the less meaningful the variant class names are.

They have said that different augment "schools" from a secondary archetype can have different effects for different primaries. So the summoning school of augments from a summoner could have a different effect on mage spells than it does for tank abilities.

They have also stated before that some augments could completely change an activated ability, but we haven't seen this yet.

If you're up for a read, I compiled a ton of augment/secondary info here

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/51718/archetype-roles-i-swear-im-not-crazy/p1

Child Item