Missing class archetypes - Druid and Monk, maybe more?

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

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.

Child Item